Question for the Obama Haters

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]100meters wrote:

You could of course compare real per person revenue growth between Reagan and Clinton, but you know–you’d look like a fool.
Better to just kind of make stuff up.[/quote]

Clinton presided over an enormous asset bubble which in turn produced records amounts of revenue from capital gains taxes. Clinton had nothing to do with the revenue streaming in - it had everything to do with the tech explosion and people buying and selling stocks when they exploded for 50% gains in a matter of weeks.

All of which came to a crashing halt - at the end of Clinton’s presidency, and with no change in taxes. The “revenue growth per person” under Clinton was an illusion we learned about the hard way.

Get learned up on this stuff, or move along. You’ve taken the sport out of it.

142

Way to avoid LBJ and good old Jimmy, just keep believing everything Teddy and the MSM force feed you.

143

[quote]100meters wrote:

I’m never arguing causation, just association. You guys do the causation thing. [/quote]

Then you are arguing nothing - because association is meaningless here unless it suggests causation.

Assuming that is even true, so what? If you can’t suggest that the association hints at a causation, why bother bringing it up?

Policy shouldn’t be based on “associations” if those associations can’t lead to a rational argument for causation.

So, genius, make the argument, and make your precious “association” mean something, since you belch it out over and over like a broken record of tired talking points - what causation for growth can you derive from its “association” with higher taxes?

Can’t wait for your answer.

144

[quote]forlife wrote:
JASE72 wrote:
what difference does it make weather your in the top 5% or not? The simple fact is this, those who are in the 5% have the same rights to do whatever they want with their money.

They worked damn hard (most of them) to get to the top, so why on earth should they “share” their money with the millions of leaches in this country that dont do shit for our country but expect everything!!!
NOBAMA!!!

Like I said, I completely understand why the top 5% don’t like Obama. However, Obama’s tax policies don’t hurt me at all. I have the same right to act in my self-interest as the wealthy do, and fortunately there are enough of us that it looks likely Obama will win next week.[/quote]

His tax policies will hurt you tremendously because the cost of everything you buy will skyrocket. I am surprised how many people don’t understand that the consumer pays the costs!

145

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Because stealing my money to pay for necessities is different than stealing it to specifically give to someone else. I guess my point is that roads benefit the people paying for them at least, welfare doesn’t.

If it’s not too personal a question, is this because you are in the top 5% that would see a tax increase under Obama? If you’re not, you would be paying the same taxes regardless.[/quote]

I am in a position financially to benefit by every single socialist program ever conceived by the liberal left in this country and I am unbending in my total opposition to them all.

That includes, welfare, medicare, nedicaid, food stamps, social security, any type of federal loan program, this entire convoluted social engineering tax system, or any legislative scheme that attempts to influence outcome and almost anything else I can think of that didn’t exist before 1900.

Guess why I cannot stand, CANNOT STAND any of these leftist assholes in either party or any branch of government?

146

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Now I have to quit and find another job? well, if everyone does that in private companies, there will be a lot of people looking and my market value would drop.

Or more likely, a savvy CEO would realize that he needs to retain his talent and would avoid making such a myopic decision just to pad his short-term salary.
[/quote]

lol

147

[quote]100meters wrote:
rainjack wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:

Explain how well trickle down worked under GWB, Bush Sr., Reagan.

why don’t you read just one book on economics before requesting that others spoon feed you?

He’s been chirping the same tune for a few years. He won’t read anything that resembles the truth.

He won’t do anything to prove that every higher taxes is good for the economy, but always asks others to do it for him.

The simple fact that tax revenues ALWAYS increase when taxes are lowered escapes him.

He’s little more than a dem sycophant.

But increase MORE with tax hikes. Bush’s tax cuts did lead to more revenue, but we always have more revenue. The problem: They don’t pay for themselves. That’s bad.Minus the Bush tax cuts, we’d have had MORE revenue.

You could of course compare real per person revenue growth between Reagan and Clinton, but you know–you’d look like a fool.
Better to just kind of make stuff up.[/quote]

Again, completely wrong. Here is a very basic rule of economics.

You can not use history to form economic theory. You can only use economic theory to explain history. You are taking a simpleton’s approach to economics.

What you need to do is form an economic theory and use to explain historic economic events, taking into account all significant factors. If you can do this logically, you may be on to something. Either that or just accept that classic economics completely disagree with you. The same economic principles that have been widely accepted since the late 1700s.

You are completely off base. No question about it. That’s all.

148

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Now I have to quit and find another job? well, if everyone does that in private companies, there will be a lot of people looking and my market value would drop.

Or more likely, a savvy CEO would realize that he needs to retain his talent and would avoid making such a myopic decision just to pad his short-term salary.

lol[/quote]

yep, dream world.

149

[quote]forlife wrote:
From the responses to far, it seems most of you dislike Obama because you disagree with the “Robin Hood doctrine”.[/quote]

Robin Hood didn’t simply rob from the rich and give to the poor. He robbed from the government who TAXED THE PEOPLE INTO POVERTY. Funny, I’m putting in about 50 hours a week and can barely cover my student loans because I’m also being taxed to hell.

Let’s talk about taxes. Stop saying that 95% of the country is not going to see their taxes go up. Actually 100% of the people will see their taxes go up when the Bush tax cuts expire.

Income taxation is a form of slavery and Obama wants to be my master. I make $12/hr. FICA withholdings are over 10% for me. This of course doesn’t count SS and Medicare which I will never see.

Now if I get 10% of my labor taken from me in the form of income taxes and I work a 40 hour week, how is it any different from a gov’t agent coming to my door and leading me to a forced labor camp at gunpoint for 4 hours every week? [quote]

I can see letting people keep their own money, instead of forcing them to give it to others. It’s really a question of how much you take though, since I’m sure most of you agree that a government requires a certain amount of wealth redistribution in order to function.

Anyway, it’s interesting that most of you oppose Obama primarily on economic grounds rather than on other issues like his approach to international policy, social issues, etc.[/quote]

Oh I don’t like any of that either. But the fact that he is an enemy of the Constitution – a document I swore to defend – I don’t need to worry about his other failings which are legion.

I don’t see how his open admission to violate the Bill of Rights doesn’t bother anyone. I didn’t vote for Bush in '04, but I’d pick him or Cheney over Obama in a heartbeat.

mike

150

[quote]100meters wrote:
But increase MORE with tax hikes. Bush’s tax cuts did lead to more revenue, but we always have more revenue. The problem: They don’t pay for themselves. That’s bad.Minus the Bush tax cuts, we’d have had MORE revenue.
[/quote]

Did you think about this before you wrote it? How the fuck do you figure “we will always have more revenue” From what? The revenue fairy? What won’t pay for themselves? When more money circulates everybody is better off, including the government.

Higher taxes leads to taking money out of circulation. To make up for it, prices have to increase and hence you have inflation. In the end, if you compensate for inflation, the governments gain is short lived.

[quote]
You could of course compare real per person revenue growth between Reagan and Clinton, but you know–you’d look like a fool.
Better to just kind of make stuff up.[/quote]

Clinton’s taxes were killing me. I made a very modest salary and was just getting hammered by his taxes…All for it to blow up in the mushroom cloud of the “new economy”.

151

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
forlife wrote:
JASE72 wrote:
what difference does it make weather your in the top 5% or not? The simple fact is this, those who are in the 5% have the same rights to do whatever they want with their money.

They worked damn hard (most of them) to get to the top, so why on earth should they “share” their money with the millions of leaches in this country that dont do shit for our country but expect everything!!!
NOBAMA!!!

Like I said, I completely understand why the top 5% don’t like Obama. However, Obama’s tax policies don’t hurt me at all. I have the same right to act in my self-interest as the wealthy do, and fortunately there are enough of us that it looks likely Obama will win next week.

His tax policies will hurt you tremendously because the cost of everything you buy will skyrocket. I am surprised how many people don’t understand that the consumer pays the costs![/quote]

Nu uh, the leaders of these companies as well as the board of directors will be happy to pay these increases! I bet they’ll take it out of their own pay.

152

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
I seriously don’t understand why some people are so vitriolic towards Obama. Yes, I agree he doesn’t have as much experience as would be ideal. But I still think he has the leadership ability and vision to take our country in a positive direction.

Anyway, here’s my question. If you were to choose ONE single reason that you believe Obama will destroy our country, what would that reason be? What is the one biggest beef you have with him?

I’m not a socialist.[/quote]

I call him more of a Marxist than a socialist, but I? get your point.

  1. Very poor judgment in so many ways.
  2. tired ideas that have been rejected by most people with real world jobs.
  3. Liar, especially in regards to his views on guns

I have so many it’s ridiculous. I’m very conservative and this guy will be worse than Jimmy Carter, who might have been the biggest moron ever to reside in the oval office.

153

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Because stealing my money to pay for necessities is different than stealing it to specifically give to someone else. I guess my point is that roads benefit the people paying for them at least, welfare doesn’t.

If it’s not too personal a question, is this because you are in the top 5% that would see a tax increase under Obama? If you’re not, you would be paying the same taxes regardless.

We already have a progressive tax rate, meaning ru=icher pays more of a percentage. I will not ignore the wrong of this because “I’m not the one being stolen from”. Just give hime some time and watch the number go down right to you…say…42,000?[/quote]

Exactly right. all the whiz bang freebies we are being promised will need tax money from people around that level and up. so why not let us keep our fucking money? It’s not like government can do it cheaper. You need to take much more than 1 dollar to give someone a dollar’s worth of benefits.

154

[quote]forlife wrote:
JASE72 wrote:
what difference does it make weather your in the top 5% or not? The simple fact is this, those who are in the 5% have the same rights to do whatever they want with their money.

They worked damn hard (most of them) to get to the top, so why on earth should they “share” their money with the millions of leaches in this country that dont do shit for our country but expect everything!!!
NOBAMA!!!

Like I said, I completely understand why the top 5% don’t like Obama. However, Obama’s tax policies don’t hurt me at all. I have the same right to act in my self-interest as the wealthy do, and fortunately there are enough of us that it looks likely Obama will win next week.[/quote]

Why do you strive for mediocrity? You gonna stand there with your hand out?

155

[quote]JASE72 wrote:
snipeout wrote:
It could be his far left radical redistribution of wealth theory. It could also be his refusal to admit his association with Bill Ayers.

Nah, I think its how far to the left he leans regarding all of his policies. The government has its hands in way to much stuff as it is. I can’t imagine the government further extending it’s already ridiculous reach.

It is not my(i.e. hard working americans) job to ensure that lazy pieces of shit who won’t work can make a living off government entitlements. I don’t think there is anything wrong with helping people who need it and were or are contributing members of society.

I work in a jail so I see the bottom of the barrell. Nothing makes me shake my head harder in disbelief than what these people are entitled to. The same people that drive Cadillac Escalades when they are “out on the street”, also collect welfare, food stamps and section 8 housing.

Do we really need a President that is going to give these people more?

FINALY A VOICE OF REASON!!! I cant accept the “share the wealth” philosophy!!! If i consciously bust my ass, starting in school through college & onto a career in order to make a good living, why the f^#k would anyone even imagine that i should unwillingly give a penny to some scumbag who took the lazy, irresponsible way out.

Someone who “prolly” dropped out of school, knocked up 4 baby mommas, & lives their life by scamming the government & taking handouts with no sense of dignity & believe that they deserve everything because of the economic situation that they put themselves in!! I should do with my “excess” money what ever the F^#k I want!!! JUST MY OPINION!![/quote]

Exactly,if someone wants to give some lazy ass more money, why don’t all the silly ass liberals start writing out checks to them? A guy like Ben Affleck could just say, " you know, 10 million is just to much money for a movie. Take 5 million of my pay and spread the wealth around to all the people on the set!"

You’ll never see that happen. why don’t all these musicians like Bruce Springsteen etc. have an HOUSE AID concert and give all proceeds to help out the dumbasses who bout homes they couldn’t afford?

You’ll never see that happen. Liberalism is about feeling good with no accountability.

156

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The premise question for this thread comes as a bit silly - it sounds like there is an undertone of “what could you possibly dislike about the guy?”.

Anyway, since time is short, here is a 30 second bullet point, and I could go on:

He thinks in Marxist categories about wealth and productivity.

He sees wealth as a zero-sum game of winners and losers.

He champions a tax regime based on the discredited economics of cradle-to-grave wealth distribution.

He wants a tax regime that incentivizes capital to flow elsewhere, both investment dollars and labor, not only sending wealth somewhere else but unwittingly aggravating the problem of “shipping jobs overseas”.

He sees the economic troubles in America as a chance to shoehorn an ideological paradigm shift in government that includes many issues that aren�??t in need of “fixing” outside of the immediate problems.

He wants a tax regime that creates a class of citizens interested only in the Bread and Circuses that government can provide, thus reinforcing citizens as “consumers” of government policy and public monies, and not trustees of them.

He wants judges that undermine a republican form of government and encourages anti-democratic decisionmaking at the national level.

He invites aggression abroad.

He has no track record of any kind of leadership.

He has a track record of avoiding difficult policy questions, either to protect his political ambitions or because he isn’t particularly principled �?? neither is a good answer.

He has no accomplishments of any note, except a couple of narcissistic autobiographies that made him enough to move into Hyde Park.

He traffics in radical circles of politics, but then remains opaque about those relationships �?? as such, he is either a radical himself, or an opportunist playing to those radicals, and neither is good.

He consistently tries to play on “oppression guilt” as a way of shutting down debate and criticism of himself or his policy positions.

He isn’t particularly impressive “on the fly”, and the toughest challenges Presidents will face are the spontaneous surprises.

He has no command presence �?? and gives the impression he can be overwhelmed by stronger personalities.

He is the postmodern, emasculated beta-male that isn’t the kind of person you seek out to solve large problems.[/quote]

I’m not as articulate in my writing as you, but your point is that he’s a smooth talking con man pussy right? And I’d agree with you.

157

[quote]pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
JASE72 wrote:
what difference does it make weather your in the top 5% or not? The simple fact is this, those who are in the 5% have the same rights to do whatever they want with their money.

They worked damn hard (most of them) to get to the top, so why on earth should they “share” their money with the millions of leaches in this country that dont do shit for our country but expect everything!!!
NOBAMA!!!

Like I said, I completely understand why the top 5% don’t like Obama. However, Obama’s tax policies don’t hurt me at all. I have the same right to act in my self-interest as the wealthy do, and fortunately there are enough of us that it looks likely Obama will win next week.

Why do you strive for mediocrity? You gonna stand there with your hand out?[/quote]

It’s easier to do less and expect you and I to subsidize him.

I think the MSM skewing of the polls coupled with the Bradley effect have this election about dead even. Let’s hope there are enough people with out there heads up their ass voting next week.

158

The biggest problem with Obama is that “trickle down economics” will not work under him. He will never get the much-needed support of corporate America. He will lose Tuesday I am counting on that, just as Gore lost before him.

If you don’t have the major corporations and the special interest lobbies writing your policy, you have no real platform.

Watch the payout to the American car companies who are blaming the taxpayers for not buying their shit. They are already crying they are not getting enough.

Plus, we still have the airlines and beyond. When they need to cut costs, they take your job and keep their bloated salary. They know what is necessary and good for the country.

We haven’t even begun to see all the corporate handouts that will be paid out over the next 4 years to “start”. Right now the banks are using your hard earned tax-money to buy more capital acquisitions and close down the smaller neighborhood banks, just like the corner drug store gave way to Longs Drugs and Wal-Mart.

The big money banks and financial institutions are also reviewing that protected pile of bonuses they WILL hand out, after they told you the 700 billion was to save the economy.

But that is what makes America great! They have the ability to rob the simple fools who talk of their freedom, while they are being robbed.

Like a frog in a pot of ever warming water. There is always an ever growing supply of taxpayers to pay their way.

It really is your fault you don’t work on Wall-Street, so don’t cry about salaries and bonuses that go into the hundreds of millions. They need you to pay taxes and bail them out.

Look at AIG, they got caught blowing a half a billion dollars of YOUR money on a high priced party. But did that stop their next payment? Hell no, that paid for a hunting trip instead.

I am waiting to laugh on Tuesday, mark my words McCain will win. And then you will see the corporate bail-out complete with all “new” government contractors to handle "managing the payouts for a cost of billions.

Katrina was about poor black people, this is about the Hamptons and the real elite.

159

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The premise question for this thread comes as a bit silly - it sounds like there is an undertone of “what could you possibly dislike about the guy?”.

Anyway, since time is short, here is a 30 second bullet point, and I could go on:

He thinks in Marxist categories about wealth and productivity.

He sees wealth as a zero-sum game of winners and losers.

He champions a tax regime based on the discredited economics of cradle-to-grave wealth distribution.

He wants a tax regime that incentivizes capital to flow elsewhere, both investment dollars and labor, not only sending wealth somewhere else but unwittingly aggravating the problem of “shipping jobs overseas”.

He sees the economic troubles in America as a chance to shoehorn an ideological paradigm shift in government that includes many issues that aren�??t in need of “fixing” outside of the immediate problems.

He wants a tax regime that creates a class of citizens interested only in the Bread and Circuses that government can provide, thus reinforcing citizens as “consumers” of government policy and public monies, and not trustees of them.

He wants judges that undermine a republican form of government and encourages anti-democratic decisionmaking at the national level.

He invites aggression abroad.

He has no track record of any kind of leadership.

He has a track record of avoiding difficult policy questions, either to protect his political ambitions or because he isn’t particularly principled �?? neither is a good answer.

He has no accomplishments of any note, except a couple of narcissistic autobiographies that made him enough to move into Hyde Park.

He traffics in radical circles of politics, but then remains opaque about those relationships �?? as such, he is either a radical himself, or an opportunist playing to those radicals, and neither is good.

He consistently tries to play on “oppression guilt” as a way of shutting down debate and criticism of himself or his policy positions.

He isn’t particularly impressive “on the fly”, and the toughest challenges Presidents will face are the spontaneous surprises.

He has no command presence �?? and gives the impression he can be overwhelmed by stronger personalities.

He is the postmodern, emasculated beta-male that isn’t the kind of person you seek out to solve large problems.[/quote]

Yeah. ^^ Me yike that.

160

[quote]RoadWarrior wrote:
The biggest problem with Obama is that “trickle down economics” will not work under him. He will never get the much-needed support of corporate America.

He will lose Tuesday I am counting on that, just as Gore lost before him. If you don’t have the major corporations and the special interest lobbies writing your policy, you have no real platform.

Watch the payout to the American car companies who are blaming the taxpayers for not buying their shit. They are already crying they are not getting enough. Plus, we still have the airlines and beyond. When they need to cut costs, they take your job and keep their bloated salary.

They know what is necessary and good for the country. We haven’t even begun to see all the corporate handouts that will be paid out over the next 4 years to “start”.

Right now the banks are using your hard earned tax-money to buy more capital acquisitions and close down the smaller neighborhood banks, just like the corner drug store gave way to Longs Drugs and Wal-Mart.

The big money banks and financial institutions are also reviewing that protected pile of bonuses they WILL hand out, after they told you the 700 billion was to save the economy. But that is what makes America great! They have the ability to rob the simple fools who talk of their freedom, while they are being robbed.

Like a frog in a pot of ever warming water. There is always an ever growing supply of taxpayers to pay their way. It really is your fault you don’t work on Wall-Street, so don’t cry about salaries and bonuses that go into the hundreds of millions.

They need you to pay taxes and bail them out. Look at AIG, they got caught blowing a half a billion dollars of YOUR money on a high priced party. But did that stop their next payment? Hell no, that paid for a hunting trip instead.

I am waiting to laugh on Tuesday, mark my words McCain will win. And then you will see the corporate bail-out complete with all “new” government contractors to handle "managing the payouts for a cost of billions. Katrina was about poor black people, this is about the Hamptons and the real elite.[/quote]

Seriously, break up your posts a bit. Makes it much easier to read.