|
|
Post by kaboobie92 on Jul 3, 2008 11:14:46 GMT -5
The difference is that i can actually explain it, and it makes sense.. Why dont you give it a try? It makes sense to you, you need to understand that people have different values and priorities. Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what you are looking for as far as "how the economic policy works", so if you could explain the conservative side, I will respond with what I feel you are looking for (not going to match the "liberal" or "democrat" view since I don't completely agree with all of them). \ By economic policies i mostly mean taxation.. How do you expect to stimulate the economy by raising taxes? It dosent matter if you raise taxes for the rich or for the poor, when you raise them people spend less money. When people spend less money, it hurts industry causing people to loose jobs, hence our current economic status. Us conservatives believe in tax cuts, because the less people give to the government the more they have to spend. When they spend more, they buy more products- making companies busier, hiring more people etc. I dont understand how liberals can justify tax raises? its just plain stupid. The only way we can get our economy back is to lower the taxes and eff-face obama wont do that. |
|
|
|
Post by ratrad on Jul 3, 2008 11:43:15 GMT -5
Ok, but can you tell me how that has worked out in the past 8 years?
|
|
|
|
Post by ratrad on Jul 3, 2008 11:46:22 GMT -5
Hopefully be able to log on again later and throw my opinion out there in full. My boss is lurking.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratrad on Jul 3, 2008 11:55:09 GMT -5
Hopefully be able to log on again later and throw my opinion out there in full. My boss is lurking. Shhh, you didnt see me here. Here is an interesting article. Comparing Obama and McCain on Taxes Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 3:55 PM on June 12, 2008. Media efforts to minimize the differences notwithstanding, Barack Obama and John McCain couldn’t be much more different, especially on the issues of taxes. The irony is, McCain, after his last presidential election, thought Bush’s trickle-down, class-warfare-style tax plan was ridiculous. “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief,” McCain said in 2001. Now, however, McCain is anxious to do precisely what he couldn’t in good conscience do before. Obama, meanwhile, is prepared to deliver for middle-class families and those at the lower end of the scale. The Washington-based Tax Policy Center crunched the numbers. Both John McCain and Barack Obama promise to cut taxes for the majority of Americans. But an Obama administration would redistribute income toward lower- and middle-class households, while a McCain White House would steer the bulk of the benefits to the wealthiest families, according to a nonpartisan analysis of the still-evolving tax plans of the presidential candidates. […] Under Sen. McCain, those in the middle — making between $66,354 and $111,645 — would see their after-tax income increase by 0.7%. The biggest benefit would flow to those in the top 0.1% — those with incomes above $2.8 million — who would see their after-tax income increase by 4.4%. Sen. Obama skews his tax cuts toward the lower- and middle-end of the income scale. Those in the middle would see their after-tax income increase by 2.4% , or $1,042. Americans with incomes above $2.8 million would see their after-tax income decrease by 11.5%. Kevin summarized the bottom line nicely: “If you’re really rich and think that George Bush’s tax cuts for the rich didn’t go nearly far enough, John McCain is your man.” What’s striking is that for all of McCain’s talk about the middle class, it’s Obama’s tax plan that favors the middle, by a long shot. This CNN clip, by way of TPM, was actually pretty good. Of course, reality has a well-known liberal bias. |
|
|
|
Post by kaboobie92 on Jul 3, 2008 12:54:45 GMT -5
first of all, Obama has gone back and forth on more issues than i could count on my hands. He is saying things just to get a vote. There have been so many instances where he has lied to the people that it is scary. But of course since most of our media is liberally biased, none of these stories make it to people. For instance, at one of Obama's speeches, he tried to sympathize with World War II vets by telling a story about how his grandfather was an American soldier and helped free the jews from Auschwitcz. The funny thing is that no American troops even entered Auschwitcz, and Obama's Grandfather wasnt in the military. I'd rather not have a lying scumbag running our country. And I know i'm obviously a hardcore conservative but I am willing to Admit that Bush is a horrible president. But McCain is not Bush, and people need to understand that. And as for your bit about the 8 years of tax cuts? Who controls congress right now.. oh thats right, Liberals. So thank your congressmen. Take an economics class and you'll learn about supply and demand. Think hard about it and the conservative theory of cutting taxes might make more sense for you
|
|
|
|
Post by ratrad on Jul 3, 2008 13:18:44 GMT -5
first of all, Obama has gone back and forth on more issues than i could count on my hands. He is saying things just to get a vote. There have been so many instances where he has lied to the people that it is scary. But of course since most of our media is liberally biased, none of these stories make it to people. For instance, at one of Obama's speeches, he tried to sympathize with World War II vets by telling a story about how his grandfather was an American soldier and helped free the jews from Auschwitcz. The funny thing is that no American troops even entered Auschwitcz, and Obama's Grandfather wasnt in the military. I'd rather not have a lying scumbag running our country. And I know i'm obviously a hardcore conservative but I am willing to Admit that Bush is a horrible president. But McCain is not Bush, and people need to understand that. And as for your bit about the 8 years of tax cuts? Who controls congress right now.. oh thats right, Liberals. So thank your congressmen. Take an economics class and you'll learn about supply and demand. Think hard about it and the conservative theory of cutting taxes might make more sense for you You want to talk about flip flopping, you should look at McCain's stances when he was running against Bush in 2004(?). I have had econ classes and I read incessantly about politics. I used to be a republican (I even voted for Bush the first time) until I decided to investigate for myself. I have thought hard about your ideological stance of supply and demand and trickle down economics. They do not fit my value system and they do not contribute to the overall good. I'm sorry, I believe something different than you. With everything that I have investigated, I have come to my conclusion. I believe in the greater good first, instead of myself first. That is the way it goes. I will not change your mind and you won't change mine. Now, I've gotten into enough trouble for one day. Good day, sir. PS Are you willing to compare education levels. Not that I feel it matters, but I take offense to someone telling me to "take a class". |
|
|
|
Post by kaboobie92 on Jul 3, 2008 13:26:58 GMT -5
im not trying to attack you personally. I'm just trying to get to the depth of your thought process because you come off as being intelligent, and I honestly cannot see how people can vote liberal, but that is my opinion. And I'd love to compare education levels once i've graduated, but since i'm still a student that dosent really apply. Not to say you in particular, but being in college, I've found that most students are voting for Obama because of his "change" and literally none of them know what that change is. If you are going to vote for someone at least know what they are about. If you have differing opinions good for you, but at least vote with some knowledge. I'm afraid that too many people are going to vote this election without knowing who or what they are voting for.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratrad on Jul 3, 2008 13:30:45 GMT -5
im not trying to attack you personally. I'm just trying to get to the depth of your thought process because you come off as being intelligent, and I honestly cannot see how people can vote liberal, but that is my opinion. And I'd love to compare education levels once i've graduated, but since i'm still a student that dosent really apply. Not to say you in particular, but being in college, I've found that most students are voting for Obama because of his "change" and literally none of them know what that change is. If you are going to vote for someone at least know what they are about. If you have differing opinions good for you, but at least vote with some knowledge. I'm afraid that too many people are going to vote this election without knowing who or what they are voting for. Absolutely. Way too many people vote for the wrong reasons. I can tell you where I stand on most issues. To save the time and trouble (which I'm already in), I can tell you that I am very liberal and am very knowledgeable. Funny how so many people feel that liberals are unintelligent, but the vast majority of people with a PhD level education are ultra liberal and they are viewed as the most highly educated people in our country and history. PS-I am not attacking your education either. You just need to realize that people value different things and that usually will determine who they support. It doesn't always make them stupid, just different. If everyone thought the same, there would be no Free Beer and Hotwings. |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 3, 2008 14:23:55 GMT -5
kaboobie, any reaction to the article ratrad posted? You were absolutely clear before in your stance that Obama plans to raise taxes, but according to that article, he will actually lower taxes for the middle class and redistribute it to the lower class, whereas McCain plans to redistribute his (lesser) tax cuts for the middle class to the richest 0.1%.
Any comment on that? I thought it was a bit funny how you dropped the issue entirely and launched into something Obama may or may not've said in a speech.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratrad on Jul 3, 2008 14:47:10 GMT -5
kaboobie, any reaction to the article ratrad posted? You were absolutely clear before in your stance that Obama plans to raise taxes, but according to that article, he will actually lower taxes for the middle class and redistribute it to the lower class, whereas McCain plans to redistribute his (lesser) tax cuts for the middle class to the richest 0.1%. Any comment on that? I thought it was a bit funny how you dropped the issue entirely and launched into something Obama may or may not've said in a speech. Most people don't realize you need to be at least a millionaire (maybe even more) for the Republican economy to benefit them. |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 3, 2008 14:52:16 GMT -5
Most people don't realize you need to be at least a millionaire (maybe even more) for the Republican economy to benefit them. I wonder if the Billionaires for Bush will change their name as it gets closer to November? |
|
|
|
Post by providencecrow on Jul 3, 2008 16:53:46 GMT -5
Barack Obama wants to end all that progress and could cause more conflict. Meaning that Iran might start pointing their weapons at Israel. Remember the Holocaust? Amadinajad,(however it is spelled) the Iranian President, believes it did not take place. He has similar beliefs to Adolf Hitler and wants Israel destroyed. The Holocaust did indeed happen and he wants to destroy Israel because it is a commonly We have to take that seriously. I'm looking at it for world peace for the long term. That region needs to stay stable and having an unstable Mid East equals higher gas prices which drives everything today. It is a Huge formula that most don't understand. It all has to blend together. We are fighting for our way of life. I like the way I live and I am going to stand up for it until the day I die and I would be honored to die in combat in Iraq, Afganistan, or anywhere for that matter, for the way we live. If you lived under Saddamn then you would be greatful for what the Americans are doing. There is a lot in there, so i will sum it up the best we can. So if we pull out of iraq, Iran attacks israel? Great, but i don't live in israel, and if israel doesn't want to get attacked then israel should stop pissing off other countries. It's not our job or duty to bail them out. If they want to be dickheads to their neighbors that's their problem now. It is not our job to police the world. If the leader of Iran does not believe in a factual historical event, then he's just a dumbass, it happens. High gas prices? good maybe it will actually help change a lot of things. Relatively speaking, we have pretty low gas prices, ever been to Europe? Oh that's right in Europe it's not a problem that its like $15 a gallon because they have other methods of transportation. High gas prices like that also drive technology forward and maybe finally get some jetpacks or something. Sure it hurts in the wallet right now, but now there is a reason to try and get a water car working for example. Generally it's a bad idea to be so dependent on one solitary thing, options are a very good thing. It's the whole supply and demand paradigm just on a larger scale What they say and what they do are apparently two very different things. The last bunch of republicans we had in office sure sound a lot like democrats to me based on their actions. Both parties are big government parties no matter how they spin it. We do have to balance it out, we have had nothing but 8 years of foreign policy. We have major domestic troubles that we need to worry about before we can take care of matters elsewhere. What about all the beyond condemned bridges for example? I would just like to point out, that as i have said before i will not be voting for either because i dont particularly agree with any of them, so i can't in good conscience do that, but i guess i cant wrap my head around your argument correctly so i had to say my part. |
|
|
|
Post by kaboobie92 on Jul 11, 2008 12:03:43 GMT -5
regardless of your political orientation, it makes sense that the government MUST become smaller. We are a democracy not a socialistic nation. Our government is spending too much money, and becoming way too powerful. I believe that voting republican is the only way this is going to happen, but that is just my thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 11, 2008 12:10:35 GMT -5
kaboobie, any reaction to the article ratrad posted? You were absolutely clear before in your stance that Obama plans to raise taxes, but according to that article, he will actually lower taxes for the middle class and redistribute it to the lower class, whereas McCain plans to redistribute his (lesser) tax cuts for the middle class to the richest 0.1%. Any comment on that? I thought it was a bit funny how you dropped the issue entirely and launched into something Obama may or may not've said in a speech. bump. |
|
|
|
Post by Howie Feltersnatch on Jul 11, 2008 12:22:10 GMT -5
Where to begin with this one. I will start with the obvious: What is the difference if i have to give up a portion of my paycheck to get health coverage through my job, pay for my own plan independently, or pay for it towards taxes. Either way I'm paying the difference is you are paying for your coverage with your hard earned money...not paying for some lazy ass to sit on the couch eating cheetos and watching Springer |
|
|
|
Post by kaboobie92 on Jul 11, 2008 12:28:16 GMT -5
kaboobie, any reaction to the article ratrad posted? You were absolutely clear before in your stance that Obama plans to raise taxes, but according to that article, he will actually lower taxes for the middle class and redistribute it to the lower class, whereas McCain plans to redistribute his (lesser) tax cuts for the middle class to the richest 0.1%. Any comment on that? I thought it was a bit funny how you dropped the issue entirely and launched into something Obama may or may not've said in a speech. bump. Whether or not Obama will raise or lower taxes, no one will know unless he is elected. He has flip-flopped on so many issues so many times that nobody knows that his stances are anymore. And why tax the rich so much? They work just as hard for their money, and a lot work harder. So you are saying that since my dad is a business owner and works hard, that because he makes over 200k means he should be taxed more than an average person that makes 50k a year? I can see a slight difference, but Obama wants to make a huge tax burden on the rich, and a huge tax cut to the poor. That is not going to help the economy, only redistribute the wealth. We need tax cuts across the board, not just to the rich and middle class. Its not fair to people that work their asses off to take all the money from them and give it to the poor. |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 11, 2008 12:42:55 GMT -5
Whether or not Obama will raise or lower taxes, no one will know unless he is elected. He has flip-flopped on so many issues so many times that nobody knows that his stances are anymore. And why tax the rich so much? They work just as hard for their money, and a lot work harder. So you are saying that since my dad is a business owner and works hard, that because he makes over 200k means he should be taxed more than an average person that makes 50k a year? I can see a slight difference, but Obama wants to make a huge tax burden on the rich, and a huge tax cut to the poor. That is not going to help the economy, only redistribute the wealth. We need tax cuts across the board, not just to the rich and middle class. Its not fair to people that work their asses off to take all the money from them and give it to the poor. Obama plans on taking all the money from the rich and give it to the poor? Really? Please provide a link. I would think he wouldn't get any campaign support whatsoever from rich people if this is the case. Also show me where this "huge tax burden on the rich" is, in his economic plan. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by kaboobie92 on Jul 11, 2008 12:44:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kaboobie92 on Jul 11, 2008 12:45:12 GMT -5
"this plan would increase the tax burden of top earners by an additional $40 billion in 2009 alone and more than $629 billion over the next ten years. By itself, the $40 billion tax hike is twice as much as all the federal taxes paid by people in the bottom quintile combined."
That was pulled straight out of the article
|
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 11, 2008 13:06:05 GMT -5
"this plan would increase the tax burden of top earners by an additional $40 billion in 2009 alone and more than $629 billion over the next ten years. By itself, the $40 billion tax hike is twice as much as all the federal taxes paid by people in the bottom quintile combined." That was pulled straight out of the article And? Is $40 billion more too much for the rich to pay in taxes? What do they pay now? Is it at all comparable to what the middle class pays? Or does this even the playing field a bit? Are you saying taxing the rich is a bad thing? |
|
|
|
Post by kaboobie92 on Jul 11, 2008 13:16:00 GMT -5
"this plan would increase the tax burden of top earners by an additional $40 billion in 2009 alone and more than $629 billion over the next ten years. By itself, the $40 billion tax hike is twice as much as all the federal taxes paid by people in the bottom quintile combined." That was pulled straight out of the article And? Is $40 billion more too much for the rich to pay in taxes? What do they pay now? Is it at all comparable to what the middle class pays? Or does this even the playing field a bit? Are you saying taxing the rich is a bad thing? $40 Billion? uh yes. Last time I checked that is a large sum of money, but what do I know anyways. And the rich pay a lot more than the middle class right now. I've compared the taxes my dad pays to the taxes of some of my friends' parents and it is a lot higher. And even the playing field? Its not fair to put heavier taxes on the rich because they make more. I can see if it is an even percentage of your income across the board, but when Obama wants a higher percentage for the rich, and lower for each class that is wrong. This is SOCIALISM. He is trying to eliminate the classes in our society. |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 11, 2008 13:27:55 GMT -5
$40 Billion? uh yes. Last time I checked that is a large sum of money, but what do I know anyways. Did I say that wasn't a large sum of money? I asked what the percentages are. And, by the way, $40 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to a multi-trilllion dollar debt. I've compared the taxes my dad pays to the taxes of some of my friends' parents and it is a lot higher. Yeah, how about some actual stats, instead of comparing your dad's tax return to your friend's dads? And even the playing field? Its not fair to put heavier taxes on the rich because they make more. The rich should feel the same tax burden we all feel. They should not be priveleged. They should pay the same percentage we all pay. That's evening the playing field. McCain's plan is to make sure the rich get tax cuts while the rest of us pay more. THAT is not fair. I can see if it is an even percentage of your income across the board, Yes, this is what I'd saying. Do the rich currently pay the same percentage as the middle class? The answer is no. They enjoy a nice juicy tax break courtesy of George Dubya Bush. I can see if it is an even percentage of your income across the board, but when Obama wants a higher percentage for the rich, and lower for each class that is wrong. This is SOCIALISM. Really? What is it called when the rich get tax breaks, and the rest bear the brunt? Oligarchy? Because that's what we have now. You have no idea if Obama's plan is to make the percentages of tax even across the board (thereby raising taxes for the rich, who are paying little now) or not, you just assume he's trying to screw over a certain class of people. Most likely because that's what Rush told you to believe. |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 11, 2008 13:29:49 GMT -5
And oh, by the way: Obama is a part of the "rich" class, who he plans to tax more.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaboobie92 on Jul 11, 2008 13:33:19 GMT -5
you obviously didnt read the article. And as for statistics? I'd rather leave my dad's tax information out of the discussion. Chances are that he pays a helluvalot more taxes than you do. I'm not saying that the rich shouldnt pay more taxes. I'm saying it should be an equal percentage of income. And McCain wants tax cuts across the board, not just to the rich. And as for Obama... The guy has probabally not worked a hard day in his life. He is very wealthy and set for life, so what does he care about taxes? He will still get a juicy salary if elected president or even if he stays in congress. And you shouldnt smack talk rush, b/c he is alot smarter than you think he is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 11, 2008 13:42:38 GMT -5
And you shouldnt smack talk rush, b/c he is alot smarter than you think he is. That's what I thought. Remember, things are never black and white, like radio talk show hosts would have you believe. As for the rest, there's no use discussing this further. I ask for statistics regarding income tax onthe rich and you think I'm asking you to post your fathers W2. You are refusing to hear me at this point. It's obvious to me that you come from a privileged family, are enjoying that privilege, and are a Rush listener. You don't want government to take money away from your family, and bristle at a candidate who suggests he might. For me, even if Obama plans to unfairly overtax the rich, which he's not, I still wouldn't consider that a reason to not vote for him. |
|
|
|
Post by kaboobie92 on Jul 11, 2008 13:45:17 GMT -5
its not like his tax policies are the only reason I wont vote for him.. And as for statistics, why don't you provide me with some proving your point? I dont have the time to look all over the internet to find stats for evidence. And as for Rush, I dont follow him like a lot of people do. I have my own beliefs and opinions, and it just so happens that Rush and I align on most things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 11, 2008 13:49:04 GMT -5
its not like his tax policies are the only reason I wont vote for him.. And as for statistics, why don't you provide me with some proving your point? I dont have the time to look all over the internet to find stats for evidence. And as for Rush, I dont follow him like a lot of people do. I have my own beliefs and opinions, and it just so happens that Rush and I align on most things. You are the one making the claims that Obama plans to take all the money from the rich and give it to the poor. The burden of proof is on you to back that up with some actual stats, instead of just regurgitating Rush's latest blog entry. |
|
|
|
Post by speedbump on Jul 11, 2008 15:14:43 GMT -5
you obviously didnt read the article. And as for statistics? I'd rather leave my dad's tax information out of the discussion. Chances are that he pays a helluvalot more taxes than you do. I'm not saying that the rich shouldnt pay more taxes. I'm saying it should be an equal percentage of income. And McCain wants tax cuts across the board, not just to the rich. And as for Obama... The guy has probabally not worked a hard day in his life. He is very wealthy and set for life, so what does he care about taxes? He will still get a juicy salary if elected president or even if he stays in congress. And you shouldnt smack talk rush, b/c he is alot smarter than you think he is. Obama's parents divorced when he was two, his dad moved to Kenya and he went to school with his mom in Indonesia. He lived with his grandparents from 5th grade until he finished high school. He went to Colombia and Harvard to get his law degree, he taught at the University of Chicago. At Chicago he taught Constitutional law for 12 years. At Harvard he became President of Harvard Law Review, the most prestigious review journal in the country. He worked for a group of Catholic churches in South Chicago where he ran a program to help educate kids, where he quadrupled their annual budget in 3 years. I know McCain was in the Navy, which deserves respect, but you can't say that Obama hasn't worked a hard day in his life. |
|
|
|
Post by providencecrow on Jul 11, 2008 16:51:37 GMT -5
the difference is you are paying for your coverage with your hard earned money...not paying for some lazy ass to sit on the couch eating cheetos and watching Springer But i'm not. So far i have had to get medication due to strep throat, and i had to pay completely out of pocket because even though im paying weekly for health coverage, i have not yet met my deductable. If i broke my leg tomorrow, id now be roughly $650 out of pocket for the year for "Coverage", plus the $400 i already spent on doctor visits and meds for my strep earlier this year, plus the remaining 600 dollars at the hospital for having my leg reset. Which at this point would put me $1650 in the hole for this year for "coverage". Great effing system let me tell you. I'd much rather pay 50 a week out of my paycheck for "everyone" just to ensure i would only have a co-pay at most if something were to happen to me. This would still be cheaper than taking out my own plan. Oh did i add my job forces you to have their medical coverage if you don't have any external coverage? Once again, either way I have to pay, and taxes are actually cheaper for medical coverage for me in all cases. I am NOT the only one in this position. The healthcare system in this country is completely broken beyond repair. The only fixes are one of two things 1) universal healthcare or 2) a mandate putting every single health provider out of business and starting from the ground up. Besides, it is completely absurd that it costs 150 dollars just to walk through the waiting room door just to see a doctor for 5 minutes. The problem is there is no competition. I can't take my business elsewhere because no matter who i go see, im screwed out of way too much money for something as basic as medical care. |
|
hotsauce
Bob and Tom's fake laughing
Posts: 39
|
Post by hotsauce on Jul 11, 2008 18:00:33 GMT -5
As I have said before, I have never known a poor person to create jobs. The rich in this country create jobs. They are also known to contribute more and to startup charities. ie Bill Gates. They do these more frequently when they aren't forced to pay 51% of their income in taxes. Oh and by the way, the liberals and their media aren't saying much about the WMD's found in Iraq that is now in Canada, are they. Must be a kick in the teeth to know that Bush wasn't lying. Might make it a little more difficult for Obama. apnews.myway.com/article/20080706/D91O8E100.html |
|
