US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[maiforpeace]

It's like that in Britain. People delude themselves.
They REALLY believe that they are going to be one of the 1%, any day now. And the US especially has this myth that people get rich through their own talents and hard work. That's the dream that the mugs aspire to.

They see the headline people like Bill Gates, but never see how the MAJORITY of the rich got their money. By inheriting it. And investing the inherited wealth so that the work of other people KEEPS them rich. In fact, a vast number of people in the world today are working their guts out, to provide more and more income for the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families. That's the downside of international capitalism.

Anyone who thinks otherwise, should watch this - a documentary about the one percent, made by the one percent.

[Warren Dew]

They see the headline people like Bill Gates, but never see how the MAJORITY of the rich got their money. By inheriting it. And investing the inherited wealth so that the work of other people KEEPS them rich. In fact, a vast number of people in the world today are working their guts out, to provide more and more income for the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families. That's the downside of international capitalism.

In the U.S., most people who are rich get there themselves, because unlike in Europe, inheritance is heavily discouraged through taxes.

That isn't to say the average person has a good chance of becoming one of Obama's billionaire pals, of course. There's a lot of luck involved.

[maiforpeace]

They see the headline people like Bill Gates, but never see how the MAJORITY of the rich got their money. By inheriting it. And investing the inherited wealth so that the work of other people KEEPS them rich. In fact, a vast number of people in the world today are working their guts out, to provide more and more income for the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families. That's the downside of international capitalism.

In the U.S., most people who are rich get there themselves, because unlike in Europe, inheritance is heavily discouraged through taxes.

That isn't to say the average person has a good chance of becoming one of Obama's billionaire pals, of course. There's a lot of luck involved.

Mentioning Obama and Soros in every post you make isn't going to negate the fact that the Republicans have been the biggest beneficiaries of billionaire's political donations.

[Warren Dew]

Mentioning Obama and Soros in every post you make isn't going to negate the fact that the Republicans have been the biggest beneficiaries of billionaire's political donations.

To the contrary, Obama raised far more money from big contributors in 2008 than McCain did. The current election may be more even, but that's just because people can now see how badly Obama has mishandled the economy.

[Ian]

Mentioning Obama and Soros in every post you make isn't going to negate the fact that the Republicans have been the biggest beneficiaries of billionaire's political donations.

To the contrary, Obama raised far more money from big contributors in 2008 than McCain did. The current election may be more even, but that's just because people can now see how badly Obama has mishandled the economy.

Sounds like you're stating facts. Please cite specific policies which constitute clear mishandlings of the economy.

[Drewish]

It's like that in Britain. People delude themselves.
They REALLY believe that they are going to be one of the 1%, any day now. And the US especially has this myth that people get rich through their own talents and hard work. That's the dream that the mugs aspire to.

They see the headline people like Bill Gates, but never see how the MAJORITY of the rich got their money. By inheriting it. And investing the inherited wealth so that the work of other people KEEPS them rich. In fact, a vast number of people in the world today are working their guts out, to provide more and more income for the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families. That's the downside of international capitalism.

I'm not claiming that the majority of the super wealthy got there by there through hard work, just that the majority of the poor got there by either being sickly or incompetent. Evolution works on a "good enough" standard anyways.

[mistermack]

I'm not claiming that the majority of the super wealthy got there by there through hard work, just that the majority of the poor got there by either being sickly or incompetent. Evolution works on a "good enough" standard anyways.

Nothing to do with the fact that the Capitalist system, as it is, keeps the poor poor?
Evolution doesn't come into it. If you are born with little chance of proper education, and inherit no capital, you will in all probability spend your life making someone else rich. Someone who inherited a good education and plenty of capital.

I'm not against capitalism. I'm against inheritance.
I think that on death, someone's fortune should go into a fund that pays for education for the poorest kids.
Give people an equal start, and then let capitalism rip.

[maiforpeace]

Mentioning Obama and Soros in every post you make isn't going to negate the fact that the Republicans have been the biggest beneficiaries of billionaire's political donations.

To the contrary, Obama raised far more money from big contributors in 2008 than McCain did. The current election may be more even, but that's just because people can now see how badly Obama has mishandled the economy.

Sounds like you're stating facts. Please cite specific policies which constitute clear mishandlings of the economy.

Since you asked so politely, I'm sure he will respond.

[Tyrannical]

Mentioning Obama and Soros in every post you make isn't going to negate the fact that the Republicans have been the biggest beneficiaries of billionaire's political donations.

The 1% figured out years ago that they do better with the Democrats. Push for welfare for the poor, but tax deductions for the super rich.
The rich love welfare, it lets them pay people a below living wage pittance while welfare subsidized their salary with cash, food, free rent, free medical etc.
Government subsidies for things like "green investment" is just a fancy way of saying the rich get out of paying taxes.

[Ian]

Mentioning Obama and Soros in every post you make isn't going to negate the fact that the Republicans have been the biggest beneficiaries of billionaire's political donations.

To the contrary, Obama raised far more money from big contributors in 2008 than McCain did. The current election may be more even, but that's just because people can now see how badly Obama has mishandled the economy.

Sounds like you're stating facts. Please cite specific policies which constitute clear mishandlings of the economy.

Since you asked so politely, I'm sure he will respond.

There's probably a few things he can come up with too. And I would likely concede a couple things. No President is infallible. I'm just hoping he includes some context, like about what Obama inherited and the process of recovery, what's been happening in Europe, etc., rather than a list which proves It's All Obama's Fault. I think he'll provide some context.

But what I won't stomach is another deflection on this thread about how it's not really the Republicans who are in good with the super-rich at the expense of the middle classes, but actually the Democrats. Anecdotal examples of some wealthy Democratic donors and tu quoque fallacies don't do the argument any good; indeed, they make me question just how realistic the person trying to argue that stuff really is. Like Joe Biden said: "Don't tell me what your priorities are. Show me your budget, and I'll tell you what your priorities are." And maybe we could discuss the Ryan budget, which Mitt Romney has endorsed.

[Warren Dew]

Sounds like you're stating facts. Please cite specific policies which constitute clear mishandlings of the economy.

"Clear" to whom? It's easy to make a clear case to someone who understand economics and is listening, impossible to convince a leftist market economics denier. For people in between it takes a lot of effort since I have to explain the relevant economics first. If you're willing to read some links I'll be happy to explain.

[Warren Dew]

But what I won't stomach is another deflection on this thread about how it's not really the Republicans who are in good with the super-rich at the expense of the middle classes, but actually the Democrats. Anecdotal examples of some wealthy Democratic donors and tu quoque fallacies don't do the argument any good; indeed, they make me question just how realistic the person trying to argue that stuff really is.

And how do you explain ignoring the actual data that showed Obama got twice as much support from, for example, big banks, than McCain?

[Ian]

Sounds like you're stating facts. Please cite specific policies which constitute clear mishandlings of the economy.

"Clear" to whom? It's easy to make a clear case to someone who understand economics and is listening, impossible to convince a leftist market economics denier. For people in between it takes a lot of effort since I have to explain the relevant economics first. If you're willing to read some links I'll be happy to explain.

Well, I'm not a leftist market economics denier. I understand economics fairly well. So... explain how easy it is to make a clear case that Obama has so badly mishandled the economy. Specific policies that have hindered the recovery and made it slower than it ought to be. Put up some examples that cannot be refuted. Honestly, I will agree with them when they can't be debated, and I'll point out any references that are disputable or bogus.

[Warren Dew]

Sounds like you're stating facts. Please cite specific policies which constitute clear mishandlings of the economy.

"Clear" to whom? It's easy to make a clear case to someone who understand economics and is listening, impossible to convince a leftist market economics denier. For people in between it takes a lot of effort since I have to explain the relevant economics first. If you're willing to read some links I'll be happy to explain.

Well, I'm not a leftist market economics denier. I understand economics fairly well.

If you understand economics fairly well, you should understand how supply and demand curves interact, and how manipulation of the aggregate supply or demand curve underlies Keynesian economic theory. The next step is to understand why supply side Keynesian intervention is superior to demand side Keynesian intervention, which I explain here:

http://psychohist.livejournal.com/67326.html

Once you understand that, we can go on to specific policies. Feel free to ask questions if my writeup there isn't clear.

[surreptitious57]

Drewish : when you refer to humans as being unequal that is in terms of capability as
pertaining to intelligence : no one denies that we are all different in this respect
but you appear to be equating intelligence with morality : a different thing
entirely : everyone should be treated equal irrespective of ability : your
reference of some as human trash indicates a moral judgement as
you obviously cannot reference their intelligence : ndeed such
ad hom is a judgement on the person themselves rather
than their capabilities as pertaining to intelligence