Wow I never thought of that. If I have less money to invest and the capital I do invest, if it generates a profit, will be taxed more heavily I guess that is a major incentive to buy more capital goods and hire more employees right? As long as I “hope” it will work!
Screwball Democratic logic at it’s finest. Tax your way to prosperity. That’ll work right?
The wealthy already pay more then their fair share. Care to guess what Obama and HeHe consider wealthy?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Looks like a prescription to stimulate more outsourcing, if you ask me.[/quote]
Yes it does, doesn’t it?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
Uhh… taxes on the wealthy are historically very, very, very low. And at no point did those previous levels prevent them from making even more money.
Marginal rates matter - and they particularly matter when the economy is in a down cycle.
100meters wrote:
We have governmental control now, we don’t really have free trade now, and you’ll have the same health care choices. These are fake issues.
Nice rhetorical trick. I said “more governmental control,” and you argue that we already have governmental control so increasing it doesn’t matter… I said “less free trade” you said we don’t have free trade now so it doesn’t matter. More governmental control and less free trade matter.
As for health care, it will be worse than now with Obama’s plan. There are parts of his plan that are fine - why not invest in digital records, for example. But most of his plan is not the same and would not be better overall. There are good health care reforms - they don’t involve socializing medicine. They do involve individual choice and individual ownership (and equal treatment of individuals and employers under the tax code), and competition (easily done by allowing companies to sell policies across state lines).[/quote]
I didn’t mean to trick, I just disagree that these are issues at all. That some rules and regulations change or benefit another party doesn’t equal more or less control or tighter restrictions on “free trade” which means nothing anyway.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Wow I never thought of that. If I have less money to invest and the capital I do invest, if it generates a profit, will be taxed more heavily I guess that is a major incentive to buy more capital goods and hire more employees right? As long as I “hope” it will work!
Screwball Democratic logic at it’s finest. Tax your way to prosperity. That’ll work right?
The wealthy already pay more then their fair share. Care to guess what Obama and HeHe consider wealthy?[/quote]
Silliness. Taxes have been higher. The elite still invested.
[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Wow I never thought of that. If I have less money to invest and the capital I do invest, if it generates a profit, will be taxed more heavily I guess that is a major incentive to buy more capital goods and hire more employees right? As long as I “hope” it will work!
Screwball Democratic logic at it’s finest. Tax your way to prosperity. That’ll work right?
The wealthy already pay more then their fair share. Care to guess what Obama and HeHe consider wealthy?
Silliness. Taxes have been higher. The elite still invested.[/quote]
You are addicted to idealogy and have a lack of understanding of basic economics…like Barack and Hillary.
Actually the wealthy don’t invest in high tax countries, they relocate and the elite are not what you and the other minions are after. Corporations are not the “elite”. They are business entities.
If you don’t have it. You don’t invest it. If you are taxed when taking a risk, then the incentive for risk taking in curtailed. Although you may consider me “elite” I simply own a few businesses and I will not reinvest into them if I am taxed heavily. I’ll simply save and wait until a friendlier administration is in place and will leverage tax advantaged investments.
You get less the more you regulate. You cannot tax your way to prosperity. It’s basic common sense…oh I forgot you are a liberal Democrat.
[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Wow I never thought of that. If I have less money to invest and the capital I do invest, if it generates a profit, will be taxed more heavily I guess that is a major incentive to buy more capital goods and hire more employees right? As long as I “hope” it will work!
Screwball Democratic logic at it’s finest. Tax your way to prosperity. That’ll work right?
The wealthy already pay more then their fair share. Care to guess what Obama and HeHe consider wealthy?
Silliness. Taxes have been higher. The elite still invested.[/quote]
Yup. In Mexico and China.
[quote]orion wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Wow I never thought of that. If I have less money to invest and the capital I do invest, if it generates a profit, will be taxed more heavily I guess that is a major incentive to buy more capital goods and hire more employees right? As long as I “hope” it will work!
Screwball Democratic logic at it’s finest. Tax your way to prosperity. That’ll work right?
The wealthy already pay more then their fair share. Care to guess what Obama and HeHe consider wealthy?
Silliness. Taxes have been higher. The elite still invested.
Yup. In Mexico and China.
[/quote]
and more obviously…The U.S.(more relevant)
[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Wow I never thought of that. If I have less money to invest and the capital I do invest, if it generates a profit, will be taxed more heavily I guess that is a major incentive to buy more capital goods and hire more employees right? As long as I “hope” it will work!
Screwball Democratic logic at it’s finest. Tax your way to prosperity. That’ll work right?
The wealthy already pay more then their fair share. Care to guess what Obama and HeHe consider wealthy?
Silliness. Taxes have been higher. The elite still invested.
You are addicted to idealogy and have a lack of understanding of basic economics…like Barack and Hillary.
Actually the wealthy don’t invest in high tax countries, they relocate and the elite are not what you and the other minions are after. Corporations are not the “elite”. They are business entities.
If you don’t have it. You don’t invest it. If you are taxed when taking a risk, then the incentive for risk taking in curtailed. Although you may consider me “elite” I simply own a few businesses and I will not reinvest into them if I am taxed heavily. I’ll simply save and wait until a friendlier administration is in place and will leverage tax advantaged investments.
You get less the more you regulate. You cannot tax your way to prosperity. It’s basic common sense…oh I forgot you are a liberal Democrat.
[/quote]
Taxes can and will be “higher” and you and others will still invest. Why bother arguing this?
[quote]100meters wrote:
orion wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Wow I never thought of that. If I have less money to invest and the capital I do invest, if it generates a profit, will be taxed more heavily I guess that is a major incentive to buy more capital goods and hire more employees right? As long as I “hope” it will work!
Screwball Democratic logic at it’s finest. Tax your way to prosperity. That’ll work right?
The wealthy already pay more then their fair share. Care to guess what Obama and HeHe consider wealthy?
Silliness. Taxes have been higher. The elite still invested.
Yup. In Mexico and China.
and more obviously…The U.S.(more relevant)
[/quote]
You missed his point. Higher taxes encourage people to invest elsewhere. Tax breaks encourage local investment. There is no disputing this.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
orion wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Wow I never thought of that. If I have less money to invest and the capital I do invest, if it generates a profit, will be taxed more heavily I guess that is a major incentive to buy more capital goods and hire more employees right? As long as I “hope” it will work!
Screwball Democratic logic at it’s finest. Tax your way to prosperity. That’ll work right?
The wealthy already pay more then their fair share. Care to guess what Obama and HeHe consider wealthy?
Silliness. Taxes have been higher. The elite still invested.
Yup. In Mexico and China.
and more obviously…The U.S.(more relevant)
You missed his point. Higher taxes encourage people to invest elsewhere. Tax breaks encourage local investment. There is no disputing this.[/quote]
30 000 000 000 EUR each year make the run to Liechtenstein to live a happy and tax free life there.
From Germany alone.
Funny that the top 10% carrying pretty much all the weight have stopped arguing and simply vote with their feet.
I do not think that Atlas already shrugs but he is definitely not in a good mood.
When I am all grown up I want me an anonymus trust fund in Liechtenstein.
Trouble for Clinton, and good news for Obama concerning Superdelegates.
[i]WASHINGTON - The Democratic superdelegates are starting to follow the voters �?? straight to Barack Obama.
In just the past two weeks, more than two dozen of them have climbed aboard his presidential campaign, according to a survey by The Associated Press. At the same time, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s are beginning to jump ship, abandoning her for Obama or deciding they now are undecided.[/i]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080222/ap_on_el_pr/superdelegates
I can’t imagine the poster of this as being anyone that is successful. College student? Welfare recipient?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
orion wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Wow I never thought of that. If I have less money to invest and the capital I do invest, if it generates a profit, will be taxed more heavily I guess that is a major incentive to buy more capital goods and hire more employees right? As long as I “hope” it will work!
Screwball Democratic logic at it’s finest. Tax your way to prosperity. That’ll work right?
The wealthy already pay more then their fair share. Care to guess what Obama and HeHe consider wealthy?
Silliness. Taxes have been higher. The elite still invested.
Yup. In Mexico and China.
and more obviously…The U.S.(more relevant)
You missed his point. Higher taxes encourage people to invest elsewhere. Tax breaks encourage local investment. There is no disputing this.[/quote]
Uhh, no I didn’t. This is a fake issue. People right now invest elsewhere. This rate won’t be dramatically changed (if it all) by not continuing the Bush tax cuts, which can’t be sustained anyway.
[quote]100meters wrote:
…Uhh, no I didn’t. This is a fake issue. People right now invest elsewhere. This rate won’t be dramatically changed (if it all) by not continuing the Bush tax cuts, which can’t be sustained anyway. [/quote]
It is not a fake issue. No use discussing it with you because you are a partisan hack.
Do you prefer Hillary or Obama?
[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Wow I never thought of that. If I have less money to invest and the capital I do invest, if it generates a profit, will be taxed more heavily I guess that is a major incentive to buy more capital goods and hire more employees right? As long as I “hope” it will work!
Screwball Democratic logic at it’s finest. Tax your way to prosperity. That’ll work right?
The wealthy already pay more then their fair share. Care to guess what Obama and HeHe consider wealthy?
Silliness. Taxes have been higher. The elite still invested.
You are addicted to idealogy and have a lack of understanding of basic economics…like Barack and Hillary.
Actually the wealthy don’t invest in high tax countries, they relocate and the elite are not what you and the other minions are after. Corporations are not the “elite”. They are business entities.
If you don’t have it. You don’t invest it. If you are taxed when taking a risk, then the incentive for risk taking in curtailed. Although you may consider me “elite” I simply own a few businesses and I will not reinvest into them if I am taxed heavily. I’ll simply save and wait until a friendlier administration is in place and will leverage tax advantaged investments.
You get less the more you regulate. You cannot tax your way to prosperity. It’s basic common sense…oh I forgot you are a liberal Democrat.
Taxes can and will be “higher” and you and others will still invest. Why bother arguing this?[/quote]
No I won’t. I will save and wait. I’m not arguing with you. You are a fool and there is no point in arguing with a fool…and a poor fool at that.
Taxes will not be higher if the country comes to it’s senses and tosses out the Democrats, and their candidates, which is more then likely to happen.
Tell me there isn’t media bias favoring Barack. Poor Hillary.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
I can’t imagine the poster of this as being anyone that is successful. College student? Welfare recipient?[/quote]
Look at his avatar and smell yourself.
I normally do not post on threads that are to long for me to read, because I do not have the time. I can say I watched the Chris Mathews interview with the Texas Senator. I do think Chris Mathews made the point that he is not only arrogant but also rude. Obama has no major accomplishments to add to our political abyss, which in my opinion is not a bad thing. Look at some of the laws and bills that are passed. I believe that the average American is tired of the usual politics or should I say our experience .
It may not come from the educated because they know how to protect their investment. But some day the poor and the people that our government is not serving will revolt.
I believe our government does not want us to understand anything; they want us to believe that our political process is so complicated that you have to be imbedded in the process to accomplish anything. I do not believe it to be.
The Republicans believe that people that are poor are that because they are lazy. And that may be true in some cases. I believe most people are poor because the lack of education. And now people are being walked on by Banks, Insurance companies, I think the biggest discrimination is the Credit bureau.
The Credit bureau says some one is poor so banks and insurance companies can assume they are uneducated and the systematically rape them. I am sure this will be dissected and it may not be totally right, but have at it.
Peace
Talking without any knowledge appears to be one of his positions.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/02/us_troops_scavenging_weapons.asp
During tonight’s debate, Barack Obama related this stunning anecdote:
You know, I’ve heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon–supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.
And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition, they didn’t have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.
As soon as the Senator made the claim he looked as though he knew he’d gone too far. The Corner reports the campaign is already backtracking. After the debate Obama advisor David Axlerod told Stephen Spruiell,
That was a discussion that a captain in the military had with our staff, and he asked that that be passed along to Senator Obama.
So Obama never actually spoke with the captain, which means he can reasonably claim the tale was garbled in transmission. It is possible that an American unit was ill-equipped for combat, these things happen in the fog of war (as do bullshit stories), and they have happened with troubling frequency in this war as in every other. Which is not to diminish any failure on the part of the administration or the military leadership in providing U.S. forces with the equipment they need. But is this particular story true?
Our troops never rotate into theater before running through a series of inspections which ensure that they’re properly equipped, and we’ve never heard a report of soldiers having to scrounge for ammo. If we did, we’d join the Senator in raising hell. In Obama’s telling the blame lies with President Bush, but the story is perfectly vague and based on nothing but hearsay. We expect there will be a lot of folks that want to get to the bottom of this, whether the facts supports Obama’s version or not.
Is Obama just a bullshitter or does he believe his lies? Spreading these kinds of tales is reprehensible.
How can anyone consider voting for this guy?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I normally do not post on threads that are to long for me to read, because I do not have the time. I can say I watched the Chris Mathews interview with the Texas Senator. I do think Chris Mathews made the point that he is not only arrogant but also rude. Obama has no major accomplishments to add to our political abyss, which in my opinion is not a bad thing. Look at some of the laws and bills that are passed. I believe that the average American is tired of the usual politics or should I say our experience .
It may not come from the educated because they know how to protect their investment. But some day the poor and the people that our government is not serving will revolt.
I believe our government does not want us to understand anything; they want us to believe that our political process is so complicated that you have to be imbedded in the process to accomplish anything. I do not believe it to be.
The Republicans believe that people that are poor are that because they are lazy. And that may be true in some cases. I believe most people are poor because the lack of education. And now people are being walked on by Banks, Insurance companies, I think the biggest discrimination is the Credit bureau.
The Credit bureau says some one is poor so banks and insurance companies can assume they are uneducated and the systematically rape them. I am sure this will be dissected and it may not be totally right, but have at it.
Peace
[/quote]
pitbull,
I actually agree with some of your points. Where I think you are dangerously wrong is that the Presidency SHOULD ALWAYS have the most qualified person elected. When that position carries the MOST responsibility of any official on the planet, you need commiserate training.
You don’t want Larry the personable gardener taking out your gall bladder. You want the head of Mayo. A guy who has lived, breathed, and developed his skills to the utmost.
Unless obama receives the greatest mandate EVER (no chance), then will be unable to change the whole culture of Washington. Therefore, he is going to need to be well versed in dealing Washington as it is. If not, he’ll be ineffective.
JeffR