Only bet with people I trust. I don't trust you. Sorry.
There is no need to be personal, I won't call you a name and I ask that you refrain as well. Thanks.Another right wing parrot. Lets begin shall we?
Is the economy a zero sum game? If an economy produces lets say 10 trillion dollars in a year under an imaginary 30% flat tax raising the rate to 50% isn't going to get you $5 trillion. People will do things to avoid the extra tax burden. So raising taxes one dollar isn't going to gain a dollar.The point of raising revenue is to do things like, I don't know, pay down the debt the right has been complaining about for only the last four years (or was the debt clock the republicans had at the RNC just a reminder to folks that they like to increase government spending only when they are in power) or maybe the increased revenue can be used to pay for programs that most people like such as medicare?
Bushes job record was better than Obama's but I am not here to defend Bush. Obama has his own record and we are trying to decide if he deserves to be re-elected. Bush is in Crawford.I already spoke to the capital gains tax in a previous post but Obama would raise them about 4% higher than what Clinton did. Bush lowered them 5% from where Clinton had them, how was Bush's job record by the way?
I do have a source who you seem to respect suggesting that raising taxes in slow economies isn't something we should be doing.So unless you have some new found data that shows a direct correlation between raising taxes (or just capital gains) hurts or helps the economy I'm not sure what your point was.
I'm not an investor so this isn't relevant.Quick question for you though, do you pay capital gains tax? What does that equal in relation to your total tax burden?
The government did force banks to relax their lending standards which means some loans they normally wouldn't make they did.With regards to the bank loans that the government "forced" banks to make, you are severely lacking in knowledge on the subject.
The "real deal" of this article lists Clinton as partially to blame just as I was saying. They were forced to relax lending standards. Where do I say that it was the only cause? Once it became apparent that these loans weren't worth the paper they were written on and all sorts of chicanery started taking place between banks. But all of it never would have happened if it wasn't for the loans being made in the first place.See the "Real deal" of this article relating to a moveon.org add to learn more about the subject. To blame the financial crisis on banks being forced to make loans is out right ignorance.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/
But if that growth rate isn't keeping up with the growth of the workforce it may as well be negative growth. If you have a leak in the bottom of the boat and a pump that can extract at a rate 80% of the rate of water coming in, you are going to sink. Things ARE getting worse with these pathetic job numbers.With regards to job growth, 40k-90k jobs a month is not enough, you are right but not enough does not equal negative growth or things getting worse, now is it (which is what the original reply was a response to).
TARP caused that last year of Bush to go through the roof. Were you for or against TARP? Much of that money was repaid by the way. That TARP level budget has now been baselined under Obama and it is now the norm. Why are we spending the same amount as when we had to bail out the banks?With regards to Bush and his deficits, again you are completely lacking in the facts. Here are the facts with regards to Obama and the deficit/budgets.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
For one thing Obamacare is wrong for the country and the economy. There is just no way it is going to be able to do what it was claimed it would do. I think Obama is has policies that are anti business and anti-conventional energy. I don't think you can say that he is pro-conventional energy. You'll probably say he is pro-business but I'd disagree of course and I'd be happy to tell you why.You also say Obamas policies are wrong, exactly what policies are wrong and why? I'm especially interested in hearing exactly how the president can affect gas prices. With regards to your "gas has doubled" point, again, your ignorance is showing.
The economy isn't a zero sum game. He said over and over how he was going to make his policy work.fact check article said:Romney again promised to not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans and also to lower taxes on middle-income families, but didnt say how he could possibly accomplish that without also increasing the deficit.
The 1.2 deficit was because of TARP, a special case there is no excuse for keeping the level of spending where it was for that single year.Fact Check article said:Romney accused Obama of doubling the federal deficit. Not true. The annual deficit was already running at $1.2 trillion when Obama took office.
Your Source said:Obama oversold his health care law, claiming that health care premiums have gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years. Thats true of health care spending, but not premiums. And the health care law had little to do with the slowdown in overall spending.
It shouldn't matter if my source is Hitler. If he was right about something he was right no matter what else he did. I don't appeal to authority because all you have to do is what you just did, dismiss the authority outright. I could find sources that say just about anything but I've spent far too much time already tonight.Ill await your reply siting sources that back up your claims (my guess is that if you do respond your citations will have the words britebart in them)
You have GOT to be smart enough to realize that PBS is/was just an example of the TYPE of non-essential program we need to get rid of... right? Right?!I can't believe we're even having this discussion about PBS. This is literally less than 0.01% of our federal funding you guys are quivering over.
You don't think cutting back on military, our 17+ intelligence agencies, closing silly and nonsensical tax deductions, or scaling back entitlements is more important and far more effective?
This PBS nonsense seems like its way more of a symbolic attack on the idea of public broadcasting in general rather than a genuine concern for cutting back on spending.
Many people consider Sesame Street a national treasure with quite the legacy.
I think Romney was basically flawless last night, spare the PBS BS.
Perknose, Ausm, First
Juan Williams called it a draw or a slight edge for Obama today on Hannity.So now we know the 3 out of 19 that voted for BO in the poll of this thread.
Who are the other 16?
As an aside, I find your sig to be very apropos... and as applicable to Romney as it is to Obama. The grass isn't always greener on the other side.
Hope that Romney will fix things isn't a strategy
Change in who occupies the Oval Office isn't a destination
That's because the bogeyman of the dishonest Democrat is just that, a bogeyman. Sucks when facts destroy your preconceived beliefs, doesn't it. Of course there are dishonest Democrats that have severe bias problems, but they are in the minority on this board. The GOP, however, not so much. Dishonesty is practically a core value for a GOP supporter these days.
Sadly this fact is missed on a lot on the right. They don't see the correlation between a lack of education and a lack of training and a changing economy and a high unemployment rate, which is also why cutting education seems perfectly acceptable to them. They have zero foresight and zero clue on how an economy really operates (they think having a large supply of something creates demand which is why they think tax cuts for businesses cause businesses to hire people).
Ok, there's a lot of things that bring VALUE to this country. But the idea is that the Federal government shouldn't be paying for it all.
Internet brings value to many of us. So do smartphones. Should the FCC subsidize my Comcast cable and my cell phone? Should we dish out free iPhones to the poor?
At what point do you say STOP? A lot of things are beneficial, but at the same time a lot of things aren't crucial to a country's needs. PBS and NPR will survive just FINE without federal funding.
Romney stated definitively last night that he would NOT cut education spending, so what was your point again?
"The Department of Education: I will either consolidate with another agency, or perhaps make it a heck of a lot smaller. I'm not going to get rid of it entirely," Romney said
Do you agree our economy needs help? Do you agree that raising taxes at least has the potential to slow growth? Just a shred of a possibility? If raising taxes won't help the economy then why do it? We need a thriving economy and if raising taxes won't help it and may even harm it then why do it?
There is no need to be personal, I won't call you a name and I ask that you refrain as well. Thanks.
I call it like I see it. You shouldn't be offended though, you should be ashamed. Ashamed that you let politicians and pundits lie to you without fact checking what they say.
Is the economy a zero sum game? If an economy produces lets say 10 trillion dollars in a year under an imaginary 30% flat tax raising the rate to 50% isn't going to get you $5 trillion. People will do things to avoid the extra tax burden. So raising taxes one dollar isn't going to gain a dollar.
People are avoiding taxes now and taxes are pretty damn low historically so point is moot.
Bushes job record was better than Obama's but I am not here to defend Bush. Obama has his own record and we are trying to decide if he deserves to be re-elected. Bush is in Crawford.
Bush ended his term with a negative job loss of 1.79 million (add total jobs created/lost from both terms), compared to Obama who has a net of 3.354 million new jobs.
But don't take my word for it, look it up yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
The problem here is that you cannot blame Bush's tax rates on the financial crisis. That didn't cause it and you know it.
I didn't make that claim so I don't know what you are talking about. The Bush tax cuts did add to the debt, a lot I might add.
So Obama wants to shrink the margin of error for investors by 9%? Making investments that much harder to make a profit. Simple question:
Will this increase or decrease investment?
I have no idea what you are talking about so I can't answer you.
I do have a source who you seem to respect suggesting that raising taxes in slow economies isn't something we should be doing.
By all means post your source. But even if you have a source you still have absolutely zero evidence to prove your claim.
I'm not an investor so this isn't relevant.
It's completely relevant! If I make my money doing A and I'm running for president and I propose policies that make me even more money by doing A, that doesn't raise red flags for you? At the very least you should be asking yourself, "who does this benefit? How many people will be affected by this negatively or positively". Instead, you don't see how it relates to you therefore it doesn't relate to you, wake the fuck up it does affect you!
The government did force banks to relax their lending standards which means some loans they normally wouldn't make they did.
Again your ass is not a repository for facts!
Show me where it says they must loosen their lending requirements.
http://www.ncrc.org/programs-a-serv...nu-80/a-brief-description-of-cra-mainmenu-136
The "real deal" of this article lists Clinton as partially to blame just as I was saying. They were forced to relax lending standards. Where do I say that it was the only cause? Once it became apparent that these loans weren't worth the paper they were written on and all sorts of chicanery started taking place between banks. But all of it never would have happened if it wasn't for the loans being made in the first place.
CRA has been in existence since 1977 your conclusion is wrong. Again if you have some facts or citations that show otherwise go ahead and post them.
But if that growth rate isn't keeping up with the growth of the workforce it may as well be negative growth. If you have a leak in the bottom of the boat and a pump that can extract at a rate 80% of the rate of water coming in, you are going to sink. Things ARE getting worse with these pathetic job numbers.
It might as well be negative? You don't see the difference between a whole in the boat and a leak?
Things are getting worse? What "things" are these? The unemployment rate hasn't gone up. The stock market hasn't gone down. The housing market is rebounding. There has been 30 consecutive months of job growth.
Are things great? Hell no! Do things need to improve? Hell yes! Are things getting worse? No!
TARP caused that last year of Bush to go through the roof. Were you for or against TARP? Much of that money was repaid by the way. That TARP level budget has now been baselined under Obama and it is now the norm. Why are we spending the same amount as when we had to bail out the banks?
Why did we have to do TARP in the first place? Was it because the economy was falling like a rock? Are things great right now? So under Bush trying to fix the economy was ok with you and the extreme amount of spending was also ok but Obama, he should fix the economy with magic! I'd love to hear your standards for how things should be fixed because I wouldn't want the next president to violate those standards. Do you know how to fix the economy? I don't think you do and yet you sure as shit know what we shouldn't be doing!
For one thing Obamacare is wrong for the country and the economy. There is just no way it is going to be able to do what it was claimed it would do. I think Obama is has policies that are anti business and anti-conventional energy. I don't think you can say that he is pro-conventional energy. You'll probably say he is pro-business but I'd disagree of course and I'd be happy to tell you why.
LOL how old are you? Obamacare bad! Yes please do tell me why you think it's bad and why he wont accomplish what it set out to do. Speaking of which, what in your mind was the purpose of Obamacare? Also if you think I'm going to disagree with you on something and you would be happy to tell me why, just fucking say why, I really shouldn't have to respond to each of your points asking for more detail.
Obama isn't directly responsible for high gas prices but his policies are doing nothing whatsoever to reduce gas prices. Bush got hammered for high gas prices and I've yet to see a story in the mainstream press about Obama and high gas prices. You did note that domestic oil production is up during the last 4 years. It isn't because of Obama it's because of private companies finding new ways to find and get to the oil. There is a lot more that Obama doesn't seem interested in going after.
So oil production is up but gas prices are still high, does that tell you something? Exactly what would you have Obama do? And please be specific, I'm extremely curious to hear how you think you could lower gas prices.
See the "income loss" section.
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/
The economy isn't a zero sum game. He said over and over how he was going to make his policy work.
The 1.2 deficit was because of TARP, a special case there is no excuse for keeping the level of spending where it was for that single year.
I'm not particularly impressed with your citations. In fact one of them contradicted something you've said about health insurance premiums.
It shouldn't matter if my source is Hitler. If he was right about something he was right no matter what else he did. I don't appeal to authority because all you have to do is what you just did, dismiss the authority outright. I could find sources that say just about anything but I've spent far too much time already tonight.
Have a good night.
it does cause business to hire people--in Malaysia and India and China. and they will keep fucking doing it in perpetuity.
This has much less to do with minimum wage and more to do with worker's rights and regulations in the USA that not a single American will ever allow to be revoked, period. Unless Joe the Plumber is going to sit by while child labor laws are revoked, we remove fire escapes, increase work hours to 50-60 per week with little to no worker consent, etc etc.
The right is forever and increasingly unwilling to accept that the jobless are jobless because they don't belong in this ecnomy. It's not because liberal obamaphoners don't want to work--it's because this economy has no use for them until they get their dumbasses educated.
Oh, what's the solution? kick out all the Mexicans who are being recruited by the very same "job creators" that the right strives to allow into the welfare system?
yeah, fucking sure. Good luck with that. lol--show me a single job that Mitt has ever created. He was never in the business of creating jobs, never. He made his bones by making business efficient and increasing their profits, then selling them. What the fuck do these people think "efficient" means?
roflsocks. the wool is so thick.
we never fixed our gross, anti-human labor practices that horrified the country during the Industrial revolution, we simply outsourced them over the pond, to developing countries.
You think China and India are us? They absolutely are us. We know these labor practices quite well, because they are our labor practices. Corporate America operates no differently, today, than it did when it was the utter shame of this country at the turn of the century.
So now we know the 3 out of 19 that voted for BO in the poll of this thread.
Who are the other 16?
Have the debates had huge impact in the past few elections (recent ones)? I realize in the past it's meant a lot like Nixon v. Kennedy and Reagan v. Carter. Today's public gets plenty of exposure and they see candidates talk. Even if people don't follow the news there's plenty of spoofs and parodies and Youtube videos making fun of candidates.
The demeanor of a candidate doesn't mean much anymore because people are already familiar with them. However, since this is such a large margin of victory for Romney it could have some effect. I just fear it's not enough to make a difference.
Projection much? I didn't vote for Obama in the poll, nice ASSunmption. I voted Romney. I'm reality based, unlike a ton of faith-based partisans here.
Since you all seem to think this forum is dominated by "leftists", I guess the results of this poll prove we're not the blind partisans many of the right-wingers here are.
Or are you going to deny the facts of the poll as well?
Projection much? I didn't vote for Obama in the poll, nice ASSunmption. I voted Romney. I'm reality based, unlike a ton of faith-based partisans here.
Since you all seem to think this forum is dominated by "leftists", I guess the results of this poll prove we're not the blind partisans many of the right-wingers here are.
Or are you going to deny the facts of the poll as well?
So admitting the obvious proves that you're not a partisan hack? How so?
Not sure how you found "butt hurt" in that post, but I'm used to watching you guys throw shit against the wall to see what sticks, so carry on.Just a little butt hurt are we?
See the smiling face with the stick out tongue in that post ? I wish it could be bigger.
I can't watch Romney any more without seeing Bobby Newport instead.
I've never seen a right winger admit the obvious when it goes against their talking points so I'd say it proves a lot.So admitting the obvious proves that you're not a partisan hack? How so?
Got $500 you want to put up, or are you just another guy whose bravery ends at the keyboard?
Got $500 you want to put up, or are you just another guy whose bravery ends at the keyboard?
I actually would have no problem if LOCAL or STATE governments (that can afford it) take on the burden of providing internet service for their municipalities. The Federal government, though? No f'n way. Keep them as far away from our interwebz as possible!!I'd very much like the government to get into the internet providing business. Townships that have done so have delivered better speeds at lower prices. The nature of the internet in the world now should have it as part of our national infrastructure so we can stop overpaying for crap service.
Oh, and why did those townships stop providing internet? Because businesses lobbied like crazy because it wasn't fair to them that someone should infringe on their private monopolies of weaksauce service.
The internet has reached the tipping point of utility where it is as important as roads.