Well, that's work wasted, since Bob has as much chance as my left nut as being elected.

Static tax policy analysis is worthless. Does anyone believe that there aren't macroeconomic consequences for different policies other than the first-order effects on the deficit?

Very, very, VERY naive and uninformed.

when you elect Republicans the deficit goes down, that's just how it works.

And if that were the only issue at stake, we'd all be voting for Barr. But it isn't and we're not.

But we have an immense surplus of "the" so it will all work out.

bronyaur1: Static tax policy analysis is worthless. Does anyone believe that there aren't macroeconomic consequences for different policies other than the first-order effects on the deficit?

Very, very, VERY naive and uninformed.

You have a better analysis? And should we overlook the first order effects for the second order benefits?

Calling someone uninformed doesn't make you any more informed.

Mordant: when you elect Republicans the deficit goes down, that's just how it works.

The last quarter century of facts does not support this assertion.

Not perfect (doesn't adjust for inflation or GDP growth), but makes the point:

Guy Innagorillasuit: And if that were the only issue at stake, we'd all be voting for Barr. But it isn't and we're not.

What else is there? The War? Barr wins there too.

Oh, I forget, the all important issue of "who you're being told to vote for". Can't forget to OBEY.

bronyaur1: Mordant: when you elect Republicans the deficit goes down, that's just how it works.

The last quarter century of facts does not support this assertion.

Not perfect (doesn't adjust for inflation or GDP growth), but makes the point:

Adjust sarcasm meter. :)

The NTU probably supports RON PAUL!!11!'s silly ideas too.

Mordant: when you elect Republicans the deficit goes down, that's just how it works.

Wiki: Barr advocates repealing the Sixteenth Amendment, which would effectively abolish the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service.

Nope, not a nutter at all. He probably believes 9/11 was an inside job.

smooshie: The NTU probably supports RON PAUL!!11!'s silly ideas too.

mCcain!!@!!@1!!1!@2

yeah!

America first, you dissenters!

What exactly would Barr cut?

iawai: What else is there? The War? Barr wins there too.

Oh, I forget, the all important issue of "who you're being told to vote for". Can't forget to OBEY.

That's a pretty funny accusation to sling at someone that's never been registered as a Republican or Democrat nor voted for the presidentail candidate of either party in his life. But of course anybody that doesn't agree with you is a sheep, right?

/Green
//not a McKinney fan
///not a big Nader fan either
////still an undecided voter

I think I'm going to write in RON PAUL.

You know, LaRouche is a trained economist.
He had a plan to prevent the subprime meltdown, but they turned him down.

LaRouche `08!

staplermofo: You know, LaRouche is a trained economist.
He had a plan to prevent the subprime meltdown, but they turned him down.

LaRouche `08!

Yeah, must've been those economics classes in the joint that he took, because he sure as hell didn't take 'em anywhere else. Learning the value of cigarettes and how they impact the penal economy? Fascinating.

staplermofo: LaRouche `08!

I think his only economic experience is credit card fraud.

Guy Innagorillasuit: iawai: What else is there? The War? Barr wins there too.

Oh, I forget, the all important issue of "who you're being told to vote for". Can't forget to OBEY.

That's a pretty funny accusation to sling at someone that's never been registered as a Republican or Democrat nor voted for the presidentail candidate of either party in his life. But of course anybody that doesn't agree with you is a sheep, right?

/Green
//not a McKinney fan
///not a big Nader fan either
////still an undecided voter

You're right - I assumed. But when 95% of people are either sticking to their party loyalties or following the platitudes of 'hope', I'm used to being on the defensive for inane arguments and being called names because I don't agree with the majority.

I hope that you find a candidate that matches what you want from them - but remember that as long as you're voting for the 'minor' parties, your vote is more of a message anyway - we can still rest assured that our guy will not win, and therefore it doesn't really matter how perfect they are aligned with what we want - if one person is the closest, vote for them with no regrets.

So much LaRouche hate...
If you guys would take the time to read the transcripts of the famed post 9/11 interview, you'd see he not only gives a detailed plan for fixing the subprime meltdown before it happened, but also how he plans to rebuild the economy from both the small business and big business ends. With LaRouche, both sides win. He also explains a number of other things, how he would deal with the CIA (despite them brainwashing someone to kill him, he wouldn't be vindictive), the FBI (he'd make them release the cure for cancer) and all branches of the armed services. Pay close attention to the National Guard, he's the only one willing to put them back where they belong.

Honestly, you guys shoot your mouths off about LaRouche, but none of you give a fair look to what he says. He's been right about every important thing he's ever said.

Sadly, the Libertarians don't have a chance because the system doesn't let the 'little guys' in.

Why isn't Barr in the debates?

Seems to me we need to revisit the process that helps us vet our presidents.

the

smooshie: Wiki: Barr advocates repealing the Sixteenth Amendment, which would effectively abolish the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service.

Nope, not a nutter at all. He probably believes 9/11 was an inside job.

Yeah, taxes are awesome. Let's embrace them.

Whamdangler: Well, that's work wasted, since Bob has as much chance as my left nut as being elected.

Whamdangler's left nut/barr '08! now that's a ticket for change

DarkJohnson: Sadly, the Libertarians don't have a chance because the system doesn't let the 'little guys' in.

Why isn't Barr in the debates?

Seems to me we need to revisit the process that helps us vet our presidents.

I'm sure the next President and Congress will get right on that.

Megain: Whamdangler's left nut/barr '08! now that's a ticket for change

He has a history of working well with a known conservative, Whamdangler's right nut.
He has my support.

staplermofo: He has my support.

i always knew you were a jock ;-)

Yanks_RSJ: smooshie: Wiki: Barr advocates repealing the Sixteenth Amendment, which would effectively abolish the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service.

Nope, not a nutter at all. He probably believes 9/11 was an inside job.

Yeah, taxes are awesome. Let's embrace them.

Even if we take the 16th amendment as valid - it gives the power to tax to the Congress. It doesn't say that they Have to tax. And further, where does it say that employers must take out (at least a portion of) your tax money before you are paid? And still further, why are we taxing on 'income' and not 'profits'? If I make $50k/year, but have $45k in legitimate expenses, the government should only get to see $5k in taxable earnings.

Yeah, just keep saying the plans are 'silly' 'nutters' or plain 'insane'. At least we know that when you fall back to second grade name calling, you don't have a rational defense - just an irrational fear of changing the status quo.

I'm not sure you can trust these estimates...actually, wait - I'm sure you can't trust these estimates.

It's just some guy assigning price tags to everything Obama/McCain/Barr say they want to fund.

What's Bob Barr's plan for mitigating global climate change?

Wait! Let me guess. Voluntary emissions reductions? That has worked SOO well.

the the

/good band

pontechango: Wait! Let me guess. Voluntary emissions reductions? That has worked SOO well.

When given the freedom to choose, people will choose whichever plant best suits their needs. If the Earth no longer suits their needs, they will choose another planet.

THIS ONLY INVOLVES ROCKET SCIENCE IN DETAILS!

Remove all Republicans

Because he's crazy?

No shiat. What kind of idiot wants to get rid of PATRIOT, end the war in Iraq, reverse the government's recent course of overbearing violation of liberties, etc.?

Forget that, I like things the way they are. The government needs more power, we need less freedoms, and there are some countries that are just begging to be conquered.

The very idea of including someone in the debates that wouldn't play to the script is insanity. Well said, mate. Neither Obama nor McCain will ever touch the idea that our government's too big and has too much power, and that's the American Way.

Whamdangler: Well, that's work wasted, since Bob has as much chance as my left nut as being elected.

Came here to say that, sow it in the boobies (went ahead and typed it myself) now I can go.

Have a nice day!

\Boobies!

pontechango: What's Bob Barr's plan for mitigating global climate change?

Wait! Let me guess. Voluntary emissions reductions? That has worked SOO well.

Prosecuting polluters and privatizing ownership of natural resources.

If you think putting the government in charge of these goals is a better option, look at how our experiment in central banking is turning out.

Bob Barr!Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr!

BOB BARR!!!

DarkJohnson: Why isn't Barr in the debates?

I will never forgive him for his role in enabling 9/11.

Obama/McCain can promise anything they want. Neither will be able to fulfill their agenda because there will be neither money nor lenders to finance it.

Remove all Republicans: Another right-wing lie. Obama is going to bring in a balance budget. He's make that a large part of his campaign. The problem is he's going to go after corporations and their tax loopholes so that doesn't show up in typical budget calculations.

Um not really. The loop holes he would close don't even come close to off setting the current budget deficits. They might increase revenue by about 100 billion. If Obama wants any new program or increased spending and a balanced budget then he would need to cut at least 200 billion from the current budget (and this isn't even touching on stuff not covered in the budget, like Iraq).

And he can't get away with cutting that much. Social Security? It needs to be fixed but he won't touch it. Medicare/Medicade? The same. The less than useful departments (Housing and Urban development, it's estimated that half their budget is embezzled every year, and the Department of Education for example)? Most are ones favored by the democrats.

McCain probable wouldn't be any better but Obama isn't going to balance the budget.

importedbeer: Bob Barr!Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr! Bob Barr!

BOB BARR!!!

Funny. You make this thread so funny when you do this. And original. I've never seen anyone else do this with a name in a thread.

/what's really sad is I've put every person I've seen post the name gag on ignore for the past month - and I still see new people trying to use it
//Can hardly imagine how these people would react to "Obama Obama !!! Obama!!!111!! Obama!!!111LLL!!11!!" or the other name being said in one of their threads.

The only difference between Obama and McCain is where the spending goes. Obama's camp claims the US will save $90 billion on ending Iraq military presence, but if Obama had his way in keeping his campaign promises, he would authorize $130 billion in other new spending- facing an obscenely huge deficit!

If Obama wins, we can only hope he'll be smart enough (or at least have an advisor smart enough) to realize with the deficit he's facing there is no way to realistically stay faithful to his promises and not increase the deficit more. Which means he will have to cut spending significantly in other areas, raise taxes along with ending military presence in the Middle East (and that doesn't just mean Iraq).

Neither of the "big two" candidates will stop spending if they win, and why would they? It's easy for someone else to spend someone else's money. If they go into the red, they don't get hit. YOU do.

staplermofo: So much LaRouche hate...
If you guys would take the time to read the transcripts of the famed post 9/11 interview, you'd see he not only gives a detailed plan for fixing the subprime meltdown before it happened, but also how he plans to rebuild the economy from both the small business and big business ends. With LaRouche, both sides win. He also explains a number of other things, how he would deal with the CIA (despite them brainwashing someone to kill him, he wouldn't be vindictive), the FBI (he'd make them release the cure for cancer) and all branches of the armed services. Pay close attention to the National Guard, he's the only one willing to put them back where they belong.

Honestly, you guys shoot your mouths off about LaRouche, but none of you give a fair look to what he says. He's been right about every important thing he's ever said.

My favourite LaRouche policies are for "accelerated deaths" of people with HIV as a medical solution, and his insane conspiracies about international "British" bankers advocating for their own homeland in the Middle East, including the "British" Queen Elizabeth selling opium to the United States. (In case you hadn't heard, "British" is LaRouche's code-word for "Jewish", and yes, he really does think that Queen Elizabeth is a Jewish heroin-pusher.)

iawai: bronyaur1: Static tax policy analysis is worthless. Does anyone believe that there aren't macroeconomic consequences for different policies other than the first-order effects on the deficit?

Very, very, VERY naive and uninformed.

You have a better analysis? And should we overlook the first order effects for the second order benefits?

Calling someone uninformed doesn't make you any more informed.

I somehow suspect that I can come up with a better analysis. Moreover, I know a lot of people who absolutely can come up with a better analysis. This is partly because I have a PhD in economics and am a tenured professor of economics. I also last year was elected president of the _________ Economic Association (state left blank to protect the innocent, but it is in a very populous state with many top-tier universities). I know a LOT of people with PhDs in econ, including people who have won Nobel Prizes.

So, yeah, my calling someone uninformed actually means something.

Whamdangler: Well, that's work wasted, since Bob has as much chance as my left nut as being elected.

I'm from Utah, and I'm fairly certain that we elected your left nut in our last Congressional vote.

Grover Norquist's old group? Excuse me if I take this with a few million grains of salt.

Deftoons: If Obama wins, we can only hope he'll be smart enough (or at least have an advisor smart enough) to realize with the deficit he's facing there is no way to realistically stay faithful to his promises and not increase the deficit more.

When Obama was asked about balancing the budget, Obama flat out said social programs are more important right now. He even went so far as to avoid promising to reduce the deficit.

Obama's only promise is that he'll pay for any new spending. Thus, $500 billion yearly deficits stay intact.

bobbette: My favourite LaRouche policies are for "accelerated deaths" of people with HIV as a medical solution, and his insane conspiracies about international "British" bankers advocating for their own homeland in the Middle East, including the "British" Queen Elizabeth selling opium to the United States. (In case you hadn't heard, "British" is LaRouche's code-word for "Jewish", and yes, he really does think that Queen Elizabeth is a Jewish heroin-pusher.)

Would you like to explain what's humane about a slow death, or offer any proof that Queen Elizabeth isn't a heroin-pushing Jewess?

I think it's pretty clear that quick deaths are better than slow, and the "queen" is getting all that money and nose from somewhere. She sure gets around for someone with no job, and has an awfully long family tree. You know what they say, "I think she doth protest too much."

Remove all Republicans: DarkJohnson: Why isn't Barr in the debates?

Because he's crazy? To pander in such a pathetic way by telling people they can get more of their money tells me he isn't fit to share the same stage with Barack Obama.

Keep your guard up. Your character is getting a bit translucent