The Sinister Design Forums

Who would you prefer to be the Republican presidential nominee?

FWI, no one cares if you prefer Obama.  Try to stay on topic.

Perry sounds like less of an idiot.

But then again, if Romney manages to get on the ticket, it'll be easier for the current president to continue to be as such...

I didn't say his name.

Quote from: Duckling on September 14, 2011, 07:19:40 PMPerry sounds like less of an idiot.

I don't understand what you mean by that.  I have heard dumb comments from Bachmann, Huntsman, and Paul, but I haven't heard anything idiotic from either Perry or Romney.

Quote from: Duckling on September 14, 2011, 07:19:40 PMBut then again, if Romney manages to get on the ticket, it'll be easier for the current president to continue to be as such...

Does that mean you think Romney is less likely to beat Obama in a presidential election then Perry?

B'lieve so, yes.

Pollwise, Romney has the best chance of beating Obama.

Okay, I just found out a bit more about Perry.

My mind is changed, and I'm currently betting on Romney for the primaries.

Quote from: Duckling on September 28, 2011, 09:41:17 PMOkay, I just found out a bit more about Perry.

What is new that you have a problem with? Immigration? Social security? Vaccinations?  Tongue-tied debater?

For one, he's accusing Romney of being Obama (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/rick-perry-links-mitt-romneys-policies-to-president-obama/).

What don't you like about that?  Do you think it is untrue or do you disagree that being Obama is a negative thing?
(To be fair, Obama did say that his health care law is based off of Romneycare.)

I think that it's untrue, and for a Republican, it's nearly slander.

Being governor of one of the most liberal states in the America, Romney has similar beilefs and policies as Obama.  Romney's rivals like to point out those similarities because being compared to Obama makes a Republican candidate less popular.  Romney does the same thing when he points out that Obama and Perry have the same beliefs on immigration.

So... I don't like Perry for the wrong reasons? Irrationally, he seems like a self-centered creep. It's not something you can graph or analyze, but it's there.

Quote from: Duckling on October 02, 2011, 11:16:52 PMSo... I don't like Perry for the wrong reasons?

Frankly, yes.  You shouldn't dislike a politician for acting like a politician.  Perry is better then most politicains because he is willing to defend ideas that are unpopular.  Compare that to Obama who changes his views every time there is a new poll.

Quote from: Duckling on October 02, 2011, 11:16:52 PMIrrationally, he seems like a self-centered creep. It's not something you can graph or analyze, but it's there.

Liberals tend to deeply dislike Perry in the same way that conservatives deeply dislike Obama, so I am not surprised that you dislike Perry's personality without any real reason.

I might have a real reason, like an objection to some of the things he says, but for now, I can't isolate it.

Quote from: SmartyPants on October 03, 2011, 08:33:26 PMPerry is better then most politicains because he is willing to defend ideas that are unpopular.

Surely that isn't enough. Eating babies is an unpopular idea; would it make Perry a superior politician if he defended that?

As unfair as it might seem, a degree of charisma and coherence are necessary in a candidate, especially when going up as someone who can give a speech like Obama. Perry's performance in the debates hasn't been cutting it thus far.

Quote from: Dean_Lukas on October 04, 2011, 06:47:41 PMAs unfair as it might seem, a degree of charisma and coherence are necessary in a candidate, especially when going up as someone who can give a speech like Obama. Perry's performance in the debates hasn't been cutting it thus far.

Obama is the greatest teleprompter reader of a generation, so he is clearly more qualified then an experienced governor from a state that is known as the country's most sucessful job creator.  Plus, if you have seen more then the one clip of Perry stuttering, then you will see that he is incredibly charismatic.

Quote from: CraigStern on October 04, 2011, 06:59:30 AM

Quote from: SmartyPants on October 03, 2011, 08:33:26 PMPerry is better then most politicains because he is willing to defend ideas that are unpopular.

Surely that isn't enough. Eating babies is an unpopular idea; would it make Perry a superior politician if he defended that?

So you think a politician has to lie about what he beliefs in or he is a baby eater?

I prefer candidates who are consistent and honest about their beliefs over candidates who say what people want to hear without believing it themselves (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfu1_Scgyow).

Quote from: SmartyPants on October 04, 2011, 10:03:56 PM
Obama is the greatest teleprompter reader of a generation

Sometimes...
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/209527.php

I haven't listen to that many of President Obama's speeches. However, it would seem to me that his more recent speeches are losing their charm. Perhaps he hasn't had as much time to write speeches as he used to (being President probably does keep one busy) or perhaps people are convinced that he won't ever deliver one his speeches. I do agree with Dean_Lukas about the necessity of charisma in a candidate. I believe that President Obama may have lost some of his former charisma, and it may hurt him in the upcoming election.

Quote from: Rob on October 05, 2011, 10:26:55 PMI haven't listen to that many of President Obama's speeches. However, it would seem to me that his more recent speeches are losing their charm. Perhaps he hasn't had as much time to write speeches as he used to...

Hahaha.  You really think Obama writes his own speeches?  Presidents haven't writen their own speeches since JFK.  Obama constantly relies on speechwriters and teleprompters.  He even had to use a teleprompter to make a speech at an elementary school (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVpOH4MGPBg).

(Yum! Eating babies!)

Quote from: SmartyPants on October 04, 2011, 10:03:56 PM

Quote from: CraigStern on October 04, 2011, 06:59:30 AM

Quote from: SmartyPants on October 03, 2011, 08:33:26 PMPerry is better then most politicains because he is willing to defend ideas that are unpopular.

Surely that isn't enough. Eating babies is an unpopular idea; would it make Perry a superior politician if he defended that?

So you think a politician has to lie about what he beliefs in or he is a baby eater?

No. That's not what CraigStern implied at all. In fact, he didn't imply anything, but merely asked a question.

If you're going to make any inference from what CraigStern said, the only valid one is, "A politician has to lie about believing in eating babies, if he or she wants to get anywhere."

Candidates who are consistent and honest about their beliefs (even when their ideas are unpopular) are more trustworthy then candidates who say what people want to hear without believing it themselves (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfu1_Scgyow).

Are candidates who think the American revolution happened in the 1500s (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/10/12/341553/rick-perry-off-by-only-two-centuries-on-dates-of-the-american-revolution/) more trustworthy? :P

Obama thinks he visited 57 states (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws).  One of those 57 states he visited is Eau Claire. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7gXEQmE_SI)

Obama has made numerous, often humorous, factual mistakes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap2Cg_FDRy4), so I wouldn't take Perry saying the wrong number too serious.

state, n.

....
10. A body politic, especially one constituting a nation.

Eau Claire is a state.

Duckling is clearly one of those people who see Obama as the liberal messiah who can do no wrong.

Perhaps referring to Eau Claire as a state is entirely forgivable, but Obama was referring to American states when he said he had been to 57 states. That is quite a slip up.

True. But hey, I know that my thought process would go, "Okay... fifty states... how many haven't I been to... three... three from ten makes seven... that's fifty and seven. Oh, crap! Forty-seven!"

I don't think he's a liberal messiah; I don't think that he's any sort of messiah. I merely pointed out that one of the commonly discussed errors on the part of Obama was not necessarily an error at all.

You guys are missing the point.  I am saying that Perry saying that the Revolution took place in the 16 century should be taken just as serious as Obama thinking that there are 60 states in the US.


I more disturb by the fact that the news agencies had to correct Obama about the age of his daughters.

Most people forget how old their kids are at some point. It's not disturbing, even though your age might seem like the most important and memorable thing in the world when you're a kid. Sometime, you lose track.

Based on my understanding, Duckling doesn't know why he dislikes Perry and Craig doesn't like Perry because he unintentionally said the wrong number when speaking to college kids.

Nah--I was just teasing. I do dislike Perry, but they have more to do with his policy positions and general attitude than with any particular slips of the tongue.

Quote from: CraigStern on October 14, 2011, 08:30:58 PMI do dislike Perry, but they have more to do with his policy positions and general attitude than with any particular slips of the tongue.

That isn't surprising, since Chicagoans have a fanatical devotion to Obama.

That crosses a line.

Quote from: Duckling on October 15, 2011, 05:22:29 PMThat crosses a line.

I couldn't have been the only one who saw the riots in Chicago that celebrated him winning the last presidential election?  Like it or hate it, people in Chicago are radically devoted to Obama.  That is probably why Obama headquartered his reelection campaign in Chicago.

Oh, dear. I seem to have mistaken your use of the term "Chicagoans," used in its form meaning "some Chicagoans," and merely implying the "some," for the more common use of generalization, where the word "some" is neither implied nor used, and which would suggest that all persons residing in Chicago have "a fanatical devotion to Obama."

Quote from: Duckling on October 16, 2011, 10:25:53 PM
which would suggest that all persons residing in Chicago have "a fanatical devotion to Obama."

That's exactly what he was trying to convey. It wasn't a mistake.

Who cares!  I am sorry for getting everyone off topic.


Does anyone have any opinions on Herman Cain or his 9,9,9 plan?

I do not see what devotion to Obama has to do with one's like or dislike of Perry. Those are surely two separate considerations.

That said: I do not have any sort of devotion to Obama, fanatical or otherwise. I dislike Perry on his own merits.

Oh, about the 9-9-9 plan: check out Cain discussing it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jrl3sF_IJOQ) with David Gregory on Meet the Press.

Quote from: CraigStern on October 17, 2011, 06:22:08 PMI do not see what devotion to Obama has to do with one's like or dislike of Perry. Those are surely two separate considerations.

There are two types of people who devote themselves to Obama.  There are those who think Obama can do nothing wrong which is based on stubbornness and denial.  They don't like anyone who criticizes Obama which Perry has done several times as governor of Texas.  The other people who devote themeselves to Obama, because they agree with his rhetoric.  They wouldn't like Perry because Perry's beliefs are very different from Obama's.

Quote from: CraigStern on October 17, 2011, 06:22:08 PMOh, about the 9-9-9 plan: check out Cain discussing it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jrl3sF_IJOQ) with David Gregory on Meet the Press.

Do you have any opinions on it or did you just want to post the video?

For those who don't know: Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan isn't a Dominos pizza deal.  The 9-9-9 plan is a 9% Business Flat Tax, 9% Individual Flat Tax, and 9% National Sales Tax.

I don't really like the 9-9-9 plan per se, because it seems a little too regressive, but I do like how it encourges reforming the tax code.  Even though the 8% sales tax works very well for the state of Texas, I am not sure that a national sales tax work nearly as well.  The continually growing 67,204 pages long tax code (as of Feb 2009) is overly complex.  Only the most wealthy corporations and individuals can hire the necessary accountants and lawyers to read and understand the massive tax code to take full advantage of the massive number of tax breaks and loopholes.  Because of the massive number of tax breaks, 50% of Americans don't pay any taxes at all.  Another issue I have with the 9-9-9 plan is that it wants to do away with the payroll tax.  The payroll tax is a much more effective way to run social security and Medicare, then having congress pick how much of the budget they will spend on Social Security and Medicare.  I do agree with lowering the corporate tax rate (maybe not as low as 9%).  The United States doesn't need to have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.  If one lowers the corporate tax rate, then it may make it possible to make the capital gains tax more progressive without drastically lowering the value of stocks.

Can someone do me a favor and find stuff they agree with me about, instead of only nit-picking things they disagree with?

Someone can, but it probably isn't me. I'm not politically aware enough to effectively debate or agree with half of your points, and I tend not to agree with the half I can really understand.

Duckling, I know it is hard for you to agree with me, but can we at least agree that it is better to have a tax system with tax brackets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket) instead of a flat tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax)?

Quote from: SmartyPants on October 18, 2011, 05:43:41 PM50% of Americans don't pay any taxes at all.

SmartyPants, I'm pretty sure I corrected you on this before: you're thinking of income taxes (http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/may/09/eric-cantor/eric-cantor-says-almost-50-percent-americans-dont-/), not "any taxes at all."

Anyway, I agree with you that a progressive tax bracket-based system is a better way to structure income taxes than imposing a flat tax would be. Flat taxes tend to hurt the poor: 9% of the income from someone living on the brink is an onerous burden, while 9% of the income from someone making millions a year is a drop in the bucket. Adding a 9% federal sales tax on top of it would make the effect on the poor even worse.

There are also economic reasons not to want a national sales tax. Low demand in many sectors of the economy is responsible for poor hiring and wage data. Imposing what would effectively be an automatic 9% price increase across the board could easily hurt demand, which would prolong the recovery.

Herman Cain has admitted himself that the 999 plan is merely a blueprint for discussion. It can never happen realistically, but it proves a good point that the tax system needs to be greatly simplified.

Do you think the tax code needs to be simplified or do you prefer that the government uses tax breaks in an attempt to micromanage our choices?
By simplifing our tax code, it will save America over $400 billion.

Quote from: CraigStern on October 19, 2011, 04:11:47 PM

Quote from: SmartyPants on October 18, 2011, 05:43:41 PM50% of Americans don't pay any taxes at all.

SmartyPants, I'm pretty sure I corrected you on this before: you're thinking of income taxes (http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/may/09/eric-cantor/eric-cantor-says-almost-50-percent-americans-dont-/), not "any taxes at all."

I forgot to add the "federal income" part.  State taxes, local taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, and other taxes are not part of that percentage.

Quote from: CraigStern on October 19, 2011, 04:11:47 PMThere are also economic reasons not to want a national sales tax. Low demand in many sectors of the economy is responsible for poor hiring and wage data. Imposing what would effectively be an automatic 9% price increase across the board could easily hurt demand, which would prolong the recovery.

I don't think demand will be hurt that much because the sales tax will be offset by the lower income tax rate.  I think the logic is that if you let people keep more of their income by lowering their income taxes, then they can afford to pay the increase prices caused by the sales tax. 

In Texas, we have an 8% sales tax and no state income tax.  I prefer to be taxed when I buy things, because I expect to lose money when I buy things.  The payroll and income taxes kinda piss me off, because it seems wrong to lose money for earning an income.

Quote from: SmartyPants on October 20, 2011, 12:00:34 AMI don't think demand will be hurt that much because the sales tax will be offset by the lower income tax rate.  I think the logic is that if you let people keep more of their income by lowering their income taxes, then they can afford to pay the increase prices caused by the sales tax.

I'm not sure that that's true: as you pointed out, about half of working class people currently pay a 0% income tax rate. There's nowhere to go but up for those people, as far as income taxes are concerned. So unless you're talking about giving them tax credits, their income taxes will remain the same and they'll see a dramatic rise in their sales taxes on top of it. That leaves them less discretionary income to consume anything but core necessities, which will almost certainly affect demand.

In Texas, necessities aren't susceptible to a sales tax.  I imagine that a national sales tax would do the same.  Isn't the logic of not taxing low income earners is that they need 100% of their income to pay for necessities?  If someone is poor enough where they shouldn't have to pay any income taxes, then they don't have much money for discretionary spending because they would be spending all their money on necessities.  Since low income earners already do very little discretinary spending, they will have little effect on the overall demand of the market.  The middle class has the largest amount of purchasing power in America, so the large income tax cut they receive should make up for the sales tax increase.

I find it funny that you suggested "giving them tax credits".   The main purpose Cain had for suggesting the 9-9-9 plan (besides trying to become the president) is that he believes that the 9-9-9 plan would simplify the tax code.  If you start filling the new code with tax credits, then you will no longer be simplifing the tax code.

Perry also suggested that the tax code needs to be simplied.  Both Perry and Cain believe in removing tax credits, tax loopholes, and in using a flat tax.  Perry himself hasn't given an exact percentage of income that the flat tax will take.  According to CNN: if America keeps the current payroll tax, keeps the current capital gains tax, and excepts people who make less then $36,000 per year, then America would need to have a 19% flat tax to have the same amount of revenue as the current tax code (which brings in much less then the federal government is spending).  Many liberals say that both Cain and Perry want a flat tax because they are both unsympathetic millionaires who are ignorant of the hardships that the poor face.  I seriously doubt that, since both Perry and Cain grew up poor.  Perry grew up in west Texas where he was a son of a rancher and where he didn't have access to indoor plumbing.  In order to pay for college, Perry had to go door to door selling encyclopedias and bibles.  Cain was born in Memphis, Tennessee to a mother who was a cleaning woman and a father who was raised on a farm and worked as a barber, janitor, and chauffeur.

Maybe they've forgotten their roots, or maybe they figure that because they were lucky enough to break into the upper class, everyone else should have been able to also. It doesn't really matter: asking for more money from people who barely have enough to ensure their own continued survival is callous.

The only reason the middle class has the most purchasing power is because it's the largest group of people (population-wise) with any reasonable amount of discretionary income. If you increase the discretionary income the working poor have available to them, that will necessarily have a positive impact on demand because there are so many of them.

Now you might conclude that it won't matter if the working poor lose more money because they don't have much discretionary income right now anyway. Not so: kicking the chair out from under the poor means the government is going to have spend more money on social services (food stamps, uninsured emergency room visits, and so on) because the poor will not even have enough money to cover their own basic necessities. That, in turn, will mean the government needs more money in taxes to make up the difference. It's counterproductive, and precisely the opposite of what we need in order to increase demand.

I seriously feel like I'm being ignored. Am I? Because if so I'll stop commenting if that's what you want.

Quote from: Deagonx on October 19, 2011, 06:27:02 PMHerman Cain has admitted himself that the 999 plan is merely a blueprint for discussion. It can never happen realistically, but it proves a good point that the tax system needs to be greatly simplified.

Thats interesting.

Quote from: CraigStern on October 20, 2011, 06:38:05 PMMaybe they've forgotten their roots, or maybe they figure that because they were lucky enough to break into the upper class, everyone else should have been able to also.

That is a rather pessimistic view.  Based on what I read, they both worked hard to get into college and to pay for it.  They both worked for the US Military inorder to pay for their college.  With a college education, they both entered the middle class.  In the work force, they both worked hard to rise their way up in their respective careers.  Through career advancements and smart investments, they both became millionaires.  You can call it "luck", but I see it as two men who became sucessful through educations and hard work.

Quote from: CraigStern on October 20, 2011, 06:38:05 PMIt doesn't really matter: asking for more money from people who barely have enough to ensure their own continued survival is callous.

Like the state flat taxes, I am pretty sure a national flat would have exemptions for the poor.  With that in mind, it seems unfair to call them "callous".

Quote from: CraigStern on October 20, 2011, 06:38:05 PMNow you might conclude that it won't matter if the working poor lose more money because they don't have much discretionary income right now anyway.

I am offended that you think I am dumb enough to come up with such an idiotic conclusion.  I said that if someone is truly poor, then they wouldn't have any money for discretionary spending because they would spend all their money on necessities.  Since sales taxes don't apply to necessities, the truly poor wouldn't lose any money to a sales tax.  That means that the truly poor will keep their 0% income tax rate and pay a 0% sales tax rate.  I don't see how the truly poor could "lose more money" from their tax rate staying at 0%.

Quote from: CraigStern on October 20, 2011, 06:38:05 PMThe only reason the middle class has the most purchasing power is because it's the largest group of people (population-wise) with any reasonable amount of discretionary income. If you increase the discretionary income the working poor have available to them, that will necessarily have a positive impact on demand because there are so many of them.

What you are suggesting is similar to the policies of Hugo Chavez.  This is how it is going down in Venezuela:  The government took money that the rich earned and gave it to the poor, then the poor increase spending without earning more money themselves.  Taking money from the earners disincentivizes people to work hard or invest, so the economy becomes less productive.  With a less productive economy, everyone earns less money.  Because the rich make less money, there is less money for the government to take away and give to the poor.  Also, since the rich have less money, they provide less jobs.  Because the government detered the rich from earning, the poor don't have money provided by wages or by the government.

A country needs to do two things to increase economic prosperity.  First, the country has to create polices that encourage businesses and individuals to hire and invest.  Second, you to make sure people have access to education, so they have the skills to do the jobs that the businesses demand.
Tell me which sounds more efficient:
A) Bob being trained and hired as a doctor, and then earning all of his own income.
B) Taxing a hospital, so the government can give minimum wage Bob money that he didn't earn.

Smarty, where are these exemptions and exceptions coming from? None of the candidates have actually proposed them, so far as I am aware. They have merely proposed a simple, flat tax. Until they actually suggest some of these exemptions, I think I'm perfectly justified in calling their proposed flat tax systems callous.

Besides, based on what you just said a couple of posts up, I wouldn't have thought you'd even want such exemptions in there:

Quote from: SmartyPants on October 20, 2011, 05:16:44 PMI find it funny that you suggested "giving them tax credits".   The main purpose Cain had for suggesting the 9-9-9 plan (besides trying to become the president) is that he believes that the 9-9-9 plan would simplify the tax code.  If you start filling the new code with tax credits, then you will no longer be simplifing the tax code.

If the overriding goal is simplicity, then it's hypocritical to propose exceptions. If you start filling the tax plan with exceptions, that undermines the system's simplicity every bit as much as credits would.



It is actually incorrect to say that the rich provide jobs: by and large, they don't. Their companies provide jobs. It's an important distinction, because corporations are taxed separately from the people who work for them (even the very rich people who work as the president or the CEO). So when you talk about raising personal income taxes or capital gains taxes on the rich, you're not actually talking about taxing job creators, because those aren't corporate taxes. If a rich person's taxes rise, that has absolutely no effect on his company's ability to hire people--the company, again, pays its taxes separately, and it's the company that hires people.

What's more, a company's money and a rich person's money are required to be separate. That is one of the most basic principles of corporate law. The whole idea behind a corporation is that it is a fictional person under the law, one that has its own money and is liable separately from its shareholders and directors. That's where limited liability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability) comes from. If a rich company owner commingles funds (that is, dips into company funds for his personal use, or dips into personal funds for company use), he opens himself up to something that is called piercing the corporate veil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil). I won't go into too much more detail about it, but it's basically very very bad.

So, in short: the only possible scenario in which a rich person's assets would have any relevance at all to his company's hiring decisions is one in which he has commingled personal and corporate funds and opened himself up to personal liability for every bad thing his company has ever done. Few rich people are desperate (to say nothing of stupid) enough to do this, so this is pretty rare.



I really don't see what you're trying to get at by saying that Venezuela pursues redistributive practices. So do Denmark and Norway, which (as I explained earlier (http://sinisterdesign.net/forum/index.php?topic=993.msg39567#msg39567)) enjoy stronger economies and a better average life expectancy than we do.

In fact, we apply redistributive principles here in the U.S. as well: the Earned Income Tax Credit is an example of a limited negative income tax. Research suggests that it is beneficial (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1649), producing "substantial positive effects in inducing single parents to go to work." Because the EITC is tied to income from working, it does not diminish peoples' incentives to work.

Quote from: CraigStern on October 21, 2011, 02:31:04 PM

Quote from: SmartyPants on October 20, 2011, 05:16:44 PMI find it funny that you suggested "giving them tax credits".   The main purpose Cain had for suggesting the 9-9-9 plan (besides trying to become the president) is that he believes that the 9-9-9 plan would simplify the tax code.  If you start filling the new code with tax credits, then you will no longer be simplifing the tax code.

If the overriding goal is simplicity, then it's hypocritical to propose exceptions. If you start filling the tax plan with exceptions, that undermines the system's simplicity every bit as much as credits would.

To except people who make below a certain income isn't that complex.  It would be like a tax bracket with two levels.  The first level will pay 0%, while every dollar above would pay a flat tax.  Simple.

Quote from: CraigStern on October 21, 2011, 02:31:04 PMIt is actually incorrect to say that the rich provide jobs: by and large, they don't. Their companies provide jobs. If a rich person's taxes rise, that has absolutely no effect on his company's ability to hire people--the company, again, pays its taxes separately, and it's the company that hires people.

While companies do provide alot of jobs, more then half of all jobs are provided by small business owners.  In fact, small businesses generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.  While companies' money and liabilities are separate from the stockholders, small businesses' money is tied to the owner's personal income.  When you increase income taxes on rich business owners, the owners have less money to hire employees or expand. 

Quote from: CraigStern on October 21, 2011, 02:31:04 PMSo, in short: the only possible scenario in which a rich person's assets would have any relevance at all to his company's hiring decisions is one in which he has commingled personal and corporate funds and opened himself up to personal liability for every bad thing his company has ever done.

...the rich person owns stock.  Smart people buy assets such as stocks with their extra income.  Stockholders are the ones who own the company, decide who is on the board of directors, and demand the companies to become highly profitable so they can be paid in dividends. Selling stocks is how companies get investment money.  Because of these investments, companies are able to expand.

Quote from: CraigStern on October 21, 2011, 02:31:04 PMI really don't see what you're trying to get at by saying that Venezuela pursues redistributive practices. So do Denmark and Norway, which enjoy stronger economies and a better average life expectancy than we do.

Norway, Switzerland, and Denmark have the highest cost of living (http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.jsp) in the world.  With a higher cost of living, one has to pay more for everything.  If you adjust for cost of living, the United State's GDP is $46,860 per capital, while Denmark's GDP is $36,443 per capital.  22% of Norwegians are on welfare and 13% of Norwegian are too disabled to work, the highest proportions in the world.  Norway, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates are wealthy because they have a small population and an abundance of petroleum and natural gas.  If you want to grow the economy like oil producing companies like Norway, then we have to reduce our population and stop government roadblocks that stop petroleum and natural gas extraction.
^{Increasing oil production gave Russia a massive economic boom, but that is another topic altogether.}

The large portion of people in Norway on welfare does not mean the same thing it means in the US. Norway has a highly effective welfare system, and the fact (benefit of doubt given) that 13% of the people are injured so as to be incapable of work speaks in no way to their economic success or prosperity, and quality of governmental policy on job creation and redistribution is also not linked to injury. Nice statistic, but what, exactly, are you trying to say with it?

My eyes were watery because I was laughing so hard at your last post.  It is naive to believe that 13% of Norway's workforce is actually too disabled to work.  What you call a "highly effective welfare system" is clearly being exploited by a large chuck of the population who don't want to work.  Once someone gets disability benefits, they will get large government checks for the rest of their lives without having to work.  Also, a economy can't be considered highly sucessful when more then one out of five people are on welfare.  The statistics prove that Norway doesn't have a highly efficient workforce, since a large amount of the population doesn't work and requires hand outs.  The only reason that Norway has a high GDP is because they have the highest amount of natural resources per capita then anywhere else in the world.

There was no trace of irony in your post, and I had no reason to assume that the datum was inaccurate.

Quote from: Duckling on October 26, 2011, 04:11:27 PM
There was no trace of irony in your post, and I had no reason to assume that the datum was inaccurate.

The datum wasn't. 13 percent of people being classified as unable to work isn't untrue. But that doesn't mean they are all actually unable to drive. work.

Who said anything about driving?

Quote from: Duckling on October 27, 2011, 06:21:25 PM
Who said anything about driving?

No one. It was a goof. Unable to work.

Got it.

Still, I didn't think that he thought that less than the suggested 13% of the populace were unable to work.

Quote from: Duckling on October 27, 2011, 06:28:12 PM
Got it.

Still, I didn't think that he thought that less than the suggested 13% of the populace were unable to work.

Maybe he assumed that you would agree on the sillyness of that percentage.

Thats more than our unemployment rate. And these people are still getting payed!

Let me be clear. 13% of the Norwegian population receives disability benefits, while it is extremely unlikely that 13% are actually disabled.  Bear wrestling would have to be the country's national sport for them to have that many disabled people.  Since a large amount of people are receiving disablity benefits without being disabled, it means that a large chunk of the population is abusing the welfare system to get money from the government that they didn't work for.  This is evidence that welfare states create generations of dependents who, instead of working, rely solely upon the state for income.

You appear to have made a series of fallacious assumptions.

First, that the Norwegian government considers only what the American government considers disability as such.

Second, that disabled persons do not work. If this is the case, please be clearer.

Third, that the disability benefits would be in any way creating new dependents. Higher education is free in Norway at public universities, and the ability to draw a small income supplement, if one were to abuse the system, from the government would hardly justify not obtaining a degree or other mark of education or skill in craft.

I take it you're getting the 13% figure from this report (http://books.google.com/books?id=KyOtCXU3J-sC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=norway+13%25+of+the+workforce+is+disabled&source=bl&ots=ajY9uP63Hx&sig=8oTqhhN7rhJM3Xjx9k-C5hGDCs4&hl=en&ei=tQWyTqjqK8We2AWs1bCtAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=norway%2013%25%20of%20the%20workforce%20is%20disabled&f=false)? You should probably mention this part as well:

QuoteCompared with other countries Norway has very high labour force participation rates, especially among older people.

"[V]ery high labour force participation rates" means that a "very high" percentage of potential workers work for a living. That doesn't exactly sound like a country that has raised a generation of dependents.

Quote from: Duckling on October 28, 2011, 11:46:48 PMYou appear to have made a series of fallacious assumptions.

If you actually believe 13% of Norwegians are disabled, then you are either extremely naive or you are too stubborn to use logic to figure that it is very, very unlikely that more then 1 out of 10 in Norway are disabled.  If you look at your facebook friends list or your year book, the number of disabled people won't be even close to 1 out of 10.

Quote from: CraigStern on November 02, 2011, 10:15:39 PM"[V]ery high labour force participation rates" means that a "very high" percentage of potential workers work for a living. That doesn't exactly sound like a country that has raised a generation of dependents.

Cuba also has a high employment rate.  The welfare states tend to overpay people for doing very little work.  By fraudulently claiming to be disabled, Norwegians to get paid more and retire earlier without having do any more work.  Frankly, the welfare system encourages people to ask for hand outs instead of working harder.  In a welfare state, one could earn more money through hard work and have the government take more then half of it away in taxes, or one could pretend to be disabled and have the government give one money without having to work harder.

He also said, "especially among older people." By ignoring that, your point about early retirement stands.

Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, and Bill Clinton were all Democratic presidents who couldn't keep it their pants.  I think we need a Herman Cain or a Newt Gingrich as president, so Republicans can also have a president with a sexual scandal. 

Now all sillyness aside:
Perry- I did like Perry because of the way he ran the state of Texas.  In Texas, he helped businesses by staying out of their way, yet his presidental platform is about making drastic changes.  Businesses want predictable economic conditions, so their actions become less risky.  Also, he is too preachy for someone who has constant contact with the press.

Gingrich- He seems plenty qualified, but I just don't like him.  He is the stereotype sleazy politician who sleeps around and takes money from lobbyist.

Romney- I like do like Romney's business expertise.  Unlike Obama, Romney knows that predictable economic conditions help business expand and grow.  Business won't hire new workers unless they know there won't be a new tax or new regulation that negatively affects their business module.

What about Rick Santorum?

I don't much about Rick Santorum.  All I know about him is that he is an extreme social conservative who is against gay marriage, abortions, and contraceptives.  I also know that he pissed off homosexuals enough to make "Santorum (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Santorum)" a dirty world.

Quote from: SmartyPants on January 03, 2012, 08:09:06 PMRomney- I like do like Romney's business expertise.  Unlike Obama, Romney knows that predictable economic conditions help business expand and grow.  Business won't hire new workers unless they know there won't be a new tax or new regulation that negatively affects their business module.

Oof--Romney really thinks regulations are the major cause for the poor job market? If anything, that's a strike against his alleged knowledge of economics. Only about 1 in 4 (https://www.bestmark.com/news/Industry_Trends/articles/WSJ_Employers_not_hiring_due_to_weak_demand/800554456.aspx) economists believe that explanation. A strong majority of economists (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303661904576452181063763332.html) see lack of consumer demand as the driving force behind weak hiring, and a Treasury Department study (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/economic-policy/Documents/Is%20Regulatory%20Uncertainty%20a%20Major%20Impediment%20to%20Job%20Growth_20111121_vFINAL.pdf) supports them in that conclusion.

Quote from: SmartyPants on January 04, 2012, 10:49:43 PM
I don't much about Rick Santorum.  All I know about him is that he is an extreme social conservative who is against gay marriage, abortions, and contraceptives.  I also know that he pissed off homosexuals enough to make "Santorum (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Santorum)" a dirty world.

If you are on a computer, type into google "Rick Santorum" and it shows the Results for Iowa Republican Caucus and Rick Santorum is second with 24.5 where as Mitt Romney (Number One) is 24.6.

I personally don't know if that is important or even relevant, but I thought you should know.

I like to point out that politicians don't have to be right to win the people trust and vote.  Back in 2008, Obama promised that his stimulus plan would save the economy and people believed him at the time.  Now people see the stimulus bill as failing to rein in unemployment and increasing the deficit by a trillion dollars.  Obama's current economic plan is more stimus spending, because his administration believes that the first stimulus bill wasn't big enough and it wasn't spent in the correct places.  Based on how quickly the American Jobs Act failed, people no longer trust his economic plan.  Romney is going to win by pointing out that Obamacare makes hiring more expensive, the Dodd-Frank Act makes it harder for small business to get loans, and the increase in deficit spending hurts consumer confidence bases debt on to the next generation.

Everyone agrees that consumer demand is the main reason for weak hiring.  In a free market, there really isn't anything a president can do to increase consumer demand, yet the President can increase consumer confidence by improving the economic conditions in which people do business.  Obama's antibusiness rhetoric hurts consumer confidence, while Romney's probuiness rhetoric should help consumer confidence.

Quote from: Deagonx on January 05, 2012, 04:14:34 PMIf you are on a computer, type into google "Rick Santorum" and it shows the Results for Iowa Republican Caucus and Rick Santorum is second with 24.5 where as Mitt Romney (Number One) is 24.6.

I wouldn't take the Iowa Caucus too serius, because Rick Santorum hasn't been under scrutiny by the media or his opponents yet.  Republican voters are about 40% moderate and 60% conservative.  The majority of moderate republicans want Romney, while most conservative republicans want anyone who isn't Romney.  The conservative vote supported Bachmann then Perry then Cain then Gingrich, and now Santorum.  They all support the candidate who is more conservative then Romney, but then look for a new canidate after they see that the conservative canidate is unqualified to be president.  After people realizes all of the unethical things that Santorum has done, they look for a new canidate and they will find that only Romney and Paul are left.

Quote from: SmartyPants on January 05, 2012, 04:32:44 PMEveryone agrees that consumer demand is the main reason for weak hiring.  In a free market, there really isn't anything a president can do to increase consumer demand

I agree with your first point, but not your second. Anything the president does (not just Obama--I mean any president) that increases consumers' discretionary income is going to boost demand, particularly if it's done for lower-income people. Low-income workers and the unemployed tend to have less money coming in than they need to spend in order to survive and pay off debts: thus, any boost in their income is going to be spent pretty much immediately, and in the private sector.

Quote from: CraigStern on January 05, 2012, 05:03:31 PMAnything the president does (not just Obama--I mean any president) that increases consumers' discretionary income is going to boost demand.

That means that Republicans would be better for the economy, because they believe in tax cuts, while Democrats want higher taxes, so they spend more on big government.

Hmm.... that sounds logical...

but Democrats believe in tax cuts, too -- when we don't have a whole load of national debt, and not for the rich.

When have Democrats every cared about national debt?  They may claim that reducing the national debt is important to them (http://nation.foxnews.com/nancy-pelosi/2011/01/04/speaker-pelosi-leaves-whopper), but they never do anything about it.  The Democratic Congress passed a trillion dollar spending bill without paying for it, and then Obama proposed another massive dollar spending without any way to pay for it. 

Quote from: SmartyPants on January 05, 2012, 05:38:35 PM

Quote from: CraigStern on January 05, 2012, 05:03:31 PMAnything the president does (not just Obama--I mean any president) that increases consumers' discretionary income is going to boost demand.

That means that Republicans would be better for the economy, because they believe in tax cuts, while Democrats want higher taxes, so they spend more on big government.

Tax cuts are one way to boost discretionary income; benefits programs like welfare, social security and medicare are another. Republicans tend to prefer the first approach; Democrats tend to prefer the second. Both can be used to increase discretionary income. Neither party has a monopoly on that.

Here is where it gets problematic, though. It matters what demographic you target with these techniques. It's important to target them at people who need discretionary income, or they won't do much to help demand. This is why it's maddening to see Republicans refusing to extend the payroll tax cuts (which make a huge difference to lower-income people), but fight tooth and nail to keep the Bush tax cuts (an expensive boondoggle overwhelmingly targeted toward the wealthy).

Quote from: CraigStern on January 05, 2012, 07:11:33 PMTax cuts are one way to boost discretionary income; benefits programs like welfare, social security and medicare are another. Republicans tend to prefer the first approach; Democrats tend to prefer the second. Both can be used to increase discretionary income. Neither party has a monopoly on that.

How is medicare and welfare considered "discretionary" income?  Tax cuts boost discrtionary income because it allows people to keep more of their money, while social programs take income from someone and gives it to another.

Quote from: CraigStern on January 05, 2012, 07:11:33 PMThis is why it's maddening to see Republicans refusing to extend the payroll tax cuts (which make a huge difference to lower-income people), but fight tooth and nail to keep the Bush tax cuts (an expensive boondoggle overwhelmingly targeted toward the wealthy).

Since what you said is completely incorrect, I going to assume that you have not been following the payroll tax cut debate.  First, Obama proposed the payroll tax without any way to pay for it.  The payroll tax is primary source of funding for social security and medicare.  Both of these progressive programs are already underfunded, so Republicans refused to cut their source of funding.  Republicans proposed spending cuts alongside the payroll tax cut to make sure social security and medicare are paid for.  Obama refused spending cuts because it is against his "bigger government" ideology.  The Democrats' counterproposal is to have a temporary payroll tax cut and a permanent tax increase on high income earners.  The Republicans refused because a temporary tax cut has little effect on consumer behavior, while a permanent tax increase will harm the economy.

Quote from: SmartyPants on January 06, 2012, 01:41:30 AMHow is medicare and welfare considered "discretionary" income?  Tax cuts boost discrtionary income because it allows people to keep more of their money, while social programs take income from someone and gives it to another.

If you have money and you keep more of it, that boosts discretionary income. If you get more money, that also boosts discretionary income. This is pretty straightforward stuff.

As for the notion that a tax increase on the wealthy would harm the economy, please refer to the post above explaining why we're mostly concerned about the discretionary income of low-income people. We don't need to worry about the discretionary income of people who already have more discretionary income than they know what to do with (i.e. the wealthy).

I want to say more discretionary income is best in the hands of the rich, but that isn't true.  The middle class is the country's biggest source of consumption, while the wealthy tend to use their discretionary income on investment.  Low income earners have very little effect on consumtion and investment.  A temporary tax cut won't help the economy, because it won't change spending behaviors when they their taxes going to go back up.  If anything, it will slightly help people pay off their debt.  Permanent tax increase on the other hand make people feel poorer and less willing to spend on consumtion or investments.

Also, it seems hypocritical to say someone else should pay more, while asking for a tax cut for oneself.

Quote from: SmartyPants on January 06, 2012, 07:12:21 PM
I want to say more discretionary income is best in the hands of the rich, but that isn't true.  The middle class is the country's biggest source of consumption, while the wealthy tend to use their discretionary income on investment.  Low income earners have very little effect on consumtion and investment.  A temporary tax cut won't help the economy, because it won't change spending behaviors when they their taxes going to go back up.  If anything, it will slightly help people pay off their debt.  Permanent tax increase on the other hand make people feel poorer and less willing to spend on consumtion or investments.

Also, it seems hypocritical to say someone else should pay more, while asking for a tax cut for oneself.

That's true-but who says the governments job is to make the economy as efficient as possible? Sure, an efficient economy is good, but isn't it worth sacrificing efficiency in order to provide necessities for others?

Also, Craig, it's a common misconception that the Bush tax cuts were made for the rich, in reality they shifted the tax burden towards the rich. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/~/media/Images/Reports/bg2001/bg2001chart6_lg.ashx) (Data comes from the CBO)

Quote from: SmartyPants on January 06, 2012, 07:12:21 PMLow income earners have very little effect on consumtion and investment.

Again, that is because they have very little discretionary income. If you give them discretionary income, they actually have a huge effect. This is because, numerically speaking, low income earners are roughly half of all people in the country (http://www.npr.org/2011/12/15/143770049/census-1-in-2-americans-are-poor-or-low-income?ps=cprs): there is basically no bigger demographic of consumers you could pick to give discretionary income to. Dollar for dollar, giving low income people more money is the most efficient way to spur demand.

Speaking of which: investment isn't directly related to demand. "Demand" means demand for goods and services, not money pumped into Wall Street investment instruments. Demand spurs hiring; investments generally do not. Here is why. Let's say the government gives $10,000 per year to Uncle Moneybags, and Uncle M. decides to spend that on buying 1,000 shares of Sinister Design stock (let's assume that I've already created a publicly traded corporation). So I get $10,000 in money up-front from that investment. That's good, right? However, as a business owner, that isn't going to convince me to hire people. The most basic rule of accounting is that if your expenses exceed your income, you are eventually going to go broke. Wages are an ongoing expense, while an investment is just a one-time lump sum. I don't want to pay a new worker's salary month after month off of a limited, diminishing pile of money. It doesn't make sense to hire unless there is sufficient demand, meaning that I am getting a continual stream of revenue from customers sufficient to make my new hire sustainable over the long haul. Does that make sense?

Gath: I don't doubt that the raw numbers in that table are correct. The problem with that table, however, is that it only establishes a correlation, not causation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation). The table might as well be comparing pirates with global temperatures (http://seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php); it shows a trend, but doesn't really give us the reasons for it. Other things happened between 2000 and 2004 that could account for the higher share of taxes paid by the wealthy. Most notably: the highest 20% of income earners had their incomes grow dramatically faster (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html) than the bottom 80% during this period. If you continue to rake in millions more dollars year after year while everyone else's income stagnates, you are naturally going to end up paying a larger share of the nation's taxes, tax cuts or no.

If you're interested in learning more about the structure of the Bush tax cuts, here is a report on them from CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/03/news/economy/income_inequality/index.htm).

If the payroll tax cut was permanent tax cut, then I would agree that it would help the economy.  Since the payroll tax cut is temporary, it will not change spending habits a.k.a. consumption.  Also, the bottom half of the country has accumulated so much debt that most discretionary incomes are going towards the debt that has been gathered during the Clinton and Bush eras. 

Lets say Craig wants to expand his business.  He currently doesn't have the money to do so himself.  Lucky for Craig, Uncle Moneybags gets to keep $10,000 more of his money because of a tax cut.  Because of America's low capital gains tax, Uncle M. is willing to make a risky investment in Craig's company.  Using the extra $10,000 of discretionary income, Uncle M buys 1,000 shares of Sinister Design stock.  Using the extra $10,000, Craig is able to rent office space, buy more computers, and hire some employees.  Using the resources acquired by Uncle M's investment, Craig and his employess bring in a steady stream of profit (or they go out of business).  Uncle M is rewarded for his risky investment by selling his stocks at a higher value or by receiving dividends (or his stocks become worthless if the business goes under).  Companies don't issue more stock and investors don't buy stock unless they believe that the company can become more profitable by expanding.  As you can see from my theoretical example, investment is an important part of economy.  Because of the investment, Craig was able to employ more workers then he could on his own.

I think you forgot that the Bush tax cuts effected everyone.  Some people who had to pay taxes under Clinton, didn't have to pay under Bush.  With a smaller tax base, the people who were still paying ended up paying a greater percentage of the total taxes. 

I can't help but think that you're missing the key point in my last post. If there isn't demand, then all the investments in the world aren't going to make hiring viable (unless, I suppose, you can keeping getting people to invest in your business ad infinitum without any real source of sustainable revenue--but that's really more of a confidence game than a business model). A business needs an ongoing source of revenue in order to sustainably expand; otherwise, all of those new hires are going to end up unemployed again sooner rather than later. Hence, why demand matters much more than investment. It's also worth pointing out that most small businesses (which do the bulk of the nation's hiring) are not publicly-traded corporations, and so aren't even really in the running for receiving most of that investment money in the first place.

I do agree with you that a permanent payroll tax cut would be preferable to a temporary one. The most effective way to boost demand is to increase discretionary income for low-income people on a long-term basis. (If you want a source outside of myself, check out pages 5-7 (14-16 of the pdf) in this CBO report on the effects of federal stimulus: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12185/05-25-ARRA.pdf ) Among different approaches to cutting taxes for a short time, the CBO determined back in 2002 that cutting payroll taxes yielded the greatest "bang for the buck." (Check out page xiii of this report (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/32xx/doc3251/FiscalStimulus.pdf).)

I think you are missing my point.  Smart investors are only going to invest in things that are going to grow in value.  While demand for some stuff goes down, demand for other stuff goes up.  Investments are the tool for businesses to keep up with demand.  For example, demand for cars is down, while demand for natural gas is increasing.  The car industry isn't selling more stock because they don't plan on expanding, yet the oil industry is asking for investments so they can purchase equipment for fracking.  Even though jobs are loss in the car industry, the oil industry is able to create more jobs due to investments.  Of course, people who have jobs have more consumer confidence, then those who don't.  If one reduces investment because of tax increases, then one will slow down the growth of growing industries.

Like Republicans and Democrats, we both agree that a tax cut would help.  Also like the parties, we tend to disagree with how it should be paid for.  Right?

Social security will already run out before I am old enough to retire, so it must be a requirment to pay for the payroll tax cut.  Since tax cuts are more beneficial for economic growth then government spending, it would be best to pay for the payroll tax cut with spending cuts.  I am against paying for a temporary payroll tax cut with a permanent income tax increase, because it will be harmful to the economy. 

Umm... may I interject for a second?

It looks like what SmartyPants is saying is that lump sums of money encourage growth, which increases revenue;
whereas, what Craig is saying is that increased revenue leads to lump sums of money lying around, which encourages growth.

If I may take the liberty of assuming your arguments reflect those commonly held by members of the political parties you seem to affiliate yourselves with, it would seem that the Republican approach focuses more on promoting bold, risky enterprise that not everyone can pull off, but which may blossom into great success;

on the other hand, the Democratic approach would seem to be more about giving the masses sufficient income that a prospective entrepreneur might not risk all in his or her attempt to rise to success, and have a good shot at some measure of achievement whether or not he or she can ever become truly great.

I would even venture that it's not necessarily a matter of what's right or wrong, but what you peronally believe. Although, perhaps one could be better for the country at a given time, bringing us back to the old dilemma: which?

Quote from: Duckling on January 08, 2012, 10:19:34 PMwhereas, what Craig is saying is that increased revenue leads to lump sums of money lying around, which encourages growth.

No: there is a qualitiative difference between having sums of money lying around, and having a constant flow of income. Growth and investment do not necessarily lead to greater income--in fact, the only thing that growth reliably increases are recurring expenses. Growth only results in higher income if there is demand to match.

I guess I implied too much there; having increased revenue allows the saving of money for significant single expenditures promoting growth for the company or business in addition to the ability to hire new employees sustainably. Is this closer your idea?

Plus, I did forget to mention that in the case of lump investments, the demand isn't necessarily present for growth to be sustainable, given increased costs.

I was trying to highlight basic differences in your arguments, and I guess I was sorely tempted to rewrite and move words around to demonstrate symmetry of ideas; in doing so, I left some stuff out.

Quote from: Duckling on January 08, 2012, 10:19:34 PMIt looks like what SmartyPants is saying is that lump sums of money encourage growth, which increases revenue;

No, that is not what I am saying. Like Craig said, investments do not change demand.  Investments do however help businesses increase supply.  Despite the recession, demand for some goods and services has increased.  Investments help businesses grow, but growing a business only works if there is more demand then the current supply.  So investing in a shrinking industry will not create jobs, but investing in a growing industry will.  For example, demand for solar panels has decreased in recent years, so investing in a solar panel factory (http://news.investors.com/Article/596235/201112291817/solyndra-scandal-obama-visit-washington-post.htm) will not create jobs.  On the other hand, demand for oil is still higher the current supply, so investing in a pipeline (http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Keystone-pipeline-delay-is-the-wrong-call-2264965.php) that increase oil production will create jobs.  If you want to look at an anti-investment approach, look at Venezuela (http://arabnews.com/economy/article556483.ece).  After Chavez scared off foreign investors, his country has not been able to raise the money to increase oil production, so the Venezuela economy is stagnating instead of growing.

Quote from: Duckling on January 08, 2012, 10:19:34 PMIf I may take the liberty of assuming your arguments reflect those commonly held by members of the political parties you seem to affiliate yourselves with, it would seem that the Republican approach focuses more on promoting bold, risky enterprise that not everyone can pull off, but which may blossom into great success;  on the other hand, the Democratic approach would seem to be more about giving the masses sufficient income that a prospective entrepreneur might not risk all in his or her attempt to rise to success, and have a good shot at some measure of achievement whether or not he or she can ever become truly great.

You basicly described Republicans as capitalist and democratics as socialist.  You are correct that Republicans believe in a free market where the best earn more money.  The way you describe Democrats seem incorrect.  There are socialist in the Democratic party like there are libertarians in the Republicans party, but most Democratics also believe in free market.  The major difference between the two parites is that Republicans prefer to increase economic prosperity and growth, while Democrats prefer to increase economic equality.

Okay, so basically I oversimplified and got everything wrong.

But at least you guys have some insight into what point you sound like you're arguing, right?

This is a bit off-topic, but according to the Financial Times, demand for solar power is actually increasing (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CG8QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fb491e8f0-1452-11e1-b07b-00144feabdc0.html&ei=-38hT_yXG8nx0gHwqZHKCA&usg=AFQjCNH_UJUH7KOacPsSgCovYPmdhkFmGw&sig2=u8niFKp7n35Fas50_YyhMw) as prices drop, even though the solar panel industry (http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/30/technology/solar_power/index.htm) is consolidating. A lot of the industry's struggles seem to have more to do with supply issues (http://www.cnbc.com/id/45967909) and unfair trade practices (http://www.npr.org/2012/01/19/145403625/cheap-chinese-panels-spark-solar-power-trade-war) moreso than slack demand.

Romney has the best chances of getting the nomination. He has 2 things that help him get it 1)They've found the least amount of dirt on him (unlike other previous candidates). and  2) He's getting a lot of support from people like chris christie, which really makes a difference as the arch conservatives love chris christie. If christie actually becomes the vp with romney, i think obama will have a hard time in the next election.

All of this is unknown though. Anything could happen with politics.

I'd prefer Gingrich because then everyone would realize that Obama is quite sane.

Quote from: Duckling on February 12, 2012, 11:26:12 AMI'd prefer Gingrich because then everyone would realize that Obama is quite sane.

Huh?  Does Romney make Obama look insane?

No, but compared to Gingrich, most people look sane.

It seems that he is only slightly less forgotten than Perry or... just about every Democratic candidate that's not Obama.

(I would just like to hear your opinions without starting a new thread, is all)

They didn't primary Obama, did they?

Quote from: CraigStern on October 04, 2011, 06:59:30 AM

Quote from: SmartyPants on October 03, 2011, 08:33:26 PMPerry is better then most politicains because he is willing to defend ideas that are unpopular.

Surely that isn't enough. Eating babies is an unpopular idea; would it make Perry a superior politician if he defended that?

It shouldn't be enough rape is an unpopular idea I would shudder to think its good portance. Wow the word "portance" is so archaic that spell check didn't even realize its a word.

As for my opinion on who should be the republican to run. Anyone who knows their economics. I know the repeated cycle. Inflation is raised due to politicians printing money. Inflation ruins the economy. In  response politicians inflate more by printing more money. This eventually leads to depression. Where politicians once again inflates to stop the depression. A depression that hasn't run its course fully turns into a recession the current economic state. Oh and for those who thing the Universal Euro is genius. Wrong if one country  goes insane with debt "Greece" massive inflation occurs bringing the whole system to its knees. My proof of such stupid repeated actions date back to ancient Rome.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5kTzeUYw19bMmxnUV8xaTZfSlk/edit