Question for the Obama Haters

[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]

Paragraph 10 line 1 should be edited to read half a million. It is still despicable.

Everything you just listed will go under Obama also. The only difference is the major players will need more money since they will be paying more in taxes, as well as more jobs cut due to less revenue coming in.

What makes you think Obamas overregulation of everything is going to fix things? Isn’t it the government(i.e. the same house and senate) that will be in charge of the over sight? The same government that created this quagmire. You really trust Barney Frank with your money?

[quote]snipeout wrote:

Paragraph 10 line 1 should be edited to read half a million. It is still despicable.

Everything you just listed will go under Obama also. The only difference is the major players will need more money since they will be paying more in taxes, as well as more jobs cut due to less revenue coming in.

What makes you think Obamas overregulation of everything is going to fix things? Isn’t it the government(i.e. the same house and senate) that will be in charge of the over sight? The same government that created this quagmire. You really trust Barney Frank with your money?[/quote]

I don’t think Obama is the answer at all. Although right now a bit of over-regulation might not be too bad. Considering it was a total lack of regulation that got us to this point. Besides that, everyone is comfortable blaming the current adminsitration why stop? Obama is a socialist for wanting to return taxes to the pre-Bush level.

McCain wants to keep all of Bush’s corporate tax breaks in place plus write more tax breaks and incentives for the rich and powerful. Who do you really think is going to win?

[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]

The facts either escape you, or you purposely ignore them.

[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 inherited an economy that was actually growing.

Reagan inherited Jimmy fucking Carter’s goat screw.

Bush inherited Clinton’s recession.

You are comparing apples, oranges and pineapples and acting like you have something.

I don’t expect you to understand - you never do.

[quote]RoadWarrior wrote:
snipeout wrote:

Paragraph 10 line 1 should be edited to read half a million. It is still despicable.

Everything you just listed will go under Obama also. The only difference is the major players will need more money since they will be paying more in taxes, as well as more jobs cut due to less revenue coming in.

What makes you think Obamas overregulation of everything is going to fix things? Isn’t it the government(i.e. the same house and senate) that will be in charge of the over sight? The same government that created this quagmire. You really trust Barney Frank with your money?

I don’t think Obama is the answer at all. Although right now a bit of over-regulation might not be too bad. Considering it was a total lack of regulation that got us to this point.

Besides that, everyone is comfortable blaming the current adminsitration why stop? Obama is a socialist for wanting to return taxes to the pre-Bush level. McCain wants to keep all of Bush’s corporate tax breaks in place plus write more tax breaks and incentives for the rich and powerful. Who do you really think is going to win?

[/quote]

we already charge the second highest tax rates to corporations in the world. If you want to stimulate growth and prevent outsourcing you may have to cut the tax rate.

It may not be popular with people who see record profits by xy and z companies, but prosperous businesses mean more jobs and more money all around. Higher taxes just means less money back in circulation and corporations heading to Asia.

Obama is fooling no one with half a brain if he thinks you can improve the economy from the bottom up, it just doesn’t work that way. The top creates the revenue on down.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
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.

The facts either escape you, or you purposely ignore them.

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.

Clinton inherited an economy that was actually growing.

Reagan inherited Jimmy fucking Carter’s goat screw.

Bush inherited Clinton’s recession.

You are comparing apples, oranges and pineapples and acting like you have something.

I don’t expect you to understand - you never do.

[/quote]

Quoting RJ for the fucking truth!

Jimmy Carter was a goat screw, can you imagine what Obamas 4 years will look like. I can, we will roll over for everyone so they “like” us. Hey at least Bob the crack head will have welfare and health care, seeing as how he’s done so much to deserve it.

It’s amusing to see many people without an understanding of simple business and economics.

They see corporations and businesses in a vacuum.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I wouldn’t dream of voting for Obama because he is the most prominent advocate of infanticide we have ever had in this country. He is more extreme than NOW and NARAL. Everything else is secondary to that.

What is this but evidence of his sociopathy? [/quote]

I’m not sure it’s sociopathy. He is an extremist on abortion, even by the standards of the left, but I bet a sizeable minority of the country would agree with him. And a majority would not care one way or the other at the end of the day. They’re not all sociopaths. It’s the death of religion and responsibility. And the death of reflection too probably.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I wouldn’t dream of voting for Obama because he is the most prominent advocate of infanticide we have ever had in this country. He is more extreme than NOW and NARAL. Everything else is secondary to that.

What is this but evidence of his sociopathy?

I’m not sure it’s sociopathy. He is an extremist on abortion, even by the standards of the left, but I bet a sizeable minority of the country would agree with him. And a majority would not care one way or the other at the end of the day. They’re not all sociopaths. It’s the death of religion and responsibility. And the death of reflection too probably.[/quote]

People who lack empathy for other people are sociopaths, no matter how numerous such people are. If a sizable minority of the country agrees with his particular take on extremely late term abortions, I wouldn’t let any of them around my children.

[quote]100meters wrote:

Explain how economy did not get stronger work under LBJ, JFK, and Clinton.[/quote]

JFK and LBJ actually cut taxes. (And dramatically, from a top of 91% to 71%.)

I remember the economy stagnating under Clinton’s tax increase until the Republican take over, and their tax cuts. (And damn that capital gains cut caused tons to flow into the government coffers.)[quote]

Explain how well trickle down worked under GWB, Bush Sr., Reagan.[/quote]

Under Reagan it worked great. Bush Sr. increased taxes, and the economy tanked. And considering 911 should have absolutely devastated the economy, it actually did fine until the Democrats took over.

Trickle down is a fact, proved through history. (Look at Ireland.) The only problem is neither party has any history of cutting spending. Other then a few short years of the Republican Congress under Clinton. (Who is still getting credit for their actions.)

[quote]100meters wrote:

I’m never arguing causation, just association. You guys do the causation thing.

The fact is higher tax rates are associated with higher growth. Yes even factoring business cycles.
[/quote]

In a recent study, Christina
Romer and David Romer, professors of economics
at the University of California at Berkeley, examined
significant tax changes and the ensuing economic
performances during the postwar period and found
strong evidence that higher taxes tend to diminish
economic activity. A study by Greg Mankiw and
Matthew Weinzierl of Harvard University sheds
additional light on the question. They found that
reducing taxes on labor significantly improved economic
performance, and reducing taxes on capital
had an even stronger beneficial effect.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/upload/bg_2095.pdf

He is anti-second ammendment. By far the most anti-second ammendment candidate the Dems have ever put forth.

He is percieved abroad as the weaker of the two candidates. This goes for friend and foe alike. That’s why he is supported abroad. Much easier to take advantage of then McCain would be.

He is a supporter of higher taxation which will kill growth and prolong recovery. Any business owner knows this. Academics and moonbats like Obama do not.

[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]

Now is good time to reread altas shrugged. I just read (listened) to it yesterday while in the car for 13hrs.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
100meters wrote:

Explain how economy did not get stronger work under LBJ, JFK, and Clinton.

JFK and LBJ actually cut taxes. (And dramatically, from a top of 91% to 71%.)

I remember the economy stagnating under Clinton’s tax increase until the Republican take over, and their tax cuts. (And damn that capital gains cut caused tons to flow into the government coffers.)

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

Under Reagan it worked great. Bush Sr. increased taxes, and the economy tanked. And considering 911 should have absolutely devastated the economy, it actually did fine until the Democrats took over.

Trickle down is a fact, proved through history. (Look at Ireland.) The only problem is neither party has any history of cutting spending. Other then a few short years of the Republican Congress under Clinton. (Who is still getting credit for their actions.)
[/quote]

Not saying I believe it but here is an alternative point of view

http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/2008/10/the-failure-of-supplyside-tax.html

[quote]ComixGuy wrote:

Not saying I believe it but here is an alternative point of view

http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/2008/10/the-failure-of-supplyside-tax.html

[/quote]

There is always an alternate point of view. Their bias in the article is obvious. The link I provided referred to actual studies, while this one mentions books.

In the article, one of the first things I come across is mentioning how the tax cuts increased the deficit, of which it did not. The only way a deficit can occur is if more is spent then comes in.

Anyway the chart above is quite interesting.

Oh yeah, the chart is from this very interesting article:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=266627596553650

Everyone should read it.

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

How is being in the same income range as 95% of the U.S. population “striving for mediocrity” or asking for handouts?

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
People who lack empathy for other people are sociopaths, no matter how numerous such people are. If a sizable minority of the country agrees with his particular take on extremely late term abortions, I wouldn’t let any of them around my children. [/quote]

I don’t agree with late term abortions, except when the mother’s health is in danger.

That said, I think your statement is off base. If you are defining sociopathy as lacking empathy, most of the conservatives posting in this thread would be sociopaths as well.

[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
People who lack empathy for other people are sociopaths, no matter how numerous such people are. If a sizable minority of the country agrees with his particular take on extremely late term abortions, I wouldn’t let any of them around my children.

I don’t agree with late term abortions, except when the mother’s health is in danger.

That said, I think your statement is off base. If you are defining sociopathy as lacking empathy, most of the conservatives posting in this thread would be sociopaths as well.[/quote]

Exactly how do conservatives (say on this forum) lack empathy?

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I wouldn’t dream of voting for Obama because he is the most prominent advocate of infanticide we have ever had in this country. He is more extreme than NOW and NARAL. Everything else is secondary to that.

What is this but evidence of his sociopathy?

I’m not sure it’s sociopathy. He is an extremist on abortion, even by the standards of the left, but I bet a sizeable minority of the country would agree with him. And a majority would not care one way or the other at the end of the day. They’re not all sociopaths. It’s the death of religion and responsibility. And the death of reflection too probably.

People who lack empathy for other people are sociopaths, no matter how numerous such people are. If a sizable minority of the country agrees with his particular take on extremely late term abortions, I wouldn’t let any of them around my children. [/quote]

Word up, bra!

[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
People who lack empathy for other people are sociopaths, no matter how numerous such people are. If a sizable minority of the country agrees with his particular take on extremely late term abortions, I wouldn’t let any of them around my children.

I don’t agree with late term abortions, except when the mother’s health is in danger.

That said, I think your statement is off base. If you are defining sociopathy as lacking empathy, most of the conservatives posting in this thread would be sociopaths as well.[/quote]

Not wanting to see babies sucked into a garbage disposal is empathetic. Not wanting government theft and social engineering is empathetic. The opposite is not.

Here’s a good profile of the sociopath:
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html