US Election Discussion

Ah, that's more reasonable. They bundle so many things into those goddamn bills; a prime example is 6464, which I posted yesterday. The first page is all hot button issues that people in the senate will be paying attention to, then when you flip to the second page on, suddenly it's a bunch of pomegranate like "1% tax on all electronic transactions" and "after 2013, a 3% tax on all houses sold". Those things need to GO, regardless of the content of the main segment of the bill; they do not belong, they do not fit with the rest of the bill, they should not be bundled with it.

From what I understand, all those little things are in there as a way to actually get the bill to pass, because all of these politicians won't vote for anything unless it gives them something. What I've been hearing/told is that the person pushing bills basically has to coax everyone else into agreeing with them (The person I heard this from last used a term that's out of my mind at the moment, or I'd use it myself right now, sorry).

It's extremely sad that this is how it's done, but sadly that's how anything gets done in this country. People only think of themselves, and if you're doing something that might hurt the majority of the politicians, even if it benefits 99% of Americans, it will get downvoted unless you are able to make it appealing to them. They only think of themselves, not the overall good.

I think that if there is an ability to bypass all that bullpomegranate, even though it shouldn't be done sometimes it just has to be, because otherwise we get no where.

the person pushing bills basically has to coax everyone else into agreeing with them (The person I heard this from last used a term that's out of my mind at the moment, or I'd use it myself right now, sorry).

Log-rolling, pork-barrel legislation, ect.

Okay, but the problem with your argument is if that altruism and profits don't go hand in hand. If the market was completely unregulated we'd all be basically sweatshop workers.

They'd pay us nothing, give us no benefits, fire us if we got injured. I don't expect large scale corporations to necessarily regulate themselves ethically.

I'm not arguing for insanely strict regulation, just some.

Edit:

Sounds like you'd appreciate the Gilded Age.

MrTouchnGo beat me to the punch in this post and I would have not posted so audaciously knowing that he had already made the first reference to Flonnmerica. Sorry for stealing your intellectual thunder. You had that one by a mile.

Guys, I'm going to show you how to properly respond to this post:

You are missing so many fundamentals to your understanding of how marketplaces actually work that even giving a full explanation on why that is so terribly incorrect would do nothing for you until you learned the core workings of it first. If you think -I- think that having a Republican Congress/President automatically make the free market free, you are also mistaken; it has been quite a long time since our market was truly being utilized correctly.

Markets, when working CORRECTLY, are supposed to work like a bipolar person off of their meds, and that is why so many people don't understand them. The REAL key to making money off of the market is not to stop or even hinder the downswings (the recessions and depressions, you know), or to even help/coax the upswings. The real key is to learn the signs of the market, put your money in when you think it is going up, and take it out when it is going down. People WILL go bankrupt from the market if they do it incorrectly, just like people WILL become millionaires and billionaires off of it if they do it correctly. There is some luck involved, but if you diversify properly, there is very little chance of actually destroying your life; the people that do, they used it wrong and deserve to have lost all of their money. We should not be helping people back onto their feet when the market screws them. Leave them where they lie, that's where they belong, they deserve no sympathy and they should have known the risks beforehand. Money isn't just paper to be flung around every which way, you have to think before you use it.

The government should have NOTHING to do with the market.

NOTHING. The market should regulate ITSELF, 100% of everything about the market should be self regulated. The absolute ONLY time the government of any country should step in is in the event that substances illegal in said country are being marketed; in that case, even then, the government should only be allowed to cut off that stock from their country's market, nothing more and nothing less. I know bleeding heart types don't like being told that something when it's at its most efficient will DEFINITELY destroy some people's lives, but that's how it is.

Ok I'm not getting a bunch of pineapples AND people aren't responding. So let me add this in. That is a picture of one of my favorite presidents, if not my favorite president period, Theodore Roosevelt who was known as a trust buster because in a time and place a long time ago when companies were allowed to be run in Flonnmerica, they were abused by the system, especially the railroad system where they were charged extortionist prices and there was no competition period. Because companies decided to band together and rip the living day lights of the common man since there was very little government stopping them. Now that we know that companies can actually put aside their differences to rip off the common man harder, better, faster, stronger we know this is a bad idea to live in a Flonne world.

And that is a picture of Teddy smiling. Because it's supposed to symbolize that paragraph when you look at that picture. Like instantaneously.

And if you don't trust me, here is wikipedia, a site that I have edited many times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt

-insert poo poo hurr-

I don't think you actually understand global economics, let alone economics.

Guys, I'm going to show you how to properly respond to this post:





Ok I'm not getting a bunch of pineapples AND people aren't responding. So let me add this in. That is a picture of one of my favorite presidents, if not my favorite president period, Theodore Roosevelt who was known as a trust buster because in a time and place a long time ago when companies were allowed to be run in Flonnmerica, they were abused by the system, especially the railroad system where they were charged extortionist prices and there was no competition period. Because companies decided to band together and rip the living day lights of the common man since there was very little government stopping them. Now that we know that companies can actually put aside their differences to rip off the common man harder, better, faster, stronger we know this is a bad idea to live in a Flonne world.

And that is a picture of Teddy smiling. Because it's supposed to symbolize that paragraph when you look at that picture. Like instantaneously.

Pineapples come over time; don't expect them instantly because forum traffic isn't chat room traffic: people may be doing something else.

+1 from me though.

-snip-

The New Deal has almost nothing to do with the stock market, I don't know what your point here is; the market was beginning to go back up before he was even in office. I suppose you -could- argue that helping the unemployed would cause a larger pool of people, both corporate and consumer, to re-invest, though, in which case, I suppose you are right. Now, he did create a couple of organizations that MONITOR the stock market, but again, those were formed well AFTER the collapse was already over. He did considerably increase the amount of power the executive branch wields, though, so I can't be too happy about that when the goal is a balance of power, but that's a different subject.

I'm not claiming that government should stay out of everything PERIOD...it's the government's job to take care of many things in their jurisdiction, I'm simply arguing that the stock market is not a PART of their jurisdiction. The government's true objective in my eyes is simply to protect the citizens of their country, maintain a basic infrastructure (to clarify, this means a physical infrastructure and a legal infrastructure, I do realize we need laws!), and get the hell out of the way.

The New Deal has almost nothing to do with the stock market, I don't know what your point here is; the market was beginning to go back up before he was even in office. I suppose you -could- argue that helping the unemployed would cause a larger pool of people, both corporate and consumer, to re-invest, though, in which case, I suppose you are right. Now, he did create a couple of organizations that MONITOR the stock market, but again, those were formed well AFTER the collapse was already over. He did considerably increase the amount of power the executive branch wields, though, so I can't be too happy about that when the goal is a balance of power, but that's a different subject.

I'm not claiming that government should stay out of everything PERIOD...it's the government's job to take care of many things in their jurisdiction, I'm simply arguing that the stock market is not a PART of their jurisdiction. The government's true objective in my eyes is simply to protect the citizens of their country, maintain a basic infrastructure (to clarify, this means a physical infrastructure and a legal infrastructure, I do realize we need laws!), and get the hell out of the way.

You're confusing Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive Republican in the 190x's (not sure, but you can search it up yourself).

The economy was almost entirely unregulated, and "trusts" formed in industries that monopolized certain commodities such as oil, railroads, steel, etc. This era is known as the Gilded Age because the seemingly prosperous America simply hid away all the crap that came about as a result of the unregulated economy -- horrible working conditions, low wages, rampant poverty, and a generally screwing over of the majority of America.

Teddy Roosevelt was the first Republican in a looooooong line of presidents (AKA the "forgettable" presidents because they didn't do jack shit) that actually tried to fix the US. He was known as a "trust-buster" because he split up trusts with lawsuits and enacted anti-trust legislation (ironically, his successor, Taft, actually busted more trusts than TR).

TR also introduced government agencies such as the FDA to regulate businesses. Before the introduction of the FDA, processed food was often unsanitary and even dangerous for your health (read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair).

tl;dr: unregulated economy sucks, business isn't altruistic.

Just curious, has anyone else here read Senate Bill 6464?

Not just the first page, the whole thing? I'm curious to see how an online community would react to a 1% tax on all electronic transactions (including withdrawing/depositing from bank, cashing paycheck, all online purchases/sales, et cetera). I'm debating on posting a wall of text on why I am 100% sure of how and even when Obama is going to start World War 3 if he is re-elected; if you all promise me you will actually read my sources and go into it without an opinion already formed on it, I might still do so!

You're the Skip Bayless of Southperry, and I truly can't understand why people waste the time and effort refuting your ludicrous claims as if there's any sense to them 90% of the time.

You're confusing Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Oh!

So I am. I don't actually know anything about him, I have some reading to do before I comment on him, I guess!

You're the Skip Bayless of Southperry, and I truly can't understand why people waste the time and effort refuting your ludicrous claims as if there's any sense to them 90% of the time.

I don't know and couldn't care less what he says and does, and didn't even know -what- he was until I googled him, but I AM more than a little bit insulted that you just compared me with one of those useless, egotistical losers who announce for sports.

About the election, I was really surprised he won my state (Virginia). The general vibe I felt recently was that many who had voted for him last time were going for Romney this time.

About the election, I was really surprised he won my state (Virginia). The general vibe I felt recently was that many who had voted for him last time were going for Romney this time.

Same here. Most people in my area were pressing for Romney to win.

You're confusing Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive Republican in the 190x's (not sure, but you can search it up yourself).

The economy was almost entirely unregulated, and "trusts" formed in industries that monopolized certain commodities such as oil, railroads, steal, etc. This era is known as the Gilded Age because the seemingly prosperous America simply hid away all the crap that came about as a result of the unregulated economy -- horrible working conditions, low wages, rampant poverty, and a generally screwing over of the majority of America.

Teddy Roosevelt was the first Republican in a looooooong line of presidents (AKA the "forgettable" presidents because they didn't do jack shit) that actually tried to fix the US. He was known as a "trust-buster" because he split up trusts with lawsuits and enacted anti-trust legislation (ironically, his successor, Taft, actually busted more trusts than TR).

TR also introduced government agencies such as the FDA to regulate businesses. Before the introduction of the FDA, processed food was often unsanitary and even dangerous for your health (read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair).

tl;dr: unregulated economy sucks, business isn't altruistic.

I GOTTA APOLOGIZE. I DIDN'T KNOW THE AGE WAS CALLED THE GILDED AGE.

Would have quoted + added on if I knew about that factoid. Sorry for following-up without knowing I was following-up and then you following-up my follow-up.

MrTouchnGo beat me to the punch in his "Gilded Age" post and I would have not posted so audaciously knowing that he had already made the first reference to "Flonnmerica". Sorry for stealing your intellectual thunder. You had that one by a mile.

Seems like he was a really great guy and did a lot of things I agree with, honestly. Breaking up collaborations of corporate allies is a good thing, and I don't see it as having a major effect on the stock market, DIRECTLY; it WILL have a major effect on corporate ability to create monopolies which can BLOCK the stock market's natural growth, so I will relent a little and say I was wrong on that count, it does have an indirect effect that is completely positive. The government being able to block businesses from becoming their own miniature dicatorships is perfectly logical and I should have seen that. Past that though, I still hold my ground; the market isn't formed of just corporate benefactors, it is also individuals. Groups of people can come together and do shady things, sadly; as a pessimist, I am disappointed in myself for not seeing that without it being pointed out.

Log-rolling, pork-barrel legislation, ect.

Pork-barrelling. That's definitely the term that was used. Thanks.

Pork-barrelling. That's definitely the term that was used. Thanks.

NP. I have these two terms memorized because it made me disillusioned of policy enaction (or one could argue "inaction") when I was in high school and made me turn away from pursuing a political career or government related life style. I had been aggressively pursuing it because my dad was/is a lawyer and thought it would be a good lead-up to his profession (not in any shape or form). And it made me hit the brakes and reconsider whether I wanted to continue spending four years of learning about it in college where I would only be a cog in a disagreeable system where the most direct thing I could do was help campaign or protest given my wit, eloquence, and degree (before I could even consider pursuing law school for a jurisprudence). I actually deferred from continuing to study poli sci and chose my hand at science. An experiment that I found enjoyable.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07...87795.html

and she still doesn't realize the harm she did to her party.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07...87795.html

and she still doesn't realize the harm she did to her party.

Lol. Like she knows what perplexing means.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07...87795.html

and she still doesn't realize the harm she did to her party.

I can't believe anyone takes Sarah Palin seriously, especially after she said she
- believes dinosaurs and humans walked the earth together
- thinks the earth is 6,000 years old
- can't name any newspapers she reads
- cannot name any of the founding fathers of the US
- and can't name any Supreme Court cases

This woman is the ultimate troll.

 Spoiler

[video=youtube;C6urw_PWHYk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk[/video]

4 More years of obama, we are doooooooooomed. I wouldn't be surprised if we reached as high as 64% more in Welfare spending in two obama terms. Gonna get 4 more trillion in debt, taking even more taxes out of our checks when he clearly said anyone making 250k or less wouldn't get tax increases under him. Fun time.