EPTI also want more on negative income tax.
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1387
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
mordek
United States12705 Posts
I also want more on negative income tax. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On November 08 2012 06:38 ragz_gt wrote: Government spending historically have been the most effective economy stimulant, since it directly inject money into circulation. Problem is with all the debt it's pretty handcuffed... Government debt isn't really an issue as long as the debt is largely not foreign held, which it isn't but the foreign held debt is over the amount you'd like it it's somewhere i believe around 22% of the debt you'd like most things want it under 8%, china btw i think is 9%? of the total debt it's the largest foreign holder by far. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
sigh, I guess there are worse things than not having labels for genetically-modified foods. ... or are there!? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
of course, existing long term unemployment is itself a problem that compounds and requires specific solutions. it might become a big issue down the road if it persists. (while long term black unemployment did not become a problem, it became a security issue) | ||
|
Agathon
France1505 Posts
On November 08 2012 06:48 Souma wrote: Crap, Prop 37 didn't pass in California. sigh, I guess there are worse things than not having labels for genetically-modified foods. ... or are there!? Not in France ^^ | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On November 08 2012 06:48 Souma wrote: Crap, Prop 37 didn't pass in California. sigh, I guess there are worse things than not having labels for genetically-modified foods. ... or are there!? It shouldn't have passed. The entire movement against GMOs has 0 scientific backing. For how much we democrats give crap to Republicans for being anti-science, our obsession with GMOs is really embarrassing. | ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
And here is why it will never work: http://mises.org/daily/2406 | ||
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On November 08 2012 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote: This sounds promising... hopefully not just hot air. link Here's the thing: In 2010, the Republicans won big during a census year and redrew almost every congressional district. As you can see, this has payed off for them in keeping the house this cycle. I have no reason to suspect there will be a huge change in this through 2020 (Republican majority is likely in the house). On the flip side, with the Dems huge win last night in the Senate, they are likely to hold the senate for the next 6 years at minimum. So with a Republican House until 2020 and a Democratic Senate until 2018, they are going to have to learn to play nice. Setting them up for failure in 2 years isn't really a viable political strategy. It makes logical sense they might actually get some stuff done now. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
How is that too much to ask for? Blows my mind. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On November 08 2012 06:51 StarStrider wrote: Here is the basics of a negative income tax: http://www.helium.com/items/1897665-about-negative-income-tax And here is why it will never work: http://mises.org/daily/2406 The second thing is just an argument we've heard a million times: pure capitalism vs. the welfare state. | ||
|
Velocirapture
United States983 Posts
On November 08 2012 06:48 Souma wrote: Crap, Prop 37 didn't pass in California. sigh, I guess there are worse things than not having labels for genetically-modified foods. ... or are there!? I never liked 37. Even though it annoys me to see Monsanto get its way, to my knowledge genetically altered foods are nutritionally similar enough that we shouldn't really be worried. And most of the real problems they generate need to be regulated on the farming side, not the consumer side. If I were to pick a fight over food labeling it would be to make them take off all those "organic" and "healthy" labels that trick uninformed consumers. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
On November 08 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote: The second thing is just an argument we've heard a million times: pure capitalism vs. the welfare state. It is Henry Hazlitt, so yeah, you pretty much summed it up lol. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this is like labeling food by the month they are produced because half the population is astrologists fearful of crops harvested in july or something. edit: yea monsato shits on farmers, but that's no reason to stigmatize a valuable technology. | ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
On November 08 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote: The second thing is just an argument we've heard a million times: pure capitalism vs. the welfare state. It specifically addresses the inherent problems of this particular welfare state ideal, and soundly puts it to death. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
I remember hearing on fox from the guy who ran the regean bush campaign way back in the day. Now that cali and NY are out of play republicans MUST win texas and florida and go on from there. If there is any obstruction at all showing that the republicans arn't ready to accept pr into the union florida will forever be lost to the republicans. If the republicans get any more anti immigration and anti minority (even in the pr department) then we're not even going to be able to count on texas anymore and thus will have no real basis to launch presidential campaigns from. the door is wider open then its ever been for chris christie in 2016. Democrats won't have a really strong candidate like obama (although hes probably going to be going with clinton on the campaign trail). The GOPs really odd advantage in all of this is that they have a really really strong fraternity of local state governors. The next 4 years should be a hell of a lot better then the last 4. A close but clear election and hopefully a chance to not repeat the mistakes that have plagued the government. | ||
|
TwoPac
United States163 Posts
Our foundational problem is one of philosophy. Our national debate has become one that is between two fundamentally diametrically opposed philosophies. You cannot hold one position while holding the other. This is why we are so divided and why people on both sides see the other in such a negative light. The battle for our nation's soul is the battle between Capitalism and Collectivism (or Socialism, Communism, or other relative synonyms). One side believes in free markets, the other in controlled markets. One believes in individual rights, the other in group rights. One believes in personal charity, the other in government charity. One believes in smaller government, the other in bigger government. One believes in lower taxes, the other in higher taxes. This isn't just a practical problem. It is a philosophical problem. Both sides don't just believe they simply have a better way. They think they are RIGHT. And, indeed, one is right and the other wrong (I know some of you fluffy, everybody can be right, there is no absolute truth folks will have a hard time getting your brain around that one). America was built on Capitalism. We are the greatest example of Capitalism the world has ever seen. And it is our commitment to Capitalism and personal freedom that brought about what people the world over now affectionately call, "The American Dream." If every country in the world opened their borders, the earth would tilt off its axis from people coming to America) It is our commitment to Capitalism that drove almost every major act of progress of the 20th century. It is our dedication to Capitalism, Democracy and Freedom that literally saved hundreds of millions of lives as America stepped up to save the world from tyranny. America was the place people longed to come to be free and to have an unlimited future, as bright as they can dream of and as hard as they will work for. If we continue down the path we are on, they will be able to just go to Europe. Now we stand at the edge of our destiny. Will we return to our roots of Capitalism, or will we jump headlong into Socialism? This election was as clear a choice as we have ever been given. Obama himself said regularly on the campaign trail that we face a fundamentally different choice. Indeed. So how did Obama get elected? I believe it lies in three kinds of people who voted for him. Two of them we can't do anything about. One of which we can change if we do it right. The three kinds of people who voted for Obama. The first are the Collectivists/Communists/Socialists. These are the people who actually admit it. They are the true believers. I have a few friends like this. One is a successful guy who grew up going to Black Panther meetings. He was a Dennis Kucinich guy who switched to Obama because he wanted to win. If your fundamental philosophy is Collectivism, you vote for Obama. His whole history is wrought with involvement with Marxists and Communists. He admits to believing in redistribution (ie, he wants to take your stuff and give it t someone else). He was endorsed by the Communist Party USA! The second group are what I call the Kardashian Nation. These are just the dumb people who wake up one day and vote for the "cool" guy. These are the people Jay Leno has on his "Jay Walking" segment. These are the people Jon Stewart showed on college campuses who can name every Lady GaGa song, but not the Vice-President (the irony of these campus liberals is that they go to school in wings built by donations from Capitalist Alumni). These are the "Obama gave me a phone" people. When I was in Russia in August, 2008, giving a three day seminar on how to lead a successful life, the Russian people kept asking me what I thought of Obama. On the last day I told them: "The Democrats finally found their pretty face." They finally found a guy who could pitch Socialism in a "cool" way. To people who don't know the issues, he was their guy. But the third group. This is the most confusing group. They are the ones who gave Obama the election. They are the ones I believe can still be reached. They are the "Live One Way, Vote Another," group. They are the folks who are the backbone of society, not living on the dole. They are Capitalists in their own lives but can be swayed to vote Socialist. They are swayed by any number of reasons: Emotion, pity for the poor, guilt, they too like the cool guy, a lack of understanding of the candidate etc. For example, I have a friend who is a Capitalist. She owns a successful business. She told me that she just "felt" like she should vote for Obama. I offered to take her and her husband to 2016 the movie so she could see behind the curtain. I offered to pay for dinner beforehand, the movie tickets, popcorn, and drinks afterward to discuss. I wanted her to get a better understanding of how the person she was voting for would hurt her business with his policies. She wouldn't take me up on it. I believe this group can be reached however. Our job as Capitalists is to educate. We need to make sure that we show them how the way they live their personal lives can be supported by a candidate rather than destroyed by one. Capitalism and private property are issues even little children understand. We saw videos this past Halloween of people making the point by taking candy from one kid and giving it to the other and the kids screamed bloody murder! "You can't take my candy and give it to him!" Yet, well-meaning adults vote for politicians who want nothing more than to confiscate their wealth, the fruit of their labor, and give it to someone else in order to secure a voting bloc that will keep them in power. So, what must we do? Educate. Talk to your friends. Talk about Capitalism. Use basic examples. Talk to them about Capitalism and how it affects their lives in how they vote. Some people have accused me of having a bad attitude or having given up. Neither could be further from the truth. It isn't a bad attitude to recognize reality. I still believe in the American Dream. I know I control my own destiny, and you do too. I have a fantastic attitude. I love life. People who are around me know that I love to laugh and have a good time. But I also know that voting matters and politicians can confiscate our success. I have not given up. I never will. I have 50% of the electorate that stands with me. Together we must take the next four years to reach those who live and think like us, but who vote against their own self-interest and the interest of our country's future. My challenge to you (and to myself): Work hard. Build your business to the best of your ability. Keep the faith. Pray for our country. Be a proud Capitalist. Educate others. Get involved to a greater degree. We have another shot with House and Senate seats in two years. And another shot at the Presidency in four years. We can still save our country. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 08 2012 06:55 oneofthem wrote: because it portrays a poor understanding of what genetic modification does. if it is not safe, then you should be able to show legit badness about the food that can get it removed from market without resorting to misleading labeling this is like labeling food by the month they are produced because half the population is astrologists fearful of crops harvested in july or something. edit: yea monsato shits on farmers, but that's no reason to stigmatize a valuable technology. It is not a misleading label. If it's a GMO then it's a GMO. Whether it is stigmatized or not is up to the public's perception of the product. If, at the moment, they believe GMOs are unsafe (which I don't) then they have the right to know what they're putting into their bodies and opt for alternative sources of food. But whether it's safe or not is truly not the issue here. Having a 'stigma' is not the fault of a label. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
On November 08 2012 06:56 StarStrider wrote: It specifically addresses the inherent problems of this particular welfare state ideal, and soundly puts it to death. No, it doesn't. [This essay is from Hazlitt's book Man vs. The Welfare State (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1969, pp 84–100; available in PDF). It is an early critique of a proposal made by Milton Friedman that later came to be proposed by Richard Nixon and a version enshrined into law as the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is now the largest cash transfer program for low-income people. It is relatively specific, and particularly old. If you think contemporary economic ideas can be wholly dismissed or supported using decades old source material, well, I guess mises.org is the place for you! | ||
|
TotalNightmare
Germany139 Posts
It was very much obvious that Obama was winning, he had more electoral votes on his side to begin with and was leading in a lot of the battleground states. If you actually looked at the polls, the statistical chance of Romney winning was not actually in the realm of percentages. On a completely different note, I found the voter distribution on cnn.com and it seems to me like the Republican party will have to move quite far away from the conservative standpoint as their voters are basically just dying of at this point in time. It is VERY hard to say what America will be now that non-white people are a allready GIANT factor (no offensive intentions by any means) and they (more specifically Hispanics) are the fastest growing part of the population right now. I deem it possible that the rather conservative vievpoint of the Republicans will be one that is simply not representable anymore because of the lack of voters. From what I know the Republican Party will have to completely reevaluate almost EVERYTHING about them, leaving America a possible way out of the big political stagnation that is happening right now, as one of the two only parties that matter may be just slowly deteriorating and if one party keeps winning the elections, it WILL split. | ||
| ||
