THE Presidential debate

[JohnnieRat]

At what point did any of their campaign managers think this was a good idea. It terrifies me that one of these 3 people is going to be our next President. At least they were each equally stupid so no one came out ahead. The biggest loser in this transaction: America.
If any of our Aussie guild-mates have a spare room in house... mind if I rent it for the 4 years one of these yahoos is in power?

[youtube=425,350]http://youtube.com/watch?v=VcSclOlk9Cc&feature=related[/youtube]
[youtube=425,350]http://youtube.com/watch?v=vBOJPWaSUS0&feature=related[/youtube]
[youtube=425,350]http://youtube.com/watch?v=mWeZvuRZkIg&feature=related[/youtube]

I would prefer to have Hillary called The Hildebeast.

So now... I must have a poll attached? Which are you.

[Shadowwolf]

 

[kajunlady]

 i don't know much about all this and granted  i should get more involed with it but any who,  is it sad that i am afraid to see who will actually win this? and is it also said if i want to move to canada cause of these 3 running? or anywhere actually that don't have to deal with these people?

[JohnnieRat]

Nice find with the Daily Show version. Jon S actually showed me the clips first but I had to see the whole thing. And I hear Haiti has great weather this time of year and is non-extradition

[Shadowwolf]

I dont think you are alone. This election year is basically the lesser of all evils decision which is very hard to make. In the end tho, because of how screwed up the voting system in this country actually is, we as the people dont make the final decision, our representatives do =P

Retiring early to Italy is increasingly appealing to me as of late.

[Kothnok]

I'm speechless...

*write-in-candidate* The Govenator

[Grendeel]

I dont agree with your premise at all that you dont have a choice here.  In actuality you have an historic choice to make (not a black person or a woman as president either) that your country hasnt had for decades, if not ever.

Ever since ive known about politics, its always been a select few (the establishment in both democratic and republican parties) and the big corporate donors that have funded and consequently enjoyed the ear of the American president.  Neither party makes judgments and laws (for the most part) in the best interest of the average American.  They are beholden to the people who put them in office, so decisions are made in their best interest.   Its why these rich people and corporations do it

Hillary Clinton and John McCain are the same old status quo.  Both campaigns rely  heavily on these contributions to run.  Both will be beholden to the lobbyists and the rich.     Nothing will change (as far as representative government for the average person) if either get elected.

Barack Obama is a whole new kind of politician (several were installed in congress and the senate the last cycle). One who isnt beholden to the lobbyists or the established elites. His campaign has been funded mostly by the average American (the working class...people who give 25-100 dolllars).  With him you will no longer have a president beholden to anyone but the average person which is what all governments should aspire for.

This change in how politics is done wont happen overnight. Its a change that will take a number of election cycles.  It started 4 years ago and is gradually growing.  Having a president beholden to its citizens instead of the elites and rich of the country will only hasten this change.  Never, that i can think of, has the American population had a choice of this nature before.  Embrace it

[Air]

I wholeheartedly agree with Gren.  Obama I think genuinely wants to help improve the lives of all americans, not just in the immediate, but for the future also.  He's willing to tell people truth even if it does hurt his chances at becomming president.  Other politicians like Clinton and McCain would be quite happy with telling people whatever they wanted to hear.  While keeping people in there current living conditions and trying to improve upon it.

I do agree that the wwe were very dumb for all 3 candidates, and it clearly shows how out of place it is for all 3 of them.

This speech pretty much sealed it for me, the historic significance it has will be talked about year's from now.

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrp-v2tHaDo[/youtube]

[un4]

As an actor, I find their command of oratory and rhetoric simply depressing.  Where're FDR, Cicero, and Malcolm X when you need them?

[Trismus]

Here's my rant, it's oppinionated and I do not mean to offend, simply to inform. I have studied these issues a great deal in formal academia and I think I have some perspective, although like anyone else my opinions may be horribly flawed.

I think they all should re-take Econ 101. Coming from an economist's perspective, ALL of them will simply funnel the liability and certain doom which has been entrusted to us since FDR.

That's not to say they'd be bad presidents in the short run, but in the long run they ALL support the atrocity of fiat money and relentless, unmitigated mis-allocation of resources present in the economic system synthesized by John Maynard Keynes, the man who destroyed economic liberty and responsibility. All candidates are beholden to the policies of their forerunners due to the fact that Government spending has created a subsidized system which both creates a dependency upon that Government spending as well as a higher-cost environment coming from high taxes. This has fueled the already present cycle of Government overspending which predates the American Civil War. This cycle has expanded the national debt without recourse for a very, very long time (no President in the last 100 years has eliminated the debt. Some have balanced budgets, however).

John McCain probably has the best handle on the situation: Lower Taxes are the cornerstone of economic growth (as determined by every single school of economic thought, aside from the Marxians and a few other fringe groups). Particularly, the graduated income tax, i.e. more money = higher % has put perhaps the largest dead-weight on general economic growth. This can be shown across the globe: countries such as Sweden with extraordinarily high income taxes with no recourse tend to drive business away. Equally, states with lower tax rates (i.e. Texas) suck commerce from higher-tax states (i.e. Louisiana).

In addition, while some may consider it crackpot due to CNN and BBC spouting typical lies and misinformation the lack of a gold standard, combined with the 10% reserve rate all banks in the U.S.A. are required to comply with our inflation rate remains unchecked, our money based on nothing more concrete then tumbleweed. This is the key point of the Keynesian economic system, and while it allows for more direct Governmental interference with the economy, ultimately dooms it to a violent demise.


-Tris

[Kuulomi]

I love to talk politics, economics, and religion. However, I'd never do it on this website, because I'd like to keep all of you as friends. 

[kajunlady]

hmm, not going to Haiti worried to much and know to much from hubbys time over there 

Nice find with the Daily Show version. Jon S actually showed me the clips first but I had to see the whole thing. And I hear Haiti has great weather this time of year and is non-extradition

[un4]

John McCain probably has the best handle on the situation: Lower Taxes are the cornerstone of economic growth (as determined by every single school of economic thought, aside from the Marxians and a few other fringe groups). Particularly, the graduated income tax, i.e. more money = higher % has put perhaps the largest dead-weight on general economic growth. This can be shown across the globe: countries such as Sweden with extraordinarily high income taxes with no recourse tend to drive business away. Equally, states with lower tax rates (i.e. Texas) suck commerce from higher-tax states (i.e. Louisiana).

Can you name one instance where the trickle-down theory of economy has worked?  I can't.  The problem with cutting taxes is this: people don't spend the money.  States with low taxes get commerce because corporations don't want to pay taxes - that's why everything's being outsourced right now.  The money goes to the elite and the already wealthy who run the corporations, not to the common folk who'd actually use the money.  Those who make the most pay the least in taxes... they have the greatest amount of spending power, so why don't they take up the tax burden?  Furthermore, those glorious American leaders who advance lower taxes are also the ones who get us involved in meaningless wars that return nothing to the public that funds them... further deepening the problem.

[Lynette]

I usually refrain from talking politics in forums such as this, but here's my take regardless...

I tend to have a similar perspective as Gren, but I am much less optimistic about what I see unfolding.  Yes, Obama seems like a new breed of Presidential candidate.  What he has to say bucks the trends of past politicians.  I'd imagine that most of the U.S. population loves what he has to say - it's time to say no to lobbyists & special interests & take back the country.  He is easy to listen to, look at, and genuinely seems to want to fix the mess that is Washington D.C.  However, a look at recent political history suggests there is a very real problem with electing him.

Back in 1986, a group of 3 or 4 career politicians were running for governor of Louisiana.  A few months before the election, an unknown gentleman by the name of Buddy Roamer decided to throw his name in the hat because all the candidates were essentially the same - career politicians who said the same basic garbage they are supposed to say to voters (you all know this politician - they seem to be everywhere) - and none of them seemed to have the interests of La. at heart.  He talked of taking back the state from lobbyists and special interests.  He was easy to listen to, look at, and really seemed to care about the state of La.  (see any parallels here?)  In 3 short months, he took the state by storm and won the governorship.  People were happy and excited about the change that was forthcoming for the state - change that state needed in the worst way.  Then reality set in.  The state legislature (both sides of the isle) decided they did not want change, they liked the way things ran.  Within months he became ineffective and was a lame duck Governor 6 months into his first term.  He did not run for reelection.  The same story is repeated in Minnesota (Ventura) and California (Schwarzennegar's first few years in office).  My guess it can be found going back thru American History for centuries.

I LOVE what Obama has to say, but the harsh reality is that policy change happens in little bitty incremements.  Sweeping changes are just not woven into the fabric of our government.  Obama has to know this and yet he continues his message.  This tells me either he is naive or intentionally misleading everyone.  Either way, it suggests to me he would make a very ineffective President.  There is too much money at work to allow him to make the changes he is striving to make.  It is too bad, because I genuinely want to believe he could pull it off.

Another reality is setting in about Obama and it is this ... he ran a near flawless campaign, one that will be the model for Presidential elections to come.  But the reason he can't clinch the nomination is because the Democratic party doesn't think he can beat McCain - and they are probably correct.  The battleground states show strong support for Hillary - not Obama.  It is in these states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc) where the election will be decided. 

(On a separate note...the primary reason Obama is leading at this point is his campaign had a great strategy for the small caucus states and hers underestimated their importance.  Do superdelegates support him because he had a better campaign manager?  It is a real quandry - how to swing the nomination to Hillary without appearing dishonest.  I really don't know what they will do about this.)

This leaves Hillary & McCain.  Neither excites me.  McCain should forever be punished from the S&L crisis in the late 80s/early 90s (he is one of the Keating five) which cost the U.S. taxpayers billions and made a few crooked folks extremely wealthy.  I will never trust him, as he is absolutely beholden to big money & special interests in my mind.  Clinton is too polarizing to be effective and will only continue the hate that exists in Washington D.C.

So here we are, another presidential election and very little hope that anything will change for America.  Italy is sounding good to me right about now as well.

[Trismus]

This is not trickle down theory.


Spending money doesn't help the economy necessarily, only accelerates the rate of change. Cutting taxes increases profits and disposable income directly. The productivity of the economy is directly proportional to the GPDi (Gross Private Domestic Investment). In other words, the amount of money being saved means an increase in the available capital for business startup as well as expansion. This allows the market to adjust supply more readily to demand, which increases aggregate productivity as well as standard of living.



Proof? China's recent economic success. By Embracing more free-market tendencies including lowered taxes (and moving away from a socialized system) they have turned a country that was not even fully electrified into a powerful economic machine.

Another example is India.

Another example is Israel.

Another example, although exhibiting the contrary motion, is Great Britain.



In terms of the "elite" I have only one thing to say: Spending ~40% in fed taxes is more then spending ~15%. Basic mathematics shows that percentages scale, as in, that's the definition and function of a percentage as opposed to a truly flat tax, which would be something like X dollars instead of X% of one's income. True, a person making $50,000 / year is going to "need" any amount of cash more then someone who makes $5,000,000 / year. The simple fact, however, is that the Government is forcibly taking private property from both of these individuals (i.e. theft) and they are taking more from the wealthy. Much more. Where does this money go? http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm889.cfm

Do we spend our money on reasonable things like Space Exploration, Undersea Research, Clean Power, efficient transportation, faster internet speeds to play WoW, or, God forbid, paying off our national debt, which is growing at an astronomical rate? No, we don't. We spend our money to fund a crumbling bureaucratic nightmare of failed programs, pointless institutions, "social" programs and collapsing monuments. Not to mention wars. Now, I'm ALL in favor of policing the World... maybe it's not right, but someone has to do it. There's been over 50 cases of industrialized genocide since the Holocaust, and nobody seems to care. That said, If we're going to do something, we need to do it right. Iraq is a catastrophe because we didn't properly plan. Anyone remember Vietnam? I don't, but I've read history books and talked to my parents.


In terms of companies outsourcing: of course they are. Why would you operate and barely make a profit when you can cut costs and live in extravagant luxury? There's no reason, all other things equal. Furthermore, what's so bad about luxury? Wealth is a good thing and always will be. The problem with global society is that we are making almost no effort to change the status quo, we are not helping the poor and destitute but rather tearing down and uprooting the wealthy and comfortable. One should not climb a ladder by ripping down the person above them, but rather should help the person below them climb up. This is assuming a socialist-democratic perspective.  The problem with taxation as I would argue it, from this perspective, is that is offers absolutely no benefits to the poor while reducing the progress of the rich. It may not be an appealing fact, but it is undeniable that infrastructure, the true measure of a nation's wealth, is built by big corporations and affluent members of society. I haven't financed a skyscraper or a factory recently, and probably wont in the near future. That said, Burj, Sears, Microsoft, Sony, Viacom, and countless others have. Big business is good so long as common law is enforced.


Well, that's quite a block of text to hack through, sorry about that. I need sleep,


-Tris



P.S. I just have to say that while I live in western mass, I'm a resident of New York State. Hillary Clinton has done nothing for us whatsoever. We don't like her up here: she's a liar, crooked, conniving, and she wears WAY too much makeup to be trusted. If she played wow she'd totally be a Blood Elf