• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Interim Thread of cunning stunts and desperate punts

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Door2Dawn

Banned
Haha guys McCain is ganna win a landslide Haha!!

HERE LET ME POST A LINK TO A POLL THAT NEGATIVE ABOUT OBAMA,PLEASE IGNORE THE FACT THAT MOST OF THESE POLLS ARE BULLSHIT PLZ LOL HAHA!

Boy those Obana supporters sure are mad now haha!
 
M

Miroku

Member
Someone convince me the following isn't true:

Obama's raising tax cuts on the rich will hurt the economy more than it will help. The top 5% earners are the ones who own all the companies and hire all the workers. All of these people will raise prices on their products and services to make up for the money they will now be losing to taxes, thereby negating any extra income from the tax cuts proposed for the other 95% of the country.

Nothing will be fixed by taxing the rich and redistributing wealth. Jobs will be lost, not created.
 
H

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Cleanup on Aisle 33.

Miroku said:
Someone convince me the following isn't true:

Obama's raising tax cuts on the rich will hurt the economy more than it will help. The top 5% earners are the ones who own all the companies and hire all the workers. All of these people will raise prices on their products and services to make up for the money they will now be losing to taxes, thereby negating any extra income from the tax cuts proposed for the other 95% of the country.

Nothing will be fixed by taxing the rich and redistributing wealth. Jobs will be lost, not created.
Click to expand...
This argument assumes two things:

- There is trickle-down to begin with.
- Tax rates are the only variable in an economy.
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
Miroku said:
Someone convince me the following isn't true:

Obama's raising tax cuts on the rich will hurt the economy more than it will help. The top 5% earners are the ones who own all the companies and hire all the workers. All of these people will raise prices on their products and services to make up for the money they will now be losing to taxes, thereby negating any extra income from the tax cuts proposed for the other 95% of the country.

Nothing will be fixed by taxing the rich and redistributing wealth. Jobs will be lost, not created.
Click to expand...

The rich had taxes raised during the Clinton years and the economy boomed, they had taxes cut during the Bush years and the economy flattened.
 
T

thekad

Banned
Miroku said:
Someone convince me the following isn't true:

Obama's raising tax cuts on the rich will hurt the economy more than it will help. The top 5% earners are the ones who own all the companies and hire all the workers. All of these people will raise prices on their products and services to make up for the money they will now be losing to taxes, thereby negating any extra income from the tax cuts proposed for the other 95% of the country.

Nothing will be fixed by taxing the rich and redistributing wealth. Jobs will be lost, not created.
Click to expand...

Trickle down economics lol
 
H

Hootie

Member
Hmm, so we have 60 days left until the election, and with the Conventions over we're back to the old grind. At least Maddow's new show should prove much more informative/better than the Verdict with Dan Abrams. I just don't know if I can take 3 hours of political shows a day much longer. :lol

There's Hardball at 5pm and 7pm (usually just watch the 5pm airing), Olbermann at 8pm, and Maddow at 9pm. Race to the Whitehouse is not very interesting to me so I skip that, too.

Monday will be a great start going back into the day-to-day campaign coverage, with Obama on Countdown and the premiere of Maddow's show. It's so strange talking about this because never in a million years would I have thought I'd be spending so much time on a political election.
 
L

Learn2read

Member
Kastrioti said:
What would you call three days of non stop coverage about Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter?
Click to expand...

The media being shitty media. Do you think if Obama had a pregnant teenage daughter things wouldn't have been 10 times worse, with right-wing douchebags puking out of my TV talking about "epidemic problems in the black community" etc...

If anything they did here a favor by distracting people from her actual record.

Edit: Banned, ah no fun...
 
M

maximum360

Member
mamacint said:
Can't help it, I'm an angry socialist I guess...
Click to expand...

I don't hear those senior citizen republicans complaining about angry liberals when they get their social security checks. They should be ashamed of themselves for taking advantage of the government. Someone should tell them to put down their walkers and go to work. The lazy bums.
 
C

CharlieDigital

Banned
Miroku said:
Someone convince me the following isn't true...
Click to expand...

http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

Under liberalism, productivity increases benefited all classes-- poverty rates declined from over 30% to under 10% in the thirty years after World War II, while the economy more than quadrupled in size.

In the current libertarian climate, productivity gains only go to the already well-off.

<SNIP-STATS-GO-HERE>

This should put some perspective on libertarian whining about high taxes and how we're destroying incentives for the oppressed businessman. The wealthiest 1% of the population doubled their share of the pie in just 15 years. In 1973, CEOs earned 45 times the pay of an average employee (about twice the multipler in Japan); today it's 500 times.

Thirty years ago, managers accepted that they operated as much for their workers, consumers, and neighbors as for themselves. Some economists (notably Michael Jensen and William Meckling) decided that the only stakeholders that mattered were the stock owners-- and that management would be more accountable if they were given massive amounts of stock. Not surprisingly, CEOs managed to get the stock without the accountability-- they're obscenely well paid whether the company does well or it tanks-- and the obsession with stock price led to mass layoffs, short-term thinking, and the financial dishonesty at WorldCom, Enron, Adelphia, HealthSouth, and elsewhere.
Click to expand...
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
Hootie said:
Hmm, so we have 60 days left until the election, and with the Conventions over we're back to the old grind. At least Maddow's new show should prove much more informative/better than the Verdict with Dan Abrams. I just don't know if I can take 3 hours of political shows a day much longer. :lol

There's Hardball at 5pm and 7pm (usually just watch the 5pm airing), Olbermann at 8pm, and Maddow at 9pm. Race to the Whitehouse is not very interesting to me so I skip that, too.

Monday will be a great start going back into the day-to-day campaign coverage, with Obama on Countdown and the premiere of Maddow's show. It's so strange talking about this because never in a million years would I have thought I'd be spending so much time on a political election.
Click to expand...

Just drop Hardball. Although will Race still have Maddow on it? I can't see why she'd do it.

Luckily it's also football season so that'll take my mind off politics!
 
T

Tommie Hu$tle

Member
Miroku said:
Someone convince me the following isn't true:

Obama's raising tax cuts on the rich will hurt the economy more than it will help. The top 5% earners are the ones who own all the companies and hire all the workers. All of these people will raise prices on their products and services to make up for the money they will now be losing to taxes, thereby negating any extra income from the tax cuts proposed for the other 95% of the country.

Nothing will be fixed by taxing the rich and redistributing wealth. Jobs will be lost, not created.
Click to expand...

So what do are your thought on Obama's plan on giving tax breaks to companies that don't outsource jobs (which I can safely assume is for small business onwers)?

And, I'd like to hear what McCain's plan is for the same issue?
 
H

Hootie

Member
Tamanon said:
Just drop Hardball. Although will Race still have Maddow on it? I can't see why she'd do it.

Luckily it's also football season so that'll take my mind off politics!
Click to expand...

I love Hardball though. There are so many idiots on the show, giving Matthews ample opportunities to call somebody out on their bullshit and destroy them (does APPEASEMENT APPEASEMENT APPEASEMENT ring a bell? :D)

I doubt Rachel will be on Race anymore, though maybe for a few times here and there.

Football does help out quite a bit, too, as long as my Pats are doing good. It's funny how football will be making me forget about politics, while back in February politics helped me forget about football. Damn Giants. =(
 
M

Miroku

Member
Tommie Hu$tle said:
So what do are your thought on Obama's plan on giving tax breaks to companies that don't outsource jobs (which I can safely assume is for small business onwers)?

And, I'd like to hear what McCain's plan is for the same issue?
Click to expand...


I cant fathom a guess as to what will happen under the proposed Obama plan. AFAIK nobody has ever tried that before. Maybe it will be rockin'. Maybe that plan won't make it through congress, who knows. Maybe someone who is more economically educated can answer...

McCains plan I believe is to stay the course and let outsourcing continue? Free markets and all that. I dont really care about any of McCains plans anymore since he put Palin on the ticket and turned this election into a culture war.
 
C

CharlieDigital

Banned
Some excerpts from a little sidebar by Barbara Kiviat titled A Brief History of Creative Capitalism to give you hope in liberal capitalism:

Dave Packard said:
Many people assume, wrongly, that a company exists simply to make money. While this is an important result of a company's existence, we have to go deeper and find the real reasons for our being....People get together and exist as....a company so that they are able to accomplish something collectively that they could not accomplish separately -- they make a contribution to society.
Click to expand...

David Rockefeller said:
The old concept that the owner of a business had a right to use his property as he pleased to maximize profits has evolved into the belief that ownership carries certain binding social obligations. Today's manager serves as trustee not only for the owners but for the workers and, indeed, for our entire society.
Click to expand...

It also has an excellent essay by Bill Gates on Creative Capitalism: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1828069,00.html
 
P

PrivateWHudson

Member
Tommie Hu$tle said:
So what do are your thought on Obama's plan on giving tax breaks to companies that don't outsource jobs (which I can safely assume is for small business onwers)?

And, I'd like to hear what McCain's plan is for the same issue?
Click to expand...

I hope to god that Obama doesn't reduce the amount of outsourcing. Instead of blaming things on the idiots over in India, I'll have to start actually doing work again.
 
G

Gruco

Banned
Kastrioti said:
What would you call three days of non stop coverage about Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter?
Click to expand...
Well, they did briefly cover her ties to secessionists, that she doesn't know what the VP does, that she lied about the bridge to nowhere, that she begged Teddy Intubes for money, that she saddled her town with debt, and that she a book banning, bullying thug (executuve experience!) Also they asked "who the hell is this lady" a few times.

So, it wasn't nonstop.

Miroku said:
Someone convince me the following isn't true:

Obama's raising tax cuts on the rich will hurt the economy more than it will help. The top 5% earners are the ones who own all the companies and hire all the workers. All of these people will raise prices on their products and services to make up for the money they will now be losing to taxes, thereby negating any extra income from the tax cuts proposed for the other 95% of the country.

Nothing will be fixed by taxing the rich and redistributing wealth. Jobs will be lost, not created.
Click to expand...
Bottom line for all the trickle down stuff: Indirect effects are real, but secondary to the direct effects, and have a smaller impact.

Going by theory, the biggest problem of what you're saying is the concept of diminishing marginal utility; basically that each subsequent individual dollar matters less the more you already have, and so the markets are less reactive to them at the ultrahigh income level than lower income levels. Also: the supply chains those dollars go into are different and less diffusive. Also: giving more money to ultrahigh levels is more likely to be invested (sometimes even creating effed up speculative results) than spent in a consumer or operational manner. Maybe think about it as a macroeconomic plowback ratio

Or just look at the historical empirical results which I am sure a lot of people will bring up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
RNC suspending GOP Feb '16 debate with NBC (Because lol CNBC)
2 3 4 5
212
19K
OuterLimits replied
  • Locked
The Democratic National Committee Chair Debate |OT| - Dem One: A Politics Story
2
79
8K
kirblar replied
  • Locked
NYT: G.O.P. Urges Donald Trump to Broaden Outreach to Black Voters
2 3 4
178
21K
mckmas8808 replied
  • Locked
Hillary Clinton retweets Slate voter guide calling her most corrupt candidate
3
4K
ModBot replied
  • Locked
NYT: "Trump-Size Idea for a New President: Build Something Inspiring"
2
74
9K
jerry113 replied
Top Bottom