Campaign 2008

[JaMarcus Russell's #1 Caucasian Fan 0]

I'm no economist in any way shape or form, but I think it's a good idea, for the government to invest (ie spend) in the economy and programs (ie jobs, education etc) to spark economic growth. I don't see how cutting spending would be beneficial when we need to generate cash flow into the economy.

[snuffbox 0]

Barney Frank is a single congressman, not grand fucking Pooh-Bah of the country. Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay held even more power in their days and it didn't destroy the world or whatever.

 

What to expect (in reality, not in an overactive and very afraid imagination) from Frank/Obama: A sensible marijuana policy. It is something that both have shown interest in. It would free up a lot of money and add more freedoms to the country so the "conservatives" might not like it. If you're going to be afraid of something, though, you might as well fear something that might actually happen.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Re: the white supremacist mass murder/assassination plot

 

From the Smoking Gun:

 

The pair's "final act of violence" would be an attempt to kill Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee. In separate interviews with investigators, the men said that they planned to speed their vehicle toward Obama while "shooting at him from the windows." Apparently befitting the historic assault, Cowart and Schlesselman "stated they would dress in all white tuxedos and wear top hats during the assassination attempt."

 

Something tells me this plot wouldn't have gotten very far even if the ATF hadn't gotten the drop on them before hand.

[At Home 0]

Okay, that is kind of awesome.

[Nightwing 0]

So the headline would have been

 

"COLONEL SANDERS IMPERSONATORS ASSASSINATE BLACK PRESIDENT IN SUICIDAL DRIVE-BY!"

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I'm no economist in any way shape or form, but I think it's a good idea, for the government to invest (ie spend) in the economy and programs (ie jobs, education etc) to spark economic growth. I don't see how cutting spending would be beneficial when we need to generate cash flow into the economy.

 

The only country that benefits from Trickle Up economics is China.

[Nightwing 0]

I'm no economist in any way shape or form, but I think it's a good idea, for the government to invest (ie spend) in the economy and programs (ie jobs, education etc) to spark economic growth. I don't see how cutting spending would be beneficial when we need to generate cash flow into the economy.

 

The only country that benefits from Trickle Up economics is China.

 

So is there some sort of "Trickle Sideways" theory, because who in the world benefits in the "Trickle Down"?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Hell, that bum probably makes more money in a day than Obama's brother in Africa makes in a year.

 

Fail.

 

 

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'm no economist in any way shape or form, but I think it's a good idea, for the government to invest (ie spend) in the economy and programs (ie jobs, education etc) to spark economic growth. I don't see how cutting spending would be beneficial when we need to generate cash flow into the economy.

 

The only country that benefits from Trickle Up economics is China.

 

Noted economist marvin, ladies & gentleman. He & Stephen Joseph will be signing books after the show.

 

Also, fail.

[Cartman 0]

Can someone show me some quotes from Obama saying that they were taxing the "Rich" to give to the "poor"? All I have ever heard was people over 250,000 wll pay more taxes and people under that who are WORKING people will get the benefits. I don't see anything that says this will go to people on welfare and whatnot.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Hell, that bum probably makes more money in a day than Obama's brother in Africa makes in a year.

 

Fail.

 

So he makes $2 a month (who knows?). A Bum in the US makes more than that.

 

 

I'm no economist in any way shape or form, but I think it's a good idea, for the government to invest (ie spend) in the economy and programs (ie jobs, education etc) to spark economic growth. I don't see how cutting spending would be beneficial when we need to generate cash flow into the economy.

 

The only country that benefits from Trickle Up economics is China.

 

Noted economist marvin, ladies & gentleman. He & Stephen Joseph will be signing books after the show.

 

Also, fail.

And my point on any increased disposable income for lower class people stands. 99% of what they buy at the Wal Mart is made in China or some other place besides the USA. So they're going to have all this disposable income to spend, but more than likely not on American Goods.

[At Home 0]

Yeah, because poor people live, eat, sleep, and breathe Wal Mart.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Okay, marvin, if you want to define the lifestyle of an American homeless person as rich, go ahead and do that. I don't think many people will agree with you.

 

still fly's point seemed to be that it made sense for the government to invest and not cut spending during downturns, and this is not a crackpot idea--it's a very mainstream economic view. And no, marv, that's not changinism.

[Nightwing 0]

I'm no economist in any way shape or form, but I think it's a good idea, for the government to invest (ie spend) in the economy and programs (ie jobs, education etc) to spark economic growth. I don't see how cutting spending would be beneficial when we need to generate cash flow into the economy.

 

The only country that benefits from Trickle Up economics is China.

 

Noted economist marvin, ladies & gentleman. He & Stephen Joseph will be signing books after the show.

 

Also, fail.

And my point on any increased disposable income for lower class people stands. 99% of what they buy at the Wal Mart is made in China or some other place besides the USA. So they're going to have all this disposable income to spend, but more than likely not on American Goods.

 

How the hell does giving money to the top 1% somehow eliminate the trade and labor advantage that China and other countries have on us? I was just wondering, because why hasn't it been working for the last 7 years?

[snuffbox 0]

Can someone show me some quotes from Obama saying that they were taxing the "Rich" to give to the "poor"? All I have ever heard was people over 250,000 wll pay more taxes and people under that who are WORKING people will get the benefits. I don't see anything that says this will go to people on welfare and whatnot.

 

The vaunted Pocomoke Tattler may have those "quotes."

[At Home 0]

Okay, marvin, if you want to define the lifestyle of an American homeless person as rich, go ahead and do that. I don't think many people will agree with you.

 

He's not saying that. He's saying that comparatively, your average bum may or may not make as much as someone in a third world country. Seeing as that there are a shitload of people who live on a few dollars a day, and that homeless assholes can make upwards of $20 a day, this is true in some cases.

 

Also, re: government spending. I posted a NYT editorial on the matter, I'll try to go find it. It was all about how this is the time to ramp up government spending on infrastructure projects and shit like that.

[Nightwing 0]

Okay, marvin, if you want to define the lifestyle of an American homeless person as rich, go ahead and do that. I don't think many people will agree with you.

 

He's not saying that. He's saying that comparatively, your average bum may or may not make as much as someone in a third world country. Seeing as that there are a shitload of people who live on a few dollars a day, and that homeless assholes can make upwards of $20 a day, this is true in some cases.

 

But it's a comparison that proves nothing. What Marvin is saying is essentially this:

 

"Sure, there are some 400 pound people out there, but they aren't as bad compared to the 600 pound fatties!"

 

That's true... to an extent. The fact of the matter is, they're both far below the safe standard for living. I believe we go by the American standard of living here, not the Zimbabwe standard.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Okay, marvin, if you want to define the lifestyle of an American homeless person as rich, go ahead and do that. I don't think many people will agree with you.

 

He's not saying that. He's saying that comparatively, your average bum may or may not make as much as someone in a third world country. Seeing as that there are a shitload of people who live on a few dollars a day, and that homeless assholes can make upwards of $20 a day, this is true in some cases.

 

But he said that the average American homeless person was relatively rich on an international level in the context of saying "we need to define what rich is." Taking this idea further, marvin would probably suggest that all Americans are relatively rich and that therefore, contra Teddy Roosevelt, we don't need progressive income taxation. We already know he supports the crackpot "Fairtax" national sales tax plan.

 

My point would be Americans don't gauge their wealth by comparing themselves to African slum dwellers, and any economic plan that tried to do this would be asinine.

 

So while you're technically correct, pbonester, the point that our fair-skinned friend was making was very different.

 

edit: Nightwing beat me to the punch.

[At Home 0]

I believe we go by the American standard of living here, not the Zimbabwe standard.

 

I take issue with this.

[JaMarcus Russell's #1 Caucasian Fan 0]

What I don't understand about some right wingers like Marvin and others, is why they are so virulently opposed to taxing the wealthy it seems. It seems like they actually think that they (I don't think Marvin makes 250,000 grand a year being a chef) will be affected by more taxes to a class that they don't belong in (like they think they are rich are something). I also don't understand why small business owners think they are going to be taxed to death. If I were a small business owner I would support the Democratic economic plan because it seems to put more money into the hands of the middle class (the main customers of small businesses), which in turn would be able to buy more what small businesses are selling which would lead to growth and more job opportunities for middle class folks. I know I'm probably beating a dead horse with this, but it seems like people are still brainwashed (and we have had iterations of of trickle down since Reagan) by the Republican party's mantra of more money for rich people=good, more money for middle class=bad.

 

Edit: apologies for the repetitious use of "seems"

[Nightwing 0]

I always thought "Trickle Down" was the improper way to look at it. I look at it like this:

 

If you want to fill up a bucket, you put water in it. You don't get another, smaller bucket, and fill that up until it starts leaking over the sides, and wait for that to fill up the first bucket. It seems like a waste of time.

 

Perhaps "Two Buckets" would be a better reference. Or, when combating the idea of "Trickle Down", simply say "I'm in favor of 'Fill Up' policies. You pour stuff into the bottom and eventually it reaches the top."

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Okay, marvin, if you want to define the lifestyle of an American homeless person as rich, go ahead and do that. I don't think many people will agree with you.

 

He's not saying that. He's saying that comparatively, your average bum may or may not make as much as someone in a third world country. Seeing as that there are a shitload of people who live on a few dollars a day, and that homeless assholes can make upwards of $20 a day, this is true in some cases.

 

But he said that the average American homeless person was relatively rich on an international level in the context of saying "we need to define what rich is." Taking this idea further, marvin would probably suggest that all Americans are relatively rich and that therefore, contra Teddy Roosevelt, we don't need progressive income taxation. We already know he supports the crackpot "Fairtax" national sales tax plan.

 

My point would be Americans don't gauge their wealth by comparing themselves to African slum dwellers, and any economic plan that tried to do this would be asinine.

 

So while you're technically correct, pbonester, the point that our fair-skinned friend was making was very different.

 

edit: Nightwing beat me to the punch.

 

I dont see how using the Fair Tax over the Income Tax is crackpot. The Economy is 70% consumer spending, why not at least use that to some sort of advantage by putting a tax on spending and not income? At worst we turn everyone into save-a-holics and reverse the economy's dependence on Consumer Spending, which would be done by eliminating corporate taxes which would get manufacturing companies incentive to bring their jobs back to the United States. U.S. goods are suddenly more competitive in price vs foreign goods and it would breed a good economy thats not based on the majority of people being drowned to death by debt to keep it barely floating above the surface.

 

 

[Nightwing 0]

Okay, marvin, if you want to define the lifestyle of an American homeless person as rich, go ahead and do that. I don't think many people will agree with you.

 

He's not saying that. He's saying that comparatively, your average bum may or may not make as much as someone in a third world country. Seeing as that there are a shitload of people who live on a few dollars a day, and that homeless assholes can make upwards of $20 a day, this is true in some cases.

 

But he said that the average American homeless person was relatively rich on an international level in the context of saying "we need to define what rich is." Taking this idea further, marvin would probably suggest that all Americans are relatively rich and that therefore, contra Teddy Roosevelt, we don't need progressive income taxation. We already know he supports the crackpot "Fairtax" national sales tax plan.

 

My point would be Americans don't gauge their wealth by comparing themselves to African slum dwellers, and any economic plan that tried to do this would be asinine.

 

So while you're technically correct, pbonester, the point that our fair-skinned friend was making was very different.

 

edit: Nightwing beat me to the punch.

 

I dont see how using the Fair Tax over the Income Tax is crackpot. The Economy is 70% consumer spending, why not at least use that to some sort of advantage by putting a tax on spending and not income?

 

Because it's a Regressive Tax, and would greatly raise cost of living for the vast majority of the population? Even without paying taxes, putting a sizable sales tax would be more harmful to lower and middle class people than anyone, because they have to spend a much larger percentage of their income on consumer goods in comparison to the rich.

 

Are you seriously that retarded to not see the problem with that?

 

At worst we turn everyone into save-a-holics and reverse the economy's dependence on Consumer Spending, which would be done by eliminating corporate taxes which would get manufacturing companies incentive to bring their jobs back to the United States.

 

Doubtful. Taxes are hardly the problem with the US, since there are a variety of ways of avoiding them. The problem is the labor market, and near-slave labor in developing countries.

 

At worst, the middle class is losing the same amount of money they were before, anyone lower than them is paying much more, and there are less tax dollars to fund the government because we're no longer taxing anyone anything.

 

U.S. goods are suddenly more competitive in price vs foreign goods and it would breed a good economy thats not based on the majority of people being drowned to death by debt to keep it barely floating above the surface.

 

US goods wouldn't be priced notably better; there's no indication that they would do so, and the problem exports mostly deal with unfair tariffs and such, not the taxing of US companies (Which, again, have plenty of loopholes to avoid taxes already). You have no understanding of the economics other than "TAXES BAD", not realizing that most of our woes come from unfair labor practices stemming from countries like China, as well as allowing companies to receive massive tax breaks without any incentive to actually stay in the US.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I had a post back in January that debunked that but Im too lazy to go look for it. It worked out to like $3,000 dollars extra for a family of 4 making $60k a year that spent every dime they earned. Obviously the more money people saved under a fair tax, the more money they would save tax wise as well.

[Nightwing 0]

I had a post back in January that debunked that but Im too lazy to go look for it. It worked out to like $3,000 dollars extra for a family of 4 making $60k a year that spent every dime they earned.

 

Yeah, sure. Was the post which debunked your bullshit numbers within a few posts, or was it a few pages afterwards? When I'm looking for it, I want to make sure I don't waste any more time explaining why a Regressive Tax doesn't help the poor.

 

Obviously the more money people saved under a fair tax, the more money they would save tax wise as well.

 

So if they spent every dime they earned, are they just going to keep working until they're 80, or are they allowed to save at some time in the future? I don't think with all the "MASSIVE SAVINGS~!" that there's going to be much in the budget for a Social Security, so spending every dime you have doesn't exactly sound... feasible.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I had a post back in January that debunked that but Im too lazy to go look for it. It worked out to like $3,000 dollars extra for a family of 4 making $60k a year that spent every dime they earned.

 

Yeah, sure. Was the post which debunked your bullshit numbers within a few posts, or was it a few pages afterwards? When I'm looking for it, I want to make sure I don't waste any more time explaining why a Regressive Tax doesn't help the poor.

 

Obviously the more money people saved under a fair tax, the more money they would save tax wise as well.

 

So if they spent every dime they earned, are they just going to keep working until they're 80, or are they allowed to save at some time in the future? I don't think with all the "MASSIVE SAVINGS~!" that there's going to be much in the budget for a Social Security, so spending every dime you have doesn't exactly sound... feasible.

I have some good news and bad news! The good is that facing bad economic times, Americans finally started saving their money last month as the Personal Savings Rate for Americans reached a recent high of 3% (of disposable income) after hovering around 0%. Problem with that is that if people aren't spending money, the Economy is hurt because its 70% consumer spending driven, so essentially people saving their money instead of spending it is wrecking the economy.

 

This is the main principle behind the dumb stimulus checks, in that if you're given $600, you'll probably spend it (well, most people will..) which kept the Economy chugging along through the summer. Now we need another one because people are suddenly thrifty with their money and the government needs them to spend more to keep the economy going.

 

 

[Nightwing 0]

Yes, because that's wrecking our economy. Let's not look at the reason why people are saving money, but just blame it on people saving money.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Yes, because that's wrecking our economy. Let's not look at the reason why people are saving money, but just blame it on people saving money.

 

Did you miss the "Our economy is now 70% consumer spending" part? Basically that means that people spending money is what has driven the economy for the last 10 years at least.

 

People saving 3% of their disposable income instead of spending it will have a huge effect on the economy and the impact gets worse the more people save, which is inevitable given the state of the economy.

[BruteSquad_BRODY 0]

Andrew --

 

Ask your Boss. Ask your Professor.

 

Take Election Day off and volunteer to make history.

 

This election will be decided by what this grassroots movement can accomplish on Election Day.

 

We have volunteer shifts to fill throughout the day -- make calls, knock on doors, and make sure your fellow voters get to the polls.

 

No previous experience is required. Sign up now to take the day off and make history on November 4th:

 

http://my.barackobama.com/takethedayoff

 

Thanks,

 

Jon

 

Jon Carson

National Field Director

Obama for America

[Nightwing 0]

Yes, because that's wrecking our economy. Let's not look at the reason why people are saving money, but just blame it on people saving money.

 

Did you miss the "Our economy is now 70% consumer spending" part? Basically that means that people spending money is what has driven the economy for the last 10 years at least.

 

People saving 3% of their disposable income instead of spending it will have a huge effect on the economy and the impact gets worse the more people save, which is inevitable given the state of the economy.

 

No shit. The problem is that they've also lost a great deal of their savings and retirement funds with the problems in the market. It's a no-win situation: No today versus no tomorrow. I was pointing out the fact that people are now saving more because they need to make up the lost ground due to the bottom falling out of the market.