Understanding Obama

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]orion wrote:
100meters wrote:
orion wrote:
100meters wrote:

The rich aren’t overtaxed. And higher taxes on the rich coincidentally appear linked to much higher growth than lower taxes–historically speaking. So that debunks that point.

Really?

Care to explain why?

Yes really.
The tax rates on the rich are the lowest they’ve ever been. How do you argue that they are STILL overtaxed? It doesn’t make sense. Returning to the Clinton rate still wouldn’t overtax them. It factually didn’t in the 90’s.

For the millionth time tax rates do not exist in a bubble. The lowest tax rates of all time have not helped the Bush economy and higher tax rates did not hurt the Clinton economy. or JFK economy. or LBJ economy. etc.

In modern history democrats have increased tax collection while having significantly better economies than their republican counterparts who have decreased tax collections.

Continuing the argument of causation: “higher taxes will crush the economy” is just stupid.

You seem to feel that if a high tax rate and a high growth rate coincide that that proves that a high tax rate is beneficial in any way.

I could just as easily argue that whenever a government feels cocky enough to tax the rich more it destroys the economy.

Because, you know, it takes some time for tax rates to influence the economy.

Then, when the government gets it, taxes are lowered which leads to higher economic growth a few years later.

As long as you cannot come up with a mechanism why higher tax rates for the rich are actually beneficial for all of us I am afraid that I remain unconvinced.

And then they would still be immoral.

[/quote]

Yep time is a factor in arguing for the benefits of tax hikes. Tax hikes tend to correlate with higher growth in the year passed, but in the 2-3 years following tax cuts take the lead. It’s after the 2-3 that tax hikes start to really show “benefits”

102

[quote]100meters wrote:
orion wrote:
100meters wrote:
orion wrote:
100meters wrote:

The rich aren’t overtaxed. And higher taxes on the rich coincidentally appear linked to much higher growth than lower taxes–historically speaking. So that debunks that point.

Really?

Care to explain why?

Yes really.
The tax rates on the rich are the lowest they’ve ever been. How do you argue that they are STILL overtaxed? It doesn’t make sense. Returning to the Clinton rate still wouldn’t overtax them. It factually didn’t in the 90’s.

For the millionth time tax rates do not exist in a bubble. The lowest tax rates of all time have not helped the Bush economy and higher tax rates did not hurt the Clinton economy. or JFK economy. or LBJ economy. etc.

In modern history democrats have increased tax collection while having significantly better economies than their republican counterparts who have decreased tax collections.

Continuing the argument of causation: “higher taxes will crush the economy” is just stupid.

You seem to feel that if a high tax rate and a high growth rate coincide that that proves that a high tax rate is beneficial in any way.

I could just as easily argue that whenever a government feels cocky enough to tax the rich more it destroys the economy.

Because, you know, it takes some time for tax rates to influence the economy.

Then, when the government gets it, taxes are lowered which leads to higher economic growth a few years later.

As long as you cannot come up with a mechanism why higher tax rates for the rich are actually beneficial for all of us I am afraid that I remain unconvinced.

And then they would still be immoral.

Yep time is a factor in arguing for the benefits of tax hikes. Tax hikes tend to correlate with higher growth in the year passed, but in the 2-3 years following tax cuts take the lead. It’s after the 2-3 that tax hikes start to really show “benefits”

[/quote]

You must be aware that there is such a thing as the Laffer curve, so even the assumption that raising taxes necessarily raises revenue is wrong.

So, if you were still raising taxes even though that meant that government had less money at its disposal you would be an ass.

However, I propose that even that is shortsighted if it is all you look at.

You could optimize the revenue of a specific tax that way, but you would still tax the money that would otherwise be reinvested to a very large degree.

If the rich will not save money, who else will?

And , if you discourage saving by taxing the rich, are you doing the poor a favor by taxing the rich if marginal income always chases marginal productivity and the formation of capital makes productivity rise?

103

[quote]100meters wrote:
orion wrote:
100meters wrote:
orion wrote:
100meters wrote:

The rich aren’t overtaxed. And higher taxes on the rich coincidentally appear linked to much higher growth than lower taxes–historically speaking. So that debunks that point.

Really?

Care to explain why?

Yes really.
The tax rates on the rich are the lowest they’ve ever been. How do you argue that they are STILL overtaxed? It doesn’t make sense. Returning to the Clinton rate still wouldn’t overtax them. It factually didn’t in the 90’s.

For the millionth time tax rates do not exist in a bubble. The lowest tax rates of all time have not helped the Bush economy and higher tax rates did not hurt the Clinton economy. or JFK economy. or LBJ economy. etc.

In modern history democrats have increased tax collection while having significantly better economies than their republican counterparts who have decreased tax collections.

Continuing the argument of causation: “higher taxes will crush the economy” is just stupid.

You seem to feel that if a high tax rate and a high growth rate coincide that that proves that a high tax rate is beneficial in any way.

I could just as easily argue that whenever a government feels cocky enough to tax the rich more it destroys the economy.

Because, you know, it takes some time for tax rates to influence the economy.

Then, when the government gets it, taxes are lowered which leads to higher economic growth a few years later.

As long as you cannot come up with a mechanism why higher tax rates for the rich are actually beneficial for all of us I am afraid that I remain unconvinced.

And then they would still be immoral.

Yep time is a factor in arguing for the benefits of tax hikes. Tax hikes tend to correlate with higher growth in the year passed, but in the 2-3 years following tax cuts take the lead. It’s after the 2-3 that tax hikes start to really show “benefits”

[/quote]

This is 100% wrong. I can’t beleive anyone is actually taking the time to post thoughtful responses to this. I really am interested in where you getting this from though. I have never heard anyone make this arguement.

104

[quote]dhickey wrote:

You want to see some real horse shit, spend some time sniffing around at this site.

[/quote]

Yeah. EWG is a whacko group designed to make the farm program look bad. Not that the USDA needs any help in that area.

There are abuses in every government program. What EWG fails to publish, or at least I didn’t see it, is that the USDA is in charge of the school lunch program - which is the biggest waste of taxpayer money associated with agriculture.

but that is neither here nor there. The problem in Kansas could very easily be controlled at the local level, meaning that the local FSA guy is crooked, or an utter retard when it comes to interpreting guidelines.

105

[quote]rainjack wrote:
dhickey wrote:

You want to see some real horse shit, spend some time sniffing around at this site.

The problem in Kansas could very easily be controlled at the local level, meaning that the local FSA guy is crooked, or an utter retard when it comes to interpreting guidelines.
[/quote]

Well, that would be par for course. I work in an industry that is subsidized by the USDA. The problems are institutional, not local.

106

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

The rich aren’t overtaxed. And higher taxes on the rich coincidentally appear linked to much higher growth than lower taxes–historically speaking. So that debunks that point.

Really?

Care to explain why?

Yes really.
The tax rates on the rich are the lowest they’ve ever been. How do you argue that they are STILL overtaxed? It doesn’t make sense. Returning to the Clinton rate still wouldn’t overtax them. It factually didn’t in the 90’s.

For the millionth time tax rates do not exist in a bubble. The lowest tax rates of all time have not helped the Bush economy and higher tax rates did not hurt the Clinton economy. or JFK economy. or LBJ economy. etc.

In modern history democrats have increased tax collection while having significantly better economies than their republican counterparts who have decreased tax collections.

Continuing the argument of causation: “higher taxes will crush the economy” is just stupid.

You seem to feel that if a high tax rate and a high growth rate coincide that that proves that a high tax rate is beneficial in any way.

I could just as easily argue that whenever a government feels cocky enough to tax the rich more it destroys the economy.

Because, you know, it takes some time for tax rates to influence the economy.

Then, when the government gets it, taxes are lowered which leads to higher economic growth a few years later.

As long as you cannot come up with a mechanism why higher tax rates for the rich are actually beneficial for all of us I am afraid that I remain unconvinced.

And then they would still be immoral.

Yep time is a factor in arguing for the benefits of tax hikes. Tax hikes tend to correlate with higher growth in the year passed, but in the 2-3 years following tax cuts take the lead. It’s after the 2-3 that tax hikes start to really show “benefits”

This is 100% wrong. I can’t beleive anyone is actually taking the time to post thoughtful responses to this. I really am interested in where you getting this from though. I have never heard anyone make this arguement.[/quote]

No, I suspect Hannity wouldn’t make this argument.

107

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

The rich aren’t overtaxed. And higher taxes on the rich coincidentally appear linked to much higher growth than lower taxes–historically speaking. So that debunks that point.

Really?

Care to explain why?

Yes really.
The tax rates on the rich are the lowest they’ve ever been. How do you argue that they are STILL overtaxed? It doesn’t make sense. Returning to the Clinton rate still wouldn’t overtax them. It factually didn’t in the 90’s.

For the millionth time tax rates do not exist in a bubble. The lowest tax rates of all time have not helped the Bush economy and higher tax rates did not hurt the Clinton economy. or JFK economy. or LBJ economy. etc.

In modern history democrats have increased tax collection while having significantly better economies than their republican counterparts who have decreased tax collections.

Continuing the argument of causation: “higher taxes will crush the economy” is just stupid.

You seem to feel that if a high tax rate and a high growth rate coincide that that proves that a high tax rate is beneficial in any way.

I could just as easily argue that whenever a government feels cocky enough to tax the rich more it destroys the economy.

Because, you know, it takes some time for tax rates to influence the economy.

Then, when the government gets it, taxes are lowered which leads to higher economic growth a few years later.

As long as you cannot come up with a mechanism why higher tax rates for the rich are actually beneficial for all of us I am afraid that I remain unconvinced.

And then they would still be immoral.

Yep time is a factor in arguing for the benefits of tax hikes. Tax hikes tend to correlate with higher growth in the year passed, but in the 2-3 years following tax cuts take the lead. It’s after the 2-3 that tax hikes start to really show “benefits”

This is 100% wrong. I can’t beleive anyone is actually taking the time to post thoughtful responses to this. I really am interested in where you getting this from though. I have never heard anyone make this arguement.

No, I suspect Hannity wouldn’t make this argument.
[/quote]

You must be aware that there is such a thing as the Laffer curve, so even the assumption that raising taxes necessarily raises revenue is wrong.

So, if you were still raising taxes even though that meant that government had less money at its disposal you would be an ass.

However, I propose that even that is shortsighted if it is all you look at.

You could optimize the revenue of a specific tax that way, but you would still tax the money that would otherwise be reinvested to a very large degree.

If the rich will not save money, who else will?

And , if you discourage saving by taxing the rich, are you doing the poor a favor by taxing the rich if marginal income always chases marginal productivity and the formation of capital makes productivity rise?

108

[quote]dhickey wrote:
rainjack wrote:
dhickey wrote:

You want to see some real horse shit, spend some time sniffing around at this site.

The problem in Kansas could very easily be controlled at the local level, meaning that the local FSA guy is crooked, or an utter retard when it comes to interpreting guidelines.

Well, that would be par for course. I work in an industry that is subsidized by the USDA. The problems are institutional, not local. [/quote]

The FSA, or the “farm program” part of the USDA is more local than institutional. The getting paid to “grow nothing on your 8 acres of residential property” is a direct function of the county FSA agent.

I’m not saying that there are no wholesale institutional problems, as to think otherwise is pure ignorance.

109

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

The rich aren’t overtaxed. And higher taxes on the rich coincidentally appear linked to much higher growth than lower taxes–historically speaking. So that debunks that point.

Really?

Care to explain why?

Yes really.
The tax rates on the rich are the lowest they’ve ever been. How do you argue that they are STILL overtaxed? It doesn’t make sense. Returning to the Clinton rate still wouldn’t overtax them. It factually didn’t in the 90’s.

For the millionth time tax rates do not exist in a bubble. The lowest tax rates of all time have not helped the Bush economy and higher tax rates did not hurt the Clinton economy. or JFK economy. or LBJ economy. etc.

In modern history democrats have increased tax collection while having significantly better economies than their republican counterparts who have decreased tax collections.

Continuing the argument of causation: “higher taxes will crush the economy” is just stupid.

You seem to feel that if a high tax rate and a high growth rate coincide that that proves that a high tax rate is beneficial in any way.

I could just as easily argue that whenever a government feels cocky enough to tax the rich more it destroys the economy.

Because, you know, it takes some time for tax rates to influence the economy.

Then, when the government gets it, taxes are lowered which leads to higher economic growth a few years later.

As long as you cannot come up with a mechanism why higher tax rates for the rich are actually beneficial for all of us I am afraid that I remain unconvinced.

And then they would still be immoral.

Yep time is a factor in arguing for the benefits of tax hikes. Tax hikes tend to correlate with higher growth in the year passed, but in the 2-3 years following tax cuts take the lead. It’s after the 2-3 that tax hikes start to really show “benefits”

This is 100% wrong. I can’t beleive anyone is actually taking the time to post thoughtful responses to this. I really am interested in where you getting this from though. I have never heard anyone make this arguement.

No, I suspect Hannity wouldn’t make this argument.
[/quote]

Boy, that was helpful. I don’t watch Hannity so wouldn’t know what he says, nor would I care. This contradicts classic economic principles. It has nothing to do with politics.

110
111

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Tel-Chai Nation: LA Times withholding video of Obama attending Jew-bashing party with PLO operative Khalidi [/quote]

Doesn’t matter. The Jews are still going to vote for him:
http://thegreatschlep.com/site/index.html

112

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

The rich aren’t overtaxed. And higher taxes on the rich coincidentally appear linked to much higher growth than lower taxes–historically speaking. So that debunks that point.

Really?

Care to explain why?

Yes really.
The tax rates on the rich are the lowest they’ve ever been. How do you argue that they are STILL overtaxed? It doesn’t make sense. Returning to the Clinton rate still wouldn’t overtax them. It factually didn’t in the 90’s.

For the millionth time tax rates do not exist in a bubble. The lowest tax rates of all time have not helped the Bush economy and higher tax rates did not hurt the Clinton economy. or JFK economy. or LBJ economy. etc.

In modern history democrats have increased tax collection while having significantly better economies than their republican counterparts who have decreased tax collections.

Continuing the argument of causation: “higher taxes will crush the economy” is just stupid.

You seem to feel that if a high tax rate and a high growth rate coincide that that proves that a high tax rate is beneficial in any way.

I could just as easily argue that whenever a government feels cocky enough to tax the rich more it destroys the economy.

Because, you know, it takes some time for tax rates to influence the economy.

Then, when the government gets it, taxes are lowered which leads to higher economic growth a few years later.

As long as you cannot come up with a mechanism why higher tax rates for the rich are actually beneficial for all of us I am afraid that I remain unconvinced.

And then they would still be immoral.

Yep time is a factor in arguing for the benefits of tax hikes. Tax hikes tend to correlate with higher growth in the year passed, but in the 2-3 years following tax cuts take the lead. It’s after the 2-3 that tax hikes start to really show “benefits”

This is 100% wrong. I can’t beleive anyone is actually taking the time to post thoughtful responses to this. I really am interested in where you getting this from though. I have never heard anyone make this arguement.

No, I suspect Hannity wouldn’t make this argument.

Boy, that was helpful. I don’t watch Hannity so wouldn’t know what he says, nor would I care. This contradicts classic economic principles. It has nothing to do with politics.[/quote]

Soooo…you don’t see tax cuts providing short term stimulus and tax hikes providing long-term growth? Really?

113

Has anyone noticed that Obama looks nothing at all like his purported father?

114

Obama might be right!!

As we go bankrupt, our ability to maintain order, both abroad and at home, will fall. Wealth distribution is one way of keeping the savages from tearing everything apart. Like FDR did, it may well be that spreading the wealth helps keep the system together.

Perhaps giving the 50% of people who pay little in taxes a bribe is a good way afterall.

Let’s face it — 50% of minorities, for ex, never graduate from high school. Admonishing them to adopt middle class values is pointless. Only bribery will work. (That’s why LBJ did the Great Society Program afterall; it was a bribe.)

115

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

The rich aren’t overtaxed. And higher taxes on the rich coincidentally appear linked to much higher growth than lower taxes–historically speaking. So that debunks that point.

Really?

Care to explain why?

Yes really.
The tax rates on the rich are the lowest they’ve ever been. How do you argue that they are STILL overtaxed? It doesn’t make sense. Returning to the Clinton rate still wouldn’t overtax them. It factually didn’t in the 90’s.

For the millionth time tax rates do not exist in a bubble. The lowest tax rates of all time have not helped the Bush economy and higher tax rates did not hurt the Clinton economy. or JFK economy. or LBJ economy. etc.

In modern history democrats have increased tax collection while having significantly better economies than their republican counterparts who have decreased tax collections.

Continuing the argument of causation: “higher taxes will crush the economy” is just stupid.

You seem to feel that if a high tax rate and a high growth rate coincide that that proves that a high tax rate is beneficial in any way.

I could just as easily argue that whenever a government feels cocky enough to tax the rich more it destroys the economy.

Because, you know, it takes some time for tax rates to influence the economy.

Then, when the government gets it, taxes are lowered which leads to higher economic growth a few years later.

As long as you cannot come up with a mechanism why higher tax rates for the rich are actually beneficial for all of us I am afraid that I remain unconvinced.

And then they would still be immoral.

Yep time is a factor in arguing for the benefits of tax hikes. Tax hikes tend to correlate with higher growth in the year passed, but in the 2-3 years following tax cuts take the lead. It’s after the 2-3 that tax hikes start to really show “benefits”

This is 100% wrong. I can’t beleive anyone is actually taking the time to post thoughtful responses to this. I really am interested in where you getting this from though. I have never heard anyone make this arguement.

No, I suspect Hannity wouldn’t make this argument.

Boy, that was helpful. I don’t watch Hannity so wouldn’t know what he says, nor would I care. This contradicts classic economic principles. It has nothing to do with politics.

Soooo…you don’t see tax cuts providing short term stimulus and tax hikes providing long-term growth? Really?[/quote]

Tax hikes provide no economic value.

116

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

The rich aren’t overtaxed. And higher taxes on the rich coincidentally appear linked to much higher growth than lower taxes–historically speaking. So that debunks that point.

Really?

Care to explain why?

Yes really.
The tax rates on the rich are the lowest they’ve ever been. How do you argue that they are STILL overtaxed? It doesn’t make sense. Returning to the Clinton rate still wouldn’t overtax them. It factually didn’t in the 90’s.

For the millionth time tax rates do not exist in a bubble. The lowest tax rates of all time have not helped the Bush economy and higher tax rates did not hurt the Clinton economy. or JFK economy. or LBJ economy. etc.

In modern history democrats have increased tax collection while having significantly better economies than their republican counterparts who have decreased tax collections.

Continuing the argument of causation: “higher taxes will crush the economy” is just stupid.

You seem to feel that if a high tax rate and a high growth rate coincide that that proves that a high tax rate is beneficial in any way.

I could just as easily argue that whenever a government feels cocky enough to tax the rich more it destroys the economy.

Because, you know, it takes some time for tax rates to influence the economy.

Then, when the government gets it, taxes are lowered which leads to higher economic growth a few years later.

As long as you cannot come up with a mechanism why higher tax rates for the rich are actually beneficial for all of us I am afraid that I remain unconvinced.

And then they would still be immoral.

Yep time is a factor in arguing for the benefits of tax hikes. Tax hikes tend to correlate with higher growth in the year passed, but in the 2-3 years following tax cuts take the lead. It’s after the 2-3 that tax hikes start to really show “benefits”

This is 100% wrong. I can’t beleive anyone is actually taking the time to post thoughtful responses to this. I really am interested in where you getting this from though. I have never heard anyone make this arguement.

No, I suspect Hannity wouldn’t make this argument.

Boy, that was helpful. I don’t watch Hannity so wouldn’t know what he says, nor would I care. This contradicts classic economic principles. It has nothing to do with politics.

Soooo…you don’t see tax cuts providing short term stimulus and tax hikes providing long-term growth? Really?[/quote]

You must be aware that there is such a thing as the Laffer curve, so even the assumption that raising taxes necessarily raises revenue is wrong.

So, if you were still raising taxes even though that meant that government had less money at its disposal you would be an ass.

However, I propose that even that is shortsighted if it is all you look at.

You could optimize the revenue of a specific tax that way, but you would still tax the money that would otherwise be reinvested to a very large degree.

If the rich will not save money, who else will?

And , if you discourage saving by taxing the rich, are you doing the poor a favor by taxing the rich if marginal income always chases marginal productivity and the formation of capital makes productivity rise?

I will gladly post that again if I have to.

Explain to us how it will benefit anyone in the long run if government discourages saving.

Right after you have explained why you would raise taxes even if that probably meant less money for the government.

117

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Has anyone noticed that Obama looks nothing at all like his purported father?[/quote]

Please god let this turn into another nutty conspiracy theory.

118

This is how his followers understand him…

With Obama, the Sun will rise on America

“We are almost there.”

The sun is setting as I sit down with Barack Obama, the next President of the United States in his hotel room. Obama drinks from a water bottle and leans back in his chair. He is tired but still alert after a long day of campaigning. His face is relaxed and content. “We are almost there,” he tells me.

Election Day is two weeks away. The sun may be setting on this particular day but it is clear to all but a few that a new day is beginning soon not only for America but for the world.

It has been six months since I joined the Obama campaign. Sometimes it feels like lifetime ago. So much has happened. There has been a great deal of traveling and I’ve seen more of America than I have ever cared to see. I am still astounded by how large this backwards and flawed nation is. I express this to Senator Obama.

“I understand. Believe me, I feel the same way.” Obama pauses and puts down the water bottle and rubs his eyes with both hands. “There is so much that I must do and sometimes I don’t know if eight years will be enough.”

The McCain people continue to claim Obama is a Socialist or that he will take money from plumbers. “They do not understand,” Obama says. “I wish sometimes I could just grab one of them by the shoulders and just yell, ‘wake up and get with the program!’”.

“Some people get it, a lot of them actually. They know what I must do. America is broken. Look at the rallies.” And he’s right. I don’t believe any of his appearances this week attracted less than 10,000 people.

“We have walked down a long path and I don’t mean just you and me. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, W. E. B. Dubois, they all started the path and I can finish it.”

I tell Obama the legend of Amon-Ra, a God of ancient Egypt who attains the characteristics of all other gods. “Sometimes you remind me of him,” I tell him.

Obama smiles and looks out the window. Outside is America; a land that needs a wise and just leader.

He is coming.

http://truthfirstnow.blogspot.com/

119

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

http://truthfirstnow.blogspot.com/
[/quote]

I love the link. I also love the poll on the front page:

Do you think Obama will be ALLOWED to be POTUS

a) Yes, he is too popular and visable
b) no, the white man will never allow it
c) unsure

120

[quote]dhickey wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:

http://truthfirstnow.blogspot.com/

I love the link. I also love the poll on the front page:

Do you think Obama will be ALLOWED to be POTUS

a) Yes, he is too popular and visable
b) no, the white man will never allow it
c) unsure[/quote]

I know - check out some of the other entries. Un-freaking-believable stuff. I honestly can’t decide if he’s insane, or if it’s a spoof on Obamaniacs. Funny read though. Sort of.