Ok, Obamites... lets start it up

[01WhiteCobra]

I'm finally ready to sit down and discuss the election.

We'll start with the Obama "Tax Cut" and I need a few questions answered:

1. Obama promised to cut taxes on 95% of American Workers. The problem I have with this statement is it isn't possble. Why? Because more than 30% pay NOTHING in income tax. How is it possible to cut 95% of American Workers taxes when 30% pay nothing? Bad math. Is Obama confusing tax cuts with tax credits? I don't know.

2. "The soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." Who said that? Reagan? No Kennedy did. Kennedy cut marginal tax rates by 22% (reducing the top marginal tax rate from 90% to 70% Still absurd). Reagan cut the top marginal tax rate by 60% (70% to 28%). The "unfair" pro-rich Bush tax cuts cut the top marginal rate by 7.5%.

Are you saying Kennedy was wrong? When Kennedy did it it was Camelot. When Reagan did it it was trickledown. When Bush did it it was unfair and pro-rich.

3. Obama is now saying he may have to defer some spending till later. Along with waiting to get rid of Bush's tax cuts because of the poor economy. I'm confused. If these two things are good things for the economy why not implement them post-haste?

4. I think McCain screwed up by saying the dickhead Jeremiah Wright was off-limits. Here is someone he mentions in his book. Here is some he named a book after about his sermon. Here is someone that compared Hiroshima to Sharpesville (don't know about Sharpesville, look it up.) Here is someone that Obama met with prior to joining his church yet after the meeting joined his church. McCain should have been all over it. What do you think of this relationship with an absolute moron?

Those are the first four questions I have. I have about 30 bajillion more.

[Slowhand]

There are going to be crickets in here for a while. All they know is "Change".

[FreightTrain]

LOL I got a good one that happend today. I was in line at the bank and an African American Woman was in front of me. She goes up to the teller and says I need to cash a check. The teller looks at the back of the check and says Maam which account number is yours. Turns out there were two different account numbers written on the back of the check. The lady says neither one of the account numbers are hers and that the check was signed over to someone else and then her. :rolleyes: The teller asked the lady for her account number and the lady claimed she didn't know it. The teller than asked the lady for her social security number which the lady claimed she didn't feel comfortable giving that to the teller. Next the African American Woman yells at the teller accusing her of being rude and racists and that she was going to take her business else where. As the lady truned around to leave she looked me dead in the eye and I told her to be sure and vote for Obama because he's going to take care of her. She told me to fuck off and the 3 customers behind me started laughing so hard they were crying. :)

[flashstang04]

Subscribing....


I had a conversation like this today... I asked a girl who she was voting for, of course she says Obama, and it went like this:


Me: "Oh great, I am glad to hear you are voting....which of Obama's views catches your ear the most....

Her: "uhhhhhh, well I can't think of anything right now...."


Me: "Oh, so you are voting without knowing why?" (innocently)


Her: (gives me the bird and goes her way)


I fear this is most common, and like I have said before....unfortunately, ignorance has voting power....

[5.0_CJ]

expect quick two liner from gpamp in the forum of an insult, followed by a mccain jab.

[Dim Mak]

LOL I got a good one that happend today. I was in line at the bank and an African American Woman was in front of me. She goes up to the teller and says I need to cash a check. The teller looks at the back of the check and says Maam which account number is yours. Turns out there were two different account numbers written on the back of the check. The lady says neither one of the account numbers are hers and that the check was signed over to someone else and then her. :rolleyes: The teller asked the lady for her account number and the lady claimed she didn't know it. The teller than asked the lady for her social security number which the lady claimed she didn't feel comfortable giving that to the teller. Next the African American Woman yells at the teller accusing her of being rude and racists and that she was going to take her business else where. As the lady truned around to leave she looked me dead in the eye and I told her to be sure and vote for Obama because he's going to take care of her. She told me to fuck off and the 3 customers behind me started laughing so hard they were crying. :)


Awesome! :cool:

[mopar63]

Subscribing....
I had a conversation like this today... I asked a girl who she was voting for, of course she says Obama, and it went like this:

Me: "Oh great, I am glad to hear you are voting....which of Obama's views catches your ear the most....



I had this same conversation with my next-door neighbor who is a unemployed mid 50's bitter white divorcee living in a house her mother is paying for.
She Volunteers for Obama (but does not have a job / can't hold a job).

She was having a garage sale and had 3 of her friends helping her, they were all black and wearing Obama shirts and they started spewing their well rehearsed "We need Change" lines, offered to take me to vote the whole nine yards. I asked for specifics on Blowbama's plans and got blank stares. I said the only reason you are voting for him is he is black, they all started muttering something so I laughed and walked off.
While working in the yard later that day I heard a lady tell them loudly "I ain't registered to vote and if I was I would damn sure not vote for Obama". That made my day.

[[CS]ls1haha]

I was listening to one of the "hip hop" stations and a female calls in and they asked her who she was voting for. She said Obama, and then she was asked why.. Her response was, "We gone make history baby!" WTF is that? Stupid mother fuckers.

F Barrack Osama and Joe BinLaden

[Mustangman_2000]

Good luck on getting a real answer on any of those questions.

[Pokulski-Blatz]

Subscribed

[Vertnut]

I'm finally ready to sit down and discuss the election.

We'll start with the Obama "Tax Cut" and I need a few questions answered:

1. Obama promised to cut taxes on 95% of American Workers. The problem I have with this statement is it isn't possble. Why? Because more than 30% pay NOTHING in income tax. How is it possible to cut 95% of American Workers taxes when 30% pay nothing? Bad math. Is Obama confusing tax cuts with tax credits? I don't know.

2. "The soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." Who said that? Reagan? No Kennedy did. Kennedy cut marginal tax rates by 22% (reducing the top marginal tax rate from 90% to 70% Still absurd). Reagan cut the top marginal tax rate by 60% (70% to 28%). The "unfair" pro-rich Bush tax cuts cut the top marginal rate by 7.5%.

Are you saying Kennedy was wrong? When Kennedy did it it was Camelot. When Reagan did it it was trickledown. When Bush did it it was unfair and pro-rich.

3. Obama is now saying he may have to defer some spending till later. Along with waiting to get rid of Bush's tax cuts because of the poor economy. I'm confused. If these two things are good things for the economy why not implement them post-haste?

4. I think McCain screwed up by saying the dickhead Jeremiah Wright was off-limits. Here is someone he mentions in his book. Here is some he named a book after about his sermon. Here is someone that compared Hiroshima to Sharpesville (don't know about Sharpesville, look it up.) Here is someone that Obama met with prior to joining his church yet after the meeting joined his church. McCain should have been all over it. What do you think of this relationship with an absolute moron?

Those are the first four questions I have. I have about 30 bajillion more.
But...but...but...he's for CHANGE! :rolleyes:

[Bubbaearl]

the only thing worse than not voting is an uneducated vote :(
when friends start in on the rich i remind them of something my pop taught me.
the rich do not need us , we need them . tax hell out of them and they will simply not invest in this country to create jobs . i have lived through what i fear is coming and it is not pretty.

[thesource]

LOL I got a good one that happend today. I was in line at the bank and an African American Woman was in front of me. She goes up to the teller and says I need to cash a check. The teller looks at the back of the check and says Maam which account number is yours. Turns out there were two different account numbers written on the back of the check. The lady says neither one of the account numbers are hers and that the check was signed over to someone else and then her. :rolleyes: The teller asked the lady for her account number and the lady claimed she didn't know it. The teller than asked the lady for her social security number which the lady claimed she didn't feel comfortable giving that to the teller. Next the African American Woman yells at the teller accusing her of being rude and racists and that she was going to take her business else where. As the lady truned around to leave she looked me dead in the eye and I told her to be sure and vote for Obama because he's going to take care of her. She told me to fuck off and the 3 customers behind me started laughing so hard they were crying. :)


I see that shit all the time . This is why I feel the way I do about most black people . There are some really good black folks out there , I've met a few . The majority of the ones I have met are looking for a hand out or constantly play the race card to their favor and get pissed when it back fires on them .

[89gt-stanger]

Wheres gpampers :confused: :confused:

[cryptic5.0]

Wheres gpampers :confused: :confused:
he's busy on Google, trying to find some answers and witty remarks to make in regards to the original questions.

When all else fails, he'll just try to make some BS comparison between Bush and McCain.

[Vertnut]

Wheres gpampers :confused: :confused:
This is not his type of thread. It requires real answers based on facts, so he's out... :cool:

[Geor!]

Fuck gpamp.

[Gripenfelter]

Even though I'm not voting for Obama, I'll take a crack at this.

1. This is just political math. I refer to this gif from the washington post.

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.gif

2. Well my only argument to this is, look at where it got us.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt_files/image002.jpg

3. Refer to #2

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt_files/image006.jpg

4. I'm not sure what to think about this relationship. I would say it definately needed to be examined more, but without the hatred the GOP did it with.

[Big Thumper]

Awesome! :cool:


ditto, two thumbs up from me!

[stevey_wunder]

PRESENT!

[Tx Redneck]

PRESENT!

I loled. :D

[01WhiteCobra]

Even though I'm not voting for Obama, I'll take a crack at this.

1. This is just political math. I refer to this gif from the washington post.



Exactly. Talking out of both sides your ass (not you politicians).


2. Well my only argument to this is, look at where it got us.


Where did it "get us"? I'm doing pretty well. I posted another thread about some who profited wonderfully from the sub-prime mess. Not some Ivy league retard but a fairly normal guy. Remember there has to be a counter-party to every trade.

I've posted my arguments many time that we can't blame Bush, Clinton, Fannie or Freddie over this mess.


3. Refer to #2


You didn't answer the question. Obama wanted to increase taxes. Obama wanted to increase spending. Now he says he may put both off because the economy was bad. His economic plan is to make the economy better right? He said increasing taxes and increasing spending would make it better, right?

Clinton surpluses are an anomaly. Businesses over spent, consumers over spent, the markets were irrational. Given all that irrationality government coffers were flush. Hell, you think the housing boom in the 2000s was great? My house , in the 90s, increased in value over 50% from 97-01. My house from 01-present has increase a more reasonable 18%.

When kids who had no experience trading markets where making 1000% returns a year day trading America was being irrational.

Clinton just had to sit back and say, "Really? No shit? That's cool."

I do agree with you. Bush went into office as a socially conscious conservative and will leave office a conservative socialist in terms of spending.


4. I'm not sure what to think about this relationship. I would say it definately needed to be examined more, but without the hatred the GOP did it with.

I think it needs to be examined much more fully. The dude is mentioned pretty prominently through his books and in fact he named a book after one of his sermons, "The Audacity Of Hope."

It is very apparent Rev. Wright has played a major role in this social organizer turned Presidential candidate.

[1fastdem]

Good morning, Can I take a stab? But first, I don't know what your wanting here. You have phrased your issues as questions but IMO that isn't what you have. IMO, You are looking to force an Obama supporter provide easily attacked answers. You wont get that from me because most of the answers I'll give you will agree with your thinking.

1. You're right. It isn't a tax cut in fact. It is a "tax cut to 95%" because that is politically safer to say. While the truth is a tax cut for many and a tax credit to the portion that doesn't pay taxes now. You are not okay with that and I am. Neither of us can reason that out with the other.

2-3. I partially agree here. Kennedy was right and the rates in the 60's were absurd. But the rates of Bush are too low (and the word 'un-fair' is only a by product of the current attack style of politics). The levels with Reagan were about right (maybe a touch too low). In the 90's we showed in great times those (Reagan-Bush-Clinton era) levels combined with spending restraint could produce a surplus. We need to get spending and rates where just average times produce a surplus. IMO, what should happen is the Bush cut should expire but no one should receive any reduction. An across the board freeze on cutting any rates. But no candidate can get elected with this proposal. The Debt is the number one issue in this country.

4. I know Wright is a topic many wish McCain would hit more. But I think today's problems are too great to dwell here. That seems to be McCain's stand as well. I know you'll just say that I want that because my candidate benifits from that. And you'd be both right and wrong. My candidate would benifit but that is not why I want that. We need real policy discussions. Like my comment on Joe the Plumber, he should be used to illustrate an issue not be the issue.

ps- Sorry I couldn't be more confrontational.

[01WhiteCobra]

Good morning, Can I take a stab? But first, I don't know what your wanting here. You have phrased your issues as questions but IMO that isn't what you have. IMO, You are looking to force an Obama supporter provide easily attacked answers. You wont get that from me because most of the answers I'll give you will agree with your thinking.


Please, there are questions in each one of them. Stop playing politics.


1. You're right. It isn't a tax cut in fact. It is a "tax cut to 95%" because that is politically safer to say. While the truth is a tax cut for many and a tax credit to the portion that doesn't pay taxes now. You are not okay with that and I am. Neither of us can reason that out with the other.


Thank you for stating your position. Typically these types of positions come from people that don't make much income.

You want a hand out? Work for it. At least add something back to the economy that is giving you a free ride.


2-3. I partially agree here. Kennedy was right and the rates in the 60's were absurd. But the rates of Bush are too low (and the word 'un-fair' is only a by product of the current attack style of politics). The levels with Reagan were about right (maybe a touch too low). In the 90's we showed in great times those (Reagan-Bush-Clinton era) levels combined with spending restraint could produce a surplus. We need to get spending and rates where just average times produce a surplus. IMO, what should happen is the Bush cut should expire but no one should receive any reduction. An across the board freeze on cutting any rates. But no candidate can get elected with this proposal. The Debt is the number one issue in this country.


LOW? Are you serious? Wow.

If debt is the number one issue, stop spending money. I don't get into debt and then say... "Damn, I need to go make some more income."

I've never been in the situation of too much debt in business or personal life but I'm pretty sure I'm cutting back, not spending more.

When all is said and done my company, a good company employing roughly 16-20 people and proving goods and services to business, pay over 35% revenue in assorted taxes (when you combine all taxes together.)

This amounts to almost 2.5MM a year in assorted taxes. I will guarantee you I could add more to the economy than the government will with that 2.5MM dollars a year.


4. I know Wright is a topic many wish McCain would hit more. But I think today's problems are too great to dwell here. That seems to be McCain's stand as well. I know you'll just say that I want that because my candidate benifits from that. And you'd be both right and wrong. My candidate would benifit but that is not why I want that. We need real policy discussions. Like my comment on Joe the Plumber, he should be used to illustrate an issue not be the issue.

ps- Sorry I couldn't be more confrontational.

People aren't born with an ideology. People create an ideology based on their environment and their mentors (whether they know they are mentors or not.)

I know a fairly well-known African-American in D/FW who is from Chicago. While we are polar opposites on our views we get along. My nickname for him is "militant midget" (midget because he is about 5' 8")

His upbringing makes him what he is today. A brilliant community organizer who would do well in the Senate or House but not a President. Views need to be heard and compromises need to be reach.

But the moderator must have a fair and balanced opinion and that is what I think the greatest role the POTUS has... that of moderator and leader.

I'm not looking for confrontation I'm looking for answers. You are talking like a politician.

Obama is a good community organizer and certainly does well for his constituents. But his constituents are not average American.

[1fastdem]

1st - Please don't insult me with the politician label. I am neither that dishonest or slimey.

2nd - My family's income has been stated here before. I can't help it if you don't think I make much. I would benefit more from the Obama plan. That was discussed in a prior thread. But again, we won't be able to persuade each other.

3rd - You want to cut spending. To be fair, I agree with you about spending. But no party will cut spending to the levels required to provide the needed surplusses without some tax increase. I know you to be very knowledgable on financial issues. You know the future if we don't reduce the debt. This current mess will be nothing. You know the US wont default. Imagine the Fed printing money to pay it. To be fair, I agree with you about spending. But now with the debt we're in of over 10 trillion. We could cut every social program, medicare, defense. Every single outlay for the next 3 years and still not pay off the deficit. We can't just cut spending. And to use you analogy. If you were in too much debt, I doubt you'd say I need to make more money. But you'd go out and work an extra job for extra income.

[1fastdem]

And about Wright - I see your point but I just think right now the issues should be front and center. And we disagree how big an issue Wright is.

Well gotta go. I'm 'bout to leave work and gotta work on the cars at home Thanks for the discussion.

[01WhiteCobra]

1st - Please don't insult me with the politician label. I am neither that dishonest or slimey.


Stop talking like one and I'll be good.


2nd - My family's income has been stated here before. I can't help it if you don't think I make much. I would benefit more from the Obama plan. That was discussed in a prior thread. But again, we won't be able to persuade each other.


You are more than welcome to send more of your income to the federal government to pay down debt and do whatever else you want in social programs.

The IRS will take your money. Back up your talk with action.


3rd - You want to cut spending. To be fair, I agree with you about spending. But no party will cut spending to the levels required to provide the needed surplusses without some tax increase. I know you to be very knowledgable on financial issues. You know the future if we don't reduce the debt. This current mess will be nothing. You know the US wont default. Imagine the Fed printing money to pay it. To be fair, I agree with you about spending. But now with the debt we're in of over 10 trillion. We could cut every social program, medicare, defense. Every single outlay for the next 3 years and still not pay off the deficit. We can't just cut spending. And to use you analogy. If you were in too much debt, I doubt you'd say I need to make more money. But you'd go out and work an extra job for extra income.

The US can most certainly default. What happens, like is happening now, when China and the Middle East countries slow down their intake of US debt?

An extra job to make more money? That's just plain silly. I'd use my capital to make more money. You only have so many hours in the day. It's much better to have multiple streams of incoming funding your life than adding hours of work to your day.

You don't have to wipe out government debt. You have to stop the addition of government debt.

I find it funny that the federal government are the only ones that can run deficits (spending > savings + revenue.) Your local governments cannot do this.

I'd love to see a balanced budget amendment.

[Got5onIt]

I see that shit all the time . This is why I feel the way I do about most black people . There are some really good black folks out there , I've met a few . The majority of the ones I have met are looking for a hand out or constantly play the race card to their favor and get pissed when it back fires on them .


You're right, you've just met a few. :rolleyes:

[01WhiteCobra]

Next point...

Austan Goolsbee is Obama's chief economic advisor.

Obama, when talking with some at a dry wall manufacturing plant, said he thought NAFTA was wrong and he would try to repeal it.

Later Obama said it was entrenched in the economy and repealing it would loss more jobs than the jobs created by repealing it.

Later, and I'm quoting, "One million jobs have been lost due to NAFTA, including 50,000 jobs here in Ohio. And yet, 10 years after NAFTA passed, Sen. Clinton said it was good for America. Well, I don't think NAFTA is good for America - I never have."

If I take these three positions I come up with is the only thing worse than NAFTA is not having NAFTA.

Is this Obama's take?

Now, back to Mr. Goolsbee. Austan Goolsbee likes NAFTA. He thinks its great. In fact he thinks that globalization is responsible for only a small fraction of the income disparity in this country. Hell, he says that 60-70% of the economy faces no international competition. He believes auto mechanics have little to fear from free trade.

Obama sent a letter of support for the Peru agreement but skipped the vote. He told voters that he opposes South Korean trade agreements and also the Columbian and Panama accords. He is telling Americans that globalization is to blame for their suffering.

Obama is THE politician in this race. Talking out of both sides of his ass even when his chief economic adviser is at odds with him.

Of course, Obama now says... well maybe NAFTA isn't so bad after all.

You can't pick and choose items you "like" from someone's plan. You'll end up with a mess. Goolsbee is a very smart economic mind and certainly understands economics better than Obama.

Obama, though, can not even trust his own adviser.

[Sariat]

White Power

[01WhiteCobra]

White Power

Has nothing to do with White Power, Mr. Small Business owner.

I'm going to be laughing my ass off in a year if Obama is elected and all the small business owners that supported Obama are going "ah, shit, what the fuck just happened?"

[Vertnut]

Next point...

Austan Goolsbee is Obama's chief economic advisor.

Obama, when talking with some at a dry wall manufacturing plant, said he thought NAFTA was wrong and he would try to repeal it.

Later Obama said it was entrenched in the economy and repealing it would loss more jobs than the jobs created by repealing it.

Later, and I'm quoting, "One million jobs have been lost due to NAFTA, including 50,000 jobs here in Ohio. And yet, 10 years after NAFTA passed, Sen. Clinton said it was good for America. Well, I don't think NAFTA is good for America - I never have."

If I take these three positions I come up with is the only thing worse than NAFTA is not having NAFTA.

Is this Obama's take?

Now, back to Mr. Goolsbee. Austan Goolsbee likes NAFTA. He thinks its great. In fact he thinks that globalization is responsible for only a small fraction of the income disparity in this country. Hell, he says that 60-70% of the economy faces no international competition. He believes auto mechanics have little to fear from free trade.

Obama sent a letter of support for the Peru agreement but skipped the vote. He told voters that he opposes South Korean trade agreements and also the Columbian and Panama accords. He is telling Americans that globalization is to blame for their suffering.

Obama is THE politician in this race. Talking out of both sides of his ass even when his chief economic adviser is at odds with him.

Of course, Obama now says... well maybe NAFTA isn't so bad after all.

You can't pick and choose items you "like" from someone's plan. You'll end up with a mess. Goolsbee is a very smart economic mind and certainly understands economics better than Obama.

Obama, though, can not even trust his own adviser.
I get the impression he just flat-out does not know or understand NAFTA. Seriously, there are many policies and issues he just does not understand.

[01WhiteCobra]

Another question that just came up for discussion for Obamanauts:

I'm pretty prideful of America. I think it is the best country in the world even with our problems. I think you cannot find another country where a not-well-to-do person can become a well-to-do person.

At his New Hampshire rally just recently, the National Anthem was planned. How long is the National Anthem, a few minutes, max?

For some reason... it was scrapped... the campaign adviser told the press it was a simple programming change to make room for another speaker.

Do Obamanauts on this board agree with this? I know it is a small issue in this campaign but I cannot imagine, for the life of me, why I would scrapped the National Anthem for "another speaker." Seriously. What few minutes are worth scrapping National pride for?

[01WhiteCobra]

I get the impression he just flat-out does not know or understand NAFTA. Seriously, there are many policies and issues he just does not understand.

The reason, I believe, he doesn't understand it is because, to him, it is unimportant to his goal.

He wants power, he wants the most powerful position in the World, and he'll do whatever it takes to get there.

Having an America that is better than before is not his number one goal. Having the most powerful position in the world is his goal. Damn the rest of it. He'll promise what ever it takes to reach the goal. Afterwards, we'll see those promises vanish. At least half of them since he is promising out of both sides of his ass.

[bullet]

o1 all of your bitching is not going to stop Obama from being the next president. If he is as bad as you say then in 4 years surely the voters will speak and we will have a republican elected to help increase the national debt even more by cutting taxes while spending billions on war.

[Vertnut]

o1 all of your bitching is not going to stop Obama from being the next president. If he is as bad as you say then in 4 years surely the voters will speak and we will have a republican elected to help increase the national debt even more by cutting taxes while spending billions on war.
The election is not even close to being "done", much to the presses' chagrin. Your messiah has committed to over one trillion dollars in new spending for his programs. Please explain this.

[01WhiteCobra]

o1 all of your bitching is not going to stop Obama from being the next president. If he is as bad as you say then in 4 years surely the voters will speak and we will have a republican elected to help increase the national debt even more by cutting taxes while spending billions on war.

Yep, you are right. Thanks for the rhetorical reply to my questions. It is the sort of reply I'd expect from an Obama supporter. You don't know what to say because your candidate doesn't know what to say.

I'll be prepared for an Obama presidency. I'll be prepared for a McCain presidency.

It's what's great about America. The overwhelming majority of the citizens are reactive instead of proactive. It makes us proactive people wealthy. Even when the morons decide to divy up more of my pie.

[Sariat]

Has nothing to do with White Power, Mr. Small Business owner.

I'm going to be laughing my ass off in a year if Obama is elected and all the small business owners that supported Obama are going "ah, shit, what the fuck just happened?"

Well whoever wins, I will support them regardless but I really think Obama is going to win. And yes I am voting for him. I respect your right to vote so respect mine. I think in the end we'll be allright. I mean both these guys only want to help the country at the end of the day. Its going to be a hard task either way.

-Frank Salas

[Sariat]

"If its good enough for Joe the Plumber... it's good enough for me!"

[01WhiteCobra]

Well whoever wins, I will support them regardless but I really think Obama is going to win. And yes I am voting for him. I respect your right to vote so respect mine. I think in the end we'll be allright. I mean both these guys only want to help the country at the end of the day. Its going to be a hard task either way.

-Frank Salas

You certainly have a right to make an uninformed vote. That is your option. I'll respect it, just realize it.

Like I said, I'm going to be laughing my ass off when all the small business owners that voted for Obama realized they got screwed if his plan is put in place.

Which it won't. We'll hear how "times have changed" and he's going off in a new direction.

[Vertnut]

You certainly have a right to make an uninformed vote. That is your option.

Like I said, I'm going to be laughing my ass off when all the small business owners that voted for Obama realized they got screwed if his plan is put in place.
Did you notice no one answered any of the points given? That is just scary.

[Tx Redneck]

....spending billions on war.

Why do ya'll cry about the cost of the war SOOOOO much? Just for some perspective, consider this.

http://americanvalues.org/coff/executive_summary.pdf

Based on the methodology, we estimate that family fragmentation costs U.S. taxpayers at least
$112 billion each and every year, or more than $1 trillion each decade. In appendix B, we also
offer estimates for the costs of family fragmentation for each state.
These costs arise from increased taxpayer expenditures for antipoverty, criminal justice, and
education programs, and through lower levels of taxes paid by individuals who, as adults, earn
less because of reduced opportunities as a result of having been more likely to grow up in
poverty.
The $112 billion figure represents a “lower-bound” or minimum estimate. Given the cautious
assumptions used throughout this analysis, we can be confident that current high rates of family
fragmentation cost taxpayers at least $112 billion per year. The estimate of $112 billion per year
is the total figure incurred at the federal, state, and local levels. Of these taxpayer costs, $70.1
billion are at the federal level, $33.3 billion are at the state level, and $8.5 billion are at the local
level. Taxpayers in California incur the highest state and local costs at $4.8 billion, while
taxpayers in Wyoming have the lowest state and local costs at $61 million.

That makes the war expenditure seem minuscule in comparison but you're not crying over it. :confused:

[bullet]

The election is not even close to being "done", much to the presses' chagrin. Your messiah has committed to over one trillion dollars in new spending for his programs. Please explain this.


My choice is not even on the ticket.

[Vertnut]

My choice is not even on the ticket.
So I take it you're not voting?

[bullet]

Yep, you are right. Thanks for the rhetorical reply to my questions. It is the sort of reply I'd expect from an Obama supporter. You don't know what to say because your candidate doesn't know what to say.

I'll be prepared for an Obama presidency. I'll be prepared for a McCain presidency.

It's what's great about America. The overwhelming majority of the citizens are reactive instead of proactive. It makes us proactive people wealthy. Even when the morons decide to divy up more of my pie.


My choice is not on the ticket.


I don't like obama because the dems are talking about a transaction tax on wall street and that will not jive with my business.

If obama wins, why don't you just sell your business and retire and make just enough off your invesments to keep you under the cut off and get some of these evil tax credits that you hate ?


:D

[01WhiteCobra]

Did you notice no one answered any of the points given? That is just scary.

They can't answer.

Here is the deal:

First, lets discuss, small business. Small business has two options for increased taxation:

1. Pass it off to the consumer of the goods - doesn't work well in a weak economy.

2. They can pay it themselves - might work for some time but small business exist to provide a return on investment. It won't happen to long. If you are a small business owner and don't care of ROI than your small business isn't a business it is an income. Don't confuse the two.

3. Decrease expenses. Yep... what is typically the largest expense to a small business? Labor. If I was working for a small business I'd figure out a way to make yourself EXTREMELY valuable to your employee if Obama gets elected.

Yea, yea, I know Obama wants to decrease capital gains in small business. You know what? Most small businesses don't pay capital gains they pay ordinary pass through income to its owners.

We rich retards (I put myself in this category only because Obama does) didn't get to where they are by being stupid. Us rich retards will change behavior and ride out the one term President and be better off in four years than now.

Who can't ride out the one termer? People living paycheck to paycheck. Rich people, I will guarantee you, aren't going to be paying more in income tax than they are now. Where will the money come from? The people who live paycheck to paycheck. The ones being "helped" by Obama.

The rich have complete control over their money. It is no secret. They control when their income is received, how much is received and how much tax THEY choose to pay.

I cannot believe people don't get this. Wait, I can, because the majority of the population can't see beyond their next paycheck.

[bullet]

So I take it you're not voting?

Write in

[Vertnut]

Write in
Why even waste the ink?

[Tx Redneck]

Are you gonna answer me bullet?

[bullet]

Why do ya'll cry about the cost of the war SOOOOO much? Just for some perspective, consider this.

http://americanvalues.org/coff/executive_summary.pdf

Based on the methodology, we estimate that family fragmentation costs U.S. taxpayers at least
$112 billion each and every year, or more than $1 trillion each decade. In appendix B, we also
offer estimates for the costs of family fragmentation for each state.
These costs arise from increased taxpayer expenditures for antipoverty, criminal justice, and
education programs, and through lower levels of taxes paid by individuals who, as adults, earn
less because of reduced opportunities as a result of having been more likely to grow up in
poverty.
The $112 billion figure represents a “lower-bound” or minimum estimate. Given the cautious
assumptions used throughout this analysis, we can be confident that current high rates of family
fragmentation cost taxpayers at least $112 billion per year. The estimate of $112 billion per year
is the total figure incurred at the federal, state, and local levels. Of these taxpayer costs, $70.1
billion are at the federal level, $33.3 billion are at the state level, and $8.5 billion are at the local
level. Taxpayers in California incur the highest state and local costs at $4.8 billion, while
taxpayers in Wyoming have the lowest state and local costs at $61 million.

That makes the war expenditure seem minuscule in comparison but you're not crying over it. :confused:



Because I would rather see the money used towards the national debt. Because repubilcans yap about being fiscally responsible but the national debt has went from 1 to 11 trillion in the last 28 years due to war and bailouts of big business. You can not balance a budget and creat a surplus while spending it on wars and bailouts and cutting taxes at the same time.


Interesting link. Considering money problems create a lot of divorces, would it not make sense that tax breaks to those suffering from financial diffulculties "lower income " would help reduce future divorces?
BTW the movie in your avatar is the bomb.

[AllStockRacer]

Look I dont know alot about the election or either canidate. Most of America does know about them. I do understand Obama supporters. Why care about what America is saying when it comes to small business owners and people that have becomed wealthy by earning it when you dont own one or care to try to make a better living for yourself? Why vote for someone that wants you to try to exceed your life expectations and be someone and do something when you can just live up to what is expected of you and get it for free? The people that are voting for him are the people that dont care about this country to begin with. Most of them blame this country for the problems in thier life. I wonder if he was a republican and wanted the same as McCain if the majority of this country would still vote for him?

[Tx Redneck]

Because I would rather see the money used towards the national debt. Because repubilcans yap about being fiscally responsible but the national debt has went from 1 to 11 trillion in the last 28 years due to war and bailouts of big business. You can not balance a budget and creat a surplus while spending it on wars and bailouts and cutting taxes at the same time.
You still didn't answer in regards to the info I gave you.

[01WhiteCobra]

Why care about what America is saying when it comes to small business owners and people that have becomed wealthy by earning it when you dont own one or care to try to make a better living for yourself?

Because small business employs the majority of them.


Oh, here is a little chart for the Obamanauts... increased marginal tax rate doesn't to crap. Like I said, the rich are pretty smart about keeping their money.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart4_lg_1.gif

[Tx Redneck]

I wonder if he was a republican and wanted the same as McCain if the majority of this country would still vote for him?

Prolly not.

[Denny]

Because I would rather see the money used towards the national debt. Because repubilcans yap about being fiscally responsible but the national debt has went from 1 to 11 trillion in the last 28 years due to war and bailouts of big business. You can not balance a budget and creat a surplus while spending it on wars and bailouts and cutting taxes at the same time.
You can't keep the world right without spending some dough.

[bullet]

Why even waste the ink?

Because I choose to exercise my write and I am not going to vote for either candidate if I don't like them just because that is the only choice that is printed

[Vertnut]

Because I choose to exercise my write and I am not going to vote for either candidate if I don't like them just because that is the only choice that is printed
I did that with Perot in '92, and it worked out quite well for Clinton. Never again.

[bullet]

You still didn't answer in regards to the info I gave you.

It's at the bottom of the post you just quoted.

[Denny]

Because I choose to exercise my write and I am not going to vote for either candidate if I don't like them just because that is the only choice that is printed
Talk about a wasted vote...

[bullet]

I did that with Perot in '92, and it worked out quite well for Clinton. Never again.






How did clinton affect your business in a negative way ?

Considering he was president during the longest economic expansion in U.S. history I don't think the small business owners suffered from a poor economy.

[Got5onIt]

Because small business employs the majority of them.


Oh, here is a little chart for the Obamanauts... increased marginal tax rate doesn't to crap. Like I said, the rich are pretty smart about keeping their money.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart4_lg_1.gif


Interesting graph. I don't quite completely understand what the Top Income Tax Bracket (red)graph is implying. As for the other two, the total tax revenue & income tax revenue are related to GDP. You can't draw a conclusive opinion without showing the growth in GDP for those specific years (one can assume safely it has increased dramatically year by year). What's going to stop someone from saying Total Tax revenue or Income Tax revenue would've been a bigger piece of the pie had tax rates been higher as GDP increased?

[Vertnut]

How did clinton affect your business in a negative way ?

Considering he was president during the longest economic expansion in U.S. history I don't think the small business owners suffered from a poor economy.
I never said he affected my business...my vote (along with others) allowed him to be the Pres because all it did was take votes away from Bush.

[bullet]

I never said he affected my business...my vote (along with others) allowed him to be the Pres because all it did was take votes away from Bush.


Clinton was elected because the lower middle class was tired of the shitty economy that we were in and they finally decided they wanted a change from the trickle down fallacy that did not work for the past 12 years. 08 sounds like the same situation and that is why obama will get elected. Why is it that almost every recession we go through usually happens when a republican is president ? Why did the great depression happen when a republican was president ? Republicans argue that if you let them keep the money then they will use it to create jobs, yada yada yada but history shows high unemployment rates and recessions happen when they don't follow through with what they said.

[01WhiteCobra]

Interesting graph. I don't quite completely understand what the Top Income Tax Bracket (red)graph is implying. As for the other two, the total tax revenue & income tax revenue are related to GDP. You can't draw a conclusive opinion without showing the growth in GDP for those specific years (one can assume safely it has increased dramatically year by year). What's going to stop someone from saying Total Tax revenue or Income Tax revenue would've been a bigger piece of the pie had tax rates been higher as GDP increased?

What it points to is total tax revenue is much more associated with GDP than the top marginal tax rate... for those assuming increase the top marginal is somehow going to magically fill the coffers of the inept federal government.

Tax revenues are highly correlated to economic growth, not tax rates. Almost a perfect correlation.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart5_lg_1.gif

[bullet]

01wc


You never answered in the other thread where you said if you were taxed 12,500 more on your business then you would just not give your employees that much of a raise.

Do you think your 25 employees will care that you did that since they are getting 1k each in tax credit from obama instead of the $500 you paid them extra that they would owe tax on ?

[01WhiteCobra]

01wc


You never answered in the other thread where you said if you were taxed 12,500 more on your business then you would just not give your employees that much of a raise.

Do you think your 25 employees will care that you did that since they are getting 1k each in tax credit from obama instead of the $500 you paid them extra that they would owe tax on ?

Sorry missed that.

Actually according to Obama I am going to be taxed a hell of a lot more than 12,500 and the business itself will be taxed a hell of a lot more. Well, actually not, I'll just defer some income, I have that luxury. My employees don't. Probably put a hell of a lot more into the retirement account.

What will happen?

Employees don't get raises.

Employees will get to pay for a portion of their health insurance (we pay 100% at the moment)

Employees won't be getting the 15% contribution to their retirement plan (which they don't have to put squat into to receive the 15% contribution from the company).

Employees will not receive their year end bonuses in amounts they are used to.

Hell, we may even cut some employees and ask those that stayed for a little bit extra effort. They'll do it because, well, everyone else won't be hiring.

If you understand the terms, base return, equity discount rate, free cash flow, discounted cash flow I can discuss the topic with you. If not... and I'm not being snobbish... I really don't have the time to discuss it.

Obama's little 1K tax credit ain't gonna do shit but but a band-aid on a gapping wound.

[Nate]

Things I would argue with Eric (01WC) about
[ ] The Economy
[ ] Political spending
[X] LSX motor vs Mod motor
[ ] The election
[X] Boy shorts vs thong on a big tittied blonde
[ ] Taxes and Tax credits

Yeah so I'm just going to sit on the sidelines for this one. :p

[Tx Redneck]

Interesting link. Considering money problems create a lot of divorces, would it not make sense that tax breaks to those suffering from financial diffulculties "lower income " would help reduce future divorces?
BTW the movie in your avatar is the bomb.
While that sounds good on paper, if taxes for lower income folks are what's taking the blame for their financial struggles, I dare say that taxes are NOT the issue. Living outside their means, most likely is and I'm as guilty of that as the next person.

[Tx Redneck]

01WhiteCobra, do you have a link to the break down of taxes paid according to income earned? It shows where the bottom 60% of the taxpayers pay a meager 4% of all taxes where as the top 5% pay something like 50-60%. I'm sure the numbers are wrong as I've only heard it cited on talk radio and never found a reference online. I can't seem to get the right keywords in a search to yield what I want. :o

[01WhiteCobra]

01WhiteCobra, do you have a link to the break down of taxes paid according to income earned? It shows where the bottom 60% of the taxpayers pay a meager 4% of all taxes where as the top 5% pay something like 50-60%. I'm sure the numbers are wrong as I've only heard it cited on talk radio and never found a reference online. I can't seem to get the right keywords in a search to yield what I want. :o

The first graph on this page:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Top 50% pay 97.01% of all individual taxes in the US
Bottom 50% pay 2.99% of all individual taxes in the US

Top 1% pay 22.06% of all individual taxes in the US
Top 5% pay 36.66% of all individual taxes in the US
Top 10% pay 47.32% of all individual taxes in the US

Interestingly enough, the adjusted gross income to get you into the top 10% is 108K. Not a seemingly high amount.

We'll forget about state, local and sale tax for the moment.

[01WhiteCobra]

How did clinton affect your business in a negative way ?

Considering he was president during the longest economic expansion in U.S. history I don't think the small business owners suffered from a poor economy.

Clinton also pushed hard for NAFTA which Obama is against, I mean for, I mean its better than nothing (according to Obama.)

[Tx Redneck]

The first graph on this page:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Top 50% pay 97.01% of all individual taxes in the US
Bottom 50% pay 2.99% of all individual taxes in the US

Top 1% pay 22.06% of all individual taxes in the US
Top 5% pay 36.66% of all individual taxes in the US
Top 10% pay 47.32% of all individual taxes in the US

Interestingly enough, the adjusted gross income to get you into the top 10% is 108K. Not a seemingly high amount.

We'll forget about state, local and sale tax for the moment.

Thank you sir. Having heard that and seeing it SHOULD, but likely won't, make the people screaming for tax breaks think. I couldn't fathom being one of the individuals w/ mucho geedus and paying a disproportionate amount of taxes. :mad:

[Gripenfelter]

Where did it "get us"? I'm doing pretty well. I posted another thread about some who profited wonderfully from the sub-prime mess. Not some Ivy league retard but a fairly normal guy. Remember there has to be a counter-party to every trade.

I've posted my arguments many time that we can't blame Bush, Clinton, Fannie or Freddie over this mess.

I was referring to "trickle down" policy. As you can tell for the chart, it's gotten our country into massive debt. Trickle down has never worked, it's just separated the classes even more. Remember 2/3rd of our economy runs on the middle class, we need everyone to to prosper. When the middle class can't afford to spend, everyone suffers.

I quote:
Trickle Down Theory Myth

History has shown that the “trickle down theory” does not work. Republican President Hoover tried the “trickle down” theory (his words) to solve economic problems during the last few years of his only term, when the greatest economic depression this country has ever faced began. It is often called the Republican Depression because it was their financial philosophy that led to the collapse of the economy. Tax cuts for the rich did not work and things got worse. (We are seeing the same problem repeat itself encouraged by the deregulation of the financial industry.)

President Roosevelt got into office, raised taxes on the rich, created jobs for the poor and turned things around. Mr. Reagan employed Hoover’s failed trickle down theory again in the ‘80s and again it did not work. The rich got richer, but the poor got poorer and the economy declined. Mr. Bush Sr., who always had a problem with the “vision thing”, continued the failed policy of his immediate predecessor.

Mr. Clinton took a more progressive approach and, as Roosevelt had done, turned the Hoover model upside down. Instead of making the rich richer in the hope that they would spend that money and thus create demand and therefore jobs, he created a tax environment that encouraged the creation of jobs directly. It was an economic environment where everyone could get rich, not just a few, and it worked. Lots of jobs and lots of new millionaires were created while Clinton was in office. More new millionaires were created during the Clinton administration than at any other time in our history.

President Bush II slipped into office and once again applied the manta of the old trickle down tax model and immediately created a need to raise the debt level to pay for an unjustified tax cut in 2001. Predictably (and before 9/11) the nation lost jobs and there were fewer new millionaires. Not learning from his past mistakes, Bush pushed through yet more tax cuts in 2003, 2005 and 2006 -- all while expanding the military, the largest single component of the budget. He and his lap dog Republican Congress never learned from their mistakes. As a result, the national debt has increased an average of $1.5 billion per day since the beginning of 2002.

While it is a great jabbing sound bite, the facts show that the “tax and spend” rhetoric Republicans often spew about Democrats is not as bad as it sounds. Taxing before spending actually reflects good government. The facts also show that it most often takes a Democratic President to control and reduce spending. The truth is that the Republicans are the party of “borrow and spend”. They hate taxes, but love to spend; their solution is to put off paying till later for our security today. They prefer to see our children pay for their debt. Republican thinking has run up over an 9.5 trillion dollar debt that will not be paid off for a generation or more, and is still increasing at an astounding rate with no end to deficit spending in sight.




You didn't answer the question. Obama wanted to increase taxes. Obama wanted to increase spending. Now he says he may put both off because the economy was bad. His economic plan is to make the economy better right? He said increasing taxes and increasing spending would make it better, right?

Clinton surpluses are an anomaly. Businesses over spent, consumers over spent, the markets were irrational. Given all that irrationality government coffers were flush. Hell, you think the housing boom in the 2000s was great? My house , in the 90s, increased in value over 50% from 97-01. My house from 01-present has increase a more reasonable 18%.

When kids who had no experience trading markets where making 1000% returns a year day trading America was being irrational.

Clinton just had to sit back and say, "Really? No shit? That's cool."

I do agree with you. Bush went into office as a socially conscious conservative and will leave office a conservative socialist in terms of spending.

I believe Obama wants to tax, and then spend here. We do need investment back into this country's infastructure. What's the easiest way to turn the economy around? By spending tax dollars here to create middle class jobs, instead of sending everything overseas.

This is the area that I agreed with Ron Paul on. I don't agree with tax increases anywhere, just close the loop holes, and spend money here.

[Gripenfelter]

Because small business employs the majority of them.


Oh, here is a little chart for the Obamanauts... increased marginal tax rate doesn't to crap. Like I said, the rich are pretty smart about keeping their money.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart4_lg_1.gif

Anyone care to look at this chart a tell us when NAFTA was passed?

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt_files/image008.jpg

[bullet]

Sorry missed that.

Actually according to Obama I am going to be taxed a hell of a lot more than 12,500 and the business itself will be taxed a hell of a lot more. Well, actually not, I'll just defer some income, I have that luxury. My employees don't. Probably put a hell of a lot more into the retirement account.

What will happen?

Employees don't get raises.

Employees will get to pay for a portion of their health insurance (we pay 100% at the moment)

Employees won't be getting the 15% contribution to their retirement plan (which they don't have to put squat into to receive the 15% contribution from the company).

Employees will not receive their year end bonuses in amounts they are used to.

Hell, we may even cut some employees and ask those that stayed for a little bit extra effort. They'll do it because, well, everyone else won't be hiring.

If you understand the terms, base return, equity discount rate, free cash flow, discounted cash flow I can discuss the topic with you. If not... and I'm not being snobbish... I really don't have the time to discuss it.

Obama's little 1K tax credit ain't gonna do shit but but a band-aid on a gapping wound.


If your thinking is inline with all the other small business owners then in the end you will just be screwing yourself as cutting the employees incomes will lead to less money being spent in the economy which will directly affect your bottom line when your employees or other small business employees spend less at your customer's small business. Just remember even though you have your own business, in the end you still answer to your customers because without their spending you are not shit.

[Vertnut]

If your thinking is inline with all the other small business owners then in the end you will just be screwing yourself as cutting the employees incomes will lead to less money being spent in the economy which will directly affect your bottom line when your employees or other small business employees spend less at your customer's small business. Just remember even though you have your own business, in the end you still answer to your customers because without their spending you are not shit.
That's not how I see it. Why is it that Dems don't believe in "trickle-down economics", unless it helps them make a point? :confused:

[kfrank]

Here are a few points that i wish McCain would drive home to the American people.

Obama Tax Plan: My daughter asked me why I do not like Obama's tax plan and here was my answer. Is you are in class and EARN a 100 on your history test, and there is a student in the back that is always causing problems, never pays attention or just doesnt care about school that gets a 60 on that same test, Obama wants to take 20 pts off of your 100, and give it to the kid in the back that scored a 60 so that both of you make an 80. She is only in second grade and was pretty pissed about it.

Obama's Health Care: He flat out lied in the last debate when McCain asked how much small businesses would be fined for not providing health care to their employees, Obama looked into the camera and said "Small Businesses will be exempt from the fine". - Per barrackobama.com, "Some" Small businesses will be exempt from healthcare related fines.

He always skates around the issue of domestic drilling by saying we will explore the options. WTF? Why in the hell would we tell all of our enemies that we WILL NOT drill???? Drill here and drill now little or alot and foreign countries will drop the price of oil to under $50 dollars a barrel in a heartbeat. Just by us letting the ban on offshore drilling expire the price has dropped by more than 50%, not just because of the expiration of the ban but in large part to it.

Pro Life!?! I say abort the parents not the poor kids!

If we raise taxes on the "rich" and businesses, they will just raise prices on everything we by from them. Shit rolls downhill, but so does Ice Cream. If you dont pay a dime you shouldnt get a dime unless you are disabled.

Federal Deficit: Yes it is high, but 9/11, Afghanistan & Iraq wars ($3 Trillion), Homeland security, Oil/Gas prices, Hurricane Katrina etc.

He hasnt wasted much money.

This administration has faced many serious issues. For the Dempcrats to blame bush is absolutely ridiculous. Now Bush thought he could use the good old boy system in Washington and learned very fast he was surrounded by sharks.

[1fastdem]

The US can most certainly default.

You are right, the US could. But tell me what would happen to the economy if the US gov. defaulted once.

You don't have to wipe out government debt. You have to stop the addition of government debt.

We have to do both. The $$$ to service the debt is too great not to be adressed

I find it funny that the federal government are the only ones that can run deficits (spending > savings + revenue.) Your local governments cannot do this.

I'd love to see a balanced budget amendment.

Preaching to the choir.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart5_lg_1.gif
Thank you for the graph that proves what a % means. Now I would like to point out something in this graph. Please note the years 1996-2000. The years the blue line goes way above the yellow line (blue line/yellow line - technical I know). And note the years 2002-2005 when the blue line went way below the yellow line. Now look here...

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt_files/image008.jpg

Notice when the blue line is decending and ascending. (And don't come back with the statement about "look at the future on the debt graph. The blue line is decending in the future". The projected growth in GDP shown on the graph does not reflect the current state of affairs.) The only way to pay off the debt requires reduced spending and tax changes. (Like how I used 'changes')

Oh and because I can't resist...
Things I would argue with Eric (01WC) about
[ ] The Economy
[ ] Political spending
[X] LSX motor vs Mod motor
[ ] The election
[X] Boy shorts vs thong on a big tittied blonde
[ ] Taxes and Tax credits

Yeah so I'm just going to sit on the sidelines for this one. :p

You should apply this rule of yours to just about everyone really. :)

[01WhiteCobra]

fastdem, I won't belabor the point but if you don't know why it is meaningless to pay off the Federal debt, I can't debate it.

As far as Bush, anyone on this forum can tell you I'm pissed as hell at the last 8 years in terms of spending. I also don't see how Obama is gonna stop the trend.

The point of the graphs, as Clinton so eloquently put it... It's the economy stupid. Do you truly believe that Clinton had any fucking thing to do with the surpluses being run? No, the economy (regardless of Clinton) was exploding. It increase tax revenue.

The President ain't doing shit about it. The economy will do what the economy will do. A perfect example is now. The government is providing what ever liquidity is needed and the banks are saying... fuck it, I ain't lending. When the banks are ready they'll start lending again. The commercial paper market will unfreeze and all will be right in the world again.

The economy will get over this and America will survive. The President is the cheerleader, nothing more.

[Nate]

You should apply this rule of yours to just about everyone really. :)
Bazing you got me good!

[1fastdem]

The point of the graphs, as Clinton so eloquently put it... It's the economy stupid. Do you truly believe that Clinton had any fucking thing to do with the surpluses being run? No, the economy (regardless of Clinton) was exploding. It increase tax revenue.

The President ain't doing shit about it. The economy will do what the economy will do. A perfect example is now. The government is providing what ever liquidity is needed and the banks are saying... fuck it, I ain't lending. When the banks are ready they'll start lending again. The commercial paper market will unfreeze and all will be right in the world again.

The economy will get over this and America will survive. The President is the cheerleader, nothing more.


Well stated.

I did not say that the Prez has a lot of control. I firmly believe the rush to blame the Pres (any Pres) is just idiotic. I do believe in my sig line. And that the only real effect a Pres has is in working with congress on a balanced budget.

Now, we may all have to recalibrate our ideas though. This bailout sets a bad precedent. If Joe public looks to the gov. to remedy every little downturn in the future. And gov. responds then all our ideas go out the window.


I am curious. You obviously do not feel the fed debt is as scary as I do. Would you explain to me why? I only see a few options for the future. If we do nothing and increase the debt like we are. As the interest payment cripple our spending while the social security, medicare expand. Default, raise taxes, or print money. If we just balance the budget we still have the interest payments and while it places the point where the interst payment, social security, and medicare crush us it does not stop it from happening. and again we default, raise taxes, or print money. The 3rd option is to start paying down the debt now. But granted even without the debt Social security and Madecare will probably crush us.

I should also state I do not believe that there will be any significant changes to medicare and social security due to the large voting block of seniors/AARP.

[bullet]

That's not how I see it. Why is it that Dems don't believe in "trickle-down economics", unless it helps them make a point? :confused:


Throw the party bias aside, from an economic standpoint TDT has never worked and has only increased the national debt while keep the economy stagnant.
We have had 20 years of trickle down theory since 1980 and all we have to show is massive debt, a destroyed banking system, and a stock market at the moment is at the same level is was at 6 years ago.

[Vertnut]

Throw the party bias aside, from an economic standpoint TDT has never worked and has only increased the national debt while keep the economy stagnant.
We have had 20 years of trickle down theory since 1980 and all we have to show is massive debt, a destroyed banking system, and a stock market at the moment is at the same level is was at 6 years ago.
Wrong...again. In 1980, we had 12% inflation, 13% mortgage rates, and 19% car notes, and 10% unemployment. I know...I was there, and it was all thanks to your hero Jimmy Carter. All that aside, your "business theory" on taxation is bunk.

[Stevo]

Throw the party bias aside, from an economic standpoint TDT has never worked and has only increased the national debt while keep the economy stagnant.
We have had 20 years of trickle down theory since 1980 and all we have to show is massive debt, a destroyed banking system, and a stock market at the moment is at the same level is was at 6 years ago.

Are you trying to say that the 'trickle down economics' are the cause of the problems listed in your post?

Stevo

[Vertnut]

Are you trying to say that the 'trickle down economics' are the cause of the problems listed in your post?

Stevo
Sounds like he's blaming the Reagan era to me. :rolleyes:

[01WhiteCobra]

I am curious. You obviously do not feel the fed debt is as scary as I do. Would you explain to me why? I only see a few options for the future. If we do nothing and increase the debt like we are. As the interest payment cripple our spending while the social security, medicare expand. Default, raise taxes, or print money. If we just balance the budget we still have the interest payments and while it places the point where the interst payment, social security, and medicare crush us it does not stop it from happening. and again we default, raise taxes, or print money. The 3rd option is to start paying down the debt now. But granted even without the debt Social security and Madecare will probably crush us.


I'll answer you question as to the federal debt... hopefully tomorrow.

I ended up breaking my wrist today trying to act 25 again and playing some tackle football after the Cowboys get killed by the Rams. lol. I got back about 30 minutes ago from the ER.

This along with my achilles rupture 2 years ago (this month) I'm pretty sure I've convinced myself that there is a reason 45 year old dudes don't do shit like this. Almost two decades of organized football... 5 years of strapping my ass on a bull... and not one serious injury except a neck injury when I was young... never a broken nothing... and in two years time I've rupture tendons and broken bones. LOL.

This post took about 3 minutes to write with my left hand (thank goodness I'm left handed! haha).

Pain killers, FTW! How the hell am I gonna rub one out?

[01WhiteCobra]

Throw the party bias aside, from an economic standpoint TDT has never worked and has only increased the national debt while keep the economy stagnant.
We have had 20 years of trickle down theory since 1980 and all we have to show is massive debt, a destroyed banking system, and a stock market at the moment is at the same level is was at 6 years ago.

All answer this shit as well tomorrow.

[stevey_wunder]

I'll answer you question as to the federal debt... hopefully tomorrow.

I ended up breaking my wrist today trying to act 25 again and playing some tackle football after the Cowboys get killed by the Rams. lol. I got back about 30 minutes ago from the ER.

This along with my achilles rupture 2 years ago (this month) I'm pretty sure I've convinced myself that there is a reason 45 year old dudes don't do shit like this. Almost two decades of organized football... 5 years of strapping my ass on a bull... and not one serious injury except a neck injury when I was young... never a broken nothing... and in two years time I've rupture tendons and broken bones. LOL.

This post took about 3 minutes to write with my left hand (thank goodness I'm left handed! haha).

Pain killers, FTW! How the hell am I gonna rub one out?
Silly ass old fucker!

[1fastdem]

I'll answer you question as to the federal debt... hopefully tomorrow.

I ended up breaking my wrist today trying to act 25 again and playing some tackle football after the Cowboys get killed by the Rams. lol. I got back about 30 minutes ago from the ER.

This along with my achilles rupture 2 years ago (this month) I'm pretty sure I've convinced myself that there is a reason 45 year old dudes don't do shit like this. Almost two decades of organized football... 5 years of strapping my ass on a bull... and not one serious injury except a neck injury when I was young... never a broken nothing... and in two years time I've rupture tendons and broken bones. LOL.

This post took about 3 minutes to write with my left hand (thank goodness I'm left handed! haha).

Pain killers, FTW! How the hell am I gonna rub one out?

Sorry to hear. I shattered my heal playing ice hockey two years ago. Still have 9 screws and a plate in the left heal. So I understand, but I just saw on Yahoo news that scientists figured mens fine motor skills peak at 39. I've got 2 more years!

[Fox466]

Silly old ass fucker!


:eek:


How completely novel! Actual discourse with no name calling in the political forum...


And I'm feeling you on the getting old thing Eric. Got thrown by my horse a couple weeks ago when he started crow hopping going down into a ditch. Stepped down on the left side and watched the stirrup all the way to the ground. I've still got torn shit in my back... :mad:

[bullet]

Wrong...again. In 1980, we had 12% inflation, 13% mortgage rates, and 19% car notes, and 10% unemployment. I know...I was there, and it was all thanks to your hero Jimmy Carter. All that aside, your "business theory" on taxation is bunk.


Where are you getting your stats from ?

Let's look at the facts from the govt website.



http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet






Carter inherited a 7.7% unemployment rate from yet another republican named Ford who had a recession happen under his term Gee imagine that, sure looks like a strong correlation between republican presidents and economic downturns.
They went to 9% under him and then came down to 6 before moving back up to 7.5.




Then mr reagan comes along and the rate goes from 7.5 to nearly 11% even though he trippled the national debt from 1 trillion to 3 trillion. Finally after borrowing 2 trillion and having a massive military build up that created jobs the rate fell to 5%. Yep that trickle down theory worked wonders as the debt tripled and personal saving fell to an all time low.




The elder bush steps in and once the military build up got reduced the rate went from 5 % to 8% while the nationl debt went from 3 trillion to 5 trillion.







Reagan trippled the national debt in only 8 years so I would hope we would have gotten a lower unemployment rate from all that debt and the massive military buildup.

[stevey_wunder]

Where are you getting your stats from ?

Let's look at the facts from the govt website.



http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet






Carter inherited a 7.7% unemployment rate from yet another republican named Ford who had a recession happen under his term Gee imagine that, sure looks like a strong correlation between republican presidents and economic downturns.
They went to 9% under him and then came down to 6 before moving back up to 7.5.




Then mr reagan comes along and the rate goes from 7.5 to nearly 11% even though he trippled the national debt from 1 trillion to 3 trillion. Finally after borrowing 2 trillion and having a massive military build up that created jobs the rate fell to 5%. Yep that trickle down theory worked wonders as the debt tripled and personal saving fell to an all time low.




The elder bush steps in and once the military build up got reduced the rate went from 5 % to 8% while the nationl debt went from 3 trillion to 5 trillion.







Reagan trippled the national debt in only 8 years so I would hope we would have gotten a lower unemployment rate from all that debt and the massive military buildup.


Hey stupidfuck!
Your data is totally fucked up!
You left out how Gooberman's administration had the most fucked up inflation rates, unemplotment rates and the asshole traitor emasculated the military.

How fucking old are you....12?

[Vertnut]

I'll answer you question as to the federal debt... hopefully tomorrow.

I ended up breaking my wrist today trying to act 25 again and playing some tackle football after the Cowboys get killed by the Rams. lol. I got back about 30 minutes ago from the ER.

This along with my achilles rupture 2 years ago (this month) I'm pretty sure I've convinced myself that there is a reason 45 year old dudes don't do shit like this. Almost two decades of organized football... 5 years of strapping my ass on a bull... and not one serious injury except a neck injury when I was young... never a broken nothing... and in two years time I've rupture tendons and broken bones. LOL.

This post took about 3 minutes to write with my left hand (thank goodness I'm left handed! haha).

Pain killers, FTW! How the hell am I gonna rub one out?
You need to keep your fragile ass at home playing poker on the computer! ;)
Getting old sucks. Other than my daily (habitual) stationary bike ride, and 3-day-a-week light weight-training, I don't venture out into the athletic world much any more.

Take care, man. I know you went through hell with that achilles... :o

[bullet]

stevey is it any wunder you don't understand how oil prices affect inflation when they went from $3 to $11 a barrel in a year under your republican president. I guess it was Carter who started the embargo. While you are in remedial, you may want to take monetary policy 101 before we debate any further.

[AL P]

stevey is it any wunder you don't understand how oil prices affect inflation when they went from $3 to $11 a barrel in a year under your republican president. I guess it was Carter who started the embargo. While you are in remedial, you may want to take monetary policy 101 before we debate any further.

I like how you think the president sits in his office and causes all of these economic movements. It is very entertaining. At most you could make the case that Reagan shifted the price of oil when he broke the backs of the Soviets, beyond that it is a nice fairytale that you believe the commander in chief has this much control.

[AL P]

Trickle Down Theory Myth

History has shown that the “trickle down theory” does not work. Republican President Hoover tried the “trickle down” theory (his words) to solve economic problems during the last few years of his only term, when the greatest economic depression this country has ever faced began. It is often called the Republican Depression because it was their financial philosophy that led to the collapse of the economy. Tax cuts for the rich did not work and things got worse. (We are seeing the same problem repeat itself encouraged by the deregulation of the financial industry.)

President Roosevelt got into office, raised taxes on the rich, created jobs for the poor and turned things around. Mr. Reagan employed Hoover’s failed trickle down theory again in the ‘80s and again it did not work. The rich got richer, but the poor got poorer and the economy declined. Mr. Bush Sr., who always had a problem with the “vision thing”, continued the failed policy of his immediate predecessor.

Mr. Clinton took a more progressive approach and, as Roosevelt had done, turned the Hoover model upside down. Instead of making the rich richer in the hope that they would spend that money and thus create demand and therefore jobs, he created a tax environment that encouraged the creation of jobs directly. It was an economic environment where everyone could get rich, not just a few, and it worked. Lots of jobs and lots of new millionaires were created while Clinton was in office. More new millionaires were created during the Clinton administration than at any other time in our history.

President Bush II slipped into office and once again applied the manta of the old trickle down tax model and immediately created a need to raise the debt level to pay for an unjustified tax cut in 2001. Predictably (and before 9/11) the nation lost jobs and there were fewer new millionaires. Not learning from his past mistakes, Bush pushed through yet more tax cuts in 2003, 2005 and 2006 -- all while expanding the military, the largest single component of the budget. He and his lap dog Republican Congress never learned from their mistakes. As a result, the national debt has increased an average of $1.5 billion per day since the beginning of 2002.

While it is a great jabbing sound bite, the facts show that the “tax and spend” rhetoric Republicans often spew about Democrats is not as bad as it sounds. Taxing before spending actually reflects good government. The facts also show that it most often takes a Democratic President to control and reduce spending. The truth is that the Republicans are the party of “borrow and spend”. They hate taxes, but love to spend; their solution is to put off paying till later for our security today. They prefer to see our children pay for their debt. Republican thinking has run up over an 9.5 trillion dollar debt that will not be paid off for a generation or more, and is still increasing at an astounding rate with no end to deficit spending in sight.

Again, a fabulous article if you think the president has direct control over massive economic shifts. It also helps if you ignore huge historical milestones that shifted not only the course of history but the economy as well. I.E. Reagan breaking the Soviets, the rise of the dot.com bubble and following implosion, 9/11. Really, there is quite a list. Was all of this planned by the president? As I mentioned in my previous post, you can make the case with Reagan and that is about it, beyond that you got a spin article.

Not only is it a spin article but it defies logic.

Taxing the rich and giving the money away doesn't improve the economy. If it did we could tax ourselves into prosperity. Not only can we not do that, no nation has EVER done that.

I challenge any of you to make a logical argument that it does help the economy.

[Big Thumper]

I like how you think the president sits in his office and causes all of these economic movements. It is very entertaining. At most you could make the case that Reagan shifted the price of oil when he broke the backs of the Soviets, beyond that it is a nice fairytale that you believe the commander in chief has this much control.

I would like to take this moment to thank Mr. Bush for lowering gas prices. When he caused them to go up, I was upset with him. He figured out what went wrong, he flipped the wrong switch on the control panel, causing the gas prices to go up. When he and the boys finally found the switch, gas prices came down.

[AL P]

Hey stupidfuck!
Your data is totally fucked up!
You left out how Gooberman's administration had the most fucked up inflation rates, unemplotment rates and the asshole traitor emasculated the military.

How fucking old are you....12?

Not to mention Carter actually destroyed the US reputation in the Middle East almost single handedly with his "Peace in the Middle East" bullshit. We are still dealing with Carter's mistakes.

There seems to be really strong evidence that Democratic presidents make messes and Republicans run up massive national debt trying to clean them up.

[Nate]

Not to mention Carter actually destroyed the US reputation in the Middle East almost single handedly with his "Peace in the Middle East" bullshit. We are still dealing with Carter's mistakes.

There seems to be really strong evidence that Democratic presidents make messes and Republicans run up massive national debt trying to clean them up.
But by the time the Rep cleans shit up runs up the debt just so they can start fixing things a Dem gets back in takes credit for all the great economic stuff happening and then fucks things up again...amirite? :p

[AL P]

But by the time the Rep cleans shit up runs up the debt just so they can start fixing things a Dem gets back in takes credit for all the great economic stuff happening and then fucks things up again...amirite? :p

Not really. It's just political fingerpointing. You'd have to be an idiot to think whatever president is in office has anything but a slight effect. Who controls congress is much more important. But we have no shortage of simpletons who believe this.

As 01Whitecobra has said, the average person in this country can't see past their next paycheck. I'd like to also add that they can't see further back than their last one. The economy made a nice recovery from 2002-2006, especially considering the destruction in early 2001.

[bullet]

I like how you think the president sits in his office and causes all of these economic movements. It is very entertaining. At most you could make the case that Reagan shifted the price of oil when he broke the backs of the Soviets, beyond that it is a nice fairytale that you believe the commander in chief has this much control.


Then why do republicans blame clinton for the recession under bush ?


You can argue all you want but history shows, recessions happen quite often under republican presidents and very rarely under democrat presidents. You can't argue with the facts. Go back the past 100 years and check for yourself. I never said the president holding office causes the movements. Monetary policy has way more influence than what any president can do.

[bullet]

Taxing the rich and giving the money away doesn't improve the economy. If it did we could tax ourselves into prosperity. Not only can we not do that, no nation has EVER done that.

I challenge any of you to make a logical argument that it does help the economy.



The fact's show that when the rich are given tax cuts the economy almost always slows. What happened from 1980 to 1992 under trickle down theory ? The money got invested/saved instead of spent and therefore the economy grew very little.
My argument is not about taxes. The problem I have with the republican economic theory is that they want to reduce taxes but increase spending. At least the democrat theory makes more sense financially with increasing taxes along with increased spending.


When is the last time a republican president has ever had a balanced budget ?

[bullet]

Not to mention Carter actually destroyed the US reputation in the Middle East almost single handedly with his "Peace in the Middle East" bullshit. We are still dealing with Carter's mistakes.

There seems to be really strong evidence that Democratic presidents make messes and Republicans run up massive national debt trying to clean them up.



Was Hoover a democrat ?

[stevey_wunder]

I say we beat the fuck outta bullet for bogarting all the killer herb he must smoke!

[bullet]

Perhaps you will do better in that manner because you aren't much of challenge with your wit.