The 2012 United States Presidential Election

[illinirazorback]

Originally Posted by ill07

Unfortunately, I don't think there is a lesser (though I'd consider Romney a lesser) evil. Perry and Bachmann are as "evil" as Obama is, just in a different way, in my opinion.

I don't see how anyone could be worse. Equal? That's up for debate, but not evil in the same way as driving our country into the ground like our current president. No matter who it is, I'd err on the side of change (ironic, right?).

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by pizzaman

A nice smart, pragmatic humanist must be out there somewhere.

I think there are many. Unfortunately they're smart enough to realize they aren't wanted by those what would be their peers and thus stay away from government.

[ill07]

Originally Posted by illinirazorback

I don't see how anyone could be worse. Equal? That's up for debate, but not evil in the same way as driving our country into the ground like our current president. No matter who it is, I'd err on the side of change (ironic, right?).

I think Obama, Perry, and Bachmann have all proposed and espoused policies and ideas that run counter to the founding ideals of this country. Principle will prevent me from voting for any of them.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by illinirazorback

I don't see how anyone could be worse. Equal? That's up for debate, but not evil in the same way as driving our country into the ground like our current president. No matter who it is, I'd err on the side of change (ironic, right?).

I'm not sure. I'd rather just give the republicans the House and Senate and leave the current abomination in office.

[ill07]

Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange

I'm not sure. I'd rather just give the republicans the House and Senate and leave the current abomination in office.

Not a terrible idea... if none of them can get anything past the other, none of them can do further harm to the country. But for this plan to work, there would have to be a legitimate chance of a sane and rational candidate gaining foothold in the meantime.

Unfortunately the electorate is, on the whole, borderline retarded. So basically all is lost.

[illinirazorback]

Originally Posted by ill07

Unfortunately the electorate is, on the whole, borderline retarded. So basically all is lost.

This. So, I don't even know why we're worried about it.

Guess I need to buy even more ammo.

[OlivetNaz]

Originally Posted by ill07

Unfortunately the electorate is, on the whole, borderline retarded. So basically all is lost.

I disagree with the "all is lost" mentality, but I agree with your opinion about the electorate. Seems to me that there should be a test (ironic that I, who hates NCLB because of tests, would go with one here) where you demonstrate a basic understanding of government and politics before you're allowed to vote. One would have to pass this test before voting every year.

[illinirazorback]

Originally Posted by OlivetNaz

I disagree with the "all is lost" mentality, but I agree with your opinion about the electorate. Seems to me that there should be a test (ironic that I, who hates NCLB because of tests, would go with one here) where you demonstrate a basic understanding of government and politics before you're allowed to vote. One would have to pass this test before voting every year.

I also don't think you should be able to vote if you don't pay taxes. Goes for tax cheats as well as those who don't make enough. Why should they get a say with what happens to my money?

Naturally the solution is an across-the-board tax percentage.

[OlivetNaz]

Originally Posted by illinirazorback

I also don't think you should be able to vote if you don't pay taxes. Goes for tax cheats as well as those who don't make enough. Why should they get a say with what happens to my money?

Naturally the solution is an across-the-board tax percentage.

An interesting opinion. I agree on the tax cheats, and IN PART on those who don't make enough. I think the deciding factor there would need to be "are they doing everything reasonably in their power to increase their income and/or reduce their dependence on government assistance programs?" If the answer be yes, then they get to vote. If the answer be no, then they don't get to vote. I say this because I know a good number of people who lost their jobs with the economic crash through no fault of their own - they paid taxes, but now they don't make enough to pay taxes but are trying their darndest to get back on their feet.

Of course, the trick would be in developing a way of determining "everything reasonable" without punching more holes in it than aged swiss cheese. It would have to be an ironclad "yes/no" rule with no exceptions and no appeals.

I think the USA will need to move from income-based tax to sales-based tax in the near future. This way, you get money from everyone who buys something - not just those who work legally AND make a lot of money. Migrant worker? You pay taxes. Drug dealer? You pay taxes, too - when you go to buy your groceries and 100" flatscreen.

[illinirazorback]

Originally Posted by OlivetNaz

I think the USA will need to move from income-based tax to sales-based tax in the near future. This way, you get money from everyone who buys something - not just those who work legally AND make a lot of money. Migrant worker? You pay taxes. Drug dealer? You pay taxes, too - when you go to buy your groceries and 100" flatscreen.

Exactly. This is the "Fair Tax" that folks like Mike Huckabee pushed in the last election and were roundly criticized because they say it won't work. Well, I say make it work. It's the only way to play fair. If you are rich and want to buy a private jet? Go right ahead, and pay big sales tax. Same with that TV. Same with that XBox that those people on food stamps always seem to own.

I suspect the people most resistant to it were the lower income people who pay little to no income tax.

I don't think people who were recently laid off should be included in the groups who are low-income. I think there should be a time limit, but these people aren't the problem. The ones who live that way are the problem. Right now lots of people who have very little income have very little motivation to improve their lives, because the government check that comes each month works just fine for them. Some people are just naturally not ambitious and don't mind living in crappy conditions compared to what we're used to. If we would actually reign these people in, they would have to get motivated real quick, pay taxes, then maybe they'd start caring about who they elect. If not, well, then don't vote. I don't care what they do then.

[pizzaman]

Originally Posted by illinirazorback

Naturally the solution is an across-the-board tax percentage.

That would be a new tax and the repubs won't have it! (But I bet they would figure out a way to rationalize this and call it something other than a tax since it wouldn't hit the core repubs.)

[illinirazorback]

Originally Posted by pizzaman

That would be a new tax and the repubs won't have it! (But I bet they would figure out a way to rationalize this and call it something other than a tax since it wouldn't hit the core repubs.)

I think the gov't needs to live within the means it has now, meaning our current tax structure. However, if anybody wants to raise taxes on anybody, it needs to be on this half that pays no tax, not the "rich" half.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by pizzaman

That would be a new tax and the repubs won't have it! (But I bet they would figure out a way to rationalize this and call it something other than a tax since it wouldn't hit the core repubs.)

That confuses me. How would an 'across the board' tax not hit the core Repubs? Isn't across the board by definition hitting everyone?

[uiba99]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/1...omy/index.html

Gov. Rick Perry enters the presidential race with one big advantage and one big impediment. The advantage: his record of job creation in Texas. His impediment? His record of job creation in Texas.

Through two years of weak economic recovery, Texas has led the nation in job creation. Of all the jobs created in the United States since 2009, 38% have been created in Texas.

But if Texas has created many jobs, it has failed to create good jobs. Many of the jobs created since 2009 pay only minimum wage, and Texas, along with Mississippi, has the highest percentage of minimum wage workers in the U.S.

As a highly educated person who is struggling to find a job in Texas (at least, in the Austin/SA metro area), this article hits very close to home. There are plenty of jobs here...sort of.

[KBLEE]

Originally Posted by illinirazorback

Go right ahead, and pay big sales tax. Same with that TV. Same with that XBox that those people on food stamps always seem to own.

Don't forget their cable / satellite TV packages with all of the movie channels. Because...apparently it's a constitutional right to have HBO, Cinemax, etc.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by uiba99

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/1...omy/index.html



As a highly educated person who is struggling to find a job in Texas (at least, in the Austin/SA metro area), this article hits very close to home. There are plenty of jobs here...sort of.

That is an interesting article. There was a direct contradiction to that in the USA Today. They claimed most all of the jobs, 65%, were 'high paying' whatever that is. I will try and find the article.

Still not a fan of his either way.

[uiba99]

Originally Posted by KBLEE

Don't forget their cable / satellite TV packages with all of the movie channels. Because...apparently it's a constitutional right to have HBO, Cinemax, etc.

You know they're not actually paying for cable/satellite, right? Not that stealing makes it any better.

[KBLEE]

Originally Posted by uiba99

You know they're not actually paying for cable/satellite, right? Not that stealing makes it any better.

I'm guessing that there are some that pay. They can ALL be stealing it, can they?

[DaytonIllini]

Yet while energy has been a spark — employment in natural gas, oil and other mining sectors rose by 45,000, or 23%, since the recession ended — growth has been broad-based. During the past two years, professional and business services added 74,000 jobs; education and health care gained 91,000; and leisure and hospitality grew by 29,000, according to BLS.

Here is the story I was thinking of. They mention that pay in Texas is 5% lower than around the country but with no income tax and a lower cost of living you come out ahead.

One guy mentions low paying jobs beating no jobs. I cannot believe that professionals and health care would be low paying.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...for-jobs_n.htm

[uiba99]

Originally Posted by KBLEE

I'm guessing that there are some that pay. They can ALL be stealing it, can they?

Well, the ones who are paying for it don't bother me. You pay your bills on time (even if you're spending money that could be better put to other uses), you're cool with me. Well, not "cool," but tolerable. I know some of it is probably my tax money, but considering how many other disagreeable people/organizations/causes get my tax money, this is a relatively small drop in the bucket.

But when I was a community prosecutor, I saw a lot of incorrectly placed satellite dishes and fuzzy pictures, if you know what I'm saying.

[illinirazorback]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Here is the story I was thinking of. They mention that pay in Texas is 5% lower than around the country but with no income tax and a lower cost of living you come out ahead.

One guy mentions low paying jobs beating no jobs. I cannot believe that professionals and health care would be low paying.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...for-jobs_n.htm

This was my first thought. Considering jobs aren't really being created anywhere else, I think any job creation is important.

[uiba99]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Here is the story I was thinking of. They mention that pay in Texas is 5% lower than around the country but with no income tax and a lower cost of living you come out ahead.

One guy mentions low paying jobs beating no jobs. I cannot believe that professionals and health care would be low paying.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...for-jobs_n.htm

I can tell you that entry level attorney jobs for state employees pay a little less than they do in Wisconsin. Local jobs vary by city. County jobs have huge differentiations based on the tax base. Big time firm jobs are about the same nationally, so that's not really a fair assessment of the legal market. Health care is kind of a crapshoot. Sent you a PM with more info. I can't really speak for other industries, but I will say that management appears to pay well. But also keep in mind that Texas as a whole is not incredibly well-educated (at least when it comes to HS/GED and undergraduate degrees), particularly the area around San Antonio. That usually translates into lower wages.

[zogillinifan]

There are some things you have to consider about the jobs in Texas:

1) What number of those jobs are worked by people who have little or no education. Mexian and other Hispanic immigrants (illegal or otherwise) looking for jobs might not be well educated enough, or know English well enough, to get a job that pays any better than minimum wage. Are there a lot of high school kids who have jobs at minimum wage?

2) The fact that there is no state income tax has to help somewhat. What does minimum wage in Texas correspond to in states with income tax? IE what does one have to make in Illinois to have the same take home pay as minimum wage in Texas?

3) Cost of living in Texas is pretty low.

There are jobs in Texas that pay very well. I know someone who made $90k straight out of college who graduated from UI with a bachelors in mechanical engineering and is working for BP. There are tons of oil companies there that pay similar salaries. I don't recall what city or county it is, but there is some county that has a ton of healthcare research jobs that pay top dollar.

Until someone comes up with a detailed list of who (immigrants that can't read or speak english aren't going to get a high paying job) has what jobs and what jobs are available for college graduates (and what they pay compared to other states), it's hard to reach a conclusion for me one way or another what the job statistics in Texas really mean.

I do agree with the statement that it's better to have a minimum wage job than no job. If everyone in the country worked instead of so many people living off welfare, there would be a lot more tax revenue without even raising taxes, and a lot less of the tax revenue going to support the unemployed.

[Illinell]

Originally Posted by OlivetNaz

I disagree with the "all is lost" mentality, but I agree with your opinion about the electorate. Seems to me that there should be a test (ironic that I, who hates NCLB because of tests, would go with one here) where you demonstrate a basic understanding of government and politics before you're allowed to vote. One would have to pass this test before voting every year.

How about before you are allowed to run for office as well? I think this would catch a number of candidates up.

[ImNoAngel]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

There are things I don't like about Ron Paul too. I doubt any candidate would get 100% endorsement of their ideas from anyone.

I am curious though why you oppose the gold standard?

What I don't like about the gold standard is probably the same thing that attracts a lot of people to it: namely, that's it's too restrictive. And of course, many will say that this is precisely the point: that the lack of a gold standard has allowed the Fed (and those who shape fiscal policy) to have too much free reign with the money supply which is at least partly to blame for the most recent recession (some would argue it's more than just "partly" to blame).

And I wouldn't disagree that it has played a role, but on the other hand, like having a gun, the ability to manipulate the money supply is a tool that can be useful or dangerous, depending on who has their finger on the trigger. See Minsky's commentary on manipulating the money supply in a manner significantly more judicious than Greenspan ever did.