cicerone imposter
 
  -1  
Sat 3 Sep, 2011 05:57 pm
@revelette,
Since Gallup has them tied, I'll give the cupie doll to Perry.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  3  
Sat 3 Sep, 2011 06:19 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
You've heard the latest from DNC headquarters I assume?

It's not a rumor any longer, they're throwing Bork AND Joe Biden under the bus, it's gonna be AnthonyWeiner and Eric Holder. The new dem bumper sticker:

Vote
Weiner-Holder
DemoKKKratic



0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Sun 4 Sep, 2011 03:20 am
Quote:
Obama is still suffering from the Speech Illusion, the idea that he can come down from the mountain, read from a Teleprompter, cast a magic spell with his words and climb back up the mountain, while we scurry around and do what he proclaimed.

The days of spinning illusions in a Greek temple in a football stadium are done. The One is dancing on the edge of one term.

The White House team is flailing — reacting, regrouping, retrenching. It’s repugnant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/dowd-one-and-done.html?_r=1

HA! Dowd NAILS it again.....
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  -1  
Sun 4 Sep, 2011 12:20 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
It really won't matter who fault it is if we have another brutal year, we all have to pay for it, Obama with his presidency and the rest of us with our economy.

Tell me this, honestly please, do you really think someone like Perry will turn things around, or any of the other candidates? What new alternative plans have/ can they offer that we ain't already doing?
cicerone imposter
 
  -1  
Sun 4 Sep, 2011 12:41 pm
@revelette,
The more direct question is, what has the GOP candidates offered - in detail - that would solve our current economics problems? All they have done is made claims they can improve our economy and jobs. How?
parados
 
  -1  
Sun 4 Sep, 2011 12:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
It's a "hope" and "change" people like gunga can believe in.

They don't need no stinking facts or plans or anything like that.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Sun 4 Sep, 2011 03:40 pm
@revelette,
Carter's mess was turned around and so can Obama's.

Apparently you don't actually listen to what any of the GOP leaders or conservatives are saying, dismissing them out of hand or allowing MoveOn.com to tell you what they propose.

Here is what has been proposed but is not being done now:

Tax reform. Lower rates and eliminate loopholes. Broaden the tax base and increase revenues.

Reform entitlement programs. Means test SS and Medicare. Raise the age eligibility, and allow for the option of a private alternative to SS.

Not only stop the tidal wave of government regulation, push it back. Encourage private enterprise, large and small, to grow.

These are only three elements of virtually every conservative's economic recovery plan. You may not agree with any of them, but they have not been adopted by the current administration...despite the recommendations of Simpson/Bowles.

This administration has one formula and one formula alone: Raise Taxes and spend more money than the government takes in.

The longer term fixes proposed by conservatives, will produce the short term effect on joblessness that every liberal in America insists can only be solved by additional stimulus.

Announcing, committing to, and beginning these measure will open the flood gates for private capital...right now.

The disastrous effect of uncertainty does't require absolute certainty as a counter. Private capital is itching to get back into the market since it will have a much bigger return there than in treasury bonds. Entrepreneurs are risk takers but they are not reckless idiots. If they do not want to invest their capital in ventures now, it is because they have a real fear that they will lose it...and trust me, these people are far less afraid of risk than the average Joe.

They also know that the first off the blocks usually wins the race. They are waiting not for a totally affected change, but signals that it's a good bet that change will come. Once those signals are given, the capital will flow.

Not only is Obama not inclined to the necessary changes, any signals he might give will be tougher to accept as legitimate.

Why wouldn't businessmen question whether an Obama conversion was permanent? Why wouldn't they fear an about face after a successful re-election campaign?

In order for the economy to thrive, there has to be the promise of disparate wealth. We can debate how wide a gap is politically acceptable, but a goal for equality of wealth results in stagnation and eventual decay.

I don't have any idea what your personal financial status maybe, but let's assume you have a modest nest egg built by 401 contributions: $500,000. What sort of return would you require before you bet it all on a risk? Maybe there is no return great enough to offset your fear of losing it all. Fair enough, but if everyone with money felt this way, the 401Ks that so many people rely upon for retirement, would never have amounted to anything.

As difficult as it may be for you to believe, I "honestly" believe that a conservative economic plan will, as it has in the past, put us back on the right track.

snood
 
  1  
Sun 4 Sep, 2011 04:07 pm
Why do conservatives believe, without any evidence to support it, that continuing to give tax breaks to the top 2% in income is good for the economy? Why "broaden the tax base" to include the poor and working poor (poor being defined by the US Census Bureau as a family of 4 making less than $22,450), instead of returning the taxes on the rich to the same rates as during the 90s boom economy? Why do they think that easing regulation on corporations and allowing businesses to continue moving assets out of country without penalty would suddenly start helping the economy, when it has done no such thing for all the deregulating that Bush did? Why do they think that allowing corporations to operate without any scrutiny at all will somehow incentivize them to begin releasing some of their record-breaking profits back into circulation - when they have proven over and over that they will continue to greedily pile up profit no matter what?

Tax the rich. Eliminate the most egregious corporate tax loopholes. Invest in a comprehensive infrastructure rebuilding plan. These things are sensible. The things the rightwingnuts propose are insane (insanity being defined as trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results) and indecent.
mysteryman
 
  2  
Sun 4 Sep, 2011 04:31 pm
@snood,
Right now, you could seize all of the assets of the top 2% and that would fund the country for less then a week.
What do you do then?
parados
 
  0  
Sun 4 Sep, 2011 04:48 pm
@mysteryman,
Where the hell did you hear that one MM?

It's is patently FALSE..

The top 400 richest have assets of 1.6 TRILLION.
Fact check source


The US government does not spend 50 TRILLION per year.
And the top 400 are NOT the top 2%.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Sun 4 Sep, 2011 05:34 pm
@snood,
You get an "A+" for your thesis; it makes sense, and has the correct analysis of what's wrong with this country's thinking - by the conservatives.

Giving more tax breaks to the rich do not help our country. They are bankrupt in their thinking, because they don't know how to think.

The rich have been helping themselves to more riches; just look at the facts about how much in salaries and benefits they've been gaining for decades while the middle class and poor have lost buying power. They don't need any more "riches." They sure in hell isn't investing in our country's interest; if they were, our economy would be buzzing with activity and good health. We're getting closer to our death bed than any time in our history - slowly dying from starving the beast.

The greatest irony of the GOP's advocacy for the rich is that not all of them are "rich." That's called masochist; they want to suffer too with the rest of the country!
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  0  
Sun 4 Sep, 2011 06:06 pm
C.I:

Quote:
The greatest irony of the GOP's advocacy for the rich is that not all of them are "rich." That's called masochist; they want to suffer too with the rest of the country!


I can't help but thinking that what keeps certain poor and working class people voting for conservatives today is the same faulty kind of thinking that made poor whites support the slaveowner class in the past. They somehow hold on to an irrational belief that by identifying with the rich and powerful they might partake of the same lifestyle, or something. It doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of any common sense at all. Poor people supporting the rightwing is like chickens supporting Col Sanders, to me.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  0  
Sun 4 Sep, 2011 06:09 pm
@mysteryman,
Well, your numbers are all wrong, and your argument is a strawman anyway, since I didn't propose anything of the kind.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Sun 4 Sep, 2011 10:54 pm
@snood,
Why do liberals believe, without any evidence to support it, that raising taxes and spending money the government doesn't have is good for the economy?

By your definition of insanity, we can expect a raving lunatic to address the joint session of congress next week.


cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Mon 5 Sep, 2011 12:04 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
How come you're so stupid? Raising taxes on the wealthy is approved by the majority of Americans. You must be a damn tea partier; block what's good for this country like the debt ceiling.
roger
 
  1  
Mon 5 Sep, 2011 12:13 am
@cicerone imposter,
The majority of Americans are not among the wealthy, by definition. Not surprising they want someone else to foot the bill, is it?
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Mon 5 Sep, 2011 12:24 am
@roger,
No. If we must be involved in wars, our government must collect enough in taxes to fund those wars rather than transferring those debt to our children.

The middle class didn't complain about paying taxes when they were making a relatively good living. Our income taxes are some of the lowest in developed countries, and most countries with higher taxes are happier and healthier.

The spread between the wealthy and middle class gets bigger every year, because their wages and benefits increase at double-digit rates while the middle class income stays relatively stagnant. Last year, CEO's got 34% increases in their wages and benefits, while the middle class received 3.3%. Who do you think is able to pay more in taxes? One guess, genius!
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  -1  
Mon 5 Sep, 2011 07:36 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Tax reform. Lower rates and eliminate loopholes. Broaden the tax base and increase revenues.

Reform entitlement programs. Means test SS and Medicare. Raise the age eligibility, and allow for the option of a private alternative to SS.

Not only stop the tidal wave of government regulation, push it back. Encourage private enterprise, large and small, to grow.


I am not aware of any candidates pushing the elimination tax loopholes(Palin did but as far as I am aware she is not a candidate) much less increase revenues.

Sarah Palin, in Iowa, attacks Obama and ‘crony capitalism’

(I don't know a lot about federal income taxes and tax loopholes, but wouldn't eliminating corporate federal income taxes make the question of corporate tax loopholes moot?)
Quote:
Palin called for the elimination of the federal corporate income tax, as well as an end to tax loopholes, corporate welfare and bailouts. “This is how we break the back of crony capitalism because it feeds off corporate welfare, which is just socialism for the very rich,” she said. “We can change all of that.”



When asked in the last debate they (the candidates) refused to support any deal in the budget crises on any revenue increases. Some even want to eliminate corporate taxes altogether. (Palin suggested and Bachmann said they could go that route,, google it) As for lower tax rates, please we have been under the lowest rates in 40 years.

Average U.S. tax burden at 40-year low

Obama said he was open to entitlement reform, reform does not equal elimination or privatizing them, those two options are not supported by most Americans of sides.

Regulations or taxes have had no effect on corporation hiring or their profits which have been the highest since 1947.

Quote:
Companies are not hiring now because in general, they have slack in their productive capacity. More specifically, in July 2011, their capacity utilization — a measure that compares demand for their products to their ability to produce them — stood at 77.5% — short of the long-term average of 80.4%.

For example, imagine a baseball bat factory that can make 100 bats an hour — applying the current U.S. rate of capacity utilization, that factory has orders for only about 78 an hour. Why would it need to hire more workers if it already has more than it needs to meet demand?

In short, the average U.S. company is not hiring because it does not need the extra workers to meet demand. And American companies are making record profits without hiring workers — $1.66 trillion in 2010 with the S&P 500 expected to grow earnings 18% in 2011 and 14% more in 2012.

But these averages mask the companies that are hiring. Here are three examples — two start-ups and one company that just went public:

Hearsay Social. I interviewed this corporate social media management company back in June. Back then it had 30 people and said it was hiring aggressively in its marketing, sales, engineering, and recruiting functions. The reason for the hiring, according to co-founder Steve Garrity, is that “due to customer demand, we can’t answer the phones fast enough.”

Cardlytics provides $100 to $200 in discounts for items that consumers typically buy — inserted into their bank statements. It had 72 people when I spoke with its CEO Scott Grimes last October. He expected to end 2011 with over 100. CEO Scott Grimes explained that Cardlytics was hiring because of its expansion — into mobile devices through its bank customers, social networks, and global markets. According to Grimes, “Tax credits never enter my mind when it comes to hiring.”

Teavana (TEA). I wrote about this company favorably before it went public last month. After reporting 36% growth in the most recent quarter on Friday, Teavana declared that it “intends to more than double its number of U.S. stores by 2015, to 500 retail locations. It announced a franchise agreement to open stores in the Middle East in 2012. And it’s hiring,” according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Why do companies hire? Because they can’t grow without doing so. If companies are not hiring it’s because their CEOs are choosing not to invest in products or services — possibly related to mobile devices or social networks — and new markets — like China and India — that are growing fast enough to demand those new employees.

Obviously not all industries and companies can do this. But expecting Washington to solve a problem that is the primary job of company CEOs may be good politics — but terrible economics.


source




mysteryman
 
  1  
Mon 5 Sep, 2011 05:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
At one point, segregation was approved by the majority of Americans, AND it was the official policy of the govt.
Do you approve of segregation?

cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Mon 5 Sep, 2011 05:27 pm
@mysteryman,
What a dumb-ass stupid q.

How long have you been a member of a2k? If you have been reading any of my posts, you would know your q is about as stupid as they come.
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 2102
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.45 seconds on 11/29/2024 at 04:46:30