Vote for Nader/Gonzalez 08'

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Vote for Nader/Gonzalez 08'

Anything that socialists believe in, I do not believe in.

Most of these disagreements come down to gripes about economics and economic knowledge, which socialists are completely ignorant about as history, and policy have evidenced thus far.

I would like to hear the details. Economics is not my forte. And please tie this in to Nader's economic policies (which are on his site) if you can.

it will take away the focus of the general thread (the thread being about voting).

Actually the thread was about Nader and 3rd party candidates. I was drowsy when I made the topic so the wording might not be spot-on.



Btw, I agree democracy is not the best form of government. In my opinion democracy only works in smaller countries with a high GDP where a high proportion of the population is educated, and when the country does not face an external threat. Like in Denmark or Luxembourg.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Vote for Nader/Gonzalez 08'

I would like to hear the details. Economics is not my forte. And please tie this in to Nader's economic policies (which are on his site) if you can.





Actually the thread was about Nader and 3rd party candidates. I was drowsy when I made the topic so the wording might not be spot-on.



Btw, I agree democracy is not the best form of government. In my opinion democracy only works in smaller countries with a high GDP where a high proportion of the population is educated, and when the country does not face an external threat. Like in Denmark or Luxembourg.

Like I said, if I were to get into a discussion of the economic nuances of why socialism is a bankrupt ideology, it would divert the thread.

However, I will not be voting for Nader because his policies are an extreme version of the democrats. Taxing, redistribution, and spending and all sorts of welfare and entitlement programs and more government and more 'democracy.'

Regarding democracy, if you want to understand about what I don't like it and the economics behind it, read this:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa594.pdf

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Vote for Nader/Gonzalez 08'

However, I will not be voting for Nader because his policies are an extreme version of the democrats. Taxing, redistribution, and spending and all sorts of welfare and entitlement programs and more government and more 'democracy.'

In regards to taxing-- He favors taxes on extreme wealth and speculation rather than taxes on necessities such as food and clothing. Democrats claim a similar stance, but they practice the opposite. Small taxes on wealth and speculation (which is just a form of gambling) will generate enough money to cover the decreased taxes in other areas. His philosophy is to tax 'undesirable' or 'unnecessary' habits (gambling, alcohol, tobacco) instead of necessary habits, such as buying food, clothes and other basic goods. This includes lowering the 5-7% sales tax.

In regards to spending-- He is going to substantially decrease the "defense" budget, which is half of the overall budget. Yes, he will put money into other (more necessary) departments, mainly oversight departments (which usually save money in the long run), but it will easily be paid for with the decrease in military spending (I admit this is idealistic considering he would be assassinated if he tried it, but nevertheless I am simply stating his stance).

In regards to redistribution-- Do you mean redistribution of wealth? If so, its nothing illegal, he is simply going to undo steep taxes on people who work full-time instead of people who sit on piles of wealth and make more money by speculating on their untaxed wealth (which in essence, is just money creating money, instead of money creating products). He is also going to introduce a "living wage" instead of our "minnimum wage"-- first he will bring it up to around $8/hr, and in a couple of years he will raise it to $10/hr. He will also eliminate the trick that most employers play nowadays, where they schedule you for a maximum of 39 hours per week, so you won't be considered a full-time employee, and thus cannot get any benefits. You have to buy all your benefits on your crummy $6/hr, just so the corporation's profit can be a couple of points higher and their CEO can get a $20 million annual bonus instead of his insufficient $17 million.

In regards to more government-- I don't see it that way. In some respects there will be more government (with oversight committees), but in some respects there will be less government, since small minorities of extremely wealthy people will not be able to use government as a way to siphon their wealth and power in order to create control mechanisms over the rest of society (at least not as easily).


If I mischaracterized anything then by all means, correct me! I opened this thread to hear people's perspectives, not to shove something down their throats.

Regarding democracy, if you want to understand about what I don't like it and the economics behind it, read this:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa594.pdf

Thank you, it was interesting and I agree with the vast majority of what is written. But I don't see how it contradicts Nader's policies (I can see where they can have some friction, but not direct contradictions). Maybe you can connect the dots for me? I would like to hear your perspective.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Vote for Nader/Gonzalez 08'

In regards to taxing-- He favors taxes on extreme wealth and speculation rather than taxes on necessities such as food and clothing. Democrats claim a similar stance, but they practice the opposite. Small taxes on wealth and speculation (which is just a form of gambling) will generate enough money to cover the decreased taxes in other areas. His philosophy is to tax 'undesirable' or 'unnecessary' habits (gambling, alcohol, tobacco) instead of necessary habits, such as buying food, clothes and other basic goods. This includes lowering the 5-7% sales tax.

In regards to spending-- He is going to substantially decrease the "defense" budget, which is half of the overall budget. Yes, he will put money into other (more necessary) departments, mainly oversight departments (which usually save money in the long run), but it will easily be paid for with the decrease in military spending (I admit this is idealistic considering he would be assassinated if he tried it, but nevertheless I am simply stating his stance).

In regards to redistribution-- Do you mean redistribution of wealth? If so, its nothing illegal, he is simply going to undo steep taxes on people who work full-time instead of people who sit on piles of wealth and make more money by speculating on their untaxed wealth (which in essence, is just money creating money, instead of money creating products). He is also going to introduce a "living wage" instead of our "minnimum wage"-- first he will bring it up to around $8/hr, and in a couple of years he will raise it to $10/hr. He will also eliminate the trick that most employers play nowadays, where they schedule you for a maximum of 39 hours per week, so you won't be considered a full-time employee, and thus cannot get any benefits. You have to buy all your benefits on your crummy $6/hr, just so the corporation's profit can be a couple of points higher and their CEO can get a $20 million annual bonus instead of his insufficient $17 million.

In regards to more government-- I don't see it that way. In some respects there will be more government (with oversight committees), but in some respects there will be less government, since small minorities of extremely wealthy people will not be able to use government as a way to siphon their wealth and power in order to create control mechanisms over the rest of society (at least not as easily).


If I mischaracterized anything then by all means, correct me! I opened this thread to hear people's perspectives, not to shove something down their throats.





Thank you, it was interesting and I agree with the vast majority of what is written. But I don't see how it contradicts Nader's policies (I can see where they can have some friction, but not direct contradictions). Maybe you can connect the dots for me? I would like to hear your perspective.

In order to understand why I don't agree with Nader and why taxing, and redistribution and entitlement is bad, you have to understand economics. When you understand how human action occurs and how all markets are a result of voluntary associations between individuals, then you will understand that socialism and those systems that advocate socialistic policies are based on coercion and force to achieve their ends.

So thereby, I oppose Nader's policies because they are:

(1) economically ignorant and harmful
(2) morally repugnant

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Vote for Nader/Gonzalez 08'

Ok if you don't want to divert the thread then I'll PM you.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Vote for Nader/Gonzalez 08'

Nader on the bailout: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePrHajW_JBY


Republican Ron Paul appears with Ralph Nader, says we should vote for 3rd parties: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J3-YoVPckk

[Anonymouse]

Re: Vote for Nader/Gonzalez 08'

Ron Paul is right on economics. Ralph Nader is not, unfortunately. I say unfortunately, because Nader is a good man, who just happens to adhere to incorrect and harmful policies. But his message in terms of breaking the order and rank of Washington is nonetheless fresh.