Have you seen him field questions on the economy? Are you electing his advisers or him? The rest of the statement is quite plain and simple. Read Adam Smith's 'The Wealth of Nations' for a run down on classical economic theory.Pug wrote:
Ok, so prove McCain is economically incompetent. Feel free to use Arizona as an example.CameronPoe wrote:
Probably because McCain is economically incompetent and only wants to improve life for the 1% of people who are uber-rich and who happen to currently be holding onto all of their capital because it's too risky to employ it at the moment following years of government incomepetence with respect to the economy.
The rest of your statement...please clarify.
yes read a book. lol
“The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,” he said. But, “I’ve got Greenspan’s book”.
lol. That's a real backward hick comment there. Reading = bad. Ignorance = good. Expect no less from you.usmarine wrote:
yes read a book. lol
The Liberal argument is tiresome as well tbh.lowing wrote:
Well Serge, I have not made a racist comment, here or anyewhere else for that matter. I do not compare Obama and Oprah, I have shown that Oprah is largely the reason for Obamas just add water instant success. She gave him exposure in Chicago and came out full force to fund and endorse a campaign.sergeriver wrote:
Kind of a racist comment to make. Why compare Obama to Oprah? Why not to a white person? You don't like Obama just coz he's black and you should admit it. Lame.lowing wrote:
Because it is really the only way Oprah...........sorry OBAMA can discredit McCain he has to make him appear that he is in fact a resurrected unpopular Bush. He does this because he can not defeat him in any other category except this mysterious "change" he is so proud of, yet will not disclose.
The fact that she is black really has nothing to do with it. The fact that Obana is black really has nothing to do with it. The fact that he is a liberal has everything to do with it.
See it as I called it along time ago. Say somethinng against Obama and you are a racist......tiresome, predictable and typical, but tiresome.
well he asked you to prove something, and you told him to read a book you dumb mick.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. That's a real backward hick comment there. Reading = bad. Ignorance = good. Expect no less from you.usmarine wrote:
yes read a book. lol
Last edited by usmarine (2008-09-04 07:35:00)
OK. I'll paint the picture for you. At the moment average America is getting poorer. The spending power of people is being diminished (lots of negative equity, higher unemployment). The non-necessary items that people buy in times of affluence are not being purchased as much. The people who employ their capital in business ventures that employ labour and that produce such products will withdraw their capital from such ventures because they will see the market signal that demand for their goods is drying up and as such their business has become riskier. This puts further pressure on the average citizen/consumer. Bush has followed a mantra of giving breaks to the rich in the hope that growth will be stimulated, with rich capitalists engaging in more business ventures to increase and multiply their capital. That evidently has failed miserably. As such, logically, in order to increase demand for products it is now perhaps time to engage in a period of bottom-up economics until such time as prosperity returns, whereupon a return to trickle-down economics can be implemented afresh.usmarine wrote:
well he asked you to prove something, and you told him to read a book.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. That's a real backward hick comment there. Reading = bad. Ignorance = good. Expect no less from you.usmarine wrote:
yes read a book. lol
lol.CameronPoe wrote:
Have you seen him field questions on the economy? Are you electing his advisers or him? The rest of the statement is quite plain and simple. Read Adam Smith's 'The Wealth of Nations' for a run down on classical economic theory.Pug wrote:
Ok, so prove McCain is economically incompetent. Feel free to use Arizona as an example.CameronPoe wrote:
Probably because McCain is economically incompetent and only wants to improve life for the 1% of people who are uber-rich and who happen to currently be holding onto all of their capital because it's too risky to employ it at the moment following years of government incomepetence with respect to the economy.
The rest of your statement...please clarify.
I'm not seeing the same thing you are. I don't like either McCain & Obama in the economic department.
I'm asking for clarification because:
First, you are our resident economic wizard on the US...living in Ireland. So I find it interesting to figure out what is filtered thru to you, and you're take on it.
Second point of clarification: are you talking about taxing the rich? So, Mr. Wealth of Nations, what happens when the wealthy get taxed...and exactly how does this impact the economy? Think about that a sec.
Third point...are you saying holding onto their capital is bad when the economy sucks? So exactly what programs does Obama have to encourage them to invest it? By raising capital gains taxes to 40%?
I wasn't being snarky the first time around btw. I find it unusual that you are focused on the economy and not overseas relations...but ok with me.
Ive called you a racist long before Obama ran for president.lowing wrote:
Well Serge, I have not made a racist comment, here or anyewhere else for that matter. I do not compare Obama and Oprah, I have shown that Oprah is largely the reason for Obamas just add water instant success. She gave him exposure in Chicago and came out full force to fund and endorse a campaign.sergeriver wrote:
Kind of a racist comment to make. Why compare Obama to Oprah? Why not to a white person? You don't like Obama just coz he's black and you should admit it. Lame.lowing wrote:
Because it is really the only way Oprah...........sorry OBAMA can discredit McCain he has to make him appear that he is in fact a resurrected unpopular Bush. He does this because he can not defeat him in any other category except this mysterious "change" he is so proud of, yet will not disclose.
The fact that she is black really has nothing to do with it. The fact that Obana is black really has nothing to do with it. The fact that he is a liberal has everything to do with it.
See it as I called it along time ago. Say somethinng against Obama and you are a racist......tiresome, predictable and typical, but tiresome.
Much better.CameronPoe wrote:
OK. I'll paint the picture for you. At the moment average America is getting poorer. The spending power of people is being diminished (lots of negative equity, higher unemployment). The non-necessary items that people buy in times of affluence are not being purchased as much. The people who employ their capital in business ventures that employ labour and that produce such products will withdraw their capital from such ventures because they will see the market signal that demand for their goods is drying up and as such their business has become riskier. This puts further pressure on the average citizen/consumer. Bush has followed a mantra of giving breaks to the rich in the hope that growth will be stimulated, with rich capitalists engaging in more business ventures to increase and multiply their capital. That evidently has failed miserably. As such, logically, in order to increase demand for products it is now perhaps time to engage in a period of bottom-up economics until such time as prosperity returns, whereupon a return to trickle-down economics can be implemented afresh.
Thanks. But what in McCain's plan is not accomplishing this, and what in Obama's is?
aka prove it.
Last edited by Pug (2008-09-04 07:53:49)
I saw a diagram comparing which segments of society would be affected by each candidate's tax cuts/increases and McCain had the richest sector of society benefitting greatly while those lower down the pecking order seeing little or no benefit. I would have to root around for the diagram - somebody else posted it.Pug wrote:
Much better.CameronPoe wrote:
OK. I'll paint the picture for you. At the moment average America is getting poorer. The spending power of people is being diminished (lots of negative equity, higher unemployment). The non-necessary items that people buy in times of affluence are not being purchased as much. The people who employ their capital in business ventures that employ labour and that produce such products will withdraw their capital from such ventures because they will see the market signal that demand for their goods is drying up and as such their business has become riskier. This puts further pressure on the average citizen/consumer. Bush has followed a mantra of giving breaks to the rich in the hope that growth will be stimulated, with rich capitalists engaging in more business ventures to increase and multiply their capital. That evidently has failed miserably. As such, logically, in order to increase demand for products it is now perhaps time to engage in a period of bottom-up economics until such time as prosperity returns, whereupon a return to trickle-down economics can be implemented afresh.
Thanks. But what in McCain's plan is not accomplishing this, and what in Obama's is?
aka prove it.
why are you telling me your economic opinion cam? i could give a toss what you think. he asked why you said mccain was inept. funny since you are psychic you know how it would turn out.
?CameronPoe wrote:
I saw a diagram comparing which segments of society would be affected by each candidate's tax cuts/increases and McCain had the richest sector of society benefitting greatly while those lower down the pecking order seeing little or no benefit. I would have to root around for the diagram - somebody else posted it.Pug wrote:
Much better.CameronPoe wrote:
OK. I'll paint the picture for you. At the moment average America is getting poorer. The spending power of people is being diminished (lots of negative equity, higher unemployment). The non-necessary items that people buy in times of affluence are not being purchased as much. The people who employ their capital in business ventures that employ labour and that produce such products will withdraw their capital from such ventures because they will see the market signal that demand for their goods is drying up and as such their business has become riskier. This puts further pressure on the average citizen/consumer. Bush has followed a mantra of giving breaks to the rich in the hope that growth will be stimulated, with rich capitalists engaging in more business ventures to increase and multiply their capital. That evidently has failed miserably. As such, logically, in order to increase demand for products it is now perhaps time to engage in a period of bottom-up economics until such time as prosperity returns, whereupon a return to trickle-down economics can be implemented afresh.
Thanks. But what in McCain's plan is not accomplishing this, and what in Obama's is?
aka prove it.
Ok, I'm actually working, so I'm going to cut to the chase.CameronPoe wrote:
I saw a diagram comparing which segments of society would be affected by each candidate's tax cuts/increases and McCain had the richest sector of society benefitting greatly while those lower down the pecking order seeing little or no benefit. I would have to root around for the diagram - somebody else posted it.
Here's what you're saying:
the government should invest in industries to stimulate the economy (trickle up). both candidates are doing that to different degrees.
you are focused on top-tier tax breaks (it seems). my argument on that it is it can only encourage investment in businesses. tax breaks for business are being put forth more freely with mccain than obama. but on top of that, obama will be reducing the amount of investments by increasing the capital gains tax rates, and indirectly by nailing people on the inheritance tax.
i do understand what you're saying - the theory of organic maintainable growth in the economy, not something artificially created by "tax packages". this is a fundamental difference between the dems and the reps - the dems care more about how the jobs are created than if the jobs are actually created, for instance.
so you were almost there...i got impatient.
CameronPoe wrote:
I saw a diagram comparing which segments of society would be affected by each candidate's tax cuts/increases and McCain had the richest sector of society benefitting greatly while those lower down the pecking order seeing little or no benefit. I would have to root around for the diagram - somebody else posted it.
edit, nevermind. ghetto just posted it before i did. lolghettoperson wrote:
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn … 200193.gif
Last edited by TheAussieReaper (2008-09-04 08:10:40)
thanks non americans
Obama for Supreme ruler of Europe.
Interesting diagram there. They should've included the % of the US population who live in those income brackets too. To see who the majority benifits more from. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Obamas taxes help out more Americans than McCainsghettoperson wrote:
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn … 200193.gif
edit: Nvm, bottom 3 = 60% of USA taxpayers
Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-09-04 08:14:36)
what hapened to your US only thread?usmarine wrote:
thanks non americans
Oh yeah, a non-US mod closed it. lol
They did Mek. The bottom three tiers represent 60% of the tax paying population. Top tier 0.1%, 2nd top tier is 1%.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Interesting diagram there. They should've included the % of the US population who live in those income brackets too. To see who the majority benifits more from. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Obamas taxes help out more Americans than McCainsghettoperson wrote:
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn … 200193.gif
So McCain helps 1.1% of tax payers. Obama, 60% of all tax payers.
More than 60%, Obama also taxes 66-111 people less too.TheAussieReaper wrote:
They did Mek. The bottom three tiers represent 60% of the tax paying population. Top tier 0.1%, 2nd top tier is 1%.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Interesting diagram there. They should've included the % of the US population who live in those income brackets too. To see who the majority benifits more from. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Obamas taxes help out more Americans than McCainsghettoperson wrote:
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn … 200193.gif
So McCain helps 1.1% of tax payers. Obama, 60% of all tax payers.
I'd base my vote solely on this one. Unless I was living in the income brackets that McCains policies help out.
Also I saw it and edited by post
TBH I think economically both candidates aren't very good. However Obama's taxes make far more sense.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
More than 60%, Obama also taxes 66-111 people less too.TheAussieReaper wrote:
They did Mek. The bottom three tiers represent 60% of the tax paying population. Top tier 0.1%, 2nd top tier is 1%.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Interesting diagram there. They should've included the % of the US population who live in those income brackets too. To see who the majority benifits more from. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Obamas taxes help out more Americans than McCains
So McCain helps 1.1% of tax payers. Obama, 60% of all tax payers.
I'd base my vote solely on this one. Unless I was living in the income brackets that McCains policies help out.
Also I saw it and edited by post
No, I am suggesting that the total opposite is applicable in this situation. Trickle-up - improving the spending power of consumers through tax breaks as against investors because evidently bolstering the financial wellbeing of investors (as occurred under Bush) failed miserably and the average American is now poorer (creating a downward spiral of contraction). The increased spending power, although the risk of inflation would exist, should help increase the demand market again and allow capital to flow from those withholding it under the current economic climate.Pug wrote:
Ok, I'm actually working, so I'm going to cut to the chase.CameronPoe wrote:
I saw a diagram comparing which segments of society would be affected by each candidate's tax cuts/increases and McCain had the richest sector of society benefitting greatly while those lower down the pecking order seeing little or no benefit. I would have to root around for the diagram - somebody else posted it.
Here's what you're saying:
the government should invest in industries to stimulate the economy (trickle up). both candidates are doing that to different degrees.
you are focused on top-tier tax breaks (it seems). my argument on that it is it can only encourage investment in businesses. tax breaks for business are being put forth more freely with mccain than obama. but on top of that, obama will be reducing the amount of investments by increasing the capital gains tax rates, and indirectly by nailing people on the inheritance tax.
i do understand what you're saying - the theory of organic maintainable growth in the economy, not something artificially created by "tax packages". this is a fundamental difference between the dems and the reps - the dems care more about how the jobs are created than if the jobs are actually created, for instance.
so you were almost there...i got impatient.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-09-04 08:37:39)
hmmm... everyone i know has not had a pay cut at all. matter of fact, all raises. i need to find some average americans i guess.