Taxes, Government waste and other Politics

[masteratt]

Okay so basically lower tax.
So you don't agree the richer should pay a bit more to help the money situation all around?
I certainly don't agree but can live with your belief on that.

About 20 reasons spring to mind on why McCain can't keep the current/ near current tax rate and run the country efficiently (especially with his self admitted low skill on economics) but I'll leave it here.
Thanks for answering properly.

[D3adcell]

Mccain has said to not raise the taxes, but lower them and create more tax payers by creating more jobs.

Obama has said raise the taxes of people and businesses that make over 250,000. That is not the super rich, that is a lot of small businesses, even though he will have you think otherwise. A lot of businesses would cut back on employeess and business so that they do not fall into that higher tax bracket if they are on that border.

Neither have said lets spend less tax dollars.

[masteratt]

In a crumbling economy though you have to start basic, level the playing ground.
The less earning people won't stand a chance at rebuilding now but with Obama's plan, though some things may be sacrified, everyone has a greater chance at being well off. Change doesn't happen easy, nor quick.
Also Obama if I remember correctly is putting more in education, again, an important building point.
This is a long term plan I admit but one I see playing out more fairly in the long run, one that keeps the people and the economy more stable.

I can't speak too expertly obviously as I don't live it but planning and logic wise, Obama's tax plan definitely appeals to my sense of fairness more.

McCain's plan is keeping the wealthy in place thus costing the US Treasury more...Not to mention the cost of the '100 years in Iraq' will have further negative impact.
And as I said whilst talking to Mary, McCain is hugely risking big cuts from most budgets with his plan which can lead to bad things...

[Mary]

Why not cut government spending and waste?

[masteratt]

For his tax plan to be effective, he would have to cut around $600Mil from the spending budget I believe it was said.
We KNOW he will not stop any war so no big cuts there.
In fact I remember early on in the campaign someone asked him to explain his cutting plan and he didn't know how.
Look if he can honestly cut that much from the budget effectively without sacrifice of services, go for it but I just can't believe he can....especially when he comes up with dumb ideas like the one I mentioned above and I never saw him speak confidently about budgeting or economics of any kind, he even admitted this.
But you believe he can do it without sacrificing budgets of key programs and that's where we stop discussing and take different routes.

[D3adcell]

So obama wants to increase government spending and charge the rich more? That doesn't make any sense at all. The rich already pay much more.

You are talking of fairness but is it fair to take over 50% of their earnings because they happen to make more money? No, it's not.

The problem is they spend money on stupid shit. They have all these boards and things, when states should be taking care of things like education. If the national government can help thats great, but most anything the government does is the opposite of help.

Cut spending, is what they should be talking about. Obama's plan isn't sound. Neither has a sound plan. It's not even a band-aid. It's like giving someone a joint when they get shot so they don't feel the pain, it doesn't stop them from bleeding to death, but if they feel good who cares right?

[Mary]

When it comes to Washington spending, $600 million is nothing. Here is an interesting article of ten examples of government waste. Included is $25 billion which is just plain missing. Fix waste, and the government would be a lot more efficient and no tax raises will be needed.

http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg1840.cfm

[masteratt]

In this situation it is fair.
If he doesn't take more from them, economy will crumble further.
This is rebuilding/ resetting so to speak, that's why the low $250,000 mark is set btw, because the economy needs to be rebuilt from a shitty state.
It does sound crazy but America isn't in the best of shapes right now and Obama's plan almost guarantees recovery if people work together to rebuild and at the end, everyone is better off.

Cut spending... OK true it may be a problem but that's more ripping off the band-aid than anything.
Foundation is lacking in the economy right now and that's what Obama's plan aims to strengthen.

[masteratt]

Cutting spendings to keep taxes the same, not to mention new programs may not be introduced to keep taxes the same..... How is this going to improve anything?

Are you thinking along the lines of "as long as I am paying low taxes, i don't give a damn about the country".
Sorry if I misunderstood but that's what it striked me as.
And if that is your thinking, fine I guess.

EDIT: OK I'm off now so you know a reply won't come...kudos for the thought provoking discussion and maybe we'll pick this up later.

[D3adcell]

In this situation it is fair.
If he doesn't take more from them, economy will crumble further.
This is rebuilding/ resetting so to speak, that's why the low $250,000 mark is set btw, because the economy needs to be rebuilt from a shitty state.
It does sound crazy but America isn't in the best of shapes right now and Obama's plan almost guarantees recovery if people work together to rebuild and at the end, everyone is better off.

Cut spending... OK true it may be a problem but that's more ripping off the band-aid than anything.
Foundation is lacking in the economy right now and that's what Obama's plan aims to strengthen.

hahahaha, what? The economy isn't in a shitty state, the only shitty thing is that some bankers were dumb and lent money to people they knew could not pay it back, now they are going under. It will not help anything. They are just going to make things much worse by increasing taxes and creating more government programs. They take away freedoms is all they do.

[Travis]

Mccain has said to not raise the taxes, but lower them and create more tax payers by creating more jobs.

Well that's just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. How much more money does he expect to get? Unemployment is at around 6.1% last time I checked, and 5.5% is considered "full employment." 0.6% of the work force (the work force being about half of the population) is not going to bring in enough money to make up for McCain lowering taxes.

And Obama isn't really raising taxes, he's repealing the Bush tax cuts on the rich and leaving them in place on everyone who makes over $250000. Those Bush tax cuts were so inane and retarded. Cutting taxes during war time is idiotic at best.

And I hate having these tax discussions because McCain supporters just go "omg cut waste! Cut waste and blah blah blah!" Like Obama doesn't want to get rid of government waste? Of course he does. Everyone does. We just need a leader that can do it, and McCain is not that leader. Hell, McCain wants to cut $1 trillion from medicare spending last time I heard. Medicare is not "waste."

[XboxEvolved]

Actually yeah the economy is really shitty right now. I just got laid off of my job guess why? It had nothing to do with a fucking bank either. They said they will call me back once things pick up and I repeat this has never, NEVER happened at this job. They have cut jobs down due to moving mechanical production elsewhere, but they have always had plenty of jobs.

This is just a small part. You are fucking high if you don't think the economy is shitting out right now.

[Mary]

And I hate having these tax discussions because McCain supporters just go "omg cut waste! Cut waste and blah blah blah!" Like Obama doesn't want to get rid of government waste? Of course he does. Everyone does. We just need a leader that can do it, and McCain is not that leader. Hell, McCain wants to cut $1 trillion from medicare spending last time I heard. Medicare is not "waste."

http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg1840.cfm

5. Medicare Overspending

Medicare wastes more money than any other federal program, yet its strong public support leaves lawmakers hesitant to address program effi*ciencies, which cost taxpayers and Medicare recip*ients billions of dollars annually.

For example, Medicare pays as much as eight times what other federal agencies pay for the same drugs and medical supplies.[6] The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently com*pared the prices paid by Medicare and the Depart*ment of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care program for 16 types of medical equipment and supplies, which account for one-quarter of Medicare’s equip*ment and supplies purchases. The evidence showed that Medicare paid an average of more than double what the VA paid for the same items. The largest difference was for saline solution, with Medicare paying $8.26 per liter compared to the $1.02 paid by the VA.[7] (See Table 1.)

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/upload/bg1840_table1.gif

These higher prices not only cost the program more money, but also take more money out of the pockets of Medicare beneficiaries. In 2002, senior citizens’ co-payments accounted for 20 percent of the $9.4 billion in allowed claims for medical equipment and supplies.[8] Higher prices mean higher co-payments.

Medicare also overpays for drugs. In 2000, Medicare’s payments for 24 leading drugs were $1.9 billion higher than they would have been under the prices paid by the VA or other federal agencies. Although Medicare is supposed to pay wholesale prices for drugs, it relies on drug manu*facturers to define the prices, and manufacturers have strong incentives to inflate their prices.[9]

Nor are inflated prices for drugs and supplies the most expensive examples of Medicare’s inefficien*cies. Basic payment errors—the results of deliber*ate fraud and administrative errors—cost $12.3 billion annually. As much as $7 billion owed to the program has gone uncollected or has been written off.[10] Finally, while Medicare contracts claims pro*cessing and administration to several private com*panies, 19 cases of contractor fraud have been settled in recent years, with a maximum settlement of $76 million.[11]

Putting it all together, Medicare reform could save taxpayers and program beneficiaries $20 bil*lion to $30 billion annually without reducing ben*efits. That would be enough to fund a $3,000 refundable health care tax credit for nearly 10 mil*lion uninsured low-income households.





Actually Medicare is wasteful.

[Travis]

I'd like to see if Veteran's Affairs gets a discount because it's... Veteran's Affairs. But I doubt a conservative think tank like Heritage would give that data.

It also says that it's more on the drug companies and contractors than it is on Medicare itself.

[Mary]

http://oig.hhs.gov/testimony/docs/2002/020611fin.pdf
Is this better? (scroll down and you can see the same study done with more sources)

And I don't agree it's more on the drug companies and contractors, I think fault lies with the fact that drug companies are allowed to name the price they're selling items at because the government doesn't currently watch over and verify they are giving the government a "fair" price. And doctors and suppliers get to keep the price difference between the amount they really pay for drugs and how much the drug ocmpanies advertise the drug for. This encourages doctors and suppliers to buy from the company with the highest advertised price instead of the lowest making them money and losing the government money. It's not currently illegal, just immoral. The government needs to keep a closer watch on the practices of the drug companies and doctors.

http://www.oig.hhs.gov/testimony/docs/2003/070903fin.pdf (another good source backing up my point that medicare is wasteful)

[masonite]

A big problem with america's medicare is the U.S's addiction to new technologies - even where they aren't needed, or even aren't in the best interest of the patient. There was an article in new scientist detailing the problems - the U.S has one of the highest per-capita spending on medicare, but its also one of the most ineffective.
Something as simple as proper diagnosis and proven methods over experimental "cure-alls" can alleviate the inefficiencies of the system.

[masteratt]

Ok so we are off the tax subject and neither side is conviced of the others' idea although I'm surprised the read apparently the economy is fine, however not surprised of the "cut taxes via cutting spending" angle.
As MC said, is Obama NOT going to axe the waste, he is just going to spread the money instead of just giving everyone tax cuts...McCain is making it sound like all he can do with the budget is cut waste and as I said in my last post, it's too basic of an idea to help anything except you paying low taxes...Whilst your country stays in it's shitty state.
And as I also said in my last post, it makes you sound like you care more about paying low taxes than you do about your country.
and OFCOURSE the shit goes both ways jeeeez, they were haters in every election but McCain is the only one campaigning to their hatred, and stop denying this, it's obvious and even a lot of Republicans are saying it.

[Viper]

Both candidates are perpetuating a economic system that is yi luan tou shi. Fitting to use a Chinese adage to sum up the circumstances.

You do not solve the issues we face with the band aid tactics that both candidates plan to do. The dilution of monetary value and unconstitutional taxation of income to support the interest rate charged for that dilution are paramount.

Bickering over Medicaid spending won't mean jack when your dollar is worth less than the paper it was printed on.

[Mary]

Ok so we are off the tax subject and neither side is conviced of the others' idea although I'm surprised the read apparently the economy is fine, however not surprised of the "cut taxes via cutting spending" angle.
As MC said, is Obama NOT going to axe the waste, he is just going to spread the money instead of just giving everyone tax cuts...McCain is making it sound like all he can do with the budget is cut waste and as I said in my last post, it's too basic of an idea to help anything except you paying low taxes...Whilst your country stays in it's shitty state.
And as I also said in my last post, it makes you sound like you care more about paying low taxes than you do about your country.
and OFCOURSE the shit goes both ways jeeeez, they were haters in every election but McCain is the only one campaigning to their hatred, and stop denying this, it's obvious and even a lot of Republicans are saying it.

Whoops, forgot to reply to you. I'll get to it tonight hopefully.

[masteratt]

@Viper
Instead of giving vague statements, can you explain what you just said?

[Viper]

@Viper
Instead of giving vague statements, can you explain what you just said?

Our money comes from the Federal Reserve bank. A private bank that governs our money, prints it and loans money to our government with interest. Our government owes that money back to the bank plus the accrued interest (just like if a person took out a common bank loan).

To pay that interest, the government charges us an income tax (The Federal Income Tax) but because that will never cover the Interest + the Principle (amount government borrowed), it does two things, borrows more from the Federal Reserve (who prints it with no value backing it up) and borrows from foreign governments ($20 billion per day from China). That money goes straight into the Federal Reserve bank and its board members pockets.

The dilution, or inflation, comes about because we expand the volume of money in circulation the value of each individual bill goes down...just like baseball cards and other collectible items work.

Right now a single dollar has about 0.04 cents in real value. As we pump more and more money into the economy, the value goes less and less and prices go up and up to compensate.

The recent bailouts and Federal Reserve provisions have released over $1.8 trillion dollars into the economy in just the past month. Now what do you think that did to the value of the dollar? Worse still is that both candidates support the bailout and the Federal Reserve bank.

We currently owe the Federal Reserve bank over $10 trillion dollars in interest alone. It's known as the National Debt. If we add in promised money such as Medicaid, the total is over $53 trillion.

John McCain and Barrack Obama want us to pay $53 trillion dollars to a private bank.

The Chinese phrase basically translated is "throwing eggs against rocks" which is a figure of speech for doing something bound to fail.

[masteratt]

Alright that's the problem, we know (though you clarified a few things, so thanks).

Don't you agree though the plan Obama proposes makes sure every working man rebuilds himself and sustain on his own better, thus collectively, America is more stable?
The bailout plan, the Federal Bank problems etc can be handled better once America, on a more fundemental level is rebuilt, which I think Obama's plan will help do.

In other words, Obama is saying "woah hang out, let's go back to fundementals and fix those", as I said, it's almost a "reset plan".
I agree he is not going to help much in short term but in long term the economy will be more stable, thus less problems with the loans and debts and so on.

This also reinforces the "working man" idealism of America.
As everyone pretty much starts out the same (taxing income of $250,000 more and spreading the money helps this) and the working man gets to the top.
People say "he is punishing" well paid citizens, in his words "Too many Americans have been making easy money" thus the value going down.

So I think this shows he not only has a plan to stable the economy, he is also rebuilding the idealism to America's best.

[curryking1]

I've really skimmed the discussion going on here but I think I agree with masteratt. Maybe not because he convinced me... but that's the idea I have I think.

I always liked the saying 'If it ain't broke don't fix it.' But clearly something in America is broken and those broken parts threaten the quality of life and security of the working class American.

People say "he is punishing" well paid citizens, in his words "Too many Americans have been making easy money" thus the value going down.

I'd say there is a problem with the distribution of cash as well. I know a lot of relatives who recently got married and have great jobs (P eng., M.D.s, D.D.S. and such) who moved to America so they could keep more money. Middle-aged adults or younger from the 1970s generations. They moved their for easy money, but is the easy money worth the loss of security and twitch action from the US government?

P.S. Even in cases like Katrina and hurricanes which hit the US almost biannually now...

When American's say higher taxes are unconstitutional... well the constitution was made hundreds of years ago. And it certainly didn't consider the expenses of having the largest army and navy in the world, or having global banks or global economies, or protecting whole 5 million + populated cities from natural wrecking. It didn't even consider black people but luckily you wouldn't know it from the writing.

Does anyone really believe private companies in a competitive market would ever be able to afford saving an entire city from devastation without a serious decline in the quality of their services? What if America's armies were private? Who would save New Orleans and for how much and how long through what kind of cooperation? New Orleans is still in a state of garbage and it seems America isn't aware of that.

The constitution is a dead document. Just because it exists doesn't mean it should limit America from looking for alternatives. There are important aspects of the constitution of course but saying alone 'It's unconstitutional!' seems more like a prehistoric battle cry than a sound argument.

[Viper]

Masteratt, it's not going to get more stable, that's the problem. We are on the verge of a total and complete monetary collapse. Like I said, all his plans won't matter when the dollar itself is virtually worthless.

Other problems include the fact he approved of the bailout to begin with. Quit possibly one of the worst bills in decades.

Neither one of them has addresses the real issues....not one single time. Each band aid bill only makes it worse and twice as hard to recover from.

In fact, the very manner our current economy is established upon is perpetual debt generation. The solutions our government (and both candidates support) use is the use of more debt to float the economy on a temporary basis until more debt is needed to start the cycle over again.

Ever hear the term, "The fed has lowered interest rates again"? All that means is the Federal Reserve has lowered the interest rate it charges the government to borrow money which in turn our government borrows more money overall. Sure, it's at a lower interest rate but the principle amount is now higher and coupled with the long term debt is something that will never be recovered from. And they both accept this and have 0 intent to change it.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker is a heavy campaign contributor and has provided a major endorsement for Obama. Obama is also a member of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) which requires the Federal Reserve stay in power.

Guess who Obama's Secretary of the Treasury is expected to be? New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner. Don't expect Obama to ever address the removal of the Federal Reserve (which by the way would relinquish the need for the Federal Income Tax altogether).

However, I do believe him to be better than McCain. But as I said, they both are bad for America overall.

[masteratt]

So what exactly are you saying Viper?
I understand you are good at pointing out the problem but no solution.
"they both suck", well yeah in a situation like this, everyone's idea seems to suck.

What exactly is the 'real solution' in your mind?
Get rid of Federal Reserve? Is that even possible after you've been tied so heavily to it?
I'm really interested now to know if rebuilding the foundation of the economic system in America (which you say can't be done with a worthless dollar, I say dollar will go up once Obama's plan starts to kick in) isn't the solution, what is?

Which stance do you support?
And another curious point- you are saying both are throwing 'eggs against rocks', are 'bad for America' so why do you say Obama is better?

I ackowledge the problems within Obama's plans, but I think his have many more solutions than problems, and his solutions are ones that I agree with and want to happen to see.
However,the way you are speaking, it sounds like there is a plan out there that has NO problems, so please, let's hear your stance on the issue.

[Viper]

I've alluded to the solution by pointing out the heart of the problems.

1. We need to remove repeal the 17th amendment which is what enabled the Federal Reserve to come into power and establish and IRS to tax our income. All were highly unconstitutional prior to that amendment which also is contested over the validity of its ruling back in 1911.

This will bring our money supply and administration back into control of Congress where it will have oversight committees and regulations and public disclosure, etc... Because the Federal Reserve is private, there is no congressional oversight, no public disclosure, they can print money and put into circulation without the government or our consent. They effectively could destroy the US in one day if they wanted to with no legal ramifications.

This would also lead to a return of the gold standard as well as other precious standards by which to give the dollar real value. Sadly our government sold most of our gold reserves to ...yep, the Federal Reserve to help pay the debt. But enough remains, as well as other commodities, that could be used to generate real value, not today's presumed value, in the dollar.

2. Foreign spending and borrowing must be greatly reduced. Why the hell are we building bases over seas but closing them here at home? It's time to go back to being the United States of America instead of the Empire of America.

3. Part of number 2 but needs its own entry. Get the hell out of the UN. As a UN member we are held in check on many issues by our own enemies. It also entangles us in foreign matters we have no business being in.

4. A return to classic conservative fiscal and government policy. Remove the Departments of Energy, Homeland Security, Education, etc... These should, as delegated by the Constitution, be a state rights issues, not federal.


These are the keys to fixing America. Every...literally everything else I've heard from McCain or Obama are band aids that will only prolong the problems and/or make them worse. If you want details on each, ask about something specific.


Now, there are some matters that each is working towards that are good but are irrelevant because they aren't focusing on fixing the bigger issues anyway. This is why I saw Obama is better than McCain.

[masteratt]

1) I don't think at this point anyone can do anything about that?
Aren't they simply the gods of America now?
I'm with you definitely, but I'm also thinking "work around it, bceause through times, with the fault of no recent candidate, they were made immortal almost".
You may say "yes but they are feeding thsi monster" and I kind of can't help but to think, they can't do anything without the monster in the first place, as you said, they can make or destroy America.

2) Obama is definitely on this case, he is for keeping the American jobs and becoming independent of foreign debt and I think we can believe him on this as his plan heavily relies on working Americans making money in America.

3) I am for UN so I will have to disagree with this.
Maybe if I was an American, UN would be a bad thing, but from where I'm sitting, UN is all good with me.

4) Same thing along the lines of 1.

So I guess Ron Paul has a plan to fix these key issues straight on?
If you point me to a plan on how he plans to tackle these and I'm convinced, I will in an instant become a Ron Paul supporter.

[jaxmkii]

When it comes to Washington spending, $600 million is nothing. Here is an interesting article of ten examples of government waste. Included is $25 billion which is just plain missing. Fix waste, and the government would be a lot more efficient and no tax raises will be needed.

http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg1840.cfm
funny how there so worked up about the IRS giving TO MUCH to the poor but NOWARE in that article do they mention the insane amount of equipment military surplus.

[Mary]

funny how there so worked up about the IRS giving TO MUCH to the poor but NOWARE in that article do they mention the insane amount of equipment military surplus.

Nowhere in the article does it imply the government gives too much to the poor either. It just simply gives an overview of ways the government is getting ripped of, getting stolen from, or simply just spending money where they don't need to be. Though perhaps I missed something. Feel free to show me where if I did.

[jaxmkii]

posting from PSP... can't copy/paste

im talking about #9

[Mary]

Ok so we are off the tax subject and neither side is conviced of the others' idea although I'm surprised the read apparently the economy is fine, however not surprised of the "cut taxes via cutting spending" angle.
Nor will I be convinced that what the country needs right now is higher taxes.

As MC said, is Obama NOT going to axe the waste, he is just going to spread the money instead of just giving everyone tax cuts...McCain is making it sound like all he can do with the budget is cut waste and as I said in my last post, it's too basic of an idea to help anything except you paying low taxes...Whilst your country stays in it's shitty state.
Actually Obama isn't making an issue about need for spending cuts. He wants to audit some weapons programs and maybe reduce government travel expenses, but overall he mostly just talks about creating new programs. And I'm morally opposed to redistribution of wealth. Taking money from one person and giving it to another who may or may not have done anything to deserve it just seems wrong to me. I know you obviously don't agree, but that's one more area we just won't agree on. And I disagree that spending cuts are too basic to fix the economy. I honestly think if we can get the dollar value under control, the economy will bounce back. The economy goes in cycles,we're in a slump right now but give it time and I think it will bounce back.

And as I also said in my last post, it makes you sound like you care more about paying low taxes than you do about your country.
and OFCOURSE the shit goes both ways jeeeez, they were haters in every election but McCain is the only one campaigning to their hatred, and stop denying this, it's obvious and even a lot of Republicans are saying it.
Paying lower taxes isn't going to hurt the country. I love my country and really do honestly think lower taxes for everyone will help, not hurt it. And I know shit goes both way but I disagree that only McCain is campaigning hatred. Obama is just treated like a golden child by the media so you don't hear about his inappropriate comments as much. I'll keep denying it because it's not obvious and honestly, not that many republicans are switching over to Obama. Many are voting 3rd party or writing in candidates. They dislike Obama just as much as McCain.

[masteratt]

Yes economy goes in cycles of good to shitty due to it having an unstable foundation, America relies on loans too much due to this bad foundation.

And to clarify, you are OK to keep this cycle?
If you are then yeah there is not much we can say to each other.
Just FYI though, Obama's plan if executed correctly, will leave America stronger than ever, standing on it's OWN two feet (economically).

[Mary]

First off you have no proof Obama's plan will magically make the US economy perfect, just theories.

Second, we have no choice but to keep this cycle. An economy can't infinitely improve.

[masteratt]

OF COURSE I have no proof, how can I have proof of something working when that something was never tried.

And you have no proof McCain can do what he says, however, I have proof that he can't:

rJPLB6By5SI

It's the same old stuff man, same old stuff.

[Mary]

The reason I said you have to proof is you seem to keep stating that Obama will fix the economy like it's a fact. It's a hope. No one knows what will be better for the economy, it's all about following the person you [I]think[I] will be the best for the economy then you wait and see what happends.

And that video isn't proof of anything except that everyone has different opinions.

[masteratt]

Please, how are facts given in that vid are opinion?

I admit Obama's plan isn't guaranteed to succeed but I think it's a very good one and in that vid you have PROOF via FACTS that McCain's same old plan is 99% sure to fail.

[Mary]

The video is simply saying that because the economy wasn't perfect under past republican presidents it automatically means it won't be good under future republican presidents. Do I need to explain why this reasoning is bad?

[masteratt]

No the video is saying:
Same circumstances (worse actually), same excuses, same plan.
And somehow it's going to improve things?

Okay Mary I call cease fire after you reply to this, we can go back and forth for days on this..lol
Let's stop it somewhere...

[Hisham]

Now I'm not gonna say this is good proof, but it is some evidence that the "fiscal consevative" policy isn't that great.

http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/greenberg/qqxsgFiscalConservative.jpg

That being said, tax and spend liberals might be the lesser of two evils, but the system itself is fundementally flawled so all this is really just delaying the invietable which will probably be another depression or a severe recession.

In the end, unemployment is gonna go up and people are gonna lose jobs and shit. And that isn't good for anybody.

[Travis]

Cenk Uygur is incredible. Funny, smart, great showmanship. I can't wait until someone gives him a TV show. He's fucking fantastic. TYT is/are awesome.

[Mary]

I'll agree to your cease fire ;) I know we'll never agree though I totally respect your right to a different opinion. And when all is said and done, I get to vote and you don't. :p.

[masteratt]

@Hisham:
Yep that cartoon is saying what the video was saying more clearly.

And in reply to ur last bit: Unless Obama's "reset" plan works which has a good chance of doing.

[Travis]

I wish masteratt could vote in America :'(

[masteratt]

I'll agree to your cease fire ;) I know we'll never agree though I totally respect your right to a different opinion. And when all is said and done, I get to vote and you don't. :p.

hahaha... Too true my friend .
But what is it now? Obama got a 10 point lead and rising? ;)

My support is not to just endorse Obama though, as he basically won it already.....But my support comes through the passion I have on what Obama stands for and how intelligently he tackles each issue.

McCain didn't even bother coming up with any new plans about anything.

[TheGreenElf]

So obama wants to increase government spending and charge the rich more? That doesn't make any sense at all. The rich already pay much more.

You are talking of fairness but is it fair to take over 50% of their earnings because they happen to make more money? No, it's not.

The problem is they spend money on stupid shit. They have all these boards and things, when states should be taking care of things like education. If the national government can help thats great, but most anything the government does is the opposite of help.

Cut spending, is what they should be talking about. Obama's plan isn't sound. Neither has a sound plan. It's not even a band-aid. It's like giving someone a joint when they get shot so they don't feel the pain, it doesn't stop them from bleeding to death, but if they feel good who cares right?

He's said multiple time we need to cut frivolous spending.

[masonite]

I've alluded to the solution by pointing out the heart of the problems.

1. We need to remove repeal the 17th amendment which is what enabled the Federal Reserve to come into power and establish and IRS to tax our income. All were highly unconstitutional prior to that amendment which also is contested over the validity of its ruling back in 1911.

This will bring our money supply and administration back into control of Congress where it will have oversight committees and regulations and public disclosure, etc... Because the Federal Reserve is private, there is no congressional oversight, no public disclosure, they can print money and put into circulation without the government or our consent. They effectively could destroy the US in one day if they wanted to with no legal ramifications.

This would also lead to a return of the gold standard as well as other precious standards by which to give the dollar real value. Sadly our government sold most of our gold reserves to ...yep, the Federal Reserve to help pay the debt. But enough remains, as well as other commodities, that could be used to generate real value, not today's presumed value, in the dollar.

2. Foreign spending and borrowing must be greatly reduced. Why the hell are we building bases over seas but closing them here at home? It's time to go back to being the United States of America instead of the Empire of America.

3. Part of number 2 but needs its own entry. Get the hell out of the UN. As a UN member we are held in check on many issues by our own enemies. It also entangles us in foreign matters we have no business being in.

4. A return to classic conservative fiscal and government policy. Remove the Departments of Energy, Homeland Security, Education, etc... These should, as delegated by the Constitution, be a state rights issues, not federal.


These are the keys to fixing America. Every...literally everything else I've heard from McCain or Obama are band aids that will only prolong the problems and/or make them worse. If you want details on each, ask about something specific.


Now, there are some matters that each is working towards that are good but are irrelevant because they aren't focusing on fixing the bigger issues anyway. This is why I saw Obama is better than McCain.

1. Putting money in the hands of congress doesn't guarantee they'll do a better job, and certainly doesn't guarantee transparency. Hell, over the last eight years we've seen transparency in the government decrease, despite their supposed "oversight comittees, regulations and public disclosure". I mean, why would the government want the people to see all the mistakes they're making that are messing up the economy? with no federal reserve to take the blame, i very much doubt there'd be transparency.

2. I agree with that. Starting wars where they're not needed whilst ignoring humanitarian problems which could have business ramifications is also something i'd say needs to stop.

3. The population of the US is already fairly isolated, you want them to be completely politically isolated as well? Pulling out of the UN would pretty much destroy every last shred of credibility the international community sees in the US - Countries much smaller than the US are making contributions that would put the US to shame. It also stops the US from many restrictions that the UN imposes on members in terms of human rights, etc - the US would, in the eyes of the international community, be no different than Iran or Libya in terms of international standing. Combined with a lack of transparency seen in the US government over the last few years, this action would sever some extremely powerful ties with other countries, to the US's detriment.

I agree that the US should become less involved in issues that it has no business being it - but incidences of human rights abuses are the business of every developed country. Shirking that responsibility under the guise of "the international community didn't like it when we invaded Iraq, so we won't help them again" is a facetious and childish response to a problem that requires mature thinking.

Leaving the UN is probably one of the most damaging things any administration could do.

4. I'm undecided on this, I can't really see what changes removing those bodies would do - are the states completely unable to make any decisions whatsoever on the issues of energy production/usage, or education? (although i agree with the removal of "homeland security", which as far as i can tell is purely for propaganda purposes).

[Viper]

1. Putting money in the hands of congress doesn't guarantee they'll do a better job, and certainly doesn't guarantee transparency. Hell, over the last eight years we've seen transparency in the government decrease, despite their supposed "oversight comittees, regulations and public disclosure". I mean, why would the government want the people to see all the mistakes they're making that are messing up the economy? with no federal reserve to take the blame, i very much doubt there'd be transparency.

2. I agree with that. Starting wars where they're not needed whilst ignoring humanitarian problems which could have business ramifications is also something i'd say needs to stop.

3. The population of the US is already fairly isolated, you want them to be completely politically isolated as well? Pulling out of the UN would pretty much destroy every last shred of credibility the international community sees in the US - Countries much smaller than the US are making contributions that would put the US to shame. It also stops the US from many restrictions that the UN imposes on members in terms of human rights, etc - the US would, in the eyes of the international community, be no different than Iran or Libya in terms of international standing. Combined with a lack of transparency seen in the US government over the last few years, this action would sever some extremely powerful ties with other countries, to the US's detriment.

I agree that the US should become less involved in issues that it has no business being it - but incidences of human rights abuses are the business of every developed country. Shirking that responsibility under the guise of "the international community didn't like it when we invaded Iraq, so we won't help them again" is a facetious and childish response to a problem that requires mature thinking.

Leaving the UN is probably one of the most damaging things any administration could do.

4. I'm undecided on this, I can't really see what changes removing those bodies would do - are the states completely unable to make any decisions whatsoever on the issues of energy production/usage, or education? (although i agree with the removal of "homeland security", which as far as i can tell is purely for propaganda purposes).

1. Masonite, do you truly understand what the Federal Reserve has done to our dollar? Do you realize it was worth more in 1910 than it is today because of the monetary policies established by the Federal Reserve? Going back to Congressional control would completely stop the inflation and immediately revert its value. Our single dollar bills should be worth the purchasing power of $74 dollars today. It would be that right now if we never enabled the Fed or removed the gold standard.

While I'm sure Congress would want to hide any of their screw ups, they won't be able to hide much going back to the Constitutionally designed methods. We seriously have more public oversight of the CIA and NSA than we do of the Federal Reserve.

It also removes our national debt, our income tax, the reliance on private bank to regulate our money supply, inflation, price fixing, market capitalism, etc... Go read up on some of our founding fathers thoughts on a central bank. What they said hits harder than any prediction Nostradamus ever published. They warned us and we're exactly where they said we would be if we let it happen.

3. Leaving the UN doesn't have anything to do with us no longer being a civil rights supporter. The UN itself has become a bloated, fat cat bureaucracy that fails, epically, to do it's intended charge. Our own laws meet or exceed the standards set forth by the UN anyway.

You're also confusing isolationism with non-interventionism. We can still help other nations, provide support, relief, etc... leaving the UN doesn't mean becoming an isolationist state.

Finally, it wouldn't sever any ties with foreign nations. It's like the UN is our only channel through diplomacy, trade, commerce, support, etc.... Have you forgotten about NATO?

4. To a large degree, yes, states have lost a lot of their power to change anything because the unnecessary federal departments have basically taken over and haven't done a very job either. It's also redundant because the states are already equipped to handle the jobs as they are and have in the past prior to the federal establishments of those departments.

Another aspect is simply that under our Constitution, the government is not supposed to be in our local affairs...period. That is a local or personal issue, not the governments place to stick it's tax hungry nose in there. It also interferes with the free market capitalism our nation is built on.

I'm not saying everything the departments do is wrong but they should be knocked to down office level instead of full blown departments. Half the established departments would be more efficient if they merged with other departments (which many were at one time) or dropped to office level status....or were outright removed. Over half of our cabinet departments were established within the past 60 years. 4 since the late 70's alone.