So that's it for the election.

[hatelore bloodlust]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's like voting to chop off your right leg instead of your left. There is essentially no difference, and you're only validating the 2 party monopoly. If Gary Johnson could pull in 10-15% without being in the debates, it will expose their bullshit system for what it is. Yes the next 4 years will suck, but that's true no matter what. The hope at this point is that a solid 3rd party showing will force them to include that 3rd party in the debates, and in the national dialogue, in the future.

Dude your argument holds no water... In 4 more years with Obama, it wouldn't suck, we would probably cease to exist as a nation. You guys argue this point every election. But the bottom line is that he will not pull 15 or 20% percent of the vote. I respect your view and will not resort to name calling like alarti and the two young doctors I was arguing with last night. But it just isn't going to happen man.

[hatelore bloodlust]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes. Understand that every dollar the government spends, it must get from somewhere. Understand the side effects of government borrowing and money printing, and you will understand why the tax rate doesn't really matter that much. All three forms of obtaining funds are harmful, and direct taxation is probably the least damaging. The most popular form (money printing) is by far the most damaging to the lower classes. It is popular because it is a hidden tax, one that most people don't realize is being thrust upon them.

This guy knows what he is talking about. At this point bernake should be tared and feathered.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ron Paul!? Oh man! I love Ron Paul supporters because they have no idea what the hell they are talking about. Here, I will throw you a softball question and you can tell me how much this lunatic's policies actually work. Please explain to me how in the world does reverting back to the gold standard do anything but damage our economy? But I bet you didn't even know that is what Ron Paul supports, did you?

Seems like Ron Paul isn't alone...

Republicans Eye Return to Gold Standard

[hatelore bloodlust]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Seems like Ron Paul isn't alone...

Republicans Eye Return to Gold Standard

That would be one of several steps needed to put us back in the right
direction.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by hatelore bloodlust [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That would be one of several steps needed to put us back in the right
direction.

Do explain how?

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ron Paul!? Oh man! I love Ron Paul supporters because they have no idea what the hell they are talking about. Here, I will throw you a softball question and you can tell me how much this lunatic's policies actually work. Please explain to me how in the world does reverting back to the gold standard do anything but damage our economy? But I bet you didn't even know that is what Ron Paul supports, did you?

I have yet to have someone refute any of my claims with supported facts. Show me with math how using a finite resource will support constant economic growth. Show me with math how completely removing all of our fiscal protections will not cause rampant monopolies and inevitably destroy every asset of our economy. In case you didn't know it, but the biggest problem our country is the fact that mega corporations aren't paying their taxes. The only candidate on the ballet who has actually shown any true interest in taxing these entities is Obama. You make the top 100 pay their full 30% in taxes and you will find the budget is much more balanced.

Yes, because paper money has had a much better history of success... No paper currency has survived longer than about 40 years. The US dollar has just crossed that threshold. Unlikely it will last another 40. Since you're a historical expert about the period of the articles of confederation, certainly you must know about the Continental, our nation's first experiment with paper money. The experience with that paper money is why the founders required money be backed by gold or silver, so that we wouldn't make such a horrible mistake again. And is it just a coincidence that poverty had decreased steadily during the period of the gold standard, and has flattened out and even increased slightly since we went off it?

You do not need the supply of money to grow at the same rate as the economy... Do you just read talking points from Paul Krugman? This argument has been refuted into irrelevance. If the economy grows faster than the supply of money, goods will become cheaper. You may need smaller denominations of currency, but you don't need a larger supply of money.

Finally, let's investigate your claim that if the top 100 companies paid 30% in corporate income taxes, we'd have a balanced budget. The market cap of the top 100 companies totals to $13.3T. We can assume the P/E is between 10 and 15, so let's put it at 13.3 to make it easy. That means these companies have 1 trillion dollars in earnings. Let's assume they currently pay 0 in taxes, which is a bit unlikely, but I'll give it to you. Raising the tax rate to 30% would increase tax revenues by $300B. This is only a small chunk of the $1.1T deficit. The actual tax rate of the largest corporations is about 18.5% right now (see source below), so your increase to 30% would lead to a $115B increase in federal revenue, which is 10% of the deficit. Way to solve the budget deficit buddy.

Info on corporate tax rates:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/03/news...axes/index.htm

[hatelore bloodlust]

Hey Lexicali, young doctor. Can you explain to all the overly bright individuals on a gaming forum how putting our money back on the gold standard and backing are dollars with real access could be a detriment to our economy. A lot of the financial problems we have today are because another moron president(like Obama) took us off the gold standard. But just like last night, you will most likely resort to name calling instead of answering my simple question.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by hatelore bloodlust [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Umm actually a listed many countries that we are not in good relations with. But here we go again with the name calling. Here are some from the list I wrote the last time you decided to pass gas on these forums: Russia,China,Iran,North Korea,Venizuela,Pakistan,Egypt, and the Country that we are currently fighting a war in. But go on man, keep passing gas on these forums. I can smell your stinky ass all the way over in my red state, bitch. See what I did there? I resorted to name calling like you.

Russia hates us? China hates us? Iran hates us?


Oh you just mean Leaders of their gov't ?

The populace is what matters.

Do you have any sense?

[hatelore bloodlust]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do explain how?

Lol seems i don't need to. The guy above me explained it pretty damn well in my opinion. Printing more and more paper does exactly that, it makes more paper. And the dollar sees a continual drop in overall worth. Look at gold prices, o traveled one.

[Lucky]

if we double the co2 in the atmosphere the temperature would raise by 0.36F