McCain Takes Lead

[Yvlla]

Originally Posted by Nocock Jones

That horrible ad saying "omg Obama wants 2 raise ur taxes ull go hungry vote mccain" (Disclaimer: I dumbed it down because I'm so sick of it) appeals to a lot of people, but to the more intelligent ones, we an see that higher taxes lead to more spending which leads to more jobs, and isn't unemployment an issue?

The ads themselves are, for the most part, blatantly untrue. Obama is only in favor of raising taxes for people making over $200k a year. Middle class people, which are the ones stupidly buying into McCain's attack ads, would be getting a tax BREAK.

And W hardly was a fiscal conservative. He cut taxes for the most stupid of reasons - like shipping jobs overseas, which I think McCain agrees with - and spent more than any president in history, largely on the Iraq war rather than building up our own nation, hence my point about it hurting our economy.

[Snips]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Rogers Returns!

The ads themselves are, for the most part, blatantly untrue. Obama is only in favor of raising taxes for people making over $200k a year. Middle class people, which are the ones stupidly buying into McCain's attack ads, would be getting a tax BREAK.

And W hardly was a fiscal conservative. He cut taxes for the most stupid of reasons - like shipping jobs overseas, which I think McCain agrees with - and spent more than any president in history, largely on the Iraq war rather than building up our own nation, hence my point about it hurting our economy.

Thanks for clearing that up for me; I'm largely out of the loop on American politics outside of elections and therefore was just going off of what some seemingly more informed people said. I knew the war had to do with expenses, but I never really did my research on the Bush Administration's taxation and the like.

[Raist Classic]

Because Lades won't shut the fuck up:

Originally Posted by Saphere

If you ask me, I think it's the ads that turned this around. That horrible ad saying "omg Obama wants 2 raise ur taxes ull go hungry vote mccain" (Disclaimer: I dumbed it down because I'm so sick of it) appeals to a lot of people, but to the more intelligent ones, we an see that higher taxes lead to more spending which leads to more jobs, and isn't unemployment an issue? Where I am now, we have a 13% sales Tax (5% Goods and Services Tax, 8% Provincial Sales Tax) and a 25 to 35% (depending on your annual income, the more the higher) income tax, and that's not even counting extras like property taxes. We're doing quite nicely up here at the moment (please ignore my personal shitty situation, it's not the government's fault) and you know, if a 2-5% tax increase would lead to more jobs, and a few billion dollars SURPLUS rather than deficit, then I'd support it.

Let's take a look at the last 4 Presidents. Regan, Big Bush, Clinton, and Little Bush. Regan, Big B, and Lil' B didn't have a "Tax and Spend" policy, to my understanding. I believe the term is "Fiscal Conservative." Basically, they left the economy be and didn't do anything about it. I hear they had a legacy of 200 billion and more dollars of debt, although I haven't personally researched this. Clinton, on the other hand, had a Tax and Spend policy, and not only did the economy get much better, but there was a surplus! Bush Jr comes in, and the economy starts to drop... coincidence? McCain is a Fiscal Conservative, Obama has a Tax and Spend plan. The problems of today are important, but what matters more is the future, and who would you rather have paving the road to tommorow, a man who improves the economy, or a man who leaves it stagnant? McCain may have experience, but here's the difference: never forget the 2 term limit on presidency. Obama will spend more time outside of office than McCain will after presidency is over due to being much younger, and I'm sure he wants to make the country a better place for himself and his children, because if he fucks up, he'll be feeling it longer.

Would I vote Obama? Yes. Do I agree with him on everything? Of course not, but I know that above all else, a country with a shot economy is steps away from ruin, and having a surplus to work with is a better bet than debt. Mind you, I'm Canadian, so my views ultimately mean shit all in this election, I'm simply sharing my two cents.

You need to stop forming opinions based on false information, and you also need to familiarize yourself with the term "economic cycle."

Originally Posted by Yvl

The ads themselves are, for the most part, blatantly untrue. Obama is only in favor of raising taxes for people making over $200k a year. Middle class people, which are the ones stupidly buying into McCain's attack ads, would be getting a tax BREAK.

You need to stop pretending that Obama doesn't run blatantly untrue attack ads.

And when did it become "okay" to "raise taxes, but only on the rich?" I'm still trying to figure that one out. Well, who's rich? Probably people who are good with money. So who's good with money? Well, Jews. So, Obama's trying to turn Jews into second-class citizens? GOLLY GEE, I WONDER WHERE THIS IS GOING.

Lades, I gave up weeks ago, so seriously, stop bothering me about this.

[Chicken Little]

Originally Posted by The Deity

Forgive me for not seeing the blatantly obvious connection either. Certainly the war is a factor, but I don't see it as the underlying cause of our economic problems. By the way, I don't really see 'economics' as a good reason to stop a war you believe is right, unless the country is becoming devastated, which by the way, we're not.

One could argue that considering the amount of net debt the US has waging a war which includes not only the deployment & operational costs but also further military spending is a key factor in the lack of support during various "disasters" (manpower & supplies lost to war) and lack of then investment in infrastructure due to military spending. I agree that the war itself is most probably minuscule, but that also it was an unnecessary addition to the economic burdens.

[Yvlla]

Originally Posted by Raistifer C. Jones

You need to stop pretending that Obama doesn't run blatantly untrue attack ads.

Examples? Forgive me for taking Obama's word over McCain's, McCain hasn't exactly earned my trust.

[Raist Classic]

Link.

[Yvlla]

lol k.

I'm still seeing him saying that HE believes people are better off, but recognizes that they don't perceive it that way. I'm honestly not sure what to think when he says "Things are good" followed by "Things are bad."

The ad is a bit disappointing though.

[The Deity]

Originally Posted by Midge

Clinton, on the other hand, had a Tax and Spend policy, and not only did the economy get much better, but there was a surplus! Bush Jr comes in, and the economy starts to drop... coincidence?

You basically hit the nail on the head with *coincidence*. Actually Reagan was very involved with the economy. He lowered taxes to business, which in turned caused more business to open and thus more jobs. The "supply-side" economics didn't just immediately impact the United States overnight. Obviously it takes small time businesses a while to grow and to turn into major corporations. So guess who was president when these small corporations became big time and the economy soured. Yeah, Clinton.

Not to mention the economy fluctuates on its own merits. Not even the most experienced and skilled economists can completely rationalize why we have dips and why we do so well for portions of time. We've gotten much better at controlling the bad times. But the economy is always going to be changing.

[Yvlla]

Originally Posted by The Deity

which in turned caused more business to open and thus more jobs.

Which W then decided to complement by giving more tax breaks to companies that get those jobs outside America. And that McCain wants to make permanent.

I understand the theory behind those tax breaks, by the way, I just think it's paranoia-driven bullshit, and that there are better ways to keep companies in America aside from giving them tax breaks for moving the most important part of the corporation elsewhere.

[Dark Luther]

Originally Posted by Deitydrum

You basically hit the nail on the head with *coincidence*. Actually Reagan was very involved with the economy. He lowered taxes to business, which in turned caused more business to open and thus more jobs. The "supply-side" economics didn't just immediately impact the United States overnight. Obviously it takes small time businesses a while to grow and to turn into major corporations. So guess who was president when these small corporations became big time and the economy soured. Yeah, Clinton.

Not to mention the economy fluctuates on its own merits. Not even the most experienced and skilled economists can completely rationalize why we have dips and why we do so well for portions of time. We've gotten much better at controlling the bad times. But the economy is always going to be changing.

Wow, I can't believe I let this one get away -
btw...guess this thread turned out completly wrong...


If anyone still cares - there's quite a few things wrong with the concept of Reagenonmics...

The tax cuts that Reagan implemented where not particular to small bussiness when compared to those that Clinton did.
His cuts effected the above 500k cap much more.

Many of these faltered anyway later during Bush's presidency.

Anyway - Bush Sr. reversed much of that during his time.


I believe the truth is the opposite of reagan's concept.
Trickle up is more common place -
which explains the results of Bush Sr, who raised taxes across the nation - and left several cuts in higher areas.

Again, causing an economic depression just like his son would do.


Mind you W cut taxes across the board, but cut them mainly in the higher classes.
This was done 6-7 years ago and has been maintained.
There is no economic boon coming anywhere soon...


I'm tired of this delayed action crap Republicans come up with...


I'm a historian..., historians hate people who ignore history or manipulate it...