2012 Presidential Election (87 days and counting...)

[Handsome Rob]

I don't think anybody will deny that the private sector is way better at creating capital the the government, it doesn't mean that they instantly are better creating jobs(see all the one I listed above that need filling). You basically are comparing apples and oranges when it comes to the purpose of each. If we have more teachers, police officers, fire fighters and people working construction on government projects, that is more people who have expendable capital to buy stuff. All that being said we need money to pay those people somehow.

In order for business to grow(employee wise) they need more demand, which means there has to be more people working other jobs to buy their products. Companies look at the short term(like 3 month to 1 year intervals) how they manage things. It's not a case they will say if we hire 100 people the economy will be much better 10 years from now if everybody else joins in with us creating a class of people who spend money. Somebody has to make sure that there is a class of people who are willing to spend money and it isn't the private sector, they just do the best with what they got to make as much profit year by year.

The key to a good economy is having a large amount of middle class people who will spend most of there paychecks and I don't think you will get that letting the private sector be the people who try and keeps as much money as possible in the hands of those middle class people.

That's simply not true. Businesses do have short range plans, but that's not all. They often have long range plans running 5 to 10 years in the future, or even longer. Some capital projects (such as the construction of a large factory) may take years from the planning stage to opening day. Land acquisition, application for permits, environmental impact studies, plant design, selection of a construction company (or companies). All of these things take time before the plant even begins construction. Any business worth its salt will try to figure out how much it will cost not to just get to opening day but beyond that. And governmental uncertainty factors in to those cost projections.

If the government wants to ensure a class of people who will have paychecks to spend, they should ensure that business is allowed to operate as freely as possible and lose as little money to taxes and regulatory compliance as possible. Contrary to what some (not you, but definitely a couple of posters on here) believe, taxes and regulatory compliance consume a lot of time and money--these are resources that if otherwise planted into actual business operations could result in higher productivity (and thus higher employment). Or, if nothing else, more dividends for investors. And dividends would benefit everyone from the wealthy shareholder to the little old lady with a few shares to the millions of Americans who rely on 401k plans as part of their retirement planning. A better dividend payer would be more likely to attract more investors, who could then use that capital to further business.

And we should only have more teachers, fire fighters, and police if the city/county needs it, and it sure as heck shouldn't be the federal government funding any of that.

 

[SV Fan]

And we should only have more teachers, fire fighters, and police if the city/county needs it, and it sure as heck shouldn't be the federal government funding any of that.

While that is a fair argument for those 3 jobs, you can't tell me this country isn't in dire need of infrastructure projects(and I am just talking about repairs to roads and bridges, not even getting into big infrastructure ideas that could benefit the US like high speed rail)

As I said in another thread I don't really have much info on Fire Fighters but I know there is places that are sorely lacking in the other 2 departments. It should be pointed out in Obama's first stimulus there was money passed off to the states to keep people employed for those specific purposes, so alot of the drop in public sector jobs by the states is due to them having to find ways to cut the budget since they can't pay them.

 

[Kelly]

I agree with you that infrastructure repairs are HIGHLY NEEDED today, on our roads, bridges, etc....as far as High Speed Rail, it has to be done correctly, and where it is needed. Not like between California and Nevada where it is simply being put in to make jobs, most don't want it, most don't want to pay for it, and their studies have shown all of this, they are just ignoring their studies.

It works in places like Japan because of the high density of people, and the size of their country.

Here in the US, the trains they are looking at using are far slower than those in Japan, and people need to get from one coast to another, much faster than what these trains are capable of.....

They are just not cost effective at the moment...

 

[chaseter]

Trains between geographically close metropolises is a good idea. Trains between two geographically distant metropolises like Miami and NYC, LA and Denver, Houston and Chicago, etc. would be implausible cost and time wise. It would have to make a ton of stops to increase profits to pick up people along the way and flying would still be faster..and not that much more expensive. I can fly to Las Vegas for $90. A bullet train ticket wouldn't be such an economical deal like $50 or anything like that because laying down 800 miles of track would cost billions upon billions.

Trains across country right now is a dumb idea. LA to San Francisco, DC to NYC, Houston to Austin...good ideas for trains.

 

[Kelly]

Well, except for maybe LA to SF, not sure on that one....there are already trains between DC to NYC and Houston to Austin....DC to NYC does well, Houston to Austin, barely breaks even.

 

[Handsome Rob]

While that is a fair argument for those 3 jobs, you can't tell me this country isn't in dire need of infrastructure projects(and I am just talking about repairs to roads and bridges, not even getting into big infrastructure ideas that could benefit the US like high speed rail)

As I said in another thread I don't really have much info on Fire Fighters but I know there is places that are sorely lacking in the other 2 departments. It should be pointed out in Obama's first stimulus there was money passed off to the states to keep people employed for those specific purposes, so alot of the drop in public sector jobs by the states is due to them having to find ways to cut the budget since they can't pay them.

I'm for needed (stress on the needed) infrastructure projects if they fall within the Constitutional limits for the federal government. What I'm not for (and I think you would agree) is paying people to do something just to have them do something and get them spending. If we're going to pay someone for something, there ought to be an output that is equal to or greater than the expense of our paying them to be employed. Otherwise, why not just pay people to dig holes and then fill them in?

Oh, and Nashville is probably getting an average property tax hike of over 12% this coming year if Mayor Dean has his way. Why? Well, in part, to keep 50 police officers employed. They were hired with a stimulus grant (Obama's Stimulus), but they have to continue to be employed after the grant expires or the city has to pay it back. So, the cost of living is going to go up for every Nashville resident to keep 50 officers employed. We weren't in a crime wave prior to their being hired. Did we really need them?

 

[Hawkingbird]

I do realise that I'm both underage and don't live in the USA. But being a Labour suppoter, Decocrates seem to be the closest thing to left wing.

 

[Matt]

I do realise that I'm both underage and don't live in the USA. But being a Labour suppoter, Decocrates seem to be the closest thing to left wing.

They aren't. Left and right no longer matter in our political narrative. All that exists is corporate and anti-corporate and both major parties are very far up the asses of the corporations to the point that the corporate agenda determines our entire national agenda.

 

[Franklin Richards]

The closest thing we have to a voice. I'm a class warrior so I recognize when the Democrats are just forwarding the corporate agenda. That's why you see the infighting on the left because I think it's a more upfront discourse. Lawyers aside, of course. But the Right has kicked it up on terms of attack these days and it's hard not to support circling the wagons.

They get my vote because the alternative is horrifying.

 

[Schlosser85]

I am a full and unapologetic supporter of the normalization and full federal recognition of homosexual relationships, decriminalization of marijuana, abortion rights, and generally all the things that give the Right nightmares.

I am a registered Democrat because they're the closest mainstream party to my ideals, but generally they're a bit too centric for me.

 

[Matt]

The closest thing we have to a voice. I'm a class warrior so I recognize when the Democrats are just forwarding the corporate agenda. That's why you see the infighting on the left because I think it's a more upfront discourse. Lawyers aside, of course. But the Right has kicked it up on terms of attack these days and it's hard not to support circling the wagons.

They get my vote because the alternative is horrifying.

I feel like the rejection of Obama in favor of Romney is the way to go for the Democratic Party. Obama is such a pro-corporate candidate that he makes Bill Clinton look like FDR. He is Clinton's pro-corporate in the guise of pro-middle class policies multiplied by ten. Romney and Obama would have the same presidency. Romney is just more upfront about what he is. He is in essence, the enemy you know.

The rejection of Romney, a fairly moderate Republican is a mandate for the Republican Party to go further right. Being as, historically, without a very powerful VP (which Obama does not have, I love Biden but he isn't electable), the White House will switch parties following a two-termer. That'll give us a Republican president along the lines of Christie, Santorum, Rand Paul or Paul Ryan. THAT scares me. That scares the hell out of me.

Meanwhile, if Romney wins, he will automatically be very beatable in 2016. He should be beatable this time around but isn't due to Obama's poor record. Romney will likely experience a double dip. Factor in that he is a terrible candidate, the Democrats take the White House in 2016.

So what does a rejection of Obama mean? If Romney's loss is a rejection of moderate Republicans, Obama's loss is a rejection of corporate Democrats. Meaning in 2016, we could be looking at candidates like Sherrod Brown, Kirsten Gilibrand and Brian Schweitzer having realistic shots at the White House.

I'll take a loss in the short term to save the party in the long term.

 

[enterthemadness]

Both major parties are a joke...why we keep voting for them I dunno. Both owned by wallstreet, banks, Hollywood. Both parties keep increasing the debt. I'm fed up with them, but whatever...

 

[Matt]

But you're voting Libertarian. They are the most corporate friendly party that there is. They are all about no taxes or regulations for the corporations. Don't buy into their myth of individual freedom. The only freedom that they are about is corporate freedom.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I am a full and unapologetic supporter of the normalization and full federal recognition of homosexual relationships, decriminalization of marijuana, abortion rights, and generally all the things that give the Right nightmares.

I am a registered Democrat because they're the closest mainstream party to my ideals, but generally they're a bit too centric for me.

So do you have any original political views, or do you just check every option box on the left-wing form?

 

[Schlosser85]

I strongly support capital punishment and am strongly against illegal immigration. Both more typically conservative views.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I strongly support capital punishment and am strongly against illegal immigration. Both more typically conservative views.

See now you just became more interesting. I'm against capital punishment myself. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of people who deserve it. But with an imperfect justice system, inevitably innocent people will (and have) be put to death.

 

[Schlosser85]

When an innocent person is found to have spent most of their life in jail, no one suggests emptying the prisons.

 

[Thundercrack85]

When an innocent person is found to have spent most of their life in jail, no one suggests emptying the prisons.

But you can release them. You can't bring dead people back to life.

 

[Kelly]

So do you have any original political views, or do you just check every option box on the left-wing form?

Or, he is one that speaks his mind, votes his passion, and doesn't care about a D or an R....

 

[Lighthouse]

But you're voting Libertarian. They are the most corporate friendly party that there is. They are all about no taxes or regulations for the corporations. Don't buy into their myth of individual freedom. The only freedom that they are about is corporate freedom.

Matt is right on this. I've always said Libertarianism and Communism are two sides of the same coin. Works in theory, not in practice. They are idealist dreams without one iota of pragmatism.

 

[Hawkingbird]

Matt is right on this. I've always said Libertarianism and Communism are two sides of the same coin. Works in theory, not in practice. They are idealist dreams without one iota of pragmatism.

Like fascism and dictatorship

 

[enterthemadness]

But you're voting Libertarian. They are the most corporate friendly party that there is. They are all about no taxes or regulations for the corporations. Don't buy into their myth of individual freedom. The only freedom that they are about is corporate freedom.

I'm not voting Libertarian, I AM Libertarian. Everytime I take a quiz poll online I get Libertarian. I'm voting for Gary Johnson, I'm a volunteer for him. E-mailing the polling companies, sharing his news articles onto my Facebook, made a few Memes on quickmeme. He is finally starting to gain a bit of traction with the media. He knows he a long shot, his campaign said he's gonna run again in 2016. His campaign advisor...well that "Stone" guy...Mr. Nixon tattoo on his back guy...said he has "provactative" ads in the works. Um...ok...don't know how I feel about that guy...Anyhoo, the two party system has failed. Even if Libertarians are not perfect, they better than what we have. Look, businesses are leaving America because of taxes and regulations and I don't blame them. One way to fix that is the fair tax. Anyhoo, hopefully teh Paul fans join us in September. A percentage will, just a question will it be enough to make the Rep/Dem's take notice.

And CNN has one he'll of a bias against Johnson...good grief. They edited out Jesse Ventura's endorsement of Gary on the online video/article CNN had...only when Ventura was on live on CNN did it go through. You think a 3-way race would draw in ratings...noooooooooo....

 

[Kelly]

Editing out Ventura's endorsement was probably a plus for Johnson, Ventura is an idiot.

I wish someone could edit out Trump....

 

[hippie_hunter]

You think a 3-way race would draw in ratings...noooooooooo....

Because it's not a 3-way race. Our electoral system just doesn't support 3-way races.

 

[enterthemadness]

Because it's not a 3-way race. Our electoral system just doesn't support 3-way races.

He is likely to still be on all 50 states ballot, it's a 3 way race, by that definition.