Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Reeve View Post
    OK, so you've covered certain necessities as "nontaxable." Now that you've gotten rid of income taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes, etc. though, the incentive is to hold onto money instead of spending it. In fact, because you now have a large consumption tax, you're actively disincentivizing the spending of money. Since the movement of money is what generates value in an economy, you've just thrown the whole US into a massive recession, or possibly depression.
    Well this is a ball of economic fallacies here.

    Even with a consumption tax, spending is encouraged on capital means, especially if an environment is created where productivity isn't taxed. Consumption (spending money on consumable, non capital goods) doesn't produce anything, regardless of if it creates a velocity of money. In reality money isn't important, what you produce is.

  2. #42
    At the moment i think having anything accountable to congress is a horrible idea. Those morons can't get anything done and the tea-party portion of the house seems to actively be trying to bring all the government to a grinding halt.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Sivick View Post
    At the moment i think having anything accountable to congress is a horrible idea. Those morons can't get anything done and the tea-party portion of the house seems to actively be trying to bring all the government to a grinding halt.
    Technically the fed is already accountable to congress, they could close it with a bill. Seeing what its doing wouldn't make them any MORE able to influence it.

  4. #44
    Scarab Lord Buckwald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Clarksville, TN
    Posts
    4,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Sivick View Post
    the tea-party portion of the house seems to actively be trying to bring all the government to a grinding halt.
    Please stop saying this. The "tea-party" portion of the house doesn't want to pass bills that are bloated with unnecessary pork-barrel spending. It's not bringing government to a halt to make government do it's job and not be wasteful.

  5. #45
    Scarab Lord GreatOak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Chicago, USA
    Posts
    4,925
    Excellent. Good job Dr. Paul walking in your father's footsteps

    I dont know how anyone can be against this. We need transparency.

    "It woudl be funny as hell if the abodinal snoawman walk in the background" -Confucius

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Hiricine View Post
    Well this is a ball of economic fallacies here.

    Even with a consumption tax, spending is encouraged on capital means, especially if an environment is created where productivity isn't taxed. Consumption (spending money on consumable, non capital goods) doesn't produce anything, regardless of if it creates a velocity of money. In reality money isn't important, what you produce is.
    Earn money in the US, spend in countries with low prices. Profit.
    Last edited by Purlina; 2013-02-05 at 11:57 PM.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Beazy View Post
    I 100% agree. My plan wouldnt be to abolish the fed overnight and just start electing democrats or republicans.

    We need so much reform of our bloated government before we can even start to fix our monetary issues.

    For starters, each state needs to charter a state bank, with local elected managers. These banks can make state infrastructure loans at 1 to 0 % and help local economies flourish. Think it wont work? Its worked for over 100 years in the state of North Dakota. The bank of ND is amazing, and i suggest anyone looking for a real monetary solution to check it out. Also read the book "No More National Debt" by Bill Still. Great read. If your not a fan of reading, watch "The Secret Of OZ" by Bill Still, covering most of the book I mentioned above.
    This used to exist in the past. The fed was established because it was ruining the nation. I know touting failed policies is a popular republican talking point, but come on dude.

  8. #48
    I am Murloc! Garnier Fructis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Location:
    Posts
    5,694
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Excellent. Good job Dr. Paul walking in your father's footsteps

    I dont know how anyone can be against this. We need transparency.
    Sure transparency is nice, maybe. However, it's really easy to be against this bill when it would give congress more tools with which to crash our country.
    Quote Originally Posted by Orlong View Post
    Mobius strip still has 2 sides. you can pinch 2 fingers on both sides of the ribbon at the same spot
    Quote Originally Posted by auBerg View Post
    You are a certified crackpot that is subservient to the manipulators of science who are dreaming to control knowledge.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckwald View Post
    Please stop saying this. The "tea-party" portion of the house doesn't want to pass bills that are bloated with unnecessary pork-barrel spending. It's not bringing government to a halt to make government do it's job and not be wasteful.
    o.0

    Need I post the chart that shows red states receiving more federal funding than blue?

  10. #50
    Sounds like pointless red tape and wasteful political bickering to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Buckwald View Post
    And keeping oversight of monetary policy in "The Fed" is better? Most likely not.
    Um, I guess you're entitled to your opinion and all but to say Congressional Oversight of monetary policy is a better alternative than the Federal Reserve just makes me think you're way out of touch with reality. No offense.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  11. #51
    Scarab Lord Buckwald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Clarksville, TN
    Posts
    4,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Xeones View Post
    o.0

    Need I post the chart that shows red states receiving more federal funding than blue?
    What does that have to do with what I said? It's not a red vs blue thing. If you haven't seen recently, establishment republicans are starting to get upset at "Fiscally conservative tea party" republicans due to them not wanting that spending in any bill.

  12. #52
    The Insane Reeve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    18,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Hiricine View Post
    Well this is a ball of economic fallacies here.

    Even with a consumption tax, spending is encouraged on capital means, especially if an environment is created where productivity isn't taxed. Consumption (spending money on consumable, non capital goods) doesn't produce anything, regardless of if it creates a velocity of money. In reality money isn't important, what you produce is.
    Spending on capital isn't the same as spending on products. You can build more products or bigger and better property/plant/equipment, but it'll do you no good if you don't have the demand from customers to buy it. So in reality, what you produce is important, but only if there's demand for your products, and taxing spending reduces the marginal propensity to consume, and increases the marginal propensity to save. That's fine when your market is flush with demand and short of capital, but when your market is flush with capital but short of demand, as ours is, reducing the marginal propensity to consume is a BAD idea.
    Well 1, 2, 3, take my hand and come with me
    Because you look so fine
    And I really wanna make you mine

  13. #53
    Brewmaster Chry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    1,380
    I believe that The People have a right to know of every single transaction our government makes. So I'm definitely inclined to support this.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckwald View Post
    Please stop saying this. The "tea-party" portion of the house doesn't want to pass bills that are bloated with unnecessary pork-barrel spending. It's not bringing government to a halt to make government do it's job and not be wasteful.
    So why are they blocking so many appointments?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  15. #55
    Merely a Setback Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    26,136
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckwald View Post
    Please stop saying this. The "tea-party" portion of the house doesn't want to pass bills that are bloated with unnecessary pork-barrel spending. It's not bringing government to a halt to make government do it's job and not be wasteful.
    Bloated spending? Is that why the Republican candidate ran on a platform to raise DOD spending to 4% GDP?

    Of course this is distant history; not like it was...I don't know, four months ago?
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybran View Post
    Both of those links don't provide any evidence. They make unsubstantiated statements

  16. #56
    Scarab Lord Buckwald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Clarksville, TN
    Posts
    4,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Bloated spending? Is that why the Republican candidate ran on a platform to raise DOD spending to 4% GDP?

    Of course this is distant history; not like it was...I don't know, four months ago?
    Romney was not a tea party candidate. So, that doesn't apply here. Also, Romney wanted to raise spending on DoD and lower spending on other, unneeded, areas. He wasn't just adding spending on top of what the US spends.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    So why are they blocking so many appointments?
    Referencing Hagel? He's slated to head the DoD and can't even name the administration's policies. Horrible pick. I'd block him too.

  17. #57
    Referencing Hagel? He's slated to head the DoD and can't even name the administration's policies. Horrible pick. I'd block him too.
    No, not just Hagel. The GOP is blocking appointments all over the place, including minor judges. Completely apolitical picks are getting blocked.

    Why?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  18. #58
    Scarab Lord Buckwald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Clarksville, TN
    Posts
    4,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    No, not just Hagel. The GOP is blocking appointments all over the place, including minor judges. Completely apolitical picks are getting blocked.

    Why?
    I have no information on any federal judges in lower courts. But, all blocks or appointments are done for political reasons. It's politics. Both sides do it. It's nothing new. And honestly it's a fairly weak argument in the context of what's been said. The "tea party" is what was referenced not the entire GOP.

  19. #59
    All fair in love and war... and politics.

    The fed started pumping for this election season, they need to be held accountable for playing politics.
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Reeve View Post
    Spending on capital isn't the same as spending on products. You can build more products or bigger and better property/plant/equipment, but it'll do you no good if you don't have the demand from customers to buy it. So in reality, what you produce is important, but only if there's demand for your products, and taxing spending reduces the marginal propensity to consume, and increases the marginal propensity to save. That's fine when your market is flush with demand and short of capital, but when your market is flush with capital but short of demand, as ours is, reducing the marginal propensity to consume is a BAD idea.
    Even with significantly decreased demand, it would drive people to create more valuable products or reduce the cost of their goods. With a system geared towards consumption, price basically stays the same. Our demand is hardly low at the moment, we basically have no reason to invest, the lion's share of our economy is based on consumption. If demand was low, prices would be falling and we'd be consuming less.

    "saving" is really the most important part to any economy. Putting money under your mattress probably hurts more than it helps, but most people buy durable goods, or invest in capital, new equipment, or facilities for a business (mostly indirectly through stocks). Any nation on Earth can consume all the goods produced by another nation, the U.S. has proven extremely effective at that. Its just lucky for us people still look at our money as valuable, because we certainly don't have anything actually of value to contribute.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •