Fuck this. If they're going to pass laws stating that they can lock you up indefinitely without due process for protesting I know how I'm going out:
That guy is ripped too! I bet he could take down at least 7 of those guys at the same time. I mean, look at fatty back there to the left.
Man, time to hit the gym and protest!
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged six former top executives of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) with securities fraud, alleging they knew and approved of misleading statements claiming the companies had minimal holdings of higher-risk mortgage loans, including subprime loans.
There is no point in taxing corporations simply because they will just pass the extra cost on to the consumers. Corporations may pay taxes (sometimes), but they get that tax money from us, the consumers. Raise their taxes and they'll just raise their prices or lower wages for employees. Corporations are externalizing machines. They will externalize any cost or liability they can to someone else and reap the profits for themselves.
Conversely, if you lower or remove the taxes, they'll just keep prices where they're at and rake in the extra profit. It's a no-win scenario for us.
If anyone is interested, this debate on economics took place in UCLA a couple of days ago. I enjoyed it, as I'm a bit of an economics nerd:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRFiee1YMZ0"]UCLA Econ Debate - YouTube[/ame]
There is no point in taxing corporations simply because they will just pass the extra cost on to the consumers. Corporations may pay taxes (sometimes), but they get that tax money from us, the consumers. Raise their taxes and they'll just raise their prices or lower wages for employees. Corporations are externalizing machines. They will externalize any cost or liability they can to someone else and reap the profits for themselves.
Conversely, if you lower or remove the taxes, they'll just keep prices where they're at and rake in the extra profit. It's a no-win scenario for us.
Not sure I agree. When the big credit card companies tried to apply fees, the public reacted and they were forced to pull back. Yeah, they find other ways as they always do.
I disagree, greevar. If they raise prices, won't we just be less likely to buy their shit?
People need to separate "needs" and "wants." If the prices on "wants" increase, no biggie. If the price on "needs" (food & shelter primarily) goes up, that's when there's a big problem.
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged six former top executives of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) with securities fraud, alleging they knew and approved of misleading statements claiming the companies had minimal holdings of higher-risk mortgage loans, including subprime loans.
I disagree, greevar. If they raise prices, won't we just be less likely to buy their shit?
People need to separate "needs" and "wants." If the prices on "wants" increase, no biggie. If the price on "needs" (food & shelter primarily) goes up, that's when there's a big problem.
Can you stop buying their shit if they all of them raise their prices due to higher taxes? You can't avoid it if everyone is doing it. We're not just talking about luxury goods here, but basic necessities too. Food production is dominated by corporations. Raise corporate taxes and I promise you the price of food will go up everywhere.
Bottom line: Raise their taxes and they will externalize that cost elsewhere to maintain or increase profit; externalizing either to other businesses, the government (through service contracts), or the consumer.
Let me just say, I'm no fan of giving corporations tax cuts, but their behavior makes the whole effort moot.
so in london being part of the occupy movement puts you on the terrorist list, dont really need to make a bill to do that, all they have to do is say hey these people are terrorists, then all bills relating to terrorist now apply to them. http://uncensored.co.nz/2011/12/06/police-put-occupy-movement-on-terror-list/
Can you stop buying their shit if they all of them raise their prices due to higher taxes? You can't avoid it if everyone is doing it. We're not just talking about luxury goods here, but basic necessities too. Food production is dominated by corporations. Raise corporate taxes and I promise you the price of food will go up everywhere.
You can't just pass on the tax to consumers unless you:
A) Are in a market with inelastic demand.
or Conspire with competitors to fix prices.
Food is a market that is mostly highly elastic. It might seem like an inelastic market when you look at it as an abstract thing like "food" since everybody needs food to live, but when you break it down into individual products like juices, grains, meats you find that products are largely all replaceable, competition is high which means the producer bears most of the burden of a tax. It really doesn't matter that everyones taxes go up because they're all competing against eachother so you can't raise the price of your product unless all of your competitors have done the same and agreed not to lower it (price fixing)
If you said corporations passed on taxes to employees in the form of lower wages you'd have a better point.
You can't just pass on the tax to consumers unless you:
A) Are in a market with inelastic demand.
or Conspire with competitors to fix prices.
Food is a market that is mostly highly elastic. It might seem like an inelastic market when you look at it as an abstract thing like "food" since everybody needs food to live, but when you break it down into individual products like juices, grains, meats you find that products are largely all replaceable, competition is high which means the producer bears most of the burden of a tax. It really doesn't matter that everyones taxes go up because they're all competing against eachother so you can't raise the price of your product unless all of your competitors have done the same and agreed not to lower it (price fixing)
If you said corporations passed on taxes to employees in the form of lower wages you'd have a better point.
I hate to break it to you, but only 4 corporations control about 75% of the food in the world. All of those brands you see on the shelves are there to give you the illusion that you are given choice, because most belong to a handful of parent corporations. They can easily raise prices in response to higher taxes and it's easy for them to price fix.
I'm pretty sure it's legit, you can't get a .gov website without having proof of a government body and I went to the white house website and managed to navigate to that page through the top nav, issues > we the people > searched for "veto the national defense authorization act" and you can find it.
And here I thought it was our right to assemble in order to defend our rights and speak out against transgressions against us? So there are narrow requirements for such things and if they are not met, we lost that right? Damn, I thought natural rights were universal. It would seem I was wrong.
is it funny how most of republicans are intentionally making themselves look bad.
this way, people will vote for the lesser evil that is Obama; there by creating yet another illusion of democracy.
even Obama said himself "judge me against the alternative"
is it funny how most of republicans are intentionally making themselves look bad.
this way, people will vote for the lesser evil that is Obama; there by creating yet another illusion of democracy.
even Obama said himself "judge me against the alternative"
Ron Paul is the only guy on the republican side that it seems like he actually believes what he says and that he could survive without a committee putting prepackaged statements together. It seems like I could trust him to do what he says and I think he operates from a genuine sense of wanting to make things better... However I don't agree with the vast majority of what he says and just because I predict what he's going to say and do doesn't mean I will vote for the guy.
Still he has some crazy ideas that his own party wouldn't stand behind and the president isn't a dictator who can magically make congress do whatever he wishes, even if every candidate talks like that is how it works, imagine the shock of first time voters... Obama is trying to win them back.
The democrats wouldn't work with Paul, and he would have a tough time getting republicans to go along so ultimately I think he would end up either pole dancing for his party or being a road block.
Ron Paul's crazy ideas don't hold a candle to how crazy Gingrich is. He's only gotten worse since leaving office. Some of the crap he's dreamed up on he campaign trail... wow. He's managed to stuff his foot in his mouth then shoot himself in the foot... a few times.
The democrats wouldn't work with Paul, and he would have a tough time getting republicans to go along so ultimately I think he would end up either pole dancing for his party or being a road block.
Pretty much this.
It amazes me how many people seem to think of the president as if he's a King, some supreme authority that lays down the law and everyone does his bidding. It's this kind of warped thinking that I suspect leads to 40% lower voter turnout in midterm elections and illogical blame of Obama for all the countries woes.
For better or worse, Ron Paul never compromises his principles. Because of that he'd essentially bring the government to a standstill by vetoing everything congress tried to pass. He would be one of the most (if not THE most) ineffectual presidents ever.
I would honestly really like to see him win the republican nomination though, just because I want to see whether or not the republican party actually tries to back him against Obama, or if they try to run a third party campaign to divide the conservative vote and ensure his failure. I'd also like to see how well he could do in a national election once people actually understand his points of view beyond the "freedom for everyone and no income tax!" mantra.
Two things. First, the president is the commander in chief. He still calls the shots for the military. Which means that he would have a relatively easy time implementing his anti-war agenda, which includes pulling out of the middle east completely, and shutting down all those hundreds of military bases we have. That's something he could still do.
Second, usually when people vote, they vote not just for president but for the other branches as well. It's unlikely that many people would vote for Paul, but then vote for senators and congressmen that run on a platform opposite to Paul's. This means that in the first couple of years, the president can usually get pretty much anything he asks for because of that momentum. And then that momentum falls off during the end of the administration. The Obama administration illustrates that perfectly. They passed all sorts of reform, bailouts, healthcare bills that Obama championed. That he championed crap bills is a different story. And that those bills had poisonous language inserted into them is typical government corruption. But he did champion them, and they did pass.
So it is possible for a president to make sweeping changes. I just don't think that those changes will be what that president envisions necessarily, and more like what Corporate America envisions, which is what happened with the Obama administration. A Paul administration would look the same, which is why I won't vote for him (or anyone). But from all the candidates, I do believe he'd make a good commander-in-chief, which may be reason enough to vote for the guy. If you still believe in voting that is...
"crazy ideas" like having sound money and pulling out of the middle east?
You set up some serious softballs for yourself with those topics...
You are right of course that it's not that his ideas are crazy, it's that he simply has ideas that most of the country doesn't want. Abolishing the minimum wage for example, a large portion of economists would agree this is a good thing and I think Milton Friedman could convince any rational thinker in 2-3 minutes of that. But the country would never go for it.
Second, usually when people vote, they vote not just for president but for the other branches as well. It's unlikely that many people would vote for Paul, but then vote for senators and congressmen that run on a platform opposite to Paul's. This means that in the first couple of years, the president can usually get pretty much anything he asks for because of that momentum.
Fair enough, unfortunately I don't think most people really understand Ron Paul's positions as well as they think they do which leads me to assume that contradictory voting is a very real possibility. That's more a reflection of my personal belief than anything else though.
I was agreeing with you on the notion that his ideas aren't "crazy" it's just that people don't like them.
A softball argument being something seriously easy to refute. By using war as your poster child for his 'crazy' ideas, when his stance on foreign policy and war are one of the most widely embraced positions he has. Harder topics to reconcile would be: His support for government deregulation, ending student aid, abolishing social security... The list goes on and on.
The only way you could have made that point any easier for yourself is by saying "Well apparently individual liberty and having no income taxes are crazy ideas these days!"
You set up some serious softballs for yourself with those topics...
You are right of course that it's not that his ideas are crazy, it's that he simply has ideas that most of the country doesn't want. Abolishing the minimum wage for example, a large portion of economists would agree this is a good thing and I think Milton Friedman could convince any rational thinker in 2-3 minutes of that. But the country would never go for it.
Fair enough, unfortunately I don't think most people really understand Ron Paul's positions as well as they think they do which leads me to assume that contradictory voting is a very real possibility. That's more a reflection of my personal belief than anything else though.
I've heard Milton Friedman speak on his ideas about economics and they aren't rational at all, nor would a rational person agree.
I was agreeing with you on the notion that his ideas aren't "crazy" it's just that people don't like them.
A softball argument being something seriously easy to refute. By using war as your poster child for his 'crazy' ideas, when his stance on foreign policy and war are one of the most widely embraced positions he has. Harder topics to reconcile would be: His support for government deregulation, ending student aid, abolishing social security... The list goes on and on.
The only way you could have made that point any easier for yourself is by saying "Well apparently individual liberty and having no income taxes are crazy ideas these days!"
I see. But that's a matter of priorities isn't it?
Even if you absolutely hate his ideas on getting rid of social security, or student financial aid, or what have you, wouldn't you still choose to "lose" those if it meant an end to war?
It's either you vote for him and see a sensible foreign policy, and risk losing some beloved programs, or you vote for any other guy and get both those things. Both ridiculous foreign policy, and the programs you love.
The thing is that people want both. To have the cake and eat it too. Only nobody sees it that way. People think that it's possible to have everything, to have a sensible foreign policy and sound money, and at the same time all the social programs they think are great.
To them I give the catch-phrase every Libertarian uses after elections. In 2008 they told me that a vote for Ron Paul would give us 4 more years of Bush. Well, I voted for Paul, and that's exactly what I got.
It's just not possible to have all those things. As is proven election after election for god knows how long.
Even if you absolutely hate his ideas on getting rid of social security, or student financial aid, or what have you, wouldn't you still choose to "lose" those if it meant an end to war?
that would never be possible. USA has military bases all around the world. there are probably more than 150 countries worldwide that have US military bases currently fully operational. you expect all of war mongering business to end by the order of just one man ?
you expect all of war mongering business to end by the order of just one man ?
Yes.
Otherwise, that basically means that no president and no congress can ever do anything. In which case, why even vote? Which I don't anyway... because I know I'm living a Utopian Dream when I choose to believe a politician, president or otherwise, can make anything good happen.
"crazy ideas" like having sound money and pulling out of the middle east?
What's crazy is that being anti-war is crazy these days.
Not criticizing you Mark. Just saying that it's a sign of the times that stuff as simple as that is considered crazy by the general public.
How is going back to the gold standard even considered sane or possible? There is a reason he's the only guy talking about shutting down the fed. No one in their right mind can even consider a good scenario where we go back to the gold standard. Even Paul himself has backed away from the issue after being confronted again and again on the issue. But he was diehard for a long time, if he actually had power to implement it in that time it would have been disastrous. If he won't accept reason until he's crushed by proof that its a bad idea what else is he going to push thru?
Was and is the fed full of crooks that need to be cleared out and prosecuted then reformed so it can't happen again? Yes. Should we use it as an excuse to weaken our government just so we can push our isolationist agenda that aims to turn states into countries? Probably not.
Shutting down the federal government and eliminating key regulatory agencies that keep workers safe, keep our environment "cleaner" and letting the states fend for themselves on federal issues? That's messed up. We fought an incredibly bloody war over that... his idea didn't win, slavery lost. We are stronger together than apart.
He's such a fan of Ayn rand that he named his son after her. She was a pretty good fictional writer but the way he talks sometimes it sounds more like he uses her fiction as a template for the future. Also a lot of his supporters flat out misread Rands work.
He supports a National Sales Tax, which will be disastrous much in the same way Cains 9 9 9 plan was. Lower taxes on the rich, higher taxes on the rest of us.
As for ending the wars he would be in the same position Obama is in, you can't pull the plug overnight, he knows it and he would follow the same plan Obama is. Obama has always been for ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, one down one to go. You don't just pull out and create a worse situation, Paul would find that out just like Obama did.
Obama was all for closing Gitmo, blocked by republicans, you don't think the same people won't block Paul?
I could keep going but there are probably sites filled with reasons why he's off his rocker.
The problem with Ron Paul is that this country has been corrupted for ages. So, his ides sound crazy, but truth always sounds crazy in a radical time like now. Media is in bed with the government, the politicians use mafia tactics to pass bills. (like waiting fore the last minute to pass a bill that sticks to the American people)
The fact of the matter is that this country is a CORPORATE POLICE STATE of COLLECTIONIST BANKERS. and now, they're stepping all over the constitution. When is it enough?
we should ask our selves one thing, why is it that in a free society we don't have choices?
do you have a choice to be on social security? no. it's mandated!! that's communist, in a sense. IRS, etc...
The federal reserve is the ROOT of the problem and Ron Paul is willing to talk about it. The people need to be in charge of the money not a bank.
And the 5 departments that he's trying to cut DON't WORK!!!!
Department of Education - FAILURE
EPA - you can everything this agency does with a simple law!
Energy - FAILURE
Housing and Development - ANOTHER fail.
commerce - redundancy and FAILURE
When the people depend of government, people become poor, because you're essentially feeding them with their own money, which most goes to fund the EMPIRE. Give the money back to the people.
EDIT:
mark look at the poverty line after 1971 look how much coming off the gold standard hurt poor people. When your money is not backed by gold or silver
this is what happens, you INFLATE the currency making it worth less.
The problem with Ron Paul is that this country has been corrupted for ages.
And continuing to belong to the most corrupt party in that system that has done the most damage is not exactly a vote of confidence. If he's going to lay blame on 5 "failed" federal agencies then when does he accept responsibility for things his party has done to make matters worse? You also have to look at what makes those agencies ineffective, for the most part its been republicans trying to weaken them so they can find some fault and use it as an excuse to get rid of the protections and regulations.
So, his ides sound crazy, but truth always sounds crazy in a radical time like now. Media is in bed with the government, the politicians use mafia tactics to pass bills. (like waiting fore the last minute to pass a bill that sticks to the American people)
Crazy sounds crazy no matter what season. I've honestly looked into Ron Paul and not just listened to and read the democratic spin, most of which actually is pretty favorable. I can't support him because I've dug into his stance on issues hoping to support him and walked away with "it won't work, even if it did his own party and the other party would never go for it"
The fact of the matter is that this country is a CORPORATE POLICE STATE of COLLECTIONIST BANKERS. and now, they're stepping all over the constitution. When is it enough?
I agree something needs to be done, but that something is rolling out the regulations that kept our economy moving and not allowing congress to deregulate things further. Their idea that the free market will solve all the problems if we only untie its hands has brought us nothing but pain.
Taxes need to go back to the levels they where at when we had a surplus.
The military spending needs to loose about 2 trillion.
The unfunded medicare programs needs to be paid for or done away with. Sorry perception drug program and medicare advantage. BTW, MA was a "free market solution" that utterly failed and is weighing down the entire program.
do you have a choice to be on social security? no. it's mandated!! that's communist, in a sense. IRS, etc...
I wouldn't mind an opt out option. The problem is young people would opt out for 30 years then jump in when they finally wake up. They don't put a value on taking care of their elderly self until its too late. With the way things are now even if they where properly mindful of their future they couldn't afford it.
The federal reserve is the ROOT of the problem and Ron Paul is willing to talk about it. The people need to be in charge of the money not a bank.
I agree, but the problem is more with the people who are running the fed not necessarily the institution itself. The institution is still much better designed to handle a modern economy than the gold standard.
The rules by which they operate have been corrupted but reversing the corruption and installing new people isn't that hard if the politicians are serious about fixing a key problem. Honestly if they get the right person in the fed they will clean house and fix a lot of the problems.
And the 5 departments that he's trying to cut DON't WORK!!!!
That is an incredibly simplified view of complex problems. They are different stages of disfunction and reforming them so they work as designed would be better than removing the guards from the prison and unlocking the doors, then trusting the inmates not to leave.
Largely because of No Child Left Behind (a republican idea) and constant underfunding. NCLB shifted the focus from learning to regurgitation of test answers. Steps have been taken to reverse those decisions and it will take time for things to improve so long as proper funding is put through, which it isn't because congress would rather blow shit up than educate people. Oh wait its the teachers unions that want to see their teachers get raises for the first time in 6-7-10 years.
How dare they try to fight back when school districts try to push more kids in class rooms and push more health insurance premiums onto the teachers. Oh but the pentagon asks for 2 billion. Done! Actually make it 3 billion, just make sure you buy MRE's from my company ok.
EPA - you can everything this agency does with a simple law!
Laws are much more susceptible to congressional corruption, than an agency. You still need someone to enforce those laws, do tests and monitor millions of sites. What you end up with is something that looks a lot like the EPA... The EPA's main problem is republicans in congress undercutting its authority and stripping its funding away. If republicans love smoke stacks and dirty water so much there are plenty of them in other countries with less regulations, I suggest moving. I personally would like everyone to live in a clean environment regardless of how much money they make.
There is one reason republicans don't like the DOE and that is that it bothers to focuses on energy from something other than oil gas and coal. They would love to replace the DOE with the Department of Oil, its core job would be to convince everyone how clean coal is, drinking fract water is safe and oil spills are just nature partying a little too hard.
How dare the DOE fund scientific research and prepare for a world when oil isn't so abundant. How dare they try to focus on cleaner energy we can create domestically instead of relaying on dirty foreign products.
With any luck we'll see Russia's oil economy implode when they run out and that will be a wake up call but I doubt it, so far it just makes people hungry to start our own oil boom here in the US drill baby drill. Which is a stupid thing to do because we need the oil for so much more than energy and tapping it now when we would burn through it in a weekend is foolish and shortsighted.
Do we wait and deal with a massive problem or do we wait until it runs out? Weather you believe in climate science or not, oil will run out. It's better to make the transition slow and gradual than deal with it after we run out. The DOE is working on that. That isn't important to our national interests and something we shouldn't collectively work on?
Talk to the people who directly benefit from HUD and ask them if they like being inside during the winter and having an address so they can apply for jobs. Ask people who normally get discriminated against if they like having someone in their corner helping them to get a fair deal. Ask them if they would rather be left on their own.
I've known a few people who have relied on HUD for a while and they didn't use it as a way of life but as a spring board to get back into the middle class. Shafting all those people that it helps because republicans have drilled a few holes in its hull over the years? It just needs a few tweaks and to be protected from the "job creators" and it will do what it does for many more years, helping people get a leg up.
Think about it, research what HUD does and then get back to me. It's disgusting what republicans and Ron Paul pass as excuses to shut down valuable agencies.
When the people depend of government, people become poor, because you're essentially feeding them with their own money, which most goes to fund the EMPIRE. Give the money back to the people.
It would be awesome if thats how it actually went. Right now, the money goes to the pentagon to make sure the middle east understands how important their oil is to us.
mark look at the poverty line after 1971 look how much coming off the gold standard hurt poor people. When your money is not backed by gold or silver
this is what happens, you INFLATE the currency making it worth less.
That is an oversimplification of a complex problem and a misapplication of facts to support a wrong conclusion. Not properly understanding problems and mangling the facts to support an agenda is what got us in this mess. It's a classic example of creating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, then creating a problem because you like where the solution puts you, financially. The people saying we should go back to a gold standard are people heavily invested in gold and want to see the price of gold skyrocket higher than it is now.
Not properly understanding problems and mangling the facts to support an agenda is what got us in this mess. It's a classic example of creating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, then creating a problem because you like where the solution puts you, financially.
Mark that right there is EXACTLY what i'm saying.
That is exactly what the federal reserve does, after the gold standard was removed, so were the shackles from the bankers. Now, the federal reserve could dictate the VALUE of the money by setting INTEREST RATES. That is the problem.
And Ron Paul being in the republican party doesn't dwarf his message at all. But it's also the only vehicle he can use to deliver his message further deeper into the heartland.
Defend INDIVIDUAL liberties, and defend the monetary policies, restrain government to it's bare minimums.
Going to the gold standard is a mistake. There's no reason to leave a fiat currency behind in favor of a commodity-backed currency. In fact, switching to the gold standard is what gave the rich the power to consolidate economic power in the first place. Gold is a very scarce metal. Since there isn't much of it, it's easy to consolidate the supply to a few hands, giving a minority huge economic power over everyone else.
The real solution to our current monetary policy problem is to put the power to create and issue money where it should have been in the first place: The US Treasury, not private banks that are in it for their shareholders' profit. No more Federal Reserve. No more fractional reserve. No more loaning money for profit. Lending money to make money is what put us in the economic tail spin to begin with. Loaning money at interest for reasons of profit is like loaning an apple and demanding two apples in return. You have to work twice as hard to have half as much. It's a system designed to extract wealth from the majority and transfer it to a rich minority.
The fact that nobody gets that, including Ron Paul, is the real problem.
dood when fiat fails what do you think they run to? gold, silver, oil.... etc! commodities. fiat money NEVER WORKS when the people don't have control of it.
gold isn't that scarce - the inflated price is primarily driven by the fact that we think it's purdy (duh-hur-hur-hur). It's slighty more conductive than copper, heavier than lead, softer than aluminum and you can mine it with construction equipment.
Ok, it's a good at blocking radiation, won't tarnish and it won't poison you or turn your skin blue if you eat it but seriously, how much is that really worth?
dood when fiat fails what do you think they run to? gold, silver, oil.... etc! commodities. fiat money NEVER WORKS when the people don't have control of it.
Commodities don't work as currency in economies as big as ours. But maybe that's why they are trying so hard to shrink it...
If you want a commodity based economy why not go with something less rare that we could actually translate the wealth we have now into something tangible? We got off the gold standard because we grew bigger than the gold supply. That hasn't changed...
Putting the monetary system back in the hands of commodities traders is taking it out of the hands of the banks and putting into equally unscrupulous people. At least with the monetary policy being dictated by the fed there is a good chance the people can wrestle control back, provided they can wrestle back control of the people who do the appointing. That is a lot less work and a lot less pain than flipping the table over.
BTW the whole "and what do you think they'll turn to when the whole thing collapses?" is normally followed by a commercial to buy gold... Isn't that the kind of thing that makes normal people vomit? Who scares the public into buying something they don't need? If shit goes south like the fearmongers predict then you better hope that you can melt that gold into something useful because it will be as useful as the paper money. If it really gets that bad, having a chicken and a cow will be much more useful than any commemorative coins you have socked away.
Replies
That guy is ripped too! I bet he could take down at least 7 of those guys at the same time. I mean, look at fatty back there to the left.
Man, time to hit the gym and protest!
Side note...
MattQ86, that is perhaps one of the greatest photos I've ever seen in my life.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/House-Defeats-Amendment-to-Drop-DNS-Blocking-from-Stop-Online-Piracy-Act-572957/
Oops, I didn't know there was a SOPA thread. My bad. Not subbed to that one yet.
Thanks for the info anyways, Alberto. I couldn't find much info [on whether it already passed or not] via search engine.
here's some corporate tax absurdity!
[ame="
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged six former top executives of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) with securities fraud, alleging they knew and approved of misleading statements claiming the companies had minimal holdings of higher-risk mortgage loans, including subprime loans.
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-267.htm
A smidgen of justice to be served? I think we can safely assume that without OWS, this is another thing that would not have happened otherwise.
Conversely, if you lower or remove the taxes, they'll just keep prices where they're at and rake in the extra profit. It's a no-win scenario for us.
[ame="
Not sure I agree. When the big credit card companies tried to apply fees, the public reacted and they were forced to pull back. Yeah, they find other ways as they always do.
Bottom line, the tax code needs an overhaul.
People need to separate "needs" and "wants." If the prices on "wants" increase, no biggie. If the price on "needs" (food & shelter primarily) goes up, that's when there's a big problem.
Ok, nevermind
http://www.scribd.com/doc/75886468/Fannie-Mae-SEC-Non-Prosecution-Agreement
Can you stop buying their shit if they all of them raise their prices due to higher taxes? You can't avoid it if everyone is doing it. We're not just talking about luxury goods here, but basic necessities too. Food production is dominated by corporations. Raise corporate taxes and I promise you the price of food will go up everywhere.
Bottom line: Raise their taxes and they will externalize that cost elsewhere to maintain or increase profit; externalizing either to other businesses, the government (through service contracts), or the consumer.
Let me just say, I'm no fan of giving corporations tax cuts, but their behavior makes the whole effort moot.
VETO NDAA.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/veto-national-defense-authorization-remove-protesting-low-level-terrorism-dod-training-manual/23dzb61m
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/veto-national-defense-authorization-act-2012-several-provisions-bill-pose-threat-civil-liberties/GLfhBn6D
SIGN IT!!!
http://uncensored.co.nz/2011/12/06/police-put-occupy-movement-on-terror-list/
London won't put it on paper, but this corrupt system will.
EDIT:
some cool chomsky stuff.
[ame="
A) Are in a market with inelastic demand.
or
Food is a market that is mostly highly elastic. It might seem like an inelastic market when you look at it as an abstract thing like "food" since everybody needs food to live, but when you break it down into individual products like juices, grains, meats you find that products are largely all replaceable, competition is high which means the producer bears most of the burden of a tax. It really doesn't matter that everyones taxes go up because they're all competing against eachother so you can't raise the price of your product unless all of your competitors have done the same and agreed not to lower it (price fixing)
If you said corporations passed on taxes to employees in the form of lower wages you'd have a better point.
I hate to break it to you, but only 4 corporations control about 75% of the food in the world. All of those brands you see on the shelves are there to give you the illusion that you are given choice, because most belong to a handful of parent corporations. They can easily raise prices in response to higher taxes and it's easy for them to price fix.
EDIT:
http://newyork.ibtimes.com/articles/268591/20111216/sopa-ndaa-embrace-misguided-values-patriot-act.htm
(hopefully the last time I'll say this in 2011) The GOP really pisses me off:
Crippling The National Labor Relations Board
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/20/crippling_the_right_to_organize_gop
And here I thought it was our right to assemble in order to defend our rights and speak out against transgressions against us? So there are narrow requirements for such things and if they are not met, we lost that right? Damn, I thought natural rights were universal. It would seem I was wrong.
this way, people will vote for the lesser evil that is Obama; there by creating yet another illusion of democracy.
even Obama said himself "judge me against the alternative"
Another lose-lose election. Imagine that
Still he has some crazy ideas that his own party wouldn't stand behind and the president isn't a dictator who can magically make congress do whatever he wishes, even if every candidate talks like that is how it works, imagine the shock of first time voters... Obama is trying to win them back.
The democrats wouldn't work with Paul, and he would have a tough time getting republicans to go along so ultimately I think he would end up either pole dancing for his party or being a road block.
Ron Paul's crazy ideas don't hold a candle to how crazy Gingrich is. He's only gotten worse since leaving office. Some of the crap he's dreamed up on he campaign trail... wow. He's managed to stuff his foot in his mouth then shoot himself in the foot... a few times.
What's crazy is that being anti-war is crazy these days.
Not criticizing you Mark. Just saying that it's a sign of the times that stuff as simple as that is considered crazy by the general public.
It amazes me how many people seem to think of the president as if he's a King, some supreme authority that lays down the law and everyone does his bidding. It's this kind of warped thinking that I suspect leads to 40% lower voter turnout in midterm elections and illogical blame of Obama for all the countries woes.
For better or worse, Ron Paul never compromises his principles. Because of that he'd essentially bring the government to a standstill by vetoing everything congress tried to pass. He would be one of the most (if not THE most) ineffectual presidents ever.
I would honestly really like to see him win the republican nomination though, just because I want to see whether or not the republican party actually tries to back him against Obama, or if they try to run a third party campaign to divide the conservative vote and ensure his failure. I'd also like to see how well he could do in a national election once people actually understand his points of view beyond the "freedom for everyone and no income tax!" mantra.
Two things. First, the president is the commander in chief. He still calls the shots for the military. Which means that he would have a relatively easy time implementing his anti-war agenda, which includes pulling out of the middle east completely, and shutting down all those hundreds of military bases we have. That's something he could still do.
Second, usually when people vote, they vote not just for president but for the other branches as well. It's unlikely that many people would vote for Paul, but then vote for senators and congressmen that run on a platform opposite to Paul's. This means that in the first couple of years, the president can usually get pretty much anything he asks for because of that momentum. And then that momentum falls off during the end of the administration. The Obama administration illustrates that perfectly. They passed all sorts of reform, bailouts, healthcare bills that Obama championed. That he championed crap bills is a different story. And that those bills had poisonous language inserted into them is typical government corruption. But he did champion them, and they did pass.
So it is possible for a president to make sweeping changes. I just don't think that those changes will be what that president envisions necessarily, and more like what Corporate America envisions, which is what happened with the Obama administration. A Paul administration would look the same, which is why I won't vote for him (or anyone). But from all the candidates, I do believe he'd make a good commander-in-chief, which may be reason enough to vote for the guy. If you still believe in voting that is...
You are right of course that it's not that his ideas are crazy, it's that he simply has ideas that most of the country doesn't want. Abolishing the minimum wage for example, a large portion of economists would agree this is a good thing and I think Milton Friedman could convince any rational thinker in 2-3 minutes of that. But the country would never go for it.
Fair enough, unfortunately I don't think most people really understand Ron Paul's positions as well as they think they do which leads me to assume that contradictory voting is a very real possibility. That's more a reflection of my personal belief than anything else though.
Don't even know what that means.
Sounds like you were about to disagree, but then actually did agree?
A softball argument being something seriously easy to refute. By using war as your poster child for his 'crazy' ideas, when his stance on foreign policy and war are one of the most widely embraced positions he has. Harder topics to reconcile would be: His support for government deregulation, ending student aid, abolishing social security... The list goes on and on.
The only way you could have made that point any easier for yourself is by saying "Well apparently individual liberty and having no income taxes are crazy ideas these days!"
I've heard Milton Friedman speak on his ideas about economics and they aren't rational at all, nor would a rational person agree.
I see. But that's a matter of priorities isn't it?
Even if you absolutely hate his ideas on getting rid of social security, or student financial aid, or what have you, wouldn't you still choose to "lose" those if it meant an end to war?
It's either you vote for him and see a sensible foreign policy, and risk losing some beloved programs, or you vote for any other guy and get both those things. Both ridiculous foreign policy, and the programs you love.
The thing is that people want both. To have the cake and eat it too. Only nobody sees it that way. People think that it's possible to have everything, to have a sensible foreign policy and sound money, and at the same time all the social programs they think are great.
To them I give the catch-phrase every Libertarian uses after elections. In 2008 they told me that a vote for Ron Paul would give us 4 more years of Bush. Well, I voted for Paul, and that's exactly what I got.
It's just not possible to have all those things. As is proven election after election for god knows how long.
that would never be possible. USA has military bases all around the world. there are probably more than 150 countries worldwide that have US military bases currently fully operational. you expect all of war mongering business to end by the order of just one man ?
Yes.
Otherwise, that basically means that no president and no congress can ever do anything. In which case, why even vote? Which I don't anyway... because I know I'm living a Utopian Dream when I choose to believe a politician, president or otherwise, can make anything good happen.
Edit:
[ame="
These never get old for me.
[ame="
[ame="
Wow, that is fucked up on so many levels, it's not even funny.
Was and is the fed full of crooks that need to be cleared out and prosecuted then reformed so it can't happen again? Yes. Should we use it as an excuse to weaken our government just so we can push our isolationist agenda that aims to turn states into countries? Probably not.
Shutting down the federal government and eliminating key regulatory agencies that keep workers safe, keep our environment "cleaner" and letting the states fend for themselves on federal issues? That's messed up. We fought an incredibly bloody war over that... his idea didn't win, slavery lost. We are stronger together than apart.
He's such a fan of Ayn rand that he named his son after her. She was a pretty good fictional writer but the way he talks sometimes it sounds more like he uses her fiction as a template for the future. Also a lot of his supporters flat out misread Rands work.
He supports a National Sales Tax, which will be disastrous much in the same way Cains 9 9 9 plan was. Lower taxes on the rich, higher taxes on the rest of us.
As for ending the wars he would be in the same position Obama is in, you can't pull the plug overnight, he knows it and he would follow the same plan Obama is. Obama has always been for ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, one down one to go. You don't just pull out and create a worse situation, Paul would find that out just like Obama did.
Obama was all for closing Gitmo, blocked by republicans, you don't think the same people won't block Paul?
I could keep going but there are probably sites filled with reasons why he's off his rocker.
The fact of the matter is that this country is a CORPORATE POLICE STATE of COLLECTIONIST BANKERS. and now, they're stepping all over the constitution. When is it enough?
we should ask our selves one thing, why is it that in a free society we don't have choices?
do you have a choice to be on social security? no. it's mandated!! that's communist, in a sense. IRS, etc...
The federal reserve is the ROOT of the problem and Ron Paul is willing to talk about it. The people need to be in charge of the money not a bank.
And the 5 departments that he's trying to cut DON't WORK!!!!
Department of Education - FAILURE
EPA - you can everything this agency does with a simple law!
Energy - FAILURE
Housing and Development - ANOTHER fail.
commerce - redundancy and FAILURE
When the people depend of government, people become poor, because you're essentially feeding them with their own money, which most goes to fund the EMPIRE. Give the money back to the people.
EDIT:
mark look at the poverty line after 1971 look how much coming off the gold standard hurt poor people. When your money is not backed by gold or silver
this is what happens, you INFLATE the currency making it worth less.
So, the more you work the less you earn.
Crazy sounds crazy no matter what season. I've honestly looked into Ron Paul and not just listened to and read the democratic spin, most of which actually is pretty favorable. I can't support him because I've dug into his stance on issues hoping to support him and walked away with "it won't work, even if it did his own party and the other party would never go for it"
I agree something needs to be done, but that something is rolling out the regulations that kept our economy moving and not allowing congress to deregulate things further. Their idea that the free market will solve all the problems if we only untie its hands has brought us nothing but pain.
Taxes need to go back to the levels they where at when we had a surplus.
The military spending needs to loose about 2 trillion.
The unfunded medicare programs needs to be paid for or done away with. Sorry perception drug program and medicare advantage. BTW, MA was a "free market solution" that utterly failed and is weighing down the entire program.
I wouldn't mind an opt out option. The problem is young people would opt out for 30 years then jump in when they finally wake up. They don't put a value on taking care of their elderly self until its too late. With the way things are now even if they where properly mindful of their future they couldn't afford it.
I agree, but the problem is more with the people who are running the fed not necessarily the institution itself. The institution is still much better designed to handle a modern economy than the gold standard.
The rules by which they operate have been corrupted but reversing the corruption and installing new people isn't that hard if the politicians are serious about fixing a key problem. Honestly if they get the right person in the fed they will clean house and fix a lot of the problems.
That is an incredibly simplified view of complex problems. They are different stages of disfunction and reforming them so they work as designed would be better than removing the guards from the prison and unlocking the doors, then trusting the inmates not to leave. Largely because of No Child Left Behind (a republican idea) and constant underfunding. NCLB shifted the focus from learning to regurgitation of test answers. Steps have been taken to reverse those decisions and it will take time for things to improve so long as proper funding is put through, which it isn't because congress would rather blow shit up than educate people. Oh wait its the teachers unions that want to see their teachers get raises for the first time in 6-7-10 years.
How dare they try to fight back when school districts try to push more kids in class rooms and push more health insurance premiums onto the teachers. Oh but the pentagon asks for 2 billion. Done! Actually make it 3 billion, just make sure you buy MRE's from my company ok.
Laws are much more susceptible to congressional corruption, than an agency. You still need someone to enforce those laws, do tests and monitor millions of sites. What you end up with is something that looks a lot like the EPA... The EPA's main problem is republicans in congress undercutting its authority and stripping its funding away. If republicans love smoke stacks and dirty water so much there are plenty of them in other countries with less regulations, I suggest moving. I personally would like everyone to live in a clean environment regardless of how much money they make.
There is one reason republicans don't like the DOE and that is that it bothers to focuses on energy from something other than oil gas and coal. They would love to replace the DOE with the Department of Oil, its core job would be to convince everyone how clean coal is, drinking fract water is safe and oil spills are just nature partying a little too hard.
How dare the DOE fund scientific research and prepare for a world when oil isn't so abundant. How dare they try to focus on cleaner energy we can create domestically instead of relaying on dirty foreign products.
With any luck we'll see Russia's oil economy implode when they run out and that will be a wake up call but I doubt it, so far it just makes people hungry to start our own oil boom here in the US drill baby drill. Which is a stupid thing to do because we need the oil for so much more than energy and tapping it now when we would burn through it in a weekend is foolish and shortsighted.
Do we wait and deal with a massive problem or do we wait until it runs out? Weather you believe in climate science or not, oil will run out. It's better to make the transition slow and gradual than deal with it after we run out. The DOE is working on that. That isn't important to our national interests and something we shouldn't collectively work on?
Talk to the people who directly benefit from HUD and ask them if they like being inside during the winter and having an address so they can apply for jobs. Ask people who normally get discriminated against if they like having someone in their corner helping them to get a fair deal. Ask them if they would rather be left on their own.
I've known a few people who have relied on HUD for a while and they didn't use it as a way of life but as a spring board to get back into the middle class. Shafting all those people that it helps because republicans have drilled a few holes in its hull over the years? It just needs a few tweaks and to be protected from the "job creators" and it will do what it does for many more years, helping people get a leg up.
Think about it, research what HUD does and then get back to me. It's disgusting what republicans and Ron Paul pass as excuses to shut down valuable agencies.
I don't know much about this one, but redundant how? The chamber of commerce makes it redundant? ha?
It would be awesome if thats how it actually went. Right now, the money goes to the pentagon to make sure the middle east understands how important their oil is to us.
That is an oversimplification of a complex problem and a misapplication of facts to support a wrong conclusion. Not properly understanding problems and mangling the facts to support an agenda is what got us in this mess. It's a classic example of creating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, then creating a problem because you like where the solution puts you, financially. The people saying we should go back to a gold standard are people heavily invested in gold and want to see the price of gold skyrocket higher than it is now.
Mark that right there is EXACTLY what i'm saying.
That is exactly what the federal reserve does, after the gold standard was removed, so were the shackles from the bankers. Now, the federal reserve could dictate the VALUE of the money by setting INTEREST RATES. That is the problem.
And Ron Paul being in the republican party doesn't dwarf his message at all. But it's also the only vehicle he can use to deliver his message further deeper into the heartland.
Defend INDIVIDUAL liberties, and defend the monetary policies, restrain government to it's bare minimums.
that spells, PEACE and prosperity not crazy.
The real solution to our current monetary policy problem is to put the power to create and issue money where it should have been in the first place: The US Treasury, not private banks that are in it for their shareholders' profit. No more Federal Reserve. No more fractional reserve. No more loaning money for profit. Lending money to make money is what put us in the economic tail spin to begin with. Loaning money at interest for reasons of profit is like loaning an apple and demanding two apples in return. You have to work twice as hard to have half as much. It's a system designed to extract wealth from the majority and transfer it to a rich minority.
The fact that nobody gets that, including Ron Paul, is the real problem.
Ok, it's a good at blocking radiation, won't tarnish and it won't poison you or turn your skin blue if you eat it but seriously, how much is that really worth?
If you want a commodity based economy why not go with something less rare that we could actually translate the wealth we have now into something tangible? We got off the gold standard because we grew bigger than the gold supply. That hasn't changed...
Putting the monetary system back in the hands of commodities traders is taking it out of the hands of the banks and putting into equally unscrupulous people. At least with the monetary policy being dictated by the fed there is a good chance the people can wrestle control back, provided they can wrestle back control of the people who do the appointing. That is a lot less work and a lot less pain than flipping the table over.
BTW the whole "and what do you think they'll turn to when the whole thing collapses?" is normally followed by a commercial to buy gold... Isn't that the kind of thing that makes normal people vomit? Who scares the public into buying something they don't need? If shit goes south like the fearmongers predict then you better hope that you can melt that gold into something useful because it will be as useful as the paper money. If it really gets that bad, having a chicken and a cow will be much more useful than any commemorative coins you have socked away.