Galatia Forums

Starting tomorrow, C-SPAN 2 will cover the entire Rally for the Republic. Again, as of the moment Ron Paul is NOT running for president. The point of the rally is to awaken minds and make the people realize that you can believe in issues that are not on eithers parties ticket. You do not have to chose between a douche and a shit sandwich. We deserve more, we deserve a third party.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=428

If Libertarians are the third party, then we deserve a fourth.

Sorry there isn't a droid party!

Oh, and the Libertarian canidate is Bob Barr, not Ron Paul.

Here's a line from former Gov. Jesse Ventura:
"If someone tells you you wasted you vote, look them in the eye, and ask them if they voted with their heart and their conscience. Then look and see who wasted their vote."

I'm well aware. It doesn't change the fact that I fundamentally disagree with libertarian principles when it comes to economics.

Of course you don't. You believe that your money belongs to the government to do what they see fit to do with it.

We have only ever known an enconomy pumped up by a central bank. Regular banks no longer have savings, rather they invest the money in the stock market, which is artifically inflated with fiat money the government creates out of thin air. This creates a credit bubble. Also since our money is not backed by anything when the other countries (including America)that use our currency like stock/checks attempt to reestablish a savings (instead of spending), of our dollar, the dollar loses value* and creates a credit crisis.

* based on the intrest rate, i.e. I want to sell my house when the rate is low because the value of my house is high; better to putmy money in savings when the rate is high

I don't know why you keep bringing the Libertarians into this. It is all called the Austrian business cycle theory, which won a nobel prize. Though it may seem like America currently does not have a plan, but it does. We subsribe to Keynesian economics, and we have since the 30's. Keynesian economics says we are in this mess, because we as American citizens have not bought/invested in companies enough. Since I see less than half of my pay as it is, I personally feel I and every other American is overinvested, and I would like to see a shift toward a economics system not artifically propped up by the central bank and unelected officals.

Oh, and I take back what I said earlier about a third party. There is no second party, Dems and Reps are the same thing. Obama's plan will raise taxes to 39%, while McCain's plan will raise taxes to only 34%. Yeah! And none of this hike goes towards paying down the national debt of 9,000,000,000,000. To put this into perspective, if you were to pay this down at a THOUSAND (1,000) dollars a SECOND, it would only take you 285.19 YEARS.

I wish I could live with that much debt, but I'm sure they would put me in jail for it.

MorGrendel wrote:Of course you don't. You believe that your money belongs to the government to do what they see fit to do with it.

No need to put words in my mouth or simplify my position to the point of mockery. Dont' be like Hannity and think I'll back down and take it like Colmes. Nuance is a beautiful thing which our political discourse altogether lacks. I simply do not subscribe to an absolute free market economics, as is the stated libertarian position. Most of our economic recessions occur thanks to unregulated speculation. It happened immediately after the revolution. It cause the Great Depression. It happened with the mortgage crisis we're seeing right now. Excuse me for not wanting my gas prices to go up and down based on someone guessing oil might be worth more or let at a given moment. Frankly I simply don't trust the market. Too many rich people with too much time on their hands making investments based on their best guess. Not to mention it terrifies me to know that our economy is based on a bunch of people standing around in a pit screaming and yelling and throwing paper everywhere =)

Anyways, remind me to give you my copy of Polyani's Great Transformation sometime. And no, it's not communist (I know that's what you were thinking looking at the author's name =P ). The author was a Polish refugee during the Second World War who settled in the US after the German and Russian invasion of his country. Despite the work being over 70 years old, it is still a great work of economic history and mandatory reading for anyone wanting to understand the field. The ultra-cliffnotes version would be that he rejects the self-regulating market. Mainly he argues that labor is unlike any other resource used by the market. To subject labor to the whims of the free market damages cultural values and norms. He argues that regulation of the market is not only necessary, but inevitable, as societies whose people are adversely affected by the devaluation of labor will naturally want the government to intervene. The degree of regulation is always in a state of flux depending on how well a local economy is doing in the world market. Ultra-ultra-cliffnotes version: economy good for labor, less regulation; economy bad for labor, more regulation.

I don't know why you keep bringing the Libertarians into this.

Did I miss something? Last I checked, Ron Paul is a self-described libertarian who attempted to appeal to the libertarian wing of the Republican party. If you weren't talking about libertarians being the third party, then who the hell were you suggesting? The Green party?

(please dont take this to seriously)

yes! the state must take control! people are to stupid to think for themselves and a strong buracratic government must be there to tell people how much thier labor is worth and how much they can be allowd to make and who and for what they can hire, only the elite in the seat of government should have wealth, for the over inteligent elite college buracrate is all knowing and all seeing repacing god in your life for it is truly government that provides for you all things and should be worshiped! power to the people! (and by people we mean government)
you are such a communist, it is funny you dont see it ,Comrade

and just to be fair this is for you Jeff

Ve Vill march into da Sudaten lands! Ve Vill kill da sub human Vermin dat infest dhere! our tank and troops cannot be stoped! Ve Vill subjegate for da master race! Ve cannot be defeated! un all Vill know dat..........uh wait, that actualy might might be me


you guys are funny!

http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/Jobsfo ... /taxes.htm
this is Mccain's tax plan its actualy a 10% drop in taxes across the board
what you are reffering to jeff is when bush put forth the huge tax cuts in 2001 mcain voted against it it was a 30%+ cut and so addion by subtration. utimatly the cuts caused MORE tax reviue to flow in not less to the record sum of 2.7 trillion in 2004 and 3.1 in 2007.

this is the taxes that where collected and by who...http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in05tr.xls (it goes back to 1986)
86% of all taxes were paid by the top 25% 39% paid by the top 1% and 97% paid by the top 50%

Yes, please do bring over that book. I agree, it scares me too how much our economy is driven by screaming meemees. However, I'm more scared that the intest rate is controlled by an unelected official.

Did I miss something? Last I checked, Ron Paul is a self-described libertarian who attempted to appeal to the libertarian wing of the Republican party. If you weren't talking about libertarians being the third party, then who the hell were you suggesting? The Green party?

You have him wrong Fritz. He campaigned as a Republican, he sent delegates to the RNC, and is now bowing out because he will not run against the party and is asking that people do not write him in. On occasion, you might have caught Ron calling himself a Constitutionalist, but at the Rally he professed to simply being a Anti-Neo-Con-Republican. The Rally was a grass roots, take back the party, get-together. (though I do have to admit, it was a bit more firey and militant than I expected, the second amendment came up more than once) Yeah, maybe Paul's base is more of the Libertarian leaning, but Conservitives are very slow to come around to the idea that you should be free to do whatever you want with your own body.

As far as another Party goes, I'll take anything, as long as it shakes up the staus quo.

Thanks for the post Dan. I'm not sure how to respond.
I believe your first link refers to corporations and business, not the taxes on the people. Though it does point out that McCain intends to maintain the Dividend Tax and the Capital Gains Tax at 15%. I oppose these taxes, because they double (and in some cases triple) tax the same thing numerous times and because of this over-taxation makes it cheaper to build in other counties that have no such tax (like Mexico). I think you would agree that Japan and Germany are recently prosperous counties. They have 1% and a 0% Capital Gains Tax respectively, giving their companies an advantage.

I think you wanted to post this, http://www.johnmccain.com/Images/Issues ... iefing.pdf
There is so much wrong here, I seriously don't have the time to even begin writing it. However, I will say this. Every time McCain is called a strong leader, I shiver. This "plan" is all over the place, laden with buzz words that are popular right now. Where is the leadership? Where is the spot that says, "OK, here's how we are going to fix this!" It says he is going to increase the value of the dollar, but nothing says HOW he is going to do this.

I'm really not sure what I'm looking at with this other link. However, I find it scary if I am looking at this right. Are you reading 15,000 puts you in the top 50%, and 70,000 mean you are in the top 5%? Again scary.

I just wanted to chime in with a small notion. In economics there is a cost-benefit principle. It says that for every benefit that you get, there is a cost (without exceptions). So i just wanted to say, that whenever you listen to a politician say that he's going to do X for the people (eg. provide universal health care to all citizens, or cut taxes, or make education better), you have to ask what is the cost of that benefit. What will you give up in order to receive that benefit? Once you find that out, then you will be able to understand if the benefit is worth the cost. Politicians nowadays have a very bad nack of telling you how awesome an item that they will provide is, without telling you what the cost of it is.

example: Not to pick on Hilary, but the cost of providing health care to every citizen in the US has to come from somewhere. Some other program must get cut, or taxes must get raised, or debt must increase, or someone must pay for the cost of healthcare.

another example: the cost of driving to south carolina to buy a car for a discount (the benefit) is not just the cost of gas/lodging/food etc, but also the time spent going there, how tired you will be afterwords etc. Depending on how high the discount is, the cost may or may not be worth the drive. But you have to know the cost to know if the discount is worth it.

This little bit of information came as a surprise to me:

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that Mr. Obama's plan would amount to a tax cut for 81 percent of all households, or 95.5 percent of those with children. The center calculated that by 2012 the Obama plan would let middle-income taxpayers keep about 5 percent more income on average, or nearly $2,200 a year, while Mr. McCain would give them an average 3 percent break, or about $1,400. The richest 1 percent would pay an average $19,000 more in taxes each year under Mr. Obama's plan but see a tax cut of more than $125,000 under Mr. McCain.

I frankly didn't not expect Obama's tax plan to actually have lower taxes for the middle class. I figured he would lower middle class taxes, but not by as much as McCain.

Here is the clever graphic you wanted:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00950.html

And yes, the Democrats appear to have a better tax cut for the majority of taxpayers.

However, there is more to this story. Obama wants to raise the dividend Tax to 40% (that ladies and gents would be your retirement) and raise the Estate tax to 28% (which mean if I sell my house tomorrow, I have to give the Gov't 95,200). WTF!

But wait it gets worse:

"Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion."

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/ec ... 2008061113

With interest! So how much is 13.5 trillion at 6.5 percent over 10 years. . .