Why won't you vote for Obama?

[flint757]

Originally Posted by Waelstrum

I don't get this fear of spending. My (highly limited) understanding is that the economy is determined not by how much money people have, but how much it is moving around. There is a finite amount of wealth in the world (as evidenced by the concept of inflation, wherein printing more money reduced the value of the existing money in proportion to how much extra money is created.) This means that one person's income has to be another person's expenditure. Therefore, if the economy is slow, you need someone to take the bullet and start spending some serious dosh. In cases of hard economic times, it takes a power as large as the American government to solve a problem as large as the American economy. Look at Canada and Australia (as already mentioned in this thread): we increased spending when the GFC was just starting out, and we're pretty much fine now. Now look at the UK, who started cutting spending massively as soon as the GFC was starting out, and they're in a double dip recession. I'm probably massively over-simplifying, but the long and short of it is that Reganomics has been known not to work for ages, and it seems that government spending does.

Agreed.

It even relates well to my thoughts on distribution of wealth. I have mixed feelings because in one since it isn't fair for someone to be punished for being successful (although it is odd to me to call taxes punishment in the first place and the wealthy can certainly affect change more than most citizens as well) and on the other we are working with a finite dollar amount (something inflation will never change in the long term).

This means those that are already rich in essence have so much wealth that it is theoretically impossible for anyone to achieve the same result. For every dollar in the bank (or the mattress ) is a dollar someone else can never have. So in knowing that is it really fair for them to have so much while the rest have so little?

It isn't about equalizing society or even redistributing wealth, but the only way to put some money (large chunks) back in to the system is in fact through taxes (wall street is more about taking money from one corner of the room and shifting it to the other side IMO).

It isn't as if millionaires start 100's of companies all the time and many people have a huge nest egg stored for retirement (money being underutilized). That money will never be anyone else's. Even with inflation all we are doing is increasing the amount of dollars while reducing its overall value which literally changes nothing in the long term once prices stabilize.

So it puts me at odds with myself because on the one hand it is the right thing to do as taxes is more of a duty than a punishment, after all we all benefit some way from taxes. And on the other taking more money from someone just because they are successful seems unjust as well (not the notion of taking it, but taking so much more).

[TheAmercanLow]

Honestly, to me, this election is like picking between the lesser of two evils. Neither is really that great.

[flint757]

Which is precisely why I'm choosing Obama. Even if his policies aren't the best (honestly too soon to really know IMO) he is the least influenced by religion and bigotry. He also seems the least likely to be all about party rhetoric which Romney has already proven he will follow to the T.

[Zugster]

Originally Posted by TheAmercanLow

Honestly, to me, this election is like picking between the lesser of two evils. Neither is really that great.

Romney is vastly more evil. (imo of course)

[renzoip]

Originally Posted by flint757

Agreed.

It even relates well to my thoughts on distribution of wealth. I have mixed feelings because in one since it isn't fair for someone to be punished for being successful (although it is odd to me to call taxes punishment in the first place and the wealthy can certainly affect change more than most citizens as well) and on the other we are working with a finite dollar amount (something inflation will never change in the long term).

This means those that are already rich in essence have so much wealth that it is theoretically impossible for anyone to achieve the same result. For every dollar in the bank (or the mattress ) is a dollar someone else can never have. So in knowing that is it really fair for them to have so much while the rest have so little?

It isn't about equalizing society or even redistributing wealth, but the only way to put some money (large chunks) back in to the system is in fact through taxes (wall street is more about taking money from one corner of the room and shifting it to the other side IMO).

It isn't as if millionaires start 100's of companies all the time and many people have a huge nest egg stored for retirement (money being underutilized). That money will never be anyone else's. Even with inflation all we are doing is increasing the amount of dollars while reducing its overall value which literally changes nothing in the long term once prices stabilize.

So it puts me at odds with myself because on the one hand it is the right thing to do as taxes is more of a duty than a punishment, after all we all benefit some way from taxes. And on the other taking more money from someone just because they are successful seems unjust as well (not the notion of taking it, but taking so much more).

This is an interesting idea. I'm not sure why it is that so many politicians and people in general believe taxation to be system of rewards and punishments. This moralistic appeals are also frequently used when discussing government spending, welfare, and the like. I honestly don't think this is the appropriate context in which to discuss this issue. I think this moralistic rhetoric is mostly used by politicians to fire up angry "middle class" voters than it is an actual attempt to explain how the economy actually works.

Another thing that should be examined is the way in which the media and politicians define the "successful" for us. Is a wealthy person necessarily a successful person by virtue of having a higher income level than most? What are the things that we are assuming about this person? These are things that more people should consider before turning those who own the means of production into mere victims of "Big Bad Government".


Flint: I'm not trying to attack your position, just putting some extra info out there to consider. This is a looooong read, but it is a very interesting take on economics that often gets overlooked:

Section C - What are the myths of capitalist economics? | Anarchist Writers


A more liberal oriented, and easier to digest explanation here:




Just my two cents.

[estabon37]

Originally Posted by MikeH

Dude, it looks like that ....ing bird drew all over your flag! Are you gonna take that shit?

[flint757]

Originally Posted by renzoip

This is an interesting idea. I'm not sure why it is that so many politicians and people in general believe taxation to be system of rewards and punishments. This moralistic appeals are also frequently used when discussing government spending, welfare, and the like. I honestly don't think this is the appropriate context in which to discuss this issue. I think this moralistic rhetoric is mostly used by politicians to fire up angry "middle class" voters than it is an actual attempt to explain how the economy actually works.

Another thing that should be examined is the way in which the media and politicians define the "successful" for us. Is a wealthy person necessarily a successful person by virtue of having a higher income level than most? What are the things that we are assuming about this person? These are things that more people should consider before turning those who own the means of production into mere victims of "Big Bad Government".

Flint: I'm not trying to attack your position, just putting some extra info out there to consider. This is a looooong read, but it is a very interesting take on economics that often gets overlooked:

Section C - What are the myths of capitalist economics? | Anarchist Writers

A more liberal oriented, and easier to digest explanation here:

Just my two cents.

I'll read/watch when I get home from work.

No offense taken either. As I said I'm unsure on how I feel about it all and I agree success is definitely a loaded term. Some are born into wealth, some get lucky and some just get a product made that everybody wants and thus get rich. There is definitely a variety. if I had to pick a side on the issue I'd say it is an important duty that the wealthy pay more taxes, but I can see where people with differing opinions are coming from.

FWIW I don't look at taxes like reward and punishment, but I don't like where some tax dollars go. But hey, I can pretend what little I contribute went to NASA.

What you linked my clarify everything even more so I'll post again afterwards.

My other issue (excluding taxes) still stands though about finite money and would love to hear some opinions on that, but maybe someone should start a separate thread for it.

[Treeunit212]

Originally Posted by TRENCHLORD

I won't vote for Obama because of all the same ole basic "right wing talking points lol" that can be heard day in and out on popular shows like The Factor and more libertarian based shows like Stossel.

We don't want the Government/Obama to be "the man", thereby permanently replacing big banks and corps in their traditional role as "the man".
There's a natural eb and flow to banks and corperations rising and falling that has everything to do with the organic nature of survival of the fittest, and more specifically, their current leadership.

Obama in principal wants government to be the one who sets the stagger in the race.
If he were officiating a 100m dash, he would want to know everyone's racing AND social historys in order to handicap the race not only to equalize the results, but to in fact influence the results in a manner to have the ones who were more historically succesful to finish at the back, and the ones who were more historically unsuccesful finish at the front.

I don't want my goverment attempting to play the great equalizer, especially when so many of the people involved are crooks in their own right.

With all the documentation of govermental abuse of taxpayers money, why does anyone have confidence in their ability to redistribute success over such a huge spectrum.

If most small bussiness owners are very anti-obama (which by everything I've read and seen, they are), and they make up such a huge chunk of our tax base, then it would be a great idea for our domestic jobs situation and total revenue to attempt to please them.

Less government regulation/intrusiveness is always better to me.
I'm not afraid of a life without Obama "helping me along".
And, I'm also not envious of people getting 100 or 1000 times richer than I.
I'm a lazy bastard and do not deseve to be wealthy, while many people work their ass off and deserve what they get.

I'd like to know how exactly your definition of "free market" is free at all. No market would exist without a government in place in society to educate and protect the consumers these corporations and banks ultimately rely on. We give so much money to corporations, yet based on the principles of capitalism, they have literally no legal or ethical obligation to protect us or our well being. More often than not, it is in their best interest to keep us in a constant state of fear and unrest.

The government has become a bureaucratic mess because we let corporations and special interests use all the influence they needed to make it exactly as inefficient and evil seeming as they needed it to be. They created the self-fulfilling tea party promise that government is evil to convince us that government is the problem. Because of that, there is no longer a consensus on what America is supposed to stand for. We have gone from "we" to "them", just like we did towards the end of Vietnam and during the failed reconstruction of the south.

In all honesty, I find your views shallow and baseless. There is little to no evidence that an unchecked free market leads to more upward mobility and widespread economic growth in any time other than the Gilded age you've based this outdated theory on. As we have seen with the great recession we're now finally pulling ourselves out of (thanks to Obama's bank bailouts that were paid back to us tax payers WITH interest), the global economy takes a lot more rules than just supply and demand to keep from collapsing.

Did we forget why the banks collapsed in the first place? During Bill Clintons final year in office, he repealed Glass-Steagall, a wall street reform enacted in 1933 that forbade banks from gambling with commercial funds. In other words, the repeal of this "pesky, job killing regulation" allowed banks to gamble with our 401k's, our college funds, and even our mortgages.

Now you can keep telling your little socio-economic metaphors that have no basis in reality all you want, but that doesn't make Obama's often successful efforts against staggering odds and resistance any less groundbreaking to me or anyone else who can see past all the smoke and mirrors.

[dethFNmetal]

Vote for Obama! He'll Feed us all with his secret money stash.

[Treeunit212]

Originally Posted by dethFNmetal

Vote for Obama! He'll Feed us all with his secret money stash.

I think that's Romney you're thinking of.

Oh and that "secret" money stash isn't actually secret. It's in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.

[dethFNmetal]

romney.... obama.... whatever that just shows how into politics i am. wont be voting for obama though. or romney for that matter. haha

[Treeunit212]

Originally Posted by dethFNmetal

romney.... obama.... whatever that just shows how into politics i am. wont be voting for obama though. or romney for that matter. haha

...Then why exactly are you commenting in this thread in the first place?

[dethFNmetal]

because i felt like spouting out useless comments..... its not that im choosing not to vote. i cant. only 16.

[highlordmugfug]

Originally Posted by dethFNmetal

because i felt like spouting out useless comments..... its not that im choosing not to vote. i cant. only 16.

It shows.

For your benefit, useless random posting in PC&E, and trying to troll (your post in the rap thread) will get you banned here.
Just a heads up.



And to be on topic: I plan on it, so yeah. Later.

[dethFNmetal]

Not tying to get in fights here. I was sarcastic because I found his comment was s bit rude. And the rap thread? Please on a 7 string guitar forum? It has no place. Not trolling Im not even on the Internet really enough to know what trolling was until I joined this site.

[flint757]

Music is music. I assume it was in the "general music" section as in no specific genre. I'm sure someone could play hip hop with a guitar too as many have.

As for this discussion, I've already said my piece

[mr_rainmaker]

(note to the person who neg reped me) BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA good one 2thumbs up,giveme your id so I can POSITIVE you back ROFL.....

[broj15]

Originally Posted by mr_rainmaker

(note to the person who neg reped me) BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA good one 2thumbs up,giveme your id so I can POSITIVE you back ROFL.....

really not wanting to derail this thread and I apologize to the mods and the rest of the board if this is considered OT (although I have technically done nothing wrong since our own Mr. Rainmaker opend the door, I'm just walking through it.) but You have already broke 2 forum rules in this thread:

1. Poor grammar/ spelling. It says it in the rules. We're not grammar nazi's arounf here (or atleast most of us aren't) but when your post is hardly readable bue to an overwhelming amount of errors you deserve to be neg'd.

2. Complaining about rep. People get banned for this relatively often and it's entirly possible that the same will happen to you.

Just for clarification, I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm just trying to explain that thier is a certain level of proffesionality that is expected of members of the forum, which is what seperates us from shit holes like HC or UG.

Once again, apologies to the mods if this is considered too off topic. I've managed to avoid the banhammer thus far and would like to continue to do so.

[mr_rainmaker]

hahaha I`m not complaining,I thought it was DAMN funny....
but the PM`s weren`t working,scrip error

Now back on topic

[bloodlust]

Since Ron Paul is out I won't be voting at all,I don't like Obama or romney they are one in the same

[mountainjam]

Originally Posted by bloodlust

Since Ron Paul is out I won't be voting at all,I don't like Obama or romney they are one in the same

Check out Gary Johnson then. They have very similar principles and he will be on the ballot in all 50 states.

[Styxmata]

Originally Posted by Zugster

Interesting because it would be hard to imagine anyone more vapid and hollow than Mitt Romney. A man who has changed his stated policies so many times on so many issues that his face ought to appear in the dictionary next to the word: "flipflop."

Exactly. If he seemed more genuine about his sudden policy changes and why he now stands on the other side of the proverbial political-fence, I might be more inclined to think about punching a vote in his name. As of where I stand now, neither Obama nor Romney will be getting my vote. 3rd party is where I stand at this point.

I find many of my core values very liberal (equal rights, civil liberties and such). On the other hand, many of my ideals on economy based policy are very conservative.

[loki]

Originally Posted by Waelstrum

I don't get this fear of spending. My (highly limited) understanding is that the economy is determined not by how much money people have, but how much it is moving around. There is a finite amount of wealth in the world (as evidenced by the concept of inflation, wherein printing more money reduced the value of the existing money in proportion to how much extra money is created.) This means that one person's income has to be another person's expenditure. Therefore, if the economy is slow, you need someone to take the bullet and start spending some serious dosh. In cases of hard economic times, it takes a power as large as the American government to solve a problem as large as the American economy. Look at Canada and Australia (as already mentioned in this thread): we increased spending when the GFC was just starting out, and we're pretty much fine now. Now look at the UK, who started cutting spending massively as soon as the GFC was starting out, and they're in a double dip recession. I'm probably massively over-simplifying, but the long and short of it is that Reganomics has been known not to work for ages, and it seems that government spending does.

When government taxes your money they are taking money out of the economic system that could be used for increasing production, employment, etc. then moving it to Washington where a significant percentage is removed by administrative expenses. Subtract the governmental waste and what is left over is returned. It is a far less efficient system than if the money was left completely in the private sector.

I would point out the "bigotry" of the left with regards to the "rich". When most people think of the rich they are thinking of the very top percentage. The problem is Obama's "rich", as defined by his proposed taxing scheme, included s many (mostly) "middle-class" small and medium business people. By attacking the rich/employers he is creating an anti-business climate that is stifling growth.

Obama's spend and borrow economic plan is heading the country over a cliff. He is repeating the same mistakes as Greece. We can choose to go with the Ryan budget plan and have smaller social programs or go with Obama and lose ALL of those social programs in the not so distant future.

The choice is between traditional American free enterprise (Reganism) that has created the most prosperous, most advanced civilization in history or go with Obama's Marxism-lite and the failure associated with Communism/Socialism.

[Deviliumrei]

It doesn't really matter who you vote. Obama and Romney both have almost the same campaign contributors which means you are going to get the same shit from either one. So go and vote in your illusion that you general people have some kind of real power. Time to wake up.



And I know I don't live in USA but it happens that what you guys do affects the whole world

[Captain_Awesome]

Originally Posted by Zugster

Romney is vastly more evil. (imo of course)

As someone looking in from the UK, I wholeheartedly concur. All he did on his recent world tour was go around offending people, enforcing the American Stereotype.