TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- McCain's VP pick
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 »

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 I really don't see how I'm twisting your words here. You're going on about how hard your dad works (and I'm sure he does), but he's doing quite well compared to most people and I do not believe he needs any more tax breaks. In fact, he can afford to pay the twelve dollar increase that Obama proposes for those who make $250,000 per year. Are you really that upset about twelve dollars? That's more important than a universal healthcare plan, revamped economic policy and a 180 on DISASTROUS American foreign policy? That's part of my point...people vote way too much based on getting a few hundred dollars in tax rebates. There are much larger things to consider here...you know, like this ridiculous war on terror that McCain keeps blathering on about and now thinks he can start fucking with Iran and South Korea and his VP pick is even talking about going to war with Russia!! But you're more concerned with your dad paying twelve dollars in taxes per year...it kinda proves my point.

Could you provide me with proof that it's only twelve more dollars in taxes?

By the way, I don't have a completely capitalist mind point. It would be great to see affordable health care for everyone in the US. My parents struggled to pay for doctors bills at one point like so many other Americans.

I just don't think Obama's drastic plans of change are the smartest idea for the economy right now. Even if only the big guys and corporations get taxed the little guys still pay for it with higher prices and cut wages for workers.

His idea may sound great when he says it but those corporations and big wigs still have to make money somehow, right?

Uh, Palin

Well, the Republicans have turned the election into whom the voters find more similar rather than a discussion of who can run America better the next four years. It was actually brilliant to select Palin, as it stirred religious voters to come out to vote for McCain rather than to abstain the process. They have to keep Palin away from the public as much as possible until November, which they have to a degree. If the democrats can turn the media and voters back to the issues facing America in the next couple of months, then the Democrats will win. GOP will win if the focus remains on likeability. Kinda scary on how people vote, but that is how it is. As for hearing issues like the economy, it makes me laugh reading these posts. It is true, Democrats have presided better if you measure by GDP than the GOP over the last 60 years or so. About 1.5% better give or take each year. Study was in the NY Times done by some professor. Uh, what else, the drilling for oil bit in the USA. Assuming the US does drill everywhere, the amount of barrels pulled from the ground is negligible enough that OPEC can offset that by reducing their output by less than 2 million barrels per day. That wouldn't see a change in oil price at all. However, the US would save roughly $30 billion a year once they ramp it all up. I did have respect for Diginut, I thought he was smart and clever, but after the socialist/capitalist list, you're just clever.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 I might be able to take that as a sign that you aren't educated at all, but who knows.

hahahhahahahaha

(that was a slightly silly comment to make)

lol -

quote:

Originally posted by kwongandy Democrats have presided better if you measure by GDP than the GOP over the last 60 years or so. About 1.5% better give or take each year.

Most people still don't realize that it takes at least 2 years (sometimes up to 4 or 5) to actually see the real effects of federal policy on the economy. Democrats always get to ride the coattails of Republican policies, and usually don't stay in office long enough to get blamed for what their own policies do (the only Democrat to get a second term since 1969 was Bill Clinton, and the economy tanked during his second term).

The economy didn't do much when Reagan was sworn in, but skyrocketed about 2 years later. Then when George H.W. Bush took office, it started to slow down a few years later (he was a Republican too, obviously, but nowhere near as good a president). The worst was right near the end of Clinton's term.

It's also not entirely fair to go 60 years back when making these comparisons, because the Democratic platform with respect to economics was very different back then. FDR and Harry Truman were wartime presidents, fiscal conservatives with a heavy emphasis on military spending. They were very much like Republicans today. The earliest Democrat who was truly representative of today's Democrats was Lyndon Johnson, who also managed to tank the economy in his second term with his idiotic "war on poverty", which over 40 years later has been even less successful than the "war on terror" or the "war on drugs".

If you actually look at the numbers, they're pretty consistent in showing that the economy is at its best after 2-4 Republican years, and worst after 2-4 Democrat years. There are exceptions of course, namely Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, but I think every Republican will agree that Nixon was the black sheep, and GW has not been fiscally conservative at all.

Actually, this is the only thing I worry about with McCain - he really isn't that much of a fiscal conservative. He's good on issues like defense, but when it comes to economics he's a bit of a RINO. Palin is fiscally conservative, at least from what I've been able to discern so far. So we'll have to see how well they do with the economy. I am at least pretty confident that they won't make things any worse than they already are, whereas I'm almost positive that it will tank again if Obama takes office, which of course won't happen.

quote:

Originally posted by KaiLee Could you provide me with proof that it's only twelve more dollars in taxes?

Twelve bucks, that's hysterical. If your income is $250K then that puts you in the bracket above (roughly) $160K. That's $90K worth of income in that particular bracket, and even a 0.1% tax increase would come out to at least $90. A 1% tax increase, which is the smallest you would ever actually see, comes out to $900 or more.

Where the hell is anybody getting $12 from? Do they teach math in poli sci?

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper lol -

lol, I just saw that live last night, they didn't waste any time getting it on youtube, did they!

quote:

Originally posted by KaiLee Could you provide me with proof that it's only twelve more dollars in taxes? By the way, I don't have a completely capitalist mind point. It would be great to see affordable health care for everyone in the US. My parents struggled to pay for doctors bills at one point like so many other Americans. I just don't think Obama's drastic plans of change are the smartest idea for the economy right now. Even if only the big guys and corporations get taxed the little guys still pay for it with higher prices and cut wages for workers. His idea may sound great when he says it but those corporations and big wigs still have to make money somehow, right?

I have seen Obama's tax plan vs McCain's tax plan broken down more than once on CNN, MSNBC and even FOX News. I'm sure you can do a search for it. Independent campaign agencies (factcheck.org or something like that) also have consistently reported that McCain's blathering about Obama raising taxes is untrue for the vast majority of Americans. The only bracket that gets hit "hard" are those who make over $600,000 a year.

Besides, Obama is only going to REVERSE the Bush tax cuts essentially to what they were when Clinton was in office. In most cases, it's going back to about 39% instead of 36%. It's only an increase insofar that it eliminates all the gains that the wealthier classes and corporations have made since 2001. Again, please tell me why this is a bad thing except SPECULATION that it will hurt jobs and wages. There is no evidence of that, especially when he will reward the corporations with tax breaks who actually keep jobs in the United States. The Republican Party has done absolutely nothing about the loss of blue collar and manufacturing jobs that have left North America for cheaper markets like Mexico and Asia.

Again, people said the same thing about Clinton's plans in 1992 and it worked then. The United States NEEDS drastic change right now because the system is failing way too many people. It just boggles my mind how so many people would rather trust the incumbent party to do a better job after their complete mishandling of almost every major issue over the last eight years.

In Canada, we don't stand for that but then again, we don't vote for the party leader who we would most likely "have a beer with" either.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut If you actually look at the numbers, they're pretty consistent in showing that the economy is at its best after 2-4 Republican years, and worst after 2-4 Democrat years. Twelve bucks, that's hysterical. If your income is $250K then that puts you in the bracket above (roughly) $160K. That's $90K worth of income in that particular bracket, and even a 0.1% tax increase would come out to at least $90. A 1% tax increase, which is the smallest you would ever actually see, comes out to $900 or more. Where the hell is anybody getting $12 from? Do they teach math in poli sci?

Where are you getting your numbers from? Obama's tax plan has been broken down by economists all over the American media. All you are doing is speculating, while I've actually seen people who know what they're talking about break it down on national TV.

So the economy is at its best after two years of Republican handling eh? Wow man, you are delusional. Tell that to everyone in North America who lived through a tough recession in the early 80s when Reagan was President or during Bush Senior's term. The economy was far superior even in Clinton's second term than it is today. The late 90s was a far more stable economic period compared to the last eight years. Do we really need to compare job losses?

and there you go again mocking the Canadian university education system. I guess people who actually go to school are all idiots right?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut (the only Democrat to get a second term since 1969 was Bill Clinton, and the economy tanked during his second term).

To be fair, he was in office when the asian financial crisis hit.

Smitty, can you point us to wherever you are getting all this info? If you're going to make an argument, it's not particularly compelling when you just say "go search for it yourself"

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper To be fair, he was in office when the asian financial crisis hit.

Sure - there are lots of causes for economic problems. That likely did factor into it. I was only addressing the point that "Democrats have done better for the American economy", which the evidence doesn't support except through a na�ve and, well, wrong interpretation. In any discussion of economics it's important to distinguish between short-term fluctuations and long-term growth.

Clinton didn't do much for or against the U.S. economy. In fact he didn't really do much of anything, period. If Obama does somehow get himself elected, Americans will consider themselves lucky if he ends up doing so little.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut In fact he didn't really do much of anything, period.

He certainly did not have sex with that woman

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Twelve bucks, that's hysterical. If your income is $250K then that puts you in the bracket above (roughly) $160K. That's $90K worth of income in that particular bracket, and even a 0.1% tax increase would come out to at least $90. A 1% tax increase, which is the smallest you would ever actually see, comes out to $900 or more. Where the hell is anybody getting $12 from? Do they teach math in poli sci?

I also don't see how $12 from every person who has an income above $250k will help hundreds of millions of people in a financial crisis.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper lol -

Holy smokes Tina is spot on

quote:

Originally posted by KaiLee I also don't see how $12 from every person who has an income above $250k will help hundreds of millions of people in a financial crisis.

it's ok...because there's also not "hundreds of millions" of people in a financial crisis anyway, given that the entire U.S. population is only slightly over 300 million

quote:

Originally posted by KaiLee I also don't see how $12 from every person who has an income above $250k will help hundreds of millions of people in a financial crisis.

Last census showed 1.7 million households making $250,000 or more, so that's about $20 million it'll raise. That could pay for, oh, let's say, 3 hours of interest on the national debt? Or almost a full day of welfare/social security payments for maybe 1/10th of the people on it? Or, oooh, I know, it could run one public hospital for as many as 7 minutes! Just think of all the babies we could save with that money! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper To be fair, he was in office when the asian financial crisis hit. Smitty, can you point us to wherever you are getting all this info? If you're going to make an argument, it's not particularly compelling when you just say "go search for it yourself"

I saw it on TV but I'll try to search for something solid. I watch CNN, MSNBC quite frequently and it was on CNN that they broke it down into hard figures I think on Wednesday night on Anderson Cooper 360. He tries to keep his show fair and neutral and it was an economist going over the numbers.

I'll do a search and edit some links on here.

http://origin.barackobama.com/taxes/

http://desertbeacon.blogspot.com/2008/09/average-nevadan-better-off-with-obama.html

http://www.ohboyobama.com/Message/Clobber-McCain-on-the-stump-and-in-debates-with-demo-on-tax-policy (Obama says right here that over 250,000 but under 600,000 get a tax hike of 12 bucks.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Last census showed 1.7 million households making $250,000 or more, so that's about $20 million it'll raise. That could pay for, oh, let's say, 3 hours of interest on the national debt? Or almost a full day of welfare/social security payments for maybe 1/10th of the people on it? Or, oooh, I know, it could run one public hospital for as many as 7 minutes! Just think of all the babies we could save with that money! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

you're ignoring the reversal of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest 1%.

What Obama is doing, or rather what he wants to do, is restructure and redistribute the American tax code. People who make less will get more in their tax rebates, while only the very wealthy see a significant increase. I really don't see why everyone is up in arms about this, especially those who don't even make close to that amount of money.

What in the Republican agenda convinces people that they are the party for the working and middle class American citizen? I simply do not see the appeal.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT it's ok...because there's also not "hundreds of millions" of people in a financial crisis anyway, given that the entire U.S. population is only slightly over 300 million

That was a bit of exaggeration on my behalf but even people who are making 100K a year are starting to live paycheque to paycheque sadly enough.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 I have seen Obama's tax plan vs McCain's tax plan broken down more than once on CNN, MSNBC and even FOX News. I'm sure you can do a search for it. Independent campaign agencies (factcheck.org or something like that) also have consistently reported that McCain's blathering about Obama raising taxes is untrue for the vast majority of Americans. The only bracket that gets hit "hard" are those who make over $600,000 a year.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 Where are you getting your numbers from? Obama's tax plan has been broken down by economists all over the American media. All you are doing is speculating, while I've actually seen people who know what they're talking about break it down on national TV.

So all that coverage and you found this?

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 I saw it on TV but I'll try to search for something solid. I watch CNN, MSNBC quite frequently and it was on CNN that they broke it down into hard figures I think on Wednesday night on Anderson Cooper 360. He tries to keep his show fair and neutral and it was an economist going over the numbers. I'll do a search and edit some links on here. http://origin.barackobama.com/taxes/ http://desertbeacon.blogspot.com/20...with-obama.html http://www.ohboyobama.com/Message/C...o-on-tax-policy (Obama says right here that over 250,000 but under 600,000 get a tax hike of 12 bucks.

A break down on his site. Some article that looks like a legit analysis which only applies to the state of Nevada. And a theoretical speech, made up by somebody? In that third article, Obama, does not say a damned thing. That is somebody else writing a speech he COULD say. Did you even read the page?

quote:

Here's a simple, effective demo Obama could do on the stump and in the debates:

None of that was independent (all sites had supporting advertising). One of them wasn't even a real source. Way to research.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko So all that coverage and you found this? A break down on his site. Some article that looks like a legit analysis which only applies to the state of Nevada. And a theoretical speech, made up by somebody? In that third article, Obama, does not say a damned thing. That is somebody else writing a speech he COULD say. Did you even read the page? None of that was independent (all sites had supporting advertising). One of them wasn't even a real source. Way to research.

well dude I am kind of a busy person and I just did a quick google search. They might not be independent, but the basic framework of Obama's tax restructuring plan are there. Let me see if I can find something more "real".

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/08/calculate-your.html

There's essentially the same breakdown I saw on CNN last week. It's a pretty good graph. Also, I think it's important to note that neither candidate will increase the total figure of tax revenue. McCain will continue Bush's tax policy, while Obama will simply redistribute it. It's a fairly cut and dry issue from my end. the vast majority of Americans stand to gain much more from Obama in this regard.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 well dude I am kind of a busy person

For being so busy you spend a lot of time typing long, knee-jerk reactions to posts on this board.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper For being so busy you spend a lot of time typing long, knee-jerk reactions to posts on this board.

no moreso than others. Aren't we all busy people?

I'm not speculating about anything, I just did the (very obvious) math. If you believe it to be in error, please feel free to explain how you would arrive at any other figure.

quote:

Originally posted by KaiLee That was a bit of exaggeration on my behalf but even people who are making 100K a year are starting to live paycheque to paycheque sadly enough.

true...but they are mostly overextended (i.e. somewhat or overtly irresponsible) who generally chose to put themselves in the precarious situation they are in.

there are few valid excuses to make 100k and be "struggling"...unless you brought it on yourself.

seriously. I see this *daily* with clients...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.