Sarah Palin Calls Out FightinIrish!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
As a fairly rich person, I can tell you a tax hike doesn’t change my behavior when it’s not exorbitant. It doesn’t stop me from spending and ‘creating wealth’. Of course, it can get excessive.

And I don’t like my money being pissed away. But no one is talking about going back to a welfare state or unreasonable taxes. I don’t mind doing my part. To a degree.
[/quote]

The point is the people he wants to tax even more are paying 90% of income tax already. People that pay no tax will get a check. Sounds like buying votes to me.

This makes absolutly zero mathmatical sense unless you were planning to hide that money under you matress. $1000 in the economy is $1000 in the economy. It matters little who actually spends it, assuming it is not gov’t. The other problem is the cost of taking from one person and giving to another.

All those bureaucrats in the middle cost money. A $1000 chech sent to 95% of americans cost money. This money is being diverted from useful spending. Anytime gov’t touches our money, they are clouding market signals and distorting our economy.

Good for you, some of us are and are already paying an incredible amount of tax. It sounds like it may be more like $150k when you really dig in. Even if it is $250k it is going to cost all of us money.

Anyone making $250k, anyone that works for a small business, anyone that buys goods or services from a small business, or anyone who works for a business that buys goods or services from a small business. It also encourages tax sheltering and hiding of income which = less revenue for the fed and more debt. Sounds good huh?

Redistribution of wealth has never made an economy stronger and it never will. Consumer spending does very little to influence the rise and fall of the economy.

As a matter of fact when the gov’t artificially raises consumer spending, it only adds to the errored forecasting by businesses that causes the business cycle (boom and bust).

The business cycle is responsible for rises and declines in the economy. Booms (the problem),and busts (the correction)are both a part of the business cycle. They are created by businesses not being able to predict future demand.

Gov’t is now creating false demand (boom) and slowing any kind of correction (bust). They give us even bigger booms and busts that last much longer than they should.

When they create subsidies, lend money at 2% interest (basically free), create money (debt), encourage risky behavoir, etc. they are creating a tremendous boom by clouding real demand signals.

The bust is nothing more than a correction to their collasal fuck up. Then what do they do? They try and slow down the correction. Brilliant. Loan more more money, create more debt, bail out incompetent businesses, and discourage sound investment by writing consumers a check that will likely be spent like the unearned money that it is.

Vegas anyone?

22

[quote]dhickey wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
As a fairly rich person, I can tell you a tax hike doesn’t change my behavior when it’s not exorbitant. It doesn’t stop me from spending and ‘creating wealth’. Of course, it can get excessive. And I don’t like my money being pissed away.

But no one is talking about going back to a welfare state or unreasonable taxes. I don’t mind doing my part. To a degree.

The point is the people he wants to tax even more are paying 90% of income tax already. People that pay no tax will get a check. Sounds like buying votes to me.

There are exponentially more middle-class people than rich people and it stimulates the economy when they have more money to spend.

This makes absolutly zero mathmatical sense unless you were planning to hide that money under you matress. $1000 in the economy is $1000 in the economy. It matters little who actually spends it, assuming it is not gov’t. The other problem is the cost of taking from one person and giving to another.

All those bureaucrats in the middle cost money. A $1000 chech sent to 95% of americans cost money. This money is being diverted from useful spending. Anytime gov’t touches our money, they are clouding market signals and distorting our economy.

I am not yet in the bracket that gets hit by the Obama tax plan anyway. He has professed no tax increase for those earning under $250,000.

Good for you, some of us are and are already paying an incredible amount of tax. It sounds like it may be more like $150k when you really dig in. Even if it is $250k it is going to cost all of us money.

Anyone making $250k, anyone that works for a small business, anyone that buys goods or services from a small business, or anyone who works for a business that buys goods or services from a small business. It also encourages tax sheltering and hiding of income which = less revenue for the fed and more debt. Sounds good huh?

Redistribution of wealth has never made an economy stronger and it never will. Consumer spending does very little to influence the rise and fall of the economy.

As a matter of fact when the gov’t artificially raises consumer spending, it only adds to the errored forecasting by businesses that causes the business cycle (boom and bust).

The business cycle is responsible for rises and declines in the economy. Booms (the problem),and busts (the correction)are both a part of the business cycle. They are created by businesses not being able to predict future demand.

Gov’t is now creating false demand (boom) and slowing any kind of correction (bust). They give us even bigger booms and busts that last much longer than they should.

When they create subsidies, lend money at 2% interest (basically free), create money (debt), encourage risky behavoir, etc. they are creating a tremendous boom by clouding real demand signals.

The bust is nothing more than a correction to their collasal fuck up. Then what do they do? They try and slow down the correction. Brilliant.

Loan more more money, create more debt, bail out incompetent businesses, and discourage sound investment by writing consumers a check that will likely be spent like the unearned money that it is. Vegas anyone?

[/quote]

Any progressive tax system can be said to be a redistribution of wealth. Are you against a progressive tax? You think someone making $30K a year and $350K a year should be taxed on the same percentage of their income?

23

Personally, I think that we should get a flat tax, if we have to have any income tax at all. Set it at 10% and what do you get? $3k from the $30k guys and $35k from the $350k guys.

The problem is that this would make EVERYONE a taxpayer, instead of a few people paying taxes and a LOT of people receiving gov’t assistance. If we all had to pay taxes, it would mean we would ALL pay attention to where that money is going.

On top of that, the gov’t would have to make do with what we SAID they could have, the way it should have been all along.

24

I vote for a sales tax only system, but it will never happen. I think MrRezister is right, Obama might want to raise some taxes, but that is such a politically unpopular thing that it will never really happen.

I also think that Obama is more fiscallt conservative than he lets on. His econ advisors would be call republicans if they were only judge on fiscal policy.

25

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
dhickey wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
As a fairly rich person, I can tell you a tax hike doesn’t change my behavior when it’s not exorbitant. It doesn’t stop me from spending and ‘creating wealth’. Of course, it can get excessive. And I don’t like my money being pissed away.

But no one is talking about going back to a welfare state or unreasonable taxes. I don’t mind doing my part. To a degree.

The point is the people he wants to tax even more are paying 90% of income tax already. People that pay no tax will get a check. Sounds like buying votes to me.

There are exponentially more middle-class people than rich people and it stimulates the economy when they have more money to spend.

This makes absolutly zero mathmatical sense unless you were planning to hide that money under you matress. $1000 in the economy is $1000 in the economy. It matters little who actually spends it, assuming it is not gov’t. The other problem is the cost of taking from one person and giving to another.

All those bureaucrats in the middle cost money. A $1000 chech sent to 95% of americans cost money. This money is being diverted from useful spending. Anytime gov’t touches our money, they are clouding market signals and distorting our economy.

I am not yet in the bracket that gets hit by the Obama tax plan anyway. He has professed no tax increase for those earning under $250,000.

Good for you, some of us are and are already paying an incredible amount of tax. It sounds like it may be more like $150k when you really dig in. Even if it is $250k it is going to cost all of us money.

Anyone making $250k, anyone that works for a small business, anyone that buys goods or services from a small business, or anyone who works for a business that buys goods or services from a small business.

It also encourages tax sheltering and hiding of income which = less revenue for the fed and more debt. Sounds good huh?

Redistribution of wealth has never made an economy stronger and it never will. Consumer spending does very little to influence the rise and fall of the economy.

As a matter of fact when the gov’t artificially raises consumer spending, it only adds to the errored forecasting by businesses that causes the business cycle (boom and bust).

The business cycle is responsible for rises and declines in the economy. Booms (the problem),and busts (the correction)are both a part of the business cycle. They are created by businesses not being able to predict future demand.

Gov’t is now creating false demand (boom) and slowing any kind of correction (bust). They give us even bigger booms and busts that last much longer than they should.

When they create subsidies, lend money at 2% interest (basically free), create money (debt), encourage risky behavoir, etc. they are creating a tremendous boom by clouding real demand signals.

The bust is nothing more than a correction to their collasal fuck up. Then what do they do? They try and slow down the correction. Brilliant.

Loan more more money, create more debt, bail out incompetent businesses, and discourage sound investment by writing consumers a check that will likely be spent like the unearned money that it is. Vegas anyone?

Any progressive tax system can be said to be a redistribution of wealth. Are you against a progressive tax? You think someone making $30K a year and $350K a year should be taxed on the same percentage of their income?[/quote]

Absolutely. This would ensure that the tax rate stays low. Let’s think about this rationally, shall we. Hmmm…I want votes but I also want huge tax revenue that I can spend to get even more votes. Let’s see… 95% of americans make less then 250k. Let’s tax the shit out 5% of the population. Let’s also tax the shit out of businesses.

This way the retarded 95% will think that we are their side. All of this will keep their wages down, keep unemployment higher than it would be, and make everything they consume more expensive.

The retards will never figure it out. Better yet, they’ll demand we tax businesses and the wealthy even more to provide government assistance. Even more bribery!

Hey…how about we give them $1000 if they vote for me. These idiots actually beleive this $1000 is coming from the tax fairy. They’ll never figure out that is coming from their employers, the stores they shop at, and the people they but goods and services from.

They’ll never figure out that the $1000 is going come out of their wallet anyway in reduce pay increases, decreased benefit packages, and higher costs of goods and services. As long as we can keep them stupid we can take as much money as we want.

When the economy goes to shit, or jobs go overseas, we’ll just tell these morons it’s the evil rich people and corporations. Brilliant.

Me speaking again. Since the American public will never pull their heads out of their asses we need to make it very clear what excessive taxation does to their REAL income, ie the actual goods and services that their money can buy.

The only way this is going to happen is if it is spelled out for them nice and clear on their pay slip.

Let me ask you this. If everyone knew that they were being ripped off the same amount (we all are), how well do think tax and spend elected officials would fair?

How well do you think promises to cut spending and taxes would go over. Now instead of 5% of the public demanding lower taxes, all of us would be.

I don’t give a shit how they collect it, income, consumption, whatever. As long as everybody knows they are being ripped off. And we all are. It doesn’t matter if it thinly disguised as a tarriff, a subsidy, a tax on the wealthy, or tax on buisiness.

26

[quote]BigJawnMize wrote:
I vote for a sales tax only system, but it will never happen. I think MrRezister is right, Obama might want to raise some taxes, but that is such a politically unpopular thing that it will never really happen.

I also think that Obama is more fiscallt conservative than he lets on. His econ advisors would be call republicans if they were only judge on fiscal policy.[/quote]

Aside from the first sentence, which actually makes sense, this is complete ignorance. How did taxes get as high as they are? Obviously someone raised them. Obama is as far from fiscally conservative as you can get. How is it that you have come to believe this?

27

[quote]MrRezister wrote:
Personally, I think that we should get a flat tax, if we have to have any income tax at all. Set it at 10% and what do you get? $3k from the $30k guys and $35k from the $350k guys.

The problem is that this would make EVERYONE a taxpayer, instead of a few people paying taxes and a LOT of people receiving gov’t assistance. If we all had to pay taxes, it would mean we would ALL pay attention to where that money is going.

On top of that, the gov’t would have to make do with what we SAID they could have, the way it should have been all along.[/quote]

Right on the money.

28

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Joe Biden is going to eat this woman alive.[/quote]

I seriously doubt it. Biden will screw the pooch and come off looking like a pompous clown. He’s very good at that if you don’t know.

29

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
The Pork Queen is Earmarked.

lol[/quote]

Wrong, Barack Obama has requested 1 BILION DOLLARS in earmarks in his four years of Senate service, and has received 100 MILLION DOLLARS last year. Look it up.

A little much don’t you think. Ask yourself how his wife almost tripled her salary the year following the hospital were she was employed received over a million dollars in earmarks.

Try again.

30

I’m not sure about the debate, frankly. Palin has a very good chance of looking good because she’s practically attack-proof from the point of view of personal attacks and background (I don’t think “troopergate” is going to be a problem for her).

However, this highlights her on the issues. In foreign policy she can be made to look completely foolish (I don’t think she’s stupid personally, but appearances matter).

It all depends on how Biden plays that, and how much studying she’s done. Other issues I think she can hold her own, but she definitely has weaknesses that are exploitable.

The big question is whether Biden can attack the issues and her level of experience effectively, and how she responds to him in the debate.

I’d give her a good chance, but it’s not a sure thing by any means.

31

[quote]MrRezister wrote:
I think Palin has taken too much flak for the “Bush Doctrine” question, as I detailed in another thread. Gibson could just have easily asked her for an opinion regarding “pre-emptive war” and left less room for subjective misunderstanding.
[/quote]

Incidentally, the “Bush Doctrine” talking point is a Red Herring. In fact, the man who coined the term has stated that he would have asked the same exact question as ‘the doctrine’ has changed. Gibson used the least accepted definition and in fact didn’t really understand it himself.

I love it now that people who probably couldn’t even name their local congressmen now scoff at Palin for ‘not know what that Bush Doctrine was’. Like anyone could have answered that. Nobody could have answered that question. I’d put dollars to dimes that BUSH couldn’t have answered it.

Rove himself said he couldn’t have answered that. Many outside the mainstream media have stated that Gibson got it wrong.

In a way it’s revealing that folks even use it as a point. It’s like the folks who just parrot articles here as if they were part of the research. I can’t take anyone seriously who uses “she didn’t know what the Bush doctrine was” as some validation that she couldn’t hold the office of VP.

People seem to forget she’s got more executive experience than the Dem who is actually running for president.

32

420×638 242 KB

Here’s my take.

I think Obama and McCain will come out just about even. They have heard, and I would imagine answered, just about every question imaginable after 18 plus months campaigning. They can likely recite most answers to most questions in their sleep.

Somebody may get off a “zinger” or two; but I just don’t see either gaining much ground with the debates.

With that being said, I am looking forward to the debates.

With Biden and Palin.

“Killer Joe” just gets TOO pompous and too often speaks before he thinks.

He also goes into the debates without benefit of the “X” factor that Palin has; likability among a large portion of the electorate. If Biden attacks her, he “loses”.

Also, the only “plus” that Biden has is that he most likely can expound more on a given topic, and speak with much more authority on a topic, than Palin. The problem is that the period that the debaters have to answer is timed.

I just don’t see Biden delivering a “knock-out” punch with his debate with Palin. Think about it; all Palin has to do is hold her own with Biden. If she does this, she comes out of the debate an actual winner.

(Note: I use the words “win” and “lose” to define how clearly and distinctly the candidates present their positions; DEFEND their positions; and solidify their position in rebuttal).

Mufasa

33

If all Biden can do is come out of this debate “even” - then he has lost.

The bar is so low for Palin, that all she has to do is not pull an Opie ("uhhhh…ummmm…uhhhhh), and have just a cursory command of the issues.

Biden has to knock it out of the park to come out clearly ahead. And when was the last time Biden has done that in a presidential debate?

I can’t remember either.

34

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Here’s my take.

I think Obama and McCain will come out just about even. They have heard, and I would imagine answered, just about every question imaginable after 18 plus months campaigning. They can likely recite most answers to most questions in their sleep.

Somebody may get off a “zinger” or two; but I just don’t see either gaining much ground with the debates.

[/quote]

I have a feeling October is going to be really ugly for Obama. There are way too many issues with Obama that the McCain camp hasn’t touched. If I were a betting man I would expect to see a media bitz by the republican attack machine.

His associations with Wright, Ayers, Rezko. Michelle’s comments, Barak’s comments about middle America. His record voting “Present” and his vote on protecting birthed babies from being left to die.

There are just way too many things they haven’t capitalized on. I think they are going to hit him really hard in Oct. and he is going to come apart.

35

Women should be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. They are better obscene than heard…

Hey somebody had to say it…

36

I think the only reason that McCain picked Palin is to bring out the base. If Obama had picked Clinton there would have been no chance in hell that he would have picked Palin. With Clinton on the ticket the base would come out in droves to vote against her. The sad thing is a like McCain, but is a valid arguement that if he dies, Palin is the most powerful person in the world. Does anyone on here really believe that she is up for the job? I know I will get slammed by the “true believers”.

Also I believe if Obama’s father was from say anywhere other then Africa, this election would be a crushing defeat for the Republicans. I will vote for Obama, but truth be told I have resivations about how deeply he is connected “far left wingers”, and also his possibly dealings with the terrorist threat that is clearly a problem.

37

[quote]butterbean43 wrote:

Also I believe if Obama’s father was from say anywhere other then Africa, this election would be a crushing defeat for the Republicans. I will vote for Obama, but truth be told I have resivations about how deeply he is connected “far left wingers”, and also his possibly dealings with the terrorist threat that is clearly a problem.[/quote]

So once again, the people who aren’t voting for Obama must be racists, right? Well consider this: Registered Republicans are almost never going to vote for the Democrat candidate REGARDLESS of color of his or her skin, so who are all these racists that might keep Obama from winning? They must be the enlightened Democrats and those precious Independents, right?

Your concerns about Obama’s connections with admitted terrorists and extremists are the exact same concerns a LOT of voters have (and would have, even if he were pearly white, btw). If McCain used to pal around with some high KKK mukity-muck (Byrd, anyone?), he’d have been burned alive by now, not running neck-and-neck with Obama and you know it.

Back to Palin’s experience, I have to ask again, how much is enough? She’s been Governor of the biggest state in the Union for two years, as opposed to Obama’s half year in the senate. Who is really better prepared here? When did Governor get to be such crappy experience, anyway? I still say the experience angle is a loser for Obama, he’s no better off than the VP on the other side.

38

Yeah, Palin gained all her foreign policy knowledge by viewing Russia from her backyard.

Bahahahaha!!

39

I’d kick her ass.

And honestly, I love badmouthing her because it’s fun, but really VP’s (aside from Cheney) don’t do a damn thing aside from cast that tiebreaking vote in the ties that never happen.

I really don’t care much about Biden vs. Palin. The two people that matter are Obama and McCain.

40

Here’s an actual transcript from a recent Palin press conference. Look at the ease in which this colossus of brains tackles tough questions from real press people:

Press: What SPECIFIC SKILLS on foreign policy will you bring to the table?

Palin: I think that because I’m a Washington outsider that opponents are going to look for a lot to criticize and try to beat the candidate here who chose me as his partner, and to kind of tear down the ticket.

As for foreign policy, I think that I am prepared, and on January 20 if we are so blessed as to be sworn into office to be your president and VP certainly I’ll be ready, I have that confidence. You can ask me anything and we can play “Stump the Candidate” if you want to, but we are ready to serve.

Press: Could you give us some DETAILS and some EXAMPLES of STRATEGIES and PLANS for economic empowerment for women?

Palin: Now, I was product of Title 9 where legislation allowed that equal opportunity, now if we have to still keep going down that road to create more legislation to get with it in the 21st century to make sure that women do have equality in the workplace, then we’re there because we understand that in this age we have all got to be working together…

I respect you so much that you are a Democrat recognizing that John McCain and me as a team of mavericks understand where you’re coming from and we can work together on these issues, but yep, equality for women, for all, that’s gonna be part of the agenda, and I thank you for that question.

LOL!! She didn’t answer the questions! She sounded like Condi Rice evading questions at the 9/11 hearings.

Oh, man… Biden’s going to shred her up in the debates!