Republican candidates for 2012
-
HitsRus
Even if you could, I'm not sure it would be relevant or comparable.. I'm sure alot of it was the elderly being taken care of by their family. Life expectancy was not nearly as great. Society was nowhere near as mobile...limited or no cars etc.etc. In a sense, that is what Social Security is...young working people taking care of their parents, only on a societal level. I really don't see a problem with the concept of a payroll tax providing a safety net. It could/should be a case of money coming in equals money going out....a fully sustainable concept especially if people are allowed/ encouraged to take advantage of tax advantaged retirement vehicles...IRA's 401(K)'s etc. The idiots and unfortunates would have their safety net...and the savvy people could put more away for a better retirement. The 'problem" with Social Security is very simply that the baby boomers were over taxed on the assumption that money would be there for their retirement, when in fact it was spent on other budget items. Had they only been taxed on what it would have taken to support their parents, and been allowed/encouraged to invest the difference in a tax advantaged retirement vehicle we wouldn't be having the problems we are today.I wonder how doable it would be to compare the number of people who went hungry in their senior years prior to Social Security compared to today. Given inflation and the arbitrary view of what the "poverty line" actually is, that might be difficult, but I'd still be interested if it could be done.
Significant changes in credit and the rules for aquiring a mortgage has led to the problems we have today. Real estate did fine requiring 20% down...or 10% with PMI. We need to lokk at what happenned there and hold those responsible accountable...both Republican and Democrat.big part of the problem is just a lack of discipline and the new American dream of living beyond one's means. People just don't understand frugality and planning decades ahead for retirement. They buy too much house, -
majorspark
If Cain is the nominee lets do the math. Cain is 100% black. Obama is 50%. So when the democrats oppose Cain its going to make them the greater racists. Just going by what I have been told the last few years. Opposing black politicians policies must be because of skin color.
Also how is Harry Reid going to deal with Cain's dark skin and slightly negro dialect? Would Cain be clean and articulate enough of an African American for Vice President Biden? -
O-Trap
Out of compulsion, and not duty, and all the young working people are taking care of all the not-working parents.HitsRus;913556 wrote:Even if you could, I'm not sure it would be relevant or comparable.. I'm sure alot of it was the elderly being taken care of by their family. Life expectancy was not nearly as great. Society was nowhere near as mobile...limited or no cars etc.etc. In a sense, that is what Social Security is...young working people taking care of their parents, only on a societal level.
If my dad doesn't need Social Security, can I opt-out, then? If my parents are dead? If my parents were assholes?
If it was being done in the '50s, it was likely a combination of societal pressure and a sense of responsibility, but the choice remained.
I resent being forced to help others. Hell, I help a couple families with the remnant take-home pay, but that is out of choice ... as it ought to be.
Realistically, this shouldn't be an issue, because the money used to take care of Grandma/Grandpa SHOULD be the money they'd been putting in for years anyway. It shouldn't even be necessary for my money to be used to take care of them, as they paid into the system ... Where did their money go? Eventually, you come to either (a) a generation that reaped the benefit without sowing into it, or (b) the amazing missing money of an entire generation over the course of time.
Either way, there is a rat among the system, and it shouldn't be my responsibility to cover the rat's actions.
But why should I have to settle for money in equaling money out? Why not start a business, work it up to a point where I can hire others to run it, and let the residual income from that fund my later years? I may see more than a 1-to-1 ROI.HitsRus;913556 wrote:I really don't see a problem with the concept of a payroll tax providing a safety net. It could/should be a case of money coming in equals money going out....a fully sustainable concept especially if people are allowed/ encouraged to take advantage of tax advantaged retirement vehicles...IRA's 401(K)'s etc.
If they have more to put away, sure. If they don't, and the mandatory retirement policy (even if fully functioning) we call Social Security is all they can afford in terms of a retirement, then their ability to make themselves less of a strain on the public has been stifled by the unnecessary policy.HitsRus;913556 wrote:The idiots and unfortunates would have their safety net...and the savvy people could put more away for a better retirement.
That may or may not be, but I still would suggest that an obligatory retirement policy that was created by, is enforced by, is regulated by, is overseen by, and is structured by the Federal government puts way too little independence in the hands of the people and too much power in the hands of the Fed.HitsRus;913556 wrote:The 'problem" with Social Security is very simply that the baby boomers were over taxed on the assumption that money would be there for their retirement, when in fact it was spent on other budget items. Had they only been taxed on what it would have taken to support their parents, and been allowed/encouraged to invest the difference in a tax advantaged retirement vehicle we wouldn't be having the problems we are today. -
gut
At what cost?!? That is simply moronic. A big part of why we got off the gold standard to begin with is capital was concentrated and you can't grow when entrepreneurs can't find money to borrow. What you are proposing is to make the US a 3rd world country and completely uncompetitive globally over some misguided and completely ignorant faith in a fixed monetary system.Cleveland Buck;913263 wrote:If our economy is so geared up to inflated prices and returns in the financial sector, and I agree that it is, then that should change.
Technology and the world today demands a fiat money system for many, many reasons. Like the horse and buggy, the gold standard is simply outdated and irrelevant today. If you're worried about a little inflation, then invest your money and go after pay raises - two pretty powerful incentives that are pro-growth. Imagine that! You, on the other hand, want to go back to people stuffing money under mattresses and think that is somehow going to be productive. -
gut
Again, join me in the real world of economics post-1960. The cost of capital is a function of liquidity, which while how much people spend and save is a factor it is not the only driver. Liquidity is a function of the money supply and the multiplier effect, and a fixed money supply restricts both and you fail to grasp how negative that is for the cost of capital, much less the time it takes to obtain capital as a result. A business without access to capital is uncompetitive and irrelevant. You can be a very healthy business but cash is tied-up in inventory and A/R and where's the cash to go buy that new machine? But in some cases I can get supplier credit against those receivables, so that's an end-around your fixed money supply, anyway. But without doubt what a gold standard will do is increase the cost of financing and create various deadweight losses - inefficient allocation of capital among them. As an economic system, it's simply a dinosaur and should rightfully be extinct.Cleveland Buck;913263 wrote: The cost of capital is high when people are spending their money, which means business should be investing their cash on the lower end production processes like getting their products to the stores and what not. The cost of capital is low when people are not spending their money and they are saving it, which means business can go ahead and borrow to invest in longer term processes like R&D and adding capital goods for increasing production when they are ready to do so. The economy isn't supposed to be in constant overdrive both producing and consuming non stop. I don't know how you come up with that this fails in the real world. It has never been tried. The closest would be the industrial revolution in the United States. -
gut
My main beef when I here "baby boomers paid that money in"....Well, yes, they did. But they've also been re-electing politicians who have been spending more than they take in for most of 30 years. So I have trouble saying they deserve this money while taking no responsibility for that money they never funded. "Fair" is giving them their social security AND a bill for what hasn't been funded under their watch, which is basically what cutting the benefit does - it's giving them the money they are owed after subtracting what they still owe the govt.HitsRus;913556 wrote:Even if you could, I'm not sure it would be relevant or comparable.. I'm sure alot of it was the elderly being taken care of by their family. Life expectancy was not nearly as great. Society was nowhere near as mobile...limited or no cars etc.etc. In a sense, that is what Social Security is...young working people taking care of their parents, only on a societal level. I really don't see a problem with the concept of a payroll tax providing a safety net. It could/should be a case of money coming in equals money going out....a fully sustainable concept especially if people are allowed/ encouraged to take advantage of tax advantaged retirement vehicles...IRA's 401(K)'s etc. The idiots and unfortunates would have their safety net...and the savvy people could put more away for a better retirement. The 'problem" with Social Security is very simply that the baby boomers were over taxed on the assumption that money would be there for their retirement, when in fact it was spent on other budget items. Had they only been taxed on what it would have taken to support their parents, and been allowed/encouraged to invest the difference in a tax advantaged retirement vehicle we wouldn't be having the problems we are today.
Significant changes in credit and the rules for aquiring a mortgage has led to the problems we have today. Real estate did fine requiring 20% down...or 10% with PMI. We need to lokk at what happenned there and hold those responsible accountable...both Republican and Democrat.
ARM's probably had more to do with it as it enabled people to buy more house than they could afford, and such artificial inflation of asset prices is a prerequisite for a bubble. I don't think 20% down or PMI really affects what sort of payment you can afford - it's not like people otherwise set that aside to draw down to cover a payment they can't afford. Too much liquidity had the compounded effect of looser lending standards combined with low rates and easy to obtain loans - rates dropping from 8-9% to 5-6% (less with ARMs) makes a huge difference in what people can afford. And with the big boom in demand for owning the 20% down and refinance costs don't really do anything to make flipping unprofitable, and that is again facilitated with the ease of credit. -
Belly35
I’m still believe that the best GOP ticket will the combo of President and VP. Not a one individual race.
I don’t think that a weak VP representation will carry the GOP to an overwhelming victory. Victory yes but not a soundly defeat over Obama.
Not only will the GOP VP have to be as popular as the Presidential candidate but just as compentent as to be the next President.
As the OC registered racist I’m liking Herman Cain with each debate. I have felt that he would be an ideal strong VP candidate. However more and more the potential for President is becoming appealing.
One big factor in this GOP race is the Chris Christie factor … if he should enter the race I think that a Herman Cain would be better severed as the VP with Christie/ Cain ticket. This would prepare the GOP for the next Cain Presidential election to come..
Deep down in my gut I also think that if Christie enters the GOP race and selects Herman Cain to be his running mate …. The Democrat will be looking for Hillary ASAP as a Presidential Candidate or VP
If it where today and I had to pick President from the GOP candidates …. Herman Cain would be that man (as of now)
However with the Incompetent Community Organizer losing more and more popularity in the Black community (Belly predict would happen) and the Black business people (Belly saw this coming also) that 98% Black vote come election time will be less that 50% …. Malcolm X 1964 NAACP address pointed this out to the Black Community that Democrat user mofo…
2012 election will also see a 30% less turn-out of the Black population … unless Herman Cain is on the ticket as President or VP …
-
Cleveland Buck
The "real world of economics post-1960" is pure nonsense. That is the thinking that said it was ok for us to drive our economy on consumer borrowing and printing money which is what leaves us in the mess we are in today where we can't produce anything and our weak dollar drives away foreign capital so all we have is an illusion of an economy. When the cheap credit stops it will all come crashing down. It is and was completely unsustainable.gut;913884 wrote:Again, join me in the real world of economics post-1960. The cost of capital is a function of liquidity, which while how much people spend and save is a factor it is not the only driver. Liquidity is a function of the money supply and the multiplier effect, and a fixed money supply restricts both and you fail to grasp how negative that is for the cost of capital, much less the time it takes to obtain capital as a result. A business without access to capital is uncompetitive and irrelevant. You can be a very healthy business but cash is tied-up in inventory and A/R and where's the cash to go buy that new machine? But in some cases I can get supplier credit against those receivables, so that's an end-around your fixed money supply, anyway. But without doubt what a gold standard will do is increase the cost of financing and create various deadweight losses - inefficient allocation of capital among them. As an economic system, it's simply a dinosaur and should rightfully be extinct.
In a healthy, free market economy, if there isn't capital available either from domestic savings or foreign investment, then that tells business they shouldn't be investing in longer term processes right now. This idea that we should be stimulating both long and short term production processes at the same time is unsustainable and is exactly what causes the boom-bust cycle we deal with now. Steady, sustainable growth is preferable to a reckless inflationary boom and the ensuing bust to correct the mistakes of the boom.
I don't see where your assumptions come from that capital would be allocated inefficiently. This is the only way capital can be allocated efficiently. We didn't abandon the gold standard because of liquidity problems, we abandoned the gold standard because we printed too much money and couldn't redeem the rest of the world's dollars in gold, so we defaulted. The economy seemed to do just fine for 150 years before we were taken off of a real gold standard. Liquidity would definitely be a problem in today's economy because we don't produce anything and everything we do is based on borrowing and spending. That doesn't mean we should try to prop that system up, we can't. Credit can't stay cheap forever. All it would take is a 5% rise in interest rates to bankrupt many people and bankrupt the federal government. We need to have a severe correction and liquidation of all of this debt and get back to people saving and investing their money so that we can produce things and have a real economy. -
O-Trap
This isn't a lack of intelligence, either. It's pure and unadulterated irresponsibility. If a company tells you they're going to basically give you free money as long as you put aside some of your own that you can still spend at a later date (ie you don't lose any of it), you take as much as they'll give you.gut;913226 wrote:I've seen college educated kids, right out of school, who don't even contribute enough to get the company 401k match.
And they are often unwavering about buying a fixer-upper if the space is actually needed.gut;913226 wrote: A big part of the problem is just a lack of discipline and the new American dream of living beyond one's means. People just don't understand frugality and planning decades ahead for retirement. They buy too much house ...
I know people paying $350 a month for a lease, when they could have bought a car that was just as good for half that, and they could actually have something to show for it in the end.gut;913226 wrote:... they buy (or worse, lease) a new car....
Well, I have a nice phone and cellular plan, but I didn't until I could afford it.gut;913226 wrote:... expensive cell phones (and saw research recently that many have more plan than they need) and cable bills....
I still don't have cable.
And even the idea of buying a used one for a fraction of the cost.gut;913226 wrote:Going for the 50" tv when they really should save a few hundred bucks and get the 37" (and an off brand).
It's the inability to keep from giving into their desires to have things and have them now.gut;913226 wrote:It goes on and on. It's a mentality that a few hundred bucks doesn't get them anywhere and an inability to recognize that $10-$20 here and there across hundreds of transactions adds up.
Reminds me of the study they did on infants awhile back, where they gave all the children a marshmallow and told them that if they didn't eat the marshmallow for an hour, they'd get another marshmallow, but if they did eat it, they wouldn't get another.
As I recall, at least half the kids ate the marshmallow within an hour.
Now, we're dealing with adults, but it seems like many adults still have not disciplined themselves enough to put off something now in order to have more later. -
gut
That's the disincentive created by social safety nets. "If I fall on hard times, the govt will take care of me....so I'll just go ahead and buy these $200 jeans". Then you can look at the poverty level - $21k for a family of 4. That's the equivalent of TWO adults working 50 hours a week. I know these are hard times, but even in good times there's no reason two adults can't combine for at least 65 hours, and more like 80 (gee, expecting 2 people to have 2 jobs, imagine that!). The problem is, again, the handouts make the return (on time) of that second job almost completely not worth it. So it becomes self-sustaining with a family of four needing a handout and no real incentive to stop sucking from the govt teet.O-Trap;914249 wrote: Now, we're dealing with adults, but it seems like many adults still have not disciplined themselves enough to put off something now in order to have more later.
Again, look at Europe which as it's gotten progressively more socialist with the requisite higher taxes, average hours worked have dropped and so have productivity gains as a result. Imagine that, you start giving more handouts and people start losing the incentive to work! -
O-Trap
Precisely. There will always be the person who falls on hard times, but I all but guarantee there will be a lot FEWER of those if there is no safety net to catch them, as some who would otherwise BE one of those people will "suddenly realize" that they have additional means for earning an income ... like working two part-time jobs instead of one full-time job, like both members of the household working, like doing something as simple as an eBay store to churn some extra cash from time to time.gut;914292 wrote:That's the disincentive created by social safety nets. "If I fall on hard times, the govt will take care of me....so I'll just go ahead and buy these $200 jeans". Then you can look at the poverty level - $21k for a family of 4. That's the equivalent of TWO adults working 50 hours a week. I know these are hard times, but even in good times there's no reason two adults can't combine for at least 65 hours, and more like 80 (gee, expecting 2 people to have 2 jobs, imagine that!). The problem is, again, the handouts make the return (on time) of that second job almost completely not worth it. So it becomes self-sustaining with a family of four needing a handout and no real incentive to stop sucking from the govt teet.
Again, look at Europe which as it's gotten progressively more socialist with the requisite higher taxes, average hours worked have dropped and so have productivity gains as a result. Imagine that, you start giving more handouts and people start losing the incentive to work!
It reminds me of a scene in the movie The Princess Bride. The giant approaches the gatekeeper and asks for the key. Said gatekeeper says, "Oh, I have no key." The giant is then instructed to tear off the arms of the gatekeeper, and suddenly, the gatekeeper remembers that he has the key! -
gut
Which we've had a lot more of the past 30-40 years then the days of your "gold standard". You've just acknowledged a fiat money system is superior without even realizing it (or understanding why).Cleveland Buck;914158 wrote:Steady, sustainable growth is preferable to a reckless inflationary boom and the ensuing bust to correct the mistakes of the boom.
Ever hear of the Great Depression? That was global, by the way. I'm sorry, the gold standard went the way of the horse and buggy, rightfully so. Longing for nostalgia for those days is ignorant at best.Cleveland Buck;914158 wrote:The economy seemed to do just fine for 150 years before we were taken off of a real gold standard.
I don't even know how to respond to that. It completely lacks of any business or economic sense. The availability of capital should have no bearing on an investment decision, only the cost of capital and ROI. Lack of liquidity (i.e. capital) is considered counter-growth, is deadweight lost and a counter-productive friction.Cleveland Buck;914158 wrote:In a healthy, free market economy, if there isn't capital available either from domestic savings or foreign investment, then that tells business they shouldn't be investing in longer term processes right now -
gut
Yeah, the "disincentive to work" is one of those theoretical economics concepts that's a bit tough to buy into. Yet there's empirical evidence validating it. I've also seen people on the other end of the spectrum, sales guys and money managers making a bundle who go on vacation in November - for the rest of the year. A) The money manager has no interest in further risking his gains B) Both worked hard enough the rest of the year and have no interest in working more that year when the govt is going to take half their pay, anyway.O-Trap;914296 wrote: It reminds me of a scene in the movie The Princess Bride. The giant approaches the gatekeeper and asks for the key. Said gatekeeper says, "Oh, I have no key." The giant is then instructed to tear off the arms of the gatekeeper, and suddenly, the gatekeeper remembers that he has the key!
I suspect you see this with small businesses, too. Dump enough crushing taxes on them and there's no reason to add a new line or open a second store because the payoff just isn't worth the time and effort. People intuitively understand if the cost of capital increases, investments decrease as the marginal projects are no longer worth the risk (or simply unaffordable). Yet when it comes to taxes people amazingly don't make the connection that taxes have the same impact as higher cost of capital on ROI. -
Cleveland Buck
I assume you have numbers to back this up? The GDP number alone is worthless because it doesn't take real inflation into account nor does it adequately account for government expenditure. I will look for some numbers for you.gut;914300 wrote:Which we've had a lot more of the past 30-40 years then the days of your "gold standard". You've just acknowledged a fiat money system is superior without even realizing it (or understanding why).
The gold standard after World War I was a weak gold standard where only governments could demand redemption of their dollars in gold and banks were not bound by lending against gold, but against any assets they could think of. This allowed banks to inflate during the 1920s which caused the Great Depression. This has nothing to do with a gold standard. We didn't have any Great Depressions before the creation of the Federal Reserve, I know that much.gut;914300 wrote: Ever hear of the Great Depression? That was global, by the way. I'm sorry, the gold standard went the way of the horse and buggy, rightfully so. Longing for nostalgia for those days is ignorant at best.
Most people believe the Keynesian textbooks they read in school taught them business or economic sense, which is why they don't understand the Austrian view. If you want to learn how to respond to my points, I recommend you read or watch various videos on youtube of guys like Tom Woods and Peter Schiff.gut;914300 wrote: I don't even know how to respond to that. It completely lacks of any business or economic sense. -
Devils Advocate
-
Ty Webb
Belly35;914113 wrote:I’m still believe that the best GOP ticket will the combo of President and VP. Not a one individual race.
I don’t think that a weak VP representation will carry the GOP to an overwhelming victory. Victory yes but not a soundly defeat over Obama.
Not only will the GOP VP have to be as popular as the Presidential candidate but just as compentent as to be the next President.
As the OC registered racist I’m liking Herman Cain with each debate. I have felt that he would be an ideal strong VP candidate. However more and more the potential for President is becoming appealing.
One big factor in this GOP race is the Chris Christie factor … if he should enter the race I think that a Herman Cain would be better severed as the VP with Christie/ Cain ticket. This would prepare the GOP for the next Cain Presidential election to come..
Deep down in my gut I also think that if Christie enters the GOP race and selects Herman Cain to be his running mate …. The Democrat will be looking for Hillary ASAP as a Presidential Candidate or VP
If it where today and I had to pick President from the GOP candidates …. Herman Cain would be that man (as of now)
However with the Incompetent Community Organizer losing more and more popularity in the Black community (Belly predict would happen) and the Black business people (Belly saw this coming also) that 98% Black vote come election time will be less that 50% …. Malcolm X 1964 NAACP address pointed this out to the Black Community that Democrat user mofo…
2012 election will also see a 30% less turn-out of the Black population … unless Herman Cain is on the ticket as President or VP …
You don't honestly believe anything you just said do you Belly???
96% of Africian American voters voted for President Obama in 2008.....numbers were very similar for Kerry,Gore,and Bill Clinton twice.
No way in hell does President Obama recieve less than 90% of the black vote in 2012,regardless of whether or not Herman Cain is on the ticket or not(which he won't be unless he wins the nomination). -
Tobias Fünke
Romney-Rubio is the best ticket.
Romney puts Michigan in GOP contention, if shit is still pathetically bad, maybe even (gasp!) Massachusetts? Nevada's Mormons and unemployed will be out in droves to turn that red again. Rubio gives you Florida and every conservative in the country. It'd be a done deal. -
gut
LMAO. No, you're statements reflect a fundamental lack of understanding of economics and what would appear to be zero business sense. It has nothing to do with a Keynesian or Austrian view, you're not understanding the difference between theoretical assumptions and real world frictions that invalidates the models.Cleveland Buck;914315 wrote:I assume you have numbers to back this up? The GDP number alone is worthless because it doesn't take real inflation into account nor does it adequately account for government expenditure. I will look for some numbers for you.
Most people believe the Keynesian textbooks they read in school taught them business or economic sense, which is why they don't understand the Austrian view. If you want to learn how to respond to my points, I recommend you read or watch various videos on youtube of guys like Tom Woods and Peter Schiff.
Top economists these days are advocating open competition in currency, and that's what your boy Ron Paul is proposing. It's an interesting idea, but I think ultimately impractical because the average American doesn't have the time or wherewithal to evaluate the credit worthiness and strength of currency issued by Goldman or Morgan Stanley. And banks printing legal tender, that's a fairly comical concept in its own right. Great idea, great theory...and probably utterly impractical. Heck, many companies have a touch enough time managing FX risk, I can't imagine what happens when you throw a handful or few dozen state and bank currencies into the mix.
And good god man, you can find Real GDP numbers. Most economists talk about Real GDP. That pretty much sums up your level of expertise right there - no more pretending after that. I even know the predictable argument you're going to try to come back with - don't go there, the data isn't perfect but trained economists use that data and don't go making up there own definitions of inflation. LMAO, I can't debate someone that doesn't even know the difference between real and nominal GDP. Typical of my experience on the internets, people with little to no understanding of economics like to throw out Keynesian and Austrian theory buzzwords while clearly having no understanding of either.
By the way, it's generally accepted that up until 2007-8, recessions had become shorter and shallower in the US. You can debate other factors and argue a build-up of undercorrections, but please don't attempt to. Economists are deathly afraid of deflation, because they've observed the consequences in the REAL WORLD in Japan. Sorry, you're Austrian prediction didn't exactly pan out in Japan. -
Belly35
Educate youself mofoTy Webb;914566 wrote:You don't honestly believe anything you just said do you Belly???
96% of Africian American voters voted for President Obama in 2008.....numbers were very similar for Kerry,Gore,and Bill Clinton twice.
No way in hell does President Obama recieve less than 90% of the black vote in 2012,regardless of whether or not Herman Cain is on the ticket or not(which he won't be unless he wins the nomination).
in 2012 this could be Black on Black backlashing
Ask yourself this question if you where Black would you vote for him
being you're a Union Obama Kiss Ass you would say yes.. If you where Back you say mofo no :laugh:
[LEFT]Among the nation’s largest such group, whites, his approval is at 33%—25 points off his post-election high of 58%. Among the second largest ethnicity, Hispanics, his numbers have dropped even more precipitously, from 75% in January, 2009, to 48% in August of this year.
So far has Obama’s star fallen since he rode to electoral victory on the twin promises of hope and change that his approval among his most loyal constituency, blacks, has tied its all-time low. Having once enjoyed a supernal job approval rating of 92%, Obama now gets the nod from a merely unprecedented 84% of blacks.
Either the members of this ethnic group is the most astute political observers ever, or they are judging the president based on the color of his skin. With black unemployment at its highest rate in 27 years and no indication that that statistic is likely to change soon, one is drawn to the strong likelihood that race is the operant variable.
Continue reading on Examiner.com Poll: Obama’s approval among blacks plummets—to 84% - National Libertarian | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-national/poll-obama-s-approval-among-blacks-plummets-to-84#ixzz1ZI90Z1hv[/LEFT] -
Ty Webb
Belly35;914683 wrote:Educate youself mofo
in 2012 this could be Black on Black backlashing
Ask yourself this question if you where Black would you vote for him being you're a Union Obama Kiss Ass you would say yes.. If you where Back you say mofo no :laugh:
[LEFT]Among the nation’s largest such group, whites, his approval is at 33%—25 points off his post-election high of 58%. Among the second largest ethnicity, Hispanics, his numbers have dropped even more precipitously, from 75% in January, 2009, to 48% in August of this year.
So far has Obama’s star fallen since he rode to electoral victory on the twin promises of hope and change that his approval among his most loyal constituency, blacks, has tied its all-time low. Having once enjoyed a supernal job approval rating of 92%, Obama now gets the nod from a merely unprecedented 84% of blacks.
Either the members of this ethnic group is the most astute political observers ever, or they are judging the president based on the color of his skin. With black unemployment at its highest rate in 27 years and no indication that that statistic is likely to change soon, one is drawn to the strong likelihood that race is the operant variable.
Continue reading on Examiner.com Poll: Obama’s approval among blacks plummets—to 84% - National Libertarian | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-national/poll-obama-s-approval-among-blacks-plummets-to-84#ixzz1ZI90Z1hv[/LEFT]
National Libertarian??? You gotta do better than than Belly -
gutAfrican Americans generally vote Democrat or they don't vote. Isn't the number like 80% or more? So Obama is worth a few points, and certainly got more out to the polls. They generally don't vote for the party of the rich, racist whites.
It would be interesting to see what would happen with Cain. But I do think there would be an "Uncle Tom" bias against him. Maybe he could capture 30% of the black vote, but that's probably being generous. -
Belly35
Ty Webb;914737 wrote:National Libertarian??? You gotta do better than than Belly
Numbers ,,, its all about the numbers mofo chump
-
Cleveland Buck
Competition in currency would be a great thing because it would at least put some restraint on the Federal Reserve lest they wake up one day and no one in this country will accept dollars anymore. I doubt you will have a whole lot of Goldman Sachs notes or whatever circulating around, but you will have gold and silver coins and debit cards backed by gold and silver from trustworthy organizations. The whole point of it is to offer a currency with the ability to store its value and to restrain the Fed in the destruction of the dollar.gut;914614 wrote:LMAO. No, you're statements reflect a fundamental lack of understanding of economics and what would appear to be zero business sense. It has nothing to do with a Keynesian or Austrian view, you're not understanding the difference between theoretical assumptions and real world frictions that invalidates the models.
Top economists these days are advocating open competition in currency, and that's what your boy Ron Paul is proposing. It's an interesting idea, but I think ultimately impractical because the average American doesn't have the time or wherewithal to evaluate the credit worthiness and strength of currency issued by Goldman or Morgan Stanley. And banks printing legal tender, that's a fairly comical concept in its own right. Great idea, great theory...and probably utterly impractical. Heck, many companies have a touch enough time managing FX risk, I can't imagine what happens when you throw a handful or few dozen state and bank currencies into the mix.
And good god man, you can find Real GDP numbers. Most economists talk about Real GDP. That pretty much sums up your level of expertise right there - no more pretending after that. I even know the predictable argument you're going to try to come back with - don't go there, the data isn't perfect but trained economists use that data and don't go making up there own definitions of inflation. LMAO, I can't debate someone that doesn't even know the difference between real and nominal GDP. Typical of my experience on the internets, people with little to no understanding of economics like to throw out Keynesian and Austrian theory buzzwords while clearly having no understanding of either.
By the way, it's generally accepted that up until 2007-8, recessions had become shorter and shallower in the US. You can debate other factors and argue a build-up of undercorrections, but please don't attempt to. Economists are deathly afraid of deflation, because they've observed the consequences in the REAL WORLD in Japan. Sorry, you're Austrian prediction didn't exactly pan out in Japan.
And yes I'm aware you are perfectly happy with the government CPI for measuring inflation, even though it doesn't even include food or energy prices, and anyone else is an imbecile. That was very convincing. Thank you.
As for Japan, I don't know what "Austrian prediction" didn't happen in Japan. They inflated in the 80s and blew up a real estate bubble. According to the Austrian business cycle, that boom busted and prices need to deflate to get back to where they should be. They lowered interest rates to zero and printed money (not quite as much as we have, but they did try it), which kept prices from falling rapidly to where they should. If Japan wanted to totally stabilize prices, they needed to print more money. They needed to work harder than we did to stop deflation because #1, Japan was a net creditor with a trade surplus and therefore was a productive economy, and #2, the Japanese people had large savings, which they lent to the government for their stimulus programs, so their currency took a minimal hit from their intervention as compared to ours. Their deflation isn't as great as it should have been, but regardless it has zero to do with their stagnant economy since then. For that you look to their government borrowing all of their savings for wasteful stimulus and at their low interest rates which drives away foreign capital. Without capital you can't have growth. I fail to see how this refutes any Austrian principles though.
Here is more info about Japan.
http://mises.org/daily/896#_ftn1 -
Ty Webb
Belly35;914809 wrote:Numbers ,,, its all about the numbers mofo chump
Then is all about the numbers when President Obama still leads every Republican challenger heads-up -
majorspark
There is a Rasmussen poll that just came out that has Obama at 39% when paired against Cain. He polls about 5% higher against all other republican candidates. It could indicate Cain is pulling some of Obama's African American voters away. Whether they are gravitating towards Cain or just becoming undecided is anyone's guess.gut;914770 wrote:African Americans generally vote Democrat or they don't vote. Isn't the number like 80% or more? So Obama is worth a few points, and certainly got more out to the polls.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups
Actually they do and they just don't realize it. Like Herman Cain said they have been brainwashed. Allen West is out there saying he is the modern day Harriet Tubman trying to lead blacks "off the plantation" and back to the party of Lincoln.gut;914770 wrote:They generally don't vote for the party of the rich, racist whites.
I too am interested and sure the "Uncle Tom" bias is there. I know Cain is saying he could grab 30% of the black vote. Though he stresses his evidence is anecdotal.gut;914770 wrote:It would be interesting to see what would happen with Cain. But I do think there would be an "Uncle Tom" bias against him. Maybe he could capture 30% of the black vote, but that's probably being generous.
I have a lot of respect for your knowledge of economics. I don't agree with all of your assessments. You are more central control so we have locked horns a couple of times. I lean slightly more toward Cleveland Bucks point of view. But I am curious as to what your thoughts are on Cain's "999" plan? I realize even if Cain were elected POTUS it would not stand a snowball's chance in hell. Many on the right including myself fear coupling a federal sales tax with the federal income tax and what it could morph into. But on the other hand I welcome the idea of simplifying the tax code and throwing off all the chains the feds use the tax code to many times unconstitutionally control our activities. Congress's power to tax is limited to their enumerated powers. I am open to an reformation of the tax code that gets us there.