Nevada primaries

[AtomicLabMonkey]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20...g/a2fb8_6jp8y8

Clinton & Romney? Really? WTF is wrong with you people?

If they end up as our two choices in the general election I'll have lost all remaining faith in this country.

[Nick Koan]

Actually, we don't have primaries, we now have caucuses.

And personally, I didn't go because I don't want to waste a whole day holding my dick like an idiot in the corner of some middle school arguing over bullshit. I just want to vote and leave and not waste a whole Saturday crammed past the legal fire limit in a noisy cafeteria where you can't hear or discuss shit anyway.

But yeah, my two least favorite candidates from each party. Go Nevada!

[Dean]

Originally Posted by AtomicLabMonkey

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20...g/a2fb8_6jp8y8

Clinton & Romney? Really? WTF is wrong with you people?

If they end up as our two choices in the general election I'll have lost all remaining faith in this country.

As an equities investor and tax payer, I think Romney is a good choice and Clinton is likely the worst.

Somebody who has successfully run a large business vs. being a lawyer or academic sure appeals to me.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by AtomicLabMonkey

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20...g/a2fb8_6jp8y8

Clinton & Romney? Really? WTF is wrong with you people?

If they end up as our two choices in the general election I'll have lost all remaining faith in this country.

Actually, as far as seats in the primaries, Obama beat Hillary by one even if she had more raw votes. Silly electoral college-esque process!

Right now, as far as the complete field goes, I'm leaning towards Ron Paul and Obama. Too bad Ron Paul has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the GOP nod.

[knucklesplitter]

On the Repugnican side I'd have to pick Ron Paul too. Of course that is like saying, "Out of these various turds I'll take the one with the peanuts in it instead of the one with the corn."

On the Republicrat side Clinton would be my *last* choice, followed by Obama, then Edwards - basically in reverse order of how well they're doing in polls. Kucinich is the only true Democrat running. Any of them will be better than what we have, and I wouldn't vote for any Rethugnican even for Dog Catcher if you held a gun to my head.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by Dean

As an equities investor and tax payer, I think Romney is a good choice and Clinton is likely the worst.

Somebody who has successfully run a large business vs. being a lawyer or academic sure appeals to me.

Do you like greasy used car salesmen? Because that's what both of them are. Shapeshifting, weasel-faced doublespeakers who will say and do absolutely anything to get elected. If you care at all about honesty and transparency in your government, you do not want either of them to be president. It's that simple.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by AtomicLabMonkey

Do you like greasy used car salesmen? Because that's what both of them are. Shapeshifting, weasel-faced doublespeakers who will say and do absolutely anything to get elected. If you care at all about honesty and transparency in your government, you do not want either of them to be president. It's that simple.

Honesty and transparency from a politician??? What planet are you from?

I'm a libertarian at heart and thus believe most anyone who wants to be elected is lying if their lips are moving.

I am voting based on who I think will keep the most money in my pocket and do the least to further F up this great nation.

I have no great expectations that any significant reforms will take place no matter who is elected. I am pretty sure if a democrat is elected and they retain control of congress, my taxes are going up with no benefit to me.

If a republican wins, I am pretty sure the court nominations will continue to move right which scares the crap out of me as I believe strongly in personal freedoms and separation of church and state.

My best hope is for the most liberal Republican president who will veto anything and a 2 very closely balanced but split houses of congress that can't get anything done.

[Nick Koan]

I think you need to change that to "If a Republican or a Democrat gets into office, my taxes are going up with no benefit to me"

Both parties are big government now.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by Nick Koan

I think you need to change that to "If a Republican or a Democrat gets into office, my taxes are going up with no benefit to me"

Both parties are big government now.

Democrats are still much more of a tax and spend party than the republicans. Nobody is going to make the Busch cuts permanent, so yes, they are going up no matter what.

Gridlock between the executive and legislative branch is often the best for the taxpayer.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

Democrats are still much more of a tax and spend party than the republicans. Nobody is going to make the Busch cuts permanent, so yes, they are going up no matter what.

Gridlock between the executive and legislative branch is often the best for the taxpayer.

Sure it is.

Let's keep the status quo! Because $9 Trillion dollars of debt that increases at $500B/year is sooo much better than taking steps to save our country from economic ruin.

You know what's best for the taxpayer? A gov't that spends our money wisely on well designed, efficient programs. i.e. Social Security needs to die, Medicare/Medicade needs to die, defense spending needs to be reduced, and taxes need to be raised.

IMO, we should be able to raise tax revenue w/o touching the middle and lower class income families... all we need to do is close all the loopholes that keep the super-rich from paying their part. Frankly, if you've got $1B in net worth, you can afford to do anything and buy anything, you and several generations of your kids are set for life... and the same is true for someone w/ $2B net worth... that extra $1B makes virtually no difference on the quality of life for the rich bastard that has it, but it would make such a massive difference to the lower 1% if it were spend to help them.

Personally, I'd be willing to pay more taxes if they were being spent wisely and were being used to put our economy back in the green. So really, hoping for deadlock is not "the best for the taxpayer"... having a unified gov't that's willing to buck the status quo and make real and useful changes is what's really best. Will any of the candidates up for election pull this off? Probably not, but at least the democrats are more realistic about the state of the economy.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by Dean

Honesty and transparency from a politician??? What planet are you from?

I'm a libertarian at heart and thus believe most anyone who wants to be elected is lying if their lips are moving.

I am voting based on who I think will keep the most money in my pocket and do the least to further F up this great nation.

You've got to be kidding me.

Yes, a politician is a politician, and to some extent all of them will go around kissing babies, shaking hands and trying to please everyone. That's normal, and it's what the American people have forced them to do to get elected - because if they don't, nobody votes for them. But there are different levels of sliminess, and Romney/Clinton are right at the top.

Obama made some comments this week about how Republicans have led the country & government in terms of new ideas since Reagan took office (which is pretty much true). Not that he thought it was ideal, or that he necessarily agreed with Republicans, he was just giving some analysis. No sooner had the words left his mouth than Clinton was attacking him for being a Reagan-lover - and Clinton made the exact same kind of remarks just a few years ago. Fucking. Shady.

Your requirement of "do the least to further F up this great nation" should also include things like not further expanding the power of the executive branch over the others, not wiretapping American citizens without warrants, & not invading & occupying foreign nations with no real justification (to name just a few), as well as what your current tax percentage is.

[Dean]

I did not attempt to give my whole wish list. There isn't an electable candidate that meets more than about 30% of them, and in many cases at least 30% of what they claim to want/believe is completely contrary to my wishes, so as I said, the best thing is for the executive and legislative branches to be in as much of a stalemate as possible.

I am mildly hoping that Romney is the most likely to run the country like a business rather than a personal agenda machine.

If it has to be a Democrat, Obama will be so busy tilting at establishment windmills hopefully he won't be too much of a danger. Better yet would be if he surrounds himself with smart people outside of the establishment who can help him do some good, but I am not holding my breath.

Austin, you have failed to offer an electable alternative, much less a rational for them. Perhaps you should do so rather than continuing to e-thug us.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by sperry

Personally, I'd be willing to pay more taxes if they were being spent wisely and were being used to put our economy back in the green. So really, hoping for deadlock is not "the best for the taxpayer"... having a unified gov't that's willing to buck the status quo and make real and useful changes is what's really best. Will any of the candidates up for election pull this off? Probably not, but at least the democrats are more realistic about the state of the economy.

Why are you willing to pay more taxes? Why not stop spending billions on farm subsidies and countless other ridiculous and inefficient government programs?

Why do yo believe the democrats have a clue about the economy??? Hillary wants to raise your taxes and spend more money which doesn't help.

Obama might be able to do something positive, and I would like to give him a chance if Romney isn't the Republican choice.

I am all for good minimalistic government that supports all personal freedoms, free markets, capitalism, peace and stays the hell out of the lives of it's citizens and those of the rest of the world while defending this country from all aggressors. I also believe in reality

Show me the way, please...

[Nick Koan]

I think thats the point. A sound financial plan or the country doesn't automatically mean the taxpayer pays less.

If you want to believe LaRouche and all the other doomsayers, it sounds like a drastic plan might be what we need to get back on track. If that's the case, for the good of the country, yes I'd be willing to pay more taxes too. But, this all goes with the assumption that the theory is sound and not just another fleecing.

[ScottyS]

Face it, until we get a MAJOR shakeup in Congress the slide downhill will remain the same. I.E. fire everyone that is tied to politics or the legislative industry.

[100_Percent_Juice]

Your pissing in the wind if you think any of these people can solve the problems of this country. Man has tried every type of government possible including communism, capitalism, anarchy, socialism, aristocracy, dictatorship, democracy, etc. All of which have failed. Sure there have been great advances in science and communication but people still die of hunger even in the country we live in. Everyone is imperfect and until that changes, there will always be problems.

"If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” -Matthew 15:14

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

You're pissing in the wind if you think any of these people can solve the problems of this country. Man has tried every type of government possible including communism, capitalism, anarchy, socialism, aristocracy, dictatorship, democracy, etc. All of which have failed.

So how come other countries can get it right?

[100_Percent_Juice]

What do you mean by "can get it right"?

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

What do you mean by "can get it right"?

Where do I start? How about just the national debt. In 2001 every cent of personal income tax did not cover the interest payment on america's debt. Since then how much extra debt has been added?

[100_Percent_Juice]

Originally Posted by MikeK

Where do I start? How about just the national debt. In 2001 every cent of personal income tax did not cover the interest payment on america's debt. Since then how much extra debt has been added?

I don't understand. I said that every form of government fails at solving mans problems. Then you say that some countries get it right. Then I say "what do you mean". Then you talk about the horrible national debt of this country as if I am debating that.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

I don't understand. I said that every form of government fails at solving mans problems. Then you say that some countries get it right. Then I say "what do you mean". Then you talk about the horrible national debt of this country as if I am debating that.

I think his point was that most countries don't have anywhere near the same scale of national debt as the US has. So, they're "doing it right" with regards to debt management.

Originally Posted by Dean

Why are you willing to pay more taxes? Why not stop spending billions on farm subsidies and countless other ridiculous and inefficient government programs?

Why do yo believe the democrats have a clue about the economy??? Hillary wants to raise your taxes and spend more money which doesn't help.

I said I'd be willing to pay more taxes if they were getting spent on fixing the economy. You might want to bother reading the whole sentence before replying: "I'd be willing to pay more taxes if they were being spent wisely and were being used to put our economy back in the green." i.e. a bump in my taxes that goes directly towards correcting the deficit would be fine if it were part of a well designed plan. I don't know anyone that's for tax increases in order to just throw away money.

And the Democrats are certainly more realistic about the world... they're not the ones in la-la land pretending that we can still win in Iraq, that the economy is strong, and that the environment isn't threatened. At least the democrats aren't touting tax breaks as a means to fix the economy. No matter how much spin you want to put on history, tax breaks and trickle down economics have *never* solved economic crisis. The last time we had a massive economic disaster, it took FDR's new deal, which was basically socialism.

Free market economies are great right up until monopolies start to take over. Then it takes a dash of socialism to set things back on a productive track. Same goes with government... and since the lobbyists and special interest groups have basically taken over both parties, we're basically living under a monopolized government. We need some smart people to come in and clean things up and make some potentially unpopular changes... Is there anyone like that in the race for '08? Probably not... but I'm certain none of the "more of the same" Republicans are going to do it, so I'm leaning Democrat... and since Hillary strikes me as a selfish twunt, and Edwards is a Mr. McSmiley say-anything-to-get-elected doofus, Obama's up front for me. It's a shame Ron Paul is never going to get his party's support, but then again with all his Libertarianism, he'd never be able to get anything done if he were President anyway.

So IMO, Obama + a Democrat Congress is our best hope at getting some changes made to help the country.

[100_Percent_Juice]

This is talked about every election year. The money problems of the US are not new. Here is a good article from 1973...

Record of United States

Since the United States has been ‘leading the inflation procession,’ it is of interest to see what has happened to her spending habits.

In the last forty-three years the United States government’s domestic budget has had a deficit for thirty-six of those years! Yes, 84 percent of the time it spent more than it made.

As a result, the government’s debt reached over 427 billion dollars ($427,000,000,000) in fiscal 1972. That is the highest debt in history, and it is going up all the time. Nobody seriously expects it to be paid back. Why, just the interest payments alone on that debt come to more than twenty-three billion dollars each year now!

That kind of deficit spending over a long period of time had to have a bad result. It did—constant inflation.

Why so Many Deficits?

As we have seen, deficits lead to inflation. And deficits come about when a government spends more than it makes. But why such constant spending by so many governments in our time?

One of the main reasons is WAR. Of all the items in the budgets of most governments, the largest is often military spending. In the United States, military spending costs about seventy-five to eighty billion dollars each year!

But war destroys; it does not build wealth. Even in peacetime, war equipment produces nothing of real value. Instead, it soon becomes obsolete and must be replaced, usually by even more expensive equipment. True, such spending does create jobs. But it also creates huge debts, so no real wealth has been contributed to the nation.

Instead, it is more like a blood-sucking parasite draining away strength that could be far better used for other purposes. For instance, think of the benefits that could result if the seventy-five to eighty billion dollars that the United States spends on its military were devoted to peaceful pursuits. The same could be said of the Soviet Union or any other country. It would create just as many jobs, but think of how many cities could be rebuilt, how many new homes constructed. Think of the improvement that could be made in health care, transportation, parks and recreation areas, in reducing poverty and pollution.

An Example

To understand better what war and huge military expenditures do to an economy, let us imagine two families living next door to each other. Each has a nice home and property, and just enough income to pay their bills.

Now assume that they begin to distrust each other, so that one family buys a gun for protection. The other does the same. This begins a cycle of buying bigger, more costly weapons. But since they cannot afford them, they begin borrowing money.

Finally, they actually “war” against each other, destroying each other’s property. Has that destruction improved their living standard? Hardly.

Then, after that “war,” they have to rebuild. But, still suspicious of each other, they keep up their purchases of ever more costly weapons. In order to do all that, and to live from day to day, they borrow more and more money, falling farther and farther behind in their debt repayments.

Now, then, has the standard of living of these families really improved? Not actually, for no real wealth has been added. In fact, their standard of living is affected adversely when they buy weapons and rebuild “war” damage, since they have to take money away from other purchases. Also, it may appear as though they are improving when they borrow heavily to buy all the things they want. But when the bill collectors eventually demand payment, their real condition will be exposed.

Same with Nations

On a much larger scale, this has happened to the nations of the world in our lifetime. They have bled themselves to support the god of war.

By their constant warfare, they have destroyed vast amounts of property and wealth. Additional vast amounts of wealth have been used to support ever more costly weapons and armies, even in peacetime.

In order to pay for all that, and to pay for other things that they want to do, most nations have spent more money than they made. Hence, inflation. As an observer wrote in the New York Times:

“The root causes of inflation, above all others, are big military spending and failure to pay for it with adequate tax revenues. . . .

“A substantial part of this vast treasure of dollars and supplies is lost to our domestic economy, thus stoking the fires of inflation while denying funds to meet critical human needs at home.”

In addition to governments spending more than they make, in recent times vast numbers of people have done the same. They have gone on a huge “binge” of borrowing money to get what they want. And certainly, for a while, such borrowing and spending will enable them to live better. But there is always a day of reckoning with the bill collector.

Also, this borrowing from lending institutions, such as banks, “creates” more paper money. Owing to the nature of banking, for every dollar in bank deposits, a bank can make loans of many times that amount. And since most money transactions are made in checks rather than in cash, huge amounts of paper money are in this way “created” in checking accounts.

However, all this excess spending adds a flood of paper money chasing the available goods. That, plus excess government spending, puts more fuel on the fires of inflation.

Just how far has this splurge of excess spending proceeded in the United States? The total government and private debt in the country is now over two trillion dollars ($2,000,000,000,000)! That is far more than the yearly income of the entire nation! And this debt is skyrocketing higher each year.

Spending Overseas

But there is more. Another factor makes the situation even more unstable—overseas spending.

On the international scene the United States has consistently spent more money in other countries than it has made. As a result, it has piled up tens of billions of dollars in debts overseas.

Business Week described it in this way: “Too many dollars have been created, and there is a huge, undigested balance hanging over world markets.” Some estimates of this “undigested balance” range as high as 100 billion dollars.

Why has the United States piled up such vast debts overseas? The Economic Education Bulletin of May 1972 answers:

“First, for many years the U.S. government has disbursed [spent] abroad more U.S. currency and credits than It has received from abroad. Through its vast and overly generous foreign aid program and through large military expenditures in other countries, it has placed these claims against it in the hands of foreign governments, central banks, and individuals. . . .

“Second, the United States has indulged in marked and prolonged inflating . . . for more than three decades. This development . . . has resulted in such a marked increase in prices [for U.S. products] that many U.S. processors no longer could compete in world markets.”

Of course, there are times when such overseas spending comes nearly into balance with income. But the overall trend for the United States over the past few decades in its foreign spending has been similar to the trend within its borders. It has consistently spent more money than it has made.

As a result of all this domestic and foreign excess spending, huge debts have piled up, both within the country, and outside it. How are these debts to be paid? One hope was that someday the trend would reverse, that income would constantly become greater than spending. That would gradually reduce the debt. But this has not happened; in fact, the reverse has. Hence, just how were these debts to be paid off?

At one time the answer was—GOLD.

Gold—the Role It Has Played

For thousands of years, when people purchased goods they had to have something of equal value to pay for them. For much of that time they paid for goods by trading other goods.

Later, one commodity was found to be more valuable, more desired than the others—gold. Gold had unique properties. It could be kept indefinitely without deteriorating. It could be made into beautiful jewelry, coins or other items.

Hence, gold eventually became the best “money,” always acceptable. When paper currency came into being, it was often backed by this real money—gold. As long as the paper could be turned in for gold, people trusted the paper money.

The United States was at one time on the ‘gold standard.’ Its people could turn in their paper money any time and get gold. But since the paper money was much easier to do business with, people preferred to use that. They felt confident using it, since it was “as good as gold.”

Then the Great Depression began in 1929. The United States government started to build up huge deficits, spending more than it was making. So, in 1933, the government ruled that its citizens could no longer get gold for their paper currency. Also, all Americans were ordered to surrender gold coins and gold bullion (bars or ingots) in return for paper money. The government thus protected its gold stock from being wiped out by people who were afraid of their paper money and wanted gold.

Yet, the law did require the government to have one dollar in actual gold for every four dollars of paper currency it had in domestic circulation. This acted as a restraint, preventing the government from printing more paper currency than could be backed by 25 percent gold.

Last Restraint Removed

But in 1968 that, too, changed. The government passed a law getting rid of the 25-percent-gold requirement as a backing for its currency. One result of this was noted by the American Institute for Economic Research. It said:

“Removal of the gold reserve requirement for Federal Reserve notes early in 1968 removed the last vestige of restraint on further inflating and severed the remaining link between U.S. currency and gold.

“Since then the exchange value of the dollar has been controlled by the fiat [decrees] of U.S. money managers no longer subject to the discipline of gold.”

With this restraint gone, it was observed that the government “continued to succumb to the continual political pressure for more and more inflating.”

In addition, all the silver was taken out of coins. Hence, the entire money system in the United States was divorced from backing by anything of real value.

What all of this meant was that the government’s currency had to be accepted on trust. But the Economic Education Bulletin noted:

“The present money-credit system of the United States is founded on a broken promise.

“We refer to the promise once found on the Federal Reserve Notes that now have been withdrawn from circulation, the promise to ‘pay to the bearer on demand x dollars,’ a ‘dollar’ being defined by law as one thirty-fifth of an ounce of pure gold.

“A broken promise is not a suitable foundation for a durable money-credit system.”

Where the paper money had once pledged on its face that the United States “will pay to the bearer on demand” the dollar value in real money (gold or silver), now it says: “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” The paper certificate that had for centuries only represented the real money (gold, or even silver) was now declared to be money. But which would people trust in a crisis—a piece of paper, or gold?

Foreigners also Told “NO”

While Americans could no longer get gold for their dollars, foreigners could. Gold was still the required money for payment of debts between governments in their international dealings. That was the arrangement that the Western nations had agreed to long ago.

But with constant inflation in the United States, foreigners became more distrustful of their U.S. dollars. So, many began turning them in for gold. Steadily, gold drained out of the U.S. Treasury. Here is what happened (in billions of dollars, round numbers):

Year U.S. Gold Stock

1950 $22,820,000,000

1960 17,804,000,000

1970 11,072,000,000

By 1971 the gold situation had deteriorated badly. Foreigners then held over fifty-five billion paper dollars, but the United States held gold valued at only about ten billion dollars. And the foreign dollar holders were showing signs of panic, of making a “run” on the little gold left in the U.S. Treasury.

In August of 1971, the United States took drastic action. It closed the ‘gold window,’ suspending gold payments for its debts overseas. The promise it had made to redeem paper dollars for gold in overseas transactions was repudiated. Other nations were shocked.

What did it mean? Some observers pointed out that for all practical purposes it meant that the United States had declared bankruptcy in its international dealings. This is another reason why the world’s money markets have become more unstable in the last few years. It is also why the price of gold on the European “free” markets has jumped from $35 an ounce to over $100 an ounce at one time.

[Nick Koan]

Oh, well if its always been a problem, I guess there is no need to worry about it.

[100_Percent_Juice]

^I didn't know that worry ever made a difference with anything.

[knucklesplitter]

Originally Posted by Dean

I am mildly hoping that Romney is the most likely to run the country like a business rather than a personal agenda machine.

Originally Posted by Wayne & Garth

Yes, and monkeys might fly out your butt.