Ron Paul, does he stand a chance?

[Soriak]

Just pointing out that 'everyone getting richer' is called inflation, good luck with that today. Because what the US really needs are more expensive imports

[Angerz]

Originally Posted by MrGraham

If everyone who's thinking "Man I'd vote for him, but he has no shot of winning so what's the point?" went out and registered and voted for him in the primaries, it would make a world of a difference.

But they won't. Everyone likes to complain, but the primaries will be another record low turnout because people actually believe the bullshit propaganda that your vote doesn't matter.

If Ron Paul pulled even 10% of the votes, you'd better believe he'd get more heard. And if he gets more heard, maybe he won't get elected, but people will start listening to his way of thinking and realize how fucked up our current system is.

Personally I enjoy voting, civic duty as a citizen and what not. I guess it helps my boss lets me come in late and my polling place is like 30 seconds from my house AND on the way to work. Plus it's my bank so I get to take care of any banking I need to do while there.

But yeah it was sad to see a voter turn out of a few thousand in our last election in march.

[voodoochile78]

Originally Posted by Mkopec1

Were you even alive back when Regan took office? I was. I remeber as a kid my parents struggling in the chugging economy of another great Democratic leader, Carter. I remeber my parents paying 12-13% mortgage rates back then. I guess you are just a dumb redneck, but you dodnt even know it...

Did I say the economy was good under Carter? No.

I made the point that tax cuts for rich people are at the very least, uncorrelated to job growth for the middle class.

Here is the real truth...

From fucking The Cato Institute no less!

Right here is going to be our disconnect. Everything you quoted from The Cato Institute has to do with stock price indexes. That's how conservatives measure the economy. That's the only way they ever measure the economy.

I'm talking about jobs and wages for the middle class and below. Why am I talking about jobs and wages for the middle class and below? Because we started talking about flat-rate sales taxes and how it would be a boon to the rich and fuck over the poor and middle class.

Go out and find the nearest poor redneck you can find. Ask him what the Dow is at, and how much he made in capital gains last year. The answer to the first question will be "huh?" and the answer to the second will be "zero." Then he'll tell you to get off his lawn because he's going to get his gun.

Unemployment was higher during the Reagan years than the Clinton years. Real wages have actually been pretty stagnant (or slighly declining) since at least the 1970s. My point is that despite of Reagan's and GWB's tax cuts for the rich, things didn't get any better for the middle and lower class. And despite Clinton's increase of the top maginal rate and the estate tax, the middle and lower classes did better.

Even if you want to spin these facts to be the most beneficial to your point of view, the best you can say is that how much the ultra rich are taxed and the well-being of the middle/working class are uncorrelated. That's the most you could say.

So yeah, back to the point. Havelock (or whoever it was) is a poor schmuck who wants tax cuts for Paris Hilton because he thinks that one day, he or his children will be that wealthy. He's willing to pay more than his fair share of the existing tax burden to live that dream. I think that's pretty fucking irrational but good luck living the dream!

[Mkopec1]

Clinton was like Phil Jackson, when he inherited the Bulls with Mike Jordan and Pippen already on the team, ready to be champions. If you cannot see this, than you are blinded.

No doubt Clinton improved what Regan set in motion in the 80's but bottom line is that Regan was a game changer, like FDR. Clinton was definitely not. Clinton could reduce military spending because Cold War was over, plus in 1995 he got a GOP led Congress ready and willing to balance the budget. all Clinton had to do is NOT_FUCK_UP and he did just that.

[chaos]

You're seriously trying to say that trickle down economics shit not only worked, but was responsible for the economy in the 90s... yeah I humbly disagree with your assertions.

[Mkopec1]

Originally Posted by chaos

You're seriously trying to say that trickle down economics shit not only worked, but was responsible for the economy in the 90s... yeah I humbly disagree with your assertions.

Oh, and I see you have tons of data to back up your dissagreement.

[chaos]

I have absolutely no factual data, yet I still disagree, and will battle you in a monkey knife fight to the death to determine the winner. America is awesome.

IMO that argument has basically always been a way for republican/right wing/whatever types to shit on Clinton while at the same time further idolizing their god, Ronnie. I don't really have a beef with Ronnie besides him completely ignoring the AIDS epidemic for 6 years (even then he didn't do shit, that's just the first time he actuall said the word), well that and the whole contras thing. But yeah, he wasn't FDR.

[Mario Speedwagon]

I don't pretend to know a lot about it but is trickle down economics really as dumb as it sounds?

Also to keep this discussion at least a little about Ron Paul, check out who else supports him: Is Ron Paul the One? - Stormfront White Nationalist Community

[Arbitrary]

High tides raise all ships as so the saying goes.

[chaos]

Yeah I've never heard anyone adaquately explain how that is supposed to be working. CEO of Exxon getting 20 million bonuses and cutting 3500 jobs affects the rest of us positively how?

[Lejina Bloodbath]

Well, then he has more cash to spend and will get 400$ haircuts more often, that's money directly in the pockets of the hairdressers.

Or something like that.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Mario Speedwagon

I don't pretend to know a lot about it but is trickle down economics really as dumb as it sounds?

See, if you make $20m in capital gains you have to pay $3m taxes. This doesn't really leave much for things like shopping, so of course this is a problem to Electronics stores, car manufacturers and supermarkets. They're losing huge amounts of revenue. But if you give those people a tax cut, so they have another 500k, they'll spend the money where the majority of American jobs are. (cocaine dealers, Gucci stores and bling-jewelry manufacturers)

Of course it's stupid, available wealth is not an issue in the top income/estate brackets and money isn't spent where it does the most good. Economies are built on the middle class, there's no way around it.

Investors help fund companies, so there's some value there too - but no amount of funding can make up for REVENUE. If you have only millionaires in the country, they can fund Walmart out of their asses, but if nobody shops there the store still has to close.

If you give $500/month to every American living in poverty, that money goes straight into the economy. (the reason why it'd cause inflation, but that's beside the point and given a more appropriate 'payout' is manageable) The money spent will create new jobs, now required because of the increased demand. Effect: Yay economy. (note: I'm not favoring any payout like this, but it'd definitely stimulate the economy)

You give 10x that amount to the top income brackets and not a single cent is going to 'trickle down' - does anyone really believe Paris Hilton & Co are limited by their taxes? They already spend as much as they can, they're not holding back because they can't afford taxes. I'll also go on a limp here and say the industry where they spend their money isn't the backbone of the economy.


As for Reagan, it doesn't take an economics degree to realize that the distribution of wealth was not nearly as polarized as it is now. When you have not even the very top pull in almost 100x the salary of a high priced attorney without getting out of bed, you'll have a very difficult time rationalizing why their taxes should be cut.

edit:

Originally Posted by Lejina Bloodbath

Well, then he has more cash to spend and will get 400$ haircuts more often, that's money directly in the pockets of the hairdressers.

Just to point out: New York has a place selling $1,000 ice cream. It sells. There are plenty of hotels around the world charging over $10,000 per night in a suite - you won't even be able to reserve it for New Years because of how far in advance they're booked. $1,000/night for normal rooms is becoming the very low-end of "exclusive" vacations; not even considering $300+ per person dinners in the hotel restaurant.

A $400 haircut is nothing and the fact it's considered a big deal by many people may just show that they are unaware of what 'expensive' these days is. I wouldn't blame them, you don't really hear much about it.

[voodoochile78]

Originally Posted by Soriak

Investors help fund companies, so there's some value there too - but no amount of funding can make up for REVENUE. If you have only millionaires in the country, they can fund Walmart out of their asses, but if nobody shops there the store still has to close.

Good post Soriak. One other point I'd like to add related to the point of "investors" as it relates to trickle-down economics. This is the 21st fucking century and investment is an international business. There's nothing guaranteeing that the ultra-rich business tycoon that you're given a tax cut to is going to invest in the American economy. In fact, chances are he won't. He'll start up a factory in some 3rd world country where he doesn't have to worry about living wages or environmental laws. Likewise, there's nothing stopping American entrepreneurs getting venture capital from the Chinese, or whoever.

No one ever comes to grip with that very obvious fact. Trying to stimulate the American economy by giving tax cuts to the ultra-rich venture capitalist class is like trying to catch water with a sieve.

If you're really trying to stimulate the American economy, then your efforts are better spent trying to prop up people who are pretty much geographically bound to the United States, i.e. the middle and working classes. Shit, even if you buy into the idea of supply-side economics, give the money to the small-business owning class, who are still geographically bound here because of their families and actual patriotism.

[rinthea]

Originally Posted by voodoochile78

Good post Soriak. One other point I'd like to add related to the point of "investors" as it relates to trickle-down economics. This is the 21st fucking century and investment is an international business. There's nothing guaranteeing that the ultra-rich business tycoon that you're given a tax cut to is going to invest in the American economy. In fact, chances are he won't. He'll start up a factory in some 3rd world country where he doesn't have to worry about living wages or environmental laws. Likewise, there's nothing stopping American entrepreneurs getting venture capital from the Chinese, or whoever.

No one ever comes to grip with that very obvious fact. Trying to stimulate the American economy by giving tax cuts to the ultra-rich venture capitalist class is like trying to catch water with a sieve.

If you're really trying to stimulate the American economy, then your efforts are better spent trying to prop up people who are pretty much geographically bound to the United States, i.e. the middle and working classes. Shit, even if you buy into the idea of supply-side economics, give the money to the small-business owning class, who are still geographically bound here because of their families and actual patriotism.

Yeah, because theres no such thing as a money market and protectionism has been a real hoot. Support for the dependent, leads to dependence for support. Something far worse...

[voodoochile78]

Originally Posted by rinthea

Yeah, because theres no such thing as a money market and protectionism has been a real hoot.

You're way off base. Who the fuck mentioned protectionism? We were talking about where you'd want to direct tax cuts to stimulate the American economy. That has nothing the fuck at all do to with tarriffs and the like.

Support for the dependent, leads to dependence for support. Something far worse...

Huh? We're talking primarily about tax cuts for the middle class. I guess that in conservative-speak, the middle class is code for black welfare queens with 17 kids. Who knew?

I can't believe you missed the points by as much as you did.