voltron #26 Posted July 26, 2014 That I can agree with. I would even go back 4 more. I would too, but i can only recall as far back as Carter, since I knew he was President, I was a kid and that was the extent of my knowledge of politics. Nixon I was an infant and ford a toddler, so only ineterested in Sesame street back then. I initially liked Reagan, but again bc of the benefit of hindsight i see he was not all that great and more of an illusion of greatness but no real substance, now that .i understand economics, i see how bad supply side economics really was. While FDR invented deficit spending, Reagan was the first to introduce deficit spending on steroids. All president since are deficit spender extreme. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voltron #27 Posted July 26, 2014 This is the whole reason for 'vote the incumbent out', and government will change. It has to. Voting the incumbent out is almost impossible, due to politics being linked to money. financially the incumbent has a major advantage bc the party can collect money for them, also now that corporations have been ruled as people too by the US supreme court,money can donate unlimited money to their favorite incumbent. While possible to vote the incumbent out, its like trying to hit the lottery. yes it can happen, like the num two gop being kicked out of office, but thats the exception not the rule. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voltron #28 Posted July 26, 2014 I should get editing rights for the thread and change it it to intellipolitics 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+bennybingo #29 Posted July 26, 2014 This is the whole reason for 'vote the incumbent out', and government will change. It has to. That, or simply do the following: 1.) eliminate campaign donations from lobbyists, special interest groups and corporations. 2.) Institute serious campaign finance reform, to the tune of a very low and even dollar amount across all candidates. 3.) set clear, reasonable salary caps for all publicly elected officials. (public servants should not be earning millions of dollars) 4.) remove all "quid pro quo" opportunities for large financial gains in post-politics life. This would level the playing field at election time, and remove the temptation to trade political chips in exchange for personal wealth. In the end, the candidates would actually have to campaign based on their own personal beliefs…not those of the corporations and lobbyists. Candidates also would consist of people who actually wanted to make positive changes. I know…very "pie in the sky", but I figure…as long as we are dreaming, we might as well dream big!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+bennybingo #30 Posted July 26, 2014 Oh..and I forgot…#5.) MAKE THE POPULAR VOTE ACTUALLY COUNT!!!!! Our vote, the citizens of the United States, should be the only vote that matters. The whole idea of an electoral college makes very little sense to me. I have had it explained to me countless times, but I still can't seem to figure out why the popular vote is not the final say??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voltron #31 Posted July 26, 2014 That, or simply do the following: 1.) eliminate campaign donations from lobbyists, special interest groups and corporations. 2.) Institute serious campaign finance reform, to the tune of a very low and even dollar amount across all candidates. 3.) set clear, reasonable salary caps for all publicly elected officials. (public servants should not be earning millions of dollars) 4.) remove all "quid pro quo" opportunities for large financial gains in post-politics life. This would level the playing field at election time, and remove the temptation to trade political chips in exchange for personal wealth. In the end, the candidates would actually have to campaign based on their own personal beliefs…not those of the corporations and lobbyists. Candidates also would consist of people who actually wanted to make positive changes. I know…very "pie in the sky", but I figure…as long as we are dreaming, we might as well dream big!!! 1. agree i dont see the real difference bw lobbying and bribery 2. agree 3. agree, i always felt that politician who call themselve servants should not earn more than the avg officer in the military, plus they should getbthe same healthcare coverage,as military personelle get, not the sweet no limit, no co pay plans they get. 4. agree or at least have a ten year min after political life. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voltron #32 Posted July 26, 2014 Oh..and I forgot…#5.) MAKE THE POPULAR VOTE ACTUALLY COUNT!!!!! Our vote, the citizens of the United States, should be the only vote that matters. The whole idea of an electoral college makes very little sense to me. I have had it explained to me countless times, but I still can't seem to figure out why the popular vote is not the final say??? this i disagree. popular vote means NY and Ca dictate politics. The middle of the nation would have little voice. I think the problem is that redistricting lead to scenarious where elections are guarantee to their party. Perhaps a better would be random redistricting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+bennybingo #33 Posted July 26, 2014 this i disagree. popular vote means NY and Ca dictate politics. The middle of the nation would have little voice. I think the problem is that redistricting lead to scenarious where elections are guarantee to their party. Perhaps a better would be random redistricting. Or, eliminate the need for districts at all. Why would districts even matter if it were just the popular vote that counted? Everyone gets one vote, and the highest number wins. To me, when you make something as complicated as the voting process is here in the US, it only makes it easier to hide the truth. Just look at the tax code…it's so easy for the govt. to rip us common-folk off, when the tax code is basically an unreadable, unintelligible mess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voltron #35 Posted July 26, 2014 Or, eliminate the need for districts at all. Why would districts even matter if it were just the popular vote that counted? Everyone gets one vote, and the highest number wins. To me, when you make something as complicated as the voting process is here in the US, it only makes it easier to hide the truth. Just look at the tax code…it's so easy for the govt. to rip us common-folk off, when the tax code is basically an unreadable, unintelligible mess. The founders were agaisnt popular vote bc too many state would lose their voice, just NYC alone not including the rest of the state has enough vote to cancel Montana, Nort Dakota, Suth Dakota, and Nebraska combine. Perhaps a better move is eliminating winner take all electoral vote. Perhaps if they just get a percentage of the electorate. if you get 51% of the vote in Fl and your opponent got 49%, instead of giving the winner all the electorate just give them 51% and the other 49% this ensures that the smaller states dont lose their voice. Im not sure they can eliminate districts, bc the House is affected by it, im not sure how to tackle redistricting abuse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voltron #36 Posted July 26, 2014 (edited) Benny The tax code I agree with you. Its crazy. And really set up to over tax the middle class. You know one reason im leaving the US is taxes, for the past 5 years I have had accountants run my numbers as if I had earned it in Canada so I could compare my tax impact in Canada to the US. Guess what I am tax less in Canada (who would have guess that) So I decided as a business move that its time to open elsewhere. Sept 12 I end all operations in US. not only will .i pay less taxes in Canada, i have more economic freedom and Their banking policies are not as strict as the US. The second reason im moving is I eventually want to retire, and with the US debt already surpassing the national GDP Im concern about the long term stability of the US, plus history show that all the US can do handle the problem of Oweing more gdp is to tax the middle class to the max, this will delay the hurt, but once the rest of the world decides the dollar will no longer be the reserve currency, US will be in the same boat as Greece, since they will no longer be able to print money Edited July 26, 2014 by voltron 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voltron #38 Posted July 26, 2014 (edited) nixon at helicopter1.jpg This past week was Nixon anniversarry of that statement. Nixon another bad guy, HMO was the beast he created when Kaiser Permanente lobbied i mean bribed him, to make it legal.... Oh yeah he took us off gold, too, which meant we could print endless amount of money, and made it possible for Reagan and all others after him to Spend like never before. Now back by the fullfaith of the US doesnt mean much anymore. Edited July 26, 2014 by voltron 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+bennybingo #39 Posted July 26, 2014 Benny The tax code I agree with you. Its crazy. And really set up to over tax the middle class. You know one reason im leaving the US is taxes, for the past 5 years I have had accountants run my numbers as if I had earned it in Canada so I could compare my tax impact in Canada to the US. Guess what I am tax less in Canada (who would have guess that) So I decided as a business move that its time to open elsewhere. Sept 12 I end all operations in US. not only will .i pay less taxes in Canada, i have more economic freedom and Their banking policies are not as strict as the US. The second reason im moving is I eventually want to retire, and with the US debt already surpassing the national GDP Im concern about the long term stability of the US, plus history show that all the US can do handle the problem of Oweing more gdp is to tax the middle class to the max, this will delay the hurt, but once the rest of the world decides the dollar will no longer be the reserve currency, US will be in the same boat as Greece, since they will no longer be able to print money This past week was Nixon anniversarry of that statement. Nixon another bad guy, HMO was the beast he created when Kaiser Permanente lobbied i mean bribed him, to make it legal.... Oh yeah he took us off gold, too, which meant we could print endless amount of money, and made it possible for Reagan and all others after him to Spend like never before. Now back by the fullfaith of the US doesnt mean much anymore. Your posts were both enlightening and well put. Thank you for sharing. IMHO, it is always good to hear this type of stuff from other people…it tells me that I am not the only one concerned about it. These days, if you watch the news or read the papers, no one really seems too worried. I guess that is how they manage to keep us all calm. That said…in before the lock. You can always PM me if you want to continue the dialogue. I am up for it…it's an interesting conversation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+cmart604 #40 Posted July 26, 2014 What was the original topic again? Bacon? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+bennybingo #41 Posted July 26, 2014 What was the original topic again? Bacon? Bea Arthur's cousin tried to sell some Bacon to Voltron via Amazon. Voltron didn't receive the package, and hilarity ensued. From what I heard, William Shatner had intercepted the package, only to be caught eating the Bacon by Hello Kitty. In the end, Knight Rider swooped in and saved the day. The end. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
accousticguitar #42 Posted July 26, 2014 but once the rest of the world decides the dollar will no longer be the reserve currency, US will be in the same boat as Greece, since they will no longer be able to print moneyThe US will no longer be able to print money? How do you figure that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voltron #43 Posted July 26, 2014 (edited) The US will no longer be able to print money? How do you figure that?Before nixon, we were limited to the amount of money we could print, bc it needed to be backed by an asset (gold). Going off gold meant we could just print. Since the US was the main Currency, people traded in US dollars, so the US had major influence over global economic policies, bc the dollar was used by the rest of the world as an asset. when the dollar was at its max, other nations printed their own money based on the amount of US dollars they had in essence the US dollar was the new gold, if they over printed their own personal currency got devalued. At its hieight the US dollar was about 90% of the worlds reserve currency. You could basically go into a country and pay for stuff with US dollars and never need to convert to local currency. Lets fast forward to the 80s with the US being the dominant currency we could print more and therefore spend more at will, which it what has been happening since the 80s to present, and our country as our country prints more and more dollars the value of the dollar decreases, since its less scarce. Gold value is due to its scarcity, and the dollar had a similar effect. As we keep printing money and spending money, other nations that hold the US dollar begin to have concern whether its safe to hold in to the dollar as a reserve asset, since its losing value. .as a result there has been a push to drop the US dollar as the worlds reserve currency and switch to a new currency. Once this happens its all over, Look at Greece, they can print all their own money they want but no other nation wants to trade for their money bc its value is pretty much worthless. Same is happening in the US. Nations are switching away from the US dollar, when we once was 90% of the worlds currency we are now around 55 to 60 percent and losing ground fast. Why do you think US influence in the world is weaker now? Iran switch from the US dollar to Euros a few years back, China has decreases its hold of US dollars and replaced it with Euros and many other nation have followed. With the exception of the USA, the health of an economy has been determined by measuring how much they owe with their GDP. if a nation debt was 95% of its GDP that nation had unsustainable debt and considered bad nation ti deal with. The US now owed more money than it brings in. we spend over 100% of our annual GDP yet we are the only nation that hasnt been declared insolvent yet... Why bc we can still print money are at 55% we are still the worlds currency, but remember we were 90. with some many nations, the IMF and the UN calling for the end of the dollar as the worlds reserve currency its only a matter of time before the US has no choice but to admit thats its insolvent. Its a bit more complicated than this, but thats my Cliff notes layperson version of it. Edited July 26, 2014 by voltron Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+cmart604 #44 Posted July 26, 2014 Wait. When was Canada declared insolvent? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+bennybingo #45 Posted July 26, 2014 The US now owed more money than it brings in. we spend over 100% of our annual GDP yet we are the only nation that hasnt been declared insolvent yet... Why bc we can still print money are at 55% we are still the worlds currency, but remember we were 90. with some many nations, the IMF and the UN calling for the end of the dollar as the worlds reserve currency its only a matter of time before the US has no choice but to admit thats its insolvent. Its a bit more complicated than this, but thats my Cliff notes layperson version of it. We are also not declared "insolvent" because most other nations know that we are one of the largest consumers of their goods. If we were to collapse, China would loose a massive chunk of their customer base for hard/soft goods. Other nations trade heavily with us in fossil fuels and other natural resources. We are an insolvent cash cow…a necessary evil, for lack of a better term. Not that I consider the US to be evil in any way…just that we are a major financial risk, but other nations have no choice but to deal with us in the way of commerce. If we collapse, many others would not be far behind…many, many others. Their own economies are far too interwoven with US trade. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voltron #46 Posted July 26, 2014 Wait. When was Canada declared insolvent? Canada is doing well. GDP is based on goods and services, The US really doesnt produce anything anymore so US GDP is mainly service, thats why deficit spending creates the illusion of a healthy economy in the US. Canada exports energy, so they are not as dependent on the service side of the equation like the Sates , with energy in high demand they always have a buyer. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voltron #47 Posted July 26, 2014 We are also not declared "insolvent" because most other nations know that we are one of the largest consumers of their goods. If we were to collapse, China would loose a massive chunk of their customer base for hard/soft goods. Other nations trade heavily with us in fossil fuels and other natural resources. We are an insolvent cash cow…a necessary evil, for lack of a better term. Not that I consider the US to be evil in any way…just that we are a major financial risk, but other nations have no choice but to deal with us in the way of commerce. If we collapse, many others would not be far behind…many, many others. Their own economies are far too interwoven with US trade. I hear this argument a lot. But this wont go on indefinite. China sees that too, that why they are shifting from the Dollar, thats why the Bric nations are shifting away from the dollar as well as many other nations. cutting off the US would destroy the global economy, so nations are gradually phasing it out. Remember we borrow money from China just to pay of our debt with them, how long do you think China will do this. There will be a point where they will want to declare themselves the worlds economic power. in a sense we are at "war" with China, not a military one but an economic and and we are losing. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BBWW #48 Posted July 27, 2014 I won't shop on Amazon. Yes great refund policy but I can NEVER get a straight answer if I get a response at all about the condition of the items! It's an awkward interface at best. I find it a pain in the ass. Things listed as "New" grouped in with obviously not new items…it's freakin' stupid. But let me share how I REALLY feel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andre81 #49 Posted July 27, 2014 The only good the USA exports is the Dollar. Every month the USA have a huge trade deficit. http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/tradnewsrelease.htm So the rest of the world exports goods to the USA and all they get are Dollars printed by the FED. As the world moves away from the Dollar expect to be able to consume only 50% of what you do today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voltron #50 Posted July 27, 2014 The only good the USA exports is the Dollar. Every month the USA have a huge trade deficit.http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/tradnewsrelease.htm So the rest of the world exports goods to the USA and all they get are Dollars printed by the FED. As the world moves away from the Dollar expect to be able to consume only 50% of what you do today. Yes the world is moving away from the Dollar, And eventually no one will lend us easy money, and we wont be able to print more because no one will want it. I personally think the US has been insolvement for sometime, but easy credit and the ability to print has masked this. But every year less and less nations trade in dollars. then you have the US passing its own mometary laws on other nations (Facta) and expect them to break their own laws to comply with IRS code, this will backfire and accelerate the rate at which other nations switch to a new currency. Sadly Americans dont see it and are easily distracted by the flavor of the day topic Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites