Obama 2012?

**Red_Lizard2** · 01-31-12, 11:56 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I can explain our growth during that time. We actually produced most of what america used day to day right here in the states. So money made here was spent here.

So then, one could say that raising taxes (to an extant, but no-one is saying to raise them to 90% again, except maybe the communist party) or keeping the tax rate the same (in case of corporate tax), doesn't have an effect on employment, the economy, etc. right? After-all as you just said, businesses were making things here when the taxes were higher, and the so called "rich" where still inventing/creating/supplying despite having to pay upwards of half their income to the government.

On a different subject (by the way, this and the above is just general, not singling it out to any person), couldn't the tech bubble be considered an example of a lack of regulation leading to a burst? I'm not well versed on the time, but if I recall correctly it was basically a mix of the large growth of the internet, and companies/people buying up domains at heavily inflated prices (then basically flipping them for profit right?).

**CivilWars** · 02-01-12, 12:08 AM

Partly, but more realistically you had a few good tech companies get really big really fast, like AOL. These companies created great returns for their early investors. Because of this everyone bet on the next big thing. Companies with no customers, and very little idea on how to get them, received tons of money. Eventually people said wtf, and the companies that weren't performing came back to earth. Part of what compounded the problem was that many of the tech companies that failed spent a lot on tech, so it all dominoed.

Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

**deathgodusmc** · 02-01-12, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

So then, one could say that raising taxes (to an extant, but no-one is saying to raise them to 90% again, except maybe the communist party) or keeping the tax rate the same (in case of corporate tax), doesn't have an effect on employment, the economy, etc. right? After-all as you just said, businesses were making things here when the taxes were higher, and the so called "rich" where still inventing/creating/supplying despite having to pay upwards of half their income to the government.

On a different subject (by the way, this and the above is just general, not singling it out to any person), couldn't the tech bubble be considered an example of a lack of regulation leading to a burst? I'm not well versed on the time, but if I recall correctly it was basically a mix of the large growth of the internet, and companies/people buying up domains at heavily inflated prices (then basically flipping them for profit right?).

I would have to disagree. The problem with raising taxes is that the era that did really well due to us producing doesn't employ like it use to. Many jobs have been out sourced to other contries and robotic workers. Plus those that were doing really well then are bringing home more then any of those ceo's or company presidents could even dream of. Personally and this is just my opinion but ceo's and corps came to grips with the possible earning potential. As such those at the top got richer while creating the largest gap in this countries history between themselves and the poor.

Raising corp taxes was the begining of the end for production in this country. Why build it when you can buy it somewhere else cheaper or set up shop somewhere cheaper and just ship it in? At the time it was much harder and took longer to get products to market and things have changed to say the least. Afterall we can ship from anywhere on the globe to a customer next day now and it was unheard of then. So in essences our technological growth added to the problem we currently have.

**deathgodusmc** · 02-01-12, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Langrad

Arn't we in the process of leaving Afghanistan?

Afghanistan War: U.S. Troops To End Combat Role Next Year

"Defense Secretary Leon Panetta laid out the administration's most explicit portrayal of the U.S. drawdown in Afghanistan, saying Wednesday that U.S. and other international forces in Afghanistan expect to end their combat role in 2013 and continue a training and advisory role with Afghan forces through 2014."

Now we are in the process of leaving. All we have to do is see if they follow thru.

**deathgodusmc** · 02-01-12, 06:32 PM

"The U.S. military said in a secret report the Taliban, backed by Pakistan, are set to retake control of Afghanistan after NATO-led forces withdraw from the country, raising the prospect of a major failure of western policy after a costly war."

Taliban Will Control Afghanistan With Support From Pakistan, Says Leaked Report

But then again.

**SmokenScion** · 02-01-12, 06:39 PM

we should have attacked pakistan.

**deathgodusmc** · 02-01-12, 07:14 PM

To easy.

**~BigTymer~** · 02-06-12, 12:31 AM

You can figure this one out

**Kraker Jak** · 02-09-12, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Ron Paul might just be bat shit crazy, but at this point that may well be what this country needs.

A certain billy joel song comes to mind here civil lol....

Sent from my phone, because obviously I am not at home...using TapaTalk

**BigHub** · 02-09-12, 08:21 AM

I don't know... Newt seems like the bat shit crazy one... A colony on the moon?! Really?!?

Does he not realize we need to fix shit here on earth on our already existing "colony".

Colony on the Moon = bat shit crazy

Sent from my HTC Thunderbolt