Winners of October 23rd Presidential Debate Have Been Announced

LOL, yes! I’m for Jill, but I still love Gary. He was getting really emotional during the last debate! Lots of shouting, haha.

Being onesided is not helpful. That is why even though I am a Green and do not agree with the Libertarian economic policies, I would prefer to have a Libertarian in the White House over a Democrat or a Republican. Greens are always betrayed by the Democrats and Libertarians are always betrayed by the Republicans.

I said I dont have a conclusive ideology, I never said ‘my side.’ By ‘opposite’ I meant the opposite side of the spectrum. You sure did convolute my words quite a bit though.

Your comment suggests you put your words into people’s mouths.

I’m not really looking for a debate on a site we are all happy exists. It’s my personal opinion, as I already stated; sorry, not going to espouse it here.

And why point out the use of the lower case ‘l’? I hardly see how its relevant. You should have instead stated the purpose of pointing it out.

That’s a great question and the answer is no, that’s not what I’m talking about. Speaking personally, not from an official Green position, my analysis would call for a ceiling on income through the income tax that is mathematically related to the minimum wage. I would call for a maximum wage (i.e., income) that is some multiple of the minimum wage. I would make the debate about the variable such as should the maximum income be set at 10 times, 20 times, 50 times, 100 times the minimum wage or what. What number greater than the minimum wage just becomes inherently offensive and a de facto exploitation of the rest of us? This is about domestic economics.
As for international economics, we have to acknowledge that economic imperialism exists because of military imperialism. Because of the subjugation and exploitation of the vast majority of Africans and other undeveloped regions we are able to steal their resources and exploit their labor with the direct complicity of local exploiters who keep their own populations in poverty. We can’t avoid taking responsibility for the low cost of products in our domestic market merely by saying that is the prevailing wage in those countries, because that prevailing wage is determined in large part by the imposition of poverty that the US is directly responsible for through our foreign policy of propping up dictators and anti-democracy regimes in the countries we trade with so that the labor markets in those countries will remain cheap.

Well, that is an interesting equation. The SCOTUS says money equals speech, are you now saying that money equals love? I think it is axiomatic by definition that love is not a commodity. But the point you raise is most informative about how capitalists do look at money as both speech and love. Capitalists equate the signs of successful living with the amount of money one amasses as if amassing a lot of money does equate to amassing a lot of love and affection. This is the fallacy of taking fear and envy to be respect and affection. My analogy that a free market is as illusory as free sex was not about the emotion of love but the activity of sex, sexually transmitted diseases, and the need for protection.

In the system we have right now, there are people who poorly manage a company and get millions to leave it while a worker that works hard for 17 years can end up with nothing other than a pink slip after his company CEO decides to ship his job overseas. Is THAT socially fair? The truth is that a system that is more socialist doesn’t benefit the people who control the levers of power, that’s why they’ve made socialism into a boogeyman.

Those are two good points: the distinction between “promoting” and “providing” and the distinction between corporatism and capitalism. I think I probably am more aligned with the second one than the first one. But generally I would say that it is the “ism” part that makes both corporatism and capitalism troublesome because with proper regulation both the corpration and capital have their beneficial roles in society. On the question of promoting vs. providing I assume it is the middle ground of where the dividing line is that we would differ. When the federal government passes legisllation that gives money to the states for road building and the state then pays for private corporations to build the roads (as it did with Paul Ryan’s father’s corporation), is that promoting or providing?

Gregory – The U.S. Constitution does indeed contain some broad, high-minded phrases such as those you cite above. However it also contains specific language setting forth the powers of the federal government — those powers “delegated to it by the people.” If a power or authority is not listed in the Constitution, it means that the framers of that document did not want the federal government to have that power. Those powers granted to the government were understood by the framers to be sufficient to “form a more perfect union”, “promote the general welfare”, and so on.

The preamble says that in order to promote those 6 things, they hereby institute the following constitution, establishing a government of the following limited powers. It does not say that the government has a power to do all those 6 things. If it did, then the government would have a limitless power to do anything, as long as in the government’s opinion it promoted the general welfare, or established domestic tranquility.

What sense or what reason would there have been to put out a list of powers in the constitution of what the government can do, if the government can already do anything to promote the general welfare? They could have just said “The government shall have the power to promote the general welfare and insure domestic tranquility”, and called it a day.
Further, the last amendment of the Bill of Rights says that any power not specifically given to the federal government in the constitution is reserved for the states, or the people. But if the government already has a power to promote the general welfare and insure domestic tranquility, what power is there left to give the states or the people? The constitution and the bill of rights don’t make sense under this view.

In essence, that is class warfare, something Republicans have strongly voiced over the past couple of years. I haven’t agreed with many things Republicans have said over recent years but I agree calling this class warfare. Many people who are wealthy have earned their wealth by going to school, starting up business’, and adding to our economy. The taxes that are being proposed, over 60% of a wealthy person’s income, is extortion. These people aren’t just the bankers and hedge fund investors that many dislike.

It is correct that the rich have become richer and the poor, poorer. The government’s responsibility is to provide a foundation to the poor and make policy decisions that promote and mainly benefit less wealthy Americans ( I don’t like to use middle and lower class labels). The govt. should be doing this while making sure Wall Streeters don’t have the ability to tank the economy for everyone. But taxes need to be fair all around, as I described earlier, many people who are wealthy weren’t born into wealth. Many earn it and work their ass off creating and adding to the economy. Taxing a person over 60% of their income is not a fair tax plan.

“The government’s responsibility is to provide a foundation to the poor and make policy decisions that promote and mainly benefit less wealthy Americans.”

If we give government the authority to redistribute wealth, it will do so — in the opposite direction.

Any system you can devise — capitalism, communism, socialism, any-other-ism — will have loopholes that ultimately cause the system to degenerate into cronyism. This, in turn, leads to a concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few who exploit the system.

There is no way around this, but there is a powerful deterrent: limit government’s power and educate the public. This is exactly what the Constitution tries to do, and why it contains no mandates that government shall “provide foundations for” or “make policies to benefit” particular groups. In general, the document dictates what the government shall *not* do, because it’s more important to guarantee liberty and let individuals look after each other than empower the government to shape society.

If you want a concrete example, think of how much you could donate to local charities if you paid no income tax…

I see, and I agree with you on all counts, in principle. What I’m currently wrestling with is understanding how we can grant government the power to level the playing field without simultaneously empowering it to “un-level” the field.

Of course, a government bereft of any power leaves the moral open to exploitation by the immoral, which I think is your point. So far, I haven’t been able to devise a better system than that laid out in the Constitution, though: limit government’s power to prevent its ability to abuse the citizenry, then educate and people and trust them to look after themselves and each other.

Which brings us to Penn Jilette’s point that Libertarians have a responsibility to be good people. Don’t want people to go hungry? Then donate your time and money to the local food bank. If we, as individuals, level the playing field, there is no need for government to do so, and no possibility that government can tilt the field in favor of special interests.

Nay, the government’s responsibility is to realize the war on poverty is only making things worse. It needs to back out of its assumed role as caregiver for the poor and return this role back to the states and local communities. The poverty level has done nothing but rise thanks to our lovely federal government programs. Their inability to use force as a means to eliminate poverty is not due to failed programs or not enough taxes, it is a failure in philosophy. Force cannot be used to remove poverty from the human equation.

The rich have been engaging in “class warfare” for decades, they never complained about it until the poor and middle class started fighting back. They want us to just roll over and die instead.

the class war if anything comes from the education system not being a free market system. teachers unions don’t allow teachers who do well to be rewarded. on top of that they don’t allow crappy teachers to be fired. the only time free market doesn’t adapt is when it’s restricted. infrastructure should be the only thing not held to free market standards i.e. water and energy. the education system is just another way Washington is silencing and misleading our voice. drop out sells weed drop out goes to prison society pays to keep drop out in prison while they have no chance to contribute. another major flaw in drug prohibition…

Over 60%? that’s moderated. During our most prosperous times, the fifty’s and 60′s we had top tax rates in the 90%! there’s really very little evidence to suggest high tax rates are bad for the economy.

When we had 90% tax rates, we were the only game in town because the other economies were recovering from WWII. And nobody paid 90% because of exemptions (that later became known as loopholes.

it’s green to the core as well… they’re the ones with progressive ideas that would make a positive impact on the planet sooner… but they won’t convince the other 99% of people to start eating organic local grown foods immediately. and putting people to work by improving our ecosystems that are going to shit still, and reducing our need to have goods imported into every populated area (local food and hemp industry). not to mention the positive effect that locally grown organic food production would have on the health of the people in their communities. it would cut down on so many chronic illnesses that drain public healthcare funds making public healthcare a more viable option. and the fact that organic food is healthier than non organic for humans, it is more resistant to diseases, and takes much less petroleum based fertilizer to produce. those are the ideas that would really undercut the .0001 percent since they benefit off of anything petroleum based. (i.e. the trucks and industry that deliver everyone’s food) a country of people who get what they need to survive from their own communities doesn’t need ANY EXTRA RESOURCES to survive. their economy is solely based on indulgences.

That inflation itself would be but a symptom of the broken monetary system. It is broken because governments are being allowed to create money out of thin air with nothing to ultimately back it up, and this is an unsustainable practice.

but i agree. the .0001 percent should not only pay fiscally but stand trial as well as the people of iceland did to their bankers.

It’s not capitalism that’s broken. Real capitalism — or whatever term you want to use to describe a system that allows people the freedom to engage in consensual economic transactions without government interference — hasn’t been given a chance to work. The United States is most certainly *not* a capitalist country, not by a long stretch.

In the case of BP, less government regulation might well have prevented the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I read that deepwater drilling was being used largely because of restrictions on drilling in shallow waters nearer the coast. Companies are also able to invest more in better and safer technologies when their resources are not drained off by taxation. I don’t believe it’s chiefly regulation that prevents cutting corners from being more widespread, I think it’s self-interest. Cutting corners tends to be bad for business, because there are other forms of regulation out there — market regulation, not government regulation — that make it a risky practice.

Capitalism isn’t broken, it simply doesn’t exist. America is enduring corporatism. Capitalism would require that government gets out of the way of business until a right is infringed. Capitalism would hold the founders of a company *responsible* for wrong-doing and would never provide a bailout for a failed idea. Corporatism is masquerading as capitalism and that is why Americans believe capitalism is broken.

Either way, it’s the truth.

It may be a catch-phrase, but there’s also a lot of truth to it. Besides, “universal healthcare” is also somewhat of a catch-phrase. In reality what’s usually called “universal healthcare” is far from “universal” — the United States, for instance, only comprises about 5% of the world’s population, so even a government program that (in theory) covered every single American would not even come close to qualifying.

In a previous message above, I noted that government is not the only possible source of regulation. To me, giving government more power in order to regulate corporations is as ill-advised as giving corporations more power in order to regulate government. Why on earth should we want to do either? I say let’s simply seek to keep all institutions from initiating force or fraud against others, and do so without initiating force or fraud ourselves.

Exactly. Most people don’t realize this and it’s a major problem. I support Johnson, but I believe a consumption tax is a regressive tax.

Fundamentally, *no* type of coercive taxation can be fair, imho, because it is unfair to steal people’s money and resources without their consent, whether they are rich, poor, or of moderate financial means. Whether or not your individual rights are upheld should not be dependent upon your income level.

So I completely agree that a consumption tax isn’t a “fair” tax, and wish Gary Johnson would stop using that term to describe it. Nevertheless, I would trade it in a heartbeat for what exists now.

The claim that “all government needs income” seems self-evident on the face of it, but I think it merits further examination. Perhaps all government requires at least some personnel and resources, but does this mean that a stream of income is required?

In theory a government could be run by part-time volunteers using their own resources and prohibited from taking any income whatsoever for performing this public service. (This idea should logically appeal to those who say they want to get the money out of politics, but probably won’t.)

Somewhat less radically, the cost of government, including salaries, could be funded through voluntary donations. This is the approach I favor, because it would not only eliminate the violence inherent in the current system, but make government more accountable to the people and more responsive to their wishes.

Like voluntary sector organizations that currently do many of the things government does (arts organizations, churches, charitable organizations, museums, non-government libraries, various clubs, collectives, societies, etc.), governments would be forced to convince donors that they were spending our money well and deserved funding.

Wasteful and unpopular government expenditures, like $1 billion bombers, the DEA, and subsidies to large agricultural corporations, would consequently tend not to get funded.

I believe Gary Johnson’s plan calls for getting rid of the income tax and other existing taxes and implementing a single national consumption tax at the retail level. He would also get rid of the IRS as part of the deal.

Now I’m all for getting rid of the IRS and as many taxes as possible, but consumption tax proponents including Johnson seem a bit naive to me if they imagine that a large national sales tax could be reliably collected without some kind of IRS-like enforcement agency.

I don’t think the issue is “make or break” for his campaign though. There are so many other important issues, like getting government spending under control, rolling back the civil liberties violations of the “War on Terror”, etc., which he largely gets right, that those of us who dislike the consumption tax idea will have no shortage of other good reasons to support him.

This is why I’d like to see more part-time positions in government, so that we can have more citizen-legislators earning their livings elsewhere, and get away from a system dominated by professional career-politicians.

There’s a case to be made for the argument that it should not be illegal to *offer* to bribe a government official, by the way, but only illegal for them to *accept* bribes. Offering cash for favors could be an important tool for sniffing out and exposing the dishonest politicians. They would have to be much more cautious in taking bribes, because without risk of being criminalized themselves, more people would offer bribes, and some of the offers would be fakes designed to expose corruption.

I don’t know why we’re not concentrating more on renewable energy sources. If we devote so much time, energy, and money to developing more access to oil, coal, and natural gas, at some point in the future, we’re going to exhaust our natural resources, and the future generation will be left to fend for themselves. The wind and the sun are free, clean, and inexhaustble, as far as I know, and their development and utilization would also create jobs.

The research has pointed out that we are at a time of peak oil in the world. We can keep drilling and drilling but the increase in world-wide population is going to outweigh the oil produced. Poorer countries are also developing, more people want cars and electricity, so demand is going to increase significantly over the next couple of decades. The government understands this, and private companies need to focus more of their business decisions around this. Climate change is indeed an imminent crisis. Listen to scientists, like James Hansen from NASA. He specifically says climate change is irreversible if we burn up all of the oil from the tar sands in Canada. The tar sand process releases much more methane and other concentrated greenhouse gases. Don’t listen to politicians, they aren’t the experts, scientists are. Bottomline, politicians will do what it takes to get re-elected. They cater to the uninformed public. Switching over and inventing cleaner technologies is what we have to do right now.