Yea why did that become the reason ...

BTW the ones who have been bashing me for posting anti republican content dont suddenly start supporting me ... I am equally against both the clowns ... just that the first set of 1/2 truths came from the repu"buick"ans ... This new lie seem to be comming from the peoples's perception more than democrats directly, but its a deep rooted thought that I wanted to get to its bottom.

Cool.
Buddha.

 
Why?

OK I'll take a first guess ...
Repu"buick"ans obviously they have to buy their Buicks ... OK that helps the economy, but then of course many of them own their Buicks, its a requirement for being a repu"buick"an.
So Now they buy builck parts to replace those that fall off, but that is much smaller than the gasoline they have to buy to fill up the Buick, that all is money out of the economy.
There fore buick's are evil, and grampa driving a 1978 Buick roadmaster is killing the economy. So ... repu"buick"ans are wrecking the economy.
Good ... no ... OK ...
Cool.
Buddha.

 

hte liberals will answer  without answering directly 

how may one answer a question that is so poorly put?

Why you little ...

Its somehow thrown about as fact ... like the sun rises in the east, the water in the ocean is salty, and liberals are good for the economy ... WTF ... how did we get there from here ...

OK I can say 1 thing ... The claim that McCain makes is that Obama will tax you but keep spending up, he will cut spending. In the time of the great depression the main catalyst for the economy retsrting was that the govt cranked out a lot of public works projects. Now potentially the keeping up spending can do that, however in this narrow sense of the definition I like McCain idea a bit more.

Why - the perverse argument in my head is this.
He will cut spending, and that will kill seriously bad and useless projects as well as plunge the economy into depression. We let that sit there for 2-3-6 months. Then the govt can start good, well planned and needed projects and that can be done at a lower cost basis than it could have been otherwise (as in McCain supporting his rich buddies and killing the wages of the workers) ... however what it will do is to re energise the economy in the time that these are nearing completion and it will build a real new economy. Not just one that is created by working govt stooges.

Something like The (McCain) govt pays the guy a minimum wage to dig a ditch, the cable companies use the ditch and they pay for it say 10K or so over 3-5 years to run cable to a underserved area. Then that area has a software development company come up because they have a high speed connection to the rest of the world. Crude example. But everyone is happy, govt for its $ back, the ditch guy either now works at the software company or digs extra ditches to help them do this or that ... etc etc ...

Obama will pay the ditch digger 100,000 a year. That dude will dig the ditch, but the cable company now will refuse to drop the cable in there cos its 100K, they say, its gonna take us 25 years to get the $ back. So screw you. So Obama has created a sudden short term growth totally dependent on the govt. Again bad example.

But these 2 would be interpreted as, Obama/Liberals is good for the economy and McCain/Republicans are not ... Is that actually a good example of what happens ? can anyone tell me.

I think any artificial inflating back the dead economy which is almost what the idiot liberals - F^&k I want to hit Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid with a train will just be very very short term and literally money down the drain. BTW Illegals will take all of it and send it off to mexico. So the ripple effect stops with 1 ripple.

Cool.
Buddha.

wow it has been a long time since i read a post that inaccurate and well stupid.  i am disappointed.  to try and answer what you have written is pretty hard to do because it is just so inaccurate and does not make sense.  either republican or Democrat what you have written is just pulled out of the sky.  try and research and rewrite the post.  as written it is gibberish from a political and economic stand point.

sorry but that is how i feel.

Frankieg - Its just a hypothetical scenario I made up.
The general theory that has been thrown about is that liberals are good for the economy ... how and why that's all I am asking.
I just made up that ... and I made it up as 1 way McCain will be good long term but be seen as bad in the near term ... just made up.
Cool.
Buddha.

ok but i just can't answer this hypothetical scenario since it really is nonsensical , not to be mean but that is how i see it.

OK frankieG ... simply put ...

All the surveys and what not seem to indicate that Liberals will be good for the economy.

What is that based on. That is all my question is.

Cool.
Buddha.

All those surveys come from the perspective that W has hosed the economy so badly that clearly any plan the Republicans can put forth will clearly be terrible and plunge us further into the ecomomic abyss we are already tumbling into. Raising taxes for anyone is not going to help- people can't afford to buy food- do they need the government going into their pockets for more taxes? I know Obama says he's just gonna raise taxes on people  who make over 250k. Who are those people? For the most part they are employers- and though trickle down economics is a pretty proven failure in the grand scheme of things on a smaller level it is the way things work.

Right now, in Oregon the car buisness is so bad that dealers are laying off people that are paid solely on commission because they just aren't making enough to pay for the benefits. If you work construction and all of the sudden the government decides to take more money in taxes if you break a $250k threshold it will provide small employers lot's of incentive to stay below that cap and maybe not employ so many people. That said- it's pretty clear if you cut taxes for the rich like the Republicans always want to do, thinking those rich employers are then gonna give pay raises or hire more people is laughable. These people got rich by keeping as much of their money to themselves as they could and using every tax loophole their attorney/accountant could find anthey were helped my some pretty awful economic policy in the last 10 years.

To me they are both terribly flawed tax models and the reason liberals now have the mantle of "economic saviors" is because W couldn't find an economic policy that worked if he had a map, flashlight, and a Sherpa leading the way.

Flat tax FTW.

Consumption based tax ... is that what you meant by flat tax ?
That is likely to create a underground market of sorts.

Something like this. Crap comes in from China, at the point it gets into the port its taxed. If not, the whole system will be worse ... I'll explain that too in a sec.
Then it goes to walmart, where it will be taxed at retail sale. However a container full can be bought by say, me, and I'll walk around the streets with my coat pockets filled with goodies. Then anyone that wants goodies, I'll just sell them ... cash, no receipt, no tax. You go to walmart it is 25% more and you get a nice shiny peice of paper ... if you buy from the ghetto its 25% less. Yea walmart = double taxation. So everyone should buy from me. Or buy american made stuff which will get to stores (or me) all pretax. AKA stimulate the economy.

If these were not taxed at entry, it will just make it worse. The govt will not get any tax on my sales ...

However the ghetto shoppers will be buying little things and that is a tax break for ghetto shoppers (aka poor people) as well as people who buy used big things (cars, bikes etc) again poor people.

Maybe its OK its a tax break at consumption level depending on your level of consumption and its very in favor of the poor. However the govt will get gypped off a lot of $$$ ...

I actually love that system for another reason. No freaking tax refund filing every damn april. Or in my case october. What do we do with all the H&R blockhead types.

Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: The Buddha on November 04, 2008, 11:08:43 AM
What do we do with all the H&R blockhead types.
Cool.
Buddha.

Hey I need a really ghetto GS

No, by flat tax I mean an income tax that is the same for everyone regardless of how much you make excepting the extremely poor- so for an example the Feds take a flat 20% of what you make. period. No deductions, no accountants finding loopholes so the rich pay less- everyone pays whatever percent. No special incentives for anyone. That way the middle class is paying the same percent as the wealthy and it is fair. Of course that will happen right about the same time we have a balanced federal budget that actually produces a surplus to start getting rid of the national debt.

i like the idea of a flat tax as well. this way the rich do actually pay more than the poor but it is all within proportion to what you make. making it fair for eveyrone. but even with this idea, the rich can still claim so many deductions. everything is a business expense, etd that they end up paying less in proportion to their income. our entire tax code needs revised. a flat tax across the board. no deductions. etc. although i  have to say with the earned income credit and child tax credits the last two years i have gotten back more than i've payed in. 

Well, Obama has been running his mouth about change for a long time- of course he never said it will be change for the better...I think it will be business as usual. Nothing ever changes.

+ 1  Oh damn, i agree with you again?   

every time he says change i rummage through my pockets. weird Eh?. but hey hes in, it may be a bumpy ride. im ready for what ever may or may not happen. no one knows cept him and god . so like i said, im ready. hell if it gets bad enough ill go to canada, or over tofamily home in the uk ( but that is a last resort though. meh ill just deal with it lmao

thank got no more bush, bush cheney crap, republican crap, republican evil.  the next four years will be better than any our country has seen at least in my life time of 45 years.