McCain/Palin v. Obama/Biden

[Mippo]

Originally Posted by Manseed

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

Do you have any knowledge of economics at all? Do you even know what seperates us from a third world country?

Paul Craig Roberts: How Bush Destroyed the Dollar

As the dollar sheds value and loses its privileged position as reserve currency, US living standards will take a serious knock.

If the US government cannot balance its budget by cutting its spending or by raising taxes, the day when it can no longer borrow will see the government paying its bills by printing money like a third world banana republic. Inflation and more exchange rate depreciation will be the order of the day.

You can't just keep spending money you DO NOT HAVE. When Bush goes on these huge spending sprees, the standard of living in our country goes DOWN. Someone needs to have some fiscal responsibility and fix it. Unfortunately, it's the Democrats that have to RAISE TAXES to pay down the debt from the enormous spending done by the REPUBLICANS.

You can't just keep spending money without eventually paying the consequences. If you don't understand how economics actually work, you won't understand the consequences of what Bush did and how it will affect our country for decades to come.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Manseed

Edit: Oh and it fucks everyone with a 401k too. Since your social security JOKE on this country has failed, you're screwing everyone by raising capital gains.

Gains in a 401(k) aren't subject to capital gains taxes.

Edit again: Oh, and government revenues of capital gains have always been higher when the tax was lower, because it encourages a lot of people to invest.

You decide when you pay capital gains taxes. If you know rates are going to go down, you hold off selling stocks until the lower rate takes effect. Yes, the year following a drop the revenue goes up, not so much the year after that.

So, tell me, who wins here?

Not you, I'm afraid.

[Khorum]

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

LOL nice fucking try, but the fact is that historically, LBJ, Nixon and Carter shared the same catastrophic Keynesian policies that saw the disastrous conditions of the the first economic crises, whilst Reagan, both Bushes and even Bill Clinton all revelled in the Chicago-School market economics that have liberated the WORLD. From China, to India, to Bolivia, Hayekian market economics have brought about REAL transformation and unprecedented prosperity to billions of human beings.

Bush's tax cuts yielded the two highest federal revenues in American history. It also produced an UNPRECEDENTED level of federal revenues from EXACTLY the same wealth creation sectors that Obama plans to eviscerate, nearly double that of the CBO's projected gains:


The 2003 tax cuts remain on the record as producing the most dramatic economic expansions in the US economy and was poised to outperform Clinton's expansion until the French precipitated the collapse of our mortgage industry late in 2007:

In fact, even as recently as mid-2007, before France's largest bank, BNP Paribas zeroed out millions of US housing positions, Bush's administration stood poised to realize the largest deficit reductions in 40 years.

But here you are trying to defend the REAL failed keynesian policies that Obama and Goolsbee are trying to revive with PARTISAN POLITICS? Reagan and Clinton weren't in the same party but Clinton ENTHUSIASTICALLY pursued market solutions and deregulation to realize his economic performance. Maggy Thatcher and Tony Blair couldn't be more similar but blair also pursued market economic policies. That's because Blair and Clinton were neoliberals who embraced the Chicago School of economic thought (waaay too much in Clinton's example).

But here we are and you're trying to pretend that Obama/Goolsbee's keynesian regressionist policies, the likes of which we haven't seen since CARTER, is somehow sensible again while the rest of the world marches into a future paved with market liberalization?

Obama isn't a CLINTON, he's not even a NIXON, his preposterous econom closer to the New Deal entitlement demagoguery of FDR which, oddly enough, was more checked by Truman than Eisenhower. Obama's economic policies represent the sort of socialist burdens that impaired the world's prosperity that we ALL broke during Reagan and Clinton's years.

This isn't partisan, we saw the transformation that the whole world underwent when they allowed the bureaucratic, entitlement regimes slewed off the private sectors. Reagan saw it, Clinton saw it and the Bushes saw it. But Obama, DRUNK ON THE MYTH of socialist injustice, wants to bring about the same discredited economic conditions that culminated in stagflation, the creation of the fiat currency and the collapse of the American manufacturing sector.

And you THINK he knows what he's talking about?

[Lalala]

oh, so now, it's the french's fault and not Bush administration, nice scapegoat.

[Arbitrary]

Of course the economy grew. It grew just like a cancerous tumor on hundreds of billions of dollars of bad loans.

edit - And is it really the largest deficit reduction in 40 years if Bush entered into the White House with a surplus?

[Mippo]

Originally Posted by Khorum

LOL nice fucking try, but the fact is that historically, LBJ, Nixon and Carter shared the same catastrophic Keynesian policies that saw the disastrous conditions of the the first economic crises, whilst Reagan, both Bushes and even Bill Clinton all revelled in the Chicago-School market economics that have liberated the WORLD. From China, to India, to Bolivia, Hayekian market economics have brought about REAL transformation and unprecedented prosperity to billions of human beings.

Bush's tax cuts yielded the two highest federal revenues in American history. It also produced an UNPRECEDENTED level of federal revenues from EXACTLY the same wealth creation sectors that Obama plans to eviscerate, nearly double that of the CBO's projected gains:


The 2003 tax cuts remain on the record as producing the most dramatic economic expansions in the US economy and was poised to outperform Clinton's expansion until the French precipitated the collapse of our mortgage industry late in 2007:

In fact, even as recently as mid-2007, before France's largest bank, BNP Paribas zeroed out millions of US housing positions, Bush's administration stood poised to realize the largest deficit reductions in 40 years.

But here you are trying to defend the REAL failed keynesian policies that Obama and Goolsbee are trying to revive with PARTISAN POLITICS? Reagan and Clinton weren't in the same party but Clinton ENTHUSIASTICALLY pursued market solutions and deregulation to realize his economic performance. Maggy Thatcher and Tony Blair couldn't be more similar but blair also pursued market economic policies. That's because Blair and Clinton were neoliberals who embraced the Chicago School of economic thought (waaay too much in Clinton's example).

But here we are and you're trying to pretend that Obama/Goolsbee's keynesian regressionist policies, the likes of which we haven't seen since CARTER, is somehow sensible again while the rest of the world marches into a future paved with market liberalization?

Obama isn't a CLINTON, he's not even a NIXON, his preposterous econom closer to the New Deal entitlement demagoguery of FDR which, oddly enough, was more checked by Truman than Eisenhower. Obama's economic policies represent the sort of socialist burdens that impaired the world's prosperity that we ALL broke during Reagan and Clinton's years.

This isn't partisan, we saw the transformation that the whole world underwent when they allowed the bureaucratic, entitlement regimes slewed off the private sectors. Reagan saw it, Clinton saw it and the Bushes saw it. But Obama, DRUNK ON THE MYTH of socialist injustice, wants to bring about the same discredited economic conditions that culminated in stagflation, the creation of the fiat currency and the collapse of the American manufacturing sector.

And you THINK he knows what he's talking about?

The problem is most economists, even former members of Bush's administration disagree. See those numbers are nice and fancy but they fail to account for inflation or population growth which should be accounted for.

Claim That Tax Cuts “Pay For Themselves” Is Too Good To Be True: Data Show No “Free Lunch” Here, Revised 7/27/06

After adjusting for inflation and population growth, this year and last year’s strong growth in revenues have barely made up for the deep revenue losses in 2001, 2002, and 2003. Measured since the current business cycle began in March 2001, total per-capita revenue growth, adjusted for inflation, has been near zero. Based on OMB’s latest revenue estimates, real per-capita revenues in 2006 will be only 0.2 percent above the level they attained more than five years ago at the start of the business cycle. In other words, the current revenue “surge” is merely restoring revenues to where they were half a decade ago.

By contrast, five and a half years after the peak of previous post-World War II business cycles, real per-capita revenues had increased by an average of 10 percent. And at this point in the 1990s business cycle, real per-capita revenues were 11 percent higher than their level at the end of the previous business cycle.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Badass

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?

You've NEVER known what you're talking about. EVER. You've given up trying to substantiate your bullshit because you end up shitting onto your own face like with your hilarious little "SUCCEED" episode and your insistence that we would INVADE Libya while Condi Rice is making out with Qadafi there.

Guess what, EVERYONE has seen the substantiation I've presented for all my points and we've ALL seen how you've provided nothing but bullshit and this amazing caper where you demolish your own arguments in front of everyone's eyes.

Get a fucking clue moron. The _ONLY_ illegality the senate could come up with s LGTS and anonymous accounts that they focused on represents only the most careless and haphazard fund managers in the business. And THOSE guys only represent 100 billion dollars in lost annual revenue. You cannot compel investors to remain under conditions where LIABILITIES exceed their BENEFITS. Even the slightest obstructions to wealth creation sectors induce opportunity costs situations in other, less regulated markets.

They will (and have and are probably doing so right now) move their positions to other markets. That's what they did in the 70's when our manufacturing sectors fell because of excessive governmental impediments to industry, and that's what they will do if Obama becomes president.

Do you really think anyone looks at your hokey kneejerk nonconformity, for which you have NEVER successfully provided the first hint of a factual substantiation, and sees your bullshit "college" indignity as anything other than the desperate flailings of an ignorant poseur? Really?

[Lalala]

Originally Posted by Khorum

You've NEVER known what you're talking about. EVER. You've given up trying to substantiate your bullshit because you end up shitting onto your own face like with your hilarious little "SUCCEED" episode and your insistence that we would INVADE Libya while Condi Rice is making out with Qadafi there.

Guess what, EVERYONE has seen the substantiation I've presented for all my points and we've ALL seen how you've provided nothing but bullshit and this amazing caper where you demolish your own arguments in front of everyone's eyes.

Get a fucking clue moron. The _ONLY_ illegality the senate could come up with s LGTS and anonymous accounts that they focused on represents only the most careless and haphazard fund managers in the business. And THOSE guys only represent 100 billion dollars in lost annual revenue. You cannot compel investors to remain under conditions where LIABILITIES exceed their BENEFITS. Even the slightest obstructions to wealth creation sectors induce opportunity costs situations in other, less regulated markets.

They will (and have and are probably doing so right now) move their positions to other markets. That's what they did in the 70's when our manufacturing sectors fell because of excessive governmental impediments to industry, and that's what they will do if Obama becomes president.

Do you really think anyone looks at your hokey kneejerk nonconformity, for which you have NEVER successfully provided the first hint of a factual substantiation, and sees your bullshit "college" indignity as anything other than the desperate flailings of an ignorant poseur? Really?

You talk like the 8 last nightmares years never happened, but they happened and look at the economy now. You can spin it however you want the results is still there, a disaster and no spin on how USA are really doing OK will change the reality.

McCain is going to continue Bush's legacy.

[Mippo]

Originally Posted by Manseed

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.

Yep, exactly. The war in Iraq is a large part of our countries economic problems right now. Now, let me ask you a simple question. Which candidate supported the war and the huge spending that put our country in this huge hole.... (Hint: McCain) See where this is going?

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Mippo

The problem is most economists, even former members of Bush's administration disagree. See those numbers are nice and fancy but they fail to account for inflation or population growth which should be accounted for.

Claim That Tax Cuts “Pay For Themselves” Is Too Good To Be True: Data Show No “Free Lunch” Here, Revised 7/27/06

POPULATION GROWTH?

I gave you KEY ECONOMIC INDICATORS and you give us the fucking CBPP? The CBPP claims that the two highest tax revenues in US history was due to a lock-in hedge against capital repositioning. That's ALMOST as preposterous as their insistence that it was CORPORATE taxes that buoyed the three years of the greatest economic expansion in US history.

I gave you US Labor, NIPA and Dept. of Commerce reports, the same reports that are used as key indicators for economic health and you give us the CBPP's preposterous attack because of per-capita silliness?

No, sorry, the fact REMAINS that before BNP Paribas (an organ largely controlled by the French central bank) destabilized our mortgage industry, Bush's economic policies stood poised to overcome Clinton's heyday of economic expansion and deficit reductions. And the fact remains that those EXACT same policies have helped sustain our injured economy and softened our landing even as oil prices spiked and foreclosures expanded.

Most importantly, the fact remains that Obama's economic policies are in direct opposition to the free-market miracles of Reagan and Clinton, even as the New Deal entitlement fantasies he harbors have been debunked and discarded by the most progressive polities in the planet from China to India and that there is simply NO EVIDENCE that those policies have ever brought anything but HARM to any economy that attempted them.

[Mippo]

Originally Posted by Khorum

POPULATION GROWTH?

I gave you KEY ECONOMIC INDICATORS and you give us the fucking CBPP? The CBPP claims that the two highest tax revenues in US history was due to a lock-in hedge against capital repositioning. That's ALMOST as preposterous as their insistence that it was CORPORATE taxes that buoyed the three years of the greatest economic expansion in US history.

I gave you US Labor, NIPA and Dept. of Commerce reports, the same reports that are used as key indicators for economic health and you give us the CBPP's preposterous attack because of per-capita silliness?

No, sorry, the fact REMAINS that before BNP Paribas (an organ largely controlled by the French central bank) destabilized our mortgage industry, Bush's economic policies stood poised to overcome Clinton's heyday of economic expansion and deficit reductions. And the fact remains that those EXACT same policies have helped sustain our injured economy and softened our landing even as oil prices spiked and foreclosures expanded.

Most importantly, the fact remains that Obama's economic policies are in direct opposition to the free-market miracles of Reagan and Clinton, even as the New Deal entitlement fantasies he harbors have been debunked and discarded by the most progressive polities in the planet from China to India and that there is simply NO EVIDENCE that those policies have ever brought anything but HARM to any economy that attempted them.

Are you really arguing that Bush's economic policies were better then Clinton's? Are you completely oblivious to what has happened in this country during the last two presidencies?

[Jedite]

Originally Posted by Khorum

POPULATION GROWTH?

I gave you KEY ECONOMIC INDICATORS and you give us the fucking CBPP? The CBPP claims that the two highest tax revenues in US history was due to a lock-in hedge against capital repositioning. That's ALMOST as preposterous as their insistence that it was CORPORATE taxes that buoyed the three years of the greatest economic expansion in US history.

I gave you US Labor, NIPA and Dept. of Commerce reports, the same reports that are used as key indicators for economic health and you give us the CBPP's preposterous attack because of per-capita silliness?

No, sorry, the fact REMAINS that before BNP Paribas (an organ largely controlled by the French central bank) destabilized our mortgage industry, Bush's economic policies stood poised to overcome Clinton's heyday of economic expansion and deficit reductions. And the fact remains that those EXACT same policies have helped sustain our injured economy and softened our landing even as oil prices spiked and foreclosures expanded.

Most importantly, the fact remains that Obama's economic policies are in direct opposition to the free-market miracles of Reagan and Clinton, even as the New Deal entitlement fantasies he harbors have been debunked and discarded by the most progressive polities in the planet from China to India and that there is simply NO EVIDENCE that those policies have ever brought anything but HARM to any economy that attempted them.

Blame the Terrorist? Check
Blame the Democrats? Check
Blame the Russians? Check
Blame Santa Clause? Check

Hmm what are we missing?


OH THATS RIGHT our good ol friends...

BLAME THE FRENCH!!!! Check!


But don't ever, EEEEVVVVEEERR blame the Republicans in power, they never ever make mistakes.. Look at our economy its booming!

[Lalala]

Originally Posted by Khorum

No, sorry, the fact REMAINS that before BNP Paribas (an organ largely controlled by the French central bank) destabilized our mortgage industry, Bush's economic policies stood poised to overcome Clinton's heyday of economic expansion and deficit reductions.

Will you stop using that stupid argument, the mortgage crisis was poised to happen, the bank only protect its assets at that time and if it didn't do that, it would have happen eventually.

I would not say you're full of shit because that would be an insult to shit.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Mippo

Yep, exactly. The war in Iraq is a large part of our countries economic problems right now. Now, let me ask you a simple question. Which candidate supported the war and the huge spending that put our country in this huge hole.... (Hint: McCain) See where this is going?

A __LARGE__ part? Take that moralistic assumption aside for a moment and consider exactly where that 15 billion a month is going why don't you?

Do you think they dig a hole in Baghdad and throw that cash in there? Do you think they pay the soldiers, workers and contractors with HOPE? Do you think the millions of American military families, construction workers, sailors and pilots are all maintained with CHANGE?

Your hated "military-industrial complex" includes companies and communities as broad as the textile companies that make the camo clothing, to the small businesses that weave the kevlar, all the way to the teamsters and laborers that deliver, distribute and maintain the military's capabilities. It employs, feeds, clothes, and pays for the college tuitions of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of American families.

And yet, just as you can't sustain an argument against the war based on military criteria (check) or political criteria (check), now you think you can make an argument against the war based on ECONOMIC criteria? The ONLY criteria that was never open to argument to begin with?

[Lalala]

Originally Posted by Khorum

A __LARGE__ part? Take that moralistic assumption aside for a moment and consider exactly where that 15 billion a month is going why don't you?

Do you think they dig a hole in Baghdad and throw that cash in there? Do you think they pay the soldiers, workers and contractors with HOPE? Do you think the millions of American military families, construction workers, sailors and pilots are all maintained with CHANGE?

Your hated "military-industrial complex" includes companies and communities as broad as the textile companies that make the camo clothing, to the small businesses that weave the kevlar, all the way to the teamsters and laborers that deliver, distribute and maintain the military's capabilities. It employs, feeds, clothes, and pays for the college tuitions of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of American families.

And yet, just as you can't sustain an argument against the war based on military criteria (check) or political criteria (check), now you think you can make an argument against the war based on ECONOMIC criteria? The ONLY criteria that was never open to argument to begin with?

Dont forget the billions that went into Haliburton's pocket, oh, and Blackwater too!