Are Republicans delusional or knowingly ruining the country?

We've been going with Trickle-Down Economics for about 30 years now, and Orwellian words like "job-creator" still get thrown around as though allowing the wealthy to make even more money has actually created more jobs. Adjusted for inflation, since 1966 the average worker's salary in the bottom 90% has gone up 59 dollars per year. Meanwhile, in the top 10% its gone up over $116,000 and in the top 1% it's gone up $366,623.

While worker productivity has remained just as high, their wages have nearly completely flat-lined compared to wage growth prior to 1966. Corporate profits are at record breaking highs, Wallstreet is doing better than ever before, meanwhile unemployment is higher than it's been since the Great Depression and the homeless population has continued growing steadily.

So the facts are out, trickle-down economics are bullshit, the entire republican model to economic recovery is bullshit, and their desire to invoke european styled austerity will fail just as hard as it is in Europe. So there's really only one question left, are Republicans evil, or stupid?

The current fuck up is a democrat, buddy boy. Republicans are fucked but so are democrats. Sorry.

I think calling "job creator" an Orwellian term is slightly hysterical. Personal greed does motivate entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs do create businesses which create value and employ people. The only point of contention is how far you take the concept; it's a quantitative issue, not a qualitative one.

We haven't been following trickle down economics, and the US is anything but capitalist... Republicans are pretty stupid but they aren't the only cause of the US's turmoil. Both demand and supply side economics are bullshit as both rely on the government to intervene in one area or another, which is the ultimate cause of recession.

Quote:

---

Corporate profits are at record breaking highs, Wallstreet is doing better than ever before,..

---

What historical fiction novel are you writing?

Quote:

---

So the facts are out, trickle-down economics are bullshit

---

Hard to believe your claim to "facts" when you can't get your own facts straight.

It's not trickle down economics when the rich are giving half of what they earn to the government. I think we should finally try trickle down economics on a real level. I bet it would work wonders. An economy is fueled by the buying of products. Should we be doing more to stifle the buying of products? Should the rich be taxed 90%? You don't want people to stop trying to get rich. It would kill the system.

Corporate profits are at a high, and top earners are making more than ever, and inequality is at a all time high. Those are all real facts. Trickle down economics doesn't work, and the idea that we need to protect the rich is silly. I don't think we need to tax them 90% but at the same time the richest people in the US pay some of the lowest taxes. Mainly because they don't receive their money from 'income'. There should be a level playing field instead of us giving large breaks and benefits to rich people.

Of course the entire system is fundamentally flawed, so who knows if we can fix it. Hopefully one day soon we can get rid of the entire thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Corporate profits are at a high, and top earners are making more than ever, and inequality is at a all time high. Those are all real facts. Trickle down economics doesn't work, and the idea that we need to protect the rich is silly. I don't think we need to tax them 90% but at the same time the richest people in the US pay some of the lowest taxes. Mainly because they don't receive their money from 'income'. There should be a level playing field instead of us giving large breaks and benefits to rich people.

Of course the entire system is fundamentally flawed, so who knows if we can fix it. Hopefully one day soon we can get rid of the entire thing.

---

I thought you were really libertarian on this issue. Did that change?

Rich people who get their money from job income give about half of what they make to the government. I think every tax payer needs a drastic tax cut. The government is spending like a 13 year old girl with her rich father's credit card, and that has to change.

Yeah, using facts means you're a communist. The tax margin is 35% for the wealthiest incomes, not 50%.

I am libertarian and I would prefer a much smaller government, much less spending and thus much lower taxes for everyone. That said the tax system as it is now isn't fair. Most of the super rich don't work a job so don't have a jobs income instead all their income comes from stocks and stuff like that. So what happens is that the super rich actually pay less percentage of taxes than everyone else. Which isn't fair since the rich also gets the most benefits from the government out of everyone.

So they shouldn't get the most benefits and pay the least amount of taxes. That isn't really fair. I think giving huge bailouts and special benefits that greatly favor the rich is wrong as well, and if we stopped welfare for the rich then it is okay if they paid the same as everyone else. But you can't get huge benefits over others and pay less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

I am libertarian and I would prefer a much smaller government, much less spending and thus much lower taxes for everyone. That said the tax system as it is now isn't fair. Most of the super rich don't work a job so don't have a jobs income instead all their income comes from stocks and stuff like that. So what happens is that the super rich actually pay less percentage of taxes than everyone else. Which isn't fair since the rich also gets the most benefits from the government out of everyone.

So they shouldn't get the most benefits and pay the least amount of taxes. That isn't really fair. I think giving huge bailouts and special benefits that greatly favor the rich is wrong as well, and if we stopped welfare for the rich then it is okay if they paid the same as everyone else. But you can't get huge benefits over others and pay less.

---

What benefits do the rich get from the government? Most rich people work, and they give about half of what they make to the government. I consider that robbery. The tax laws for interest income and job income are different, and if somebody can live off interest income and not have to pay income tax, I congratulate that person. I think we should just have a sales tax. With that, everybody would pay taxes, and they would pay at the same percentage of what they spend (on legal things).

i personally think that almost everyone in the government are screwed up. i mean, look how in debt america is! and then we have the North Koreas wanting to bomb us, and we respond by preparing bombs of our own instead of trying to PEACEFULLY work out the problem. so you see, the government we have is stupid and resort to violence in most situations. but i guess the government we have is better than, say, a dictatorship or monarchy or something like that.

If your main source of income is from working you are probably not one of the super rich and just rich compared to most people. As you get richer you pay more taxes until you get to the point where you stop getting income from work then your tax rate drops off big time. There is no logical reason to say that if a person works they have to share their income with the government but if the person makes profit from investments they pay less.

Since the super rich get all their income as long term capital gains, they pay like 15% in taxes. How is that fair? You make 50 million a years as capital gains and you pay 15% and if you make 40,000 a year you pay 25%. That is ridiculous.

Then there is all sort of extra loopholes and stuff made for rich people to pay less in taxes. Plus all the big bailouts are aimed at helping the rich since they prop up bad investments which are largely held in the hands of the rich. All the subsidies and stuff that try to help out businesses and transfer wealth to the owners of those companies, the rich. Pretty much everything aimed at helping out huge corporations and stuff is aimed at increasing the profits of the shareholders.

Invested money is money that was earned. I think that any wealth it creates should be left alone because it is growth from money that was already taxed. Even if it is unfair to have such a discrepancy between income tax and investment tax, I am all for low taxes in every area possible. It might not be fair that one innocent guy on the street is being beaten by cops while his innocent friend isn't, but that doesn't mean I want the friend to be beaten too. If there is a form of income that isn't taxed much, that's good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Yeah, using facts means you're a communist. The tax margin is 35% for the wealthiest incomes, not 50%.

---

That is just federal income tax. Most states have state income tax, property tax, sales tax, etc. The rich end up paying about half of what they earn to the government. That's fucked up.

Not when you consider that including all those other taxes, the middle class pays around a third of their income. And I'm not even talking about the wealthy. The wealthy, I'm not concerned with. Conservatives love to act like the Occupy movement, etc, just wants to punish the upper class. That's not the issue, stop attacking strawmen. The issue is that the very wealthiest, largest companies in the United States, such as GE, pay NO TAXES AT ALL. None. Not only that, but the American Tax Payers subsidize their industries. We pay for their operation, they pay themselves all the profit. That is fucked up, sir.

That isn't true because the money invested is from invested money. If invested money isn't taxed and all your profits is from investments then you would never pay taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Not when you consider that including all those other taxes, the middle class pays around a third of their income. And I'm not even talking about the wealthy. The wealthy, I'm not concerned with. Conservatives love to act like the Occupy movement, etc, just wants to punish the upper class. That's not the issue, stop attacking strawmen. The issue is that the very wealthiest, largest companies in the United States, such as GE, pay NO TAXES AT ALL. None. Not only that, but the American Tax Payers subsidize their industries. We pay for their operation, they pay themselves all the profit. That is fucked up, sir.

---

The middle class pays about a third of their income, and the rich pay about half. What are you saying? I am not making this up. I know a lot of rich people, and I know their complaints. They work their asses off and have half of what they make stripped from them by government thugs. A whole lot of that money goes to con artist bums. Is that fair?

Stop attacking strawmen? Are you talking to me? I said nothing about Occupy, sir. However, most people who want the rich to be taxed even more are driven by class envy and want to punish people for being successful. Jealousy is the root of a great deal of evil.

I don't think corporations should be taxed. I don't even think there should be an income tax. Success should be encouraged and rewarded. However, I also don't think the government should ever subsidize corporations. Government sucks. That is my major philosophy here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

That isn't true because the money invested is from invested money. If invested money isn't taxed and all your profits is from investments then you would never pay taxes.

---

The money invested is from invested money?

I'm glad investment tax is so low. Maybe it will end up being nonexistent. Then we can work on getting rid of the income tax.

The only reason we have idiots in government is because all the smart people were wise enough not to get involved in politics. I KNOW people who would do a better job in office than just about everybody in the current Congress, but they're too busy being doctors and engineers to be concerned with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The money invested is from invested money?

---

Yea it is entirely possible to have money invested in stocks that have never been taxed as income. Also if your friend is paying half their money in taxes they are not the super rich. If you are rich, and someone making half a million dollars a year is rich, then you are paying extremely high taxes. However people at higher levels, making multimillions a year, pay far lower rates. The average person making 10 million a year are paying lower rates than someone making 40k a year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The middle class pays about a third of their income, and the rich pay about half. What are you saying? I am not making this up. I know a lot of rich people, and I know their complaints. They work their asses off and have half of what they make stripped from them by government thugs. A whole lot of that money goes to con artist bums. Is that fair?

Stop attacking strawmen? Are you talking to me? I said nothing about Occupy, sir. However, most people who want the rich to be taxed even more are driven by class envy and want to punish people for being successful. Jealousy is the root of a great deal of evil.

I don't think corporations should be taxed. I don't even think there should be an income tax. Success should be encouraged and rewarded. However, I also don't think the government should ever subsidize corporations. Government sucks. That is my major philosophy here.



The money invested is from invested money?

I'm glad investment tax is so low. Maybe it will end up being nonexistent. Then we can work on getting rid of the income tax.

---

You're still acting as though I have class envy and want to punish the wealthy that are paying taxes when the target of my attacks are the wealthy which are NOT paying taxes. It's these loop holes the republicans are protecting, while they're also pushing for austerity that is having awful consequences in Europe. Everything about the current republican economic platform is devastating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You're still acting as though I have class envy and want to punish the wealthy that are paying taxes when the target of my attacks are the wealthy which are NOT paying taxes. It's these loop holes the republicans are protecting, while they're also pushing for austerity that is having awful consequences in Europe. Everything about the current republican economic platform is devastating.

---

I didn't say you are like that. I said it is common. I think the problem with our government is overspending and overtaxing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Yea it is entirely possible to have money invested in stocks that have never been taxed as income. Also if your friend is paying half their money in taxes they are not the super rich. If you are rich, and someone making half a million dollars a year is rich, then you are paying extremely high taxes. However people at higher levels, making multimillions a year, pay far lower rates. The average person making 10 million a year are paying lower rates than someone making 40k a year.

---

It's possible for that to happen to interest income, but I thought you were saying it is a general rule. In the rest of your post, are you referring to job income?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I didn't say you are like that. I said it is common. I think the problem with our government is overspending and overtaxing.

---

What planet are you living on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

What planet are you living on?

---

Your mama.

I still have yet to see you address any actual problems I've raised in this thread. You're acting like Sean Hannity or somebody. Do you have anything to say that isn't pathetically fallacious?

Maybe I should address the question to you since you're acting so similar to the Republican members of congress. Are you delusional or do you really want to destroy the economy?

There are a lot of ways around taxes, to either avoid them or limit them or put them off for extremely long amounts of time so you can play with the money and make profits off it before taxes. Pretty much all the ways for avoiding taxes can only be used by the extremely rich, and so the extremely rich usually pay very low amount of taxes. Like I said, people making 10+million a year usually pay on average about 15% in taxes.

If you get the money as a pay check from an employer, then you would owe almost 40% in income tax if you made 10 million dollars. So the super rich on average successfully avoid paying 60% of the taxes they are supposed to pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I still have yet to see you address any actual problems I've raised in this thread. You're acting like Sean Hannity or somebody. Do you have anything to say that isn't pathetically fallacious?

Maybe I should address the question to you since you're acting so similar to the Republican members of congress. Are you delusional or do you really want to destroy the economy?

---

What have I not addressed? You brought up planets of residence, so I went with you on the tangent. Now give me specific examples of what you are having a spaz attack over.

Your socialist dream would destroy our economy. Why do you want that? Do you really hate rich people that much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

There are a lot of ways around taxes, to either avoid them or limit them or put them off for extremely long amounts of time so you can play with the money and make profits off it before taxes. Pretty much all the ways for avoiding taxes can only be used by the extremely rich, and so the extremely rich usually pay very low amount of taxes. Like I said, people making 10+million a year usually pay on average about 15% in taxes.

If you get the money as a pay check from an employer, then you would owe almost 40% in income tax if you made 10 million dollars. So the super rich on average successfully avoid paying 60% of the taxes they are supposed to pay.

---

That is because, as you have said, we have a system that is very job income oriented. I think we need to change that, but I don't want the rich who live off interest to pay more. I want everybody to be able to pay less. We have a spendaholic government that keeps losing its mind even more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Your socialist dream would destroy our economy. Why do you want that? Do you really hate rich people that much?

---

Evidently he thinks the system he's espousing would work and be beneficial. Unless he's a known sociopath, it's not fair to ask why he "wants" to destroy the economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Evidently he thinks the system he's espousing would work and be beneficial. Unless he's a known sociopath, it's not fair to ask why he "wants" to destroy the economy.

---

Exactly. Now back up a step and criticize the comment I was responding to.

Is that really all you have to say about this thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Exactly. Now back up a step and criticize the comment I was responding to.

---

"Two wrongs don't make a right," etc., etc.

Quote:

---

Is that really all you have to say about this thread?

---

For now, all I have to say is that most Repubs are delusional. I can't imagine why anybody would want to ruin the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

"Two wrongs don't make a right," etc., etc.

---

That is not a full explanation. If you have a problem with two "wrongs," it makes more sense to criticize the instigator and not the retaliator. My "wrong" was a satirical response to an asinine comment. Good job on ignoring that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

For now, all I have to say is that most Repubs are delusional. I can't imagine why anybody would want to ruin the country.

---

Do you think Republicans are ruining the country by taxing the rich too little?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is not a full explanation. If you have a problem with two "wrongs," it makes more sense to criticize the instigator and not the retaliator. My "wrong" was a satirical response to an asinine comment. Good job on ignoring that one.

---

You tend to be on "my side" of the issues more so I would hope that you wouldn't use the same tactics as he did. Plus I didn't read the part you were replying to lol.

Quote:

---

Do you think Republicans are ruining the country by taxing the rich too little?

---

No. They're contributing to the ruination by being socially backward and making what could be good economic policies look stupid by saying they're implementing those policies when in reality they're doing something completely different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

No. They're contributing to the ruination by being socially backward and making what could be good economic policies look stupid by saying they're implementing those policies when in reality they're doing something completely different.

---

That is very true.

Not wanting GE to pay 0 dollars in taxes does not make me a socialist. Try again.

I think the underlying problem here isn't that the rich are paying too little tax, I would say it is more that not enough is being spent to motivate people to get jobs or an education. Trickle down economics really isn't the right solution though. Instead of stimulating people to try improve themselves and guarantee themselves a future position in an industry money is being spent motivating businesses to stay in the country and keep the jobs of the people who are already there.
If there is a competition between the people to reach a good place the economy will naturally heal itself, but that currently isn't exactly being stimulated since the whole system goes against it. Expensive tuition fees, flawed law system, and extreme control on some things and none on others blocks the ability for the average person to progress themselves and for income inequality to lower.
I watched a ted talk on a governor who was trying to give a company deals to stay in the city keep it's employees. She tried to offer them all kinds of things like, grants, no tax, help with growing the business but the company refused. All the money that would have cost could have easily payed for the education of the employees working there to get an even better job.

It's also true that education needs to be subsidized. But Universal Mind is ignoring the fact that that super wealthy pay less taxes than teachers, and he's stuck on the fact that the general wealthy pay more taxes. He's acting like I'm targeting the top 10% who pay a 35% tax margin when in reality I'm targeting the top .01-.05% that pay a 0-14% tax margin.

Austerity in regard to social safety programs and education is also the wrong way to go. Social safety program enable people that lose their middle class status to quickly climb back into the middle class. The middle class, also known as the consumer/producer class, is the most necessary class for the economy. Without them, production slows down because there's no one to buy anything. Austerity is simply a terrible idea and we're seeing its effects in Europe, but Republicans are pushing it while defending the Bush tax cuts to the super wealthy. I still cannot possibly think anyone could be so delusional, and I honestly don't think the politicians are delusional, but their constituencies are, as exemplified by Universal Mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

I think the underlying problem here isn't that the rich are paying too little tax, I would say it is more that not enough is being spent to motivate people to get jobs or an education.

---

The problem is that the government is spending too much and the super rich are paying very little to nothing in taxes because of Bush's tax cuts. It's not that people aren't motivated to get jobs, most of the people that I know who don't have jobs are looking for one and they can't pay for an education because they don't have money because they don't have a job because they don't have an education because they don't have money...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Not wanting GE to pay 0 dollars in taxes does not make me a socialist. Try again.

---

I didn't say it does. Try again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

It's also true that education needs to be subsidized. But Universal Mind is ignoring the fact that that super wealthy pay less taxes than teachers, and he's stuck on the fact that the general wealthy pay more taxes. He's acting like I'm targeting the top 10% who pay a 35% tax margin when in reality I'm targeting the top .01-.05% that pay a 0-14% tax margin.

Austerity in regard to social safety programs and education is also the wrong way to go. Social safety program enable people that lose their middle class status to quickly climb back into the middle class. The middle class, also known as the consumer/producer class, is the most necessary class for the economy. Without them, production slows down because there's no one to buy anything. Austerity is simply a terrible idea and we're seeing its effects in Europe, but Republicans are pushing it while defending the Bush tax cuts to the super wealthy. I still cannot possibly think anyone could be so delusional, and I honestly don't think the politicians are delusional, but their constituencies are, as exemplified by Universal Mind.

---

I suspect you of trolling, but I'll argue with the assumption that you are not because this is an important issue for anybody reading. You socialists throw around the word "middle class" all the time without really explaining why you do it. I am gung ho middle class, so you can stop name dropping that group on me. Lots of love for the middle class coming from me. Guess what... I want their taxes to be lower than you want them to be. I want everybody's taxes to be lower. You don't. You don't care what effect taxation has on private spending and therefore the economy. I don't want you "targeting" anybody except our dysfunctional stupid fuck organized crime government that has us in a recession because they are reckless out of their minds with people's private property. Get it? If the goal is to get people to trade more apples so that the apple system can take off, it would be insane for the government to take half of the apples of the biggest apple traders. The government would need to take as few apples as possible to see true success in the apple system. Get it?

How do you expect to lower taxes? What programs would need to go? Republicans love to advocate lower taxes but never explain how the budget would be balanced with lower taxes, hence the massive deficit and resulting inflation (which hurts the middle class). If you intended to lower taxes with a plan such as, I don't know, removing the parasitic military and prison industrial complexes, then you'd be off to a good start. But Republicans also seem to consider those two aspects of the budget to be sacrosanct. If you planned to balance the budget by cutting food stamps, college grants, etc, then you're throwing the middle class under the bus and destroying some of the most important aspects of our social infrastructure.

And you still haven't mentioned even a hint of an opinion regarding something absolutely integral to balancing the budget, which is closing the tax loopholes. Instead, you still acting like that's not the purpose of the thread, and in fact you seem to be purposely trying to derail this thread, then calling me a troll for calling you out on trying to derail my fucking thread. So answer the question or I'll report you for thread derailing. Should GE pay less percentage than a teacher in taxes or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

removing the parasitic military and prison industrial complexes

---

Yes, that would be a really good start. Ending the war on drugs, getting our military out of other countries, and cutting the vast majority of entitlement spending would be excellent. We could cut out most of this insanity...

List of United States federal agencies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Education could be completely privatized with a back up voucher program. If taxes were low enough, space exploration could become a private business. Food stamps and college grants could be cut without being eliminated, but I think private charity could handle food donations if taxes were low enough. I used to be a social worker, and I assure you that the entitlement system is severely abused. Student loans are supposed to be paid back, so they are not really a problem. The IRS is unnecessary because a sales tax system would be simple and not a bureaucratic financial clusterfuck. I could get into a lot of details about ridiculous amounts of money the government spends on things that the government should not be spending any money on at all, such as pointless scientific research on things that just don't matter. There are private scientists out there for the things that do matter. Elections cost absurd amounts of money. Those are a few things off the top of my head.

I think you know by now that I am not a Republican. Atheists who want all drugs legal and make fun of patriotic rituals are not Republicans.

Yeah but you're a capitalist idealist, and much like socialism or communism, capitalism looks good on paper until you realize that too many fuckwads exist to screw it up. History has shown what happens when you completely depend on charity to handle food subsidies. What you call entitlement programs, I call safety nets. Shit happens, that's why social infrastructure exists. GE spent 0 dollars in taxes last year, and so far I haven't seen a dime of that go to space exploration. Your logic is flawed because we actually do have a trickle-down economy. Obama is basically Reagan II. And we're not seeing any good come out of giving these investors all their ridiculous tax breaks. They haven't helped anything with it, so your claim is flawed that lower taxes will fix everything. I would like to see taxes lowered for the 99% though, but I think it should be evened out by removing the tax loopholes for the 1%.

Just a slight interjection: socialism and communism don't actually look good on paper. They have fundamental flaws that make them impossible to successfully operate.

What a wonderfully irrelevant and biased interjection. Capitalism also has "fundamental flaws" when you examine it, the idealization simply makes sense on paper for any popular economic philosophy. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need sounds nice on paper, just like individual empowerment sounds nice on paper. The idealization still comes down to principle over reality.

Whatever fundamental flaws capitalism possesses still don't inhibit its ability to immensely benefit the human race as a whole. The fundamental flaws socialism possesses actually prohibit it from working at all, nevermind with an appreciable degree of benefit or efficiency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodstock

The problem is that the government is spending too much and the super rich are paying very little to nothing in taxes because of Bush's tax cuts. It's not that people aren't motivated to get jobs, most of the people that I know who don't have jobs are looking for one and they can't pay for an education because they don't have money because they don't have a job because they don't have an education because they don't have money...

---

You didn't counter anything I said. In fact you just supported it, most people can't get a job because they don't have the money to pay for an education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Whatever fundamental flaws capitalism possesses still don't inhibit its ability to immensely benefit the human race as a whole. The fundamental flaws socialism possesses actually prohibit it from working at all, nevermind with an appreciable degree of benefit or efficiency.

---

Do you have an argument to go with that claim or are you just trolling because I think you've just won the prize for the most ridiculous statement in this thread so far.

Guys, lets face it, any system involving money is unsustainable. Some just take longer to die than others. ;)

As for the original question, which has been discussed and moved past, I would argue that it is neither political party, but the result of a general decline in both the country and here on earth due to unsustainable systems that were put in place hundreds of years ago. All this time expansion has been used to solve all of our problems, so that now, when we have pretty much expanded and divided up as much of earth as we can, it doesn't matter what either party does or doesn't do. It's not a matter of which political system is right, it's a matter of the larger system being broken. By changing politicians your basically putting a band-aide on a sinking ship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

Guys, lets face it, any system involving money is unsustainable. Some just take longer to die than others. ;)

---

People trading belongings or services is unsustainable?

Not when the system/medium through which they are traded requires constant expansion to succeed. That's a different story though. One I conveniently created a thread about. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

Not when the system/medium through which they are traded requires constant expansion to succeed. That's a different story though. One I conveniently created a thread about. ;)

---

Yes, that's a common meme amongst Venus people. Actually, there's nothing inherently unstable about fractional reserve banking. It just increases the money supply by a multiple. You're conflating this with fiat currency, which is unsustainable.

You can't make people owe you more money than exists without requiring constant growth. So now you have to argue there's nothing inherently unstable about constant growth.

I haven't read through the thread, I just read the question. And the answer is, the people in power now are looking for personal gain. By destroying the lower classes, the upper classes gain. They know that, definitely. As a nation we actually do have the resource and means to have a flourishing economy, but that involves sharing equally, and people aren't into that. The state of the economy is a result of power and profit mongering, lead by parties such as the government and the central banking systems. People have been warned countless times throughout history not to form governments under these ideals, but it's gone unheeded within the last century. Us Americans are now slaves, that don't realize we're slaves. Slaves to the work force, to poverty, and to deep... deep disregard of what goes on below our common radar. America sucks. And I can't wait to leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You can't make people owe you more money than exists without requiring constant growth. So now you have to argue there's nothing inherently unstable about constant growth.

---

That statement is only true in the limiting case where you expect everyone to want their money back at any given moment. Modern banks take a calculated risk and assume that there won't be bank runs or anything of that nature. Therefore, the ratio of deposits to loans doesn't, in principle, matter as long as you're not experiencing a run.

Now, in a free market (ie NOT UNITED STATES) banking system, the risk of bank runs may require rational reserve ratios to be much more down to Earth, maybe 3-1 or 4-1, rather than the current 10+. But with the moral hazard of bailouts and hidden bailouts (through a 0% Fed funds rate), banks don't need to really worry about runs, which allows them to go up to higher ratios. Again, you're confusing statist reality with free market reality.

Oh actually, I thought the question was about the "Government" instead of the "Republicans". And... to clarify where that leaves my answer, they're all the same. Modern politics isn't about the titles of Republican and Democrat. They just use those stances and names for social pull. Then proceed to act almost identical to each other, and maybe change a few things that don't directly have to do with their position.

Studying political science or actually being involved in civics or the political process should be a mandatory requirement before anyone espouses full on retard views in regards to such matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nerq

Oh actually, I thought the question was about the "Government" instead of the "Republicans". And... to clarify where that leaves my answer, they're all the same. Modern politics isn't about the titles of Republican and Democrat. They just use those stances and names for social pull. Then proceed to act almost identical to each other, and maybe change a few things that don't directly have to do with their position.

---

I don't think democrats are perfect, I see it as a wolves vs foxes scenario. But the republicans are still steadfastly protecting these ridiculous tax loopholes which leave the middle-upper class to carry the entire tax burden that subsidizes the wealthiest corporations. This is simply bad economic policy.

You're might right in that sense. But the reason why I still believe it's more accurate to title them as Wolves vs Wolves, is that modern politicians don't follow their title(s) idealistically. It's only a title now, instead of a statement that they want to incorporate into the economy. The standpoints have their pros and cons, but the holders of those stand points, I believe, just use them as a façade.

Plastic faces, plastic food, paper power, punch-line oriented political leaders. This is what we live with.

Wolves vs Foxes is more dangerous than wolves vs wolves when you think about it. For example, Obama's first term revealed a Reagan style president, but the liberals reelected him anyways because Mitt Romney was so terrifying.

It's sad that people are divided by political parties, and how much animosity it can cause between people. In general I don't think republicans or democrats are "stupid", as stupid is a strong word that seems to be thrown around carelessly. I think most democrats/republicans/liberals/conservatives/etc believe in what they THINK will truly help make the future brighter for the most amount of people possible. When you look at the big picture objectively and really try to keep your mind open to the logic behind a political parties actions, it can make sense generally speaking. But this division of people into specific political parties is pretty stupid, not the people, the concept of dividing people into such specific groups for such complex problems. I've noticed that people who claim the title of a political party strongest, tend to be better at discrediting another person, belonging to another party, rather than validating their own arguments. This isn't true all the time, it's just what political discussion seems to resort to in my opinion.

So in short OP, my answer to your final question is: no, I don't think republicans are delusional OR stupid, although I think the system that forces powerful political figures into such specific parties, is stupid. That being said, I got nothing but love for you, and I can understand how something, like politics, that can cause so much pain to so many people, can easily breed animosity. But animosity invalidates an argument so easily, you get so much further with understanding and compassion.

All that being said, there is a march on DC November 5th, I hope you can find a way to make it, all support is appreciated. I'll be one of the medics :).

The 2 party system isn't inherently a bad thing, it's definitely better than any system in which the people don't get any voice at all or power to choose. But like any other political system it's susceptible to corruption and stupidity, and when any government gets too big it loses sight of the little people it's supposed to be protecting and serving and gets greedy, especially when politics becomes a wealth game and a career as it has in the US and was supposedly set up never to become for those very reasons.

Unfortunately politicians on both sides don't seem to be actually supporting their own so-called ideals anymore, more like just making empty promises that they then maliciously break as soon as they get into office and begin pushing the exact same agendas they opposed so vehemently in their campaign speeches, agendas aimed at increasing the power of government and eliminating those pesky little things that seek to limit that power, you know, like the bill of rights and the constitution.

Politics makes a whole lot more sense when you rise above the dichotomy and see that none of the parties actually do what they claim to be doing and it's all a twisted power game. Neither side is what they say they are - I used to consider myself a liberal, but now I see the liberals are actually far more insidious in a certain way than the conservatives, who at least are straightforward about their biases and don't try to cloak their hatred as fairness.

Click to enlarge:

Attachment 5107

Attachment 5108

I agree that politics has turned into a game where the people in positions of power claim one thing, and do another. I do think that, for the most part, they do what they think they need to in order to save face and get people on their side, and it's wrong. Now it does seem that a lot politicians do things selfishly, I'm just speaking about people claiming to belong to parties, not specific individuals in positions of power. And as for the two party system not being inherently bad, I suppose it would be difficult to set up a system where opinions could be voiced on every single, specific problem. There is no doubt that the system has been flawed for a long time. The whole thing is infuriating. Seeing groups of people battle each other over ideals that they both think are right, thinking the other group of people are inherently stupid or evil. Both political groups participate in corruption, such as voting on the same bill over and over, with added incentives until it passes. They need to. It's the only way to get things done anymore, to get roads built, to get funding for certain projects. The system itself is infuriating to me, not any particular political group. This march on DC is aimed at starting over at the constituion more or less. You guys should look into it if you're in the states.

Sad fact is we are so much in debt no matter what we do we're never going to be able to pay it off. If every dollar made in america this year went to paying off our debt we would still be in debt. That's why I don't worry to much about the economic system today, because no matter what we do we're still fucked. Hopefully I can move once I get older and not have to live here anymore, but until then I'm stuck here.

Also my biggest complaints with republicans is how fucking retarded they are on social issues.

I'm not very knowledgable in politics or economics, so I'm not really well-equipped to argue any points on the subject. All I know is that Republicans tend to astound me with the bullshit they spew. I consider myself a democratic socialist, so I tend to side with the Democrats, though I still don't wholly support them either.

To answer the original question: it's one or the other. Maybe both. That's all I really have to say on the matter.