Presidential Debate

[beercop]

Chavez for Pres! One smart guy right there.

Here is my plan.
If we are handing out money then here is what we do.
Give every adult one million dollars but they have to do two things to receive the money.
1. Everyone will have to pay off your existing mortage or buy a property if you do not own one.
2. Everyone will have to buy a brand new american made vehicle
3. The remander is left up to that individual to spend/ save/ invest as they wish.

Housing crisis solved, auto industry saved and economy rolling.

[DRiccio21]

i know you're kidding but if everyone gets the same amount of money, nothing changes.

[beercop]

i know you're kidding but if everyone gets the same amount of money, nothing changes.

Expound

[DRiccio21]

if you give everyone a million bucks, a car isn't going to still be worth $20,000.

supply and demand

[beercop]

if you give everyone a million bucks, a car isn't going to still be worth $20,000.

supply and demand

Wrong. We are buying from government autos, they control the prices.

[WooPigSooie316]

if you give everyone a million bucks, a car isn't going to still be worth $20,000.

supply and demand

+1

[beercop]

if you give everyone a million bucks, a car isn't going to still be worth $20,000.

supply and demand

+1

-3, lets try it. Nothing to lose.

[DRiccio21]

if you give everyone a million bucks, a car isn't going to still be worth $20,000.

supply and demand

Wrong. We are buying from government autos, they control the prices.

this isn't really up for debate.

its pretty much the first lesson of any economics class.

if everyone has something than nobody has anything.

unless you're proposing communism where all prices are controlled by the gov't on everything, the prices of everything will go up

[beercop]

if you give everyone a million bucks, a car isn't going to still be worth $20,000.

supply and demand

Wrong. We are buying from government autos, they control the prices.

this isn't really up for debate.

its pretty much the first lesson of any economics class.

if everyone has something than nobody has anything.

unless you're proposing communism where all prices are controlled by the gov't on everything, the prices of everything will go up

Did not know they gave everyone a million dollars in the old soviet union comrade.

[WooPigSooie316]

if you give everyone a million bucks, a car isn't going to still be worth $20,000.

supply and demand

Wrong. We are buying from government autos, they control the prices.

this isn't really up for debate.

its pretty much the first lesson of any economics class.

if everyone has something than nobody has anything.

unless you're proposing communism where all prices are controlled by the gov't on everything, the prices of everything will go up

Did not know they gave everyone a million dollars in the old soviet union comrade.

Car prices are what they are, because that is the upper limit that most of us can afford. If you raise the income floor from $50,000 to $1,000,000 then the price of cars will go up. Capitalism at it's finest.

[jsence2]

If he'll do this to the people who have sacrificed so much to try to help him get into office, what would he have done to those of us who could do absolutely nothing for him? What an asshole

http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-ro ... b_articles

[DRiccio21]

Did not know they gave everyone a million dollars in the old soviet union comrade.

are you fucking with me or do you not get what i'm saying here?

[nick]

solid inflation in the system never hurt anyone.. ask 1920's Germany, only took a certain dictator to get them outta it, with a world war in the process

[beercop]

Did not know they gave everyone a million dollars in the old soviet union comrade.

are you fucking with me or do you not get what i'm saying here?

That would last a year. Savers would save and the spenders spend. People would be broke again and the prices would fall back to current levels. I am telling you it would work! Read all the text books you want, lets give it a try.

[Weasel]

Did not know they gave everyone a million dollars in the old soviet union comrade.

are you fucking with me or do you not get what i'm saying here?

[beercop]

Did not know they gave everyone a million dollars in the old soviet union comrade.

are you fucking with me or do you not get what i'm saying here?

Poor guy

[brwnbear]

Did not know they gave everyone a million dollars in the old soviet union comrade.

are you fucking with me or do you not get what i'm saying here?

That would last a year. Savers would save and the spenders spend. People would be broke again and the prices would fall back to current levels. I am telling you it would work! Read all the text books you want, lets give it a try.

The only way this would have a remote chance of working is if we fixed the price of our currency. Printing money without the subsequent increase in GDP (paying off a house does not increase GDP) would massively devalue our currency. As a result, prices for raw materials would instantly rise along with the production cost of autos (since most parts are made overseas). The result would be a massive increase in prices.

oh and UCONN > ND

[beercop]

Did not know they gave everyone a million dollars in the old soviet union comrade.

are you fucking with me or do you not get what i'm saying here?

That would last a year. Savers would save and the spenders spend. People would be broke again and the prices would fall back to current levels. I am telling you it would work! Read all the text books you want, lets give it a try.

The only way this would have a remote chance of working is if we fixed the price of our currency. Printing money without the subsequent increase in GDP (paying off a house does not increase GDP) would massively devalue our currency. As a result, prices for raw materials would instantly rise along with the production cost of autos (since most parts are made overseas). The result would be a massive increase in prices.

oh and UCONN > ND

I see now. I could not understand Dave with his thick brooklyn accent.

[IceMorbid]

brwnbear is a smart guy and actually tries to see/tell the truth ~ I have nothing but respect for that. If we had people like you on one side of the aisle and people like me on the other (since we disagree on approach, but both seek solutions through the TRUTH not through misleading people into voting for crap) we'd be better off imho.

While your argument for subsidies not being an expense is accurate (they aren't, I concede that point.) When you're trying to balance a budget they function in much the same way - they increase the deficit, one by increased expense, the other by reducing revenue. And the overall goal/issue is the budget.

Every argument you use is fundamentally sound (once you got away from the silly chart and just trying to flame a little - "such anger" etc. )~ example: many corporate subsidies or tax breaks are used (indirectly) to control costs of products targeted for the poor by allowing the product to be available for a "reasonable" price by making the "cost of doing business" cheaper/more attractive.

But if you really take a step back and think about it (and I'm asking you to sincerely re-evaluate your stance for a sec) - all most of these corporate subsidies are doing is paying "bailouts" to the companies a little bit at a time. (again, subsidies are not "payments" but in terms of revenue they are a loss) True Republicans believe in a Free Market. Let supply and demand (which you site later) control costs, not the government through targeted subsidies. Instead, reduce/remove these subsidies - apply that revenue towards balancing the budget instead of higher taxes on anyone. This still "takes money" from the rich and reduces the need for taxing the middle class and the poor, but it does it in a fundamentally republican way with solid Free Market values at it's core while reducing the deficit.

There are a few dozen Ron Paul (who I think is one of the few traditional Republicans left) videos blasting Corporate Subsidies - I didn't link any here but they are easy enough to find.

Republican values should dictate that they complain about BOTH giving handouts to the rich and to the poor, but the republican party has been corrupted with this Corporatist value so it only yells "distribution of wealth" and "socialism" when those handouts shift towards the poor.

The Tax Rates on the Rich have declined from 94% in 1944 to 70% through 1980 to 50% in 1985 to the modern 35% in 2003 all without anyone yelling about UPWARD re-distribution of wealth, or class warfare - after all, if the budget isn't balanced and we go into a recession it's the poor and middle class who suffer most right? But as soon as someone says to RAISE the taxes on the wealthy to help balance the budget we hear socialism??? Give it a break. Taxes originally raised from 25% to 94% on the rich on the call of PATRIOTISM during world war II... Well, guess what - we're at war again according to most Republicans...

If anything, you should call it TRADITIONAL AMERICAN VALUES - considering the avg. tax rate for a prosperous America on the rich is somewhere around 55%.

It's like you paying $1000 for rent, and then me (the owner) reducing it to $500, then to $250... only to realize that I can't survive on that and then ask you to pay $300 and you respond by calling me names, saying I'm unfair and that I just want to take from you what you earned...

[brwnbear]

There is a lot there to address...

I noticed that you have made this connection that corporations = rich people. I dont know why you have come to that conclusion but its really not very accurate. Corporation employ a large % of the middle class. Corporations like Google and Apple create a lot of wealth for the middle class and create a massive amount of tax revenue that didnt exist before. Those things are good.

Let me first clear up my point about "corporate welfare." I use it in quotes because the U.S. gov. doesnt have an itemized line called that and it is a made up word with no clear definition. Under the most extreme definition, which is the one you mentioned regarding spending vs. social welfare, it includes tax breaks afforded to every corporation. Let me work through why this is a problem.

Lets say you own a S-Corporation and you remodel kitchens. Lets say I hire you to remodel my kitchen and I write you a check for $35,000. You then go to the store and buy new cabinets, a new sink, drywall, trim, tile, counter-top, stainless steel appliances, hire a contractor to do some plumbing, a new window, screws, and a new tile saw. In all you spend $30,000. Would you consider it welfare if you only had to pay taxes on your net gain and got to write off the $30,000 of expenses? How would you feel if you didnt receive this so called welfare and had to pay taxes at 15% on the full $35,000 ($5,250) and ended up netting a loss of $250 for all your work? What incentive would you have to find another client? Best case scenario, you would have to pass on the cost to your client and end up charging me upwards for $40,000 just to make it feasable for you.

Regarding subsidies, most are used to control cost or to make an industry more competitive. There are those that are a direct abuse of power to reward political allies, but these are actually a relatively small percentage and I think everyone (except for the guy getting the cash) wants to see these done away with. Regarding the subsidies that are used to control costs, this is more of a social benefit vs. a corporate benefit. If you are a farmer and are experiencing a drought the reduces the available amount of corn, in a free market (of which the majority of the world is a part of) prices will rise making it very difficult for the poor to afford the food they need. Subsidies provide breaks for farmers so they can offset a natural tendency to raise prices as supply drops.

In terms of subsidies to help non-competitive industries, you are right, in a free market we should allow them to fail. Companies like Synerga and AAA1 and Fisker should not be getting cash to create an industry that doesnt exist. Playing devils advocate though, you have to remember that if the U.S. wants to develope an alternative energy industry (again you can debate if its the right path), then you have to be realistic and realize that these companies cannot compete on a global scale. China, because is fixes its currency and allows slave like working conditions and funds companies with cash, will produce less expensive products that the US simply cant compete with without some sort of assistance. If it works, then you have created an entire industry that provides good jobs for the middle class. Do some people end up getting rich at the same time. Probably.

Now I notices you used the term bailouts, which is commonly used to describe the loans that where given to banks. I thought it would be worth examinig what the net affect of those bailouts has been. If you combine the original TARP distributions and compare it to the net payments (this includes loans given to AIG which we will never recover), are you aware that taxpayers actually made a PROFIT? At the same time, it possibly saved hundreds of thousands of middle class jobs (8,000 at AIG alone). Isnt that a perfect scenario - send out money to save jobs and earn back the taxpayers a profit. I am in favor of that bailout 100% of the time. Now, of course, a lot of the money once received was redirected at other companies that where not the original intent of TARP. People also received ridiculous salaries while their companies where receiving TARP. Unfortunately, those companies made employemnt contracts - enforced by federal law - that require payment, or be subject to additional employer penalties. But that is a whole other discussion.

I dont dissagree with you that we should remove the subsidies, but you have to understand the side affects. No alternative energy plan, its just not cost affective. Higher gasoline prices (no ethenal subsidy), higher natural gas and electric prices (no subsidies for upgrading the electrical grid), massive price increases on food during droughts (no farm subsidies), no affordable housing for the poor (no affordable home subsidies) and so on and so on.

Regarding taxes for the rich, i dont oppose responsibly raising the tax rate for those that receive a high amount of compensation. I dont think it should be at a rate that de-motivates someone from making more money (94%). Keep in mind that starting in 2014, those making over $250,000 will be already be paying 4.9% more through ObamaCare. But lets be honest on who the rich really are. I will never be convinced that someone that makes $250,000 is now someone who is rich? With student loan payments, college costs for 3 kids, local Real Estate taxes, local sales tax - $250,000 is not a ton of money. Are you doing better than most people, yes, but I wouldnt describe those people as rich. You want to raise taxes, fine, raise it for those earning above $1M and do it responsibly. By the way, raising taxes to the levels proposed by our president will only raise $20B per year in additional revenue, around 2% of our $1T annual deficit. If you apply 100% tax rate to every dollar earned above $1M (along with completely de-motivating anyone to earn more, and drying up the tax base) you would still only collect $617M or only 67% of the amount needed to cover our deficit.

By the way, the vast majority of republicans are nice people who like to help those in need in their community. They believe in having a level playing field, with minimal government intrusion, when appropriate, and responsible spending. We are not threatend by others who are educated and hold different values than ours as you suggested (something about being in my nightmares). We understand that there are people who are born without the means to provide for themselves and are willing to help them (next friday I will be spending a day working for habitat for humanity). But like you want to minimize corruption on the corporate side, we want to limit corruption on the social side by reducing those on welfare that take advantage of the system.