• 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.

United States Election: Nov 6, 2012 |OT| - Barack Obama Re-elected

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bisnic

Really Really Exciting Member!
Did Pctx ever posted again since that famous post? I can't believe GAF has some of these "Obama iz a communis!1!" type of guy here.
 
M

marrec

Banned
Bisnic said:
Did Pctx ever posted again since that famous post? I can't believe GAF has some of these "Obama iz a communis!1!" type of guy here.
Click to expand...

Pctx has a character to maintain, don't let his tomfoolery make you think he in any way believes what he says.
 
L

lednerg

Member
nemss said:
Now that the aftermath is settled, I'm hopeful that Obama has good old Bill on the phone to try and find out how he greased the wheels for bipartisanship on his 2nd term.

In another note, Karl Rove's meltdown on TV was glorious. I now know what it looks like when someone blows a quarter billion dollars.
Click to expand...

His meltdown, plus the long walk Megyn Kelly took to the back room where she was told what anyone with a brain could already have figured out, that the rest of Ohio's voting precincts were obviously Democratic.
 
ElRenoRaven

ElRenoRaven

Member
Interfectum

Interfectum

Member
PsychoRaven said:
That's funny. I felt sorry for her having to walk back there. I can't wait to hear what Dick Morris has to say. He was predicting an easy Romney win and that obviously didn't happen. I hope Oreilly has him on tonight or tomorrow. lol
Click to expand...

Dick Morris already posted on his blog about it. He blames Chris Christie. lol
 
T

thecouncil

Banned
.................................Dawn of.................................

The Three Hundred Sixty-Five Thousandth Day

----8,760,000 Hours of Darkness Remain----
 
P

Pre

Member
lednerg said:
How about you give me clearly unbiased sources of information? Tell me why it is wrong to assume that the buying power of Americans lead to the most prosperous period in our history. More to the point - why should a business hire people when nobody is there to buy anything in the first place? Please explain that, and don't point me to another PDF file.
Click to expand...

High taxation on investment leads to what is known as capital flight. The wealthy are more capable than average investors at shifting their money around to avoid paying high tax rates. This is especially true in a globalized economy where money can easily be sheltered in places such as the Cayman Islands where taxation on productivity is virtually non-existent.

Thus, lower taxes aim to encourage the wealthy to invest their money within the American economy by creating an environment where they see higher profits than they would sheltering their money. This investment naturally creates jobs as businesses expand, leading to higher wages and more taxable income. That's where the buying power comes from -- more people making more money because they have jobs that weren't shipped overseas as the result of capital flight from prohibitive tax rates.

This was done in the 1920s when Congress adopted the taxation policies proposed by Andrew Mellon. Revenue increased, GDP expanded, unemployment dropped, and the bulk of the national debt from WWI was retired. JFK did this in the 1960s by cutting the top rates from 90% to 70%, again increasing economic output. Same thing with Reagan. Same thing with Bush, who tax cuts, as a I pointed out earlier, led to an increase in revenue. Bush was simply a big spender, resulting in heightened deficits.

Lowering taxes combats capital flight. The problem is that there is usually not corresponding cuts in spending, cancelling out the gains in revenue made by bringing capital back into the American economy.

The folly of aggregate demand is that there is never truly a lack of demand. People must have resources with which to purchase what they demand, and these things must first be produced. Production comes before consumption.
 
B

Burai

shitonmychest57
OttomanScribe said:
Amazing commentary.
A7F26huCMAAXAmX.png
Click to expand...

Haha.

They also have some of the strictest immigration controls in the western world. Probably best not to pack your bags just yet.
 
N

Novid

Banned
Guys. for all the talk about demographics and what not - the GOP will always find a way. Demographic changes dont mean a lick when it comes to economic realities. There is a cliff coming - several actually. Obama has to single handly change the economic structure of this country or we are going bankrupt before midterms. Many Buisnesses are already balking at PPCA and forcing workers into part time work for 30 hours which the limit for two federal laws. Those that dont have the Waiver are gonna start doing this, and the government cant hire everybody now can it?

Folks the Conservitves had lost this election - no this country because they have vice cops as leaders of the platform and not leaders without the woo woo ness of Ron/Rand Paul. Christie may be one to lead them but most Consertives cant stand him on certain things. What i do see however, is that If economic cliff does happen without the fundamental changes to tax, medicare, SS, and so on, your going to see a Facist wing of the GOP come out. You saw it with Akin - Santorm was this close - but watch what happens. I don't put it past Beck or Hannity to go full bore Facist in 18 months. Its almost a enivitablity that some in the Tea Party are not who they say they are and more Ultra-Right than first believed. I dont want it to happen, but the math dont lie. Obama has to change how the American Econamic system works flat out to prevent any sort of cliff.
 
C

codhand

Member
Todd Kincannon ‏@ToddKincannon

Some saying Romney lost bc he's Mormon. Not true, except to the extent that Mormons are nice, decent people & therefore unfit for politics.
Click to expand...
this was a good un.
 
L

lednerg

Member
Mengy said:
Well said. This is what any true fiscal conservative should be admitting, yet most Republicans are simply ignoring or blatantly disagreeing with it. And it's starting to piss me off. And judging from the election last night, I'm not alone in that feeling.
Click to expand...

(missed this reply in the fray)
That's the point entirely. I'm talking about true fiscal conservatism here. That whole notion has been wiped out for the past half dozen election cycles. It's been replaced with batshit insane ideas that never had any basis in reality to begin with, As a result, we're looking at just one party who seems reasonable vs another who has nothing but blatant scare tactics. How about having at least two parties who are participating in this experiment we call reality for a change? At the very least pretend the other guy doesn't want to destroy the country you both live in. That could only improve things via the existence of an actual competition of ideas.
 
R

reggieandTFE

Member
Pre said:
This was done in the 1920s when Congress adopted the taxation policies proposed by Andrew Mellon. Revenue increased, GDP expanded, unemployment dropped, and the bulk of the national debt from WWI was retired..
Click to expand...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. You supply siders are worse than conspiracy theorists.
 
Y

yana

Neo Member
Pre said:
The folly of aggregate demand is that there is never truly a lack of demand. People must have resources with which to purchase what they demand, and these things must first be produced. Production comes before consumption.
Click to expand...

Production is a response to increased demand, because producing a product which you don't have sufficient reason to believe you will sell means potentially wasting money. If demand exceeds supply raising the price is an alternative, valid option, so there there is no incentive to produce excess products without a reasonable guarantee of actually selling them, which is only possible when you know for certain that potential buyers have the money to buy.
 
N

Novid

Banned
Pre said:
High taxation on investment leads to what is known as capital flight. The wealthy are more capable than average investors at shifting their money around to avoid paying high tax rates. This is especially true in a globalized economy where money can easily be sheltered in places such as the Cayman Islands where taxation on productivity is virtually non-existent.

Thus, lower taxes aim to encourage the wealthy to invest their money within the American economy by creating an environment where they see higher profits than they would sheltering their money. This investment naturally creates jobs as businesses expand, leading to higher wages and more taxable income. That's where the buying power comes from -- more people making more money because they have jobs that weren't shipped overseas as the result of capital flight from prohibitive tax rates.

This was done in the 1920s when Congress adopted the taxation policies proposed by Andrew Mellon. Revenue increased, GDP expanded, unemployment dropped, and the bulk of the national debt from WWI was retired. JFK did this in the 1960s by cutting the top rates from 90% to 70%, again increasing economic output. Same thing with Reagan. Same thing with Bush, who tax cuts, as a I pointed out earlier, led to an increase in revenue. Bush was simply a big spender, resulting in heightened deficits.

Lowering taxes combats capital flight. The problem is that there is usually not corresponding cuts in spending, cancelling out the gains in revenue made by bringing capital back into the American economy.

The folly of aggregate demand is that there is never truly a lack of demand. People must have resources with which to purchase what they demand, and these things must first be produced. Production comes before consumption.
Click to expand...

This is somewhat true. But there gonna raise taxes and they have healthcare for these business to worry about and the government cant hire every single worker displaced by the private sector. The only way Obama succeds if he is going the route he wants to go - is to fundmentally change how the economics of america work.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Pre, how do you explain 2000-2008, when Bush policies created the lowest tax rates in the country's history, yet we were only able to produce 3 million jobs?
 
diffusionx

diffusionx

Gold Member
Pre said:
High taxation on investment leads to what is known as capital flight. The wealthy are more capable than average investors at shifting their money around to avoid paying high tax rates. This is especially true in a globalized economy where money can easily be sheltered in places such as the Cayman Islands where taxation on productivity is virtually non-existent.

Thus, lower taxes aim to encourage the wealthy to invest their money within the American economy by creating an environment where they see higher profits than they would sheltering their money. This investment naturally creates jobs as businesses expand, leading to higher wages and more taxable income. That's where the buying power comes from -- more people making more money because they have jobs that weren't shipped overseas as the result of capital flight from prohibitive tax rates.

This was done in the 1920s when Congress adopted the taxation policies proposed by Andrew Mellon. Revenue increased, GDP expanded, unemployment dropped, and the bulk of the national debt from WWI was retired. JFK did this in the 1960s by cutting the top rates from 90% to 70%, again increasing economic output. Same thing with Reagan. Same thing with Bush, who tax cuts, as a I pointed out earlier, led to an increase in revenue. Bush was simply a big spender, resulting in heightened deficits.

Lowering taxes combats capital flight. The problem is that there is usually not corresponding cuts in spending, cancelling out the gains in revenue made by bringing capital back into the American economy.
Click to expand...


Lowering the rate from 90% to 70% - yea that'd have a big difference. Definitely. Nobody is arguing that. The rate now for capital gains isn't 90% or even 70% though. It's also not 50%, or 40%, or even 30%. It is 15%. We really are getting damn close to the "zero tax = infinite revenue" argument a poster put above in jest.

I also wish you'd stop posting that Forbes link. Payments from wealthy went up because they made tons more money during the Bush years. The Bush years were very good for them. The tax cuts were designed for the rich to get richer, they did, and as a side effect they paid more tax than they did before. It doesn't mean the tax cuts were good for America.

The Bush years led to a less equal society where the rich were richer and everyone else was less-off. Most economic growth during that period went to the rich. Obviously it makes sense that, when people make more, they pay more. We can turn the poor and middle class into serfs working for their rich lords and and the rich will pay a lot more than they do now. It doesn't mean it will lead to a desirable society.

Pre said:
The folly of aggregate demand is that there is never truly a lack of demand. People must have resources with which to purchase what they demand, and these things must first be produced. Production comes before consumption
Click to expand...

I disagree, look at what has happened the past several years, people have deleveraged and (relatively) hoarded money.
 
M

marrec

Banned
Novid said:
Guys. for all the talk about demographics and what not - the GOP will always find a way. Demographic changes dont mean a lick when it comes to economic realities. There is a cliff coming - several actually. Obama has to single handly change the economic structure of this country or we are going bankrupt before midterms. Many Buisnesses are already balking at PPCA and forcing workers into part time work for 30 hours which the limit for two federal laws. Those that dont have the Waiver are gonna start doing this, and the government cant hire everybody now can it?

Folks the Conservitves had lost this election - no this country because they have vice cops as leaders of the platform and not leaders without the woo woo ness of Ron/Rand Paul. Christie may be one to lead them but most Consertives cant stand him on certain things. What i do see however, is that If economic cliff does happen without the fundamental changes to tax, medicare, SS, and so on, your going to see a Facist wing of the GOP come out. You saw it with Akin - Santorm was this close - but watch what happens. I don't put it past Beck or Hannity to go full bore Facist in 18 months. Its almost a enivitablity that some in the Tea Party are not who they say they are and more Ultra-Right than first believed. I dont want it to happen, but the math dont lie. Obama has to change how the American Econamic system works flat out to prevent any sort of cliff.
Click to expand...

What makes you think our economy is doomed though? The 'fiscal cliff' that's been bandied about for the last year is easily avoidable given in a tiny bit of cooperation by the House.

Hitokage said:
LOWER TAXES TO ZERO

INFINITE REVENUE
Click to expand...

Not enough people give your posts love now that you're among the populari again, but this post is sooo good.
 
Dude Abides

Dude Abides

Banned
Pre said:
Obviously a comment about Hitler discounts everything he's learned over decades of researching and teaching economics, especially when he's empirically demonstrating the dynamics of lower taxation.

Read it. You'll learn something.
Click to expand...

Except he doesn't empirically demonstrate anything. That article you linked is a rather silly polemic in quasi-academic clothes. Don't be duped simply because someone with a Ph.D tells you what you already want to believe.
 
L

lednerg

Member
Pre said:
...
Thus, lower taxes aim to encourage the wealthy to invest their money within the American economy by creating an environment where they see higher profits than they would sheltering their money. This investment naturally creates jobs as businesses expand, leading to higher wages and more taxable income. ...
Click to expand...

These jobs come from where, exactly? Remember, we still are having this little problem of nobody buying anything.
 
A

Andrew.

Banned
So my parents are refusing to talk to my sister and I after O's win. Started last night, haven't heard from 'em since after repeated calls.

Fucking baby boomer Republicans, man.
 
G

Gary Whitta

Member
GOOD MORNING! Aaaaah, tastes good!

Hf1nH.png


So many great moments last night, but my favorite has to be watching Karl Rove's face melt on FOX News as the poll counters opened the ark in Ohio. So much denial.

Also, Dick Morris LOLZ
 
S

SteveWinwood

Member
Since on the state level MN now has the house and the senate under the DFL party, and a lot of them have a plan to get gay marriage passed asap, and they're using the amendment being struck down last night as evidence that people would be for that.
 
J

Jason's Ultimatum

Member
Pre said:
High taxation on investment leads to what is known as capital flight. The wealthy are more capable than average investors at shifting their money around to avoid paying high tax rates. This is especially true in a globalized economy where money can easily be sheltered in places such as the Cayman Islands where taxation on productivity is virtually non-existent.

Thus, lower taxes aim to encourage the wealthy to invest their money within the American economy by creating an environment where they see higher profits than they would sheltering their money. This investment naturally creates jobs as businesses expand, leading to higher wages and more taxable income. That's where the buying power comes from -- more people making more money because they have jobs that weren't shipped overseas as the result of capital flight from prohibitive tax rates.

This was done in the 1920s when Congress adopted the taxation policies proposed by Andrew Mellon. Revenue increased, GDP expanded, unemployment dropped, and the bulk of the national debt from WWI was retired. JFK did this in the 1960s by cutting the top rates from 90% to 70%, again increasing economic output. Same thing with Reagan. Same thing with Bush, who tax cuts, as a I pointed out earlier, led to an increase in revenue. Bush was simply a big spender, resulting in heightened deficits.

Lowering taxes combats capital flight. The problem is that there is usually not corresponding cuts in spending, cancelling out the gains in revenue made by bringing capital back into the American economy.

The folly of aggregate demand is that there is never truly a lack of demand. People must have resources with which to purchase what they demand, and these things must first be produced. Production comes before consumption.
Click to expand...

Uh, no? So many errors in your post it's hard to pick them apart one by one.

Reagan's tax cuts didn't turn around the economy. Do you even know what the problem was during the 80s recession? INFLATION. How do you combat inflation? Tax cuts? No. It was Paul Volker who tightened the money supply and increased interest rates to drop inflation.

Every Democratic president in the U.S. has outperformed Republicans when it comes to the economy. Clinton was the only person with the balls to say this during the DNC.
 
F

Flo_Evans

Member
Gary Whitta said:
GOOD MORNING! Aaaaah, tastes good!


So many great moments last night, but my favorite has to be watching Karl Rove's face melt on FOX News as the poll counters opened the ark in Ohio. So much denial.

Also, Dick Morris LOLZ
Click to expand...

Hopefully this is the last we see of that disgusting sack of shit. (unlikely)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • x2
  • Locked
Cyberpunk 2077 |OT| The Future Is Now
|OT| 97 98 99 100 101
5K
340K
EviLore replied
  • Locked
Trump on track to win re-election. (WaPo Opinion)
2 3 4 5 6
258
31K
ModBot replied
Senator Bob Corker (R) Tennessee will not seek re-election next year
2 3
111
15K
Mortemis replied
Poll: Special Senate election in Alabama a 6pt race between Roy Moore and Doug Jones
2
78
12K
CazTGG replied
  • Locked
United States Congressional Special Elections
2
59
10K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom