The poll says you're a Gingrich supporter. I assumed you were serious.Note the lol at the end of that statement.
In your opinion, who is the second best?I was but he's fallen too far behind to win... *sigh* time to go with second best.
I don't take offense. I don't mean to offend you either, but why do you want Gingrich, Romney, or Santorum when their plans are just to slash taxes for the rich and hope for the best? Since Gingrich is essentially out, I'll hold off on my criticisms of Gingrich's problems with ethics. But Romney appears to be an out-of-touch multimillionaire, and Santorum appears to want to return us to the 19th century. They're also against contraception, people having health care, etc. In all honesty, Obama appears to be the only adult among the lot.I don't mean to offend you, Lacius,, but... Anyone except Paul or Obama.
The FDA prevents companies from selling you harmful things. Without the FDA, they could put whatever they want into your products. You argue that the free market would take care of that, but even with the FDA, you argue that harmful things are getting through, and yet the free market does not do anything about it either. By your logic, the free market system does not work when it comes to protecting the consumer. Here in Missouri, we had a ballot issue about banning puppy mills. Many conservatives argued that the free market would get rid of puppy mills. If people don't like what puppy mills do, they can just not buy from them and they would go out of business. However, without the government stepping in and putting restrictions on puppy mills, the free market wasn't doing anything about it. Time and time again, we have seen that the free market often times does not work when it comes to protecting the interests of those without lobbyists (middle class citizens, the environment, puppies, etc).1. Actually, No.
Science would get taken care of by the free market, making it impossible for government to lobby the food and drug industry, since the government no longer took care of scientific decisions.
But yes, it would allow the market to push their products out legally, no matter what they contain.
And if a corporation decided to put, for instance, Mercury in their soft drinks, people wouldn't buy it, and then the company would collapse.
Compare that to what there is now, where large corporations gets different dangourus chemicals approved as being safe, due to lobbying.
When it comes to taxing the rich, the United States taxes are some of the lowest in the world. One of the things Obama wants to do is make it so people making more than $250,000 a year pay a little more in taxes. It's definitely not unreasonable. It's pretty much the same tax rate they paid during the Clinton administration. The Republicans, however, want to drop taxes without paying for them. However, while they want to cut middle class taxes a wee bit, they want to cut the taxes of the super rich substantially. Ron Paul wants to get rid of middle class taxes completely and have the super rich pay very little, which is highly impractical, unless you have a powerless government that doesn't do anything.2. Thats how the free market functions.
If i have a desire to tax some people because of their buisness or how much income they get, i can't ignore the fact that people will try to work around it.
My country for instance has lost a lot of jobs to neighboor-countries, due to our taxation.
If i make a dime more than 68.917.41 USD a year, i have to pay 60% in taxes.
Its only natural that it would want me to move to another country, from a logical perspective.
That state of taxes in your country and the state of taxes if Obama and the Democrats got their way are two completely different things. The system proposed by Obama is extremely fair. In fact, when polled, roughly 60-70% of citizens think the rich should pay slightly higher taxes.
Sorry, that's too long. I'll pass.3. Watch this short 30-minute documentary and tell me that the Fed isn't a large issue:
[*snip*]
I agree that inflation is an issue, but not so much an issue that we need to switch over to gold. We've got more pressing issues. Besides, the value of gold is more unstable than one might think. Likewise, Ron Paul exaggerates the percent inflation of the US dollar and flat-out lies.4. When you start going down the taxation road, you will eventually hurt the middle class.
And lets not forget that the Fed's prints money like it were toilet paper, and that means that the middle class gets poorer, and the thus, gets punished.
Corporations benefit from being in the United States. They use the roads to transport goods. They benefit from living in a society where crooks aren't allowed to just walk in and steal from them, using the protection of the police and whatnot. Suffice it to say, corporations benefit greatly from the federal government and are allowed to be prosperous. It is only fair that they pay taxes. Corporate taxes are extremely low in the United States. The latest proposal from the Obama administration actually lowers that rate even further while also getting rid of a few loopholes. Tax cuts have also been proposed as an inventive to keep corporations hiring workers in the United States. It's not like the federal government wants to take all of the profits from corporations. Just a fair amount. They will still make record profits like they have been. No one really has the right to complain.And when you start taxing all corporations that make a lot of money to finance your public sector (whether its health care, military etc.) some of the people will move their buisness to another country,
And thats when you'll end up at crossroads, because, you can then either A: Tax the buisness owners further, B: Tax both the middle class, the poor, and the rich trough taxes on food etc. or
C: you can start cutting spending to get the corporations back (And JOBS!).
Actually I think Romneys the second best. I don't like some of his ideas, but what I really want to have happen is that he can get rid of Americas debt. I like some of Santorums ideas better, but I think he lacks experience. Just like pokemon, if you don't have enough experience, you can't do well against opponets or issues. And just in case anybody's wondering why I don't go for Paul, it's cause he's to isolationist and some of his ideas are pretty wack-o. What happened the last few times we went with isolationist presidents? The world wars broke out.I don't take offense. I don't mean to offend you either, but why do you want Gingrich, Romney, or Santorum when their plans are just to slash taxes for the rich and hope for the best? Since Gingrich is essentially out, I'll hold off on my criticisms of Gingrich's problems with ethics. But Romney appears to be an out-of-touch multimillionaire, and Santorum appears to want to return us to the 19th century. They're also against contraception, people having health care, etc. In all honesty, Obama appears to be the only adult among the lot.I don't mean to offend you, Lacius,, but... Anyone except Paul or Obama.
No. It is the role of the government to, for example, prohibit things that are detrimental to the environment. It has been proposed that hydraulic fracturing has been linked to flammable water supplies. If these companies had it their way, they would use the most toxic of chemicals for their hydraulic fracturing. The free market is not going to stop that because most people don't know or don't care. The small number of citizens who now have flammable water are the ones who suffer, and their voice is not strong enough to do anything about it. That's where the federal government comes in.1. Regulation works as well as prohibition.
Meaning that it don't. But yes, of course there would be dangerous substances in the free market, but people would be told and become aware of the dangers there are to using those different
substances, whereas FDA lobbyies and claims that dangerous substances not only are safe, but healthy too.
We must remember that even if people became of aware the dangers of aspartame, there would still be someone who would buy it, and prefer it, since it doesn't contain sugar.
I can personally advocate against the use, but i can't prohibit people from it.
I myself am a vegetarian, but does that mean, that i should protect you from eating meat, because its linked to a lot of different cancers?
- No, right?
Again, the cuts proposed by Ron Paul would reduce GDP by 7% and cause another recession. Likewise, it would hurt the poor (getting rid of food stamps and aid for feeding children), he would cripple medicare, etc. The federal government also invests in new technologies, and Ron Paul would cut that as well. He would argue that the private sector is where new technologies come from, and he's right, but government funding has led to many innovations throughout history, but Ron Paul is too senile to care. Ron Paul is also too senile to understand that invasive government mandated sonograms for women seeking abortions is big government, not small government.2. I however believe Pauls plan would work.
You remove the taxes from the middle class = They get more for themselves = People would work more, and harder.
At the same cutting the taxes for the rich would mean the different buisnesses/factories etc would get into the U.S, if you of course at the same time cut some of the federal regulation, that is incredibly
corrupt anyway.
The tax plans of Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich would all increase the federal debt by trillions. That's what happens when you slash taxes for the very wealthy without paying for them. While they propose spending cuts, they're aren't even enough to offset even the tax cuts they propose.Actually I think Romneys the second best. I don't like some of his ideas, but what I really want to have happen is that he can get rid of Americas debt. I like some of Santorums ideas better, but I think he lacks experience. Just like pokemon, if you don't have enough experience, you can't do well against opponets or issues. And just in case anybody's wondering why I don't go for Paul, it's cause he's to isolationist and some of his ideas are pretty wack-o. What happened the last few times we went with isolationist presidents? The world wars broke out.
No. It is the role of the government to, for example, prohibit things that are detrimental to the environment. It has been proposed that hydraulic fracturing has been linked to flammable water supplies. If these companies had it their way, they would use the most toxic of chemicals for their hydraulic fracturing. The free market is not going to stop that because most people don't know or don't care. The small number of citizens who now have flammable water are the ones who suffer, and their voice is not strong enough to do anything about it. That's where the federal government comes in.1. Regulation works as well as prohibition.
Meaning that it don't. But yes, of course there would be dangerous substances in the free market, but people would be told and become aware of the dangers there are to using those different
substances, whereas FDA lobbyies and claims that dangerous substances not only are safe, but healthy too.
We must remember that even if people became of aware the dangers of aspartame, there would still be someone who would buy it, and prefer it, since it doesn't contain sugar.
I can personally advocate against the use, but i can't prohibit people from it.
I myself am a vegetarian, but does that mean, that i should protect you from eating meat, because its linked to a lot of different cancers?
- No, right?
Again, the cuts proposed by Ron Paul would reduce GDP by 7% and cause another recession. Likewise, it would hurt the poor (getting rid of food stamps and aid for feeding children), he would cripple medicare, etc. The federal government also invests in new technologies, and Ron Paul would cut that as well. He would argue that the private sector is where new technologies come from, and he's right, but government funding has led to many innovations throughout history, but Ron Paul is too senile to care. Ron Paul is also too senile to understand that invasive government mandated sonograms for women seeking abortions is big government, not small government.2. I however believe Pauls plan would work.
You remove the taxes from the middle class = They get more for themselves = People would work more, and harder.
At the same cutting the taxes for the rich would mean the different buisnesses/factories etc would get into the U.S, if you of course at the same time cut some of the federal regulation, that is incredibly
corrupt anyway.
I also don't want the space program to be cut either. And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all. I basically did a process of elimination.
Paul: isolationist with some bad ideas
Santorum: not enough experience
Gingrich: not far enough ahead in the polls (both America's and GBAtemp's)
Obama: wants to make america communist or dictatorship.
Romney is the last one standing.
You and me both, but other than Gingrich's silly "moon colony as the 51st state" business, I don't think you're going to find anyone willing to leave NASA alone during this "fix the deficit" period. And honestly, if the deficit is as big a problem as you say, you should be okay with sacrificing some space cuts.I also don't want the space program to be cut either.
The United States military is disgustingly big. Obama's cuts to defense are minimal. The federal government does three big things: medicare, social security, and defense. If you want to talk about trimming the deficit, you're going to have to cut defense, especially with it being as wasteful as it is. Even with Obama's proposed cuts, it is still disgustingly big. Don't feel vulnerable.And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all.
Let me amend that for you:Paul: isolationist with some bad ideas
Santorum: not enough experience
Gingrich: not far enough ahead in the polls (both America's and GBAtemp's)
Obama: wants to make america communist or dictatorship.
Romney is the last one standing.
Obama because he would do the least worst job.
Yeah, Paul wants to trade free market slave labor goods for shiny gold. I sure do love all my Chinese shit. God bless leaders like Ron Paul. Just let the slave children bodies pile up to the sky, and we can sled down them with products made from the next wave of slave kidsI also don't want the space program to be cut either. And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all. I basically did a process of elimination.
Paul: isolationist with some bad ideas
Santorum: not enough experience
Gingrich: not far enough ahead in the polls (both America's and GBAtemp's)
Obama: wants to make america communist or dictatorship.
Romney is the last one standing.
Romney: Flip-flopper who does not know if he's for or against abortion, and the one who created the blueprint for Obamacare .
And Paul's idea is not isolationism, He wants to trade with countries and be friends with countries, he does not however want to interviene in countries and tell them how they're supposed to live .
Yeah, Paul wants to trade free market slave labor goods for shiny gold. I sure do love all my Chinese shit. God bless leaders like Ron Paul. Just let the slave children bodies pile up to the sky, and we can sled down them with products made from the next wave of slave kidsI also don't want the space program to be cut either. And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all. I basically did a process of elimination.
Paul: isolationist with some bad ideas
Santorum: not enough experience
Gingrich: not far enough ahead in the polls (both America's and GBAtemp's)
Obama: wants to make america communist or dictatorship.
Romney is the last one standing.
Romney: Flip-flopper who does not know if he's for or against abortion, and the one who created the blueprint for Obamacare .
And Paul's idea is not isolationism, He wants to trade with countries and be friends with countries, he does not however want to interviene in countries and tell them how they're supposed to live .
Exactly, that's some good ol' fashioned slave labor. As long as it helps out the USA, those Chinese can tough out the lax workplace regulations, etc. It's all about the American dream. I wonder if I should threaten suicide to get a raise, like when those Chinese Foxxconn workers threatened mass suicide to improve work conditions. I mean, it's only fair, right ? That's free trade.Yeah, Paul wants to trade free market slave labor goods for shiny gold. I sure do love all my Chinese shit. God bless leaders like Ron Paul. Just let the slave children bodies pile up to the sky, and we can sled down them with products made from the next wave of slave kidsI also don't want the space program to be cut either. And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all. I basically did a process of elimination.
Paul: isolationist with some bad ideas
Santorum: not enough experience
Gingrich: not far enough ahead in the polls (both America's and GBAtemp's)
Obama: wants to make america communist or dictatorship.
Romney is the last one standing.
Romney: Flip-flopper who does not know if he's for or against abortion, and the one who created the blueprint for Obamacare .
And Paul's idea is not isolationism, He wants to trade with countries and be friends with countries, he does not however want to interviene in countries and tell them how they're supposed to live .
If you send money to china, they don't put it in a shoebox.
They're going to spend it.
Unfortunately they are buying america's debt and consumerism.
But there's a benefit, because those dollars come back.
Also, when you get products, and buy products cheaper from China.
Lets say a computer costs 100 dollars instead of 1000 dollars.
A person would then spare 900 dollars, and that helps the economy, because the last 900 dollars stays in that persons pocket.
I think I'll reply to this one in particular.I also don't want the space program to be cut either. And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all. I basically did a process of elimination.
Paul: isolationist with some bad ideas
Santorum: not enough experience
Gingrich: not far enough ahead in the polls (both America's and GBAtemp's)
Obama: wants to make america communist or dictatorship.
Romney is the last one standing.