Republican victories

Discuss Presidential or Prime Minister elections for all countries here.
User avatar
Saint_
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:05 pm
Location: The Four Corners

Republican victories

Post by Saint_ »

yaaarrrgg;1342968 wrote: Kinda makes you wonder what these guys have planned, when the defense budget is as much as the rest of the world's combined.


I think we are headed for a world controlled by massive corporations, just like the old movie, "Rollerball" with James Caan. The Energy Corporation, the Food Corporation, the Water Corporation, etc. On the upside, there was no war because it's bad for business. On the downside...everyone on the planet was a slave.
User avatar
Saint_
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:05 pm
Location: The Four Corners

Republican victories

Post by Saint_ »

Ahso!;1342926 wrote: We are in a perpetual state of war from here on out.


That's so depressing it makes me want to throw myself off this building....
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Republican victories

Post by Accountable »

Saint_;1342984 wrote: I think we are headed for a world controlled by massive corporations, just like the old movie, "Rollerball" with James Caan. The Energy Corporation, the Food Corporation, the Water Corporation, etc. On the upside, there was no war because it's bad for business. On the downside...everyone on the planet was a slave.
So the end goals of socialist government and corporatist capitalism are the same.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Republican victories

Post by Accountable »

yaaarrrgg;1342968 wrote: Kinda makes you wonder what these guys have planned, when the defense budget is as much as the rest of the world's combined.
Ya ever think that maybe they're running around trying to find reasons to justify the military? Imagine the unemployment rate if we reduced the military to proper self-defense levels.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Republican victories

Post by Ahso! »

Accountable;1342997 wrote: Ya ever think that maybe they're running around trying to find reasons to justify the military? Imagine the unemployment rate if we reduced the military to proper self-defense levels.I agree with that and I think they're more concerned with the employment status of the private contractors. For the most part, government functions as a conduit to assure money remains in circulation, thus the reason for collecting taxes and then buying services and goods from the private sector. The problem over the past 30 years now is that the money is not being used for hiring and giving wage increases to rank and file workers, its going toward executive pay and company stock portfolios. This is why the government has been shoveling money out to the private sector through stimulus and middle class tax cuts, but the private sector refuses to change its behavior, they're investing in the stock market and giving executive bonuses while the middle class has no choice but to use their tax cut money to reduce personal debt rather than spend the money on goods and services. And this is the reason extending the Bush tax cuts is a complete waste.

A free market economy such as ours only works when money constantly circulates.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15867
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Republican victories

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Saint_;1342984 wrote: I think we are headed for a world controlled by massive corporations, just like the old movie, "Rollerball" with James Caan. The Energy Corporation, the Food Corporation, the Water Corporation, etc. On the upside, there was no war because it's bad for business. On the downside...everyone on the planet was a slave.


But where would the Armerments Corporation be without war? Lots of profit to be made there you know.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Republican victories

Post by Accountable »

Ahso!;1343006 wrote: I agree with that and I think they're more concerned with the employment status of the private contractors. For the most part, government functions as a conduit to assure money remains in circulation, thus the reason for collecting taxes and then buying services and goods from the private sector. The federal gov't has become such a conduit, but it doesn't need to be that way, and imo shouldn't be. When we place patriotic human lives at risk in the name of economic gain we've lost our perspective.

Ahso! wrote: The problem over the past 30 years now is that the money is not being used for hiring and giving wage increases to rank and file workers, its going toward executive pay and company stock portfolios. This is why the government has been shoveling money out to the private sector through stimulus and middle class tax cuts, but the private sector refuses to change its behavior, they're investing in the stock market and giving executive bonuses while the middle class has no choice but to use their tax cut money to reduce personal debt rather than spend the money on goods and services. And this is the reason extending the Bush tax cuts is a complete waste. I'd rather see federal spending cuts. It is not the job of the federal gov't to keep corporations afloat in the face of their own stupidity, nor is it the job of the federal gov't to supplement income when employers refuse to. Washington is not the national union rep.

Ahso! wrote: A free market economy such as ours only works when money constantly circulates.True, and free market enterprise is the pump. Unfortunately, our federal gov't has become an adrenaline drip that the system has become addicted to. It's time for an intervention. I vote we go cold turkey.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Republican victories

Post by Ahso! »

Accountable;1343027 wrote: The federal gov't has become such a conduit, but it doesn't need to be that way, and imo shouldn't be. When we place patriotic human lives at risk in the name of economic gain we've lost our perspective.We're witnessing what happens when the federal government cannot function as that conduit. Someone has to force the money loose when people are reluctant to spend. Traditionally, those who do not spend proportionally to their income are affluent people. The middle class not only spends its share but they also go into debt to continue to spend, and this is where banks and corporation who invest in banks have been exploiting the middle class.

Accountable;1343027 wrote: I'd rather see federal spending cuts. It is not the job of the federal gov't to keep corporations afloat in the face of their own stupidity, nor is it the job of the federal gov't to supplement income when employers refuse to. Washington is not the national union rep.You're absolutely correct that Reaganomics doesn't work. What you apparently fail to realize though is that when taxes are cut for corporations and the wealthy instead of the middle class the government can't spend as much as it needs to in order to keep enough money circulating, so it borrows money for that purpose. No matter what, the spending must continue The problem however, is not the government per se but the corporations, and they are as powerful as they are because corporate lawyers and executives have been getting elected into office over the years, and I know you aren't going to like this, but its been happening mainly through the republican party. Government is not a business and therefore cannot be run by business people who just want to trim fat, and increase profits for the corporation that got them elected.

Accountable;1343027 wrote: True, and free market enterprise is the pump. Unfortunately, our federal gov't has become an adrenaline drip that the system has become addicted to. It's time for an intervention. I vote we go cold turkey.No, the free market enterprise is the pool and the government is the pump that pulls the resources out when the individual and corporate mindset is to save disproportional to spending.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Republican victories

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Accountable;1342996 wrote: So the end goals of socialist government and corporatist capitalism are the same.


They can converge. For example people a lot of the communistic countries are just state-run capitalism. The U.S. has been headed in the same destination. We allowed our corporations to become so large, the government is effectively a arm of the businesses. We have a capitalism-run state. Same difference :)

Though I see different possible forms of socialism and corporatism. Democratic socialism is like automatically making people shareholders in the corporations. There's the economic system, and then there's the power hierarchy it is attached to.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Republican victories

Post by Accountable »

Ahso!;1343030 wrote: We're witnessing what happens when the federal government cannot function as that conduit. Someone has to force the money loose when people are reluctant to spend. Traditionally, those who do not spend proportionally to their income are affluent people. The middle class not only spends its share but they also go into debt to continue to spend, and this is where banks and corporation who invest in banks have been exploiting the middle class."Cannot function as a conduit"?? When did they stop? You seem to think that that is the primary purpose of gov't, and I'm sure most boards of directors would agree. I don't. Gov't only mucks up the circulation.

No one has to force anything. If people aren't spending then they are saving. This is a good thing, especially in a country when the typical wage-earner has no emergency savings and missing one payday means they can't pay the bills this month. The middle class could take a lesson from your description of affluent people.

Ahso!;1343030 wrote: You're absolutely correct that Reaganomics doesn't work. What you apparently fail to realize though is that when taxes are cut for corporations and the wealthy instead of the middle class the government can't spend as much as it needs to in order to keep enough money circulating, so it borrows money for that purpose. No matter what, the spending must continue The problem however, is not the government per se but the corporations, and they are as powerful as they are because corporate lawyers and executives have been getting elected into office over the years, and I know you aren't going to like this, but its been happening mainly through the republican party. Government is not a business and therefore cannot be run by business people who just want to trim fat, and increase profits for the corporation that got them elected.Ignoring the partisan crap, what you apparently fail to realize is that it is not necessary or even desirable for government to take hard-earned wages & paychecks from citizens "in order to keep enough money circulating". It's not necessary at all, so the borrowing is wasteful as well. You say the spending must continue, but the spending is going to the very corporations that you castigate in the same breath. Don't you see that?? This "circulating" you support is doing nothing but increasing profits for the corporations that got them elected.

Ahso!;1343030 wrote: No, the free market enterprise is the pool and the government is the pump that pulls the resources out when the individual and corporate mindset is to save disproportional to spending.A pool is stagnant. The free market is anything but. It would flow smoothly if gov't weren't involved at all. Government disrupts the flow, sometimes necessarily, as in to regulate health & safety issues, and sometimes unnecessarily, as when they prop up losers by giving bailouts & tax incentives, inject "stimulus," or taking over major corporations instead of allowing them to fail.

You seem to be blind to the fact that corporations & investors are not spending & investing specifically because the gov't has unnaturally inserted itself as a source of unlimited resource. Of course they're not going to spend their own money if they can spend ours. That would be stupid. If they start spending, the trillion-dollar spigot gets turned off. If they don't, the stimulus flows. If they know that no more money is coming they will have to spend their own.

You simultaneously berate corporate involvement in government and praise government welfare to corporations. I'm against both.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Republican victories

Post by Accountable »

yaaarrrgg;1343131 wrote: They can converge. For example people a lot of the communistic countries are just state-run capitalism. The U.S. has been headed in the same destination. We allowed our corporations to become so large, the government is effectively a arm of the businesses. We have a capitalism-run state. Same difference :)

That resonates, except I would term it a corporation-run state.

yaaarrrgg;1343131 wrote: Though I see different possible forms of socialism and corporatism. Democratic socialism is like automatically making people shareholders in the corporations. There's the economic system, and then there's the power hierarchy it is attached to.The problem I see is that when people are automatically made owners of something for nothing, that something takes on the same value - nothing. They wring out whatever benefit they can get from it until it can give no more, then they discard it. That's what is happening to the US, as I see it. A growing number of us take our freedom and affluence for granted, and see the system as an endless river that will flow forever without ever giving thought of their own responsibility toward maintenance. So they become willing to give up the most valuable, liberty, because they personally see it as an automatic thing - a free thing, therefore of no value - in order to get immediate gratification.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Republican victories

Post by Ahso! »

Have it your way, Accountable, it seems you and I have been interpreting events very differently. When the day arrives, and for all I know, it may have already, that Plutocracy is the official label America is defined by, don't say you weren't told, you weren't listening because you were still fighting the revolutionary war in the 21st century.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Republican victories

Post by K.Snyder »

Accountable;1343160 wrote: That resonates, except I would term it a corporation-run state.

The problem I see is that when people are automatically made owners of something for nothing, that something takes on the same value - nothing. They wring out whatever benefit they can get from it until it can give no more, then they discard it. That's what is happening to the US, as I see it.The rich create poverty which by default results in a number of people that appear to do this. This only happens when equality is non existent. You speak off the premise that most, if not all, people do this when in fact it's only a small number, and not only that much much less than those observed within such a diversity of class.

When wealth is distributed evenly that frees up time for people to occupy their time doing what they wish creating more innovation and research. Creating a system that forces people to work in areas that are necessary by course creates mediocrity that is incapable of sustaining itself.

Free education and health care is the answer to a government that has more money than they know what to do with. The educated keeps political disagreement to a minimum due in large part to the fact that ignorance is the result of self indulgence. People cannot indulge on what is free it's an oxymoron. It's like getting 1 from 0 it doesn't happen. Education and the right for all to live long enough to increase their intelligence results in the benefit of individuals collectively, enough to the point one is smart enough to figure out that what is free is very definitively not worth an ounce of disagreement. It's all mathematically existent but sadly people have to graduate from simple multiplication
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Republican victories

Post by Accountable »

Ahso!;1343170 wrote: Have it your way, Accountable, it seems you and I have been interpreting events very differently. When the day arrives, and for all I know, it may have already, that Plutocracy is the official label America is defined by, don't say you weren't told, you weren't listening because you were still fighting the revolutionary war in the 21st century.You and I have never disagreed about who's running things (except that you inexplicably don't recognize your democrats' complicity), only about what should be done about it.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Republican victories

Post by Accountable »

K.Snyder;1343198 wrote: Free education and health care is the answer to a government that has more money than they know what to do with. Giving the money back to the people that earned it and keeping revenue down to decent levels is the answer to a government that has more money than they know what to do with.
ZAP
Posts: 3081
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:25 pm

Republican victories

Post by ZAP »

Accountable;1343257 wrote: Giving the money back to the people that earned it and keeping revenue down to decent levels is the answer to a government that has more money than they know what to do with.


I agree with that.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Republican victories

Post by K.Snyder »

Accountable;1343257 wrote: Giving the money back to the people that earned it and keeping revenue down to decent levels is the answer to a government that has more money than they know what to do with.


Higher taxes is what enables that money to get back to the people faster than otherwise. The difference being those that do not accept education and health care in return for paper with green ink painted on it.

Quite frankly America will soon find out how atrocious it was at investing. Although to really think about it one must have a bit of perspective in order to define investment at all, which is quite evident by the fact a degree is all that will matter in the near future only to find they've been beaten to it by harder working individuals.

Gotta love the golden spoon eh?
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Republican victories

Post by Accountable »

K.Snyder;1343510 wrote: Higher taxes is what enables that money to get back to the people faster than otherwise. Taking money away enables the same money to return ... faster than never having taken it away in the first place??
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Republican victories

Post by Ahso! »

Accountable;1343537 wrote: Taking money away enables the same money to return ... faster than never having taken it away in the first place?? Thats not what he means. The money returns to those who spent it to begin with, it circulates.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Republican victories

Post by Accountable »

Ahso!;1343542 wrote: Thats not what he means. The money returns to those who spent it to begin with, it circulates.People don't spend tax money. Tax money is taken. The polticians spend it. But to say the money taken away from people in the form of taxes gets spent by politicians and returned to them in the form of corporate campaign contributions is pretty accurate.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Republican victories

Post by Ahso! »

Accountable;1343545 wrote: People don't spend tax money. Tax money is taken. The polticians spend it. But to say the money taken away from people in the form of taxes gets spent by politicians and returned to them in the form of corporate campaign contributions is pretty accurate.Thats part of the course the money takes, sure. Middle class people almost always spend their tax money and the poor always do, thats why its important to get money into their hands, even though some of them don't make enough money to pay taxes themselves.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a tax and spend liberal because the idea is to spend the money on goods and services that get the money into the hands of the working class or the poor. The affluent either save or invest the money.

What people just don't seem to get is that people create businesses to make profit, not for the purpose of employment for others. States luring business into their territory for that reason is becoming almost a complete waste because they are just going to take the next best offer that comes along, whether that be in another state or country. Its become a charade. All many of the businesses do is complain about the taxes not long after the agreement, and many of them no longer bother offering benefits to the workers. Employment is sometimes necessary to run the business, but as we've witnessed, the moment a less expensive long term alternative comes about, such as robotic assembly techniques and the like, workers are out on their proverbial asses quicker than you can say...

What America is hoping is that everyone will become investors, but the average Joe is not comfortable with that at this point, however, the conservative mindset is to just force feed it to us and teach us that unless we get used to the idea, we will suffer. Its that tough love concept again. And yes, democrats want the same thing (investments from all), but they seem to understand that its going to take a bit longer for that to be realized, and so are not as intent on the force feeding. The other thing is of course that there has been so much fraud in the investment community that many are scared of it and with the fees taken by managers and institutions, its only pennies eared for many.

There will alway be a certain segment of the population who will not get on the investment train, and we'll have to work with that.

America's vision seems to me to be that of the worlds Disney Land vacation spot. The clash over the years of environmentalists and manufacturing I think has had a lot to do with leading to that idea.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Republican victories

Post by Accountable »

Ahso!;1343551 wrote: Thats part of the course the money takes, sure. Middle class people almost always spend their tax money and the poor always do, thats why its important to get money into their hands, even though some of them don't make enough money to pay taxes themselves.No one spends their own tax money because tax money goes to the government. I doubt you will find any middle class or poor politicians in Washington, and the politicians are the ones who spend tax money.

Yes, I understand you're really referring to tax money people receive from the government. That money was earned by someone else. The people you refer to are spending other people's money, not "their tax money."

Ahso! wrote: There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a tax and spend liberal because the idea is to spend the money on goods and services that get the money into the hands of the working class or the poor. The affluent either save or invest the money.Damn those affluent! Who do they think the are?!? Saving! Pheh!!

Ahso! wrote: What people just don't seem to get is that people create businesses to make profit, not for the purpose of employment for others. States luring business into their territory for that reason is becoming almost a complete waste because they are just going to take the next best offer that comes along, whether that be in another state or country. Its become a charade. All many of the businesses do is complain about the taxes not long after the agreement, and many of them no longer bother offering benefits to the workers. Employment is sometimes necessary to run the business, but as we've witnessed, the moment a less expensive long term alternative comes about, such as robotic assembly techniques and the like, workers are out on their proverbial asses quicker than you can say...Got it. So local gov't shouldn't encourage businesses to move into the area because the employment it brings and residual economic boost is just a charade. The populace would be far better off by ......... um, ..... I got nuthin, sorry.

Ahso! wrote: What America is hoping is that everyone will become investors, but the average Joe is not comfortable with that at this point, however, the conservative mindset is to just force feed it to us and teach us that unless we get used to the idea, we will suffer. Its that tough love concept again. And yes, democrats want the same thing (investments from all), but they seem to understand that its going to take a bit longer for that to be realized, and so are not as intent on the force feeding. The other thing is of course that there has been so much fraud in the investment community that many are scared of it and with the fees taken by managers and institutions, its only pennies eared for many.

There will alway be a certain segment of the population who will not get on the investment train, and we'll have to work with that.

America's vision seems to me to be that of the worlds Disney Land vacation spot. The clash over the years of environmentalists and manufacturing I think has had a lot to do with leading to that idea.I'll have to read this part again later, because today's real world is keeping me from getting it. I'll come back to it.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Republican victories

Post by Ahso! »

I wasn't ridiculing the affluent, only voicing a fact. Let go and let god, will ya.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Republican victories

Post by Ahso! »

Accountable;1343566 wrote: No one spends their own tax money because tax money goes to the government. I doubt you will find any middle class or poor politicians in Washington, and the politicians are the ones who spend tax money.They spend it for the purpose of providing income for the public. Spending money on welfare for example pays the welfare worker and puts money n the form of things like food stamps to support the local grocery store, delicatessen or what have you who employ people as cashiers and stock people.

Accountable;1343566 wrote: Yes, I understand you're really referring to tax money people receive from the government. That money was earned by someone else. The people you refer to are spending other people's money, not "their tax money."It doesn't matter who earned the money last. If you want a free market economy to work, thats how its designed to....circulate the money by getting it in the hands of those who will spend it. It's that simple.

Accountable;1343566 wrote: Got it. So local gov't shouldn't encourage businesses to move into the area because the employment it brings and residual economic boost is just a charade. The populace would be far better off by ......... um, ..... I got nuthin, sorry.Thats the point, isn't it, that its beginning to fail. It can't be squared any longer.

Accountable;1343566 wrote: I'll have to read this part again later, because today's real world is keeping me from getting it. I'll come back to it.You do that. What I've written is the vision for America as I see it. Will it ever fully materialize? I doubt it. Its as much of a joke to me as it appears to be to you.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Republican victories

Post by Ahso! »

If American business people are not going to have the same sort of national dedication it expects from those who serve in the military and do some sacrificing of their own, this system is doomed to fail unless we all become investors instead of workers. Of course there is always the option of that evil socialism, too.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
recovering conservative
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm

Republican victories

Post by recovering conservative »

Accountable;1343566 wrote:

Yes, I understand you're really referring to tax money people receive from the government. That money was earned by someone else. The people you refer to are spending other people's money, not "their tax money."


I'll make you a deal! If one of these great "self-made" men who have earned their fortunes, and owe nothing to anyone else -- did it while living on a deserted island, then I'll agree with you that they should be able to keep all of their money and pay no taxes! Until then, no one 'deserves' all of their money!

The rightwingers keep throwing up these "great men" who are self-made millionaires; but most millionaires started with inherited wealth, that they either increased or started pilfering away; they went to the best schools; had the best health care; and had all of the business and political connections that come with being part of an aristocracy. And even if we're talking about these so called self-made millionaires and billionaires -- they do not even have a chance to flourish without an orderly society that has a fair and equitable legal system, which has to be enforced. If we take a specific case -- like this weasel who invented Facebook and has become the celebrity of the moment -- his improvements on the My Space concept, were contingent on all of the other developments that have occurred in computers and internet technology -- WHICH WERE ALL STARTED BY THE GOVERNMENT! All of the great ideas in IT today could not have started without the TAX dollars spent by NASA, and various branches of the Military to begin the revolution in the first place. So, what does Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg etc. owe on their taxes? A lot more than the average person does; and certainly more than the people on the margins of society struggling to get adequate food and shelter.

The rags to riches stories are the exception to the rule! If you want to explore further -- socialist countries like Sweden, have greater upward mobility than the United States! It's because countries that have good public education and health care provide a better start in life than countries that leave the poor with no rungs on the social ladder. So, no man, no matter how great or innovative his ideas are, is "self-made," and is not, at the outset, entitled to "his money!" After the taxes that society has deemed fair are applied -- then, it's "his money."

And when it comes to maintaining the public infrastructure (which is what taxes are intended for...despite all of the whining) -- who benefits greater from a peaceful, orderly society -- the rich -- or the poor? The costs of allowing society to grow unequal are already taking a toll -- compare saving a few dollars by voting for Republicans promising tax cuts over the years, with the costs of having to pay for private security, gated communities, and private schools. In many third world countries, the rich have to send their children out of the country for their schooling, because of the threat of kidnapping; and they have to ride around in bullet-proof Mercedes-Benz cars. This is what the millionaires and billionaires are going to find themselves facing in the coming years, if they can't check their greed, and do something about inequality. Taking a responsible approach to taxation, instead of trying all of the legal and illegal means to keep it all for themselves, would be a good start!
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Republican victories

Post by K.Snyder »

Accountable;1343537 wrote: Taking money away enables the same money to return ... faster than never having taken it away in the first place??


Wealth is returned faster than never having taken it in the first place yes. Think about it,..

Education and health care is returned after the public willingly accepts to trade paper with green ink on it for better health and education not only for themselves but for their children, you do actually provide meals for your children do you not?
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Republican victories

Post by K.Snyder »

Accountable;1343545 wrote: People don't spend tax money. Tax money is taken. The polticians spend it. But to say the money taken away from people in the form of taxes gets spent by politicians and returned to them in the form of corporate campaign contributions is pretty accurate.So then you'd have no problem agreeing that it's ok for the poiticians to take and spend the money of those individuals voting for them individually, correct?

This means that it's not being spent but rather an investment toward their own future.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Republican victories

Post by Accountable »

Ahso!;1343569 wrote: [QUOTE=Accountable;1343566][QUOTE=Ahso!;1343551]There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a tax and spend liberal because the idea is to spend the money on goods and services that get the money into the hands of the working class or the poor. The affluent either save or invest the money.Damn those affluent! Who do they think the are?!? Saving! Pheh!! [/QUOTE]I wasn't ridiculing the affluent, only voicing a fact. Let go and let god, will ya.[/QUOTE]You seem to imply that saving and investing are a bad thing. I've heard economic "experts" say the same. To borrow a word from gmc, bollocks. Every individual should be saving. To say that saving hurts the economy, which is exactly what I've heard from analysts about the recovery, is putting comfort above subsistence, which is what has put us in this mess in the first place.

Ahso!;1343574 wrote: [QUOTE=Accountable;1343566][QUOTE=Ahso!;1343551]Thats part of the course the money takes, sure. Middle class people almost always spend their tax money and the poor always do, thats why its important to get money into their hands, even though some of them don't make enough money to pay taxes themselves.No one spends their own tax money because tax money goes to the government. I doubt you will find any middle class or poor politicians in Washington, and the politicians are the ones who spend tax money.They spend it for the purpose of providing income for the public. Spending money on welfare for example pays the welfare worker and puts money n the form of things like food stamps to support the local grocery store, delicatessen or what have you who employ people as cashiers and stock people.
Apologist rationalization. You're taking a wrong and looking for something good in it, rather than asking if it should happen in the first place.

Ahso!;1343574 wrote: [QUOTE=Accountable;1343566]Yes, I understand you're really referring to tax money people receive from the government. That money was earned by someone else. The people you refer to are spending other people's money, not "their tax money."It doesn't matter who earned the money last. If you want a free market economy to work, thats how its designed to....circulate the money by getting it in the hands of those who will spend it. It's that simple.It absolutely matters; if it didn't then robbery wouldn't be illegal. That's ridiculous to say that the only way for a free market economy to work is for gov't to take away freedom and decide who gets money and who doesn't. How is that in any way "free"? You complain when gov't takes that same tax money and gives it to corporations. How is it right in one way and wrong in another. It's wrong, full stop.

Ahso!;1343574 wrote: [QUOTE=Accountable;1343566][QUOTE=Ahso!;1343551]What people just don't seem to get is that people create businesses to make profit, not for the purpose of employment for others. States luring business into their territory for that reason is becoming almost a complete waste because they are just going to take the next best offer that comes along, whether that be in another state or country. Its become a charade. All many of the businesses do is complain about the taxes not long after the agreement, and many of them no longer bother offering benefits to the workers. Employment is sometimes necessary to run the business, but as we've witnessed, the moment a less expensive long term alternative comes about, such as robotic assembly techniques and the like, workers are out on their proverbial asses quicker than you can say...Got it. So local gov't shouldn't encourage businesses to move into the area because the employment it brings and residual economic boost is just a charade. The populace would be far better off by ......... um, ..... I got nuthin, sorry.Thats the point, isn't it, that its beginning to fail. It can't be squared any longer.My point was that you're being silly. If a local population is in need of jobs, and no local entrepeneur steps in to fill the void, and trying to bring an employer in is out of the question, then what's left?

Ahso!;1343574 wrote: [QUOTE=Accountable;1343566][QUOTE=Ahso!;1343551]What America is hoping is that everyone will become investors, but the average Joe is not comfortable with that at this point, however, the conservative mindset is to just force feed it to us and teach us that unless we get used to the idea, we will suffer. Its that tough love concept again. And yes, democrats want the same thing (investments from all), but they seem to understand that its going to take a bit longer for that to be realized, and so are not as intent on the force feeding. The other thing is of course that there has been so much fraud in the investment community that many are scared of it and with the fees taken by managers and institutions, its only pennies eared for many.

There will alway be a certain segment of the population who will not get on the investment train, and we'll have to work with that.

America's vision seems to me to be that of the worlds Disney Land vacation spot. The clash over the years of environmentalists and manufacturing I think has had a lot to do with leading to that idea.I'll have to read this part again later, because today's real world is keeping me from getting it. I'll come back to it.[/QUOTE]You do that. What I've written is the vision for America as I see it. Will it ever fully materialize? I doubt it. Its as much of a joke to me as it appears to be to you.[/QUOTE]The investing scenario: I can see a version of your description, sure.

I completely agree with your last paragraph (Disney Land), and I see it as a completely ludicrous and unsustainable idea. It's dumb and dangerous enough to have a city dependent on a single industry. To put a country of hundreds of millions in that same type situation is insanity.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Republican victories

Post by Accountable »

K.Snyder;1343645 wrote: So then you'd have no problem agreeing that it's ok for the poiticians to take and spend the money of those individuals voting for them individually, correct? Absolutely incorrect. You have a vivid imagination (to be kind), to have come to this conclusion.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15867
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Republican victories

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Accountable;1343537 wrote: Taking money away enables the same money to return ... faster than never having taken it away in the first place??


Generally accepted to be true, especially if you add "and more reliably" to faster.

Where people earn more than they require to live on there is a danger that they will want to save some of it. This takes money out of circulation and restricts the money flow that our economies are built on.

By taxing peoples income (and, more importantly, controlling the level of that taxation) the government reduces the level of excess and therefore the level of potential savings thereby improving the rate of recycling.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Republican victories

Post by Accountable »

Bryn Mawr;1343773 wrote: Generally accepted to be true, especially if you add "and more reliably" to faster.I'm betting I can keep my dollar in my wallet faster than you can remove it and replace it, even without sending it all the way to Washington. :yh_eyebro
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Republican victories

Post by Accountable »

Bryn Mawr;1343773 wrote: Where people earn more than they require to live on there is a danger that they will want to save some of it. This takes money out of circulation and restricts the money flow that our economies are built on.OMG! Now it's DANGEROUS to save money??
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15867
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Republican victories

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Accountable;1343776 wrote: I'm betting I can keep my dollar in my wallet faster than you can remove it and replace it, even without sending it all the way to Washington. :yh_eyebro


And the rest of the post?
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15867
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Republican victories

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Accountable;1343778 wrote: OMG! Now it's DANGEROUS to save money??


To an economy based so fundamentally on the circulation of money then large scale saving is a danger - a dollar saved is a dollar not spent and when 70+% of your economy is consumer spending it's a shrinking economy when they stop.

For the individual saving is plain old common sense, for the economy as a whole it's the start of the slippery slope.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Republican victories

Post by Ahso! »

In a more socialist economy, less savings works better because there isn't as much to fear from age. For extras after essentials, some saving would serve well, but much would not be needed. Most of the work we do is strictly busy work anyway. Think about it, people employed in the food service industry go to work to feed other people. some of us go to work in order to pamper others or transport one another around. Its silly stuff really and we think its important so we can say "I work" in our best John Wayne voice.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Republican victories

Post by Accountable »

Bryn Mawr;1343787 wrote: To an economy based so fundamentally on the circulation of money then large scale saving is a danger - a dollar saved is a dollar not spent and when 70+% of your economy is consumer spending it's a shrinking economy when they stop.

For the individual saving is plain old common sense, for the economy as a whole it's the start of the slippery slope.Saving, at least in the US, is not stuffing cash in the mattress or burying it in the back yard. Saving is depositing it in a bank account, where it gets stays in circulation through banking activities - loans & such.



Ahso!;1343794 wrote: In a more socialist economy, less savings works better because there isn't as much to fear from age. Until the gov't goes broke and collapses from providing ever-increasing entitlements.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Republican victories

Post by Ahso! »

Accountable;1343845 wrote:

Until the gov't goes broke and collapses from providing ever-increasing entitlements.You just don't get it, do you. The money comes back in the form of taxes or goods and services purchased from the government entity. What part of "circulating" do you not understand? Also, there would be no need for ever increasing entitlement because the value of everything would remain constant and fixed.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Republican victories

Post by Accountable »

Ahso!;1343846 wrote: You just don't get it, do you. The money comes back in the form of taxes or goods and services purchased from the government entity. What part of "circulating" do you not understand? Also, there would be no need for ever increasing entitlement because the value of everything would remain constant and fixed.
Purchased?? Why would anything have to be purchased if the government owns it? Why wouldn't everything simply be distributed evenly?

Okay, okay. settle. But your country would be an importer country with little to no industry, since you don't think it's wise to lure manufacturers & other business in with tax incentives and the like. Money would flow out with no real reason to return, ............... unless you are a Disney Land.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Republican victories

Post by K.Snyder »

Accountable;1343776 wrote: I'm betting I can keep my dollar in my wallet faster than you can remove it and replace it, even without sending it all the way to Washington. :yh_eyebro


Keeping a wallet at all is why our schools are horrid, our health care is not "care" at all by any humane standard, and the ever increasing demand for policing our streets becomes a mob with pitch forks but only on Saturday's because people work during the week and Sunday is reserved for prayer in ridding the World of "evil"

Oh, sorry, there for a minute I was speaking English, my mistake
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Republican victories

Post by K.Snyder »

Accountable;1343656 wrote: Absolutely incorrect. You have a vivid imagination (to be kind), to have come to this conclusion.Good, so then you do agree then that investment into ones future is a detriment to society...
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Republican victories

Post by Ahso! »

Accountable;1343857 wrote: Purchased?? Why would anything have to be purchased if the government owns it? Why wouldn't everything simply be distributed evenly? In the extreme, you're correct, but if money is part of the system so people can take vacations and be consumers as in certain parts of Europe thats how it functions.

Accountable;1343857 wrote: Okay, okay. settle. But your country would be an importer country with little to no industry, since you don't think it's wise to lure manufacturers & other business in with tax incentives and the like. Money would flow out with no real reason to return, ............... unless you are a Disney Land.Ways can, indeed must be created to deal with that problem. Changes to laws on an international basis could be crafted and enforced. This is a case where collusion between nations may be necessary.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Republican victories

Post by Accountable »

K.Snyder;1343862 wrote: Keeping a wallet at all is why our schools are horrid, our health care is not "care" at all by any humane standard, and the ever increasing demand for policing our streets becomes a mob with pitch forks but only on Saturday's because people work during the week and Sunday is reserved for prayer in ridding the World of "evil"

Oh, sorry, there for a minute I was speaking English, my mistake:-3 Gee, you really hate wallets, huh?
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Republican victories

Post by K.Snyder »

Accountable;1343870 wrote: :-3 Gee, you really hate wallets, huh?Only as equal as the level in which those divinely do not need to use it, Accountable

Investment is the direct result of insisting people starve to death, DEATH

No one expects to be satisfied when attaining the virtue to "save" and is as equally as true upon the very definition of "inflation". The very word negates the value of equality.

You hadn't answered me...Would you or would you not provide food for your children? If so how much work do they have to do in order to accept such a gift?
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15867
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Republican victories

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Accountable;1343845 wrote: Saving, at least in the US, is not stuffing cash in the mattress or burying it in the back yard. Saving is depositing it in a bank account, where it gets stays in circulation through banking activities - loans & such.



Until the gov't goes broke and collapses from providing ever-increasing entitlements.


If the consumer is not spending it then it is not circulating. Banking activities require a nett lending position to get money into circulation, if there is a nett deposit position then the money is not within the economy.

Your (and the British) economy is built on consumer spending and if the consumer stops spending in order to save (not your next door neighbour of Mrs Jones down the road but the overall consumer position) then the economy suffers. It does not matter whether the money is under the collective mattress or adding an extra zero to the asset sheet of the banks.

Our governments live in fear of a sea change in the collective conciousness and a move away from the spend,spend, spend mentality to one where the population saves for their old age - this is why deflation is so to be feared, people put off the next big purchase until next month when it will be cheaper and it becomes a self-reinforcing cycle.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Republican victories

Post by Accountable »

Bryn Mawr;1343883 wrote: If the consumer is not spending it then it is not circulating. Banking activities require a nett lending position to get money into circulation, if there is a nett deposit position then the money is not within the economy.Banking activities establish that net lending position before the first deposit. You make it sound like they keep every penny in a safe or something and then completely ignore your own phrase "to get money into circulation." Banks get money into circulation, by the millions and billions. My puny deposit, that does me good as a buffer against bad times or a safe place to keep it until I have enough to buy that big screen TV ($circulation$), is not going to cause the banks to adjust that amount of cash they're required to have (there's a term but I can't remember it now). Even if it does, it will only be a few cents. The rest of it, likely so close to 100% that we may as well round up, goes directly into circulation, either through lending or investment. It's how banks make profit.

Bryn Mawr wrote: Your (and the British) economy is built on consumer spending and if the consumer stops spending in order to save (not your next door neighbour of Mrs Jones down the road but the overall consumer position) then the economy suffers. It does not matter whether the money is under the collective mattress or adding an extra zero to the asset sheet of the banks.If that is the case, and I've explained it's not, then the economy needs to suffer.

Bryn Mawr wrote: Our governments live in fear of a sea change in the collective conciousness and a move away from the spend,spend, spend mentality to one where the population saves for their old age - this is why deflation is so to be feared, people put off the next big purchase until next month when it will be cheaper and it becomes a self-reinforcing cycle.I know they do because it would cut off their own personal revenue streams. That hardly fits the definition of 'dangerous'.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15867
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Republican victories

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Accountable;1343896 wrote: Banking activities establish that net lending position before the first deposit. You make it sound like they keep every penny in a safe or something and then completely ignore your own phrase "to get money into circulation." Banks get money into circulation, by the millions and billions. My puny deposit, that does me good as a buffer against bad times or a safe place to keep it until I have enough to buy that big screen TV ($circulation$), is not going to cause the banks to adjust that amount of cash they're required to have (there's a term but I can't remember it now). Even if it does, it will only be a few cents. The rest of it, likely so close to 100% that we may as well round up, goes directly into circulation, either through lending or investment. It's how banks make profit.

If that is the case, and I've explained it's not, then the economy needs to suffer.

I know they do because it would cut off their own personal revenue streams. That hardly fits the definition of 'dangerous'.


As I have already said, it is not your puny deposit we're talking about, it is the overall position of every person who uses the banking system.

At the moment, within the UK, consumers are writing down debt - on average they are paying off their credit card bills and their mortgages faster than others are running up bills, thus the nett lending position is negative.

The nett lending position cannot be established before the first deposit because it is a dynamic, it is the overall position taking into account the inflow and outflow during the period in question for all of the accounts the bank holds. When it is positive there is a nett flow of money into circulation, when it is negative money is withdrawn from circulation. When it is negative for an extended period of time there is a loss of income across both retail and services with a consequent loss of profit and reduction in tax paid to government. (I've left out manufacturing as that tends to be compensated for by a reduction in the trade deficit because we're a nett importer of finished goods) In order to make up for that loss of revenue the government either has to increase taxes or cut down on government spending, both of which will place a further downward pressure on the economy.

Yes, banks make profits on lending money - but if people are not taking out loans then the money stays in the bank (more accurately, as the deposit to loan ratio improves, the banks own overdraft reduces because it needs to borrow less to lend to people).

Now do you see the danger?
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Republican victories

Post by Accountable »

No. I see only benefit. Any danger is short term. Saving and living within one's means empowers people ... which I'm sure is considered dangerous in Washington or London. Living paycheck to paycheck is far more dangerous, even stupid.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Republican victories

Post by Ahso! »

Accountable;1343969 wrote: No. I see only benefit. Any danger is short term. Saving and living within one's means empowers people ... which I'm sure is considered dangerous in Washington or London. Living paycheck to paycheck is far more dangerous, even stupid.You're absolutely right, Accountable, but you then need a system other than a free market one unless everyone becomes investors. That is what congress has been trying to guide the public into for the past 30 years. They have been trying to balance it out with borrowing, thats why the deficit is so high. The problem is, the majority of the public is not there yet, and there have been so many illegal activities with the stock market and bonds that that is all playing out and getting fixed as they arise. Thats why the bailout and protection at all costs to the stock market. Think about it, we are in the deepest recession since the 1930's, fighting two wars simultaneously, unemployment is hovering near 10% and the stock market is seemingly completely unaffected by it all. That should tell you something.

The jobs are gone or leaving and they aren't coming back, everyone agrees on that point. There are two options left; 1) we all invest and continue the free market that way, or 2) we adopt more of a socialist way of life. Thats it, my friend, there is nothing else on the table. Thats why the political argument is so ferocious.

And you? You're talking like its still 1776.:wah: (you know I love you)
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15867
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Republican victories

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Accountable;1343969 wrote: No. I see only benefit. Any danger is short term. Saving and living within one's means empowers people ... which I'm sure is considered dangerous in Washington or London. Living paycheck to paycheck is far more dangerous, even stupid.


The sentiment is exactly right but it's a long road from here to there. Whilst the country is living paycheck to paycheck, importing more than it sells and in debt to all its neighbours then the income from consumer spending is all it has to live on. Get back to being a manufacturing economy and pay off the creditors and the living will be all the sweeter but, short term or not, the way both our economies work at the moment, it would be enough to push us into the sort of bankruptcy that Russia went through in the 90s. Our countries were stupid to get into this position, it is not stupid to recognise the position we are in and plot a course out of it that will not bring us down.

Return to “Presidential Elections Campaigns”