Political Forum
     

Go Back   Political Forum > General Political Chat > Elections & Campaigns


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2008, 04:43 AM
J.Anderson J.Anderson is offline
Sr. Correspondent
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 416
usa us connecticut
J.Anderson has a spectacular aura aboutJ.Anderson has a spectacular aura aboutJ.Anderson has a spectacular aura about
Credits: 2,151
Default

Quote:
Seriously, which immoral war are we going to vote to stop today?
I consider the actions of our Government as regards the Iraq war to be immoral. This is nothing especially controversial. John Kerry called the war immoral, for instance.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Red Cross - Donate Today    Save the Rainforest
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2008, 05:08 AM
TheHat's Avatar
TheHat TheHat is offline
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 12,588
TheHat has a reputation beyond reputeTheHat has a reputation beyond reputeTheHat has a reputation beyond reputeTheHat has a reputation beyond reputeTheHat has a reputation beyond reputeTheHat has a reputation beyond reputeTheHat has a reputation beyond reputeTheHat has a reputation beyond reputeTheHat has a reputation beyond reputeTheHat has a reputation beyond reputeTheHat has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 46,674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Anderson View Post
Whiff. The discussion is more nuanced than that. As the two distinguished gentlemen pointed out, while a general tax raise can indeed always be harmful (not just during a recession), "tax increases on higher-income families are the least damaging mechanism for closing state fiscal deficits in the short run." Which is exactly what Obama is proposing.
No, Obama is proposing total 100% redistribution of wealth by raising taxes on rich people and businesses. He isnt cutting taxes. He is simply going to give a handout to people who dont already pay income taxes, which is actually spending, not cutting taxes.

Show me where Obama plans on cutting tax rates. If you arent cutting tax rates, then you cant be cutting taxes. He is going to hand poor people, who already dont pay taxes, money that came from taxing rich people and businesses.

Raising taxes isnt going to solve anything. We have to cut spending. New York is a liberal state, yet they are basically bankrupt b/c their liberal politicians have spent them into the abyss. You going to keep raising their taxes to? To what point? 60%? 80%? Since when was all that money the government's money and not ours?
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2008, 05:25 AM
J.Anderson J.Anderson is offline
Sr. Correspondent
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 416
usa us connecticut
J.Anderson has a spectacular aura aboutJ.Anderson has a spectacular aura aboutJ.Anderson has a spectacular aura about
Credits: 2,151
Default

Hat, maybe you should stick to slinging scurrilous and baseless insults at Obama.

Quote:
No, Obama is proposing total 100% redistribution of wealth by raising taxes on rich people and businesses.
That entire quoted article is about redistribution of wealth. The United States redistributes wealth. Get over it. We're never, ever going to stop redistributing wealth. Even Bush allowed Food Stamp funds to increase. Your dream of a social-darwinistic paradise where the poor are thrown into ditches and hosed with Napalm is just never going to happen.

Quote:
Show me where Obama plans on cutting tax rates.
Can someone post a link to Obama's website here? Or basically any news outlet (save maybe fox)? This shouldn't be difficult. Even republicans admit he is proposing large tax relief to the middle and lower class, even though they sometimes insidiously insinuate that he is actually lying.

Quote:
He is going to hand poor people
*gasp*

Quote:
who already dont pay taxes,
Uh...sales tax? Property tax? Even the dirt poor have to scrape up some change for taxes unless they are some hermit living in the middle of nowhere.

Quote:
money that came from taxing rich people and businesses.
This already happens. It will never stop. You will never be allowed to create your paradise for the rich where the poor are forced into abject wage slavery.

Last edited by J.Anderson; 09-16-2008 at 05:25 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2008, 09:12 AM
Rebellion's Avatar
Rebellion Rebellion is offline
Site Moderator
Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Boston
Posts: 20,875
usa
Rebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 361,663
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Anderson View Post
Hat, maybe you should stick to slinging scurrilous and baseless insults at Obama.
Maybe you should stick with building men made of straw. You apparently are intent on setting a record in this regard.

Sweden two years ago decided to unceremoniously boot its left wing government out of office. Here is why.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/18/wo...in&oref=slogin

Quote:
The party’s defeat reflects a feeling not only that Mr. Persson has become complacent in office, but also that Sweden’s celebrated social welfare model, with its high tax rate and generous benefits, has encouraged too many people to stay out of work for too long.

But with its generous social services and high unemployment benefits, Mr. Reinfeldt argues, it has encouraged a vast swath of people to fall out of the labor market, a particularly acute problem with an aging population. Taking into account the number of working-age people who are not working or in school — including early retirees, people in job training and those on long-term disability — the unemployment figure is close to 21 percent, he says.
__________________
Obama The Naive: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.’’ The Iranian response? “The Great Satan now has a black face.’’
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2008, 03:19 PM
Guy Fawkes Guy Fawkes is offline
Banned
Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: California
Posts: 9,730
usa de hesse
Guy Fawkes has a reputation beyond reputeGuy Fawkes has a reputation beyond reputeGuy Fawkes has a reputation beyond reputeGuy Fawkes has a reputation beyond reputeGuy Fawkes has a reputation beyond reputeGuy Fawkes has a reputation beyond reputeGuy Fawkes has a reputation beyond reputeGuy Fawkes has a reputation beyond reputeGuy Fawkes has a reputation beyond reputeGuy Fawkes has a reputation beyond reputeGuy Fawkes has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 1,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Anderson View Post
I consider the actions of our Government as regards the Iraq war to be immoral. This is nothing especially controversial. John Kerry called the war immoral, for instance.
really? Kerry also said something else.

http://images.radcity.net/5151/2475940.mp3
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2008, 03:25 PM
Spare's Avatar
Spare Spare is offline
Analyst
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,930
Spare has much to be proud ofSpare has much to be proud ofSpare has much to be proud ofSpare has much to be proud ofSpare has much to be proud ofSpare has much to be proud ofSpare has much to be proud ofSpare has much to be proud ofSpare has much to be proud of
Credits: 13,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Anderson View Post
Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University, and Peter Orszag, now the director of the Congressional Budget Office discuss the finer points of raising taxes during a recession in this 2001 article: http://www.cbpp.org/10-30-01sfp.htm

Many in the McCain camp are on television nearly every day claiming that Obama wants to "raise taxes" and that it's beyond obvious (no need for debate) that this will harm the economy. However, Stiglitz/Orszag note that:

Reductions in social spending could have dire effects on the economy, especially during a recession, because "lower-income families are more likely to spend any additional income than higher-income families." and "Indeed, since the recipients of transfer payments typically spend virtually their entire income, the negative impact of reductions in transfer payments is likely to be nearly as great as a reduction in direct government spending on goods and services."

In other words, one of the most harmful things that can be done during a recession is cuts in welfare spending, which reduces the amount of mobile wealth in the economy.
Which underscores the painful truth that the systematic reduction in welfare that escalated under Bush has not only been immoral by causing extreme damage to our most vulnerable citizens, but it's also contributed to the rapid decline in our economy.

The plan, laid out by these two master economists back in 2001, is to raise taxes on the wealthy, and increase spending and tax breaks for the lower and middle classes in order to create more mobile wealth. Obama's plan. Obviously, this type of plan was impossible in 2001 under the gangster regime of Bush II.
You intentionally choose to misinterpret what they say .... THEY say that "reductions in social spending could have dire effects ....."

YOU say ... Raising taxes during a recession is good.

Next time, read your reference.
__________________
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

---- Ronald Reagan
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2008, 05:05 PM
J.Anderson J.Anderson is offline
Sr. Correspondent
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 416
usa us connecticut
J.Anderson has a spectacular aura aboutJ.Anderson has a spectacular aura aboutJ.Anderson has a spectacular aura about
Credits: 2,151
Default

Quote:
Maybe you should stick with building men made of straw. You apparently are intent on setting a record in this regard.

How ironic. You underestimate how much I follow Sweden and Norway, and their home news. The first thing that must be understood is that it's quite difficult to understand Swedish politics in American terms. For instance, Fredrik Reinfeldt (hailed as a conservative in this piece) is to the far left of Al Gore. His "victory" (26% of the vote, compared to 35% of the vote for the social democratic party), is being overblown by Mrs.Lyall, for whom this is not her first misleading article regarding Sweden.

Quote:
Taking into account the number of working-age people who are not working or in school — including early retirees, people in job training and those on long-term disability — the unemployment figure is close to 21 percent, he says.
Which is disingenuous. The actual figure for Sweden's unemployment is around 6%, or exactly the same as the latest unemployment estimates of the United States, which has our unemployment at 6.1%. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

But as Mrs.Lyell generously notes:

Quote:
By most measures, Sweden is thriving economically: the economy is growing this year at a projected annual rate of 4.1 percent, and the official unemployment rate is 5.7 percent.
So basically, while the conservative policies of the UK and the United States are leaving our economy floundering, Sweden and Norway keep growing.

And before you start hailing Mr.Reinfeldt as a conservative hero, you should note:

Quote:
“The Nordic welfare model is in many aspects a good model,” he said as he campaigned Sunday, “but it needs more of a choice for individuals.”
Even their "right-wing" party is far to the left of American Democrats.

Last edited by J.Anderson; 09-16-2008 at 05:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2008, 05:19 PM
J.Anderson J.Anderson is offline
Sr. Correspondent
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 416
usa us connecticut
J.Anderson has a spectacular aura aboutJ.Anderson has a spectacular aura aboutJ.Anderson has a spectacular aura about
Credits: 2,151
Default

Quote:
YOU say ... Raising taxes during a recession is good.
Actually, the point I'm making is that higher taxes on the rich, combined with large increases in social spending, will produce more mobile wealth and help to jump start our economy in the short term.

Last edited by J.Anderson; 09-16-2008 at 05:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2008, 05:46 PM
J.Anderson J.Anderson is offline
Sr. Correspondent
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 416
usa us connecticut
J.Anderson has a spectacular aura aboutJ.Anderson has a spectacular aura aboutJ.Anderson has a spectacular aura about
Credits: 2,151
Default

I also want to say that I actually like Sarah Lyall, and I enjoy reading her pieces in the NYT. She does valuable work. I just think that sometimes the way she chooses to translate things can be misleading.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2008, 06:03 PM
Dr House's Avatar
Dr House Dr House is offline
Sr. Correspondent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Utuado, Puerto Rico
Age: 21
Posts: 405
puerto rico
Dr House is a glorious beacon of lightDr House is a glorious beacon of lightDr House is a glorious beacon of lightDr House is a glorious beacon of lightDr House is a glorious beacon of lightDr House is a glorious beacon of light
Credits: 2,146
Send a message via AIM to Dr House Send a message via MSN to Dr House Send a message via Yahoo to Dr House Send a message via Skype™ to Dr House
Default

Quote:
“The more that the tax increases or transfer reductions are focused on those with lower propensities to consume (that is, on those who spend less and save more of each additional dollar of income), the less damage is done to the weakened economy. Since higher-income families tend to have lower propensities to consume than lower-income families, the least damaging approach in the short run involves tax increases concentrated on higher-income families.
This is beyond stupid. It assumes the retarded Keynesian assumption that consumption is a driving force in the economy is correct. News flash: a third of consumer expenditures are satisfied by imports, as are all new consumer expenditures. Economic growth last quarter was almost wholesale due to a reduction in imports, which mostly correspond to a reduction in consumption. Moreover, eroding savings rates is a very very bad thing because it erodes investment rates (the basis of any sustainable economic growth), since all investment must necessarily come from savings.

If anything the tax hikes that'll hurt the economy the least are on consumption income.
__________________
Hometown: Arecibo, PR
Ideology: National Liberalism
Beliefs: Ultranationalism, Georgism, industrialism, monetarism, race realism, utilitarianism, populism.

Libertarian/Authoritarian:
1.19
Economic Left/Right: 0.50

"Who doesn't enjoy looking at boobies? To do otherwise would be simply un-American. -catzmeow
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Will Raising Taxes On Oil Companies Lower Fuel Prices? Toby Opinion POLLS 24 06-26-2008 03:17 PM
Ted Kennedy: Raising Your Taxes; Avoiding His DiscerningBlog Political Blogs 1 04-15-2008 04:50 PM
Talk of Raising Taxes ALREADY JP5 Latest World News 29 11-14-2006 07:24 PM
Bush proposes raising taxes... PJO34 Current Events 17 02-02-2005 02:24 PM

Sponsored Links

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0
Template-Modifikationen durch TMS
vBCredits v1.3 ©2007 by Darkwaltz4
Advertisement System V2.1 By   Branden