US Presidential Debate and what is really important to people

[joeblast]

heh, bubba...(I cant believe ol Bubba actually seriously said "do you want a president who knowingly says and repeats things he knows arent true" as if the last 4 hadnt been doing that in spades...)

 

Stock market...hm, what are the algorithms are programmed to do upon an obama win? QE^themoon is already priced into the market - watch the stock market keep on rising on further expectation of money printing, watch the dollar value of gold keep going up. How long's it going to be before the country's next credit downgrade?

 

Anyone want to take bets on if the dollar still exists in 2016? This election basically said that half the country doesnt give a crap about money or how much the government spends, just give me my handout.

 

At least in 08 there was mythology involved. This time around...I digress. The country has disappoint.

[Marblehead]

Anyone want to take bets on if the dollar still exists in 2016? This election basically said that half the country doesnt give a crap about money or how much the government spends, just give me my handout.

Well, considering that Bush bought his two elections (elect me and I will give you a tax break) it is understandable that all most people care about is how much government is going to give them or how many tax breaks we are going to get.

 

Oh, the dollar will still exist although its value will continue to decrease against most currencies, especially those countries we have a trade deficit with, for example, China and most oil producing countries.

 

But I still love my country even if it is getting more screwed up.

[ralis]

The extreme right of the Tea Bagger Republican party lost and already there is division among the party.

[joeblast]

The thing is, the biggest problem we have is the size of the government...one can say all they want that this program or that program is helpful and beneficial, and of course the always used "but what about the people who have come to depend on these programs..." the fact remains that there's a ton of them that should not exist and if our government kept any decent budget they would never have existed. I wonder if these guys are going to go another 4 years without bothering to do a budget...a romney victory would have at least given an economic breath of fresh air, although the 'value correction' would have came sooner - all we can expect now is for that train to run right away. I guess all one can say is, "hedge accordingly."

 

 

http://www.sovereign...t-to-read-9397/

 

It’s really hard to ignore what’s happening today; the election phenomenon is global.

Over the last several weeks, I’ve traveled to so many countries, and EVERYWHERE it seems, the US presidential election is big news. Even when I was in Myanmar ten days ago, local pundits were engaged in the Obamney debate. Chile. Spain. Germany. Finland. Hong Kong. Thailand. Singapore. It was inescapable.

 

The entire world seems fixated on this belief that it actually matters who becomes the President of the United States anymore… or that one of these two guys is going to ‘fix’ things.

 

Fact is, it doesn’t matter. Not one bit. And I’ll show you mathematically:

 

1) When the US federal government spends money, expenses are officially categorized in three different ways.

Discretionary spending includes nearly everything we think of related to government– the US military, Air Force One, the Department of Homeland Security, TSA agents who sexually assault passengers, etc.

Mandatory spending includes entitlements like Medicare, Social Security, VA benefits, etc. which are REQUIRED by law to be paid.

The final category is interest on the debt. It is non-negotiable.

Mandatory spending and debt interest go out the door automatically. It’s like having your mortgage payment autodrafted from your bank account– Congress doesn’t even see the money, it’s automatically deducted.

 

2) With the rise of baby boomer entitlements and steady increase in overall debt levels, mandatory spending and interest payments have exploded in recent years. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office predicted in 2010 that the US government’s TOTAL revenue would be exceeded by mandatory spending and interest expense within 15-years.

That’s a scary thought. Except it happened the very next year.

 

3) In Fiscal Year 2011, the federal government collected $2.303 trillion in tax revenue. Interest on the debt that year totaled $454.4 billion, and mandatory spending totaled $2,025 billion. In sum, mandatory spending plus debt interest totaled $2.479 trillion… exceeding total revenue by $176.4 billion.

For Fiscal Year 2012 which just ended 37 days ago, that shortfall increased 43% to $251.8 billion.

In other words, they could cut the entirety of the Federal Government’s discretionary budget– no more military, SEC, FBI, EPA, TSA, DHS, IRS, etc.– and they would still be in the hole by a quarter of a trillion dollars.

 

4) Raising taxes won’t help. Since the end of World War II, tax receipts in the US have averaged 17.7% of GDP in a very tight range. The low has been 14.4% of GDP, and the high has been 20.6% of GDP.

During that period, however, tax rates have been all over the board. Individual rates have ranged from 10% to 91%. Corporate rates from 15% to 53%. Gift taxes, estate taxes, etc. have all varied. And yet, total tax revenue has stayed nearly constant at 17.7% of GDP.

It doesn’t matter how much they increase tax rates– they won’t collect any more money.

 

5) GDP growth prospects are tepid at best. Facing so many headwinds like quickening inflation, an enormous debt load, and debilitating regulatory burdens, the US economy is barely keeping pace with population growth.

 

6) The only thing registering any meaningful growth in the US is the national debt. It took over 200 years for the US government to accumulate its first trillion dollars in debt. It took just 286 days to accumulate the most recent trillion (from $15 trillion to $16 trillion).

Last month alone, the first full month of Fiscal Year 2013, the US government accumulated nearly $200 billion in new debt– 20% of the way to a fresh trillion in just 31 days.

 

7) Not to mention, the numbers will only continue to get worse. 10,000 people each day begin receiving mandatory entitlements. Fewer people remain behind to pay into the system. The debt keeps rising, and interest payments will continue rising.

 

8) Curiously, a series of polls taken by ABC News/Washington Post and NBC News/Wall Street Journal show that while 80% of Americans are concerned about the debt, roughly the same amount (78%) oppose cutbacks to mandatory entitlements like Medicare.

 

9) Bottom line, the US government is legally bound to spend more money on mandatory entitlements and interest than it can raise in tax revenue. It won’t make a difference how high they raise taxes, or even if they cut everything else that remains in government as we know it.

 

This is not a political problem, it’s a mathematical one. Facts are facts, no matter how uncomfortable they may be. Today’s election is merely a choice of who is going to captain the sinking Titanic.

[ralis]

The thing is, the biggest problem we have is the size of the government...one can say all they want that this program or that program is helpful and beneficial, and of course the always used "but what about the people who have come to depend on these programs..." the fact remains that there's a ton of them that should not exist and if our government kept any decent budget they would never have existed. I wonder if these guys are going to go another 4 years without bothering to do a budget...a romney victory would have at least given an economic breath of fresh air, although the 'value correction' would have came sooner - all we can expect now is for that train to run right away. I guess all one can say is, "hedge accordingly."

 

 

http://www.sovereign...t-to-read-9397/

 

It’s really hard to ignore what’s happening today; the election phenomenon is global.

Over the last several weeks, I’ve traveled to so many countries, and EVERYWHERE it seems, the US presidential election is big news. Even when I was in Myanmar ten days ago, local pundits were engaged in the Obamney debate. Chile. Spain. Germany. Finland. Hong Kong. Thailand. Singapore. It was inescapable.

 

The entire world seems fixated on this belief that it actually matters who becomes the President of the United States anymore… or that one of these two guys is going to ‘fix’ things.

 

Fact is, it doesn’t matter. Not one bit. And I’ll show you mathematically:

 

1) When the US federal government spends money, expenses are officially categorized in three different ways.

Discretionary spending includes nearly everything we think of related to government– the US military, Air Force One, the Department of Homeland Security, TSA agents who sexually assault passengers, etc.

Mandatory spending includes entitlements like Medicare, Social Security, VA benefits, etc. which are REQUIRED by law to be paid.

The final category is interest on the debt. It is non-negotiable.

Mandatory spending and debt interest go out the door automatically. It’s like having your mortgage payment autodrafted from your bank account– Congress doesn’t even see the money, it’s automatically deducted.

 

2) With the rise of baby boomer entitlements and steady increase in overall debt levels, mandatory spending and interest payments have exploded in recent years. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office predicted in 2010 that the US government’s TOTAL revenue would be exceeded by mandatory spending and interest expense within 15-years.

That’s a scary thought. Except it happened the very next year.

 

3) In Fiscal Year 2011, the federal government collected $2.303 trillion in tax revenue. Interest on the debt that year totaled $454.4 billion, and mandatory spending totaled $2,025 billion. In sum, mandatory spending plus debt interest totaled $2.479 trillion… exceeding total revenue by $176.4 billion.

For Fiscal Year 2012 which just ended 37 days ago, that shortfall increased 43% to $251.8 billion.

In other words, they could cut the entirety of the Federal Government’s discretionary budget– no more military, SEC, FBI, EPA, TSA, DHS, IRS, etc.– and they would still be in the hole by a quarter of a trillion dollars.

 

4) Raising taxes won’t help. Since the end of World War II, tax receipts in the US have averaged 17.7% of GDP in a very tight range. The low has been 14.4% of GDP, and the high has been 20.6% of GDP.

During that period, however, tax rates have been all over the board. Individual rates have ranged from 10% to 91%. Corporate rates from 15% to 53%. Gift taxes, estate taxes, etc. have all varied. And yet, total tax revenue has stayed nearly constant at 17.7% of GDP.

It doesn’t matter how much they increase tax rates– they won’t collect any more money.

 

5) GDP growth prospects are tepid at best. Facing so many headwinds like quickening inflation, an enormous debt load, and debilitating regulatory burdens, the US economy is barely keeping pace with population growth.

 

6) The only thing registering any meaningful growth in the US is the national debt. It took over 200 years for the US government to accumulate its first trillion dollars in debt. It took just 286 days to accumulate the most recent trillion (from $15 trillion to $16 trillion).

Last month alone, the first full month of Fiscal Year 2013, the US government accumulated nearly $200 billion in new debt– 20% of the way to a fresh trillion in just 31 days.

 

7) Not to mention, the numbers will only continue to get worse. 10,000 people each day begin receiving mandatory entitlements. Fewer people remain behind to pay into the system. The debt keeps rising, and interest payments will continue rising.

 

8) Curiously, a series of polls taken by ABC News/Washington Post and NBC News/Wall Street Journal show that while 80% of Americans are concerned about the debt, roughly the same amount (78%) oppose cutbacks to mandatory entitlements like Medicare.

 

9) Bottom line, the US government is legally bound to spend more money on mandatory entitlements and interest than it can raise in tax revenue. It won’t make a difference how high they raise taxes, or even if they cut everything else that remains in government as we know it.

 

This is not a political problem, it’s a mathematical one. Facts are facts, no matter how uncomfortable they may be. Today’s election is merely a choice of who is going to captain the sinking Titanic.

 

Some of the above I agree with such as the wasted money on the national security apparatus i.e, war on terror, which is a direct result of the fear and paranoia after 911 etc. However, the Republican pollster propagandist Frank Luntz along with Karl Rove, reframed the meaning of programs such as Social Security, Medicare etc. to make it appear that beneficiaries of such programs were wanting something for nothing, although beneficiaries of these programs paid into these programs all their working lives and receive benefits after a certain age. What were once benefits has now been reframed to 'entitlements' with propaganda attached to mean the recipients are receiving something for nothing, freeloaders using the system for their own personal gain. Nothing could be further from the truth! Just lies coming from the extremists on the right in their quest for more power.

 

To fabricate a falsehood is easy with statistics or as above post frames it with 'math'. The link provided is a classic written in the 1950's 'How To Lie With Statistics" which is still relevant today. It is required reading for all college math majors. I read it.

 

 

 

http://www.amazon.co...f/dp/0393310728

Edited November 7, 2012 by ralis

[joeblast]

Dont worry ralis, I've studied climate change, I know all about bad statistics - I see it in every bit of information that asserts CO2 is an issue!

 

You're still entirely skipping over very significant points in the entitlement debate - nobody ever said anything about changing stuff for beneficiaries over 55, so the whole immediate impact is a straw man argument.

 

Fact is, the government spent the SS trust fund long ago and it is now in a state of what comes in goes right out. So whether or not its "something for nothing" or that "its more tax money wasted" is a moot point. The current structure is unsustainable and will break shortly into the future. As we know congress can change the benefit structure and none of that money is guaranteed.

 

Do you have a reply to that, or just a handful of dismissals saying its not a problem, with no data or math to back it up? Straw man arguments point away from the root cause of an issue, and I'm concerned with that, not ginned up stories of "people's investments being taken and not returned to them"...or even being invested, for that matter...

 

So what happens when the whole thing breaks? How's Greece doing these days?

[ralis]

Dont worry ralis, I've studied climate change, I know all about bad statistics - I see it in every bit of information that asserts CO2 is an issue!

 

You're still entirely skipping over very significant points in the entitlement debate - nobody ever said anything about changing stuff for beneficiaries over 55, so the whole immediate impact is a straw man argument.

 

Fact is, the government spent the SS trust fund long ago and it is now in a state of what comes in goes right out. So whether or not its "something for nothing" or that "its more tax money wasted" is a moot point. The current structure is unsustainable and will break shortly into the future. As we know congress can change the benefit structure and none of that money is guaranteed.

 

Do you have a reply to that, or just a handful of dismissals saying its not a problem, with no data or math to back it up? Straw man arguments point away from the root cause of an issue, and I'm concerned with that, not ginned up stories of "people's investments being taken and not returned to them"...or even being invested, for that matter...

 

So what happens when the whole thing breaks? How's Greece doing these days?

 

Actually you know nothing about AGW. By the use of the term 'climate change', you have bought Frank Luntz's reframe i.e, propaganda of 'global warming' to 'climate change'. In fact your miniscule group of amatuer scientists is irrelavant.

Edited November 7, 2012 by ralis

[joeblast]

Actually you know nothing about AGW. By the use of the term 'climate change', you have bought Frank Luntz's reframe i.e, propaganda of 'global warming' to 'climate change'. In fact your miniscule group of amatuer scientists is irrelavant.

Like I said, keep pointing away from root causes and keep it ad hominem. I've long since given up on seeing anything of substance from you, all you gots is name calling. We start having an actual discussion and bring up substantive points and you get real quiet. I show you mathematically where issues are, and all you've got is "you amateurs!" The climate changes, does it not? Its only a matter of time for the AGW fraud. The only question is how much damage will be done by it before everyone finally realizes that the fantasy models only make sense in a fantasy world where one can program whatever parameters he wishes to make something appear coherent.

 

I strongly suspect that this is a result of the tax loopholes that the very rich and corporations are able to employ lawyers to take full advantage of. This is one of the reasons that I strongly support the idea of a flat Federal sales tax that is incremented to be lower on necessities like groceries, and higher on luxury items like yachts and expensive jewelery. If you have prospered enough through the system to enjoy luxury items, I don't think it is unreasonable that you should contribute more back into the system, but under the current system this is rarely what happens.

Not just loopholes but incentives also - look into why GE doesnt pay any taxes. Even at that, there is a substantially larger issue of how much the government spends - if we had been paying for everything all along, the people would have revolted at the ballot box and put a stop to the spending, but instead it is insidious spending done on a credit card and we dont have our taxes raised to match what is being outlayed - now "all of a sudden" there's this huge bill! Taxing yachts is putting a nanometer scale dent in that issue.

 

Thankfully, if the system survives this will most likely start to level out in the next ten years. The thing to remember is that there is not a smooth distribution to the current population of the US. There is a huge bubble that is rising to the top that is causing the problems with the entitlements. This is the baby boom population that started at the end of World War II. Just going by standard actuarial tables, large portions of this part of the population will die in the next ten years, significantly reducing this strain. Additionally, there is apparently a baby-boom echo with Generation Y, that is smaller than the initial lump, but noticeably larger than Gen X. This generation is now to the point that they are actively paying into the system. If the government is managed intelligently over the next ten years these two factors could have a significantly beneficial effect.A large part will die int he next 10 years?? wha...? The next 10-15 is going to see a big crunch with a dwindling pile of resources going to an expanding pile of people. Sans some massive catastrophe where a lot of people die, I dont see baby boomers significantly decreasing in numbers.

 

That is because they are governed by fear for themselves rather than rational thinking for the future of their nation. The two most politically active portions of the population are typically the very young and the very old. The very young have idealism, and the very old have fear. They know they can no longer continue to care for themselves effectively and want assurances that they will be taken care of. They also have a lot more time on their hands.yeah, regardless of what people think, there needs to be entitlement reform, but I dont suspect that's going to happen, everyone wants to stay on the party boat even though its headed for the rocks.

 

It does not help that for many of the key issues faced by the country the two major parties took an almost identical stance. This is why the debates were such a joke. When one of the most controversial items to come out of a Presidential debate is whether one of the candidates is going to cancel Sesame Street it is very unlikely that anything truly important is being discussed. The Republican party of today bears almost no resemblance to the one that existed thirty years ago. They seem to have gotten too wrapped up in religion and forgotten the meaning of fiscal conservatism. At the end of the day I suspect this is just another reflection of the fear felt by a portion of the population that is on its way out though.

The tea party was an expression of fiscal conservatism, but for people that dont want any sort of fiscal restraint, its easy and convenient enough to simply call 'em racist, dont need no proof. Or if you're part of the R establishment, simply ignore them for big stage considerations, which was why we wound up with the guy that the establishment wanted from the getgo. The establishment is the problem, not the tea party.

 

As far as controversial items...the debate moderators and that whole format was a complete joke, Obama basically had homefield advantage there with the 'fans' covering for him at every turn. Sesame street revenues could cover the entirety of PBS's operating budget - but its a nice easy straw man to paint a picture with. Obama would never have won 08 without media assistance, nor would he have won this year's without tons of help. His record is so piss poor there should have been no chance in hell of him winning. Yet when ideology trumps everything, reality included...

[joeblast]

I agree that we're going to wind up being due for a drop in life expectancy - either all of these promises will be paid for, or they will not - but its going to be a drag of IOUs either way...since that just reminded me we're basically stuck with that pile of garbage Obamacare now.* The median age should still steadily increase but I think we'll also see a more increased std deviation, how much that will have on the overall average is debatable!

 

 

 

* while its still open to further constitutional challenge when the tax starts getting collected on it, I'm not super confident it will be overturned (as it should be)

Edited November 7, 2012 by joeblast

[Marblehead]

I'm glad I had some work to do and didn't get involved in that discussion. Hehehe.

[Bubbles]

I'm glad I had some work to do and didn't get involved in that discussion. Hehehe.

 

It is wiser working instead or talking, right?

 

Political debates are dead-ends because they are more about values than facts; and actually, political values are forging facts or at the very least twisting them. But it doesn't prevent people claiming anyway that there are facts supporting their political values..

 

Truth has little to no room in politics, unfortunately ( should we except Jill Stein and the Green Party? )

Edited November 7, 2012 by bubbles

[Aetherous]

Jill Stein got 0.3%, with 396,384 votes.

 

Gary Johnson for the Libertarian party got 1%, with 1,139,562 votes...but IMO he is actually Republican and not truly representative of an Independent candidate or a Libertarian. He took a lot of potential votes away from our girl...but it still wouldn't have mattered as she was aiming for 3% to get matching funds.

 

Regardless, the Green Party continues.

 

Of course all of the third parties were far from winning...but winning isn't the right way to think about politics IMO.

 

Source: https://news.google....ned=us&topic=el

Edited November 7, 2012 by turtle shell

[Aetherous]

Bad news. Prop 37 in California was voted down...apparently Californians didn't want their Monsanto GMO foods labeled.

 

Things I heard about this:

Monsanto apparently spent something like 41 million $ on an ad campaign: "vote no on prop 37". Guess it worked.

The ballots apparently were really wordy and confusing (you'd think you're voting against GMOs by voting no).

Apparently, it said that food prices will rise near where you'd vote "yes", which isn't really true and is swaying voting results.

 

Yes, I'm whining.

 

edit: here's a random article about this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/prop-37-defeated-californ_n_2088402.html

Edited November 7, 2012 by turtle shell

[Bubbles]

Tucking your head into the sand and ignoring it certainly won't help.

 

I hope my post did not give you the impression I was advocating or even suggesting such an attitude.

I believe that a human has to stand heroically away from any "blind faith" be it political, religious or even that concealed in our apparent innocuous opinions, otherwise she/he has lost his spirit.

[thelerner]

If the two parties can bend a little and we avoid the coming fiscal cliff then the U.S might be in pretty good shape.

 

I particularly like the example of cognitive dissonance at Hotair.com, a very right wing site where 90% predicted a Romney win and this morning they're trying to figure who to blame and how fast hell is coming. If only they'd seen the South Park episode 4 years ago showing the Obama win, where Dems were being rushed to the hospital for partying too hard and Repubs were being sent to the hospital after failed suicides.

 

Personally I'm glad Obama won. The Republicans may have sound fiscal ideas, but they've moved too far to the right socially, and I'd hate to have a president who's beholden to the Tea Partiers. I hope Obama leaves ideology behind and becomes or continues to be a pragmatist.

Edited November 7, 2012 by thelerner

[Bubbles]

It did a bit, only in that it seemed to indicate that debating political matters was a pointless activity because it did not revolve around facts.

 

I can see that.

 

There are many factual matters behind the value based (and I will agree, largely meaningless) debates though. I enjoy discussing those factual matters.

 

Without any doubt, viator.

 

But, how people blinded by their political beliefs will be able to see the facts? They will only project onto reality their faith nourished by the ready-made-weighty arguments filled with so-called facts prepared for them by political parties.

And I simply notice that sticking to the facts, casting aside any twisting value, is a very delicate exercise.

[joeblast]

...and we're still sitting here discussing the federal gov and social issues, as if that is even under the authority granted in the constitution.

 

nevermind the credit card bill while we can still argue about race and abortion...

 

extrajudicial killings, sending arms to mexican drug cartels, syrian rebels, libyan rebels...declaring eons of bankruptcy law as not having precedent...spying on citizens...getting ready to declare a carbon tax without bothering to involve congress...etc, etc, etc...

 

as long as we dont have somebody in office that says something dumb about rape or contraception...I dont get it?

[Bubbles]

I still think it is fun to have these kinds of discussions though, even if I know they will likely fall apart at some point.

 

I wish you the best fun then!

[Brian]

When one side of the equation is an unacknowledged religion (and maybe a quarter or more of the other purported "side" bases its position on acknowledged religious belief), the government quickly becomes a theocracy. Dissent or even questioning becomes heresy and language & "truth" are redefined to the convenience of the religious intercessors. The US now finds itself in a situation in which the majority of the population (from BOTH major parties!) falls for the "R vs. D" smokescreen without recognizing the trap into which they have been led.

 

Regardless of who won last night, Ben Franklin's warning was prescient and the republic was in grave jeopardy. I think one choice substantially lessened the odds of avoiding the Rome/StarWars crisis but the whole thing makes me sad.

[Aetherous]

...and we're still sitting here discussing the federal gov and social issues, as if that is even under the authority granted in the constitution.

 

nevermind the credit card bill while we can still argue about race and abortion...

 

extrajudicial killings, sending arms to mexican drug cartels, syrian rebels, libyan rebels...declaring eons of bankruptcy law as not having precedent...spying on citizens...getting ready to declare a carbon tax without bothering to involve congress...etc, etc, etc...

 

as long as we dont have somebody in office that says something dumb about rape or contraception...I dont get it?

 

And Romney would've fixed all of that....?

[Harmonious Emptiness]

we're basically stuck with that pile of garbage Obamacare now.*

 

What exactly happens to someone in the U.S. who does not have health care and suddenly comes down with a disease requiring lots of treatment. For example, 25 years later when everybody realizes the latent dangers of pollution and artificial ingredients?

Are they not stuck with a $100,000+ bill? Doesn't it seem worth the extra 2% or whatever tax, to know that you can actually afford to survive the onset of something like that?

 

It's like a small entry chip at a poker game, you might lose it, but don't you think that's worth the risk? Is this not a gamble that it would be a gamble not to enter?

 

I feel like there is a Republican "boy's club" of "real men do things this way" attitude which manages to bypass any reflection on the reality of what they are not talking about, especially towards collective, inclusive, politics, or considering that everybody needs to mow the lawn if they want to live in the the same house.

 

I hope the Republican party will start to get wise to this fallacy phallically obsessed hypocrisy so their good politics can be made use of.

[Marblehead]

( should we except Jill Stein and the Green Party? )

I'm not sure. I would have to see her in action first.

[AugustLeo]

@joeblast: Dan - I love your passion and certainly respect your point of view (whether I agree or not) on these social topics. And I really enjoy your perspective on the breath.

 

Michael

[Harmonious Emptiness]

... "Republican" meant as a hegemonic power, rather than all, or any particular, Republican voters.

[ralis]