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

ravergirl
meaning?

all im saying is that a trickle becomes a drip eventually its like comparing this

linked-image

to this

linked-image

to this

linked-image

Edited by ravergirl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong
I don't think Obama disagrees. I think he's keeping options open in a time of unprecedented uncertainty. You want to jump on his statement as validation of your libertarian tax positions. So you'll take the statement out of any context and keep reposting your interpretation.

Bingo in the bold.... What moron would take on a job as president and not have multiple plans for the same situation. Could you imagine fighting a war with no Contingency plans, kinda what Bush did for how long in Iraq lol. Aroces, you trying to say that Obama is flip floping is pure horse crap, he has more than one plan/solution on paper I'm sure. You know it's called planning ahead. I'm sure everyday both Mccain and Obama toss new ideas around, if they didn't i'd be very disturbed by the lack of concern for this crisis.

edited: need more coffee ;)

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
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?

Why doesn't McCain just abolish all taxes, if lower taxes will result in an economic boost?

I know that maths obviously isn't your strong point, but which part of "Largest Government Bail out in the history of the World" are you having trouble understanding, exactly?

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?

Aroces - no matter how much you try to deny it - and I'm sure that you will - all modern Economic studies conclude that the rate of consumption is greater with lower income families. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
all im saying is that a trickle becomes a drip eventually its like comparing this

linked-image

to this

linked-image

to this

linked-image

All these water flowing comes from a source, what makes it dry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Bingo in the bold.... What moron would take on a job as president and not have multiple plans for the same situation. Could you imagine fighting a war with no Contingency plans, kinda what Bush did for how long in Iraq lol. Aroces, you trying to say that Obama is flip floping is pure horse crap, he has more than one plan/solution on paper I'm sure. You know it's called planning ahead. I'm sure everyday both Mccain and Obama toss new ideas around, if they didn't i'd be very disturbed by the lack of concern for this crisis.

edited: need more coffee ;)

Nope, not flip floping but admitting that tax break on the rich is an economic stimulus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Why doesn't McCain just abolish all taxes, if lower taxes will result in an economic boost?

Or Obama just tax the rich 99% and the lower income free of tax, right?

I know that maths obviously isn't your strong point, but which part of "Largest Government Bail out in the history of the World" are you having trouble understanding, exactly?

A bail out indeed, for it is the Govt fault as well this crisis happened. Barney Franks and Christopher Dodd blocked calls for regulations and reforms when the problem was developing for they protected thier political agendas. And that is so the poor who can't really affor dcan buy a house.

Aroces - no matter how much you try to deny it - and I'm sure that you will - all modern Economic studies conclude that the rate of consumption is greater with lower income families. Period.

And modern economic RESULTS concludes the top earners can't be squeezed that much for it ends up hurting everyone.

Edited by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlexG
And modern RESULTS concludes the top earners can't be squeezed that much for it ends up hurting everyone.

No, it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ravergirl
All these water flowing comes from a source, what makes it dry?

linked-image

+

linked-image

=

linked-image

Edited by ravergirl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
No, it doesn't.

Highest tax rate in the late 70's was at 70%, ask Jimmy Carter how it was like economically.

If Obama wins, I dare him to increase the tax rate for the rich at 50% only, I really wish he would do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlexG
Highest tax rate in the late 70's was at 70%, ask Jimmy Carter how it was like economically.

If Obama wins, I dare him to increase the tax rate for the rich at 50% only, I really wish he would do it.

Highest unemployment rate in recent history was when Bush 1 left office after 12 years of trickle down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
Or Obama just tax the rich 99% and the lower income free of tax, right?

A bail out indeed, for it is the Govt fault as well this crisis happened. Barney Franks and Christopher Dodd blocked calls for regulations and reforms when the problem was developing for they protected thier political agendas. And that is so the poor who can't really affor dcan buy a house.

And modern economic RESULTS concludes the top earners can't be squeezed that much for it ends up hurting everyone.

I think you'll find that Modern economic results conclude that Republican economic policies end in the almost complete collapse of the Western financial system, whilst Democratic presidencies end with the largest budget surplus ever recorded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Highest unemployment rate in recent history was when Bush 1 left office after 12 years of trickle down.

Why not go back further, like the Carter era of high taxation on the rich and see the results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ravergirl
I think you'll find that Modern economic results conclude that Republican economic policies end in the almost complete collapse of the Western financial system, whilst Democratic presidencies end with the largest budget surplus ever recorded.

it is true. However, McCain doesn't really seem to take the republican party so so seriously and could be influenced by a democratic congress. He does have a lot of Democratic endorsement. Do you think that if he could take a democratic financial stand and republican foreign policy stand, that a McCain/Palin would be a remedy to what Bush did.

BECAUSE.

While I agree that the economic "crisis" is quite infuriating and could use that homeland attention, our current executive officer has riled up the enemies and turning our heads home could cripple us in other ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
I think you'll find that Modern economic results conclude that Republican economic policies end in the almost complete collapse of the Western financial system, whilst Democratic presidencies end with the largest budget surplus ever recorded.

A budget surplus that was on paper only, remember Enron?

I am not criticizing Clintons economic policy, but the fact is most of those surplus was from DOT.COM companies that were not making money, so when the dotcom burst so did the surplus.

PLUS, you can't deny the role of the Republican congress during those times.

Edited by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlexG
Why not go back further, like the Carter era of high taxation on the rich and see the results.

Because the 80's were the era of trickle down, and the results were disasterous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Because the 80's were the era of trickle down, and the results were disasterous.

Then why is Obama even considering it if the economy stays weak?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ravergirl
Then why is Obama even considering it if the economy stays weak?

Because it is a solution that people have heard of. Which means they remember it. Which means by and large it can be confused with good times. and A solution people have heard of is WAY more comforting to the masses than a new program that they don't understand.

That is a mob mentatlity manipulation, and if his plan is dragged throught the dirt, it is no big deal because thats part of an election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong
Nope, not flip floping but admitting that tax break on the rich is an economic stimulus.

I havn't heard him admit that he would NOT tax the rich. Lets look at the rich for a second, are we talking about joe six pack making $500 thou a year or corporations that make billions every year. Just saying the rich leaves a pretty big gap. For one these billion dollar companies got to be billion dollar company's because of the people and the laws that allow them to operate the way they do. Should they not give back a little with out the whinning and belly aching. Here in Alberta we raised the tax revenue's on some of the biggest oil companies on the planet and all they did was whine that instead of a 95 billion dollar profit all it would be is 65 billion this year (not exact numbers) They threatened to move out of Alberta and we called there bluff. The Ultra rich need to be taxed more in my opinion as they ride on the backs of "joe-six-pack" that make it possible for them to be rich.

Eh just my 2 cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlexG
Then why is Obama even considering it if the economy stays weak?

He's not. You just want him to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
A budget surplus that was on paper only, remember Enron?

I am not criticizing Clintons economic policy, but the fact is most of those surplus was from DOT.COM companies that were not making money, so when the dotcom burst so did the surplus.

PLUS, you can't deny the role of the Republican congress during those times.

There's been a Republican congress for the majority of Bush's terms in office. That didn't work out so great.

Economies don't recover overnight. The choice is essentially this - Give poor people enough money to spend so that they can have food and shelter while the economy is recovering or give Paris Hilton another 50 million while the poorest struggle to survive.

Fortunately, the morally right thing to do is also the one that will help the economy to recover quickest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Fortunately, the morally right thing to do is also the one that will help the economy to recover quickest.

:tu:

but some people rather use the inverted Robin Hood method...take from the poor and give to the rich .. with a modern twist: When the poor don't have, take from their grandchildren.

And then they are surprised when the whole economy blows sky high.

ED: Typo

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ravergirl

I want to back up to something......

Taking the money from the rich is a bad idea. However, it is sad that the rich can look at our failing economy and not suggest the policy themselves. People who garner that much power, money, and trust from the rest of us SHOULD feel obligated to restore stability to a shakey economy whatever venue it goes through. But greed is instinctual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
I want to back up to something......

Taking the money from the rich is a bad idea. However, it is sad that the rich can look at our failing economy and not suggest the policy themselves. People who garner that much power, money, and trust from the rest of us SHOULD feel obligated to restore stability to a shakey economy whatever venue it goes through. But greed is instinctual.

Not all of them feel that way.

Warren Buffet, for example, who recently issued a $1,000,000 challenge to the Forbes 400 list, if any of them could show that they paid an average tax rate higher than the average tax rate of their receptionists.

So far, Warren's Million is very safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ravergirl
Not all of them feel that way.

Warren Buffet, for example, who recently issued a $1,000,000 challenge to the Forbes 400 list, if any of them could show that they paid an average tax rate higher than the average tax rate of their receptionists.

So far, Warren's Million is very safe.

You mean some guy offered a million dollars to OTHER millionaires. WOW. Thats what I have been saying all day, and Aroces just wont get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes
When asked if he will tax the rich still if the economy stays weak, he said he has to reevaluate. Why???

The $700+ billion bailout - that's why.

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.