E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-19-2013, 03:32 PM   #21
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Once the Democrats have had their run, the pendulum will swing back the other way. Democrats will be seen as too far left and the Republicans as the better choice. Hasn't this happened before? Circa 1980s, before Reagan?

Last edited by MDydinanM; 03-19-2013 at 03:32 PM.
MDydinanM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 03:47 PM   #22
CollinsE90
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The bar
Posts: 340
My Ride: 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDydinanM View Post
Once the Democrats have had their run, the pendulum will swing back the other way. Democrats will be seen as too far left and the Republicans as the better choice. Hasn't this happened before? Circa 1980s, before Reagan?
This is a biased statement and can only be taken that way. Saying that republicans will do it right, especially after what the last Republican candidate did, is nothing more than a personal opinion. Both parties are flawed, mainly because their followers are completely oblivious to the constitution and economics.

Base your opinion off of facts, not conformity. The facts show that deregulation, and tax cuts when expenditures increased were pivotal in changing the marginal propensity to save, thus decreasing the money in the market.

Like I said before, cutting taxes is just a stupid way to get votes that does very little for the macro economy. Things like investing in technology and education are what benefit the macro economy. "No child left behind" did the exact opposite, and ruined our school system. To say otherwise is biased and unwilling to view it objectively.

This is coming from a born and raised Republican, that has since become more moderate once I studied Constitutional Law and Econ.
__________________
CollinsE90 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 03:59 PM   #23
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by CollinsE90 View Post
This is a biased statement ...

Base your opinion off of facts, not conformity...
.


Right, so that's why Carter lost to Reagan.

Last edited by MDydinanM; 03-19-2013 at 03:59 PM.
MDydinanM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 03:59 PM   #24
CollinsE90
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The bar
Posts: 340
My Ride: 330i
I would love to see someone point out 5 things that the GOP stands for, that would benefit the country as a whole. Just 5.

Personally, a lot of their social standings I agree with but their business sense is complete BS. Cut taxes and the economy is all better, talk about naive. Well Bush cut a lot of taxes, didn't do very much, did it?
__________________
CollinsE90 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 04:01 PM   #25
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by CollinsE90 View Post
I would love to see someone point out 5 things that the GOP stands for, that would benefit the country as a whole. Just 5.

Personally, a lot of their social standings I agree with but their business sense is complete BS. Cut taxes and the economy is all better, talk about naive. Well Bush cut a lot of taxes, didn't do very much, did it?
You so silly. I'm not for either party. However, I'm a little more left leaning during this past election since I haven't been impressed with the GOP...at...all.

I'm simply pointing out that things go back and forth in this country. That's a FACT. No need to go bumbling on against the GOP when I too am not a fan of them either.

Last edited by MDydinanM; 03-19-2013 at 04:03 PM.
MDydinanM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 04:01 PM   #26
CollinsE90
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The bar
Posts: 340
My Ride: 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDydinanM View Post
Right, so that's why Carter lost to Reagan.
Carter lost to Reagan because he was a terrible candidate. He was an amazing person, had awesome values, and truly cared about our country. Unfortunately, he knew nothing about business. He just wasn't the entire package. His foreign policy was flawed, hence the crisis, and that also had a big influence on the election, since they wouldn't hand back the people until he was out of office. Reagan just walked in the door at the right time.
__________________
CollinsE90 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 04:05 PM   #27
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by CollinsE90 View Post
Carter lost to Reagan because he was a terrible candidate. He was an amazing person, had awesome values, and truly cared about our country. Unfortunately, he knew nothing about business. He just wasn't the entire package. His foreign policy was flawed, hence the crisis, and that also had a big influence on the election, since they wouldn't hand back the people until he was out of office. Reagan just walked in the door at the right time.
Yes I agree, there is that.
MDydinanM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 04:11 PM   #28
CollinsE90
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The bar
Posts: 340
My Ride: 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDydinanM View Post
You so silly. I'm not for either party. However, I'm a little more left leaning during this past election since I haven't been impressed with the GOP...at...all.

I'm simply pointing out that things go back and forth in this country. That's a FACT. No need to go bumbling on against the GOP when I too am not a fan of them either.
That was mainly for the entire thread. My bad.
__________________
CollinsE90 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 04:13 PM   #29
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by CollinsE90 View Post
That was mainly for the entire thread. My bad.
no worries
MDydinanM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 05:01 PM   #30
Zell
Registered User
 
Zell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Such City
Posts: 5,643
My Ride: '02 Dogemobile Shibe
Quote:
Originally Posted by CollinsE90 View Post
This is a biased statement and can only be taken that way. Saying that republicans will do it right, especially after what the last Republican candidate did, is nothing more than a personal opinion. Both parties are flawed, mainly because their followers are completely oblivious to the constitution and economics.

Base your opinion off of facts, not conformity. The facts show that deregulation, and tax cuts when expenditures increased were pivotal in changing the marginal propensity to save, thus decreasing the money in the market.

Like I said before, cutting taxes is just a stupid way to get votes that does very little for the macro economy. Things like investing in technology and education are what benefit the macro economy. "No child left behind" did the exact opposite, and ruined our school system. To say otherwise is biased and unwilling to view it objectively.

This is coming from a born and raised Republican, that has since become more moderate once I studied Constitutional Law and Econ.
I agree with most things the GOP talks about monetary-wise, but social, scientific, and "morality" wise, those people are ****ing bonkers. They're all religious, and that's the problem.

GOP:

- Wants less government
- Introduces bills to oppose same-sex marriage.
- Has no logical argument. Just says "It's offensive to my religion."

I also saw a senator speak saying that global warming couldn't happen because God said after the flood, he wouldn't do something like that again
__________________

Last edited by Zell; 03-19-2013 at 05:03 PM.
Zell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 05:19 PM   #31
CollinsE90
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The bar
Posts: 340
My Ride: 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zell View Post
I agree with most things the GOP talks about monetary-wise, but social, scientific, and "morality" wise, those people are ****ing bonkers. They're all religious, and that's the problem.

GOP:

- Wants less government
- Introduces bills to oppose same-sex marriage.
- Has no logical argument. Just says "It's offensive to my religion."

I also saw a senator speak saying that global warming couldn't happen because God said after the flood, he wouldn't do something like that again
I take it back, I don't agree with most of the GOP social issues. I do agree with less government, less gun control, stuff like that.

Their problem is they only care about themselves, and their followers. Not the country as a whole. The second any candidate says they want to help the entire country, they're socialists. My problem with that is, how can one say our country is the best country to live in, but only want to help certain people?

The usual 'we need to stop paying out to lazy people, when we do that, they'll strive for better" argument is so flawed it's ridiculous. Those "lazy people" account for a vast amount of our consumption. Without consumption, we won't survive.

GOP wants lazy people to stop popping out kids, but they won't back a healthcare plan to help prevent pregnancy by providing free birth control

I hate lazy people, but I've learned that they do more good than we pay them for the economy. Without customers, businesses don't make money.
__________________

Last edited by CollinsE90; 03-19-2013 at 05:20 PM.
CollinsE90 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 05:56 PM   #32
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by CollinsE90 View Post

GOP wants lazy people to stop popping out kids, but they won't back a healthcare plan to help prevent pregnancy by providing free birth control
Listen to me and listen to me good, no one is having kids because they can't access birth control. People are having kids because no one likes using condoms and people are careless.

Birth control is free/close to free. $10/month for the pill, free condoms at clinics, pulling out always free. Don't push such a silly argument.

Also, every politician from every corner of the country only cares about themselves and their followers. You're operating with some awfully rose-colored spectacles on.
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin

Last edited by Act of God; 03-19-2013 at 05:57 PM.
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 06:10 PM   #33
bimmerfan08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 4,890
My Ride: Phoenix Yellow M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by CollinsE90 View Post
I take it back, I don't agree with most of the GOP social issues. I do agree with less government, less gun control, stuff like that.

Their problem is they only care about themselves, and their followers. Not the country as a whole. The second any candidate says they want to help the entire country, they're socialists. My problem with that is, how can one say our country is the best country to live in, but only want to help certain people?

The usual 'we need to stop paying out to lazy people, when we do that, they'll strive for better" argument is so flawed it's ridiculous. Those "lazy people" account for a vast amount of our consumption. Without consumption, we won't survive.

GOP wants lazy people to stop popping out kids, but they won't back a healthcare plan to help prevent pregnancy by providing free birth control

I hate lazy people, but I've learned that they do more good than we pay them for the economy. Without customers, businesses don't make money.
This is where we differ. People will make excuses left and right to make themselves "comfy" depending on their situations. I don't care what you call it, walk a straight line and work just as hard as your fellow Americans. It's called personal responsibility and when everyone contributes, that's fair and just. I believe people should not feel ashamed to call out the lazy and noncontributing. After all if the lazy and unwilling can cry out that their situation is unjust and unfair, why can't the opposition do the same?

I don't care if you are white, black, yellow, purple, gay, straight, woman, man, transgender, etc. If you have great work ethic and you work wholeheartedly, I can respect that. It shows determination, strength, willingness to do what is right...willingness to really help your fellow citizens out and not just rely on them.

Democrats only care about themselves and their followers as well. To say the opposite is foolish.
__________________
"Economics cannot answer such normative or prescriptive questions about how much of our market incomes, if any, should be transferred to poor families. This is a political question that can only be answered at the ballot box, or in some countries, at the point of a gun."
bimmerfan08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 06:13 PM   #34
CollinsE90
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The bar
Posts: 340
My Ride: 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
Listen to me and listen to me good, no one is having kids because they can't access birth control. People are having kids because no one likes using condoms and people are careless.

Birth control is free/close to free. $10/month for the pill, free condoms at clinics, pulling out always free. Don't push such a silly argument.

Also, every politician from every corner of the country only cares about themselves and their followers. You're operating with some awfully rose-colored spectacles on.
I disagree, and agree. I wasn't singling out a politician because politicians are never what they seem, I was singling out a party. GOP constantly refuses to adhere to any social change, regardless of scientific evidence. The Republican party typically doesn't change, but they've at least changed some things (e.g. going green). Democrats aren't innocent either, they need to stop pushing for things that won't happen (gun control), but they understand that economics is much more difficult than cutting taxes. No political party should have an absolute opinion, nor should any party use religion as an influence for their political agenda. We allow others to practice other religions as long as it doesn't bring danger to the country, so why would we use ONE religion to base our agenda off of?

No party has an absolute way to helping our country, and no party should act like it. It should be a cumulative effort, but good luck with that.
__________________
CollinsE90 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 06:18 PM   #35
CollinsE90
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The bar
Posts: 340
My Ride: 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerfan08 View Post
This is where we differ. People will make excuses left and right to make themselves "comfy" depending on their situations. I don't care what you call it, walk a straight line and work just as hard as your fellow Americans. It's called personal responsibility and when everyone contributes, that's fair and just. I believe people should not feel ashamed to call out the lazy and noncontributing. After all if the lazy and unwilling can cry out that their situation is unjust and unfair, why can't the opposition do the same?

I don't care if you are white, black, yellow, purple, gay, straight, woman, man, transgender, etc. If you have great work ethic and you work wholeheartedly, I can respect that. It shows determination, strength, willingness to do what is right...willingness to really help your fellow citizens out and not just rely on them.

Democrats only care about themselves and their followers as well. To say the opposite is foolish.
People can do what they want when voicing an opinion, but not liking it and it not working are two totally different things.

If we took every single "lazy" person and put them on an island. The economy would TANK, and all of the rich would just continue being smart and keeping their money. There is no economy without the lower and middle class, period. We are the highest consuming country, the only way to succeed another way is mass produce and export (China). Either we need to continue to consume at the highest possible percentage, or stop consuming all together and live a simple life. Anything in the middle won't work.
__________________
CollinsE90 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 06:23 PM   #36
bimmerfan08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 4,890
My Ride: Phoenix Yellow M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by CollinsE90 View Post
People can do what they want when voicing an opinion, but not liking it and it not working are two totally different things.

If we took every single "lazy" person and put them on an island. The economy would TANK, and all of the rich would just continue being smart and keeping their money. There is no economy without the lower and middle class, period. We are the highest consuming country, the only way to succeed another way is mass produce and export (China). Either we need to continue to consume at the highest possible percentage, or stop consuming all together and live a simple life. Anything in the middle won't work.
Where do you get that logic? Are you saying all lower and middle class Americans are lazy?

I don't consider myself lazy. I work and pay taxes just like anyone with a legal job.

There are the few and I doubt they would tank the economy if removed/picked up employment.
__________________
"Economics cannot answer such normative or prescriptive questions about how much of our market incomes, if any, should be transferred to poor families. This is a political question that can only be answered at the ballot box, or in some countries, at the point of a gun."

Last edited by bimmerfan08; 03-19-2013 at 06:25 PM.
bimmerfan08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 06:30 PM   #37
CollinsE90
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The bar
Posts: 340
My Ride: 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerfan08 View Post
Where do you get that logic? Are you saying all lower and middle class Americans are lazy?

I don't consider myself lazy.

There are the few and I doubt they would tank the economy if removed/picked up employment.
That logic is called marginal propensity to consume. Those with more money have lower MPC, because they save more. Those with less available funds have less ability to save. The higher the MPC, the more impact a monetary policy has. We were over 1 during the last recession, which causes negative effects. We're at about 0.9 now.

1/1-b(MPC) is the formula for multiplying

If b is 1, it becomes 1/1-1 which equals 0

If 0.9, it becomes 10

If 0.5( saves 50%) it is 1/1-.5 or 1/.5 which is 2.

So throw $1000 in extra government spending(to be simple), the 0.9 would boost production by 10,000, and if our country's MPC was 0.5, it'd boost by 2000.

So, if you want government policy to actually do something, you have to make sure those with highest MPC aren't struggling.

Hence why we are currently doing micro Econ to get the ball rolling (eg Feds lowering interest rates) to get consumption back up before macro policies will come in.
__________________

Last edited by CollinsE90; 03-19-2013 at 06:36 PM.
CollinsE90 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 06:55 PM   #38
bimmerfan08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 4,890
My Ride: Phoenix Yellow M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by CollinsE90 View Post
That logic is called marginal propensity to consume. Those with more money have lower MPC, because they save more. Those with less available funds have less ability to save. The higher the MPC, the more impact a monetary policy has. We were over 1 during the last recession, which causes negative effects. We're at about 0.9 now.

1/1-b(MPC) is the formula for multiplying

If b is 1, it becomes 1/1-1 which equals 0

If 0.9, it becomes 10

If 0.5( saves 50%) it is 1/1-.5 or 1/.5 which is 2.

So throw $1000 in extra government spending(to be simple), the 0.9 would boost production by 10,000, and if our country's MPC was 0.5, it'd boost by 2000.

So, if you want government policy to actually do something, you have to make sure those with highest MPC aren't struggling.

Hence why we are currently doing micro Econ to get the ball rolling (eg Feds lowering interest rates) to get consumption back up before macro policies will come in.
I'm not disagreeing with the function.

But let's put things into perspective. Feel free to chime in and correct any bit of this order that does not seem logical.

In order for the government to spend, it must collect revenue. Revenue in the form of taxes from companies and individuals. In order to decrease MPC, the government would have collect more revenue from tax paying sources to spend on those who are contributing less to lower their MPC and give them more purchasing/saving power. Meanwhile, the MPC of those who contribute and pay taxes and make a decent income are seeing it increase. Seems like you are justifying a level playing field and redistribution of wealth...

What is the percentage of those actually struggling? I agree we are a country of consumables. It's unfortunate that enough people aren't savers and wise with their finances.
__________________
"Economics cannot answer such normative or prescriptive questions about how much of our market incomes, if any, should be transferred to poor families. This is a political question that can only be answered at the ballot box, or in some countries, at the point of a gun."

Last edited by bimmerfan08; 03-19-2013 at 06:55 PM.
bimmerfan08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 07:17 PM   #39
CollinsE90
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The bar
Posts: 340
My Ride: 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerfan08 View Post
I'm not disagreeing with the function.

But let's put things into perspective. Feel free to chime in and correct any bit of this order that does not seem logical.

In order for the government to spend, it must collect revenue. Revenue in the form of taxes from companies and individuals. In order to decrease MPC, the government would have collect more revenue from tax paying sources to spend on those who are contributing less to lower their MPC and give them more purchasing/saving power. Meanwhile, the MPC of those who contribute and pay taxes and make a decent income are seeing it increase. Seems like you are justifying a level playing field and redistribution of wealth...

What is the percentage of those actually struggling? I agree we are a country of consumables. It's unfortunate that enough people aren't savers and wise with their finances.
You're somewhat correct. But, we don't want the people with less money to lower their MPC, we want it high, we just want them to have the ability to consume. Revenue doesn't just come from income tax from the employer or employee. If unemployment is high, MPC drops, and the economy is struggling, income tax revenue from both parties' will also suffer.

I'm not advocating for wealth redistribution, I'm advocating against the "let them suffer" mind set. If the poor suffer, the rich suffer. Investments in technology and education warrants more job creation, that provides more money for the bottom classes to spend, as well as more income tax revenue, than just tax revenue will ever do for the macro economy.

Also, giving money to the poor almost guarantees that money to be spent in our economy, rather than corporate tax breaks that end up increasing the money in the stockholders' wallet. So welfare can be seen as monetary policy to increase consumption. I just believe it should be difficult to obtain welfare, which it actually is compared to a couple decades ago.


Basically, I'm advocating for both incentive for corporations, and to make sure the bottom class doesn't suffer at the same time. Right now we're in a situation that calls for other options, because we aren't at markt equilibrium. Once there, then we change some things to benefit both sides.
__________________

Last edited by CollinsE90; 03-19-2013 at 11:17 PM.
CollinsE90 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 07:53 PM   #40
phrozen06
NA V8
 
phrozen06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 39°27'33"N 77°58'04"W
Posts: 7,513
My Ride: E46, E92 M3, R32 VW
Send a message via Yahoo to phrozen06


Huntsman and Paul were the only ones who knew what the hell they were doing. I don't know what the rest were doing up there
__________________

S65: 4.0 Liter, V8, 414 hp @8,300 rpm, 295 lb/ft @3900 rpm, 445 lb, DOHC, 12:1 C/R, crankshaft 44 lb, wet sump.
2 oil pumps,double vanos variable valve timing, EMS: MSS60, 8 electronically controlled individual throttle butterflies.
4 valves per cylinder, cracked trapezoidal connecting rods, brake energy regeneration. Ion-flow combustion monitoring.


Last edited by phrozen06; 03-19-2013 at 07:54 PM.
phrozen06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use