McCain's trend

[loki]

Which is why I'm voting for Obama.

well if R's get congress again, maybe we could see another budget surplus like during clinton years.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

and if they didn't have to mess with taxes.. that'd be happier owners and more productive too. (less "down time")

You don't appreciate what a nice perk it is to immediately expense something as a business.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

well if R's get congress again, maybe we could see another budget surplus like during clinton years.

And get nothing else done? EH i guess thats Okay. It would be even better to get a REAL fiscal conservative in there as president with a REAL fiscal conservative congress. Of course it wouldn't look much different than a Clinton era fiscal responsible thing.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Drew Dowdell]

and if they didn't have to mess with taxes.. that'd be happier owners and more productive too. (less "down time")

Great... so they're more productive... and pay less taxes....

BUT THEY STILL HAVE NO CUSTOMERS!@!!!!!!

[siegen]

Great... so they're more productive... and pay less taxes....

BUT THEY STILL HAVE NO CUSTOMERS!@!!!!!!

Businesses that are in a better financial situation are more able to hire workers and pay more, meaning their workers can go out and buy stuff from other businesses more, which in turn improves the financial situation of those businesses and their workers. It should also help with the unemployment rate. It doesn't really matter who tax cuts go to, as long as they go to people that need it, which would be the lower/middle class and businesses.

If McCain implements tax cuts that will benefit the wealthy/aristocrats/famous as well, then I think that even though it may be "fair", it is not wise. The wealthy are in a position to use their wealth to make them even more money. They likely pay less taxes on their wealth than most of us do already, since our wealth is mostly spent as fast as it is received, and we're paying full taxes on most everything we purchase and on the income itself (since it is mostly made from working). The wealth gap, as others have said, is enormous. People may not like the idea of Obama's "rob from the rich give to the poor" tax plan (which is sensationalism), but I think it is beneficial to the large majority of citizens and businesses (businesses generally aren't run by the upper class, at least the majority of small/medium size businesses). Obama's plan may not appear to benefit businesses, but consider that the lower and middle class will pay lower taxes, and these are the people that purchase from small and medium sized businesses, and work for those businesses.

That's my take on it anyway.

[Drew Dowdell]

Businesses that are in a better financial situation are more able to hire workers and pay more, meaning their workers can go out and buy stuff from other businesses more, which in turn improves the financial situation of those businesses and their workers. It should also help with the unemployment rate. It doesn't really matter who tax cuts go to, as long as they go to people that need it, which would be the lower/middle class and businesses.

Again, Why would any business expand in the current market?

[Drew Dowdell]

An article in Newsweek has now revealed that McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, was receiving monthly $15,000 checks until last month from Freddie Mac, the mortgage agency that the government recently took over. In addition, the head of McCain's transition team, William Timmons, Sr., was a registered lobbyist for Freddie Mac until this month according to an article on Bloomberg News. His firm received $260,000 this year for unspecified work. Although McCain likes to rail against lobbyists and how he will put them in their place, having his campaign being run by people who lobbied for Freddie Mac cuts to the heart of his pitch as a reformer. This story is soon going to be all over the place (see for example, Newsday, the NY Times, and Roll Call).

[siegen]

Again, Why would any business expand in the current market?

They may not expand yet, but they won't lay off as many workers and may hire more if their bottom line is better.

I'm just saying. I do think the most important thing to do right now is improve consumer's buying power. Lowering taxes is one way to do so. When consumers see their weekly pay check increase, it will go a long ways to improving their confidence and encouraging them to use their buying power.

[balthazar]

>>"An article in Newsweek has now revealed that McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, was receiving monthly $15,000 checks until last month from Freddie Mac"<<

And BO's advisor Franklin Raines took $90 million from Freddie Mac and skipped on restitution in part via valueless stock options.

[Drew Dowdell]

Franklin Raines was CEO and that was from 1999 to 2004.

Rick Davis was getting checks from Freddie Mac while being on McCain's campaign staff as recently as August.

Try again.

[balthazar]

Davis got what- $100K?

Raines got $90,000,000.

You try again.

[Drew Dowdell]

Raines was CEO!

Davis IS CURRENTLY on McCain's CAMPAIGN STAFF.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Again, Why would any business expand in the current market?

Your are correct in your assumption that businesses wouldn't really want to start up in a slow market (unless they are opening up a discount mega store).

Supply side economics work best when they are put into place after an economy bottoms out and starts to lift itself back up. Proper use of can lead to a prolonged expansionary period.

Keynesian economics may work in a time of economic troubles, but it will either a) not work or do very little, or b) create TOO MUCH GDP growth which would lead to terrible inflation. There is a fine line somewhere in there where it might work well, but who knows where that line is?

So, you got Obama's income redistribution plan, which Americans will probably use to pay off debt. So we will see zero extra growth in the first like year. Then it may help us to get out of recession, then when we are out of recession, further growth will be slower because small businesses will be taxed up the wazoo in same cases, and i guarantee you people will come up with very clever ways to get around paying the extra taxes if their business gets too big.

And despite what you say about supply side, if you give business the ability to immediately expense purchases for say a few years, this gives businesses a LOT of incentives to perhaps update their current machinery or whatever (it will ultimately lower their taxes). This in turn gives suppliers a lot of cash, who can then go around and update their machinery, giving other suppliers cash. As these businesses get some cash, they may be able to pay their employees a little more, who will then go out to stores and buy stuff. When they buy stuff at stores the stores gets extra revenue and well.... you get it.

[Drew Dowdell]

Trickle. Down. Doesn't. Work.

[A Horse With No Name]

Trickle. Down. Doesn't. Work.

No, it really doesn't. Actually the person that I blame most for our nations current problems is actually Ronald Reagan for promoting this silly stuff in the first place.

The idiocy of McCain and Co. is just a further manifestation of Reagans stupidity.

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

well if R's get congress again, maybe we could see another budget surplus like during clinton years.

...or better yet, get the dems to take both houses and the presidency and end the last 8 years of Republican leadership.

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

Your are correct in your assumption that businesses wouldn't really want to start up in a slow market (unless they are opening up a discount mega store).

Supply side economics work best when they are put into place after an economy bottoms out and starts to lift itself back up. Proper use of can lead to a prolonged expansionary period.

Keynesian economics may work in a time of economic troubles, but it will either a) not work or do very little, or b) create TOO MUCH GDP growth which would lead to terrible inflation. There is a fine line somewhere in there where it might work well, but who knows where that line is?

So, you got Obama's income redistribution plan, which Americans will probably use to pay off debt. So we will see zero extra growth in the first like year. Then it may help us to get out of recession, then when we are out of recession, further growth will be slower because small businesses will be taxed up the wazoo in same cases, and i guarantee you people will come up with very clever ways to get around paying the extra taxes if their business gets too big.

And despite what you say about supply side, if you give business the ability to immediately expense purchases for say a few years, this gives businesses a LOT of incentives to perhaps update their current machinery or whatever (it will ultimately lower their taxes). This in turn gives suppliers a lot of cash, who can then go around and update their machinery, giving other suppliers cash. As these businesses get some cash, they may be able to pay their employees a little more, who will then go out to stores and buy stuff. When they buy stuff at stores the stores gets extra revenue and well.... you get it.

This is why the middle class has shrunken since Reagan took over.

Sorry, no dice, bad thinking.

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

McCain will be a fiscal conservative out of necessity... there won't be anything left to spend.

Since when (Regan, Bush Sr, Bush Jr) has that slowed down a Republican president?

Chris

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Finally found an article that describes how Bush's tax cuts were progressive

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html

and this decade is a BAD EXAMPLE. Because 1) WE ARE RUNNING A MASSIVE DEFICIT, and 2) We were hit by a recession early and late.

1) is an example of Keynesian economics, the government is effectively providing jobs to the defense contractors to make guns and stuff, which clearly is not really working out so hot for the economy. a further example of 1) is that there is a lot of money thats not in the economy cause its tied up in debt.

We at some point there are max government revenues, i don't know where that point is, nor do i know how it affects the different classes differently.

And finally, due to the deficit, i dont mind them raising taxes, but i DO MIND income redistribution. That is grossly unfair. Obama's plan is INCOME REDISTRIBUTION, one of the main tenants of Socialism.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[A Horse With No Name]

And finally, due to the deficit, i dont mind them raising taxes, but i DO MIND income redistribution. That is grossly unfair. Obama's plan is INCOME REDISTRIBUTION, one of the main tenants of Socialism.

Income redistribution...so it's wrong to tax a multimillionare so that some poor latino boy in San Antonio can get a decent lunch, or that his single mother can get decent section 8 housing, or that he can get health care when he is sick...?

If this is socialism I am all for it.

Chris

[Drew Dowdell]

Homework assignment:

Find out who qualifies, in Adjusted Gross Income, as being in the Top 50% but under the top 10% in tax year 2006.

Extra credit:

Justify that income range as being something other than "middle class".

[A Horse With No Name]

We at some point there are max government revenues, i don't know where that point is, nor do i know how it affects the different classes differently.

Max Revenue isn't the problem here. The problem is massive deficits and McCains ability to do anything about them.

We need to tax so that we can balance the budget sand stop the bleeding, period.

McCains plan is jnust another Bush-esque giveaway to the rich.

Chris

[Drew Dowdell]

Income redistribution...so it's wrong to tax a multimillionare so that some poor latino boy in San Antonio can get a decent lunch, or that his single mother can get decent section 8 housing, or that he can get health care when he is sick...?

If this is socialism I am all for it.

Chris

Only because the multimillionaire is opposed to paying him a living wage even going so far as to use congressional action to prevent it.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Income redistribution...so it's wrong to tax a multimillionare so that some poor latino boy in San Antonio can get a decent lunch, or that his single mother can get decent section 8 housing, or that he can get health care when he is sick...?

If this is socialism I am all for it.

Chris

Heres an analogy.

If a guy comes up to a rich guy, sticks a gun to his head, and says, give me your money. That man now has his money and that's income redistribution.

The government can essentially "stick a gun to your head" legally.

The other problem with this is, if this poor family is now receiving federal aid (forever i'm guessing) wouldn't they be at least somewhat less inclined to work harder?

I would be infinitely more in favor of "income redistribution" through favorable tax code that allows contributions (unlike the current tax code where some multimillionaire can donate to some lame ass art society, which benefits no one except themselves), and get a tax break for it. Mainly because if you have the government do it, you can be assured that a lot of that money will be wasted through inefficiency.

It's very similar to having your parents do everything for you. Sure they can do it, but since they aren't you they probably wont do it quite as well to fit you, wasting time and efficiency.

If i was a millionaire, i guarantee you that 70% of my paycheck would go to donations (i am a man of simple means). But if already 40% of my paycheck is going to the gubment to give to others, i am less inclined to donate myself. Of course i realize that many millionaires are more greedy than i am and so this is not representative of society.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Homework assignment:

Find out who qualifies, in Adjusted Gross Income, as being in the Top 50% but under the top 10% in tax year 2006.

Extra credit:

Justify that income range as being something other than "middle class".

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

'bout $32,000

Although, i WILL CONCEDE to you, that if you tax the rich enough (but not enough that they simply leave) they may be more inclined to pay others more wages (because thats an expense and so can be written off against income). But im not 100% sure that would happen. But on the other hand, if they pay more wages and people have more money, then wouldn't the price of stuff go up? And if it does where did that get us?

Edited September 24, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Intrepidation]

If i was a millionaire, i guarantee you that 70% of my paycheck would go to donations (i am a man of simple means). But if already 40% of my paycheck is going to the gubment to give to others, i am less inclined to donate myself. Of course i realize that many millionaires are more greedy than i am and so this is not representative of society.

[Drew Dowdell]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[Drew Dowdell]

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

'bout $32,000

Although, i WILL CONCEDE to you, that if you tax the rich enough (but not enough that they simply leave) they may be more inclined to pay others more wages (because thats an expense and so can be written off against income). But im not 100% sure that would happen. But on the other hand, if they pay more wages and people have more money, then wouldn't the price of stuff go up? And if it does where did that get us?

A growing, productive economy?

Not sure if that was an attempt at a trick question or not.

[A Horse With No Name]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Amazingly, a trillion dollars later, the American population is too stupid to realize that it is largely republican deregulation that has gotten us here in the first place.

1930's, Deregulated banks collapse

1980's, Deregulated Savings and loans fall aprt.

1990's, deregulated utilites fall apart.

2008, deregulated/unregulated investment banking fails.

Part of being intelligent is learning from your mistakes. I think my dog learns faster than certain folks who call for "deregulation" and call for an unregulated buisiness climate.

Chris

Edited September 24, 2008 by 66Stang

[A Horse With No Name]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I'm waiting to hear how since the Democrats have held congress for two years that this is the fault of a democratic congress.

I've been going door to door for the Obama Campaign, and was told that Abu Girab (sp?) was the fault of congressional democrats who railroaded Bush into torturing people.

The reality denial just never ends.

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I'm waiting to hear how since the Democrats have held congress for two years that this is the fault of a democratic congress.

I've been going door to door for the Obama Campaign, and was told that Abu Girab (sp?) was the fault of congressional democrats who railroaded Bush into torturing people.

The reality denial just never ends.

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

...besides, whats a trillion or two between friends, anyways?

Nice how bush can spare a Trillion to bail out wall street but can't seem to fund Amtack, decent housing, decent healthcare, infrasturcture rebuilding, et al...

Sometimes I feel like Bush wants everything for Haliburton and nothing for people that actually work and have children in this country...

Chris

[gm4life]

McCain likes rolling the dice... Leave it to him instead of talking about change... He is doing something about it reinforcing his Maverick image. That is a leader to me, and the man I want leading my country.

Edited September 24, 2008 by gm4life

[A Horse With No Name]

He is doing something about it reinforcing his Maverick image. That is a leader to me, and the man I want leading my country.

By refusing to debate about an issue that's going to cost us a trillion dollars plus interest?

The economy needs adressed right now, and he knows he has nothing that will work.

Not the guy I want running a pizza joint in Toledo, much less my nation.

Chris

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

2008, deregulated/unregulated investment banking fails.

Attempted regulation in 2005 blocked by democrats

Part of being intelligent is learning from your mistakes. I think my dog learns faster than certain folks who call for "deregulation" and call for an unregulated buisiness climate.

part of being intelligent involves making intelligent decisions when confronted with them

Chris

By refusing to debate about an issue that's going to cost us a trillion dollars plus interest?

The economy needs adressed right now, and he knows he has nothing that will work.

Not the guy I want running a pizza joint in Toledo, much less my nation.

Chris

IRAQ is a near pointless topic now. We already have troop withdrawal tables, what more do you want? The only difference now is that under McCain you can be assured that it will successfully be transferred over to Iraq. Under Obama you are only assured that we will leave, perhaps not successfully. Spending over in Iraq, as a difference between the two, will not be very significant, certainly not an extra trillion.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

So actual leadership is laughable now?

[gm4life]

By refusing to debate about an issue that's going to cost us a trillion dollars plus interest?

The economy needs adressed right now, and he knows he has nothing that will work.

Not the guy I want running a pizza joint in Toledo, much less my nation.

Chris

I want the man whom keeps running his campigen ads, and doesn't want to solve current problems and talk about them. Yeah right.

Once again another example of McCain putting country first.

[Drew Dowdell]

Heres an analogy.

If a guy comes up to a rich guy, sticks a gun to his head, and says, give me your money. That man now has his money and that's income redistribution.

The government can essentially "stick a gun to your head" legally.

The other problem with this is, if this poor family is now receiving federal aid (forever i'm guessing) wouldn't they be at least somewhat less inclined to work harder?

Where have I ever suggested that the taxes of the rich be paid directly to the poor?

1st: I want to lower taxes, a lot, on those that fall into that bracket I made you look up.

2nd: Since the poor don't pay taxes, their taxes can't be lowered. I would invest heavily in public transit/infrastructure, public schools, public health, and higher education to open the opportunity to succeed to anyone in the lower classes who wants to reach for it.

If you're poor, you'll have to get your butt up off the couch and do something about it. You won't be getting any tax rebates/welfare from me.

[Drew Dowdell]

McCain likes rolling the dice... Leave it to him instead of talking about change... He is doing something about it reinforcing his Maverick image. That is a leader to me, and the man I want leading my country.

image....

all about the image.

I find it interesting that the guy who helped put the legislation in place that allowed this mess now wants to not debate about it so they can talk about cleaning it up.

[Satty]

How is using a delay tactic leadership? The debate is supposed to be on foreign policy (supposedly McCain's strong suit) and takes place on Friday night. If McCain is so well versed in foreign policy, he shouldn't need to spend the next 3 days studying like its a freaking Micro Biology exam. Besides, I'm pretty sure the president usually has more than one thing on his plate, so is McCain saying that he cannot multi-task? I'm sure the specifics of the bill can be emailed (oops, carrier pigeoned) to him so he can look them over while Palin is speaking and ducking the press and he can brush up on foreign policy between the Early-Bird special and Murder She Wrote.

[Drew Dowdell]

So actual leadership is laughable now?

Captain Smith-McCain aimed us right at an iceburg and ordered full speed ahead.

After we hit the iceburg Captain Smith-McCain says the gash isn't all that bad and suggests the ship is structurally sound and not to panic.

The entire prow is now under water, half the crew and passengers have drowned, yet Captain Smith-McCain insists the structure is still good.

The tail of the ship is now up in the air like a feeding duck, so Captain Smith-McCain calls the engine room and orders an ALL STOP to see if there is damage.

Captain Smith-McCain boldly declares that we shouldn't have aimed for the iceburg; Hailed as a maverick and a hero.

Leadership first.

[Drew Dowdell]

What about the ongoing crisis for 46,000,000 Americans who lack health insurance? What about the energy crisis? Or the crisis faced by real families every single day who can't send their kids to decent school?

McCain served nearly 30 years in Washington. The only crisis he sees is his poll numbers falling like a rock. This stunt is as dishonest and dishonorable as the man himself has become.

[capriceman]

[siegen]

What about the energy crisis? Or the crisis faced by real families every single day who can't send their kids to decent school?

What about Crysis??????

haha, sorry o/t

[capriceman]

What about Crysis??????

haha, sorry o/t

Badass Game!!! but poor coding

[Drew Dowdell]

What about Crysis??????

haha, sorry o/t

Sorry, I don't want to bother with a game that needs an Intel Core 8 quatro just to run in low graphics mode.

[capriceman]

Sorry, I don't want to bother with a game that needs an Intel Core 8 quatro just to run in low graphics mode.

Its Graphics my friend, its really not CPU intensive. 8800 Gt will run it fine for a low price of $150 It relieves stress you should try it out.

[Drew Dowdell]

I stopped buying desktops years ago. If you want a decent graphics card in a laptop you have to go super high end and it kills battery life. Battery life is more important to me than the most recent games, so that wins.

[Satty]

"You don't suspend your campaign. This doesn't smell right. This isn't the way a tested hero behaves... I think someone's putting something in his metamucil. He can't run the campaign because the economy is cratering? Fine, put in your second string quarterback, Sara Palin. Where is she? What are you going to do if you're elected and things get tough? Suspend being president? We've got a guy like that now!"

--David Letterman

[siegen]

Yes, thread hijacked!

j/k lol

I can build a gaming desktop for around $700 (complete box, no keyboard/mouse/monitor) that will play Crysis on near-maxed graphics settings at 1280x1024 or 1680x1050. High quality parts too.

McCain probably doesn't play computer games, but I bet Obama does, so he gets my vote. And that is the only thing I am basing my vote on. I bet I could still take him down in a deathmatch though.

Edit: In all seriousness, and speaking of technology, Obama is undoubtedly more tech-savvy than McCain. I want a president who is "with it" when it comes to the latest technology. Whether that means the ability to use a smart phone, or the speed at which they can get and respond to emails, I think it is very important. Think about it. The president has to make a decision on some new environmental technology. If he has no clue what it is, he may rely on his advisers entirely to make his decision. If he is tech savvy, he may have a bit more insight into it, or even know a lot about it. I'm not saying Obama is a nerd or anything, cause if he was, there would have been no indecision on my part.

Edited September 24, 2008 by siegen

[Satty]

John McCain invented the Blackberry. :rolleyes: