Let the campaign begin!

Why do you guys like Obama's economic policies so much?

Yuri how is the "printing of money" at all negative? First off, Obama didn't do it. It was Bernanke. Who is independent of the federal government. Second off, it's been established that QEs (I assume you're talking about non-conventional monetary policy) were a large reason for the prevention of dreadful Japan-like-deflation, not to mention that both headline and core inflation average 1.6 for the past 4 years - below the 2% target. Hardly see how the "printing of money" has been anything but beneficial.

Mixed feelings about the election. On the plus side, I think Romney's a dick. On the negative side, my gf's family-owned company will now face higher margins due to Obamacare and possibly become unprofitable. Overall I'd say as far as it affects my life the results are negative.

I read legalization on recreational use, not publicly, up to an "ounce" I believe can be carried.


Only issue when this/and if it goes mainstream. What about the dealers out there now? How will you regulate that?

It was a great speech indeed.

The idea that Hispanic immigrants are the only ones with a collectivist mindset, while European immigrants are apparently all champions of individualism is some of the most ridiculous shit I've heard yet in this thread.

Immigrants in general (especially those that are poor) have a "collectivist" mindset. Just look at how they tend to congregate...When coming to a completely foreign country, immigrants generally move to the same areas as other immigrants from their country, they go to the same schools, they worship at the same churches, they work in the same places... Look at Philadelphia, we still have predominant Irish, Italian, and Polish neighborhoods even though the original immigrants came here 100 years ago...100 years and many families still living in the same sheltered communities that they started in

It takes decades to assimilate most immigrants into a culture (some don't ever truly assimilate) and until the process really starts to take root and immigrants start to identify as "American" rather than with their prior homeland, they will pretty much always tend tend toward "collectivism"

kiranr wrote:
Why do you guys like Obama's economic policies so much?

You're going to need to be more specific

I'm not sure what Romney's biggest failure is, but honestly his tea party pleasing social stances lost him many a libertarian vote, prime example of which is that he failed to get New Hampshire, the most libertarian state in the country. Considering that he won the states he did with a large margin, perhaps he could've won more by pursuing less extreme social stances.

ColoJunior wrote:I read legalization on recreational use, not publicly, up to an "ounce" I believe can be carried.


Only issue when this/and if it goes mainstream. What about the dealers out there now? How will you regulate that?

lol what do you mean the dealers? illegal drug dealers?

I'm pretty sure thats still illegal... I haven't read extensively on the specific props/amendments yet, but from what I understand its going to work like liquor - i.e you need a license, and the current (illegal) drug dealers will probably be basically put out of business (lulz) by capitalism and microeconomics etc

BarrileteCosmico wrote:I'm not sure what Romney's biggest failure is, but honestly his tea party pleasing social stances lost him many a libertarian vote, prime example of which is that he failed to get New Hampshire, the most libertarian state in the country. Considering that he won the states he did with a large margin, perhaps he could've won more by pursuing less extreme social stances.

Speaking as someone who voted for Obama, I wasn't voting against Romney so much as I was voting against Conservatives/The Tea Party...

At the end of the day I think Romney is a great guy who doesn't always say the right things and isn't all that charismatic, but is someone who at his core wants to hold office for the very basic reason that he thinks he can help.

But Romney ran the campaign too much like a consultant, he tried to get the nomination as a moderate and lost to McCain, and especially after the 2010 midterms he thought the best way to get the nomination was to move to the right for the primary...Problem is once he moved there it became very difficult for him to distance himself from it

Honestly, I think Mitt was probably just "playing" to the Tea Party in the primary, and in reality even he doesn't believe a lot of the things he said/positions he took - but I couldn't be sure...So while I think Massachusetts Mitt would've probably made a pretty good President, I couldn't bring myself to vote for him based on who his supporters were, and my fear that he would need to stay far right in order to prevent a primary challenge from the right in 2016...

Swanhends wrote:

kiranr wrote:
Why do you guys like Obama's economic policies so much?

You're going to need to be more specific

I just want to get a general idea from you guys who like Obama. Until now, whatever i have read (not much) has given me the impression that Obama is increasing regulations and taxes which in general does not bode well for the economy. So i just want to know if there is something that i have missed about his last term.

kiranr wrote:

Swanhends wrote:

kiranr wrote:
Why do you guys like Obama's economic policies so much?

You're going to need to be more specific

I just want to get a general idea from you guys who like Obama. Until now, whatever i have read (not much) has given me the impression that Obama is increasing regulations and taxes which in general does not bode well for the economy. So i just want to know if there is something that i have missed about his last term.

Saying he increased regulations and taxes is way too vague

Some of the things Obama has done or plans to do:

Allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire, which would increase the rates only to what they were in the 1990s, when the economy was booming and we had a surplus.

Expanding the health reform tax credit to cover 50% of small businesses’ health care costs by 2014 and providing access to the same rates as large firms

Signed 18 small Business Tax Cuts

Signed Dodd-Frank which was legislation aimed to regulating Wall Street, but while I am in favor of regulating Wall St. to an extent...that piece of legislation (as it stands) is pretty shitty

Signed middle class tax cuts which he is trying to make permanent

Wants to institute the Buffett Rule which would make people over 1 million pay at least a 30% tax rate, because there are about 50,000 millionaires that pay a lower effective tax rate than middle income people, because they make most of their income from capital gains (taxed at 15%) rather than salaries (taxed over 30% for that income level)

Wants to increase capital gains tax for people making over 250,000 a year

Wants to decrease Corporate Income tax to a number between 25 and 30% but I don't remember what the number is exactly


Basically: He's raising taxes some places, cutting them other places

Regulation wise outside of Dodd-Frank and the increased Red Tape that results from Obamacare, I don't really think he's done anything big

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Yuri how is the "printing of money" at all negative? First off, Obama didn't do it. It was Bernanke. Who is independent of the federal government. Second off, it's been established that QEs (I assume you're talking about non-conventional monetary policy) were a large reason for the prevention of dreadful Japan-like-deflation, not to mention that both headline and core inflation average 1.6 for the past 4 years - below the 2% target. Hardly see how the "printing of money" has been anything but beneficial.

Mixed feelings about the election. On the plus side, I think Romney's a dick. On the negative side, my gf's family-owned company will now face higher margins due to Obamacare and possibly become unprofitable. Overall I'd say as far as it affects my life the results are negative.

Well Im not against all money printing to be honest, Im a big fan of QE3 for example. I think money printing should be done only when its very transparent, when its goals are well targeted and it has objective (QE3 did much of that) and it also has to accompanied by structural change. This didnt happen first two times as the money got clogged with most investors (banks and corps) not spending it the cash is still there, only money that seeped through was to basic consumer staple areas like food and energy (not in official inflation estimates). They didnt spend it because the structural environment sucks, as soon as economy strengthens the money will rush in and cause a good amount of inflation. Inflation itself is not that bad, but when it happens this way it will cause missalocation of capital and well be back in trouble again.

My point is that money printing is a great weapon but Obama wasnt able to use it properly because of his persona biases against business, in long term this will backfire against us.

Swanhends wrote:The idea that Hispanic immigrants are the only ones with a collectivist mindset, while European immigrants are apparently all champions of individualism is some of the most ridiculous shit I've heard yet in this thread.

Immigrants in general (especially those that are poor) have a "collectivist" mindset. Just look at how they tend to congregate...When coming to a completely foreign country, immigrants generally move to the same areas as other immigrants from their country, they go to the same schools, they worship at the same churches, they work in the same places... Look at Philadelphia, we still have predominant Irish, Italian, and Polish neighborhoods even though the original immigrants came here 100 years ago...100 years and many families still living in the same sheltered communities that they started in

It takes decades to assimilate most immigrants into a culture (some don't ever truly assimilate) and until the process really starts to take root and immigrants start to identify as "American" rather than with their prior homeland, they will pretty much always tend tend toward "collectivism"

When did I say hispanic ones are the only ones? As far as numbers matter they are the only ones really changing demographics in country. Also cubans, argentines and chileans are not that extreme and are more easily swayed. I also mentioned that European males have a collectivist mindset in my comment.

This is not the point and you know it, if someone wants to be collective socially I couldnt care less. When a group insists that we all become collective in a country through the use of force and imprisonment (Which is what tax man will do to you if you dont pay up) then its a problem. Hispanics voted 71% percent for Obama this is ridiculous, Romney actually edged Obama in the independent votes.

kiranr wrote:I just want to get a general idea from you guys who like Obama. Until now, whatever i have read (not much) has given me the impression that Obama is increasing regulations and taxes which in general does not bode well for the economy. So i just want to know if there is something that i have missed about his last term.

And here is where you're wrong. History has shown that rampant deregulation has lead to crisis after crisis. The dotcom and housing bubbles, as well as the Great Depression and Japans deflation can all be pretty much attributed due to neo-liberal deregulation and free-market capitalism with lack of oversight and security.

I'm not saying that regulation is a great thing in of itself, but you do need some regulation, and being blindly against all forms of government oversight is going to invite the obvious kind of abuse that actually did take place.

Swanhends wrote:

ColoJunior wrote:I read legalization on recreational use, not publicly, up to an "ounce" I believe can be carried.


Only issue when this/and if it goes mainstream. What about the dealers out there now? How will you regulate that?

lol what do you mean the dealers? illegal drug dealers?

I'm pretty sure thats still illegal... I haven't read extensively on the specific props/amendments yet, but from what I understand its going to work like liquor - i.e you need a license, and the current (illegal) drug dealers will probably be basically put out of business (lulz) by capitalism and microeconomics etc

BarrileteCosmico wrote:I'm not sure what Romney's biggest failure is, but honestly his tea party pleasing social stances lost him many a libertarian vote, prime example of which is that he failed to get New Hampshire, the most libertarian state in the country. Considering that he won the states he did with a large margin, perhaps he could've won more by pursuing less extreme social stances.

Speaking as someone who voted for Obama, I wasn't voting against Romney so much as I was voting against Conservatives/The Tea Party...

At the end of the day I think Romney is a great guy who doesn't always say the right things and isn't all that charismatic, but is someone who at his core wants to hold office for the very basic reason that he thinks he can help.

But Romney ran the campaign too much like a consultant, he tried to get the nomination as a moderate and lost to McCain, and especially after the 2010 midterms he thought the best way to get the nomination was to move to the right for the primary...Problem is once he moved there it became very difficult for him to distance himself from it

Honestly, I think Mitt was probably just "playing" to the Tea Party in the primary, and in reality even he doesn't believe a lot of the things he said/positions he took - but I couldn't be sure...So while I think Massachusetts Mitt would've probably made a pretty good President, I couldn't bring myself to vote for him based on who his supporters were, and my fear that he would need to stay far right in order to prevent a primary challenge from the right in 2016...

Yes the illegal dealers. There are so many out there. And of course most that smoke will gladly say they wouldn't mind if it was taxed.

But that's for now. Sooner or later that system imo would collapse due to under the table spending. After all it's a plant and most have means of growing it. So I see this as something to delicate.

I don't think so to be honest...Once the legal dispensaries get up and running, they will be able to do things like buy in bulk (reducing costs), provide a greater variety in terms of the different strains of marijuana (more attractive to consumers), possibly sell bowls/bongs etc on the side, all things that will render the old drug dealers unable to compete just from a business perspective...

Many Tea Party members registered as Independents, shifting the Independent vote very far to the right.

At the same time, many moderates registered as Democrats after being put off by the Republicans' efforts to play to the extreme right Tea Partiers.


So saying that more Independents favoured Romney is an indicator of something is bullshit on several levels.

The Republicans killed their own chances by pandering to the far right. Ryan was just as bad a choice as Palin was 4 years ago.

A proper moderate Republican would have a decent chance against Obama (who is also a moderate, no matter what the nutjobs want you to believe, the only far-left thing he has ever done was being born half black) - but not Ayn Rand toting lunatics, or Alaskan isolationists that think shooting rifles from a helicopter is a normal hobby.

Too bad the McCains, Powells etc. are dying out, just look at what happened with the Tea Party candidates. They get slaughtered in the final elections when they get pitted against democrats, because they are f*cking insane.

The Republicans either move back to the center, or the Democrats replace Obama with the next Democrat.

RedOranje wrote:Many Tea Party members registered as Independents, shifting the Independent vote very far to the right.

At the same time, many moderates registered as Democrats after being put off by the Republicans' efforts to play to the extreme right Tea Partiers.


So saying that more Independents favoured Romney is an indicator of something is bullshit on several levels.

meh, theories. Im independent that voted Obama 08 and voted Romney 2012, know many others that did too.

But... Why? At least McCain had integrity, Romney had... ... ...Well, he had moral flexibility, I'll give him that

VivaStPauli wrote:The Republicans killed their own chances by pandering to the far right. Ryan was just as bad a choice as Palin was 4 years ago.

A proper moderate Republican would have a decent chance against Obama (who is also a moderate, no matter what the nutjobs want you to believe, the only far-left thing he has ever done was being born half black) - but not Ayn Rand toting lunatics, or Alaskan isolationists that think shooting rifles from a helicopter is a normal hobby.

Too bad the McCains, Powells etc. are dying out, just look at what happened with the Tea Party candidates. They get slaughtered in the final elections when they get pitted against democrats, because they are f*cking insane.

The Republicans either move back to the center, or the Democrats replace Obama with the next Democrat.

Romney got the most white vote since I dont know when, won over independents. your argument is invalid.

Libertarians are growing amazingly among the young, many won Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Ted Yoho, David Schweikert, Kerry Bentivolio. Pot has been legalized. Its going to be fight between libertarians and christians over illegal immigration to get the latin vote

The Christian right is the doom of the Republicans though, if they can get the Libertarians incorporated into the Republican platform again, there's hope for the GOP.

For that, though, they need to say bye-bye to social conservatism. I never got that anyway, the Republican party was always the party of small government, how the Government telling people who to f*ck and marry, or whether or not to use condoms/the pill became part of the party platform never seemed logical to me.

because they are the only allies that we have, they are not really small government but rather reactionaries that want to block government from replacing the church. I dont mind them so much as long as they dont get a seat in the administration, the disgusting ones are the neo conservatives though.

That happened after goldwater lost. Vanilla conservatism couldn win anymore, it had to spiced up.

I'm a registered Independent for what its worth, but I just don't see how Libertarianism would work in a practical sense...I would go back to my quote earlier

Everyone loves Libertarianism until theres a natural disaster, or their bank collapses, or theres some other crisis...

"There are no atheists in foxholes" is the religious version of the argument "There are no libertarians in a crisis/disaster"

I also think it gives humans in general too much credit...What do you do as a libertarian society when people eventually fall behind? Whether through their own laziness/incompetence, or through no fault of their own...what do you do?

Leave them behind? How long does that last? How stark can the gap between rich and poor grow before we wind up with a literal revolution on our hands? And if you're answer is "Of course not, we need to help them" - well then aren't you already straying from libertarianism?

Libertarianism is fantastic if you can trust everyone to be responsible...
Maybe I just have a low opinion of humans, but I don't....not even close

Edit: Those werent rhetorical questions btw...genuinely curious

Well bhends the libertarian argument is that those things only happened because of regulation. Take the last crisis for example. Ever since the great depression (which was caused by tight monetary policy) the FDIC has insured bank accounts. Since they're insured up to 250,000 dollars per bank then people don't check what kind of investments the banks currently makes, since they can get their money back regardless. In a libertarian society they wouldn't have this insurance, so they would more actively monitor the investments of their depository institutions, which would force banks to make less risky investments. Otherwise, people would just take their money out (known as a bank run).

So you see, if you ask a libertarian, the cause the solution to a crisis is to not have regulation in the first place.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:Well Im not against all money printing to be honest, Im a big fan of QE3 for example. I think money printing should be done only when its very transparent, when its goals are well targeted and it has objective (QE3 did much of that) and it also has to accompanied by structural change. This didnt happen first two times as the money got clogged with most investors (banks and corps) not spending it the cash is still there, only money that seeped through was to basic consumer staple areas like food and energy (not in official inflation estimates). They didnt spend it because the structural environment sucks, as soon as economy strengthens the money will rush in and cause a good amount of inflation. Inflation itself is not that bad, but when it happens this way it will cause missalocation of capital and well be back in trouble again.

My point is that money printing is a great weapon but Obama wasnt able to use it properly because of his persona biases against business, in long term this will backfire against us.

So you're disappointed that Obama didn't get the fiscal act together while monetary policy was otherwise mostly sound? I could agree with that. There's a number of policies that could've/should've been taken to alleviate the housing crisis on the fiscal side that could've helped before QE3, of which I'm also a fan but only if it's a stepping stone to other more output oriented policy decisions. The large number of unused reserves is largely due to interest on reserves though - which was never very clear to me as to why they exist in the first place.