• 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.
S

so_awes

Banned
quote for the lulz

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
Click to expand...

:lol :lol :lol
 
B

Bishman

Member
Does anyone have any links to good articles that show that Obama's economic policy will do better for America than McCain. And that Obama's plan will not hurt business by forcing them to cut jobs.

This is what a friend keeps asking me but I need some articles from like NYTimes or something to shut him up.

Tell me how taking from the rich and giving to the poor will fix our economy. Tell me how companies are supposed to deal with higher taxes without cutting jobs or increases prices on their products. Tell me where people will spend the tax rebates that they get from the government.
Click to expand...
 
L

Learn2read

Member
ASTONISHING: Rep. Rangel Calls Palin 'Disabled'

Embattled Politician: It's Laughable That GOP VP Nominee Bases Foreign Policy On Being Able To See Russia
Republicans Infuriated; Rep. King Blasts Rangel

NEW YORK (CBS) ― Already under fire for his tax troubles, Manhattan Congressman Charles Rangel really put his foot in his mouth on Friday.

In a CBS 2 HD exclusive interview, Rep. Rangel called Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin "disabled."

The question was simple: Why are the Democrats so afraid of Palin and her popularity?

The answer was astonishing.

"You got to be kind to the disabled," Rangel said.

That's right. The chairman of the powerful House Ways & Means Committee called Palin disabled -- even when CBS 2 HD called him on it.

CBS 2 HD: "You got to be kind to the disabled?"

Rangel: "Yes."

CBS 2 HD: "She's disabled?"

Rangel: "There's no question about it politically. It's a nightmare to think that a person's foreign policy is based on their ability to look at Russia from where they live.

Republicans think Rangel's comments are insulting as well as shocking.

"Charlie Rangel's comments are clearly disgraceful," Rep. Peter King, R-Long Island, said. "This is just another liberal Democrat who can't accept an independent woman running for president."

King, who is co-chair of the McCain-Palin campaign in New York, watched Rangel's comments with CBS 2 HD. He was particularly upset because Palin's 4-month-old son, Trig, is disabled. He has Down's syndrome.

"We should be sensitive to her or any woman who has a child or family member who has any affliction at all," King said. "And so to use the word disabled in the context of a female candidate for vice president who has a child who is disabled really is wrong. Charlie owes her and the entire disabled community and apology."

Advocates for the disabled are also upset.

"It makes me feel as if he's trying to put her down, trying to say she's not good for the presidency or the vice presidency," said Michael Imperiale of Disabled In Action Of Metropolitan N.Y.

"A disabled president ran this country. He was disabled. His name was Roosevelt."

A spokesman for the McCain-Palin campaign also piled on, saying that this kind of rhetoric has no place in politics.
Click to expand...

Holy Shit! :lol :lol

rangel.jpg
 
H

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Tell me how taking from the rich and giving to the poor will fix our economy. Tell me how companies are supposed to deal with higher taxes without cutting jobs or increases prices on their products. Tell me where people will spend the tax rebates that they get from the government.
Click to expand...
I dunno, not pay executives thousands of times more than the average person in their employ?
 
S

Socreges

Banned
Stoney Mason said:
Washington deputy managing editor for FOX News Channel. It's not like his bias could carry over into his work...
Click to expand...
but why is he working for foxnews? ...i asked rhetorically

a man with such a ridiculous resume should not be writing news articles

or maybe i'm wrong. they've all got an agenda, you'll say. and you'd be right. it's just that sometimes the extremes are so profoundly disturbing
 
M

MightyHedgehog

Member
Bishman said:
Does anyone have any links to good articles that show that Obama's economic policy will do better for America than McCain. And that Obama's plan will not hurt business by forcing them to cut jobs.

This is what a friend keeps asking me but I need some articles from like NYTimes or something to shut him up.
Click to expand...
Obama's economic plan.

If you want to see McCain's plan, just look up G.W. Bush's plan. Certainly, giving big breaks to corporations helps everyone, as evidenced by the last 8 years and the last few months for the result (with more to come).

Let's see: less jobs created, smaller middle class, more poverty, more homeless, less (real) spending power, higher debt, higher prices of EVERYTHING... Of course, the richest only got richer...so that might be considered one good thing...
 
V

ViperVisor

Member
Peter King R-Long Island knows stupid comments

"Unfortunately we have too many mosques in this country, there's too many people who are sympathetic to radical Islam. We should be looking at them more carefully, we should be finding out how we can infiltrate, we should be much more aggressive in law enforcement."
 
A

avaya

Member
NewLib said:
Really?

Im not saying the actual inventing of the item was based on greed, but the proliferation through society? Please, I want to hear of an example.
Click to expand...

The scientific advance is the invention itself. Not it's proliferation through society, on that front I agree with you. I just disagree with your original characterisation.

The biggest advances are in medicine. Penicillin being the biggest game changer of all. Vaccines tend to be proliferated through society for the greater good. Those are the only examples from the top of my head, that were not based on greed.
 
J

Jason's Ultimatum

Member
WOW. First Ben Stein comes out against Bush's tax cuts and now someone from the National Review comes out. You know your tax policies don't work when conservatives are against it. :lol
 
S

Stoney Mason

Banned
Socreges said:
but why is he working for foxnews? ...i asked rhetorically

a man with such a ridiculous resume should not be writing news articles

or maybe i'm wrong. they've all got an agenda, you'll say. and you'd be right. it's just that sometimes the extremes are so profoundly disturbing
Click to expand...

I was teasing. Of course his bias is going to seep over into his work. That's not to say some people who might personally have a certain ideology can't do good work or even truthful work. The problem with Fox is as usual this is part of an over-arching agenda that that network was founded on and continues with until this day.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Jason's Ultimatum said:
WOW. First Ben Stein comes out against Bush's tax cuts and now someone from the National Review comes out. You know your tax policies don't work when conservatives are against it. :lol
Click to expand...
Well it is about fucking time. Endless massive deficits doesn't work.

WTF is gonna be the deficit this year . . . it was projected to be around just under 500 billion after including the stupid 'stimulus package' . . . but now with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns, and AIG . . what is it?


This is why we are currently doing all sorts of raids into Pakistan lately . . . Bush is trying to do a Hail Mary to salvage some modicum of respect for his legacy . . . he's obviously trying to capture Osama.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Bishman said:
Does anyone have any links to good articles that show that Obama's economic policy will do better for America than McCain. And that Obama's plan will not hurt business by forcing them to cut jobs.

This is what a friend keeps asking me but I need some articles from like NYTimes or something to shut him up.
Click to expand...

Tell them that the whole trickle down concept has never been proven to work, and in fact, all evidence points to it not working at all in terms of job creation. Also show him data from the past 80 years or so that clearly demonstrates how many more jobs are created under Democratic presidents compared to Republican ones. Show him the extremely high tax rates of the 50s and ask him if he thought the economy was in shambles then. Show him the higher tax rates of the 90s (which are the rates Obama plans to return to) and ask him if he thinks the economy is doing better now. If he isn't much of a thinker, just explain to him the basic logic and common sense of why "trickle-down" has no reason to work.

Tax cuts are a one time burst of cash. If you are already rich and didn't really need the money, you will probably just throw it on the pile (into some savings account) or gamble it on the stock market. Why would you suddenly start hiring more people with this extra money? Only if sustainable profits continue to rise would you ever think about hiring more people because hiring on more people is a sustainable cost, not a one time thing. Why would you hire more people if there is no increase in demand for your product or service and you are doing just fine as is?

If you give someone (who doesn't already have more money than they know what to do with) some extra cash then they will probably look at it as disposable income and go out and spend it. If this happens on a mass level then obviously demand for certain products and services will increase, since consumers are what drives the economy, not the producers. To meet this increase in demand producers would have to ramp up production of their good or service which would hopefully create more jobs (in foreign countries depending on the industry).

I am no expert in economics, and I am sure my post shows that, but "trickle-down" economics doesn't make very much sense on any level in my opinion.
 
B

Bishman

Member
thekad said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html

Should be required reading.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the NYTimes article. I'm still reading it and this is good information!

Zefah said:
Tell them that the whole trickle down concept has never been proven to work, and in fact, all evidence points to it not working at all in terms of job creation. Also show him data from the past 80 years or so that clearly demonstrates how many more jobs are created under Democratic presidents compared to Republican ones. Show him the extremely high tax rates of the 50s and ask him if he thought the economy was in shambles then. Shoe him the higher tax rates of the 90s (which are the rates Obama plans to return to) and ask him if he thinks the economy is doing better now. If he isn't much of a thinker, just explain to him the basic logic and common sense of why "trickle-down" has no reason to work.

Tax cuts are a one time burst of cash. If you are already rich and didn't really need the money, you will probably just throw it on the pile (into some savings account) or gamble it on the stock market. Why would you suddenly start hiring more people with this extra money? Only is profits, which are sustainable, continue to rise would you ever think about hiring more people which is a sustainable cost, not a one time thing. Why would you hire more people if there is no increase in demand for your product or service and you are doing just fine as is?

If you give someone who doesn't have more money than they know what to do with some extra cash then they will probably look at it as disposable income and go out and spend it. If this happens on a mass level then obviously demand for certain products and services will increase, since consumers are what drives the economy, not the producers. To meet this increase in demand producers would have to ramp up production of their good or service which would hopefully create more jobs (in foreign countries depending on the industry).

I am no expert in economics, and I am sure my post shows that, but "trickle-down" economics doesn't make very much sense on any level in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I'll try this, hopefully he opens his eyes.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
GhaleonEB said:
Basically, use the success of deregulation in the financial sector as a model for healthcare reform.

Magazine lead times are a bitch.
Click to expand...
:lol

The lead times are a crap excuse . . . everyone knew a meltdown was coming.

Edit: Full quote deserved:

McCain on banking and health

OK, a correspondent directs me to John McCain’s article, Better Health Care at Lower Cost for Every American, in the Sept./Oct. issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries. You might want to be seated before reading this.

Here’s what McCain has to say about the wonders of market-based health reform:

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

So McCain, who now poses as the scourge of Wall Street, was praising financial deregulation like 10 seconds ago — and promising that if we marketize health care, it will perform as well as the financial industry!
Click to expand...
:lol
 
S

Socreges

Banned
Stoney Mason said:
I was teasing. Of course his bias is going to seep over into his work. That's not to say some people who might personally have a certain ideology can't do good work or even truthful work. The problem with Fox is as usual this is part of an over-arching agenda that that network was founded on and continues with until this day.
Click to expand...
i'm still confused as to why you were teasing, though. i've been aware of everything you've said and agree with you on all points. my initial post just raised an acute example of the overlap with fox news and bush-ites, and how (new to me) it's even transparent in their online 'journalism'.
 
J

Jason's Ultimatum

Member
Bishman said:
Does anyone have any links to good articles that show that Obama's economic policy will do better for America than McCain. And that Obama's plan will not hurt business by forcing them to cut jobs.

This is what a friend keeps asking me but I need some articles from like NYTimes or something to shut him up.
Click to expand...


There is NO evidence that tax cuts for the rich creates jobs. Look at the 50's. Marginal tax rates were over 90% and that didn't stop a booming economy. In 1993, Clinton raised taxes on the rich, which created 5 million new jobs in less than 2 years. In 2001, Bush cut taxes. 1.8 million jobs were lost in a little under two years.

You can't cut taxes and deal with massive deficits. In results to inflation, which scares investors from investing their money due to high interest rates.

During the Clinton Administration, there was a period of disinflation. What does that mean? It means that when a balanced budget or at least a controlled deficit, raising taxes on the rich to create more revenue, this results to low interest rates without the fear of rising inflation. This allowed investors to invest money into the market.

But why would Obama's tax plan be better? One simple word: CONSUMPTION. Give the huge tax cuts to the poor and middle class, they're going to go out and spend their money on goods. This creates an increase in demand, which allows businesses to hire more people to supply the demand.

It's called "trickle up" economics. :D


EDIT-Show your friend this:

http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/images/PresidentsAndJobGrowth.gif
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
speculawyer said:
:lol

The lead times are a crap excuse . . . everyone knew a meltdown was coming.

Edit: Full quote deserved:

:lol
Click to expand...
Agreed. But I don't think even McCain would have said that after Monday. :lol

This is worse than his "fundamentals" comment on Monday because it just reinforces that he thought the financial sector was not only doing well, but something other sectors should emulate. Absolutely epic fuck-up.
 
R

Revengeance

Member
GhaleonEB said:
Agreed. But I don't think even McCain would have said that after Monday. :lol

This is worse than his "fundamentals" comment on Monday because it just reinforces that he thought the financial sector was not only doing well, but something other sectors should emulate. Absolutely epic fuck-up.
Click to expand...
Seriously. I hope this dominates the news for the next few days. Obama should jump on it.
 
J

Jason's Ultimatum

Member
Oh and I'd just like to say that if anything, it was Paul Volcker who helped the economy grow in the 80s. He was the one that created an intentional recession to stop stagflation. In 1982 when inflation was slowing down, he let the money supply go and cut interest rates. This led to a booming economy.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
GhaleonEB said:
Agreed. But I don't think even McCain would have said that after Monday. :lol

This is worse than his "fundamentals" comment on Monday because it just reinforces that he thought the financial sector was not only doing well, but something other sectors should emulate. Absolutely epic fuck-up.
Click to expand...
Yeah . . . I guess the exact timing is amazing.
 
N

Nazgul_Hunter

Member
McCain just wrote a new ad for Obama. That comment alone should go a long way towards securing Obama's dominance in the economic debate, and if he does, he will have a very easy time winning
 
T

TDG

Banned
As many of us suspected, now that McCain has to actually campaign, put forth his ideas, say stuff and participate in the system, not just troll Obama, he's running into serious trouble.
 
J

Jason's Ultimatum

Member
Add more fuel to the fire:

http://bstocksdev.weblogsinc.com/20...ations-tax-cut-didnt-increase-investment-and/

The Bush Administration's tax cut didn't increase investment and savings

Posted Sep 8th 2008 11:40AM by Joseph Lazzaro

Bloomberg columnist Caroline Baum gently reminds us that not every tax cut achieves its intended effect.

Case study: The 2001 Bush Administration federal income tax cut, which included a cut in the marginal tax rate to 35% from 39.6%. The Bush Administration touted it as a tax cut that would increase incentives to invest, save and work.

The result? The tax cut didn't work: saving and investment have been "anemic" during the Bush years, Baum said, citing data provided by Paul Kasriel, chief economist at Northern Trust Corp. in Chicago. Business investment is down, the savings rate is at a post-World War II low. Further, the labor participation rate has declined.

No guarantee tax cut would be invested in U.S.

But why didn't cutting the top marginal rate do all of the good things the Bush Administration touted? Economist Peter Dawson said the reason is the tax cut's inherent flaw.

"The tax cut contained the mistaken belief that rich taxpayers would invest their money and invest in the right way, in the U.S., to increase GDP," Dawson said. "There was no guarantee that they would do that. Someone who is rich could invest the money in Brazil or India, with little benefit for the United States."

Further, regarding GDP growth, government investments in infrastructure, education and basic research would have increased U.S. GDP by a far greater amount than cutting the tax rate to 35%, Dawson said. The reason? "Those public investments will simultaneously increase the nation's productive capacity and make sustainable growth more likely by expanding the pool of employees with good-paying jobs," Dawson said. "Absent an increase in good-paying jobs, sustained GDP growth is not possible. And in case any one hasn't noticed, the reason the U.S. economy is stalling now is that we're running out of consumers, basically running out of employees with good-paying jobs."

Economic Analysis: The 2001 Bush Administration' reduction of the marginal tax rate to 35% did achieve one goal: it granted a large tax cut to rich and very-rich Americans, a primary constituent group in the Republican Party. But in the process it increased the U.S. budget deficit and national debt at a time of increased spending for wars and for security, and it also caused the dollar to plunge. The view from here is that the tax cut will have to be reversed, and public investment in infrastructure, education, and basic research increased in order to achieve sustainable growth in these United States.
Click to expand...
 
S

Stoney Mason

Banned
Socreges said:
i'm still confused as to why you were teasing, though. i've been aware of everything you've said and agree with you on all points. my initial post just raised an acute example of the overlap with fox news and bush-ites, and how (new to me) it's even transparent in their online 'journalism'.
Click to expand...

My bad. I thought you thought I was teasing in my first response post. We're pretty much on the same page. The problem with the piece is that it is essentially an attack piece rather than a straight piece of journalism which isn't surprising considering who wrote it.
 
H

Hootie

Member
worldrunover said:
Too bad the first debate is foreign policy. :/
Click to expand...

Yeah, but can he really argue that staying in Iraq is beneficial to us considering how much it costs and how close we are to economic collapse? I mean...wtf.
 
The Chosen One

The Chosen One

Member
I've noticed on multiple cable shows that the narrative of "Palin losing popularity" is starting to take hold. She seems to be fading fast. According to the polls, she went from the most popular candidate to the least popular among the 4 candidates in just a week. I think a combination of the ABC interview and Tina Fey did her in.

Maybe I'm asking for too much but I'm really hoping for a 3-eyed fish moment in the VP debates for Palin. She's showing a habit of giving complete nonsensical answers to questions, which she's not prepared for. She's basically a bot. She can't think beyond her original programming.

What is the VP format? Is it just the moderators asking the candidates questions or do the candidates interact with each other at all?
 
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