[Samer]

Originally Posted by Shawn

I like Ron Paul too. I agree that Obama is a good choice too.

Hey Shawn,

I think the only 3 good choices this year were Ron Paul, Barack Obama, and Dennis Kucininch

Lucky for us Obama has a chance!

[TheMissing]

Originally Posted by Samer

Hey Shawn,

I think the only 3 good choices this year were Ron Paul, Barack Obama, and Dennis Kucininch

Lucky for us Obama has a chance!

Yeah, I'm not surprised that Ron Paul didn't get far, mainly because he didn't strike me as a "conservative". Maybe a mix between a democrat and a libertarian. So it's not a shock that republicans didn't like him, and a lot of democrats (such as myself) did.

[hirah]

slightly off topic, but has anyone read Obama's plan ?
on the surface, and in an ideal perfect world, there are a lot of good ideas. but for one, they won't work and will never get approved. and second, they will cost everyone more.
quick examples
universal health care for everyone
who pays for this? going by Obama's count, 47 million people dont have coverage. by offering a minimal plan at say $200 per month, the yearly cost for the program would be 112 billion. now add in costs to run the program. lets be way conservative and say 50,000 jobs at an average of $40,000 per year. 2 billion. lets not forget a place to put everyone. figure 500 million a year.
so far thats a minimum of 114.5 billion a year. where does it come from?
not from pulling out of Iraq, thats not extra money.
say 30% of the population contributes to this plan. thats about $1200 a year more out of pocket.

2nd
increase minimum wage. let's face it, minimum wage is why you have a dollar menu at Mcdonalds and Walmart has low prices. by increasing minimum wage the cost of goods increases. this is only common sense, as companies will keep the same profit margin. on the flip side, the government makes money by increasing minimum wage. higher wages and higher prices equals more taxes.

i havent looked at Hilarys or McCains plan. but i'm sure they are similar in that they promise a better world to live in without an actual plan to achieve it. everything looks good on paper, and there are real issues in this country that need to be resolved.
but how do we get there? and how much does it cost.
i want to see plan outlines and the costs associated with them. that's the only way to differentiate the candidates.
please dont flame me for my thoughts.

[JBroll]

I have to say I think you're right on the minimum wage more than people want to admit... it's a fucked up cycle of 'we need moar money!', 'we gots moar money but our stuff is costs too much', 'we can't afford to live', 'we need moar money!' that doesn't address the problem of having too many people who can't do anything more intricate than untrained labor for one reason or another... it's another bandaid-on-a-bullet-wound solution and we're doing ourselves a disservice by pretending it's going to help things.

Jeff

[noodles]

Originally Posted by hirah

slightly off topic, but has anyone read Obama's plan ?
on the surface, and in an ideal perfect world, there are a lot of good ideas. but for one, they won't work and will never get approved. and second, they will cost everyone more.
quick examples
universal health care for everyone
who pays for this? going by Obama's count, 47 million people dont have coverage. by offering a minimal plan at say $200 per month, the yearly cost for the program would be 112 billion. now add in costs to run the program. lets be way conservative and say 50,000 jobs at an average of $40,000 per year. 2 billion. lets not forget a place to put everyone. figure 500 million a year.
so far thats a minimum of 114.5 billion a year. where does it come from?
not from pulling out of Iraq, thats not extra money.
say 30% of the population contributes to this plan. thats about $1200 a year more out of pocket.

2nd
increase minimum wage. let's face it, minimum wage is why you have a dollar menu at Mcdonalds and Walmart has low prices. by increasing minimum wage the cost of goods increases. this is only common sense, as companies will keep the same profit margin. on the flip side, the government makes money by increasing minimum wage. higher wages and higher prices equals more taxes.

i havent looked at Hilarys or McCains plan. but i'm sure they are similar in that they promise a better world to live in without an actual plan to achieve it. everything looks good on paper, and there are real issues in this country that need to be resolved.
but how do we get there? and how much does it cost.
i want to see plan outlines and the costs associated with them. that's the only way to differentiate the candidates.
please dont flame me for my thoughts.

Where does the money come from? Why, the wealthy, of course.

Look at it this way: we have CEOs getting paid hundreds of millions of dollars a year. We have millionaires being taxed at lower rates than the middle class. We give corporations huge tax breaks for sending jobs out of the country. This is NOT what our system was designed to be.

The original income tax laws were designed to prevent a new aristocracy from arising out of the industrial revolution. I'm not talking about rich (guys with a few million dollars), but the wealthy (guys with hundreds of millions of dollars and up). The wealthy do not invest in the American economy. This money does not "trickle down", and it is not a "rising tide" that "lifts all boats".

Why is this? Well, it's two fold. First, above a certain wealth level, you just can't spend it all. How do you spend a billion dollars? It just becomes impossible after a while, because countries aren't for sale. There is really only so much you can buy. So, that is money that is NOT going back into the American economy. It is being taken out, never to return. Second, the wealthy shelter their money outside of American, in order to avoid paying taxes on it, and we just let them. So, that now becomes money that is not getting taxed by the federal government. The government's solution? Raise taxes, so the burden gets shifted to the middle class.

The net result is that we have exactly what our system was designed to avoid: an upper class that makes their own rules, uses their money to by influence, oppressing the lower classes, and essentially assuming the same role as the nobility of feudal Europe.

Think about it this way: if we return to taxing the rich in this country at a much higher rate (65% or more), then we can drastically lower taxes to the middle class, and eliminate the taxes of the poor entirely. Suddenly, the middle class can afford their own health care. Now we only have to worry about the poor. If we make regulations that limit that amount of money an executive officer can make--I am a fan of Drew's 20:1 rule, where the highest paid employee of the company can only make twenty times that of the lowest--then raising the minimum wage wouldn't be such a big deal, since executives would look at it as a chance to raise their own salaries, with the side benefit of curtailing the vast accumulation of wealth. If we bring back the estate and inheritance taxes, then we return the piles of accumulated wealth back into the system when someone dies.

This is called leveling the playing field for everyone. Currently, the laws are made by the people who cater to the economic top 1%. This is why we have to have discussions about entitlements. You really want to eliminate entitlements? Eliminate the accumulation of wealth. Those who most benefit from the system should do the most to support the system. The top 1% who have 85% of the wealth should pay 85% of the support costs by way of 85% of all forms of federal taxes.

[noodles]

Originally Posted by JBroll

I have to say I think you're right on the minimum wage more than people want to admit... it's a fucked up cycle of 'we need moar money!', 'we gots moar money but our stuff is costs too much', 'we can't afford to live', 'we need moar money!' that doesn't address the problem of having too many people who can't do anything more intricate than untrained labor for one reason or another... it's another bandaid-on-a-bullet-wound solution and we're doing ourselves a disservice by pretending it's going to help things.

Sometimes, your posts really reflect the economic class you grew up in.

Do you know why these people complain that they need more money when they can't do more than untrained labor? Because they and their parents could not afford to send them to college or trade school, and we have transitioned to a system that seeks to eliminate trained labor. Why? Because trained labor will form unions, and walk out on you, leaving your business crippled. Untrained labor can be performed for dirt cheap by the latest crop of illegal aliens to waltz across the border.

As I said in my post above, we need to level the playing field. Give that poor kid a chance to actually go to college, rather than staying poor and uneducated. I know we still need janitors, but you will ALWAYS have people who have no aspirations to move any further up the chain that that. Recognize that, and provide them with a way to earn a decent living and have health care, rather than dooming them to living in a hovel without health care and the means to support their family.

The thing that pisses me off the most about rich conservatives is their arguments that we need to fill the low wage jobs, while they want to do nothing to show their appreciation for the guys that sweep their floors and cut their grass. Man, fuck you, you arrogant piece of shit, you should take care of your employees! So, I return you to the 20:1 rule: if you want to make $150,000,000 a year as the CEO of Shell Oil, then you need to pay the guy cleaning your office $7,500,000. See that? A CEO who makes $150,000,000 in salary and bonuses makes 12,327 times the current minimum wage.

[zimbloth]

I like a lot of what Ron Paul has to say, especially regarding foreign policy and the like. That said, I think most young people out there who are rallying behind Ron Paul don't really know what he's about. I definitely love what he has to say in debates and on shows like Real Time w/ Bill Maher, but just do your research before getting too excited.

I only say this because he was I was going to vote for him initially, until I did some research on him and found out more about his other policies. I agree with him about Iraq but a lot of his domestic policies are absolutely terrible.

That said, I'm warming up a bit to Obama these days. We'll see.

[Codyyy]

I like Ron Paul, except for a few crucial things that make me still support Obama.

For one, Ron Paul says on his website that there should really be no standardized testing for school children. Really, that means No SAT's etc, right? He also says something to the effect of, "Who knows the most about what their children should learn? The parents." Great. So when we all get to college, with vastly different educations, we'll be fucked.

[Jongpil Yun]

Originally Posted by Codyyy

For one, Ron Paul says on his website that there should really be no standardized testing for school children. Really, that means No SAT's etc, right? He also says something to the effect of, "Who knows the most about what their children should learn? The parents." Great. So when we all get to college, with vastly different educations, we'll be fucked.

He's talking about the required stuff like the WASL (in my state). The SAT is (as far as I know) opt-in, and not required for graduation.

On the other hand, he's absolutely, completely, dead wrong on the parents knowing what their children should learn. Parents teaching their children bullshit creationism is child abuse.

[Jongpil Yun]

Originally Posted by noodles

Why is this? Well, it's two fold. First, above a certain wealth level, you just can't spend it all. How do you spend a billion dollars? It just becomes impossible after a while, because countries aren't for sale. There is really only so much you can buy. So, that is money that is NOT going back into the American economy. It is being taken out, never to return. Second, the wealthy shelter their money outside of American, in order to avoid paying taxes on it, and we just let them. So, that now becomes money that is not getting taxed by the federal government. The government's solution? Raise taxes, so the burden gets shifted to the middle class.

You're assuming that goods and services are the only things that money is good for. Almost no one has several billion dollars in liquid assets -- it's all tied up in their businesses and other investments.

Think about it this way: if we return to taxing the rich in this country at a much higher rate (65% or more), then we can drastically lower taxes to the middle class, and eliminate the taxes of the poor entirely.

Obviously, since the top 1% already pay about a third of income taxes.

Suddenly, the middle class can afford their own health care. Now we only have to worry about the poor.

I'm not sure that's going to work, and even if it did, IMO, that would be an argument for nationalized healthcare, not removing taxes on the bottom 90%.

If we make regulations that limit that amount of money an executive officer can make--I am a fan of Drew's 20:1 rule, where the highest paid employee of the company can only make twenty times that of the lowest--then raising the minimum wage wouldn't be such a big deal, since executives would look at it as a chance to raise their own salaries, with the side benefit of curtailing the vast accumulation of wealth.

That will never work, simply because the loss of giving up America's infrastructure will be outweighed by massive cut to executive salaries. Maybe 200-1 would be reasonable (note that I'm not talking about morals).

If we bring back the estate and inheritance taxes, then we return the piles of accumulated wealth back into the system when someone dies.

No complaints there.