Thread: Obama 2012?

Originally Posted by ~BigTymer~

I go along Busch missed a bunch of shit and caused some shit. I disagree with the Iraq war. He also did nothing to stop companies from moving over seas. Do you remember how we got in this mess to start with? Bill Clinton & Busch carried on with it. Clinton wanted everyone to be able to own a home. So they forced banks to lend money to people that couldn't afford the payments. If the banks didn't loan the money they were fined. So you had all this bad debit when Busch came along, they said lets take all this debt put it over here in this like "bubble" Let people invest in it and see what happens. Well those that invested got fucked and the government bailed them fuckers out!

Fail, again. No one forced lending, and that wasn't what caused the crisis in the first place. The first piece that led to this collapse was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act by Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Glass-Steagall was a regulation which didn't allow investment and commercial banks to be one entity. As these banks began to merge, the stage was set for disaster. Bush further removed regulations until the shit hit the fan. Banks were cutting up crappy mortgages and selling them off to investors, and it failed. Because there was no longer a divide between investor banks and commercial banks, the banks began to lose everyones money. They had become, because of deregulation, too big to fail. If they weren't bailed out, the whole banking system would have likely collapsed. It would have been catastrophic.

But hey, since deregulation worked so well in that case, we clearly need more of it! I like your thinking!

Originally Posted by ~BigTymer~

Cutting the Tax would balance the cost of labor. Also having an independent energy source would help as well. Obama does nothing but get in the way of everything. Some how being a more European Socialist State is attractive to him. Almost half the country is on some kind of government handout. That's why he needs to raise taxes. How bout creating some jobs?

No, it wouldn't. Not enough to entice anyone to move back here. Where is your evidence to support that? In 2004, the average hourly compensation for a manufacturing worker in the US was $22.87. In China, that cost is $0.67. Sixty-seven CENTS. In other words, about 3% of a US worker, or they could hire 33 Chinese workers for every one US worker. That is impossible to compete with, and merely "cutting taxes" will not fix that. Source.

And you don't the first clue about socialism. None, nada, zero. Repeating Rush Limbaugh and other far-right nutjobs lines about "European Socialist State" proves that. Go read up on it if you want anyone to take you serious.

Originally Posted by ~BigTymer~

Government is to big. Too many regualtions, not enough where it needs to be. Higher Taxes is never works out. If Obama got the tax hike on the rich like he want's it still would not even come close to balancing the budget. He wants to spend more but he has no way to pay for it. How do you spend more money but want to cut spending at the same time? O that's right cut defense!!! That way another 9-11 can happen

Jesus, man, lay off the Faux News. All you are doing is regurgitating their nonsense. One, the only tax hikes Obama has proposed would return the top tax rate to were it was before the Bush tax cuts and a slight increase on capital gains. Two, what the hell are you talking about with 9/11? That makes no sense. First, our intrusions into the Middle East because of our large military contributed to 9/11 and our military couldn't have done anything to prevent 9/11 anyways, so cutting it would have no effect.

Originally Posted by ~BigTymer~

I was not wrong. So prove me wrong. Also since this link came out it has only increased. Who Pays the Most Income Tax?

Wrong again - your own link says, "The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent," which matches pretty much perfectly with my "a little over a third" statement from my first post.

You got lost some where. I said drop the tax to off set labor cost and energy cost

How will that work? Labor costs are separate from income tax costs, so it seems to me that they'd just enjoy this new tax rate, and continue to reap the benefits of cheap, third world labor.

We consume the majority of the worlds oil & at the price yeah you figure it out.

That doesn't make it the most expensive. The unit price of energy isn't the highest, and that's what's going to affect how expensive it is to run a factory here, not the total energy usage of the country.

We should have been drilling for our own oil YEARS ago. Let's keep giving our money to people that would love to see you, me and the rest of America die. Let's watch the price for oil,gas, etc...keep going up and while jobs and pay goes down. See how your country will turn out then.

If we had drilled in ANWAR, it would have provided, during the estimated 3-year peak, about 7% of our oil needs. That's not enough to provide bargaining leverage over OPEC, so they'd just raise their prices to compensate, the result being that the change in oil prices would be insignificant, and short-lived.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

First, our intrusions into the Middle East because of our large military contributed to 9/11 and our military couldn't have done anything to prevent 9/11 anyways, so cutting it would have no effect.

I have to call bullshit on that. The military had nothing to do with 9-11 what so ever and our military could have stopped 9-11 from happening. All they would have needed was the intel that the cia and fbi refused to share with each other.

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

So how do you explain the growth of our country then? 1936-1986, the top marginal tax rate was over 50% (at some cases it was above 90%, and often above 70%). It was above 50% from 1916-1923 as well.
Historical Top Tax Rate

Not related, but interesting still (mostly as how touted he is), Former President Reagan actually increased the tax burden on high income earners, while reducing it on the middle and lower class. (http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...txct/fig-1.gif)

One more interesting tax chart, as it shows the historic data of the corporate tax rate and capital gains rate. In both cases, they were higher then now. Capital gains was over 20% from about 1934 until 2003, and corporate tax rate was 40% or higher from about 1941 until 1986.



That isn't even a rational point against cutting defense spending. For one, our navy is way stronger then any other country. We have 2,384 total ships, compared to China's 972. Surely we can take some ships out of commission, and save some money without being weaker on that front.
Total Navy Ship Strength by Country

Further the problem, is equating that somehow spending billions of defense will stop a "9-11." First of all, the intelligent agencies acting like fucking children is what stopped us from well stopping 9-11 in the first place. Each one knew something, that when put together, would of told us pretty much all we needed to know. Instead, the agencies didn't like to work together, so no-one knew, then they had the audacity to bitch they needed more power to stop threats like 9-11!

Now, with that sad, if you can expand on why you think that cutting defense will lead to terrorist running amok, I'd be all ears. Otherwise, it really sounds like playing to fear with no real justification.

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.