Election Confection!

[Chewie]

I think it's very cool that we even have more than two people participating in this thread, so I'll jump in, too.

Does anyone know if polls can be edited to include the others? Kucinich, Gravel, Richardson, Hunter, Thompson. Regardless of whether they are even going to get close to a nomination should be irrelevant. They should be in the poll.

Either I can, a mod, or mooseontheloose (since he's the topic starter, and can edit the poll that is included in the first post).

Here are my rankings of the 13 primary party candidates who are still running for their party's nomination. These rankings are based on my own thoughts of their chances of becoming president. These are not at all a reflection of who I hope becomes president.

13. Duncan Hunter (R)
12. Mike Gravel (D)
11. Dennis Kucinich (D)
10. Bill Richardson (D)
9. Ron Paul (R)
8. Fred Thompson (R)
7. Rudy Giuliani (R)
6. John Edwards (D)
5. John McCain (R)
4. Mitt Romney (R)
3. Hillary Clinton (D)
2. Mike Huckabee (R)
1. Barack Obama (D)

This list looked a lot different before Jan. 3, though.

[NFox]

For me, the decision is between Barack and Ron Paul. They both have their advantages (As have been pointed out in quite some detail by Humor's Hand). For me however, at the moment, my decision is made based on the ideas they've both put forth thus far to fix what I consider to be big issues.

As a pure-blooded capitalist, one of the biggest issues I want a candidate to address is the current devaluation of the Dollar. Between Paul and Obama, the only one whose ideas appeal to me and help to insure long-term stability for the dollar is Ron Paul. Cutting back government spending, doing away with needless agencies, bringing our troops home (Especially those stationed in places with no ongoing conflict like Germany and France), doing away with the IRS and income tax (For this alone, I want him to at least be my father), and moving us back to the gold standard in order to insure long-term stability are all of the ideas that sold me on his politics. Since then, I have only found more to like about his policies, as I am also really into nationalism. I'm a capitalist nationalist who likes fast cars, fast food, and fast women, does it get any more American than that?

I think Barack is a great candidate, both in his ideologies and for what he has come to represent, but I just feel that Ron Paul has more of a direction, or at the very least, a direction more aligned with my own.

That said, Ron Paul won't get the party nod and he won't be president...but that may not stop me from writing his name in come election day .

-Nick

[nirorivers6]

You know, I said this before in another thread, but I want to say it again. I don't trust Hilary Clinton. I don't care if she and I agreed on every issue, its a matter of character.

Ron Paul. Oh, Ron Paul. It's interesting. Half of the things I completely agree with him and the other half I couldn't disagree more. Sometimes I just think that this two party buisiness is detrimental when people like him get lost. I beleive the guy is genuine and actually cares about the people he would represent.

Chewie is right on with ranking people the way he has. As of right now, that's the probability list.

[worsethansex]

I'm sorry, someone needs to be the voice of reason here:

RON PAUL IS COMPLETELY INSANE.

He lives in some kind of magical fantasy world where all of the government's spending is discretionary, Keynesian economics don't work, the Fed, IRS, Department of Education, and UN are useless, and complete withdrawal from the rest of the world won't have disastrous consequences to our domestic and foreign image. And the gold standard? Are you kidding me? Didn't we learn how stupid this is around the time of, oh, I don't know, the Great Depression? The gold standard would not "stabilize our currency," it would lead to economic stagnation. The dollar has been devalued as an attempt to escape recession- if you think a devalued dollar is bad, try being unemployed, underpaid, and with no positive outlook.

He's not a "pure capitalist," he's someone who doesn't understand how the market works. The market does self-regulate, but it fluctuates too widely between inflation and unemployment for economic growth to proceed at the high rate consumers demand. The worst thing, for me, is his abolition of the income tax, which is the most regressive, pig-headed, wealth-biased platform of any candidate running. Removing the income tax is biased against the poor, because both poor and rich have to pay the same taxes on purchased goods. How is this fair for lower-class Americans? If Bill Gates and Homeless Joe on the street pay the same taxes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Basically, Ron Paul's ideas are appealing because of how good they sound. Wouldn't we all like more freedom and lower taxes? Yes, but the resulting effects are far worse than what we have now.

[NFox]

I'm sorry, someone needs to be the voice of reason here:

RON PAUL IS COMPLETELY INSANE.

Glad to see we are starting from a completely reasonable standpoint, let's continue...

He lives in some kind of magical fantasy world where all of the government's spending is discretionary, Keynesian economics don't work,

Good thing we're not making any over generalizations either. So far, the "voice of reason" is being quite irrational in the process. And Paul doesn't follow classical Keynesian Theory, at best you could say he follows a more modernized version of it (He himself claims to base much of his policy on his study of Austrian Economics), but to follow a strict, classical form of it would be a little strange, though we can't say whether it would be completely unworkable considering many aspects of Keynesian Theory are applied successfully in many other economic models.

the Fed, IRS, Department of Education, and UN are useless, and complete withdrawal from the rest of the world won't have disastrous consequences to our domestic and foreign image.

I honestly have no problem with us leaving any of them. The IRS has proven to be greedy, the fed is in control of our money supply and has done nothing to help stem current inflation, department of education has done nothing of value in the last 15 years(This is coming from the son of a former school teacher/current educational attorney) and only serves as a check writing department...leave it to the state I say. In fact, let me be extremely controversial here and claim that the only good thing they do is oversee "No Child Left Behind" and even that could be done on a state level with minimal national intervention. And don't get me started on the UN...I just can't think of one purpose it still serves. Being a part of it is generally for show and only serves to introduce foreign influence into American Affairs.

And the gold standard? Are you kidding me? Didn't we learn how stupid this is around the time of, oh, I don't know, the Great Depression? The gold standard would not "stabilize our currency," it would lead to economic stagnation. The dollar has been devalued as an attempt to escape recession- if you think a devalued dollar is bad, try being unemployed, underpaid, and with no positive outlook.

He's not a "pure capitalist," he's someone who doesn't understand how the market works. The market does self-regulate, but it fluctuates too widely between inflation and unemployment for economic growth to proceed at the high rate consumers demand.

I never claimed HE was a pure capitalist (If I did, I misspoke) I said I was a pure capitalist. If he was he would never suggest trying to improve social security. Regarding you theory on the great depression, it's just that, a theory, there are many others...underconsumption, too much investment, and over-saving are just a few. We'll probably never know the real reason and economist will continue to debate it, but the fact of the matter is there are two great (Not the only two) ways to pull out of a recession/depression: Socialism/semi-socialist agendas to control wages and prices and dealing with the problem of inflation. The government can simply print money if they want, at the moment. While great for them, it isn't good for us. Excessive printing with nothing to back it up helps to create and further inflation. If you "back" the dollar with something, and force the government to have the money before they print it, they're either going to start mining a lot more, or the excessive money printing will stop. Currently the government is accountable to no one when it prints money, and that just shouldn't be. I believe it was the NY Times that just printed a graph showing the rise in oil prices over the past 7 (I think) years in Dollars, Euros, and in Gold. Oil prices tripled in terms of the dollar, doubled in terms of the Euro, but stayed almost exactly the same in Gold...that's the sort of stability I'm talking about.

The worst thing, for me, is his abolition of the income tax, which is the most regressive, pig-headed, wealth-biased platform of any candidate running. Removing the income tax is biased against the poor, because both poor and rich have to pay the same taxes on purchased goods. How is this fair for lower-class Americans? If Bill Gates and Homeless Joe on the street pay the same taxes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

No, it's only biased against the poor if you ignore the fact that both parties are already paying a sales tax. Ron Paul isn't advocating the "Fair Tax" he is advocating removing the income tax, which would affect both the upper and lower classes equally (Though on different scales); they'd have more money (So long as they were above the poverty line, in which case they weren't paying taxes to begin with). The only way it could possibly be biased against the poor is if you expect the government to use the rich's money to pay for socialist programs that go to the poor. If we removed the income tax now (And did nothing else), the government would still be making more money than it did at the turn of the 21st century...so where is all the extra money going? Clearly taking the poor's money and then giving them nothing more in return can't be fair, can it? And why is it that we even need an income tax? We did fine without one until 1913. Why is it that you seem so biased against people who make and earn money? If you ear or own something, don't you want to keep it? How is it fair that the government gets to dip into the rich's pocket every couple of months to pay for everyone else, to pay for programs the rich will never use?

Basically, Ron Paul's ideas are appealing because of how good they sound. Wouldn't we all like more freedom and lower taxes? Yes, but the resulting effects are far worse than what we have now.

So more money, more freedom, less outside influence on our country, and a free kitten for everyone (I may have made that one up) are far worse than what we have now? If that's true for you, remind me not to move to your neck of the woods.

-Nick

PS: I wrote this quickly (Without proofreading), I apologize for any errors in logic, history, theory, grammar, etc. So, please give me a chance to explain anything before you jump on me for anything. The written word is not the place for political-economic-ideological debates, I'm used to having live, spoken debates, and I hope that without constant input I haven't glossed over anything.

PPS: I don't plan on making any more long responses (Especially if I only get as much sleep as I did last night), so, I probably won't be fully engaged in this debate after I hit "Submit."

PPPS: I respect and support your viewpoint, I just vehemently disagree with it :P .

[Humor's Hand]

You know, I said this before in another thread, but I want to say it again. I don't trust Hilary Clinton. I don't care if she and I agreed on every issue, its a matter of character.

So I'm not the only one. I tried to make my arguements rational but mostly I just think to myself "I hate Hillary Hamrod Clinton. She is a demon-lady. And a wimpy over-emotional estrogen ridden one at that."

[mooseontheloose]

First off I'm going to say I respectfully disagree with Nick; however I can't post without adressing this.

RON PAUL IS COMPLETELY INSANE.

You're 1/4 of an inch from credibility. I might have even come close to agreeing with a couple of your points, but, no you could not resist moving your pinkie that quarter of an inch. YOU HAD TO HIT ALL CAPS AND MAKE ME ANGRILY WONDER TO MYSELF, "WHY IS THIS GUY YELLING AT ME!?". Future reference, if you're considering using all caps and aren't sure if you should, DON'T DO IT.

Now onto the actual debate.

No, it's only biased against the poor if you ignore the fact that both parties are already paying a sales tax. Ron Paul isn't advocating the "Fair Tax" he is advocating removing the income tax, which would affect both the upper and lower classes equally (Though on different scales)

False! Removal of the income tax will not affect all classes equally, something which I think you hint at with your different scales remark. Since the income tax is a progressive tax and takes a greater percentage of the wealthy's money than the poor's, removing it would help the wealthy considerably more than the poor. You also brought up sales taxes. Sales taxes are the opposite of income taxes, they're regressive, taking a greater percentage of money from the poor than the rich. Thus, if the income tax is removed that balance will slant over to the rich. Regardless we need the income tax to provide necessary services which brings me to...

If we removed the income tax now (And did nothing else), the government would still be making more money than it did at the turn of the 21st century...so where is all the extra money going?...Why is it that you seem so biased against people who make and earn money? If you ear or own something, don't you want to keep it? How is it fair that the government gets to dip into the rich's pocket every couple of months to pay for everyone else, to pay for programs the rich will never use?

First, out of respect to your PS's, I'm going to ignore the "if you ear something" line. You asked numerous rhetorical questions there, and guess what I'm gonna do? Did you guess be an *** and answer them? (That's rhetorical too! Oh ironies!). First of all, you asked the fatal question "where is all the extra money going?" There is no extra money. Right now we're running up a national debt at a rate previously unheard of, and the higher we let it rise the more interest we'll have to pay on it in the future. As far as where are money goes, it's not exactly a mystery. Now here's the question which, I'm not gonna lie, kind of pisses me off and was the reason I felt the need to post: "How is it fair that the government gets to dip into the rich's pocket every couple of months to pay for everyone else, to pay for programs the rich will never use?" I will respond to that question with some questions of my own. How is it fair that those who receive the poorest education are typically those who need it most? How is it fair that being born in Harlem means that you are likely to die earlier than if you were born in Bangladesh? How is it fair that these areas also have an infant mortality rate similar to that of third world countries? How is it fair that these same people with all the odds stacked against them from birth, also live in the wealthiest country on Earth? I'm afraid that you may have the common stereotype that poverty=laziness stuck in your head. More often than not people born into poverty don't get out of it. It's not because they're lazy or because they think living on welfare is the fun thing to do; it's because when you are fighting every day for survival, fighting every day to get a job without a college degree. Often times these same people have families to provide for, and, if they can't find a job that can achieve that, then they're children grow up in poverty as well. If our society cannot provide an opportunity for social mobility, then we are no better than a caste system. So, yes, I think it's fair for the wealthy to sacrifice a little, to avoid buying that second yacht so a four year old can eat. And if you don't think that's fair then I guess we have some seriously different values.

Moose out!

[Humor's Hand]

RON PAUL IS COMPLETELY INSANE.

Caps lock is not cruise control for cool.

[NFox]

Sorry for the slapdash response, but I'm exhausted.

No, it's only biased against the poor if you ignore the fact that both parties are already paying a sales tax. Ron Paul isn't advocating the "Fair Tax" he is advocating removing the income tax, which would affect both the upper and lower classes equally (Though on different scales)

False! Removal of the income tax will not affect all classes equally, something which I think you hint at with your different scales remark. Since the income tax is a progressive tax and takes a greater percentage of the wealthy's money than the poor's, removing it would help the wealthy considerably more than the poor.

My saying equally, was a remark on the qualitative nature of any removal of the income tax (Everyone gets to keep their money), and my parenthetical was referencing the quantitative aspects...sorry I didn't make that clearer, but it seems you managed to wade through most of it without any difficulty (Something I even have trouble with).

It could also be argued that with more money to spend, the rich are more likely to buy more, increasing the amount spent. While I'll admit that it will most likely never approach the amount spent (percentage wise) by the lower classes.

Now here's the question which, I'm not gonna lie, kind of pisses me off and was the reason I felt the need to post: "How is it fair that the government gets to dip into the rich's pocket every couple of months to pay for everyone else, to pay for programs the rich will never use?" I will respond to that question with some questions of my own. How is it fair that those who receive the poorest education are typically those who need it most? How is it fair that being born in Harlem means that you are likely to die earlier than if you were born in Bangladesh? How is it fair that these areas also have an infant mortality rate similar to that of third world countries? How is it fair that these same people with all the odds stacked against them from birth, also live in the wealthiest country on Earth? I'm afraid that you may have the common stereotype that poverty=laziness stuck in your head. More often than not people born into poverty don't get out of it. It's not because they're lazy or because they think living on welfare is the fun thing to do; it's because when you are fighting every day for survival, fighting every day to get a job without a college degree. Often times these same people have families to provide for, and, if they can't find a job that can achieve that, then they're children grow up in poverty as well. If our society cannot provide an opportunity for social mobility, then we are no better than a caste system. So, yes, I think it's fair for the wealthy to sacrifice a little, to avoid buying that second yacht so a four year old can eat. And if you don't think that's fair then I guess we have some seriously different values.

Moose out!

Like I said, this is my slapdash response, so this is going to be brief: I think that many of the government programs that are set up to help the lower classes could easily be replaced with entities in the private/corporate sector without too much difficulty. Imagine, Pepsi and Ford present 4th grade! How about Nike/Gatorade Healthcare? Look, I don't buy into the idea that the poor are lazy...the only absolute is that the poor are poor, or at least comparatively less rich than some other people, but clearly government programs have been doing the poor a disservice for quite some time, even with all the money that has been put into these programs the programs still don't allow most of them to break free from the cycle of poverty. Heck, we can't even get the public school system "working for them" and so many candidates think that somehow we'll be able to get national health care up and running? I don't think so. All you need are a few big companies and private investors to lend their time, name, and money to these programs and you could remove the government and everyone else's money from the equation (It's a little more complicated than that, I'll admit, but my bed is very near and I am very tired). Generosity is great, but government-forced philanthropy in the form of taxes is called socialism.

-Nick

PS: I think we might get our own television special..."Moose Vs. Fox."

PPS: Thanks for passing over my obvious misspelling of "Earn," my laptop is fried and in the meantime I'm having a hard time readjusting to a keyboard with high keys on it.

PPS: Aren't rhetorical questions great? Don't answer that.

[worsethansex]

None of this makes Ron Paul any less insane. I had five words in my post in all-caps because it's funny, then continued my post in a reasonable, sensible, informed manner; if my intent comes across as anything other than comedic, either I am being too blunt, you are being too sensitive, or some combination thereof. Furthermore, I didn't even press the caps-lock key, the portion of my post that was capitalized wasn't even long enough: I used shift. Either way, I apologize, I was not trying to "yell" at anyone.

Also:

Future reference, if you're considering using all caps and aren't sure if you should, DON'T DO IT.

Oh, irony! But I get your point.

Now, on to the actual points. This is very long, but I really do encourage you to read it. The more information is available, the more Ron Paul's nonsense can be discredited for the absolute ignorant hogwash that it is.

The reason I said that Ron Paul doesn't believe Keynesian economics work is because he advocates abandoning it. Though he incorporates some parts of it in his economic ideas, he does not uphold the form we currently have.

The IRS has proven to be greedy, the fed is in control of our money supply and has done nothing to help stem current inflation

This is just plain wrong. People forget that the federal government has checks and balances at work. The IRS is not "greedy," as it is only the agency that collects taxes, not the one that keeps revenue. It is a bureaucracy that is intended to make the process of revenue collection as smooth and legal as possible. It actually has a relatively small budget, and the IRS itself does not set the regulations for what taxes are collected and to what amount- this is Congress's responsibility. The Fed is, indeed, in control of the money supply, but how is this a bad thing? The economic crises America has weathered since Wilson chartered it are decent proof that the Fed is an efficient management institution. Also: the Fed has three primary economic goals:

1. Economic growth
2. Full employment
3. Price stability

Macroeconomics (specifically, the short-run Phillips Curve) teaches us that there is a trade-off between unemployment and inflation. When there is a greater risk for recession, the Fed pursues an easy monetary policy, mainly through OMOs (open market operations), and, to a lesser extent, change in interest rates, in order to stave off high unemployment and economic misery. Thus, it takes the risk of higher inflation and devalued currency because the alternative is worse. Unfortunately, the federal government often pursues policies contrary to the well-being of the country, which the Bush administration and irresponsible Congresses have done in the last eight years.

This, not the presence of the Fed, is primarily responsible for abnormally high inflation levels. Notice, though, that the Fed has prevented "stagflation," or high inflation in addition to high unemployment (as the U.S. experienced in the late 1970s)- which is indicative of competent, Keynesian economic management. Were the Fed eliminated, all of this would go out the window- the U.S. economy would lose stability and spiral into depression, going nowhere in terms of economic growth. Coincidentally, the ascendancy of the U.S. market to the most powerful in the world was directly, chronologically tied to our adoption of this Keynesian system, allowing the economy to grow faster than other, less efficient, less capable economies.

I am not explicitly against the removal of the Department of Education in favor a state system, except most states do not clamor for it. If the issue were put before state legislatures, and they moved to take state control, I would not be opposed- except there is not much active opposition to education on the federal level.

And don't get me started on the UN...I just can't think of one purpose it still serves. Being a part of it is generally for show and only serves to introduce foreign influence into American Affairs.

I'm not the biggest fan of the UN, as I feel it is inefficient and underpowered. That said, however, even ceremonially, it serves the purpose of demonstrating our cooperation with the outside world. Other nations' distaste for America post-9/11 largely stems from our uncooperative, maverick attitude in the UN and other organizations. We need to cooperate with the UN if we want to get anything done- as Stiglitz said, the world is flat; we cannot assume that the U.S. is an island unto itself as it and the rest of the world are too interdependent. The more we deny other nations, including via the UN, the more we deny ourselves.

...the fact of the matter is there are two great (Not the only two) ways to pull out of a recession/depression: Socialism/semi-socialist agendas to control wages and prices and dealing with the problem of inflation. The government can simply print money if they want, at the moment.

Not intending to be insensitive here, but do you understand how economics works? Recession is combated in two ways,

1. Taking action through easy monetary policy (buying bonds, lowering interest rates, etc.) and/or expansionary fiscal policy (increasing federal spending and/or decreasing taxes), thus driving up prices but keeping a steady GDP.
2. Letting the market correct itself, lowering the GDP but (theoretically) keeping prices stable; unfortunately, due to the ratchet effect, prices do not return to lower levels as promised.

Most governments take the inflationary hit of the first option rather than having to rebuild their GDP. There it is! No socialism necessary! Though the first option might require printing money, it is usually viewed as better than the alternative. The amount of money printed now might seem excessive, and only time will tell if it is, but it is far more likely to be appropriate to the problem of fighting recession than anti-Fed demagogues like Paul and his ilk claim it is. I don't know about you, but I am more likely to trust people in an essential, powerful institution who regulate the money supply for a living and gain very little by pushing up inflation, taking thousands of factors into consideration for every move they make, than one man trying to get elected on a people-pleasing platform.

Finally, the gold standard: There is nowhere near enough gold in the world to support the dollar. Plain and simple. The dollar is backed by people's faith in the legitimacy of the U.S. government, and becomes devalued when more of it is made available. Devaluing the dollar is risky, especially in the short run, but it is sometimes necessary to ensure the economic health of the nation in the long run. The last time a President tried to force Americans to back their currency with gold- namely, Andrew Jackson in 1836 with the Specie Circular- it led to widespread panic and depression. If Ron Paul gets elected, get ready for William Jennings Bryan's spiritual heir to give us a Cross of Gold Mark II speech after the U.S. government falls apart. Granted, that might take sixty years, but there you have it.

I'd respond to the regressive tax system, but I think mooseontheloose covered it fairly well. The only thing I'll add is that the income tax became necessary with the 16th Amendment is because, plain and simple, the government needed money! Without an income tax, we would have never won World War II, financed the New Deal, or kept Social Security running. The amount of money necessary to keep the government running necessitates an income tax.

Finally,

So more money, more freedom, less outside influence on our country, and a free kitten for everyone (I may have made that one up) are far worse than what we have now?

No. They're not. Rampant depression, economic collapse, and economic unfairness (rich getting richer, poor getting poorer), and worldwide hatred of the United States, though, near-certain byproducts of Ron Paul's policies, though, certainly are.

Hope you have all enjoyed Forensimacroeconomics 101, good night!