PDA

View Full Version : My Political Rant With Vids To Get You Thinking


I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-11-2008, 04:07 AM
I found these a little too late for the election, but it is still worth posting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acQluy7nymw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxhYampIl7A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imQSuJVFUSU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG4uppI_ttc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvc0tYG_YpA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjo85WhbYqM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbW64215HA8


The reasons I don't support Obama for president have nothing to do with the color of his skin. First and foremost I find it shameful that I feel required to explain that fact before I oppose his nomination for fear of being labeled a "racist". If McCain and Obama's stances on the issues had been swapped, I would gladly support Obama for president. The reason I don't support Obama are simple, the ideas I support he does not, period. I believe in the sanctitiy of traditional marriage, I am pro-life (and think that it is an absolute atrocity that Obama supports partial birth abortions, I am also pro second ammendment and believe in trickle down economics.

I challenge any Obama supporter to list me his legislative accomplishments during his time in Congress. To this day the only "accomplishments" listed are either character traits, or the fact that he was a community organizer. Unlike most Obama supporters I can name one of his legislative accomplishments, the Global Poverty Act which he sponsored (more on this later).

Obama also doesn't have much of a track record for taking a stand on tough bills and being professional and timely. Do we really want a president that during his time at the senate voted "present" (meaning I don't take a stance on tough issues) 129 times and was late to numerous congressional meetings?

Obama says we are spending too much money in Iraq and need to be spending more money at home to help our faultering economy. I can respect that, except for the fact that the Global Poverty Act calls for America to spend over $845 billion dollars over the next 13 years in foreign aid over and above what they already spend. Where do you think the federal government will get almost a trillion dollars for social programs and another 845 billion dollars for his Global Poverty Fund? Thats right, your wallet.

I also disagree with putting heavy taxes on companies making over $250,000 dollars a year, which by the way is a "tiny bussiness" not even a "small bussiness". According to the IRS, the top 10% of households pay 70% of all income taxes, so now we are going to tax them more? I disagree with paying tax returns to 40% of people who didn't pay into taxes to begin with, we shouldn't support anyone who is a drain on the economy.

Last time I checked, big bussinesses create most jobs in this country. Can a poor person give you a job?

I agree with trickle down economics because I have seen it happen to me and countless others during this time of economic crisis. Gas prices have gone up, and people are spending less money. This has caused LOWES (where I work) to cut costs and raise prices. The price of delivery has gone up 20 dollars, my hours have been cut by 2/3 (from 30 to 10 hours a week), about 10 people have been "let go" over the last two months because they were "no longer needed" (ie, cutting overhead). This is happening all over the working sector.

What do you think will happen when Obama raises taxes on everyone making $250,000 dollars or more a year? Just like LOWES, bussinesses will do everything they can to lower their cost to operate, and pass on rising costs to the consumer. They will cut jobs, outsource to overseas to find cheaper labor, and they will raise prices and lower quality. It is all common sense people.

I also am very disturbed about the "spread the wealth around" comment. Socialism has never worked outside of small utopian societies like Brook Farm, and even then, they never lasted. If a free market, capitalist society is so terrible, why do we have one of the highest immigration rates in the world? Why are people pouring in illegally over the borders risking their lives and legal action to get here? Because we have the best economic system and the best country in the world.

It is a sad day in America when a candidate can win on HYPE and cult of personality alone. A candidate who has no executive experience, has no legislative accomplishments, can barely speak at all without a teleprompter, and has admitted to using cocaine and marijuana (yet we want to hold a DUI against Bush from 20 years ago), has won an election with absolutley no substance.

America should be ashamed for buying into the HYPE and rockstar image of a candiate with nothing to back up his empty rhetoric.

No thanks Obama, keep the CHANGE!

stlrtruck
11-11-2008, 09:01 AM
America should be ashamed for buying into the HYPE and rockstar image of a candiate with nothing to back up his empty rhetoric.

No thanks Obama, keep the CHANGE!

Welcome to the New America. Where accoutability means nothing, responsiblity is shunned, and idols are everywhere!

Vis
11-11-2008, 09:37 AM
Obama isn't so popular because he has "rock star" status. He has "rock star" status because he's so popular.

Underestimate him at your peril, republicans

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-11-2008, 09:45 AM
Underestimate him at your peril, republicans

Please tell me you didnt just say that.:doh:

You...my little friend have been watching too many X-Men cartoons.

revefsreleets
11-11-2008, 09:57 AM
What a curious sentence: "Underestimate him at your peril, republicans"

Is he going to eradicate the party? Send thugs in and "disappear people"? "Peril" is an awful strong word to bandy about considering we still know almost nothing about the guy.

Now if you meant that he's going to be good for the country, cool...but that still isn't really perilous. It just means the GOP needs to work hard to forward their own agenda.

MasterOfPuppets
11-11-2008, 10:05 AM
:toofunny:

Vis
11-11-2008, 10:16 AM
What a curious sentence: "Underestimate him at your peril, republicans"

Is he going to eradicate the party? Send thugs in and "disappear people"? "Peril" is an awful strong word to bandy about considering we still know almost nothing about the guy.

Now if you meant that he's going to be good for the country, cool...but that still isn't really perilous. It just means the GOP needs to work hard to forward their own agenda.

He's just going to beat you again in 2012.

fansince'76
11-11-2008, 10:21 AM
You...my little friend have been watching too many X-Men cartoons.

http://www.just-marvel-x-men.com/image-files/uncanny-x-men-11-toad-magneto-captured-by-stranger-1-100k.jpg

:toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:

PisnNapalm
11-11-2008, 10:28 AM
To the original post. Amen Brother...:applaudit:

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-11-2008, 10:53 AM
What a curious sentence: "Underestimate him at your peril, republicans"

Is he going to eradicate the party? Send thugs in and "disappear people"? "Peril" is an awful strong word to bandy about considering we still know almost nothing about the guy.


Maybe he thinks Senator Kelly is going to pass a Mutant Registration Act...since we pulled a good portion of the Mutant and Superhero vote this last election?:screwy:

Vis
11-11-2008, 11:11 AM
I think some here dismiss Obama and that is foolish. I don't really think any intelligent rep leaders dismiss him in the same way.

Leftoverhard
11-11-2008, 11:30 AM
Wow, you're gonna be real popular around here.

Vis
11-11-2008, 11:38 AM
Wow, you're gonna be real popular around here.


Depends on whether those who dismiss him so do it because they can't see the political realities or because they put on an internet persona.

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-11-2008, 12:11 PM
I think some here dismiss Obama and that is foolish. I don't really think any intelligent rep leaders dismiss him in the same way.

Yes...we dismiss Obama....we dont think he is the new president...he no longer exists.:banging:

If you are being so leftist that you think that ANYONE in this forum doesnt HOPE that he ends up being very good for this country...than you are a very strange little man.

MACH1
11-11-2008, 12:14 PM
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w11/bcrab/usarip.jpg?t=1226423608

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-11-2008, 12:53 PM
I think some here dismiss Obama and that is foolish. I don't really think any intelligent rep leaders dismiss him in the same way.

My challenge in the original post is still unanswered. Tell me WHAT he has ever done politically, don't tell me his character traits or his empty rhetoric.

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-11-2008, 12:57 PM
My challenge in the original post is still unanswered. Tell me WHAT he has ever done politically, don't tell me his character traits or his empty rhetoric.

Question has been asked over and over.....was never answered.

....we just gave up and moved on.

MACH1
11-11-2008, 01:04 PM
My challenge in the original post is still unanswered. Tell me WHAT he has ever done politically, don't tell me his character traits or his empty rhetoric.

Been there, done that. You'll never get a straight answer.

But here's your answer

T-jCBk4IAFM

revefsreleets
11-11-2008, 01:17 PM
He's just going to beat you again in 2012.

He only won by 7,000,000 votes this time, and he had to:

-Have Bush in the White House
-Outspend McCain 5-1 in battleground states
-Have the worst financial crash in 60 years

The GOP ain't broke, just needs some tweaking. This country is still very much center-right. I'll let others state my case more eloquently...

The following editorial appeared in the Dallas Morning News on Friday:
Elections have consequences. Republicans can choose theirs.
They can make excuses. They can blame outsiders: the ''liberal media,'' duped youths or identity politics. They can continue the fratricide that boiled up as the diminishing McCain campaign ran out of straws to grasp.
Or, they can stand up and be the adults they always insist they are and take a hard look at themselves. What they see should not please them, but it could encourage them.
If polls are to be believed, Republicans still live in a center-right nation, with far more Americans self-identifying as moderate or conservative than liberal. If Tuesday's election results are to be believed, fewer Americans in fewer states believe Republican candidates offer real answers to real problems.
A two-party nation with dozens of strains of political philosophy naturally necessitates coalition parties that make room for dissenting views while organizing around a set of core beliefs.
In happier times, Republicans understood that. They roared back from far bleaker days to regain the White House and Congress.
Each time they then lost their way. They allowed the exercise of power to exceed their reliance on the principles that got them there. When they asked voters for one more chance, they were given President-elect Barack Obama and stronger Democratic majorities in Congress.
If they use their heads, this could be the best thing to happen to them.
They have an opportunity to regroup as the loyal opposition to a Democratic Party in charge of every lever of elected federal government. Now's the time to reorganize around the key principles of fiscal discipline, personal responsibility, ''conservation'' in environmentalism, frugality over flamboyance and a strong but pragmatic national defense.
Every policy they propose, every stand they take, should grow naturally out of these principles. They even have an example in the United Kingdom, where David Cameron and the Tories, after years in the wilderness, are one election from regaining power.
There is a difference between conservative and Republican, as Republicans have made abundantly clear. The latter is only the application of the former, and the former is where this political party can rediscover itself.

Vis
11-11-2008, 02:54 PM
I think you're wrong. I think your party has two factions going to different places and it will take a while for a new coalition. But we will see. Lets bet a sixpack on the midterms.

revefsreleets
11-11-2008, 03:34 PM
But so does the GOP. It could even be argued there are 3: The old guard, the young studs, and the religious right.

I'm in for a 6er. The GOP will definitely start eating away at the majority...it'd be too tall a task for them to win it back in one election though.

You're talking about the GOP underestimating Obama, but all the signs I see point to the Dems dismissing the GOP as if it was a dying party. That's just not the case...

Vis
11-11-2008, 03:37 PM
But so does the GOP. It could even be argued there are 3: The old guard, the young studs, and the religious right.

I'm in for a 6er. The GOP will definitely start eating away at the majority...it'd be too tall a task for them to win it back in one election though.

You're talking about the GOP underestimating Obama, but all the signs I see point to the Dems dismissing the GOP as if it was a dying party. That's just not the case...

We have time to figure out terms on which races to bet on but I like porters and stouts.:drink:

GBMelBlount
11-11-2008, 03:37 PM
Wow, you're gonna be real popular around here.

:rofl:

revefsreleets
11-11-2008, 03:46 PM
Things will calm down and settle in. Just as Bush had his super aggressive haters who failed to see any merit in anything he did, there will be some tit for tat from the right.

I'm giving the guy a chance, but I'm also going to be vigilant. He ran on a platform of largely unspecified generic "change" which could mean just about anything.

RunWillieRun
11-11-2008, 04:25 PM
Change We Can Believe In!

This is a team for change?
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

Tuesday, November 11, 2008


What's with Barack Obama's choice of old-time Clinton cronies and recycled Washington insiders to run the transition to his new politics of change?

Can't the anti-Washington-insiders president-elect find anyone who isn't a Beltway has-been?

Judging by the appointments to his transition committee and leaks about possible top staff and Cabinet choices, Obama appears to be practicing the politics of status quo, not the politics of change.

Obama based his innovative campaign on an emphatic and convincing commitment to change the culture of Washington and bring in new people, new ideas and new ways of doing business. But now, Obama has definitely changed his tune.

As president-elect, he's brought back the old Washington hacks, party regulars and Clinton sycophants that he so frequently disparaged. Like Jimmy Carter, the last president who ran as an outsider, Obama has reached out to the same old folks who dominate the Democratic Party and represent the status quo.

His Transition Committee looks like a reunion of the Clinton administration. No new ideas of how to reform the system there. The chairman, John Podesta, was Clinton's chief of staff. He presided over the outrageous last-minute pardons and his style is strictly inside-the-Beltway and make-no-waves.

Then there's Carol Browner, Clinton's competent former EPA administrator who became the consummate Washington insider. She's Madeline Albright's partner and recently married mega-lobbyist and former Rep. Tom Downey. During the uproar over Dubai taking over U.S. ports, Downey was paid half a million dollars to push Dubai's position. He's also a lobbyist for Fannie Mae and paid half a million to try to cover its rear on the subprime mortgage mess. Is this change?

Bill Daley, Clinton's former secretary of Commerce and brother of the mayor of Chicago, is the epitome of the old Democrat establishment. Clinton appointed him to the Fannie Mae Board, and his son worked as a lobbyist for the agency. Aren't these the kind of folks that Obama ran against?

Larry Summers, president of Harvard and former Clinton secretary of the Treasury, is not exactly an outsider, either. He's also alienated more than a few with his bizarre suggestion that women may be genetically inferior to men in math and science.

Susan Rice, assistant secretary of State under Clinton, advised John Kerry and Mike Dukakis. Does that tell you enough?

Obama's choice of a spokesperson for the transition is also surprising; she is definitely not the face of reason and new politics. Stephanie Cutter is the brash and combative former Clinton, Kerry and Ted Kennedy mouthpiece. The liberal DailyKos.com once described Cutter as "a moron to the nth degree" when she tried unsuccessfully to force The New York Times' Adam Nagourney to treat her unsolicited email criticizing Howard Dean as "background" without mentioning her name.

Speaking of brash, Rahm Emanuel, the new White House chief of staff, makes Cutter look timid. Rahm is also a former Clinton White House staffer -- and a very obnoxious one. He spent his White House years leaking to The Washington Post whenever he didn't like what the president was doing. Even Bill Clinton stopped trusting him. Any hopes of Obama keeping his commitment to reach across the aisle would go right out the window with Rahm's appointment.

Throughout the early debates, Obama criticized Hillary Clinton as part of the inside-the Beltway establishment that needed to go. But now he's reaching out to these exact same folks. Some change.

Dick Morris, a political columnist, was an adviser to the Clintons for 20 years. Eileen McGann, his wife, co-authored "Fleeced" with Mr. Morris.

millwalldavey
11-11-2008, 04:46 PM
Welcome to the New America. Where accoutability means nothing, responsiblity is shunned, and idols are everywhere!

New America????? Where have you been the last 50 years?

GBMelBlount
11-11-2008, 06:13 PM
New America????? Where have you been the last 50 years?

I love my country with all my heart Davey, but I gotta agree with you there.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-11-2008, 09:14 PM
Question has been asked over and over.....was never answered.

....we just gave up and moved on.

You don't find that even slightly disturbing and frightening?

tony hipchest
11-11-2008, 09:27 PM
My challenge in the original post is still unanswered. Tell me WHAT he has ever done politically,
take on the clinton machine, head up an excellent, multi million dollar campaign, and actually win the presidency of the united states?

and just ignore LLT. he never actually asked questions, he just tried to berate and brow beat people into voting the way he wanted them too. if one didnt concede, they were sure to feel his hateful "wrath". :chuckle:

MACH1
11-11-2008, 09:30 PM
take on the clinton machine, head up an excellent, multi million dollar campaign, and actually win the presidency of the united states?

He can also organize your community BBQ. :chuckle:

tony hipchest
11-11-2008, 09:47 PM
He can also organize your community BBQ. :chuckle::yummy: BBQ and watermellon. YES! but can he also inspire all those who attend to get out and vote?

i remember fuzzy zoeller's cynical approach to a young inexperienced golfer being given the green jacket in augusta.

could obama be the tiger woods of politics?

RunWillieRun
11-11-2008, 09:49 PM
take on the clinton machine, head up an excellent, multi million dollar campaign, and actually win the presidency of the united states?

and just ignore LLT. he never actually asked questions, he just tried to berate and brow beat people into voting the way he wanted them too. if one didnt concede, they were sure to feel his hateful "wrath". :chuckle:

I love how he 'beat the clinton machine,' preached "change" while doing it, and then turns around and hires a bunch of ex-clinton people for various positions.

tony hipchest
11-11-2008, 09:52 PM
what do you consider a "bunch" and did you really expect him to hire bush people? :tap:

RunWillieRun
11-11-2008, 10:05 PM
what do you consider a "bunch" and did you really expect him to hire bush people? :tap:

Bunch:
John Podesta
Carol Browner
Bill Daley
Larry Summers
Susan Rice
Rahm Emanuel
Stephanie Cutter

Enought to be considered a bunch?

And no, I did not expect him to hire Bush people. I did expect him to distance himself from the "washington insider" crowd based on his campaign...but I guess its just another lie...CHANGE IS COMING!

tony hipchest
11-11-2008, 10:21 PM
Bunch:
John Podesta
Carol Browner
Bill Daley
Larry Summers
Susan Rice
Rahm Emanuel
Stephanie Cutter

Enought to be considered a bunch?

And no, I did not expect him to hire Bush people. I did expect him to distance himself from the "washington insider" crowd based on his campaign...but I guess its just another lie...CHANGE IS COMING!
lol. susan rice?

his cabinet is far from full. i thought we were talking about meaningful positions, not campaign advisors.

devilsdancefloor
11-11-2008, 10:22 PM
http://xs433.xs.to/xs433/08462/nobama590.jpg

cubanstogie
11-11-2008, 10:24 PM
He's just going to beat you again in 2012.

If he wins in 2012 he will probably deserve it, unlike this time. He has four years to live up to the hype. I actually hope he proves me wrong. The problem is I hate his philosophies and what he stands for so I don't see anything changing. I will be the first to admit I was wrong if he can turn this country around and improve our reputation with other countries. I can live with his stances on other issues if he succeeds in certain areas. Only time will tell.

RunWillieRun
11-11-2008, 10:29 PM
lol. susan rice?

his cabinet is far from full. i thought we were talking about meaningful positions, not campaign advisors.

LOL...These aren't just 'campaign advisors,' tony. The campaign is over (although i'm sure he's already working on 2012). They are actual people he's putting on this staff, people who will be advising him on a daily basis, people who are supposed to help him bring CHANGE to D.C.

tony hipchest
11-11-2008, 10:30 PM
http://xs433.xs.to/xs433/08462/nobama590.jpg
a wise man once said "an empty box that smells like chocolate is better than a full box of shit that smells like shit".

:tap:

tony hipchest
11-11-2008, 10:38 PM
LOL...These aren't just 'campaign advisors,' tony. The campaign is over (although i'm sure he's already working on 2012). They are actual people he's putting on this staff, people who will be advising him on a daily basis, people who are supposed to help him bring CHANGE to D.C.
obama will have hundereds of new people on his staff, and he most certainly will be hiring experienced people. bush did it with the likes of powell, rummy, and cheney from his dads staff. this is nothing new.

again, you say a "bunch" and to this point, i see a small percentage. certain qualified people who were fired by the previous administration probably will be getting their posts back.

i see you as the type who would oppose bill richardson (an excellent and credible politician) getting any post just because he served under clinton. i think you will bash anything obama does or anyone he appoints. i see close mindedness.

GBMelBlount
11-11-2008, 11:00 PM
a wise man once said "an empty box that smells like chocolate is better than a full box of shit that smells like shit".

:tap:

Well confucius, what about a box full of shit that smells like Obama? :chuckle:

RunWillieRun
11-11-2008, 11:07 PM
obama will have hundereds of new people on his staff, and he most certainly will be hiring experienced people. bush did it with the likes of powell, rummy, and cheney from his dads staff. this is nothing new.

again, you say a "bunch" and to this point, i see a small percentage. certain qualified people who were fired by the previous administration probably will be getting their posts back.

i see you as the type who would oppose bill richardson (an excellent and credible politician) getting any post just because he served under clinton. i think you will bash anything obama does or anyone he appoints. i see close mindedness.

Did Bush run his campaign based soley on 'change?' Did Bush run on this idea of ousting the washington insiders?

I bash only those things that are contradictory to what he preached during the campaign: change that isn't really change at all, public finance, etc.

Bill Richardson is a great politician...so where is the change?

I'll give the guy props when he does something he said he was going to do...in the short time he's had, he hasn't done anything for me to give him props for.

tony hipchest
11-11-2008, 11:14 PM
Did Bush run his campaign based soley on 'change?' Did Bush run on this idea of ousting the washington insiders?

I bash only those things that are contradictory to what he preached during the campaign: change that isn't really change at all, public finance, etc.

Bill Richardson is a great politician...so where is the change?

.

republicans are out of office come jan. '09 are they not? that change in itself is good enough for me. thats the "change" i was expecting. i also expect a change in global perception and policy, but many around here dont give 2 shits about that. i also expect a change in the way the ultra rich manipulate the system to become even richer. i most certainly hope theres change in those regards.

AIG got another bailout check and held another "party" just a few days ago. this stuff needs to stop.

RunWillieRun
11-11-2008, 11:24 PM
republicans are out of office come jan. '09 are they not? that change in itself is good enough for me. thats the "change" i was expecting. i also expect a change in global perception and policy, but many around here dont give 2 shits about that. i also expect a change in the way the ultra rich manipulate the system to become even richer. i most certainly hope theres change in those regards.

AIG got another bailout check and held another "party" just a few days ago. this stuff needs to stop.

I agree about world perception and this bailout bullshit. I'm sick of it...let those that fail, fail. I was mad as heck when Bush/Paulson/Berneke proposed this and when it passed...government ownership of banks? No thanks, I'll pass.

I will not, however, partake in class envy.

tony hipchest
11-11-2008, 11:38 PM
Well confucius, what about a box full of shit that smells like Obama? :chuckle:
wise man say "many times stinky smell comes from ones own upper lip." :chuckle:

I will not, however, partake in class envy.

so when we crack down on rich drug dealers and enron execs its because of "class envy"? whatever....

MACH1
11-11-2008, 11:41 PM
http://media-files.gather.com/images/d624/d593/d744/d224/d96/f3/small.jpg

tony hipchest
11-11-2008, 11:46 PM
http://media-files.gather.com/images/d624/d593/d744/d224/d96/f3/small.jpg

trickle down economics = "change' falling into the couch.

RunWillieRun
11-11-2008, 11:56 PM
so when we crack down on rich drug dealers and enron execs its because of "class envy"? whatever....

Last time I checked the enron execs are in prison, where they belong. Can you give me an example of a drug dealer that, "manipulates the system to become even richer?" After all, that is how you classified the rich that you want to go after. Is there a drug dealer lobby that I am not aware of? Funding the Republican party even?

How about Franklin Raines? I fully support going after this jagoff for his Fannie Mae corruption. Believe it or not, Dems too are capable of 'manipulating the system to become even richer.'

Tony, give it up...People are not as stupid as you would like to believe. They can see through you...and all they see is a partisan hack.

MACH1
11-12-2008, 12:23 AM
http://www.unitedliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/obama_hood2.png

trickle down economics = "change' falling into the couch.

Trickle down to the employment line.

Leftoverhard
11-12-2008, 01:34 AM
This thread is so retro.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-12-2008, 01:47 AM
trickle down economics = "change' falling into the couch.

Let me explain trickle down economics to you...

What happens when you raise taxes on a company? You increase their operating cost. What happens when you increase a company's operating costs? They either: A) cut their overhead by cutting hours, jobs, quality of their products, and/or outsourcing (all resulting in more poor and/or unemployed people) or B) pass their extra production costs onto the consumer in the form of higher prices.

On the other hand, what happens when you lower taxes on a company? They increase wages, incentives, hours for employees, and create new jobs. Why? Because more jobs and higher payed, skilled workers equals more productivity. More productivity equals more money. They can afford to offer products at a lower price, because the volume they will be selling these products at will compensate for the lower cost given the fact that their operation costs have gone down.

Have you ever taken an economics class? That is like the first thing that you learn.

Liberals like Obama attack the rich like a poor person can give you a job. Remember, you will never work for someone with less money than yourself.

augustashark
11-12-2008, 03:47 AM
Let me explain trickle down economics to you...

What happens when you raise taxes on a company? You increase their operating cost. What happens when you increase a company's operating costs? They either: A) cut their overhead by cutting hours, jobs, quality of their products, and/or outsourcing (all resulting in more poor and/or unemployed people) or B) pass their extra production costs onto the consumer in the form of higher prices.

On the other hand, what happens when you lower taxes on a company? They increase wages, incentives, hours for employees, and create new jobs. Why? Because more jobs and higher payed, skilled workers equals more productivity. More productivity equals more money. They can afford to offer products at a lower price, because the volume they will be selling these products at will compensate for the lower cost given the fact that their operation costs have gone down.

Have you ever taken an economics class? That is like the first thing that you learn.

Liberals like Obama attack the rich like a poor person can give you a job. Remember, you will never work for someone with less money than yourself.


Holy schmolely, you just sent 3 people into the fetal position. Well done. Btw, nice post.

GBMelBlount
11-12-2008, 06:27 AM
Let me explain trickle down economics to you...

What happens when you raise taxes on a company? You increase their operating cost. What happens when you increase a company's operating costs? They either: A) cut their overhead by cutting hours, jobs, quality of their products, and/or outsourcing (all resulting in more poor and/or unemployed people) or B) pass their extra production costs onto the consumer in the form of higher prices.

On the other hand, what happens when you lower taxes on a company? They increase wages, incentives, hours for employees, and create new jobs. Why? Because more jobs and higher payed, skilled workers equals more productivity. More productivity equals more money. They can afford to offer products at a lower price, because the volume they will be selling these products at will compensate for the lower cost given the fact that their operation costs have gone down.

Have you ever taken an economics class? That is like the first thing that you learn.

Liberals like Obama attack the rich like a poor person can give you a job. Remember, you will never work for someone with less money than yourself.

Great post! Economics 101. Do they still teach it? :chuckle: Fact is you won't find many examples of countries who have "taxed themselves into prosperity."

RunWillieRun
11-12-2008, 07:26 AM
trickle down economics = "change' falling into the couch.

Epic Econ 101 FAIL

Vis
11-12-2008, 07:55 AM
Let me explain trickle down economics to you...

What happens when you raise taxes on a company? You increase their operating cost. What happens when you increase a company's operating costs? They either: A) cut their overhead by cutting hours, jobs, quality of their products, and/or outsourcing (all resulting in more poor and/or unemployed people) or B) pass their extra production costs onto the consumer in the form of higher prices.

On the other hand, what happens when you lower taxes on a company? They increase wages, incentives, hours for employees, and create new jobs. Why? Because more jobs and higher payed, skilled workers equals more productivity. More productivity equals more money. They can afford to offer products at a lower price, because the volume they will be selling these products at will compensate for the lower cost given the fact that their operation costs have gone down.

Have you ever taken an economics class? That is like the first thing that you learn.

Liberals like Obama attack the rich like a poor person can give you a job. Remember, you will never work for someone with less money than yourself.

That's not how jobs are created. If I can pay you 50k and make 100k from your work, I have a business. If I can only make 40k from your work I don't have a business. If you cut my taxes and I still only make 40k from your work, I don't hire you. If you raise my taxes but I still make 100k from your work, I still hire you.

So how do I make money from your work? Demand. That means customers who have $$ to spend at my business. $$ flows up. If my customers have money to spend, I make money, I need employees, I have a business.

When I got my business degrees we learned this.

Taxes are only paid on income. You need income first. You need customers with $$. Lower the taxes of the customer first.

revefsreleets
11-12-2008, 09:08 AM
These are conflicting economic models, and both are still taught and, in fact, practiced. You guys can argue that if you wish, I have another question not a single person on this borad, nor any other forum I've asked it in, have ever given me a satisfactory answer to.

If I'm the DM for a big corporation, and I'm being taxed at 35%, and I can go to Ireland and be taxed at 17%, why should I stay in the US? Say I decide to stay with the present tax structure. When Obama raises it to 45%, don't you think it's fair for me to say enough is enough?

If I can't make a profit without it being taxed away, everything else becomes irrelevent.

tony hipchest
11-12-2008, 10:50 AM
You guys can argue that if you wish, I have another question not a single person on this borad, nor any other forum I've asked it in, have ever given me a satisfactory answer to.

If I'm the DM for a big corporation, and I'm being taxed at 35%, and I can go to Ireland and be taxed at 17%, why should I stay in the US? Say I decide to stay with the present tax structure. When Obama raises it to 45%, don't you think it's fair for me to say enough is enough?

.well in that case this answer probably wont be satisfactory either but these are the facts and it is what it is...

people should stay in the US only because they want to. we can get into free markets and global enterprize. fact of the matter is if one wants to up and leave this country they are pretty much free to do so. its pretty much a personal decision and how much money drives ones core values.

i know for a fact, i could pack up and move down to mexico and pretty much live like a millionaire. i simply dont wanna leave MY country though. call it pride. we are the land of the free and home of the brave. i will pay my share of taxes and enjoy the freedoms and liberties and security i am given.

now if ireland had the worlds strongest military, all the infrastructure to support like our vast nation, millions of baby boomers on social security and medicare, over crowded prisons, foreign aid to distribute, people to educate, medical research to fund, nasa, rockets to send to the moon, spy sattelites, etc.... im pretty sure their taxes would be much higher too.

so yeah, its fair for you to say enough is enough. ultimately one has to decide for themself whether this is a good place or bad place to live.

revefsreleets
11-12-2008, 12:04 PM
Oh, I get all that. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough.

If ALL my profits are taxed up, and I can't stay profitable, and my options are selling, bankrotcy or moving, what good am I to the economy?

If I make a 1% profit, but my taxes go up 10%, I can't just absorb that cost. I have to pass that along, which makes me less competitive, or drives me out of business.

Taxing the very companies that made this country great in the first place is not the answer.

tony hipchest
11-12-2008, 12:29 PM
If I make a 1% profit, but my taxes go up 10%, I can't just absorb that cost. this is where the waters get muddied in such matters.

under your scenario it sounds like you are saying that not only would it wipe out your 1% profit, but it would also leave you 9% in the hole.

in reality the 1% would be taxed an additional 10%, still leaving you with .9% profit.

heres another area where the waters have been muddied- say you pay 10% taxes and they are being raised by 10%.

most people are assuming it doubles to 20% when in reality it is the 10% being raised by 10% = 11%

MACH1
11-12-2008, 12:39 PM
http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/images/2008/06/20/gas_crisis_obama.jpg

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-12-2008, 12:59 PM
Oh, I get all that. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough.



Clear enough for the majority of the board....the rest of us got it.:doh:

revefsreleets
11-12-2008, 01:18 PM
this is where the waters get muddied in such matters.

under your scenario it sounds like you are saying that not only would it wipe out your 1% profit, but it would also leave you 9% in the hole.

in reality the 1% would be taxed an additional 10%, still leaving you with .9% profit.

heres another area where the waters have been muddied- say you pay 10% taxes and they are being raised by 10%.

most people are assuming it doubles to 20% when in reality it is the 10% being raised by 10% = 11%

That's not only wrong, it's ASTOUNDINGLY wrong. Companies are taxed on income, not profit.

MACH1
11-12-2008, 01:30 PM
That's not only wrong, it's ASTOUNDINGLY wrong. Companies are taxed on income, not profit.

That's why they call it income tax not profit tax. :wink02:

revefsreleets
11-12-2008, 01:34 PM
Now the "Joe the Plumber" thing was different...I think that tax was profit based. But them are apples...these are oranges.

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-12-2008, 01:38 PM
That's why they call it income tax not profit tax. :wink02:


Ugh....hate to agree with the only thing Tony has gotten right in several months...but Individual income taxes often tax the total income of the individual (with some deductions permitted).... while corporate income taxes often tax net income (the difference between gross receipts, expenses, and additional write-offs.

(I feel dirty)

tony hipchest
11-12-2008, 01:47 PM
That's not only wrong, it's ASTOUNDINGLY wrong. Companies are taxed on income, not profit.not only did you skirt the issue of your fuzzy math but now you are completely muddying the waters with semantics...

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/D557CF7D-3BAE-4550-93F37C97C455A2D4/111/182/241/ART/

How Corporations Are Taxed
Learn the benefits and drawbacks of corporate taxation.

Corporations are taxed differently than other business structures: A corporation is the only type of business that must pay its own income taxes on profits. In contrast, partnerships, sole proprietorships, and limited liability companies (LLCs) are not taxed on business profits; instead, the profits "pass through" the businesses to their owners, who report business income or losses on their personal tax returns.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax

The measure of taxable profits varies from country to country. In some countries, for example the United States, the taxable profits are calculated according to a quite different set of rules from those used in the calculation of profits in the financial statements. The amounts that can be deducted for capital expenditure and for interest payments vary substantially from country to country.

An issue in corporate taxation is the taxation of shareholders who receive dividends or distributions from a company out of profits which have already been taxed. This contrasts with a partnership or sole proprietorship, where the owner of the business is usually taxed only on the profits of the business and not on distributions of profits. Different solutions are adopted for this problem:

The company may not be taxed, and instead the shareholders are taxed on the profits of the business, not on distributions. This method is adopted by the United States, but only for companies owned by a small number of shareholders, so-called S corporations.

basically if you or your business cant stay afloat with current or near future tax codes, you are in the wrong business that probably wasnt gonna grow and survive anyways.

your 1% profits being taxed into a 9% loss was a poor example, especially with all the loopholes and write offs in place to protect businesses.

tony hipchest
11-12-2008, 01:53 PM
Ugh....hate to agree with the only thing Tony has gotten right in several months...

(I feel dirty)you should. totally forgetting that whole presidential election thing, huh? :sofunny:

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-12-2008, 01:57 PM
All that being said....It doesnt change the SPIRIT of the argument.....If taxes are higher HERE....and you have the MEANS to move your business....which include the money to move, an employee base to pick workers from....AND a need/want for your product in the new location....THEN...all other things being the same...a company WILL move.

Its been proven over and over again....The proof is in the historical example itself.

MACH1
11-12-2008, 01:59 PM
Ugh....hate to agree with the only thing Tony has gotten right in several months...but Individual income taxes often tax the total income of the individual (with some deductions permitted).... while corporate income taxes often tax net income (the difference between gross receipts, expenses, and additional write-offs.

(I feel dirty)

:laughing:

Yep...I know just :stirthepot: a little.
My wife and I have two business's and the more we can write off the better. But honestly all of Obama's great "change" plans kinda scares the shit out of me. Especially when it come to business.

Hammer67
11-12-2008, 02:21 PM
Great post! Economics 101. Do they still teach it? :chuckle: Fact is you won't find many examples of countries who have "taxed themselves into prosperity."


And, "Trickle down" economics don't just work in the positive sense, either. IF you have been doing the grocery shopping in your family, then you realize that bread and milk are more expensive since the gas prices have gone up the past few years...hence the rising cost of fuel for freight to supermarkets and all the logistical stops that groceries make before they get to the store. This is trickle down from the cost of Oil productiona and prospecting in the market.

It works both ways....but, one thing for sure, it does indeed work Liberals...

revefsreleets
11-12-2008, 05:47 PM
If we are discussing "The Corporate Income Tax", only 8% of companies are subject to that anyway, and only a teenie fragment of them make over 100,000k a year, and, altogether, they collectively make up less than 2% of the GDP. I'm talking about corporate taxes in general.

Why don't we focus on Obama's plan to double the capital gains tax? Individuals and corporations pay capital gains taxes. In fact, I'd say the stock market tanking the day after the election was probably much more about that than corporate income tax.

This is a cascading thing. Business gets hit several different ways with a tax and spender, and none of it will be good for them in a shrinking economy.

So, in other words, taxing them more does several things:

-It makes their cost of doing business more burdensome (my 1% profit was a "best case" scenario...turn on the news and see how many companies are turning a profit now). It's still an additional cost
-It still creates a negative environment to do business in
- The taxes generated don't make up for the damage done. Is a short-term windfall worth losing even more companies to foreign competition?

tony hipchest
11-12-2008, 06:08 PM
If we are discussing "The Corporate Income Tax", only 8% of companies are subject to that anyway, and only a teenie fragment of them make over 100,000k a year, and, altogether, they collectively make up less than 2% of the GDP. I'm talking about corporate taxes in general.

Why don't we focus on Obama's plan to double the capital gains tax? Individuals and corporations pay capital gains taxes. In fact, I'd say the stock market tanking the day after the election was probably much more about that than corporate income tax.

This is a cascading thing. Business gets hit several different ways with a tax and spender, and none of it will be good for them in a shrinking economy.

?a loss in profit isnt an additional "cost" of doing business. again we're getting into semantics here and splitting hairs.

the stock market drop the day after the election had less to do with the election itself. it was the current economic situation driving it. companies are starting to give quarterly reports. Cisco posting a drop has people selling across the board. now Circuit City may have to declare bankruptcy. companies having these problems affect the market more than an election does. its dropping again today when the fed announces it isnt gonna buy up all these bogus loans out there.

revefsreleets
11-12-2008, 06:14 PM
a loss in profit isnt an additional "cost" of doing business. again we're getting into semantics here and splitting hairs.

the stock market drop the day after the election had less to do with the election itself. it was the current economic situation driving it. companies are starting to give quarterly reports. Cisco posting a drop has people selling across the board. now Circuit City may have to declare bankruptcy. companies having these problems affect the market more than an election does. its dropping again today when the fed announces it isnt gonna buy up all these bogus loans out there.

OK, explain to me how, in this current environment, raising taxes on business will help again?

That is the ground level fundamental question here. Obama is going to raise taxes on US business. It's as inevitable as the sun rising tomorrow.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-12-2008, 07:39 PM
Glad I started such a successful and intelligent thread :applaudit:

tony hipchest
11-12-2008, 10:42 PM
OK, explain to me how, in this current environment, raising taxes on business will help again?
help who exactly? individuals profits or our country as a whole?

in this current enviornment our military is stretched thin. national debt is rising with no end in sight. ultimately somebody will pay, unless we plan on selling our souls to the saudi's, chinese, and russians.

taking away taxes from everybody is like taking away cigarettes from people with lung cancer.

That is the ground level fundamental question here. Obama is going to raise taxes on US business. It's as inevitable as the sun rising tomorrowim still not buying you saying obama is going to raise taxes on all business.

for some reason, i just dont see all US businesses packing up and moving to ireland. most businesses who actually have to pay higher taxes will most likely just grin and bear it.... you know "survival of the fittest".

maybe everybody has to tighten their belts. maybe america has to become a bit more prudent and thrifty. but hard times call for hard measures.

plus theres more to life than gaming machines, 4 tv's, $400 cell phones with internet access, $120 pairs of kicks, 24" rims, $50 dinners, etc.

this is where trickle up economics comes into play. businesses will not expect the high profits they feel entitled to, lower prices, and get the economy going again.

HometownGal
11-12-2008, 10:47 PM
Glad I started such a successful and intelligent thread :applaudit:

Successful? Well . . . . maybe. I'm going to take the fifth on the second adjective. :chuckle::wink02:

revefsreleets
11-13-2008, 09:35 AM
Trickle up ain't happening. It's just not. Consumers are tightening their belts, and you're trying to have it both ways here. Consuming drives trickle up, and nobody is consuming...in fact, people are not shopping in record numbers.

The fact is, a tax cut during a war and recession is probably a bad idea across the board, just as bad as a tax increase.

I'm just never going to agree with squeezing businesses to pay for government programs. It's not what this country was founded upon. I don't like it when either party grows government. I fear we are in for a MASSIVE expansion. Liberal philosophy is that the government can take care of all. That is a fundamental difference I have with them, and why I am a Republican. That rift trumps the fact that I share most of their social platform.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-13-2008, 09:42 AM
As my economics teacher says "A government that is willing to give you everything, is also more than willing to take away everything that you have got!"