Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
AROCES

Obama: Recession could delay rescinding Bush

211 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

AROCES
Then you can provide some proof of that. I have looked at his plan and it taxes the rich(the same as it had), so you must be looking at something else. Provide a link or something to show that he is no longer taxing the rich.

You remember how to post a link right?

Proof???? Don't you think Obama knows what he is saying???

He already said he might not raise tax on the rich if the economy stays weak.

1+1=2 HELLO!!!! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlexG
and now you are very understanding if Obama would give it a try since the economy is stagnant.

I really have to go to sleep, but please don't put words in my mouth or ascribe positions to me that I don't hold.

I know that's the standard conservative debating ploy, but refrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
I fixed it for you. Now it's correct. Very certain and doctrainare, aren't you?

I'll be around to continue this at about 8:30 EST.

Let's not make this a grammar lesson or contest. I don't proof read just to argue with you folks. [pro:hmm:

Edited by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlexG
Let's not making this a grammar lesson or contest. :hmm:

Nothing to do with grammar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Nothing to do with grammar.

Sure, you are better in grammar, fine.

Now back to topic. Explain why will Obama not increase tax on the rich if the economy remains weak?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
Proof???? Don't you think Obama knows what he is saying???

He already said he might not raise tax on the rich if the economy stays weak.

1+1=2 HELLO!!!! :blink:

HELLO!!!

It is really simple aroces.

If he has a plan to alter his economic plan, it is already on paper. He isnt going to just shoot from the hip. Make it up on the fly. You have to plan these things out. Facts, proof, wacky stuff like that, things that are foreign to you.

In the past year and a half, both candidate have had several plans...did you know that? they have both changed! HELLO! As things change, they have to change.

If Obama is got a plan to not tax the rich(as you say) then there is a economic plan on paper. I have looked and cant see any economic plan changes aside from the latest to do with the bailout, hence I asked you for SPECIFICS. I know that is something foreign to you, but I am trying to see what SPECIFICALLY you are talking about.

I dont see it anywhere.

I am asking you to provide it since you seem to be on top of obamas economic policy that does not/will not tax the rich(Since all of his economic advisers and his own website say different).

So, without the tude, provide something with some details so that I can see what the heck you are talking about. You may like commenting about things that you have no details on, but I dont.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
1

HELLO!!!

It is really simple aroces.

If he has a plan to alter his economic plan, it is already on paper. He isnt going to just shoot from the hip. Make it up on the fly. You have to plan these things out. Facts, proof, wacky stuff like that, things that are foreign to you.

Increase tax on the rich! YES! Let's be fair! Trickle down does not work! YES! Spread the wealth, YES!

But if the economy becomes weak, we might, just might not tax the rich for the moment. Let's try the trickle down, and it might work....LOL :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
Increase tax on the rich! YES! Let's be fair! Trickle down does not work! YES! Spread the wealth, YES!

But if the economy becomes weak, we might, just might not tax the rich for the moment. Let's try the trickle down, and it might work....LOL :lol:

This is what I hate, I ask for details and you give the answer above.So typical.

If you dont have details, just say so. If you are just whinging it off of a one sentence comment, say so. You are extrapolating this, like you extrapolated the tax rate of the people that make 200K a year(I had to correct you there); you just dont know details and go off on a tangent that isnt accurate.

When I ask for details so that I can be accurate, you dont have them...so I am more than a bit suspect when you offer something without anything to back it up because you have a history of playing loose with facts...

So I ask again and ask for a straight answer(something you seem to have a shortage of too), do you have any details of this plan you are talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
This is what I hate, I ask for details and you give the answer above.So typical.

And this is what I hate, you wiggle around what is obvious and academic.

Obama had second thought about increasing tax on the rich because of economic concern, debunks all claim that taxing the rich more is healthy for the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusty Digital

I see your point Aroces.

If the trickle-down effect is bogus, why would delaying revoking tax-cuts from the rich make a difference from an economic viewpoint?

I think the answer to that might be two-fold.

First off I'm not sure Obama thinks the trickle-down effect is bogus, but rather there are various opinions as to the extent of the effect of trickle-down economics. While Obama may think that the effect is negligible in times of normal growth, and may (quite reasonably) believe that tax cuts to the less well off are more important (since they are more likely to spend the money, stimulating the economy), perhaps he believes that during an economic slump every added stimulus to the economy is needed. I don't necessarily agree with him on this but I understand his reasoning.

The other part of the answer might be political games. McCain has (somewhat) successfully painted Obama as a socialist, who wants huge government and high taxes. I expect Obama wants to try to stray from that image as much as possible. He can't afford to come off too adamant on the tax hikes, even if they are to the rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
Proof???? Don't you think Obama knows what he is saying???

He already said he might not raise tax on the rich if the economy stays weak.

1+1=2 HELLO!!!! :blink:

It's simple.

Those on the poor end of income have a higher consumption rate, meaning for every $ they get, they spend more of it than someone at the higher end of the income scale.

Therefore, when money is limited (after, say, the largest government bailout in world history), the most bang for your buck, in terms of getting the economy restarted, is to give it to the lower end of the income spectrum.

If the economy is still stalled, then and only then, do you risk throwing money at those whose first instinct is to keep it, rather than spend it.

Rich people are rich...because they're good at keeping money. Shocking concept, I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
And this is what I hate, you wiggle around what is obvious and academic.

Obama had second thought about increasing tax on the rich because of economic concern, debunks all claim that taxing the rich more is healthy for the economy.

Why cant you admit it when you have no specific details and you dont really know what you are talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Ok, if the trickle down works could somebody explain to me why since the 80s there are more many more poor, many less middle class and a scant number more of rich, while those who were already rich then are now indecently rich?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ravergirl
Stay on topic now..... :)

Tells us why do you think he might not raise taxes if the economy stays weak....

because it would furthur weaken the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Ok, if the trickle down works could somebody explain to me why since the 80s there are more many more poor, many less middle class and a scant number more of rich, while those who were already rich then are now indecently rich?

Population, there will always be the unfortunate poor and the bigger the population the more poor.

Likewise the rich, the millionaires before are called billionaires now, it's just inflation or value of money factoring in.

How do you define though those who are on the middle class anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Why cant you admit it when you have no specific details and you dont really know what you are talking about?

Whjy can't you admit it first then the point of Obamas statement, which is the forum topic before you go elsewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
Whjy can't you admit it first then the point of Obamas statement, which is the forum topic before you go elsewhere?

If you ever wonder why people ignore you and accuse you of never giving a straight answer, you may want to refer to this thread to refresh your memory as to why you arent taken seriously.

I was just trying to be accurate, you just avoided the answer. Like you always do...

So dont worry, I wont try to get an answer out of you, it is clear you dont have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Population, there will always be the unfortunate poor and the bigger the population the more poor.

Likewise the rich, the millionaires before are called billionaires now, it's just inflation or value of money factoring in.

How do you define though those who are on the middle class anyway?

Did you read my post? Or are you just trying to give the perception of an answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
It's simple.

Those on the poor end of income have a higher consumption rate, meaning for every $ they get, they spend more of it than someone at the higher end of the income scale.

Therefore, when money is limited (after, say, the largest government bailout in world history), the most bang for your buck, in terms of getting the economy restarted, is to give it to the lower end of the income spectrum.

Then why not tax the rich 70% and the lower income at 1% if that will result in economic boost?

Obama should have answered then that he will raise the Tax for the rich evern higher and cut the tax on low income even further when asked, right?

If the economy is still stalled, then and only then, do you risk throwing money at those whose first instinct is to keep it, rather than spend it.

Rich people are rich...because they're good at keeping money. Shocking concept, I know.

Rich people really don;t have vault in their house and stuff all their cash and wealth in there.

They have financial advisors that place their money in safe investments with return, and guess what those who keeps the money do with it? Invest it and that is what helps keep the economy going. Shocking concept, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
I see your point Aroces.

If the trickle-down effect is bogus, why would delaying revoking tax-cuts from the rich make a difference from an economic viewpoint?

I think the answer to that might be two-fold.

First off I'm not sure Obama thinks the trickle-down effect is bogus, but rather there are various opinions as to the extent of the effect of trickle-down economics. While Obama may think that the effect is negligible in times of normal growth, and may (quite reasonably) believe that tax cuts to the less well off are more important (since they are more likely to spend the money, stimulating the economy), perhaps he believes that during an economic slump every added stimulus to the economy is needed. I don't necessarily agree with him on this but I understand his reasoning.

You actually got almost there. Tax increase for the rich is nothing but a feel good, get even, welath redistribution that can be done on a good economy for the negative effect can be sustained. (hopefully).

It's a risk, but catering to those who wants monetary fairness with those who have more is a political issue that the Democrats can't simple ignore since it constutue a good portion of their supporters..

The other part of the answer might be political games. McCain has (somewhat) successfully painted Obama as a socialist, who wants huge government and high taxes. I expect Obama wants to try to stray from that image as much as possible. He can't afford to come off too adamant on the tax hikes, even if they are to the rich.

No, it's not a politcal game. Obama simply could not say he would stick to tax increase for the rich even in a recession for that will scare the investors and it might cause him some support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
If you ever wonder why people ignore you and accuse you of never giving a straight answer, you may want to refer to this thread to refresh your memory as to why you arent taken seriously.

I was just trying to be accurate, you just avoided the answer. Like you always do...

So dont worry, I wont try to get an answer out of you, it is clear you dont have one.

Trying to be accurate???

It is already staring you on the face and you want confirmation????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
Trying to be accurate???

It is already staring you on the face and you want confirmation????

yes, confirmation. It is a foreign concept to you. I dont wildly speculate.

It is called details. confirmation, accuracy. Rather than basing my comments on a single sentence and blowing everything out of proportion like you are, I am trying to learn the truth and the details so I can give an accurate answer as to what he may or may not be doing. Like the mistake you made earlier about the tax rate of the 200K people, you made a huge assumption and you were wrong, and I proved that; I provided proof of that. I know you are an anti-proof kind of guy; you dont ever post anything of substance, just speculation, and when you do post numbers you are generally wrong.

So I dont take you at face value and ask for evidence, which you cant provide, and cant admit to for whatever reason.

You cant even provide any details that specify exactly what the plan is, so it is pointless to speculate.

Do you ever get tired of coming across like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
yes, confirmation. It is a foreign concept to you. I dont wildly speculate.

It is called details. confirmation, accuracy. Rather than basing my comments on a single sentence and blowing everything out of proportion like you are, I am trying to learn the truth and the details so I can give an accurate answer as to what he may or may not be doing. Like the mistake you made earlier about the tax rate of the 200K people, you made a huge assumption and you were wrong, and I proved that; I provided proof of that. I know you are an anti-proof kind of guy; you dont ever post anything of substance, just speculation, and when you do post numbers you are generally wrong.

So I dont take you at face value and ask for evidence, which you cant provide, and cant admit to for whatever reason.

You cant even provide any details that specify exactly what the plan is, so it is pointless to speculate.

Do you ever get tired of coming across like this?

Obama said, he is not sure he will increase taxes on the rich if the economy remains weak.

If you want proof for that then you just have to wait if he will actually do it. Now the point has been made and you chose play dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
Obama said, he is not sure he will increase taxes on the rich if the economy remains weak.

If you want proof for that then you just have to wait if he will actually do it. Now the point has been made and you chose play dumb.

"play dumb"?

I am the one asking for evidence, proof, details. I am not the one wildly speculating and guessing about something I dont know the details of, or have even confirmed...you are the one who has gone off the deep end and are trying to grill people on something based on one sentence when you cant even offer details to help people answer the question you are asking...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
"play dumb"?

I am the one asking for evidence, proof, details. I am not the one wildly speculating and guessing about something I dont know the details of, or have even confirmed...you are the one who has gone off the deep end and are trying to grill people on something based on one sentence when you cant even offer details to help people answer the question you are asking...

If you don't think that one sentence from Obama means anything then why do you bother responding??? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.