The Dominator

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a40964/obama-executive-action-guns/

That sounds terrible.

Extensive background checks, close the gun show loopholes, and push to invest more in mental health? I dig it, Pres.

Still very happy with my upgrade from 8.1 to 10 (updated a few months ago). Not a single issue from the update even with a NVIDIA graphics card (when upgrading from 8.0 to 8.1 they didn't have the proper drivers so I ended up with a black screen, obviously my fault for not checking if the card was ready to upgrade). Everything is smooth and the layout makes sense again

Yeah I think we have established some solid common ground. Maybe I take more of an issue with the term itself than what the term is attempting to explain. I see "job creation" as fulfilling a gap in a new or existing job market whether it's seen or unforeseen. The term sounds too hocus pocus to me. Magic wands and all. I don't value "job creators" as being anything special because I believe they just beat their competitors and the market to the punch. I feel like innovations and new job opportunities that come with them are progressive. Look at smartphones. Steve might have beaten others to the punch, but the progression in technology (and the newfound jobs that come with that technological demand) was inevitable in my mind.

Neo, I randomly stumbled across this Ted Talk video about job creation. He goes a little further than I do, but shares the same fundamental view that consumers create jobs via demand.

As long as it isn't my ice cream...

52% liberal, 48% conservative. Probably right. I wonder how presidential candidates would do on this...

... How did the Bills lose to both of these teams???

Yeah after rooting for the low percentage nominees for a few months now, I've given up on expecting a drastic turnaround. I still have an eye on Rubio, but I don't particularly love him. He's just an option that actually has a shot. I think my admiration for Sanders has more to do with what he stands for as a candidate rather than his actual plans. I don't know anyone who can say he's a bad person. Misguided in some of his wishes? Sure, but his heart is in the right place. The first words that come to my mind in regards to Paul is individual liberty. That's a good thing. I don't know, I'm trying to stay level headed until the primaries are over since I won't join either party. Its not my place to b & moan about primary elections when I'm not participating in them. I just hope the parties give me a hard decision for the right reasons

Well as it stands right now (Trump or Cruz vs Clinton) I'm voting Independent, regardless of who's running independent (unless that's Trump of course). I'll consider it a vote of a lack of confidence in the system Edit: side note since you mentioned him, Paul stood out to me in the last debate. When given a chance to talk, he seemed very reasonable and measured in his arguments and lines of thinking. I wish he was given more of a chance to speak to the masses in those debates.

Just read his wiki page (I know, I know)... Very intriguing to me. Sounds like someone I would love to have a sit down chat with. Why wouldn't a candidate like him work? Open question to everyone of course. Would he not have enough supporters? Would the lack of supporters be because the 2 party system prevents someone like him from receiving fair opportunity? Are there not enough voters who have opinions that cross the party line?

Without a doubt I will be inheriting this tradition when I have a child. What an excellent idea!

I fully agree with this post. Slippery slope and all. The intricacies in the code only serve to help those who are better off. The better off you are, the more you are able to manipulate the code to your favor, which leads to a greater gap in wealth. This isn't what the code was made to do, yet today's reality shows us that it is beneficial for the wealthiest to hire someone who can manipulate the code to their favor, which isn't financially possible for the rest of the civilians. Semi- off topic... I'm struggling in finding a candidate I can fully get behind. I was at my friend's house 2 nights ago. His parents asked me if it came down to Hillary vs Donald who I would vote for. I said I would vote independent. Then they asked if the Republican nomination came down to Carson vs Cruz who would I prefer. I painfully chose Cruz. They asked me who my favorite candidate was, I said Sanders because his heart seems to be in the right place even if I disagree with some of his main campaign points (minimum wage, free college) although Rubio is still interesting to me. It's much easier for me to list off candidates I dislike. So what I'm trying to get at is... who the hell is fiscally conservative yet socially liberal?? I want to avoid deficit spending, reduce gov't spending (including defense spending), reduce the national debt, maintain free trade, although taxes don't bother me as much if the money is being used responsibly and efficiently (like putting it towards the $18 trillion in debt...). I want individual liberty. I want same sex marriage (It's 2015. Who gives a flying who other people choose to marry? Marry your dog for all I care, it doesn't effect me.). If abortion is used correctly, then allow abortion. It's not up to me what you do with your body (and for those who are more religious, then let God deal with those who participate in abortion. You aren't God, who are you to tell people how to live their lives? Let them pay for it in the afterlife if you so choose to believe in that. There are also atheist citizens who shouldn't be forced to live under ideologies they don't follow or believe in.) Gun control? I don't know. Improve the background check process. Remove the loopholes. I'm sure the responsible gun owners won't mind waiting a little while longer for their gun if it means less shootings that give responsible gun owners a bad name. Someone find me that candidate and I will donate to their campaign immediately. Sorry in advance for this rant. One of those nights where politics were brought up and I fell back into my "politics is hopeless and all of our insightful discussions are for nothing" mindset. Alcohol didn't help either.

Same. Actually this is the process I go through when deciding who I could envision voting for. Process of elimination.

Rohrbach Vanilla Porter is the beer of choice today. Cheers! :beer:

Personal computing. While, yes, his advances in computing were unforeseen, all inventions and innovations must make it through the vetting process known as consumer demand. Everything that is presented to the market either passes or fails. If it passes with flying colors and aces the test (Apple computers) then the market will say "We need x,000,000 computers. Hire enough people and make them for the general population or someone else will." If it passes with a C, then the market will say "We need x,000 of this product for your niche market. Hire enough people to make that amount or someone else will." If it fails, then nothing is made and no jobs are needed. Yes, there are also the situations where the company intentionally limits the supply side of the equation to increase demand, but the market cap is determined by the market. In general, consumers determine how many jobs are needed to fulfill their needs. Apple is at the will of the consumer, not vice versa.

To the first bold line... Steve was at the mercy of the people. The demand creates the supply even if the demand isn't realized yet. Sure, bring your idea to the market and if it sticks, then you need to adjust your company profile to the market you are serving. If he hired less workers than the market needed, someone else would step in and fill that void. My point here again: supply is meaningless unless demand determines it's meaningful. Let's say I'm Steve Jobs. I would never say "I created x number of jobs." Steve didn't wave a magic wand. Demand determined how many jobs were needed to fulfill the wants and needs of the market. Tomorrow, I can't start a company and hire 60 workers unless they are all working towards fulfilling a gap in the market. And even if I did fulfill that gap, it wouldn't be because I "created jobs." It would be from consumers making my product/service significant. If I didn't fulfill their needs, someone else will. It's inevitable. Maybe I'm turning this into the chicken and the egg, but I feel as though jobs can't be "created" unless the market says so, therefore no one can be a "job creator" because the actual "job creator" is the consumer. Hopefully I'm not just talking in circles... To the second bold line, I agree. Dollars lead to productive activity no matter which way they are used (actively or passively)

Trust me, I don't even believe in the bold term. It's made up. Imaginary. No one, no matter how much money they have, creates jobs. Jobs are made when there is an opening in the free market that determines a job needs to be done. It's all supply and demand. If HP is selling laptops at a historic rate and can't keep up with demand, they will hire enough jobs to meet that demand. If the demand isn't there, then the job isn't there. This is true across the entire free market I also feel uneasy about putting all the blame on one party, so I will refrain from doing so. But I agree, the investing this country involves itself in doesn't tend to be ideal. More money should be directed towards education and infrastructure (Note: more money should be directed doesn't necessarily mean more money should be given to the gov't, it should be distributed more properly. I don't know if the Fed is able to do so properly).

Excellent. This I can get behind. Right. This is partially why I brought this up on here. "Large, profitable U.S. corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of 12.6% in 2010, the Government Accountability Office said Monday. The federal corporate tax rate stands at 35%, and jumps to 39.2% when state rates are taken into account." Which brought me to the ideology behind a flat tax rate. Everyone pays their x%, with lower income citizens effectively paying less because they hold a smaller piece of the pie (and of course vise versa for higher income earners) with no loopholes. This philosophy intrigued me, yet everything I could find online warned about finding a golden rate that worked for lower and higher earners (basically it was a wild goose chase when looking at practicalities). So I wanted to see 1. If you felt that everyone SHOULD (philosophy) be taxed at the same rate and 2. If everyone COULD (practicality) be taxed at the same rate.

I want to ask a general question on economics that is very much related to the race, but isn't directed at any candidate. Instead, I would like to gather some beliefs in regards to taxes in the U.S. How should the U.S. handle tax rates? I think everyone in this thread wishes that loopholes were closed (while corporate tax rates are at 39.2%, the effective rate was 12.6% as of 2010) as they make the numbers a little cloudy. So we will assume for this discussion that all loopholes are closed. In any event, should the U.S. have a marginal tax schedule or a flat rate? I want to break this question down into two subcategories: philosophy and reality. Does one tax set-up make more philosophical sense? In reality, is it feasible and does it work as imagined? Do the numbers make sense? I thank you in advance for the replies and thoughts

I read somewhere online that the HRC campaign will begin to feature Bill heavily once we ring in the new year. I don't have any personal experiences with him as President (I was too young) but my parents have told me that they have never had it better than when Bill was President. When your parents tell you that, it surely influences you in some way.

Third glass of Black Velvet toasted caramel tonight... Sorry guys, not enough hair on my chest yet for straight unflavored whiskey

Same. Measured and direct to the problem

I like Hillary's plan to make sure the state also has skin in the game in regards to education investment. That's important to notify. I also don't think "the wealthy" should cover everyone's paid family leave as she suggests...