:roll:
Pick up your knuckles, then invest in some reading glasses. You didn't just miss the boat - you fell in the water.
Pick up your knuckles, then invest in some reading glasses. You didn't just miss the boat - you fell in the water.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,911
- 10,749
- 147
Back up your attempted insult, sport.
Obama made a sarcastic joke.
Your inability or unwillingness to SEE OR UNDERSTAND that is just sad.
Edit: I'll splain it for you, since you obviously need someone to. Obama said sarcastically that McCain was so off base, he would mistake Obama's sharing his toys in kindergarten for Socialism, and YOU MISSED THE BOAT, THE OCEAN AND THE PLANET and went off, cluelessly on a long, stupid discourse on Socialism.
YOU FAIL like a Soyo motherboard, like a Packard Bell 'puter, like Dan Quayle in a spelling bee.
Ie welcome to any form of government that uses taxation (ALL OF THEM)? Your analogy is shit
Combine the Laffer Curve + the Paradox of Thrift.
The rich save a larger percent of their wealth. The rich are currently taxed a less than nominal rate for government revenues. We're in a poor economy now.
Poor economy + undertaxed upper class + strained middle/lower class
The solution to a poor economy is to lower taxes on the middle/lower classes. This is clear. Let the people who spend the greatest % of their income keep more of their income. In the end, some of these money does get funneled into the upper classes (from whom the lower classes purchase goods and services). Thus, it's a win-win; lower taxes for the lower/middle classes gives more money to everyone, including the rich, and the economy booms.
So why are we raising taxes on the rich? They're currently under taxed. We can increase government revenues without harming the economy by taxing the rich while cutting taxes on the middle/lower classes. The money that the rich will lose from higher taxes will be offset by the additional income provided by the lower/middle class tax cuts.
Thus, Obama's plan is neutral to the rich and beneficial to the lower and middle class. His is the best plan for maximizing government revenue (which we need if we want to overcome our deficit).
The rich got their tax cuts for awhile, but they had to know that it would end. They're not being charged at the most efficient rate; no one knows what that rate is, but it's definitely higher than what they're being charged now (even if the changes in government revenue are minimal).
evident
Lifer
- Apr 5, 2005
- 12,150
- 773
- 126
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
No. Nor do I hand over a large chunk of my paycheck involuntarily at the whim of the comedian.Originally posted by: ScottyB
Do you sit all grumpy-like during comedy routines while you complain that their anecdotes don't represent reality?
Have you ever had a $9 12 oz domestic macro-brew at a comedy show
lol!!! :beer::beer:
FAIL. GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports - imports), the increase in tax on the "rich" will decrease investment and offset gains in consumption (which is not even guaranteed by a strained middle class) from the middle class. But the worst part of that is that it reduces after-tax returns on investment projects and it deteriorates future growth (reduces incentive to invest).
The best way to boost an economy on a sustainable model is to encourage production today and the future. Taxing the rich and giving tax credits to everyone else is the real "voodoo" economics.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,911
- 10,749
- 147
WHOOSH!
LOL X Infinity at all the determinedly clueless poster like CycloWizard entirely missing Obama's POINT:
That McCain was so desperate and himself clueless that he would MISTAKE Obama's sharing his toys in kindergarten for Socialism.
So . . . humor challenged and dull of wit, blinded unto utter stupidity by their partisanship and fear of the Magick Socialist Negro, they go off on looooong treatises of, HRUF HRUF, what Socialism really is. :laugh:
Again, WHOOSH!
I guess when you're either a mental midget or blinded by your own HUMORLESS anger, lot's of things go right over your head.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
LOL X Infinity at all the determinedly clueless poster like CycloWizard entirely missing Obama's POINT:
That McCain was so desperate and himself clueless that he would MISTAKE Obama's sharing his toys in kindergarten for Socialism.
So . . . humor challenged and dull of wit, blinded unto utter stupidity by their partisanship and fear of the Magick Socialist Negro, they go off on looooong treatises of, HRUF HRUF, what Socialism really is. :laugh:
Again, WHOOSH!
I guess when you're either a mental midget or blinded by your own HUMORLESS anger, lot's of things go right over your head.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Nice attempted cover. Unfortunately, the senility has already set in and you can't see the obvious truth of the matter. Thus, you will attempt to cover your idiocy and lack of input by including lots of bold text in your posts, thereby attempting to support your hero regardless of the truth of what he said or intended to imply.
edit: Meanwhile, I'll bring up another point that seems to make you ah heck off: Text
gross investment = personal savings + government savings. In this case an increases government savings (making it less negative), leading to greater gross investment.
that said, there is already *far* too much investment capital floating around now days, hence we see speculative investment bubble after speculative investment bubble, and excessively low capital gains taxes certainly don't help the situation.
If you want sound, stable, rational investment, you keep dividend taxes low, not capital gains. You drive growth through strong returns on investemnt from strong demand, not by flooding the market with 'investment capital'.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Yeah, there might be a lot "whoosh" here, but maybe not how many think.
Obama is attempting to disarm the first idea (redistribution of wealth) by mocking it with, and (wrongly) anologizing it to, the simple and innocent concept of "sharing".
But, rightly or wrongly, many do feel that the Democats are unable to discern between the two - an act forced by the government versus one done of free will and motivated by charity instead of punishment.
I'm inclined to at least entertain the idea these concepts are blurred in Obama's mind as well.
Who shall we (and others) soon be asked to "share" with, and how?
Fern
LOL at all the righties getting their panties in a twist over a sarcastic comment.
Newsflash - funny things *dont* have to make sense and *dont* have to tie in to larger policy ideas.
Newsflash - funny things *dont* have to make sense and *dont* have to tie in to larger policy ideas.
This is the sort of crazy talk that shows up every election cycle. I'll never understand it (other than the fact that it's good for whipping up the dumber elements in the Republican base) Were we 'socialist' in the 1990s? Of course not, no rational person would say that. Strangely enough, returning our tax levels for the rich to those levels is now considered 'redistributing the wealth' and 'socialism'. It's completely absurd.
In case you guys didn't notice, he was making a JOKE. The joke is that McCain's idea of what socialism is happens to be so batshit insane that he thinks he can apply the label to Obama's tax plan. Obama's joke is that if you apply similar levels of ignorance and poor reasoning to a child sharing his toys, you might think he was a communist. Ie: McCain's ignorance and poor logic are the joke, not how accurate a comparison various forms of sharing are.
All these threads like this remind me of how for the longest time the right wingers on here accuse Obama supporters of blindly following him. What do you have to say for yourselves now? Once McCain started bleating about socialism you guys blindly picked up that idiotic idea and ran with it.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,911
- 10,749
- 147
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Nice attempted cover. Unfortunately, the senility has already set in and you can't see the obvious truth of the matter. Thus, you will attempt to cover your idiocy and lack of input by including lots of bold text in your posts, thereby attempting to support your hero regardless of the truth of what he said or intended to imply.
edit: Meanwhile, I'll bring up another point that seems to make you ah heck off: Text
WOW! I used to have respect for your intellect, as you know, despite our political differences, but HERE, TWICE when given the chance to rebut my point, ALL you could come up with was pointless insult and diversionary, off topic FUD.
YOU CAN'T REBUT MY POINT, and you lack the personal integrity to admit that.
YOU FAIL MISERABLY.
Agreed, particularly with the bold comment. The solution to that is not to criticize the inaccuracy of something that was meaningless to begin with though. This would have been a better starting argument than "that meaningless hack is an inaccurate metaphor".
Using your own words, how is this any different than the progress tax system we have now? Have you always been raising hell about the progressive tax system?
I wish Barry was just a socialist but he is a cultural Marxist. He does not even like the Constitution. Add that to fact that he would not pass investigations to work for FBI. The Constitution was designed to protect people from tyranny in government. Obama in telltale fashion has a real problem with that
"And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn?t that radical. It didn?t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution ? at least as it?s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can?t do to you, says what the federal government can?t do to you, but it doesn?t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."
That's pretty lame stuff for a guy thats supposed to be a constitutional scholar
"Obama: You know, I?m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn?t structured that way. [snip] You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. You know, the court is just not very good at it, and politically, it?s just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard."
The founders intended the Constitution as an impediment and firewall from tyranny and when it does what it is meant to Obama is sad about it.
This guy is not remotely the mid stream guy he has been marketed as and he has been protected by corrupt media. Obama is a lie and he will be source of a lot of troubles id he becomes POTUS and then people realize they been baited and switched. A bit from WSJ:
He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.
"This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html
A vast majority of people do not see the Constitution as an antique. A cultural Marxist and racist could and Obama is both
"And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn?t that radical. It didn?t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution ? at least as it?s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can?t do to you, says what the federal government can?t do to you, but it doesn?t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."
That's pretty lame stuff for a guy thats supposed to be a constitutional scholar
"Obama: You know, I?m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn?t structured that way. [snip] You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. You know, the court is just not very good at it, and politically, it?s just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard."
The founders intended the Constitution as an impediment and firewall from tyranny and when it does what it is meant to Obama is sad about it.
This guy is not remotely the mid stream guy he has been marketed as and he has been protected by corrupt media. Obama is a lie and he will be source of a lot of troubles id he becomes POTUS and then people realize they been baited and switched. A bit from WSJ:
He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.
"This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html
A vast majority of people do not see the Constitution as an antique. A cultural Marxist and racist could and Obama is both
Sounds like you need to go back to school there 'ol Butterbean, Obama is spot on with those quotes.
1.) Obama is 100% correct that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are by and large a collections of what the government is not allowed to do. Look at the first amendment, it doesn't talk about the people, it says "Congress shall make no law...".
Maybe Obama could teach you a thing or two about the constitution.
2.) How can you possibly say he is 'sad' about the way the judiciary is structured by that quote? He just listed the reasons why the courts aren't a good way to right wrongs if you can avoid it due to a whole bunch of smart observations on its practical and constitutional roles.
I know you're Butterbean and so this post is unlikely to crack the cloud of insanity swirling around your head, but I figure at least other people will see this.
So it is your contention that the amount of 'gross investment' from tax cuts on the rich will outpace the 'consumption' from tax cuts on the lower/middle class?
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
I haven't used the word "socialist" in my remarks, why keep falling back on that?
All this bickering about what the term "socialism" really really is a semantical diversion. It has a commmon accepted meaning among the general populace and is therefor useful in communicating ideas/concepts to the populace.
Otherwise, we have rabid self-proclaimed Dem members here who promote exactly what I have suggested in my post above.
Suggesting *forced* sharing is crazy talk?
SCHIPs. the Childrens health insurance program that the Dems extend to adults is not a type of *forced sharing* imposed on US tapayers?
Medicaid/education for illegal immigrants is not forced sharing imposed on US taxpayers?
Our government id full of examples of forced sharing that go beyond funding for such (legitimate) things such as infrastructure and defense.
Come on, many Dems advocate these type of forced sharing programs, if you don't think a Dem controlled government is gonna pursue them with great zest why bother to vote for them?
Fern
You sound like Lind, and I'm sure you're getting your material from the Center for Cultural Conservatism and the ilk. You know, Lind blames the Jews for destroying American culture. How do you feel about Israel?
Again, and a standing request to everyone who labels anyone a Marxist, explain Marxism to me and make an argument as to why Obama is a Marxist.
And now you look like an idiot for thinking that socialism is the same thing as communism. He said Communist. You just described the American approved perception of socialism.
Don't worry. No one thinks you're bright.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHAHAHA! A modern "Conservative" complaining and worrying about someone ignoring the constitution or stepping all over it. Then accusing them of being a tyrant...
Why suspend the habeas corpus in insurrections and rebellions? Examine the history of England. See how few of the cases of the suspension of the habeas corpus law have been worthy of that suspension. They have been either real treasons, wherein the parties might as well have been charged at once, or sham plots, where it was shameful they should ever have been suspected. Yet for the few cases wherein the suspension of the habeas corpus has done real good, that operation is now become habitual and the minds of the nation almost prepared to live under its constant suspension.
Thomas Jefferson.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter