Who are you voting for, for President?

[jserio]

the wife and i are voting for obama

[The Buddha]

The great depression was worse because the govt intervened.
What would have been very very severe and last 9 months was less severe but lasted 3 years. Duration is what causes pain at the individual level. Not severity ... severity causes pain to govt, not to people at the individual level.
The govt has the right to intervene and make it better ... not for itself, but for the people. This comming/ongoing depression/recession squarely lands in the governments lap. We been flailing for ~2 years now and the govt only fanned the flames. The place to have corrected it was back in 03-04 not in 07/08. I would definetly call for non intervention, let the whole economy clean itself out. The Illegals and the marginals go home, the excess burden will shed itself, poorly managed companies will fail, models with high over head will also die, and the cost of everything will drop as will cost of labor and our currency ... in 1 year or so china will delink from the $$ cos its too cheap ... they goods will go up in $$$ and that will have so much excess capacity in the US with everythign cheaper here, it will start a reindustrialisation of the US.
Oil, energy, raw material all have to drop in $$$  and labor has to get re initialised due to inflation. It cannot be cheaper to ship crap form china ... no way ...
Cool.
Buddha.

[jserio]

hmm...buddha makes a point.

[97gs500e]

I will not support a candidate who is pro universal health care and banning the manufacture of firearms.  I would like to keep my god given right to protect myself and my family with my 2nd amendment rights, so I will not be voting for Obama. 

The argument "it isn't fair" doesn't work for me.  I don't believe that people with higher incomes should be taxed more than the middle class.  They work hard, go to school, and work hard some more to get where they are so they can make that money.  We don't need any more government programs to help people who will not help themselves.  Our government is way out of control.  Ideally, I would like to see Ron Paul in office.

[yamahonkawazuki]

second amendment per Wiki. ( even though i distrust wiki somewhat, as far as constitutional or bill of rights stuff. it is verbatim

anyhoo per wiki" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[quiktaco]

hmm...buddha makes a point.

Yeah, I totally agree.  That sounds like a great plan there Buddha, but the only problem is getting it to be implemented.

[The Buddha]

Economic pain if a recession lasts looooooong period of time is only going to ruin the most marginal of us. The older people, the ones that are stuck with mortgages or with other problems. It will totally favor the young and the ones that can be mobile. It will clear out the marginal but not quite the marginally talented or marginally competent. It may do the exact opposite.
Short and sharp recessions or depressions will clear out the untalented and un educated. But those that have the ability ro re build the economy - those who can invent things, or develop and re tool things will have a great life on the rebound. Then the whole country can move forward and upward.
Yes we are so afraid of pain that we will take 3 years or more of mind numbing, dull and listless over sharp contraction. We have a true depression, you guys will have SM2 handle bars with the same price tag as before ... if we get 3 years of BS, the bars will cost almost as much but I wont make it for a long time. Artificially propped up economies will have artificially bloated prices ... didn't that really cause the housing bubble blow up ... handlebar bubble anyone ?
Problem is, neither candidate wants that to happen, and they will do anything to distract and divert from that. I'd in that case support an old guy like McCain, especially since he may not want to get reelected. However he has so much real estate and business, a recession will hurt his bottom line a lot more. I then think Obama will want to have a likely re election bid, so he's likely to avoid it by any means neccesary. Our best bet is, depression in the next 3 months, which is unlikely with 850 billion distributed to dead paper.

Health care: we dont need universal health care, we need pay as you leave the doctors office health care. We cannot have doctors doing paper work out the wazoo and we cannot have them buy $$$ insurance against lawyers, and we cannot have them negotiated by insurance companies, its just over head. Food is inexpensive, mainly because we dont finance it and have it paid for by someone else and we can look and see and just buy what we like at the price we like. In fact I contend that McDonalds with their 1 price across the country, are hurting consumers in cheaper areas and benifitting ones in expensive areas. But I would like to see a price list on a doctors office. Or like in India, they say, consultation is 10 bucks for ~15 minutes with the doctor. Injection is 5 bucks + cost of the medication, x ray this or that is so much etc etc ... of course doctors do care about people they see 100's of times, and they do what each person is requiring etc etc etc ... Pity ... here your doctor may want to do soemhting but insurance wont let them.
The place it hurts though, you wont have serious advances come to your local doctors office the instant its out on the market. However lets face it, the expensive and new crap usually is superfluous and its perfectly fine to use older stuff.
Cool.
Buddha.

[trumpetguy]

The argument "it isn't fair" doesn't work for me.  I don't believe that people with higher incomes should be taxed more than the middle class.  They work hard, go to school, and work hard some more to get where they are so they can make that money.  We don't need any more government programs to help people who will not help themselves.  Our government is way out of control.  Ideally, I would like to see Ron Paul in office.

But with the current tax code (written BY the wealthy FOR the wealthy), the wealthy pay FAR less than you or I.  They have mega deductions written just for them.  A flat tax would be more fair than the current system.

However, a flat tax is still regressive.  A certain amount of income is required just to buy food, pay rent or mortgage, etc.  That's why a graduated system is inherently more fair.  But our current bloated tax code makes it easy for the superwealthy to avoid taxes.

In the USA, the top 400 richest people have more wealth than the poorest 150 million people combined.  That gap has GROWN in the last eight years.  So our system is very good for the super-rich.

[bettingpython]

TG you forget that the top 10% pay over 80% of collected taxes, hell the bottom 24% don't pay taxes, my ex is a do nothing slug with child tax credit and earned income credit she receives a refund greater than what she pays throughout the year. Screw your progressive tax scale. Right now my wife and I pay almost 18k a year in taxes, under the clinton administration our tax rate would have been around 27k. How about everybody pays the same. Progressive tax scales are bullshit.

They reward the LAZY unmotivated portion of our society, That bottom 24% that gets refunds of every dime they paid in during the year and then some managed to survive all year without the money they were loaning the federal government so f%$k them, the government needs to go ahead and keep it.

[trumpetguy]

But a person making 20K spends most of that to get by -- rent, food, etc.  They don't have much extra.  A person making 100K has 80K over and above basic needs.

I agree with you to a point --  a flat tax is more fair than what we now have.  The middle class PAYS taxes.  The super-rich AVOID most of their taxes but have so much that their measly percentage is a huge amount (and they never feel it).  But to tax poor people on the money they need for essentials is (IMHO) wrong.

[cafeboy]

I'll tell you whats WRONG. Last year I paid over 20k in tax and WOW I got about 2k back  but others that make less than me are getting like 10k back. I mean THAT'S WRONG. 
and this bail out crap. Don't even need to talk about that horse crap. 

[The Buddha]

Tax based on consumption ... flat tax yea, but consumption based.

You buy a car, you'd pay 20% as a tax ... the rich buy new $$$ cars, they pay 20%, the poor buy used old cars, they pay 20% of the declared value ... see declared value ... not actual value ... write in 10 bucks and you pay 20% of that ... Same with food ... You can buy from a farmer or from a high end market ... I am all for cutting all middle men out by creating a middle men free system. Slowly middle men wont be cut out, they will be phased out. Remember ... the super rich will still buy from a high end store just so they dont have to look at the rest of us ... its fine by me, they can pay the hefty price tag and 20% on top of that. In the mean time I'll gladly walk though a field to find my tomatoes.

Its all global ... and we have built condo's where we used to have vineyards in CA and so on ... Anyway, consumption based tax ... that way you dont have to do your Idiotic taxes every year ... Things that are life saving or for purposes that are supposedly tax exempt ... will be listed as tax free ... or tax free with prescription. Say you're a senior citizen. You go to a doctor ... he charges you 30 bucks say ... you'd just pay that 30 bucks cos you're tax exempt ... seniors need medical care, we dont want them dropping dead cos they cant pay the 20% on top of that ... but if you're say a ... ahem socialite and have gone to get your Boobies measured and xrayed ... you'd be hit with the 20% on top of the 30 bucks. The added benefit is ... if someone makes a case where say aspirin has been proved to be good to prevent heart attacks, get a doc to prescribe it and its tax free, and it can even be legislated into effect very simply so all asprin will be tax free.

We just need to get the system to where we get rid of all the layers between consumers and producers. Then those unemployed middle men can do actual work ... like making car parts or repairing houses.

We just got so many layers on top of crap ... try this ... the corpotate bond market's value was 5 trillion. The credit default swap (CDS) market was ... 60 trillion. The CDS was invented to insure the corporate bonds ... that was it. Its called layering ... in other words ... a $1 tomato will be 50 trillion if everyone in the world has to touch it before you can eat it, and guess what, it will be rotten by then because of all the touching.

Cool.
Buddha.

[cafeboy]

Tax based on consumption ... flat tax yea, but consumption based.
Cool.
Buddha.

+1

[jserio]

many of the "super-rich" claim they aren't taxed enough. sure obama says he'll raise taxes, but only to their level BEFORE bush took over.  bush's trickle down theory tax breaks sound great, but they aren't working. the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. there is almost no middle class now.  it makes sense to tax the wealthiest more and the poorest less. the more money you make, they higher your taxes are. this is how it is right now anyways. except that the ultra-rich are given tremendous tax breaks and are just pocketing the extra money. don't agree, look at the profits exxon-mobil is raking in.

on to the 2nd ammendment. how is wanting to regulate the types of weapons availialbe in order to curb crime taking away YOUR right to own a firearm? i read a quote from obama the other day. "nobody needs a firearm that will allow you to shoot 19 consecutive rounds. you don't shoot 19 rounds at a deer. if you do, you shouldn't be hunting"  personally, i don't think we need to ban the weapons, make stricter regulations regarding them. make it harder for criminals to get them. 

[cafeboy]

look at the profits exxon-mobil is raking in.

You need to look at profit margins not "profits" Lots of other companies make a lot bigger profit margin than Exon.

[jserio]

even still, that money from the tax breaks went directly into their pockets. it didn't go for research and development. it didn't go to improve pay for the workers etc.

[quiktaco]

look at the profits exxon-mobil is raking in.

You need to look at profit margins not "profits" Lots of other companies make a lot bigger profit margin than Exon.

+1

on to the 2nd ammendment. how is wanting to regulate the types of weapons availialbe in order to curb crime taking away YOUR right to own a firearm? i read a quote from obama the other day. "nobody needs a firearm that will allow you to shoot 19 consecutive rounds. you don't shoot 19 rounds at a deer. if you do, you shouldn't be hunting"

But one may need something like this to help defend his freedom against a corrupt federal government...which is what the second amendment is really about anyways.

But a person making 20K spends most of that to get by -- rent, food, etc.  They don't have much extra.  A person making 100K has 80K over and above basic needs.

I don't see where you're getting your numbers.  My wife and I make around 80k per year, and we are living paycheck to paycheck.  We live in a crappy place, in a crappy city, and don't live high and mighty.  I'm riding my bike everyday to save on gas, so that we have enough money to buy food and diapers for my daughter.  If I didn't, I don't think we could afford it.
There is no way that we are making 60k over what we need for essentials.  We living in Southern California, so it's a ton more expensive to live here than most other places in the country.

I have worked very hard to be able to make what I do, and even though it's not that much, it is getting us by, but to say that we have a major surplus, that's just stupid.

[quiktaco]

If these big companies did not get tax breaks...like exxon, then they'd have lay offs, and they'd charge more for their product.  That's how business works.  That would affect the consumer, and everyone will be paying more.  If there's tax cuts for large companies, then they employ more people, they charge less for the products, and everyone benefits, with more people working, and cheaper prices.

You don't have tax cuts for the big businesses, then they lay off people, and charge more.  These lay offs increase the amount of unemployment, and welfare that the government has to pay out.  The prices of things go up, and that affects everyone, so intern, other companies that have to pay more for these products, will increase their prices for their products, cause they need to stay above water, and that's when inflation takes over.

[The Buddha]

I think technology is going to make the whole gun control point moot.
You put your dna into the database which will write into a chip in the gun. You pick up the gun and there is a tiny sensor pad that reads your sweat and knows its you and leaves it in the firing position, drop it and it will trigger lock ...
So a Stolen gun is going to be useless, as is a gun that is unregistered. The dna step will be done at registration. Its a gun that is ready and armed and ready to fire, but only in your hand. Criminals have their current guns, but that supply runs out and its the end for those.
Cool.
Buddha.

[quiktaco]

I think technology is going to make the whole gun control point moot.
You put your dna into the database which will write into a chip in the gun. You pick up the gun and there is a tiny sensor pad that reads your sweat and knows its you and leaves it in the firing position, drop it and it will trigger lock ...
So a Stolen gun is going to be useless, as is a gun that is unregistered. The dna step will be done at registration. Its a gun that is ready and armed and ready to fire, but only in your hand. Criminals have their current guns, but that supply runs out and its the end for those.
Cool.
Buddha.

But guns are modified all the time.  It probably wouldn't be too hard to go around this feature.  Guns in essence are extremely simple.  You have a barrel, and a firing pin.  That's pretty much it.  Right now, they're trying to get firing pins to have a code or something on them to have them identify with the rounds that they shoot.  I think that's actually going into effect this coming year.

The thing is, guns in normal people hands are fine.  It's when they get into the hands of criminals that they are bad.  Ban guns, and criminals will still have them.  it doesn't change anything, except give the criminals free range of the place that they're banned because they know they won't get shot.  Look at Washington DC, England, and Australia.  They all banned guns, and crime rate sky rocketed.

Guns don't kill people, People do.