I need voting advice

[hockeywings]

seriously guy? Obama was known for compromise before. I hate it as his presidency wears on, but anyone who expected anything but compromise is kidding themselves.

The republicans have shown themselves to be anti working class and pro millionaire. Anti-science and anti-progress. Show me anyone that Eisenhower would be proud of and I'll buy you a cookie.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Yeh sure, the rich only give more to this country but yet they get ripped. Almost like people are jealous. Obama got elected for two reasons, because he is black and people got sick of Bush. And its showing, he knows nothing about helping a country.

 

[hockeywings]

How are they getting screwed? And how do they give more to this country?

You do realize that during this economic depression the rich have gained income while the working class loses income right?

 

[Michchamp]

Mitch[/color]]

I was giving him an opinion of the republican side of the field. Obama almost guaranteed wins the next election because the republicans have shit for a field.

But, like I said, out of the republicans, Ron Paul is easily the most consistent. Romney had his mandated health care in his state. Bachmann sucks off the government tit for their clinics, Perry thinks social security is a ponze scheme, wait no he doesn't, wait he wrote it in his book.

And who was Obama before he won. Nothing, just a black man.

he was a U.S. Senator from Illinois

 

[Mitchrapp]

I understand that. They're all senators or governors etc. But someone mention a guy shouldn't run on the republican side because of "what has he done". So I made a comparison point.

As far as the other comment, I just think the rich get blamed a lot because they're rich. They get taxed an awful lot. And not all of them of course but guys like Bill Gates donate a shit load of cash to charities. They're not all just a bunch of pricks.

 

[Michchamp]

okay, well the wealthiest portion of society used to pay a lot more taxes, even under Republican administrations, they're wealthier now than they ever were before, despite the increasing number of Americans moving below the poverty line, they don't actually work harder than anyone else, despite that fallacy that every cent in someone's bank account represents hard-earned labor, and they actually avoid a lot of tax liability by characterizing income as other things, something you can't really afford to do unless you already have money and can buy annuities, or invest in substantial dividend paying securities, etc.

side note: not implying this could be anyone here... but show me someone struggling to meet their personal bills, debts, health insurance, and education for their kids who is defending the historically low tax rates currently paid by the top 1-5% of the wealthiest people in this country, and I will show you a SAP giving away everything his forefathers fought for.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Because Obama and Warren Buffet say so? Some rich probably do pay little in taxes but most pay far more than you or I do. And regardless if they "earned" their money, though I'm not sure how you determined "earned", its still their money.

 

[hockeywings]

No, because facts say so. The average rich income tax rate from 1992 to 2006 were: 26% 29% 28% 29% 27% 24% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 19% 18% 18% 17% 16% 18% (source: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08intop400.pdf).

Anyone who makes capital gains only pays a maximum of 15%.

So if you are single, you are paying a bigger share of your income than the rich if you make over $33,951 and only slightly less of a percentage of you income if you make over $8,351.

So, now please point out how the rich are getting fleeced.

 

[hockeywings]

Just like my right wing uncle, never responds to facts...

 

[food4thought]

As a conservative who believes strongly in limited government I have to say even I think the top 5% need to pay a little more, at least for the short term until we can re-establish a truly limited federal government.

There actually IS something to be said for trickle down economics, but the major corporations will continue to outsource labor as long as it is economicaly advantagous to do so. The major shift in our trade policies over the last 15 years has destroyed the incentive for large corporations to manufacture in the States, and even the tax breaks haven't made it as profitable as outsourcing. Corporations are not like individuals with a social conscience, they are conglomerates whose only goal is the bottom line. As long as the bottom line says it is more profitable to do business overseas than in the states we will continue this economic quagmire.

I believe we should raise tarrifs on incoming goods as one part of the solution, and force companies to do business here in order to be more profitable. It will have a negative short term effect as products will cost more on the shelves, but over the long term it will move manufacturing jobs back to the US.
JMO

BTW, I know of no candidate that has expressed any desire to do this.

 

[jever4321]

As a conservative who believes strongly in limited government I have to say even I think the top 5% need to pay a little more, at least for the short term until we can re-establish a truly limited federal government.

There actually IS something to be said for trickle down economics, but the major corporations will continue to outsource labor as long as it is economicaly advantagous to do so. The major shift in our trade policies over the last 15 years has destroyed the incentive for large corporations to manufacture in the States, and even the tax breaks haven't made it as profitable as outsourcing. Corporations are not like individuals with a social conscience, they are conglomerates whose only goal is the bottom line. As long as the bottom line says it is more profitable to do business overseas than in the states we will continue this economic quagmire.

I believe we should raise tarrifs on incoming goods as one part of the solution, and force companies to do business here in order to be more profitable. It will have a negative short term effect as products will cost more on the shelves, but over the long term it will move manufacturing jobs back to the US.
JMO

BTW, I know of no candidate that has expressed any desire to do this.

I couldn't agree more. That would level the playing field.

 

[byco42]

Just like my right wing uncle, never responds to facts...

What hockey team does he play for?

 

[Michchamp]

Just like my right wing uncle, never responds to facts...

What hockey team does he play for?

the Dallas Republitards

 

[tinselwolverine]

Just like my right wing uncle, never responds to facts...

What hockey team does he play for?

My own dear uncle owned a small grocery store.

One day this downtrodden looking young fellow walked into his store and asked for a job.

"I may look down on my luck, but I promise you, I'm the sharpest quickest fella ya ever met."

My uncle had his doubts, but being a compassionate man, he gave the young guy a chance.

About a half hour after he started to work, the young guy walks up from the back of of the store and says to my uncle "there's some dumbass in the back of the store asking how much a half head of lettuce costs."

He turns around to see that the customer has followed him up to the front of the store.

"And this gentleman would like to buy the other half."

After the transaction had occurred, and the satisfied customer had left the store, my uncle said "you know, I had my doubts about you, but you've proved me wrong! You are sharp. Where are you from?"

"Canada," the young man answers.

"Canada?" my uncle asks.

"Yeah, Canada. You know, that country up north, where half the women are whores, and the other half are hockey players?"

So my uncle just stares at this kid for a good 10 seconds, and answers finally "Yes, I know Canada really well, as a matter of fact. My wife is from Canada."

"Oh, really? What team did she play for?"

 

[hockeywings]

I disagree about trickle down economics. It is based on a thought experiment with the Laffer curve. The analogy that come to mind is what happens when you give a rich man a loaf of bread? He puts it in the pantry because he doesn't need it. What happens when you give a poor man bread? He eats it because he is starving. The rich don't need to spend the extra money, they can just save and save. Whereas if you give a poor man money, he is going to spend it because he needs to.

Spending creates demand, demand creates jobs, jobs grow the economy.