Understanding Obama

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
You fail to see the larger picture here. Over taxing “the rich” or at least those he difines as “rich” is not good for the economy and totally unfair as “the rich” as he defines them already pay too high a burden in taxes.

When you over tax people in that bracket there is a disastrous after effect felt by others.

When tax hikes such as this are implemented businesses tend to lay people off, raise prices and cut back expansion plans.

At the very time we need to cut government spending obama will launch the largest government expansion in the history of the country.

obama is bad for America in every way, but economically he’s a disaster.

I don’t think so. I think it’s the McCain supporters here that fail to demonstrate much in the way of logical reasoning, or memory.

First of all, the assertion that higher taxes on the rich result in “disastrous” consequences is so full of shit that I’m not even going to lend it credibility by talking about it except to say that remember back in the 90s when the capital gains tax was much higher than it is now, the economy was doing much better .

Now I’m NOT saying that higher capital gains taxes=better economy, but it certainly does NOT discourage investing or cause businesses to have to lay people off.

I’m also very curious as to why you feel that the rich shoulder too heavy a tax burden. I don’t think they shoulder near enough. The top 10% of wage earners control something like 90% of the wealth in the country. If you have 90% of the wealth, you should pay 90% of the taxes.

Also, cutting back government spending is NOT going to help the economy. The deficit is certainly a problem (mainly due to the Bush administration), but when the economy is struggling, ceasing to put money into it is the last thing that’s going to help.

Jesus, you have absolutly no idea what you are talking about. First, if you are going to post numbers, make sure they are accurate. Secondly, you might want to read a book on eoomomics if you plan to discuss it here. Otherwise you’re getting in over your head.[/quote]

Uh, every credible economist would agree with him. You don’t cut during a recession.

62

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
You fail to see the larger picture here. Over taxing “the rich” or at least those he difines as “rich” is not good for the economy and totally unfair as “the rich” as he defines them already pay too high a burden in taxes.

When you over tax people in that bracket there is a disastrous after effect felt by others.

When tax hikes such as this are implemented businesses tend to lay people off, raise prices and cut back expansion plans.

At the very time we need to cut government spending obama will launch the largest government expansion in the history of the country.

obama is bad for America in every way, but economically he’s a disaster.

I don’t think so. I think it’s the McCain supporters here that fail to demonstrate much in the way of logical reasoning, or memory.

First of all, the assertion that higher taxes on the rich result in “disastrous” consequences is so full of shit that I’m not even going to lend it credibility by talking about it except to say that remember back in the 90s when the capital gains tax was much higher than it is now, the economy was doing much better .

Now I’m NOT saying that higher capital gains taxes=better economy, but it certainly does NOT discourage investing or cause businesses to have to lay people off.

I’m also very curious as to why you feel that the rich shoulder too heavy a tax burden. I don’t think they shoulder near enough. The top 10% of wage earners control something like 90% of the wealth in the country. If you have 90% of the wealth, you should pay 90% of the taxes.

Also, cutting back government spending is NOT going to help the economy. The deficit is certainly a problem (mainly due to the Bush administration), but when the economy is struggling, ceasing to put money into it is the last thing that’s going to help.

Jesus, you have absolutly no idea what you are talking about. First, if you are going to post numbers, make sure they are accurate. Secondly, you might want to read a book on eoomomics if you plan to discuss it here. Otherwise you’re getting in over your head.[/quote]

Explain to me what I’ve got wrong, O Great Sage.

63

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

A smaller government would cost less and the tax burden could be less on the populace.[/quote]

Not to insult you, because I’m really not trying to, but this is why economics is so tricky: things that seem very intuitively obvious often are incorrect. A smaller government WOULD cost less, but government expenditure is a huge part of the economy, so depending on what you did, you might (probably) would hurt more than you’d help. Besides, as our society develops and the world becomes more complex, I think it’s an undeniable fact that government must expand to keep up.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
The capital gains tax was not “much higher” it was 20% as opposed to a current rate of 15%. Also, I don’t find your argument at all logical.

First, “rich” people are the ones who set pay scales, expand their businesses, raise prices and spend a great deal of money. If the government takes more of it how does that NOT effect these four areas?

Answer this first and then we can move on to your other points okay?[/quote]

I believe the long-term capital gains tax under Clinton was 28% at one point, and he later lowered it to 20%. Anyway, Obama wants to raise it to 20%.

You can’t lower wages too much, or people wouldn’t work for you–they’d go somewhere else. You can’t raise prices too much, or people won’t buy your stuff–they’ll buy someone else’s.

This would be even less of a problem if there were increased regulation concerning executive compensantion, which I believe there should be.

[/quote]

64

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Mick28 wrote:

A smaller government would cost less and the tax burden could be less on the populace.

Not to insult you, because I’m really not trying to, but this is why economics is so tricky: things that seem very intuitively obvious often are incorrect. A smaller government WOULD cost less, but government expenditure is a huge part of the economy, so depending on what you did, you might (probably) would hurt more than you’d help. Besides, as our society develops and the world becomes more complex, I think it’s an undeniable fact that government must expand to keep up.

[/quote]

Au contraire, the more complicated things get, the less you´ll be able to plan it from above, hence the enormous success and complexity of the capitalist system where people first and foremost plan their own lives.

Some even have problems doing that.

To think that anyone could possible manage tens of thousands of laws, billions of products constantly circling the globe and 300 million people plus all possible interactions is a pipe dream.

All you can do is set the ground rules, step back and let a spontaneous order emerge.

65

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

This would be even less of a problem if there were increased regulation concerning executive compensantion, which I believe there should be.

[/quote]

Price controls!

67

Economic obligation #1: make sure the economy is growing.

Damn liberals think that there are other economic obligations beyond #1, they even think that some things are more important than growth at all costs…silly bastards

68

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Economic obligation #1: make sure the economy is growing.

Damn liberals think that there are other economic obligations beyond #1, they even think that some things are more important than growth at all costs…silly bastards

[/quote]

If the power is not enumerated to them in the constitution, it really doesn’t matter what kind of good the fucking liberals want to do.

But for shits and giggles, what other economic obligations are you referring to?

You have a piss poor ability of summing up what you think everyone else says, how about you actually put forward what you think?

You are all for an open dialogue, but since you have been in here, you have never taken a position other than mischaracterizing others.

I abhor chicken shits who never stand for anything, but are all too quick to act like they fucking matter.

69

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Economic obligation #1: make sure the economy is growing.
[/quote]

Government cannot ensure this. Only individuals acting in the market building their own wealth can make this happen.

In this respect the obligation of government is to stand out of the way and let it happen.

70


Obama is a criminal, associates with terrorists, sits for 20 years while his pastor calls America the US of KKK, lies about accepting federal election dollars, and directs money (while in the Illinois Senate) to Tony Rezko.

Would some explain to me how this creature is leading in the polls?

71

[quote]orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

This would be even less of a problem if there were increased regulation concerning executive compensantion, which I believe there should be.

Price controls!

[/quote]

There’s an entire generation of Americans that hasn’t lived through any of that, myself included. Looks like it’s time for a hard lesson. Carter days are ahead.

72

[quote]100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
You fail to see the larger picture here. Over taxing “the rich” or at least those he difines as “rich” is not good for the economy and totally unfair as “the rich” as he defines them already pay too high a burden in taxes.

When you over tax people in that bracket there is a disastrous after effect felt by others.

When tax hikes such as this are implemented businesses tend to lay people off, raise prices and cut back expansion plans.

At the very time we need to cut government spending obama will launch the largest government expansion in the history of the country.

obama is bad for America in every way, but economically he’s a disaster.

I don’t think so. I think it’s the McCain supporters here that fail to demonstrate much in the way of logical reasoning, or memory.

First of all, the assertion that higher taxes on the rich result in “disastrous” consequences is so full of shit that I’m not even going to lend it credibility by talking about it except to say that remember back in the 90s when the capital gains tax was much higher than it is now, the economy was doing much better .

Now I’m NOT saying that higher capital gains taxes=better economy, but it certainly does NOT discourage investing or cause businesses to have to lay people off.

I’m also very curious as to why you feel that the rich shoulder too heavy a tax burden. I don’t think they shoulder near enough. The top 10% of wage earners control something like 90% of the wealth in the country. If you have 90% of the wealth, you should pay 90% of the taxes.

Also, cutting back government spending is NOT going to help the economy. The deficit is certainly a problem (mainly due to the Bush administration), but when the economy is struggling, ceasing to put money into it is the last thing that’s going to help.

Jesus, you have absolutly no idea what you are talking about. First, if you are going to post numbers, make sure they are accurate. Secondly, you might want to read a book on eoomomics if you plan to discuss it here. Otherwise you’re getting in over your head.

Uh, every credible economist would agree with him. You don’t cut during a recession.[/quote]

Uh, what economists have you read. Uh, cut what? Gov’t spending or taxes? Either would still be wrong.

73

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
You fail to see the larger picture here. Over taxing “the rich” or at least those he difines as “rich” is not good for the economy and totally unfair as “the rich” as he defines them already pay too high a burden in taxes.

When you over tax people in that bracket there is a disastrous after effect felt by others.

When tax hikes such as this are implemented businesses tend to lay people off, raise prices and cut back expansion plans.

At the very time we need to cut government spending obama will launch the largest government expansion in the history of the country.

obama is bad for America in every way, but economically he’s a disaster.

I don’t think so. I think it’s the McCain supporters here that fail to demonstrate much in the way of logical reasoning, or memory.

First of all, the assertion that higher taxes on the rich result in “disastrous” consequences is so full of shit that I’m not even going to lend it credibility by talking about it except to say that remember back in the 90s when the capital gains tax was much higher than it is now, the economy was doing much better .

Now I’m NOT saying that higher capital gains taxes=better economy, but it certainly does NOT discourage investing or cause businesses to have to lay people off.

I’m also very curious as to why you feel that the rich shoulder too heavy a tax burden. I don’t think they shoulder near enough. The top 10% of wage earners control something like 90% of the wealth in the country. If you have 90% of the wealth, you should pay 90% of the taxes.
[/quote]

this is completely wrong. try again. This is easy information to obtain.

more money in market = good. Less money in market = bad. Did I dumb it down enough for you?

74

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

This would be even less of a problem if there were increased regulation concerning executive compensantion, which I believe there should be.

Price controls!

There’s an entire generation of Americans that hasn’t lived through any of that, myself included. Looks like it’s time for a hard lesson. Carter days are ahead. [/quote]

As a sidenote:

Why get farmers paid to not grow stuff?

I do not grow a lot of stuff and I want some fucking money right now.

75

[quote]orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

This would be even less of a problem if there were increased regulation concerning executive compensantion, which I believe there should be.

Price controls!

There’s an entire generation of Americans that hasn’t lived through any of that, myself included. Looks like it’s time for a hard lesson. Carter days are ahead.

As a sidenote:

Why get farmers paid to not grow stuff?

I do not grow a lot of stuff and I want some fucking money right now.

[/quote]

See John Stossel’s thing. Damned if I know.

76

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Economic obligation #1: make sure the economy is growing.

Government cannot ensure this. Only individuals acting in the market building their own wealth can make this happen.

In this respect the obligation of government is to stand out of the way and let it happen.[/quote]

You don’t out n mingle much huh?

77

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

This would be even less of a problem if there were increased regulation concerning executive compensantion, which I believe there should be.

Price controls!

There’s an entire generation of Americans that hasn’t lived through any of that, myself included. Looks like it’s time for a hard lesson. Carter days are ahead.

As a sidenote:

Why get farmers paid to not grow stuff?

I do not grow a lot of stuff and I want some fucking money right now.

See John Stossel’s thing. Damned if I know.
[/quote]

I want the world to know that I have not grown 1 BILLION, um, bushels (?) of corn last year and I also have not produced two gazillion whatevers of soja!

Thereby I have immensely helped European and American farmers and, if properly compensated, I might not grow even more next year.

Where is my money?

78

understanding obama

William Ayers started his campaign. Ayers bombed several buildings during the '70 and 80’s including one a New York City police station.

Barry’s, his REAL NAME, "spiritual leader"has a motto of “God damn America.” Why would you want a guy of this nature to lead the United States?

Also can some one explain to me how Barry plans to fix the economy with his polices?

  1. He’s going to raise taxes from 55% to 70, seventy freaking percent for the upper class. Is that fair? They work hard. Why should they be entitled to only 30% of what they earn and deserve.

This decreases investment by upper class, which slows the economy. This also increases unemployment because they have people employed and with that much of their income being taken from them they can’t afford them.

  1. Barry wants to raise minimum wage. This is also going to increase unemployment because small businesses are going to fire people because are not going to be able to afford employees anymore.

  2. The relationship known as the Phillips Curve in microeconomics says that unemployment and inflation are directly proportional. So with increased unemployment comes increased inflation.

How does Barry think this is going to fix the economy? I don’t know the political views of t-men but for those out there who are thinking of voting for barry: Why are you supporting a man like this and who thinks like this?

farewell

79

[quote]dhickey wrote:
stuff[/quote]

So you responded to three things, and you said nothing, nothing, and then you basically said the same thing I said. I think I’m starting to understand. I’ll be ignoring you from here on out.

80

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Obama is a criminal, associates with terrorists, sits for 20 years while his pastor calls America the US of KKK, lies about accepting federal election dollars, and directs money (while in the Illinois Senate) to Tony Rezko.

Would some explain to me how this creature is leading in the polls?[/quote]

Obama is much smarter and exhibits much better judgement than McCain, who always seems confused when you start talking about actual issues.

Add to this the fact that Obama’s unorthodox (for a presidential candidate) and very cosmopolitan upbringing gives him a much better view of the world and the United States from different perspectives, and you clearly have a much more well-equipped decision maker.

Military service does not qualify one to be a world leader. Yes, he is a hero for his actions, but that was decades ago and is completely irrelevant regarding his qualifications for president. Anyway, a military guy is the last person I’d want in the white house. They tend not to think that much.