The Tea Party

[Pard]

Most of the Tea party are originalists, which is hilarious.

I think you are mistaken. Ask anyone in the Tea Party they will agree that nearly ever amendment is good. I think they would protest the 16th, 17th, and 18th (or w/e is the one that bars alcohol). I think they would like a better wording on the 14th, one that doesn't basically destroy state's rights and one that doesn't allow foreign mothers citizenship because their child is born here (IE the illegal aliens coming over to give birth).

Here something about the original constitution that should be common knowledge but isn't.

OK, let's see what you got to say...

You could only vote if you where a land owning white male.

I'd love for you to point me to the part of the Constitution that gives the requirements for voting... Actually, don't even try because it is not there. The voting requirements are set by each state. The only thing the Constitution says about voting is that anyone who is eligible to vote for their state representatives can vote in Federal elections also. I seriously understand the misunderstanding here, though. My parents were not aware of this either, they thought the Constitution spelled out who can and cannot vote. I think this misconception probably originates because there are amendments that make requirements (suffrage, blacks) but they never originally did. In Montana they woman were voting in the 1800s and they even have a female congressman.

African Americans/ Blacks/ what ever the term is now where only a third of a person.

I'll give you that one, though like I said before these "originalists", as you call them, are in favor of the Emancipation proclamation. I would just like to add that the 2/3rd vote also applies to indentured servitude.

Anyone could be denied a contract from the government based on Race, Religion, gender, or original nationality.

Could you elaborate?

Women couldn't vote or hold a job

Commented on the voting part before. Also, woman not working was not something the Constitution was against, it was a cultural issue, not a legal one.

No Miranda rights, meaning you had no right to have an attorney present at interrogations, violent force could be used on you, No spouse privilege, You are not guaranteed an attorney, and punishment could be cruel and unusual. Such as death penalty for theft.

Another misconception. Miranda v. Arizona did not give people more rights. The problem is the name "Miranda Rights" is tricky. The actually, and proper, name is "Miranda Warning". Before Miranda v. Arizona you still had the rights... in fact the Constitution spells out these rights, so it is BECAUSE of the Constitution you have these rights, not because of Miranda.

(Interesting factoid, Miranda was later killed by a man who was released because the cops didn't read him his Miranda warning!)

No more protection against Double Jeopardy.

Wrong. It is in the Constitution. Read the Fifth Amendment.

People can vote your rights away. Lets say a low Black poplation state such as Indiana decides it wants to make it illegal for Blacks to own businesses and bring back segregation. Without the 9th amendment, we can do that. And before you guys tell me that it will never happen. The most liberal state in the union voted away the rights of Gays to marry. Just watch, some will bring back segregation if they thought it would make them safer.

Ah... no that is illegal. It has been argued before in mock trials. The ruling always comes down that such an instance is still illegal because it would create a class system, which is specifically prohibited in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment is part of the Constitution, by the way... All amendments are part of the Constitution once they are ratified.

Slavery still legal

Please find me a Tea Party'r that is for slavery... The Constitution doesn't speak for OR against slavery, actually, just another factoid.

Unlimited terms for a President

And how is that a problem? Need I remind you the majority of our presidents were around in a time before term limits? FDR is the only president to go over two terms. Again, I do not believe any Tea Party member is against term limits. I am against it, but then again, I am not affiliated with the Tea Party...

Oh yeah, poll taxes and voting tests come back

Technically speaking they were never legal... The justice system and the political system in the Jim Crow south simply overlooked this issue. A diligent and unbiased justice system would have quickly fixed this issue. And again, states have the say in who votes, not the Constitution.

Oh, and even if you owned land, there is no guarantee you could vote because each state could define what age you vote at.

You mean how they define age right now? ... :

I'd urge you to actually talk to tea party people and not just listen tot he media because if you talked to them you would find that these things you are saying are all wrong. They are Constitutionalists, for the most part.

Also, please look up the term "originalist" it is not what you think it means. It means "original intent" NOT "original document". Amendments are part of the original intent, they were made so that the Constitution could be updated over time. Actually the original thought process behind the amendments was to add all the things back into the Constitution that had to be taken out in order for the south to ratify it.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

Oh yeah, I almost forogot to point out if you lift the regulations on businesses Monopolies will form, companies will no longer have to pay unemployment, you have no job security, safety will go by the wayside of prophit, and discrimination based on age, race, religion, gender, sexuality, and political afiliation will return. Unlimited work week. Fire half you staff and make everyone else work double. :D


What a wonderful idea.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

I think you are mistaken.

Nope, An originalist is someone who supports the original constitution.

Ask anyone in the Tea Party they will agree that nearly ever amendment is good.

No they won't. Have you read them? I've also met many Illinoise and Indiana Tea Party people. So, yeah, I've met plenty.

I think they would protest the 16th, 17th, and 18th (or w/e is the one that bars alcohol).18th, Why, Many of them are against the legalization of Marijuana. The 18th amendment and the banning of Marijuana is the same thing.

I think they would like a better wording on the 14th, one that doesn't basically destroy state's rights and one that doesn't allow foreign mothers citizenship because their child is born here (IE the illegal aliens coming over to give birth).

Oh, this reaks of nationalism and establishes the point I made about amendment 9. Yay state sponsored racism, classicism, sexism, and bigotry.

I'd love for you to point me to the part of the Constitution that gives the requirements for voting... Actually, don't even try because it is not there.

Amendments 14, 15,19, and 26. Before these amendments only White Male land owners could vote.

The voting requirements are set by each state.

And regulated by the Fed.

The only thing the Constitution says about voting is that anyone who is eligible to vote for their state representatives can vote in Federal elections also. I seriously understand the misunderstanding here, though. My parents were not aware of this either, they thought the Constitution spelled out who can and cannot vote.

It is, the constitution rules out non land owners, and non white males as voters.

I think this misconception probably originates because there are amendments that make requirements (suffrage, blacks) but they never originally did.

The point of the amendments was because it spelled out clearly who couldn't vote.

In Montana they woman were voting in the 1800s and they even have a female congressman.

And it wasn't until 1919 that it was nationally ok for women to vote or run for office. Montana was an exception of the rule, not the rule.

I'll give you that one, though like I said before these "originalists", as you call them, are in favor of the Emancipation proclamation. I would just like to add that the 2/3rd vote also applies to indentured servitude.

Then they aren't originalists. They share the ideas of the 19th century Republican party.

Could you elaborate?

The 14th Amendment came after the civil War and was ratified after the emancipation proclamation. It put into effect that a person could not be bared from any government office, position, any tax based benefit, etc based on gender, race, relgion, etc. without that amendment, any state can decide that Asians don't get certain benefits, etc.

Commented on the voting part before. Also, woman not working was not something the Constitution was against, it was a cultural issue, not a legal one.

19th amendment. Read it.

Another misconception. Miranda v. Arizona did not give people more rights.

It enforced the our rights.

in fact the Constitution spells out these rights, so it is BECAUSE of the Constitution you have these rights, not because of Miranda.

Acutally we didn't have these rights from the constitution. Not until amendments 4,5, 6,7,8,and 11.

Wrong. It is in the Constitution. Read the Fifth Amendment.

Wow that's an epic fail. The fifth amendment was added post drafting of the original constitution. the Bill of rights wasn't tacked on until after the drafting.

Ah... no that is illegal. It has been argued before in mock trials. The ruling always comes down that such an instance is still illegal because it would create a class system, which is specifically prohibited in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment is part of the Constitution, by the way... All amendments are part of the Constitution once they are ratified.

The amendments aren't the original constitution. Now you are tap dancing and trying to find ways to distract from the point of originalists.

Please find me a Tea Party'r that is for slavery...

Come to Indiana.

The Constitution doesn't speak for OR against slavery, actually, just another factoid.

Amendments 13 and 14 are about Slavery. Remember how you conceded that blacks where only 1/3 a person. Go read that article about how to count slaves.

And how is that a problem? Need I remind you the majority of our presidents were around in a time before term limits? FDR is the only president to go over two terms. Again, I do not believe any Tea Party member is against term limits. I am against it, but then again, I am not affiliated with the Tea Party...

Its a problem because it allows for the possibility of a party to control the white house indefinitely.

Technically speaking they were never legal...

Yeah they were, as you put it so many times before, it was under State rights to decide who voted.

The justice system and the political system in the Jim Crow south simply overlooked this issue. A diligent and unbiased justice system would have quickly fixed this issue. And again, states have the say in who votes, not the Constitution.

Wow contradiction in the same sentence. The system would have changed it, but they system is alowed to discriminate?

You mean how they define age right now? ... :

18 is federal, States used to be able to shift the voting age however they wanted.

I'd urge you to actually talk to tea party people

Already have, my state was the birth place of the Klann, so there is a ton of rascism here.

and not just listen tot he media because if you talked to them you would find that these things you are saying are all wrong.

Nice assumption there. From someone who seems to talk about 1st person perspective all the time.

They are Constitutionalists, for the most part.

Proove it.

Also, please look up the term "originalist" it is not what you think it means.

Constiutional originalists.

It means "original intent" NOT "original document".

Nope, show me this article please.

Amendments are part of the original intent

No they wheren't and there have been massive campaings in US history that prooves you wrong.

, they were made so that the Constitution could be updated over time. Actually the original thought process behind the amendments was to add all the things back into the Constitution that had to be taken out in order for the south to ratify it.

Nope, Most of the Amendments are actually quite against original intent.

Such as amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 24,and 26.

 

[Pard]

I am not going to even try, call it losing if you want, but I've done this before and it just isn't worth it. Please, continue believing whatever you want, because I honestly couldn't care less...

The one thing I will say is that you are most definitely wrong about the meaning of "originalist". You are saying "originalist" and then going on and using the definition of a "constructionist".

Though I honestly do not know why I should be providing links to articles, since you should be concerned with being incorrect... I will give you this link

Constitutional Topic: Constitutional Interpretation - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Of course if you just Google originalism you will find a wealth of articles all of which speak against the definition you are using...

And what the heck, how about a dictionary def.?

originalism - definition of originalism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Oh and amendments are part of the Constitution. Go ask a Constitutional lawyer or American government teacher or something... Once ratified they become part of the Constitution. And another factoid... the first 10 or so amendments were drafted right after the Constitution was ratified and by the original framers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

 

[Lance_Iguana]

Oh and amendments are part of the Constitution. Go ask a Constitutional lawyer or American government teacher or something...

And they will tell me exactly what I'm saying. The amendments where post original costitution.

Once ratified they become part of the Constitution.

But not part of the original document, as you keep dancing around and trying to distract people from.

And another factoid...

You haven't given a single factoid. All you have done is spin issues and legislation to try and cover up the cruel reality of the past. Factoid, the 19th century Republican party actually resembles the Modern Democrat party.

the first 10 or so amendments were drafted right after the Constitution was ratified and by the original framers.

After extreme debate and days of deliberation. The bill of rights was brought up post drafting.

 

[Pard]

And they will tell me exactly what I'm saying. The amendments where post original costitution.

Duh, I never even once said that the amendments were written at the same time. All I am saying is tat they are part of the Constitution.

You haven't given a single factoid.All you have done is spin issues and legislation to try and cover up the cruel reality of the past.

au contraire mon fraire! You cannot tell me that thing about Miranda being killed by a guy who got let off because he didn't have his Miranda warning read to him isn't an interesting factoid! And I am confused how the Bill of Rights being drafted my Madison directly after the Constitution was ratified is some how covering up anything... The only one that I suppose you are right about is the slavery bit, but that was because I poorly worded it.

Factoid, the 19th century Republican party actually resembles the Modern Democrat party.

I'd have to disagree. There is a liberal guy (has a giant forehead...) who has a talk show on HBO. He wrote an article about this and set it straight. I actually agreed with him on it. I think it was on HuffPo (cannot help you with a link, I didn't read it on HuffPo, I'd never give Mrs. Huff'n'Puff any extra visits). Basically he concluded that the Republican party of the 1800s was not all that similar to either party today. He said that racism is equal on both sides of the aisle and the Republicans have lost that big racist boost they got in the 60s and the Dems have regained some of it back (point and case KKK and Westboro Baptist). He then concluded that while both parties share some aspects of the Republican party of late (Republican party now is socially conservative)(Dem was something, but I forget what neither of them garner enough from Abe's party to claim resemblance.

After extreme debate and days of deliberation. The bill of rights was brought up post drafting.

Thanking you for dramatizing and reiterating what I previously said...

Oh Lance... how did you get me into arguing with you? I tried so hard to not do so... you are like a black hole my friend, and I mean that in the best way possible!

Also, are we straight on the "originalism" thing? I really would hate for you to pull out that word in the wrong context among people who know what it really means. I've done that with words before, very embarrassing!

Oh and lastly, upon rereading my previous post I realized that the beginning may have sounded rude, but please do not take it that way. I simply wished to express my disinterest in pursuing a dissection of your responding post and a critique of your statements, which, suffice to say, I feel are wrong.

Lewis, sorry for ruining your topic! I do agree that plenty of Tea Party people are pro-life and such, but that is their personal stance, not something endorsed by the Tea Party. It stands to reason that if you cater to a fiscally conservative bunch of people a good amount of them will be socially conservative also.

 

[jasoncran]

on miranda the guy who killed him was read his rights.

miranda was rapist not a murderer. He raped a twelve yr old.

miranda rights fall under the 5th amendment.

justice was served in that bar when that man took out miranda,lol

sorry thats the cop in me. reap what you sow.

 

[Pard]

on miranda the guy who killed him was read his rights.

miranda was rapist not a murderer. He raped a twelve yr old.

miranda rights fall under the 5th amendment.

just was served in that bar when that man took out miranda,lol

sorry thats the cop in me. reap what you sow.

Oh maybe that's it. I just remember that there some some cruel irony in the end. I thought the guy had been picked up before hand for theft and the cops didn't read him his rights so then instead of being in jail we was in the bar and killed Miranda.

EDIT

OK just Wiki'd it, the guy who killed Miranda didn't get his rights read to because before they could read them he agreed to staying silent or something. They released him on bail because of his cooperation and then he fled to Mexico and was never found.

 

[Lewis]

The Tea Party
Tea Party Patriots | Find Your Local Tea Party

Poll: Tea Partiers Say GOP Represents Their Values
Poll: Tea Partiers Say GOP Represents Their Values - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

 

[Lewis]

More than four in five supporters of the Tea Party movement says the Republican Party represents their values at least moderately well, a new CBS News poll finds - evidence that there is less light between the movement and the party than some in the GOP have feared.

Seventy-one percent of Tea Party supporters say the Republican Party represents their values moderately well, and 11 percent say it represents their values very well. Just 17 percent say the GOP does not represent their values.

That's reflected in how they plan to vote in November: Eighty-one percent of likely Tea Party voters plan to cast ballots for Republicans seeking seats in Congress. Just five percent plan to vote for Democrats.

Still, members of the Tea Party movement do draw distinctions with the Republican Party. Eighty-four percent say there is at least some difference between the movement and the party, while just 15 percent see little or no difference. Republicans and Americans overall are less likely to see a significant difference between party and movement.

Likely Tea Party voters are more enthusiastic about the midterm elections than Americans overall: Three in four say they are more enthusiastic about voting than they usually are, compared to one in two Americans overall. Only 12 percent are less enthusiastic, compared to 30 percent of Americans overall.

They are also more interested in the races: Seventy-one percent say they are paying a lot of attention to the campaign, compared to 46 percent of Americans overall who say the same.

The poll shows that 18 percent of Americans identify as Tea Party supporters.

GOP Widens Lead in Generic House Ballot, CBS Poll Finds
Poll: Just 22% See Palin as Effective President
Obama's Approval Rating on Economy Falls Further

The Tea Party's Impact on the Republican Party

Nearly 70 percent of Tea Partiers - but just 37 percent of Republicans - expect the Tea Party to be a long-term political movement. About half of Republicans (and one in four Tea Partiers) expect the movement to become less influential in the long run. Fifty-seven percent of Americans overall agree.

And while seven in ten Tea Partiers say the movement is making the GOP stronger, only 48 percent of Republicans feel the same. Twenty-eight percent of Americans overall - and 13 percent of Republicans - say the movement is making the GOP weaker.

Asked whether Republicans running for office are motivated by solving the country's problems or by obtaining political power, both Tea Partiers are Republicans are roughly evenly split. Among Americans overall, only one in four say GOP candidates want to solve the country's problems. Sixty-six percent say they are primarily interested in obtaining power.

Tea Partiers on the Issues

(Credit: CBS)

By a slim margin, Americans overall are more likely to say the U.S. economy would not be better off without the bank and auto bailouts. Tea Party supporters disagree. Sixty-three percent say the U.S. economy would be better off had the big banks been allowed to fail, and 64 percent say the economy would have been better off had the automakers been allowed to fail.

Two in three Tea Partiers say they are less likely to support a political candidate who voted for the banking and financial industry bailouts.

Americans are split overall when it comes to whether tax cuts or deficit reduction should be the nation's priority. Not Tea Partiers: Fifty-six percent favor tax cuts, while 36 percent support deficit reduction.

Tea Partiers are also disproportionately opposed to the health care reform bill: Seventy-two percent strongly disapprove of the bill, compared to 27 percent of Americans overall. Three in four Tea Partiers say the bill was an attempt to expand government, not improve health care. Only 39 percent of Americans overall agree.

While a majority of Americans agree with the notion that it is the government's responsibility to take care of people who can't take care of themselves, that opinion is held by just one in three Tea Partiers.

At the same time, seventy-one percent of Tea Partiers say Medicare and Social Security are worthwhile programs, a view shared by Americans overall.

How America Sees the Tea Party

Thirty-eight percent of Americans say the views of the Tea Party are too extreme. Forty-four percent say they are not. One in five Republicans and three in ten independents say Tea Party views are too extreme.

Thirty percent of Americans say the Tea Party reflects the views of most Americans, while 41 percent say it does not. Eighty-two percent of Tea Partiers believe their views reflect the beliefs of most Americans.

Nearly half of voters say a candidate's Tea Party affiliation would not have an impact on how they vote. But such an affiliation appears to be a net negative: While 16 percent says it would make them more likely to vote for a candidate, 29 percent says it makes them less likely.

Three in four Tea Partiers say media coverage of their movement is too harsh, and only 19 percent say it is fair. Overall, however, 43 percent of Americans say the coverage is fair. Twenty-nine percent say it is too harsh, and 11 percent say it is too easy.

Who They Are and What They Want

Eighteen percent of Americans - including 35 percent of Republicans and 19 percent of independents - call themselves Tea Party supporters. Sixty-three percent say they are not.

Four in five Tea Partiers prefer an outsider as their representative in Congress (versus 48 percent of Americans overall), and the overwhelming majority says the country is on the wrong track.

Asked what the movement's goal should be, 18 percent said change the direction of the country/take the country back; 17 percent said reduce the size of government/reduce government control; and nine percent said promoting American or traditional values.

Six in ten Tea Partiers are men, and nine in ten are white. Most make between $30,000 and $100,000 per year, identify as Protestant and conservative, and have at least some college education. They are spread around the country, though are most likely to be found in the South. Almost half are between the ages of 45 and 64.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20018968-503544.html

 

[Gendou Ikari]

Strictly speaking of the United States, since the Tea Party is US based, the US Constitution does demand a small and limited government, the current government is overly bloated, if one is to adhere to the documents that this country is founded on. In comparison to say France, or maybe Aussieland, I am sure we would appear as small.

Would you mind pointing out the passage in the U.S. Constitution where it specifically states that the central government is to be small and limited? In the preamble it states, "promote the general Welfare," as one of the government's duties.

No, actually with these things well in mind. If you have more money you spend more money, it's rather simple. You give a tax cut and BOOM Main Street sees an increase in their income.

I often times feel like I am living in the Bizarro universe, when I discuss economics with people who have no basic understanding of the dismal science. If you give tax-cuts to people living on the margins, it will stimulate aggregate demand, because poor people cannot afford the luxury of savings. However, this only works if they are already paying income tax (for example). I believe 40 per cent of American working families are not paying income tax, because they make too little. I have the graph somewhere, but I have so many on my hard-drive that I cannot find it. People who are wealthy, will most likely save any new income they receive from tax cuts, because they do not have to spend it and saving it is the wise course of action in a battered economy. Thus, cutting taxes for the top 2 per cent, will not help our economy recover.

As for the social services aspect, I really do not want to get into that here... It should suffice to say that there is a lot of useless spending that goes on in that area of government and they could easily tighten their belts without hurting anyone who actually needs their help.

Likewise, we could easily tax the wealthiest among us, tightening their belts, without hurting anyone. I just find it funny when Christians are so nonchalant with cutting social services, but freak out when we dare tax the rich. I don't get it. I don't know how so many Christians became liberals, when they should be conservatives.

No, I wouldn't say that. I'd also say it is something you'd have to live in America to see. Example... the stimulus bill closed down highways going into and out of Hartford for three months and all to add a raised divider so they could plant a few trees. That is rather wasteful, especially when the government is accumulating 1 trillion+ in debt last year alone.

You can nitpick all you want, but the stimulus plan was a success, for its limited size.

"Sustainable" and "America's Debt" don't even work in the same sentence! I think we are in the 13 trillion range now for debt, we spent nearly 3 trillion int he last year and a half and by 2012 the debt is estimated to have reached 18 trillion, and that is conservative estimate (Slight note, by conservative I do not mean the political spectrum...).

The debt is more around 7.5 trillion USD. The 13 trillion USD figure counts intra-governmental debt, so it is not consequential. We spent 3 trillion USD last year, but we also received 2 trillion USD in receipts, so the net loss was around 1 trillion. Also, standard macroeconomics tells us that we need to run deficits in recessions to restart aggregate demand. We should really be spending a lot more than we already are.

 

[jasoncran]

gendou,my local town has cut back without cutting services. how it didnt overspend.

it did however make some stupid decisions. buying things we dont need. a golf course that it sold the yr earlier for triple the price. let the la dodgers leave without paying anything for violation of the contractual agreement.

we are only cutting back as the others are not necessarily because absolutely have to. many have retired as the bennies are taken away.

this would be uneeded as the city accountant warned the city yrs ago to increase rates so as to avoid this.let me correct myself. we get most of our money from the city power grid and water grid. the outside resident pay way too much for the electric. double what the private market competion is and they know where the funds go, to the general funds. the city non money producing functions such as parks and recreation, and other things road maintence that they have no say in.

so they choose to cut back and we general service enployees are getting hit. is there a better way? not sure.
not without adding raising the taxes(quadrupling the property tax)

the problem is that the city could be cheaper but not as cheap as the private one but that could be made up with better response time in disasters which the county knows. but oh now the idiots sold the production to an outside plants and is in contract with them. they also didnt maintain the plant we have.

that being said. i dont see how govt is better then the private way all the time.

its not because of the govt that florida is in straight as generally florida has been responsible, but cali and others cant say that.

so i guess , gendou. the lower dollar value is ok to you.
you see i remember when the dollar was a lot stronger then the mark and franc ere the euro.
what good is it when you save 1000 dollars and yrs later its worth a tenth of that?

 

[Gendou Ikari]

so i guess , gendou. the lower dollar value is ok to you.
you see i remember when the dollar was a lot stronger then the mark and franc ere the euro.
what good is it when you save 1000 dollars and yrs later its worth a tenth of that?

This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how economics works. A stronger value for the dollar increases the trade deficit by making our exports less competitive, and a weaker value for the dollar decreases the trade deficit, through more competitive exports.

Perhaps an example will work. If a stronger value for your currency is so great, why is China doing everything in its power to keep the Yuan undervalued? Think about it.

 

[jasoncran]

This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how economics works. A stronger value for the dollar increases the trade deficit by making our exports less competitive, and a weaker value for the dollar decreases the trade deficit, through more competitive exports.

Perhaps an example will work. If a stronger value for your currency is so great, why is China doing everything in its power to keep the Yuan undervalued? Think about it.

then why is this happening? china wants to remove the standard base currency for the world? and change it too something else?

bric ever heard of them?

 

[jasoncran]

and why are you types against us going back on Gold? that is stable and never loses value and in fact it has gone way up in my lifetime('73 44.00 per ounce, and now 1100.00 per ounce)

man i wish had some gold then. man!

so its good to spend more then we take in?

really, tell that to weimar jews.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

then why is this happening? china wants to remove the standard base currency for the world? and change it too something else?

bric ever heard of them?

I have no idea what you just said.

and why are you types against us going back on Gold? that is stable and never loses value and in fact it has gone way up in my lifetime('73 44.00 per ounce, and now 1100.00 per ounce)

man i wish had some gold then. man!

so its good to spend more then we take in?

really, tell that to weimar jews.

The gold standard is a terrible economic system, because it is too difficult to counteract recessions. I can give a more detailed explanation, when I get enough free time. There was a good article about it in the Economist a couple of weeks ago, but I believe you need a subscription to read it.

 

[jasoncran]

yup, cause you have to actually have money to spend not just print it!

bric(brazil, indian, china, russia) they wanted to remove the us dollar as the standard exchange. if one lends money one expects the loan to mature sometime. thats reasonable to be. If i gave you money and you only paid the interest, so or later i would stop loaning to you as you cant manage your money( and that was the type of loans that caused the housing bubble!)

where's old tractor when you need him.

i'm cutting back and i aint a hurtin. i have lost since the collapse an average 400 usd a month and more will come,but i was wise and i didnt overspend. i can stop overpaying my house and still make it and stop paying ahead on taxes as well and cut back on others. now is that too much to ask for the feds?

 

[Gendou Ikari]

yup, cause you have to actually have money to spend not just print it!

And what is wrong with printing money?

bric(brazil, indian, china, russia) they wanted to remove the us dollar as the standard exchange. if one lends money one expects the loan to mature sometime. thats reasonable to be. If i gave you money and you only paid the interest, so or later i would stop loaning to you as you cant manage your money( and that was the type of loans that caused the housing bubble!)

You are simplifying the matter. Mortgage originators sold mortgages to anybody, regardless of credit history or ability to pay. They sold these mortgages as debt-securities in the secondary mortgage market, and disguised the poor nature of these debt-securities in a new financial instrument called collateralised-debt obligations. That is the sad thing about this recession. It made perfect sense for mortgage originators to make bad loans, because they did not bear the responsibility of default. It amazes me that this economic collapse did not shatter people's belief in the free-market. I know it was a giant wake-up call for me.

i'm cutting back and i aint a hurtin. i have lost since the collapse an average 400 usd a month and more will come,but i was wise and i didnt overspend. i can stop overpaying my house and still make it and stop paying ahead on taxes as well and cut back on others. now is that too much to ask for the feds?

A country is not a company, or a household, for that matter. Conservatives love to simplify everything. Just because it is smart for you to run a balanced budget in your household, does not mean it is prudent for the government to run a balanced budget in a recession. I will explain why slashing budgets for the government is a terrible idea, with the graph below.

The y-axis (up and down) is the price index, think inflation and deflation; it is the total cost of all goods in the economy, or the general level of prices. The x-axis (side-to-side) is Gross Domestic Product, which is the cost of all final goods produced in an economy. Thus, the further up a point is, the more expensive goods are and the further right a point is, the greater the wealth of the economy. The purple lines represent the demand in an economy and the orange lines represent the supply in an economy. Feel free to ask questions if you are confused.

Let us look at our first graph, bottom-left (increase in supply). The dotted-yellow line represents an increase in supply; think, greater production capacity. The equilibrium point is where the lines meet. So, if you take it as relative to the orange supply line, we have shifted the supply curve right-and-down. This increases GDP and decreases the prices of goods.

Second graph, bottom-right (decrease in supply). Where is the new equilibrium point? To the left-and-up from the original point. Thus, there is an an increase in the general level of prices and GDP decreases. We call this stagflation, since its symptoms are high unemployment (from a decrease of GDP) and inflation (caused by an increased scarcity of goods).

Third graph, top-left (decrease in demand). The new demand curve is blue, which is shifted left-and-down when there are not as many people demanding products and services in an economy. Where is the new equilibrium point? It is down and to the left! This translates into deflation (a fall in the general level of prices) and a decrease of GDP.

Last graph, top-right (increase in demand). The new demand curve is shifted right and upward, because more people are demanding products and services in the economy. Where is the new equilibrium point? Up and to the right! Thus, we have an increase in GDP and inflation. Are you with me so far? We are almost done.

Let's bring this home. What happens when the government cuts spending? Well, that is simply taking demand out of the economy, since GDP is simply the equation (GDP = private consumption + investment + government spending + balance of trade). So, it is the top-left graph. We can expect GDP to fall and we are in danger of getting sucked into a deflationary spiral. That is the reasoning behind economic stimulus. If the government can keep spending up in the economy, we can reverse a decrease in GDP and effectively move from the top-left graph to the top-right graph.

I hope that wasn't too confusing. Questions are more than welcome.

 

[Mike]

Leave it to a socialist, brandishing a tattoo of a sickle on his chest to walk us through "Liberal Economics 101" and horrifically misrepresent the impact of supply. Please forget everything you were shown above, lest you begin to crave vodka and dream of vacations in Moscow.

Putting actual capitalist conditions into the equation, there is power to drive the economy by reducing taxes and government spending.

First is the classic Keynesian graph which depends on the theory that demand. You have your prices and your output. Interesting theory, but flawed. This is the one Red showed above (lower left)

View attachment 1570

Here's what Red doesn't want to show you... Sorry, Red. This is gonna hurt.

View attachment 1571

What you have here is the real world where people will not stop or alter their demand for goods and services. It's a vertical demand line which is more accurate than Red's because, what would force consumers to demand less of a product or service just because the supply goes up? Won't they want the things they wanted before? That's voodoo socialist thinking! As supply increases demand stays constant for the most part. So the scare tactic of a recession is just that. A scare tactic.

How does this relate to lower tax rates? Lowering marginal income tax rates will motivate people to work more. Wouldn't you work more, if you were taking home more? Not Red, but you! Lowering capital gains taxes work similarly in that they influence investors to employ their resources more robustly.

Decrease taxes --> more motivation to work --> more productivity --> higher revenue tax base due to increase in production

Combine this with decreased government spending, and you have a utopia that socialists can only dream of; or make up while they're picking away at capitalism.

Red? I mean Gendou? I'm just kidding with you. No insults implied, though I tend to believe you'd be very happy with the nick-name.

 

[jasoncran]

lol. and my white russian ancenstry knew this and left long before the bolsheviks came into power.

gendou seriously. if you print more money then the value of the dollar drops! so its worthless

gas was 99c a gallon before you were born and some of that is to due inflation.

and some here can recall it when gas was even cheaper.

sorry, gendou, you dream about how Good govt can be, i happen to work for the govt, and reality says otherwise.

even now, thanks to good planning and despite the mistakes my city has saved 52 million. they only reason they are cutting back is the citizens dont want to pay more electrictiy and the govt doesnt want to raise taxes to make for the difference.

but that is because of consertives in control not democrats! of course they make some seriously stupid decisions as i have alluded to before.