Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Old and busted: RON PAUL. New hotness: GARY JOHNSON   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 84
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1107 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 May 2012 at 8:17 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



84 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-10 10:31:43 AM  

verbaltoxin: As much as I'd like to see more third party presence, having yet another candidate up there whose points are basically, "Taxes are bad, government is bad, meh," is the last thing we need. We need to see an era of civic repair in this country, starting with Americans' knowledge of their own government. Having candidates who want the government made pliant to corporate interests is not how we're going to do that.


I think we need a honest discussion about what the role of government is in our lives. Just because there is a problem does not mean the Federal goverment has to rush in with a program to fix it. Having a 3rd candidate that actually has differences with the two major party candidates would be a good way to get that discussion started. Right now, the discussion is "what level of involvement do you want me to provide" not "Should we even be involving the government in the first place".
 
2012-05-10 10:53:02 AM  

cman: cameroncrazy1984: cman: When Paul drops out, Johnson will get his supporters. That will put him above the 15% needed to be involved with the national debates.

/I've got goose bumps
//He wont win the Presidency, but we are making a statement telling the GOP and the Dems that they are not the only game in town

Some variation of this was said by Nader supporters, and before that Ross Perot supporters. If third parties could get candidates that are not batsh*t insane, maybe they'd have more than 15% support.

When Nader and Perot ran, there were not as many pissed off Americans at both parties as there are today.


Nah...Perot was only off 'half a bubble'...not batshiat insane. And don't forget that had he not dropped out, then rejoined, the '92 campaign he likely would have been President. As it was he still won 19% of the popular vote.

Obama is a shoe-in for Cali, and I daresay for reelection, so I'm really looking forward to his second term:

- equal rights for ALL Americans? Check
- end the war on terror? Hope so...we're on track to wind it down.
- end the war on drugs? Git 'er dun, brah!
- troll the GOP into nominating someone to the right of Genghis Khan in '16? Book it, Tony!
 
2012-05-10 10:54:37 AM  
Paul and Johnson differ on abortion. Paul disagrees with Roe v. Wade and Johnson does not. This is a significant difference for many of Paul's supporters.
 
2012-05-10 11:02:19 AM  

cman: When Paul drops out, Johnson will get his supporters. That will put him above the 15% needed to be involved with the national debates.

/I've got goose bumps
//He wont win the Presidency, but we are making a statement telling the GOP and the Dems that they are not the only game in town


Nope. The Libertarian Party has run a Presidential candidate in every election since 1972. Their best result was in 1980, when they got 1.06% of the vote.

Johnson may beat that total, but not by much. He certainly won't get 15%. I doubt he'll get 5%. My prediction would be more than 1% but less than 2%, and that's being generous.
 
2012-05-10 11:07:54 AM  

Geotpf: cman: When Paul drops out, Johnson will get his supporters. That will put him above the 15% needed to be involved with the national debates.

/I've got goose bumps
//He wont win the Presidency, but we are making a statement telling the GOP and the Dems that they are not the only game in town

Nope. The Libertarian Party has run a Presidential candidate in every election since 1972. Their best result was in 1980, when they got 1.06% of the vote.

Johnson may beat that total, but not by much. He certainly won't get 15%. I doubt he'll get 5%. My prediction would be more than 1% but less than 2%, and that's being generous.


He polls 7% nationally right now. He does have a good base.
 
2012-05-10 11:08:30 AM  

deadcrickets: Durendal: Gary Johnson is, in some ways, Ron Paul Lite. He has some libertarian leanings, but not to the extremes of Paul.

/Not that he's perfect by any stretch, but it's a refreshing change of pace to see a Republican who isn't a moral authoritarian.

Ron Paul is no Libertarian. Not by far. He may have a few, very few beliefs that match the party but he's way closer to a Constitution Party member.


I disagree with this strongly. Yes, he is a member of the "right wing" of the LP, but that is a significant wing of the party.

Secondly, he was the LP's candidate for President in 1988. Hard to be less Libertarian than that.
 
2012-05-10 11:08:43 AM  
"I would rather die."

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-10 11:13:54 AM  

Geotpf: Secondly, he was the LP's candidate for President in 1988. Hard to be less Libertarian than that.


Bob Barr was the LP candidate in 2008. Being the LP candidate indicate4s nothing about being a Libertarian.
 
2012-05-10 11:20:34 AM  

cman: Geotpf: cman: When Paul drops out, Johnson will get his supporters. That will put him above the 15% needed to be involved with the national debates.

/I've got goose bumps
//He wont win the Presidency, but we are making a statement telling the GOP and the Dems that they are not the only game in town

Nope. The Libertarian Party has run a Presidential candidate in every election since 1972. Their best result was in 1980, when they got 1.06% of the vote.

Johnson may beat that total, but not by much. He certainly won't get 15%. I doubt he'll get 5%. My prediction would be more than 1% but less than 2%, and that's being generous.

He polls 7% nationally right now. He does have a good base.


Third party candidates almost always poll much, much higher than their actual vote totals come election day (assuming they are specifically asked about in the question), as people decide they don't want to hurt the major party candidate closest to their views by voting third party.

More proof of that is that same poll, which did seperate Romney/Obama/Johnson and Romney/Obama/Barr questions, gave Rosanne Barr 6% of the vote when she was a choice.

Rosanne Barr is not going to get 6%, and Gary Johnson is not going to get 7%. Combined, they will be lucky to get 2%.

Link (pdf file with no page numbers, it's maybe a quarter of the way through)
 
2012-05-10 11:22:18 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Geotpf: Secondly, he was the LP's candidate for President in 1988. Hard to be less Libertarian than that.

Bob Barr was the LP candidate in 2008. Being the LP candidate indicate4s nothing about being a Libertarian.


So, the Libertarian Party candidate for President is not a member of the Libertarian Party? Stop being stupid.
 
2012-05-10 11:26:14 AM  
Ob:

whatcommarketing.com
 
2012-05-10 11:38:41 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: SharkTrager: I know Gary. He's not crazy.

Then why is he a "fair" taxer?


He's just wrong on that issue. Doesn't make him crazy.
 
2012-05-10 11:40:20 AM  

Geotpf: Philip Francis Queeg: Geotpf: Secondly, he was the LP's candidate for President in 1988. Hard to be less Libertarian than that.

Bob Barr was the LP candidate in 2008. Being the LP candidate indicate4s nothing about being a Libertarian.

So, the Libertarian Party candidate for President is not a member of the Libertarian Party? Stop being stupid.


I never cease to be amused by the "Libertarians" constant efforts to butcher reality and reshape it in their own image.
 
2012-05-10 11:44:36 AM  

Geotpf: Philip Francis Queeg: Geotpf: Secondly, he was the LP's candidate for President in 1988. Hard to be less Libertarian than that.

Bob Barr was the LP candidate in 2008. Being the LP candidate indicate4s nothing about being a Libertarian.

So, the Libertarian Party candidate for President is not a member of the Libertarian Party? Stop being stupid.


The Libertarian Party is running a Republican this year, just as they did in the last cycle. "Libertarian" is just a labal of convenience for them.
 
2012-05-10 11:51:12 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Bob Barr was the LP candidate in 2008. Being the LP candidate indicate4s nothing about being a Libertarian.


Bob Barr was a horrible candidate. He was a Republican through-and-through. I didn't vote for him (I wrote in Michael Badnarik--the 2004 candidate).

At least Gary Johnson has a long history of leaning libertarian on issues.
 
2012-05-10 12:25:34 PM  
Libertarians are adorable
 
2012-05-10 12:52:03 PM  

SharkTrager: cameroncrazy1984: SharkTrager: I know Gary. He's not crazy.

Then why is he a "fair" taxer?

He's just wrong on that issue. Doesn't make him crazy.


Fair tax is crazy. Plus abolishing the Fed and returning to a gold standard. Read my wall'o'text response to cman earlier.

Dude's nuts.
 
2012-05-10 12:59:47 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SharkTrager: I know Gary. He's not crazy.

Then why is he a "fair" taxer?


He is more of a consumption tax guy.
 
2012-05-10 03:30:54 PM  

slayer199: BeesNuts: Libertarianism lost its way in the 90's. Sorry kid. That ship sailed. It was a sweet 20 year run though.

With the way both parties are now? Don't think so. The LP is still around to be a thorn in the side to both parties.


Agree to disagree I guess. The Libertarian Party of the 70's is dead and gone, IMO. Replaced with this cartoonish gainsaying of the two party system. Libertarian principles survive, but not within that party. Or any American party at all.

They've reduced themselves to petty gainsaying of single issues.

Serious Black: sprawl15: cameroncrazy1984: 1. Gold standard - the US economy is around $14-15T a year. Do you know how...

Not only that, but even if we could magically wave a wand and convert smoothly over to a gold standard, it simply doesn't address the problems claimed against fiat currency. The government still would control the amount of gold within coinage and could manipulate the amount of money by decreasing the amount of gold within a $20 coin (for example).

It would solve absolutely nothing, on top of being ludicrously stupid to implement.

To be perfectly fair, all of their most extreme economic policies would solve absolutely nothing and would be ludicrously stupid to implement.


As evinced by all recorded economic history of all time. The introduction of fiat currency was organic, and primarily a way for merchants to combat price manipulation by their respective governments across borders.

Much like the way we do banking today was already proven to be completely unsustainable back in the 1600s. Completely organic. And poignantly forgotten by anyone who talks about the "gold standard" like it's some kind of banner under which we will all be led to freedom and prosperity.
 
2012-05-10 04:40:38 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I've already told you: He wants to return to the gold standard, abolish the Fed and institute a flat tax (sorry, I got my insane tax theories messed up, the fair tax is the national sales tax, I think).

Those three things alone are enough toss him into the "dangerously insane" category. I don't think I should have to explain why, but since you are a supporter, you probably don't understand the consequences of each of these things.

1. Gold standard - the US economy is around $14-15T a year. Do you know how much was ever mind in the ENTIRE WORLD?

around $10T.

So, either the United States would have to own all of the gold in the world, or the dollar would have to fall markedly to devalue all of the assets in the US so as to pin it to the price of gold. Or the price of gold would have to shoot up 20 or 30x what the price is now, in order to cover every dollar in the economy.

This would lead to massive price shocks, and oh, by the way, the price of gold will affect the amount that your dollar is worth, not solving the issue that it is supposed to, namely, the fluctuating value of the dollar.

-Abolishing the Fed is similarly dangerous because then you're left without a central bank and your currency might as well be useless without a way to distribute it.

-The flat tax is also insane because it doesn't affect wealthy people at all, but it will cause poor people's taxes to go up, giving them less to spend on trivial things such as housing, food, clothing, etc. You know. The basics. That will cause more people to go on welfare and food stamps, while also requiring the tax to be at around 30% just to keep up with the revenue that we have now with our progressive tax system. Seems like a bad idea, doesn't it?


If I (or anyone else) takes the time to address these issues, will you take the time to listen (without setting up a bunch of strawmen in response)?

/by the way, Gary Johnson has supported the FAIRTax, not a FLAT Tax - that's just a fact
 
2012-05-10 04:48:32 PM  

Hydra: /by the way, Gary Johnson has supported the FAIRTax, not a FLAT Tax - that's just a fact


Sure, but it's also a fact that the FairTax would result in slamming the middle class with a huge tax hike while giving the wealthy a ginormous tax cut.
 
2012-05-10 05:42:08 PM  

Serious Black: Sure, but it's also a fact that the FairTax would result in slamming the middle class with a huge tax hike


Firstly, so would letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire - a favorite policy measure of many progressives.

Secondly, you're missing a few huge circuitous taxes that're ALREADY being paid by the lower and middle classes: inflation (as admitted by Ben Bernanke, at about 2 minutes in, and explained by Milton Friedman here) and the lower economic growth occurring from crowding out - both the effects effect of unbalanced government budgets.

It's also a well-known fact that corporate taxes are not actually paid by corporations - Milton Friedman also explains this about 1:10 in - but are actually borne mostly by workers in the form of lower wages and consumers in the form of higher prices (read: the middle class).

You MUST factor these in when you consider the current tax incidence that's already being foisted upon the middle class. Many of the studies that leave these facts out are the ones often cited as saying, "THE FAIR TAX RAISES MIDDLE CLASS TAXES!!"

In order to judge the FairTax fairly, you must take into account all of the actual tax incidence caused by the government being experienced by the average American. Then, any proposed solution MUST be compared to the tax code as it currently exists rather than what is "perfect" - lest you commit a nirvana fallacy.

Consider this from Wiki:

"Kotlikoff states that the FairTax could make the tax system much more progressive and generationally equitable,[3] and argues that taxing consumption is effectively the same as taxing wages plus taxing wealth.[3] Studies by Kotlikoff and Daivd Rapson state that the FairTax would significantly reduce marginal taxes on work and saving, lowering overall average remaining lifetime tax burdens on current and future workers.[10][55] A study by Kotlikoff and Sabine Jokisch concluded that the long term effects of the FairTax would reward low-income households with 26.3% more purchasing power, middle-income households with 12.4% more purchasing power, and high-income households with 5% more purchasing power.[11] The Beacon Hill Institute reported that the FairTax would make the federal tax system more progressive and would benefit the average individual in almost all expenditures deciles.[8] In another study, they state the FairTax would offer the broadest tax base (an increase of over $2 trillion), which allows the FairTax to have a lower tax rate than current tax law.[56]"


What conclusion are we supposed to draw from this? In reality, no one knows EXACTLY what would happen if we passed the FairTax - just like we don't know EXACTLY what will happen if we let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone. What we DO know is how detrimental to the economy the current tax code is, and the only solution we've been trying over recent decades is hemming and hawing about a 5-7% increase/decrease - while our economy misses out on additional potential growth in the meantime.
 
2012-05-10 07:45:43 PM  

Hydra: Secondly, you're missing a few huge circuitous taxes that're ALREADY being paid by the lower and middle classes: inflation (as admitted by Ben Bernanke, at about 2 minutes in


Do you understand why this is? Do you think it could possibly be because wages have been stagnant for the lower and middle classes for the past 30 years?

Hydra: Sabine Jokisch concluded that the long term effects of the FairTax would reward low-income households with 26.3% more purchasing power


Based on what evidence?
 
2012-05-10 07:47:27 PM  

Hydra: just like we don't know EXACTLY what will happen if we let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone


Also, we know EXACTLY what will happen if we let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone...because we had those tax rates in the 90s...and the economy was SH*T then, wasn't it?
 
2012-05-10 07:49:42 PM  

Hydra: What conclusion are we supposed to draw from this? In reality, no one knows EXACTLY what would happen if we passed the FairTax


You mean apart from adding a 30%+ additional tax on all goods and services in addition to what the state requires? Nobody knows EXACTLY what will happen with anything but apart from the acolytes nobody actually believes it will be revenue neutral or won't hurt the middle class..
 
2012-05-10 08:09:14 PM  

Fart_Machine: Hydra: What conclusion are we supposed to draw from this? In reality, no one knows EXACTLY what would happen if we passed the FairTax

You mean apart from adding a 30%+ additional tax on all goods and services in addition to what the state requires? Nobody knows EXACTLY what will happen with anything but apart from the acolytes nobody actually believes it will be revenue neutral or won't hurt the middle class..


But but Milton Friedman says it will be fine without any evidence whatsoever! I'm sure it'll be fine!
 
2012-05-10 08:43:26 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Do you understand why this is? Do you think it could possibly be because wages have been stagnant for the lower and middle classes for the past 30 years?


One fallacy at a time, please.


Based on what evidence?

C'mon, man - it's in the footnotes.


cameroncrazy1984: Also, we know EXACTLY what will happen if we let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone...because we had those tax rates in the 90s...and the economy was SH*T then, wasn't it?


Rates would go up on the middle class (which is what we're talking about here, right? raising taxes on the middle class? because that's what the effect of letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire will be - increased taxes on the middle class; which is what you're accusing the FairTax of doing, right?) and everyone's tax bill increases - poor and rich alike. That's about all we know. what we do know is that the effects will be negative on the economy - what we don't know are how extensively negative those effects will be.

I want to keep this focused on one issue at a time, though, rather than going off on five different tangents.

Basically, what the FairTax does is take many of the effects of the various taxes imposed by the government and puts them all into one easy-to-see rate. All of those taxes on corporations, on savings, and on capital and the economic consequences of each aren't easily seen or understood by the public at large. It's hard for people to notice all of the various taxes they pay since they go through such indirect channels.

Look, I know I won't convince you overnight of the FairTax's virtues, and I really am glad you decided to respond to me considering some arguments we've had in the past. What I would like you to understand is that there really is a logical thought process put behind each of these reforms - whether it's the FairTax, the flat tax, or whatever - that really gets at the heart of the problem and eliminates it for good (rather than the band-aid approach we've been taking by raising, then lowering, then raising, then lowering rates on some/all forms of income). It's like taking chemo for stomach cancer rather than taking Pepto-bismol.

Besides, I haven't seen any ideas out of the opposing progressive groups to "fix" the tax code other than raising rates. At least the FairTax is a workable solution that overhauls the tax code for the better (after understanding all of the economic consequences of the current code, at least). If not the FairTax or the status quo, then what do you propose?


Fart_Machine: You mean apart from adding a 30%+ additional tax on all goods and services in addition to what the state requires? Nobody knows EXACTLY what will happen with anything but apart from the acolytes nobody actually believes it will be revenue neutral or won't hurt the middle class..


And here is their response to that FactCheck.org piece.
 
2012-05-10 09:05:06 PM  
media.reason.com
 
2012-05-10 09:17:07 PM  

Hydra: And here is their response to that FactCheck.org piece.


Their response is that we should trust their numbers rather than look at third parties who aren't Fair Tax advocates.
 
2012-05-10 09:38:35 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: But but Milton Friedman says it will be fine without any evidence whatsoever! I'm sure it'll be fine!


See that's a fair argument. If the US government was toppled by the military under a fascist dictator who then proceeded to torture and murder those who disagreed with his policies I'm sure it could be successfully implemented.
 
2012-05-10 09:43:08 PM  

tomWright: [Obamaney2012]


Yeah, there's absolutely no difference between Obama and Romney in terms of foreign policy, women's rights, gay civil rights, the environment, energy policy, tax policy, policy on student loans, separation of church and state etc, etc.

You've totes been paying attention./snark>

Have you considered the Entertainment tab?

Politics really doesn't seem to be your thing.
 
2012-05-10 11:10:57 PM  

Fart_Machine: Their response is that we should trust their numbers rather than look at third parties who aren't Fair Tax advocates.


And this post, folks, is an example of ad hominem.
 
2012-05-10 11:57:49 PM  

Hydra: Fart_Machine: Their response is that we should trust their numbers rather than look at third parties who aren't Fair Tax advocates.

And this post, folks, is an example of ad hominem.


I agree. Their response was indeed a fallacy, especially when they criticize FactCheck's objectivity by not telling everyone how awesome the Fair Tax is.
 
2012-05-11 12:39:11 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Hydra: just like we don't know EXACTLY what will happen if we let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone

Also, we know EXACTLY what will happen if we let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone...because we had those tax rates in the 90s...and the economy was SH*T then, wasn't it?


Actually, it wasn't. I don't know where you get your information, but you should probably read more.

Question for you, cameroncrazy1984, since you seem to have a hard-on for monetary policy: If the big banks, including the Federal Reserve, aren't acting in the best interest of the country, and are instead pursuing a policy of greed, how should one "fix" things, so that the banks are again acting in the interests of the country at large?

Serious question; waiting patiently for your erudite exposition.
 
Displayed 34 of 84 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report