McCain/Palin v. Obama/Biden

[Mippo]

Oh, and just for the record it's not just Bush. Historically Democrat Presidents have always been better for the economy then Republican Presidents.

Here's an article that runs the numbers,

More GOP Than the GOP - Los Angeles Times

Now look at federal revenues (a.k.a. taxes). You can’t take it away from them: Republicans do cut taxes. Or rather, tax revenues go up under both parties, but only about half as fast under Republicans. This is true no matter when you start counting, or whether you give a president’s policies that extra year to take effect. It’s the only test of Republican economics that the Republicans win.

That is, they win if you consider lower federal revenues to be a victory. Sometimes Republicans say that cutting taxes will raise government revenues by stimulating the economy. And sometimes they say that lower revenues are good because they will lead (by some mysterious process) to lower spending.

The numbers in the Economic Report undermine both theories. Spending goes up faster under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones. And the economy grows faster under Democrats than Republicans. What grows faster under Republicans is debt.

Under Republican presidents since 1960, the federal deficit has averaged $131 billion a year. Under Democrats, that figure is $30 billion. In an average Republican year the deficit has grown by $36 billion. In the average Democratic year it has shrunk by $25 billion. The national debt has gone up more than $200 billion a year under Republican presidents and less than $100 billion a year under Democrats. If you start counting in 1981 or attribute responsibility with a year’s delay, the numbers change, but the bottom line doesn’t: Democrats do Republican economics better than Republicans do.

[Manseed]

Originally Posted by Mippo

Oh, and just for the record it's not just Bush. Historically Democrat Presidents have always been better for the economy then Republican Presidents.

Here's an article that runs the numbers,

More GOP Than the GOP - Los Angeles Times

Historically the President has very little effect on the economy.

[Mippo]

Here is a graph illustrating income growth. Notice how the growth is better for everyone under Democratic leadership with the EXCEPTION of the top 5% which is who benefits the most under Republican leadership. Overall, Democrats are much better.

[Lalala]

Originally Posted by Manseed

Historically the President has very little effect on the economy.

Then why rant about a candidate's stance on the economy?

[Manseed]

Originally Posted by Lalala

Then why rant about a candidate's stance on the economy?

Zing.

[Mippo]

Originally Posted by Manseed

Historically the President has very little effect on the economy.

Weren't you just saying that Republicans were much better at the economy? Now you're saying that the president has very little effect on the economy? Ignorance at its finest! How dumb can you possibly be? Do you think it's just a coincedence the dollar hit historical lows and the deficit hit record highs under the Republican Presidency?

[Manseed]

Originally Posted by Mippo

Weren't you just saying that Republicans were much better at the economy? Now you're saying that the president has very little effect on the economy? Ignorance at its finest! How dumb can you possibly be? Do you think it's just a coincedence the dollar hit historical lows and the deficit hit record highs under the Republican Presidency?

If you think that the weak dollar is another Bush problem, please feel free to substantiate.

[Eomer]

Originally Posted by Arbitrary

I kinda see what she was going for but it didn't come together at all.

I don't see it at all. What I see is a person being asked a question about something she knows nothing about, and instead of deferring she decided to forge ahead with a cut and paste cliche from the Republican playbook: all government programs are a burden on the tax payer and must be shrunk. Use words like "effective" and "efficient".

Never mind the fact that neither were government programs to begin with. To me that's a fucking monstrous gaffe and clearly shows she's out of her element. I mean I couldn't tell you much about what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac actually do, but I'm not running for fucking VP.

Originally Posted by Khorum

Palin was correct that the consequences of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae's tremendous influence on the taxpayer's lives (combined they represent more than HALF of the mortgage positions in the USA) and noone anywhere can argue that.

Slow down there tiger. That sentence doesn't make sense. Palin is correct about the consequences..... doing what? That sentence right there is missing a piece.

Originally Posted by Melchizedek

You show up to an ER with a life threatening injury, you are going to get seen. Period.

Funny, I thought that's what happened in Canada too. I guess I must have missed all the heart wrenching stories of people dieing because they couldn't get treatment in time. Oh, maybe that's because that is total bullshit. Yes, granny might have to wait 6 or 10 months for a new hip. However if Billy over there gets shot in the face, he's going to get medical help. Or say, if my sister has a yet another gall bladder attack last week, she'll still get operated on within a few hours of getting to the hospital, even though her specialist appointment wasn't until November. Same as my grapefruit sized left nut 10 years ago, I wasn't supposed to see a specialist until February but there I was New Year's Day still drunk and stoned, and they magically found a doctor to operate (coincidentally same one did my sister).

In short, shut the fuck up. The US health care system is the best in the world for those who can afford it. For the average person, most developed nations have more effective health care systems, and there's plenty of evidence of that. Life expectancies being one major one, of course. But there's numerous other metrics as well, such as percent of GDP spent on health care, both public and private (hint, the US spends a lot more than anyone else to get a less effective system).

As far as all you're blabbering about drugs and treatments developed in the US, I hope your ignorant ass isn't a diabetic. If you are, bow down to your Canadian overlords, asshole.

[earthfell]

Originally Posted by Mippo

Yeah, under the Clinton administration we had a record surplus. Under the Bush administration we have a record DEFICIT. The dollar is worth HALF of what it was under Clinton's adminstration but clearly it's the liberals that are clueless when it comes to the economy.

This. Did the republicans in this thread forget that we are in a recession (getting MUCH worse) after 8 years of a republican presidency and 6 years of a republican congress? Where's all this republican economic magic you guys keep touting your party has?

Republicans got us in the clusterfuck we are on, yet you guys still claim to have the answers to all of societies troubles.

[earthfell]

Originally Posted by Manseed

Historically the President has very little effect on the economy.

So then why are you bitching about Obama's economic plan?

[Mippo]

Originally Posted by Manseed

If you think that the weak dollar is another Bush problem, please feel free to substantiate.

It's fairly well documented....

Paul Craig Roberts: How Bush Destroyed the Dollar

Bush tanked the U.S. economy

Economists Explain: Bush Destroyed Our American Dream (Everyday Citizen)

[Zhaun's_Shade]

Originally Posted by Astrocreep

Here is the Obama muslim faith line in context. BTW no Obama supporter ever can make fun of Bush as a speaker when their guy is much worse.

Interesting. I understood what he was saying though, and it wasn't an admission of Muslim faith.

Obama, like many Democrats before him, is just too smart for his own good. You need to have an IQ to follow him, while Bush/McCain makes sure to dumb down the way to talk so morons can understand.

This is often what kills Democrats.

[Manseed]

Originally Posted by earthfell

So then why are you bitching about Obama's economic plan?

Because doubling capital gains taxes is bad. Go read the post I made about it.

[Badass]

Originally Posted by Khorum

No he did NOT know what he was talking about. If he had spent more fucking time in the US senate instead of campaigning, he would know to what extent he is so totally fucking wrong about the "effectiveness" of ANY taxation to the wealth-creating sectors of this country is: NOT AT ALL.

The last time I got banned Tuco cited "bragging about my accountant" as a reason LOL. But I wasn't bragging about my accountant, I was pointing out what the Senate had concluded after their deliberations on how the top brackets of this country ONLY ACCEPT THOSE LIABILITIES WHICH DO NOT EXCEED THE BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATING IN OUR ECONOMY.

In every instance that even the slightest taxation on capital markets is applied, the investors, speculators and foreign investors will simply LEAVE. They already don't pay income taxes since they're all technically in debt to themselves (Income? They file a 0%-interest LOAN to a structured fund in Costa Rica every month).

So therefore you tax the middle class. The Bush tax cuts are the reason why the economy has soared in the past 8 years! Meanwhile, when Bill Clinton taxed the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans more - our economy shut down when investors fled overseas! Wait......WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. How can anyone be stupid enough to believe this shit?

P.S. What you are really bragging about is having an accountant who violates U.S. law, with your consent, by defrauding the IRS. When is the last time you got audited?

[Manseed]

Originally Posted by Mippo

It's fairly well documented....

Paul Craig Roberts: How Bush Destroyed the Dollar

Bush tanked the U.S. economy

Economists Explain: Bush Destroyed Our American Dream (Everyday Citizen)

The only substantial argument in those articles was that the war in Iraq is expensive. Chances are that we are merely experiencing the ebb and flow of a free economy, like we have for the past few hundred years.