Obama - good for Americans - Page 14

dalakhani · #**261** 10-14-2008, 10:33 PM

But this is why i shouldnt waste my time arguing about it. No one acknowledges the basic points of the discussion. You guys just paste stuff from partisan sources that agree with your cause.

I will save you the trouble. There is a guy i know well that will completely agree with you guys. He is one of if not the most influential lobbyists in DC. PM me if you want the name.

What i am saying is save the canned rhetoric.

Cant you come up with your own thoughts and support them with your own facts?

Cannon Shell · #**262** 10-14-2008, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

In a perfect world, free of human nature, lowering corporate taxes COULD have a positive effect on the overall economy and everyone in it. I dont think anyone with a brain would deny that. The problem is human nature...namely-greed.

The main problem in our economy is the deficit. i dont see how you can attack the deficit while lowering taxes. It wasnt done during Reagan or either Bush. Now if all the corporations passed those tax breaks on to their employees in the way of benefits and increased wages, then yes trickle down would work. But that isnt the case. Do you need the numbers to prove it?

Theory and practicality are often two very different things.

Where is the theory that says that raising taxes has a positive effect on the economy? How can hurting business help the economy?

Danzig · #**263** 10-14-2008, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

LOL after he was out of the job. He has said lots of things contrary to how he performed after he left.

but what if someone had listened? where would we be now?
also, you use greenspan as a way to give props to clinton, and now you take the other tack?

Cannon Shell · #**264** 10-14-2008, 10:36 PM

What about cutting spending? Understandably the current administration hasnt done very well with it but these two clowns dont even bother talking about it, dont even give it lip service.

dalakhani · #**265** 10-14-2008, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

but what if someone had listened? where would we be now?
also, you use greenspan as a way to give props to clinton, and now you take the other tack?

he gave props to Clinton while he was still in office and then afterward. His book is an interesting read if not totally agenda filled.

What you really have to think about is what would have happened if people chose NOT to listen to Greenspan when it mattered. Where would we be?

Danzig · #**266** 10-14-2008, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

But this is why i shouldnt waste my time arguing about it. No one acknowledges the basic points of the discussion. You guys just paste stuff from partisan sources that agree with your cause.

I will save you the trouble. There is a guy i know well that will completely agree with you guys. He is one of if not the most influential lobbyists in DC. PM me if you want the name.

What i am saying is save the canned rhetoric.

Cant you come up with your own thoughts and support them with your own facts?

i did a search since i wanted to educate myself on the topic, since all i got here is that i was a republican. those are the things that came up. had i found the opposite, i would have put that up. i'm trying to learn about the stuff...exactly how could i back up my pov if i found it to be incorrect? i said back a few pages ago that i was basing my initial thoughts on what i have observed over the last few years in my current job. as well as how things have been going for the last 11 years that tony has worked at his job. so, i did searches, and that's the stuff i found. in other words, i did have my own thoughts, my own facts, and from what i've read, i was pretty much on the right path.

and all that stuff i found, and put up..all of that is partisan? the guy from us news? the guy from the ny times?

dalakhani · #**267** 10-14-2008, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Where is the theory that says that raising taxes has a positive effect on the economy? How can hurting business help the economy?

Now, we are talking!!!!

Hurting business doesnt help the economy. We have to prioritize though. this deficit is killing us. I think we all agree.

yes, clinton was aided heavily by tech boom. i will contend that his policies greatly AIDED the boom.

A big part of what made his economy was his fiscal responsibility. He realized that the deficit was killing us.

Danzig · #**268** 10-14-2008, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What about cutting spending? Understandably the current administration hasnt done very well with it but these two clowns dont even bother talking about it, dont even give it lip service.

yeah, we have a choice between two proponents of larger govt and bigger deficits. wonderful.

dalakhani · #**269** 10-14-2008, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, we have a choice between two proponents of larger govt and bigger deficits. wonderful.

We agree. I completely agree.

SCUDSBROTHER · #**270** 10-14-2008, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

in other words, you didn't read any of the links i put up. and i'm STILL waiting for you to tell me what will work, not what won't.

What will work? For who? Scandinavia and Canada have some of the best Standards of Living. If you lower tax rates on business are you also gunna make sure your salary increases when the company does well? I don't think so. You're living in probably the most business friendly area of the country, but the workers are paid the least there. Sounds like you enjoy static salaries for workers. So that's "working" for you. I heard Canada is one of the most business friendly countries, and has a top 3 type standard of living. I don't think you could stand for their personal income taxes though. There is no country that works well with the Republican Recipe (low business regulation, low taxes of all types, and low Gov't spending.) That doesn't work, but keep pushing that crap.

Cannon Shell · #**271** 10-14-2008, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Now, we are talking!!!!

Hurting business doesnt help the economy. We have to prioritize though. this deficit is killing us. I think we all agree.

yes, clinton was aided heavily by tech boom. i will contend that his policies greatly AIDED the boom.

A big part of what made his economy was his fiscal responsibility. He realized that the deficit was killing us.

However we have had the tech bubble burst and housing bubble burst and are dealing with increased competition in the global market not to mention considerably higher energy prices since those times. Thats not even talking about the current global banking crisis. The deficit simply has to be dealt with over time and cutting spending would be a start. The handouts should wait too but those help get people elected.

Cannon Shell · #**272** 10-14-2008, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

What will work? For who? Scandinavia and Canada have some of the best Standards of Living. If you lower tax rates on business are you also gunna make sure your salary increases when the company does well? I don't think so. You're living in probably the most business friendly area of the country, but the workers are paid the least there. Sounds like you enjoy static salaries for workers. So that's "working" for you. I heard Canada is one of the most business friendly countries, and has a top 3 type standard of living. I don't think you could stand for their personal income taxes though. There is no country that works well with the Republican Recipe (low business regulation, low taxes of all types, and low Gov't spending.) That doesn't work, but keep pushing that crap.

You cant compare countries. 80% of canada is not even inhabitated. Scandinavia is closer to a state. I am still waiting on how raising taxes helps workers accross the board. Please dont bring in people who make $7 an hour because unskilled labor will never do exceedingly well simply because they are unskilled and easily replaced.

SCUDSBROTHER · #**273** 10-14-2008, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You cant compare countries. 80% of canada is not even inhabitated. Scandinavia is closer to a state. I am still waiting on how raising taxes helps workers accross the board. Please dont bring in people who make $7 an hour because unskilled labor will never do exceedingly well simply because they are unskilled and easily replaced.

You said yourself that Corporations are not interested in the welfare of workers. You can't mandate that they "help" workers(something I doubt you give a s-h-i-t about...so, it's an odd question.) So, the only way to help workers is to get some of the profits back in taxes that go for what you call "handouts" like social security, medicare etc. I think you're saying that some higher paid workers are hurt by higher taxes. Maybe, but they would have a house full of people to take care of if there were no Social Security, and Medicare. I'd be having to pretend I care about what story my mom would be telling me. She'd probably be living with me(she was just a worker.)

dalakhani · #**274** 10-14-2008, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

However we have had the tech bubble burst and housing bubble burst and are dealing with increased competition in the global market not to mention considerably higher energy prices since those times. Thats not even talking about the current global banking crisis. The deficit simply has to be dealt with over time and cutting spending would be a start. The handouts should wait too but those help get people elected.

Cutting spending where though? 54% of spending is on military. 30% is on human resources aka hand outs and what not.

Where do you want to cut? And then on top of that, you want to cut while ALSO giving a tax cut?

#**275** 10-14-2008, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

dont even try it! I am out...O-U-T of political discussions.

Sports..sports..sports.

Scuds, before i go, I will leave you with a little ammo. economy did fine under clinton with tax hikes

dalakhani · #**276** 10-14-2008, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Coach does this mean you arent mad at me anymore? I promise i will not post a pick to your pick thread ever again. I defer to you as the greatest football handicapper i have ever seen.

#**277** 10-14-2008, 11:41 PM

Mortimer · #**278** 10-14-2008, 11:53 PM

fr&l-a!!!!

SCUDSBROTHER · #**279** 10-14-2008, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

LOL...Anything with her in it is a riot. Can she entertain us somehow for 4 years? Maybe Fox will pay her some incredible amount to replace Hannity.

Danzig · #**280** 10-15-2008, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Cutting spending where though? 54% of spending is on military. 30% is on human resources aka hand outs and what not.

Where do you want to cut? And then on top of that, you want to cut while ALSO giving a tax cut?

obama and mccain are both advocating tax cuts to most citizens as well as spending increases-both are being completely irresponsible in that respect. as for military cuts, had bush not gone rushing into iraq, we wouldn't have the military spending we're seeing right now. whether it could be cut further once we're out of iraq, i don't know-since we still have afghanistan to deal with. having troops and equipment in the field is obviously far more expensive than a military at peace.
foreign aid should be cut, all this port should be stopped. the feds need to go back to providing what they're supposed to be providing, instead of all this extra.
i pay for both federal medicare, and arkids-taxed twice for similar programs. in this state, we have exorbitant sales tax-groceries are taxed here, as well as property, personal property, and income taxes.
oh, but the state has a surplus...i wonder why. so of course now they want to increase spending. i'd rather they did away with the tax on groceries. since when are necessities of life taxed? since i live in arkansas.