Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

View Poll Results: Who's the best candidate for the economy?
Barack Obama 14 17.28%
Hilary Clinton 3 3.70%
John Edwards 2 2.47%
Ron Paul 42 51.85%
Rudy Giulianni 1 1.23%
John McCain 0 0%
Mitt Romney 17 20.99%
Mike Huckabee 2 2.47%
Voters: 81. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-23-2008, 09:47 PM #43
rkwhoooooo
Male Model
 
rkwhoooooo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
My issue with Ron Paul is this, and anyone can feel free to try and answer this with historical examples or whatever. There have been countless politicians on the local, state, and federal level that have said they will cut/remove the bureaucracy drastically, only to be elected and do nothing.

Now, I understand the great hurdles it takes to remove that fluff in the government. How would America run without the federal government we've had for over 100 years?

Just remember what they said about communism, at times it may be wasteful, but the trains always run on time.
__________________
Fight off your demons

ΣX
rkwhoooooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 01-23-2008, 10:23 PM #44
fuhrer325 (Banned)
 
fuhrer325's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: West Side (L), Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paint Freak 98 View Post
Paul.

More realistically, Obama since Paul is struggling.


You've got to be kidding me.

For the last time: On Economics: PAUL IS NOTHING LIKE OBAMA.

I've said that so many times on these boards, it's not even funny. I've pointed out why multiple times, so I won't type it all out again.

You're completely delusional if you believe they are even close.
fuhrer325 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2008, 12:09 AM #45
Pickle Suprise
 
 
Pickle Suprise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paint Freak 98 View Post
The president only has so much power over the economy anyways.
unless you happen to be named george w. bush, in which case all the problems relating to the economy are conveniently laid at your feet?
Pickle Suprise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2008, 12:27 AM #46
graysonp
Me = Awesome
 
graysonp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southern KY
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkwhoooooo View Post
Just remember what they said about communism, at times it may be wasteful, but the trains always run on time.
Who the Hell said that?
graysonp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2008, 01:09 AM #47
strongboy2005
And the memory remains...
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkwhoooooo View Post
Now, I understand the great hurdles it takes to remove that fluff in the government. How would America run without the federal government we've had for over 100 years?
Honestly, the immediate effect Ron Paul would have would be a barrier to new spending. We could count on "Dr. No" to veto quite a few spending bills as president, which is something I strongly support. As commander and chief of the armed forces he would also have the sole authority to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq and other wasteful locations around the world, serving as another reduction in government spending.

The major cuts he talks about as far as welfare and social security go would happen very slowly and wouldn't even be close to finished by the end of his presidency (even assuming he served two terms). Eliminating social security, in particular, would be generational where individuals could choose to opt out of the program. Obviously, the response to this ability to opt out would eventually kill social security altogether (although with a booming economy and very very low taxes, individuals would have an easier time saving for retirement anyway, eliminating the need for social security)

Along the way, with the economy booming due to the reduced tax burden on the populous, there would eventually eliminate the need for welfare. At this point with the economy being strong and the ability to keep much more of the fruits of your labor, the only excuse one would have to not be successful is laziness or disability. IMO the states could adequately take care of those (financially) who are physically unable to work. Those who are lazy will be ignored.

Our biggest expenditures are our military and our entitlements. The Dept. of Education is a very small (relatively) government expenditure. Although Paul's libertarian ideals of a constitutionally-modeled federal government are an excellent goal, I think he recognizes that there are bigger fish to fry. Namely, foreign expenditures, future entitlements (which are around $50 trillion by some estimates), and a collapsing dollar caused by inflation are the biggest threats to our country.

He would start by reigning in spending overseas, but the rest of his proposals would be unlikely to pass the senate (especially if more seats are lost to Democrats). Besides cutting spending overseas, his next truly viable ability would be the veto pen... which he would use often...
strongboy2005 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2008, 03:04 AM #48
ClintonBaller2
blah
 
ClintonBaller2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: MS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pickle Suprise View Post
unless you happen to be named george w. bush, in which case all the problems relating to the economy are conveniently laid at your feet?
Perhaps because he's done nothing while we head to a recession. Should we blame Bill Clinton? I'm pretty sure the economy was fine back then and we weren't spending $3.50 for a gallon of gas.
ClintonBaller2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2008, 03:28 AM #49
things2auction
Your AD here - $5
 
things2auction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, Washington
 has been a member for 10 years
things2auction plays in the PSP
things2auction plays in the APPA D5 division
Quote:
Originally Posted by mynameisjonathon View Post
Yeah, but the government probably spends that money anyways. Americans might just save it and keep it out of the economy.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHa....sorry I couldn't control myself.

When was the last time the American public saved anything? Right now we have negative savings. Give people money and they will spend it, that's what keeps our economy going is our ability to spend money (that we might not even have) like no other country in the world.

Perfect example... when people get their tax refunds, what do 99% of people do with them? Go spend the money!

Let people keep the money they earn, unless you think the government knows how to spend your money better than you do..
things2auction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2008, 07:21 AM #50
Furious Ge0rge (Banned)
 
Furious Ge0rge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: flag@whitehouse.gov
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adema3412 View Post
Seems a bit hypocritical of you to ask me to back up my statements with fact, when you fail to do so, but I don't mind, so I shall.

Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of it, but it is a larger issue on the Republican side.

Corporate socialism is essentially government support of private industry. In the most obvious examples private firms receive subsidies from the government, not unlike those on welfare. Less obvious and more debatable are the tax loopholes present for corporations.

Then there are massive corporate bailouts, which cost the tax payers billions of dollars, they do it in the name of saving jobs, but the fact is most of these workers could be retrained for new jobs, for far less than it cost to bailout their company.

If you are outraged about private individuals being given tax payer money to survive, I don't see how you couldn't be even more enraged about private firms being given tax payer money in order to profit.
Not to mention Tax-increment financing. That's basically Corporations using the Government as your broker and staking a claim on tax payer money! Corporate Socialism ahoy!
Furious Ge0rge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2008, 01:03 PM #51
idesofmarch315
PirateoftheSiliconValley
 
idesofmarch315's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: N/W Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by mynameisjonathon View Post
Yeah, but the government probably spends that money anyways. Americans might just save it and keep it out of the economy.
Do you even understand how our banking system works? Banks invests 90% of the money you deposit into it. Even if you aren't spending it, someone else always is. That is unless you save your money by stuffing it into a mattress.

As far as the best candidate to help our economy. Michael Bloomberg hands down.
__________________
Can I play with madness?

Last edited by idesofmarch315 : 01-24-2008 at 01:36 PM.
idesofmarch315 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2008, 05:45 PM #52
mynameisjonathon
This is the new sound..
 
mynameisjonathon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: TN
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by things2auction View Post
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHa....sorry I couldn't control myself.

When was the last time the American public saved anything? Right now we have negative savings. Give people money and they will spend it, that's what keeps our economy going is our ability to spend money (that we might not even have) like no other country in the world.

Perfect example... when people get their tax refunds, what do 99% of people do with them? Go spend the money!

Let people keep the money they earn, unless you think the government knows how to spend your money better than you do..
No need to be a dick. I asked for an explanation and I'm still waiting on it but oh well.... Anyways you seem to not get it either.

There susposed to spend the money when they get tax refunds, but if people sense an impending crisis they might not spend it.

In some cases I think the government might be more far sighted than I am. I like some of the internal improvements personally. I've watched the money jump out of my paycheck, but oh well. I support reduction but not deletion of income tax.

Anyways I read up on some deadweight stuff, and I might get it.
__________________
aim yooler
Rain down, rain down
Come on rain down on me
From a great height
From a great height... height...
Rain down, rain down

http://www.bestpanamacitybeachcondo.com

Last edited by mynameisjonathon : 01-24-2008 at 05:59 PM.
mynameisjonathon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2008, 07:56 PM #53
Adema3412
Give me fiction
 
Adema3412's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mynameisjonathon View Post
No need to be a dick. I asked for an explanation and I'm still waiting on it but oh well.... Anyways you seem to not get it either.
Sorry, passed out after soccer and had class today, well here we go.

Basically a tax is a form of market reconstruction and any almost any time you change the market, with the exception of places where the market fails, such as externalities, the most obvious being pollution, you end up with a less productive and efficient market.

In short, taxes don't allow resources to be allocated where they are most wanted. It prevents mutually beneficial transactions from taking place.



This is graph depicts the effects of a sales tax, the area labeled gone are mutually beneficial transactions that would have taken place without a sales tax and is the deadweight loss. No matter how efficiently the government distributes its revenue it will never be able to regain that lost benefit. There are ways to make it more efficient, such as if the tax is on an item with a very inelastic demand curve (vertical) or a very inelastic supply curve (horizontal), but it will never be as efficient.

The income tax basically works the same way as an income tax basically shifts the demand curve to the left, as a result of the a decrease in income, which is known as the income effect. The income and substitution effect are what make up the price effect and are one of the ways to derive a demand curve.

I hope that helps, if not I can try again. It's hard teaching econ over the internet, mainly because drawing graphs takes forever.
__________________
I can't believe how strange it is to be anything at all
It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized
discipline. But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion
on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
--Murray Rothbard
Adema3412 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2008, 08:22 PM #54
mynameisjonathon
This is the new sound..
 
mynameisjonathon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: TN
 has been a member for 10 years
I might get some of it I guess. Demand goes down because people won't have as much money to spend since things will be more expensive(I'm guessing this is what shifting the demand curve left means?).

By the way how does taxing gas, which I do beleive is an inelastic item, make the system more efficent?

How can it justify though that some government internal improvements aren't a mutually beneifical transaction. I mean I guess its not as direct as letting the people choose which benefits they want though.

Another question though. Don't taxes also have their benefits? Combating inflation or things of that matter? Or if Inflation was high would prices eventually become to much and discourage buying?
__________________
aim yooler
Rain down, rain down
Come on rain down on me
From a great height
From a great height... height...
Rain down, rain down

http://www.bestpanamacitybeachcondo.com
mynameisjonathon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2008, 08:43 PM #55
graysonp
Me = Awesome
 
graysonp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southern KY
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mynameisjonathon View Post
By the way how does taxing gas, which I do beleive is an inelastic item, make the system more efficent?
It doesn't. It's not an inefficient as a tax on an elastic good, but it's still less efficient than a free market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mynameisjonathon View Post
How can it justify though that some government internal improvements aren't a mutually beneifical transaction. I mean I guess its not as direct as letting the people choose which benefits they want though.
Any time a 3rd party is involved with a transaction, it creates a less efficient market. For example, two parties may agree with a transaction, but the third party (the government) does not allow it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mynameisjonathon View Post
Another question though. Don't taxes also have their benefits? Combating inflation or things of that matter? Or if Inflation was high would prices eventually become to much and discourage buying?
The only benefits of taxes are to provide revenue for a government. The free market will always provide lower inflation rates than a manipulated market. Even then, inflation does not matter. As long as the supply of money does not change relative to the demand of money, inflation is a nominal price increase.

In other words, it doesn't matter if inflation is 1,000% every year, as long as every price rises 1,000% every year.
graysonp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2008, 09:02 PM #56
Adema3412
Give me fiction
 
Adema3412's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mynameisjonathon View Post
I might get some of it I guess. Demand goes down because people won't have as much money to spend since things will be more expensive(I'm guessing this is what shifting the demand curve left means?).
You're right that, a shift to the left means a decline in demand. But it's not simply that they have less money, as the government uses that revenue. It is because that in the free market the money would have been efficiently allocated in the mutually beneficial transaction that the tax prevents.

Quote:
By the way how does taxing gas, which I do beleive is an inelastic item, make the system more efficent?
It is a more efficient tax than say furniture or some elastic good, because people will still continue to pay, so only consumers are really affected rather than suppliers, but it is still less efficient than if there was no tax at all.

Quote:
How can it justify though that some government internal improvements aren't a mutually beneifical transaction. I mean I guess its not as direct as letting the people choose which benefits they want though.
The revenue can be used in an efficient manner, but the area noted as a deadweight loss will never be regained. That is a lost mutually beneficial transaction.

It's kind of a hard idea to wrap your head around, you would think, well since the government takes the money and spend it, it's just like the consumer spending, but it isn't. The tax multiplier, which is essentially how when money enters the economy it transfers hands and grows, is smaller than the autonomous spending multiplier.

Quote:
Another question though. Don't taxes also have their benefits? Combating inflation or things of that matter? Or if Inflation was high would prices eventually become to much and discourage buying?
Taxes can deal with inflation, but a much easier way is to just raise the interest rate.

Taxes create equity and provide public goods, but that is about it.
__________________
I can't believe how strange it is to be anything at all
It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized
discipline. But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion
on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
--Murray Rothbard

Last edited by Adema3412 : 01-25-2008 at 12:17 PM.
Adema3412 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2008, 06:07 AM #57
$h@key J0nEZ
Pissing On
 
$h@key J0nEZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Your Parade
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adema3412 View Post
Seems a bit hypocritical of you to ask me to back up my statements with fact, when you fail to do so, but I don't mind, so I shall.

Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of it, but it is a larger issue on the Republican side.

Corporate socialism is essentially government support of private industry. In the most obvious examples private firms receive subsidies from the government, not unlike those on welfare. Less obvious and more debatable are the tax loopholes present for corporations.

Then there are massive corporate bailouts, which cost the tax payers billions of dollars, they do it in the name of saving jobs, but the fact is most of these workers could be retrained for new jobs, for far less than it cost to bailout their company.

If you are outraged about private individuals being given tax payer money to survive, I don't see how you couldn't be even more enraged about private firms being given tax payer money in order to profit.
Nice to see some intelligence in a GOP thread.
__________________
$h@key J0nEZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2008, 06:28 PM #58
Truthiness
 
 
Truthiness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegacyWins View Post
Of course you aren't impressed. You think Ron Paul ****s rainbows.
Are you some kind of Mitt Romney Sloganator?

It just sounds like you copy and paste from issue ads.
Truthiness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2008, 06:40 PM #59
Jake Jeckel (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
thats easy Ron Paul duh
Jake Jeckel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump