D. Armenta
PlagmanOrble Poll: Your opinions needed please!
Across America, millions of pub-goers throughout the ages have started sentences with the phrase: "If I were president, I'd...."
I'm reasonably sure it's the same everywhere else, even if that statement has to be whispered for fear of "repercussions". Human beings are thinking creatures, and all thinking creatures have opinions.
Just for fun, let's all go to a virtual pub here at Orble and have a good old-fashioned opinion poll. I'll buy the first round.
Standing in front of us are three people who claim to have solutions to the current financial crises in the U.S. We cannot see their faces, determine their gender, or know their political affiliation.
I'm going to present a statement from each person. If you would, please indicate in your comment whether you agree most with person A, B, or C; if you don't agree with any of the statements, please indicate D (none of the above) in your comment and tell us why.
I'm looking for opinions from all people, not just Americans.
For those who are unfamiliar with the current U.S. money situation, this sentence pretty much sums it up: "We're broke/heavily in debt/screwed."
The Question: What steps would you take as U.S. president toward balancing our budget and shoring up our failing economy?
CANDIDATE A: "I would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.
I'd minimize expensive mandates - such as those for health insurance and pro-union initiatives like card check. (Card check is a method of organizing employees into a labor union in which employers enter into an agreement to recognize the unionization of its employees if a majority of employees in a bargaining unit sign authorization forms, or "cards".-Ed.)
I'd lower the corporate tax rate.
I'd also recommend that people save for their retirement and not count on Social Security anymore (even though you always have and will continue to pay into it--Ed.) I will fix the Social Security problem if elected."
CANDIDATE B: I would provide $50 billion to jumpstart the Economy and prevent 1 Million Americans from losing their jobs.
I would simplify tax filings for middle-income Americans so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. I will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. My proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees.
I will create a new tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.
Companies should not get billions of dollars in tax deductions for moving their operations overseas. I will ensure that public contracts are awarded to companies that are committed to American workers. "
CANDIDATE C: " I would initiate a carbon (greenhouse gas) tax. An initial price of $50 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions would harness $300 billion annually in the U.S. alone. Diplomatic agreements with other countries to establish an across-the-board tax on greenhouse gas emissions would prevent industries from moving to countries that did not impose an emission tax.
I'd repeal the private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which allowed the aiders and abettors of massive corporate crime (e.g., accountants, lawyers, and bankers) to escape civil liability. I'd also rein in excessive executive pay: shareholder authorization should be required for top executive compensation packages (the notorious "Golden Parachute"--Ed.) at each annual shareholder meeting.
I would impose a Securities Speculation Tax (corporate buying and selling blocks of derivatives to profit from rapid fluctuations in price). Just as poor and moderate income people pay taxes when they gamble at a casino or buy a state lottery ticket, a financial transactions tax would simply be applying a comparable tax to gambling in financial markets."
There you have it, folks. Do you most agree with person A, B, or C--or D, none of the above? What questions would you raise and to whom?
I'm reasonably sure it's the same everywhere else, even if that statement has to be whispered for fear of "repercussions". Human beings are thinking creatures, and all thinking creatures have opinions.
Just for fun, let's all go to a virtual pub here at Orble and have a good old-fashioned opinion poll. I'll buy the first round.
Standing in front of us are three people who claim to have solutions to the current financial crises in the U.S. We cannot see their faces, determine their gender, or know their political affiliation.
I'm going to present a statement from each person. If you would, please indicate in your comment whether you agree most with person A, B, or C; if you don't agree with any of the statements, please indicate D (none of the above) in your comment and tell us why.
I'm looking for opinions from all people, not just Americans.
For those who are unfamiliar with the current U.S. money situation, this sentence pretty much sums it up: "We're broke/heavily in debt/screwed."
The Question: What steps would you take as U.S. president toward balancing our budget and shoring up our failing economy?
CANDIDATE A: "I would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.
I'd minimize expensive mandates - such as those for health insurance and pro-union initiatives like card check. (Card check is a method of organizing employees into a labor union in which employers enter into an agreement to recognize the unionization of its employees if a majority of employees in a bargaining unit sign authorization forms, or "cards".-Ed.)
I'd lower the corporate tax rate.
I'd also recommend that people save for their retirement and not count on Social Security anymore (even though you always have and will continue to pay into it--Ed.) I will fix the Social Security problem if elected."
CANDIDATE B: I would provide $50 billion to jumpstart the Economy and prevent 1 Million Americans from losing their jobs.
I would simplify tax filings for middle-income Americans so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. I will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. My proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees.
I will create a new tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.
Companies should not get billions of dollars in tax deductions for moving their operations overseas. I will ensure that public contracts are awarded to companies that are committed to American workers. "
CANDIDATE C: " I would initiate a carbon (greenhouse gas) tax. An initial price of $50 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions would harness $300 billion annually in the U.S. alone. Diplomatic agreements with other countries to establish an across-the-board tax on greenhouse gas emissions would prevent industries from moving to countries that did not impose an emission tax.
I'd repeal the private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which allowed the aiders and abettors of massive corporate crime (e.g., accountants, lawyers, and bankers) to escape civil liability. I'd also rein in excessive executive pay: shareholder authorization should be required for top executive compensation packages (the notorious "Golden Parachute"--Ed.) at each annual shareholder meeting.
I would impose a Securities Speculation Tax (corporate buying and selling blocks of derivatives to profit from rapid fluctuations in price). Just as poor and moderate income people pay taxes when they gamble at a casino or buy a state lottery ticket, a financial transactions tax would simply be applying a comparable tax to gambling in financial markets."
There you have it, folks. Do you most agree with person A, B, or C--or D, none of the above? What questions would you raise and to whom?
Potter in a Harry
Oh come on. You know I'd pick D.
America only has a financial [and ego] crisis, because a group of pilgrims protesting against Protestantism itself made their way out to your country, and set a trend for everyone to protest against anything that smacked of the truth.
America's crisis is spiritual. It will never be remedied by financial measures. All financial remedies will produce is another Bill Gates who goes off and lives in a Gatsby styled mansion.
Why do you think there more denominations of Christians [in name only] in the US than in any other part of the world?
It's because the founding fathers of Christianity in the US were protesters against anyone who disagreed with them.
That is the essence of Protestantism. Full stop. Amen & Alleluia to madmen and monks like me.
Well it is a debate forum. You are meant to stir the pot aren't you?
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
After careful deliberation I am going with E.
Sorry I meant D.
You see the moral I have is that a booming USA economy does not translate to roll on benefits to the OZ economy. Chinese gold is the same colour as US gold. We dig it out of the ground and sell it to who ever wants it.
This is Australia. The quarry to the world.
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Baseball Slate
Pro Sports Wrap
Blogging in America
Reviews R Us
Anyone who pays U.S. taxes knows how ridiculous all the rules and by-laws in the tax books are. Actually - most don't because they outsource it to a company like Jackson-Hewitt or H&R Block because they have no clue how to do their own taxes because of the laws.
Also those 10 million Americans that would wind up paying $0 in taxes include many of those American living below the "poverty line." In a country widely regarded (by many, not all I know) as the greatest country in the world why should so many be BELOW the poverty line?
As for the stoppage of rewarding companies for moving to other countries just so they can avoid regulations and normal pay scales should be every candidates view. Why pay bonuses for taking their business across the borders to make your business more profitable?
The $50 billion infused into the economy is a mere drop in the pan in comparison to bailing out people and companies that put into action bad, even fraudulent practices with $700 billion (plus $500 billion previously sent to bailout the first three that needed help.) IT will be a shame if that $700 b gets passed without any of it going to normal people who are in foreclosure due to the companies that are getting bailed out, and their practices.
-----------
Candidate C
Is definitely the better second option. Those idea are all great ones too, and should be implemented on some scale by any of the candidates.
Let's put C into an important position within the cabinet of Candidate B and have them all work toward the same principles and get the important things done.
--------
Candidate A -
We lost 2,999 (plus 24 others missing and presumed dead) on September 11th, 2001. Not just Americans, people from 90 different countries.
Candidate A claiming victory when the death toll in the war in Iraq alone is 4,171 for unseating a guy who had nothing to do with 9/11 - a guy we (we being the Reagan - First Bush administration) helped build up because we needed him to keep Iran busy. . . is just ridiculous. How is losing as many, plus an additional 1,148 lives (that is just American lives, not including all the coalition forces lives) a victory in any sort?
Then lets let the rich corporations keep more of their money while the rest of the country gets poorer.
Let's privatize Social Security and let Americans gamble away their SS savings in the stock market that just went bust. Great idea!
OK, I have rambled on way too much I am sure. This comment is longer than many posts. lol
Armenta is probably regretting letting me know about this post. Thanks for letting me know though!
Gene
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
i dont know why the little people in your country put up with billionaires playing monopoly, and essentially gambling with, their lives and livelihoods
three things you need
1. transparency
you guys avoid regulations in business, banking, trading and even in the media in some misguided hope that it makes you more "free" . . . you need independant media, regulated broadcasting, and fixed rigid guidelines on borrowing money that applies to everyone including the rich
2. healthcare
you guys are wasting so much money (i think its 16% of your income) on having a system which only benefits insurance company CEOs . . . if you had an efficient and fair system the low and middle income people would have more disposable income to inject into housing and business
3. accountability
you need rock hard corporate laws that prosecute white collar crime properly . . . it should be impossible to make a personal fortune out of a business that you have run into the ground
moral: dont trust rich people just because they are rich!
Baseball Slate
Pro Sports Wrap
Blogging in America
Reviews R Us
The thing that gets me most about healthcare and health insurance here. . .
So many people DON'T have insurance - so they can't afford to go to the doctor. That is an understandable statement, ridiculous, but the reasoning is understandable.
What isn't understandable is - Many people that can manage to pay for healthcare insurance spend so much on the insurance that they CAN'T pay to go to the doctor even at a reduced rate because of their insurance.
That is ridiculous and totally not understandable.
I mean, what's the point of shelling out say $200 a month for insurance if it depletes your paycheck-to-paycheck budget to the point where you can barely afford to pay for your gas to get to work, nevermind to go in and find out what that nagging pain in you lower abdomen is.
Gene
Pop Culturist
Cheers
The BBC News network did a piece on how the Swedes recovered from their economic crash (I think it was in the 80s) which I thought was really interesting - they created a bank to buy up all the bad assets, thereby placing the pressure on the shareholders and not the general public. There was more to it, of course, and anyone interested should look it up. There seem to be many ways you can be creative in times of crisis.
Candidate A's rhetoric is laughable. I'd explain why but I need to go to bed asap... maybe tomorrow.
Great idea, btw.
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
Cibby-I wanted to keep this one short so the readers' attention wouldn't wander, so I just picked the horrendous economy issue. I'm in total agreement with you that all of a candidate's policies should be reviewed carefully before casting a vote. I wish we could have an election like my "virtual pub"--no faces, genders, affiliations visible, just the facts.
Gene-no regrets at all. I'm soliciting opinions from thoughtful people, and you gave me an excellent answer.
Morgan-healthcare is the other mammoth joke we have here in the U.S., it's true. I should post another with the same candidates' views of that as well.
MNG-that's true of 2 out of the 3..
PMC-I saw that BBC program as well. Very informative. Hopefully you'll come back and expound on your opinion of candidate A.
Now-if I were able to ask these people questions (and I am, in this virtual pub) I would:
-Ask candidate A what exactly would be considered a "win", when that was expected to happen, and how could that candidate be certain of "winning".
-Ask candidate B where all of that proposed money is to come from.
Plus I don't like the idea of ready-made tax returns at all. Does this mean that the IRS has access to our bank accounts? Sure sounds like it to me. There are plenty of tax filing programs that make filing easy-I'm not quite lazy enough to allow others access to my account just to save time.
-Ask candidate C what countries were to be included in the carbon tax proposal, and how they would be approached.
Also, would the securities exchange commission be in charge of enforcing the speculation tax, or would we have to create yet another government niche for that?
In my opinion, candidate B talks a good game but hasn't offered any concrete facts; sounds like lip service to the average joes. I really want to know where all of those billions are to come from.
So far, I like Gene's view: B and C working together.
Remember--this is only one issue you're addressing here and that is how to get our budget back on track.
Thanks all for your insightful and informative comments.
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
No, not bitter in any way shape or form.
I hope the US does dig it self out of this financial dip it has fallen into.
However they are just one economy in the world. Not the whole world economy. You have to forgive me for not going into cold sweats every time they have a recession.
60 years ago Australia's economy was tied to the UK and Europe. Now we are tied to Asia as it moves from village based economies to city based economies. They are resource hungry so we dig it out of the ground and sell it to them. In 30 years time I expect that Africa will be our new best friends. As long as we don't get another bunch of economic incompetents like we had in the early 70's then it we will be reasonably stable.
I am not in position to tell the USA how to balance its book because I do not have the books before me. Yet it seems odd that people are crying over the amount involved in these mortgage companies when they do not even blink at the Trillions spent in war funding.
Next I would have to work off guess work to say which economic plan would work the best.
Yet for best road based benefits you look at the basics: Food, shelter, clothing, education and health. Each one is big and expensive, so each one is controversial.
I think Home ownership creates a much more stable economy for a nation. Jobs are created when homes are being built.
In OZ we have medicare that cost me nothing when I go the doctor or hospital. The levy is 2% of my pay from memory up to a threshold.
Another driver of any economy in my opinion is the population. Declining populations - ie: aging populations shrink the tax pool. Growing populations of families increase the tax pool and creates jobs because they require goods and services.
So that is it.
Nothing is going to be solved overnight when the competing interests cannot agree on a direction.
Option D: Look for another customer for the OZ commodities.
Baseball Slate
Pro Sports Wrap
Blogging in America
Reviews R Us
However, the world economy is somewhat driven by the U.S. economy. Whatever happens on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) is then shadowed in the Asian markets. As you say the Australian market follows Asia's. Therefore Australia's market is definitely influenced by the NYSE.
I prepared a chart. (Yes, I really do put way too much research into my comments sometimes. lol)
As shown in my above chart, The Japan and Hong Kong markets pretty much perfectly shadows what the NYSE does. I almost got a European chart in there too, but it really wasn't in the equation of the discussion. However, I am pretty sure it would be rather interchangable with the three presented above.
All I am trying to say is - there really isn't a way to divide the World Economy into Euro, Asian, Australian, and U.S. because one is affected by the rest, and they all shadow one another. It is rare for them not to shadow one another. So, us (or U.S. whichever way you want to see those two letters) having a screwed up economy actually does effect everyone.
You know, using that logic - maybe we should bring in experts from outside of our own government to help us fix our current problem. I am sure someone has a better idea than "bailing out" companies with about $1.2 billion of taxpayer money, companies that are now currently under investigation by the F.B.I. to see if they are guilty of fraudulent practices. (Which I do feel to some extent they are guilty of - but that's a whole other rant.)
One final note on that $1.2 billion. . . They showed a statistic where that will cost EVERY American - including newborn babies for purposes of this average cost - about $3,000. Now since everyone 16 and under, and that is a lot of people, that cost is much higher for every adult American.
Gene
But the chances of an American voting for the best interests of the whole world not just the interests of their gated community is highly unlikely.
And even more unfortunate is the fact that those who do want change are too uneducated, poor, complacent or marginalised to act.
Baseball Slate
Pro Sports Wrap
Blogging in America
Reviews R Us
Now I do agree the U.S. voter turnout rate is horrible. It was 60.7% (about 122 million people) of all registered voters. I think i saw the number of registered voters that didn't vote set at 77 million.
If you do the math that is about 199 million people. The U.S. Census in 2006 (2 years after the election) said the U.S. population over 18 (voting age) was 225,746,457. That number should have obviously been a bit lower two years prior. So let's estimate it at about 15 million non-registered voters in the U.S.
Australia's population for 2008 is estimated at 21,370,800. I couldn't find the number over legal voting age, but that will be close enough to make my point (yes there is one.). The only reason there was a 95% voter turnout in the recent election is because it is the law to vote. It isn't optional.
However, of that 95% only about 70% of them support the fact that voting is mandatory. So point #1 is - If they were given the choice there is a good chance voter turnout wouldn't really be much higher than the U.S. rate. Also, a loophole in the 95% and the law itself is - a voter just needs to show up at the polling station and put a piece of paper into a ballot box to get their name checked off. That ballot can be left blank, or have Abe Lincoln's name written on it. It is a secret ballot. I am curious to know the exact breakdown of votes of that 95% claimed.
Also, that 5% that didn't turnout are simply contacted and asked why they weren't there. If they didn't have a good reason they are fined some amount. However, only about 1% are ever fined. I bet if that 25% that turned out but didn't like the mandatory vote law knew that they would have stayed home.
All I am trying to say is - if not mandatory the comparison would be about U.S. 60.7% vs. Australia 70%.
I do totally agree that 60.7% is a far, far cry from what it should be. Especially after the 2000 election results.
Gene who is done researching his comments for now.
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Much of the 5% who are being referred to have a legitimate excuse for not being able to vote.
Too old, too sick, Over seas, emergency duties.
votes number % swing
FORMAL 12,419,992 96.05 1.23
INFORMAL 510,822 3.95 -1.23
TOTAL 12,930,814 94.76 0.44
Less that 4% informal votes and informal votes down by 1.23% since the last federal election.
The % of voters up by .44% since last election.
Source: Australian Electoral Commission
Not that this has anything to do with the USA economy but it does look like Australians are far more interested in voting than Americans.
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
even though voting is compulsary in Australia, the penalty for failing to vote is only $20 so it isnt a really heavy handed incentive/deterrant
however, there is a tradition of people lodging "dummy" (purposely informal) votes if they truly do not care to be involved in the process but dont wanna waste twenty bucks . . . that could be six beers you know!
Baseball Slate
Pro Sports Wrap
Blogging in America
Reviews R Us
Oh, I totally agree that Australians are most likely more interested in getting out to vote. I do really think that sucks too. There are so many media campaigns trying to get people out to vote and it usually works a slight bit each time.
I do really think this election's numbers will be a noticeable amount higher than 2004. Better candidates, more crisis and important issues. Someone who might actually change some things.
Gene
Baseball Slate
Pro Sports Wrap
Blogging in America
Reviews R Us
I had no clue what the actual fine was.
I do still contend though if people could show up and place "dummy" votes here I bet the turnout percentage after a few times would become tradition and bump the percentage by about 20%. . . granted that statement in itself is also very sad, that I think 20% more people would come out to place a joke vote. lol
Gene