You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A must watch video, Obama's radical tax plan...
- Thread starter Mvic
- Start date
Wasn't truly surprised; just a polite rhetorical technique for stating the obvious.
Quote from Mvic:
For all those who say the Bush tax cuts did nothing for the economy, well, again I ask where would the economy be now if we had had the Bush tax cuts without 9/11, Afhghanistan/Iraq, Katrina? He wasn't exactly dealt a great hand to start with but if he hadn't had a progrowth economic policy we wouldn't be talking about if whether we are headed for a recession or not, we would be firmly entrenched in a deep one.
Progrowth policy for whom? I see that foreign nations - like the "command economy" in China - have grown quite substantially as American jobs go overseas, as domestic wages stagnate, and as our tax code penalizes actual productive work in favor of passive investment and moving money around. No doubt they will continue to do so, as our "progrowth" policies continue to export dollars by the half-trillion, which may then be used by these same foreign nations to buy up Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.
I find it interesting that no one (outside Rallymode) brought up the fact that Obama seeks to get rid of the 60/40 tax treatment for all futures traders and return to ordinary income taxes. This is a trading board and yet this little detail gets no discussion.
I also see there is no dicusssion on Obama's number one agenda, spending 100's of billions of dollars a year to stop gobal warming.
I also see there is no dicusssion on Obama's number one agenda, spending 100's of billions of dollars a year to stop gobal warming.
Quote from buster_hymen:
Quite surprising how few of you can see past your own narrow, self-interest.
Actually, I would argue that a progrowth and economically strong America is in the interest of everyone on the planet. A broke America that is is relegated to 2nd tier status in the world economy is in nobody's interest (except maybe some Jihadist or other such troublemakers somewhere). I find it the epitomy of self interest for one group to sacrifice the nation's growth so that they can pander to their own constituents and this is what it appears that Obama is planning to do.
Quote from Maverick74:
I find it interesting that no one (outside Rallymode) brought up the fact that Obama seeks to get rid of the 60/40 tax treatment for all futures traders and return to ordinary income taxes. This is a trading board and yet this little detail gets no discussion.
I thought it couldn't get any worse than what I'd already read about Obama's plans, apparently it can.
Nice post. Probably too much for the Obama Kool Aid Club to digest, but a nice post nonetheless.
Quote from Mvic:
Those who believe that we can spend our way ou of the hole we are in are as bad as the ones who think we can "save" our way out of it. The only solution is to grow our way out and we have to do it in a much more competative world than we have ever faced before. We need a government that is as growth friendly as possible and not one that handicaps entreprenuers before they even incorporate.
For all those who say the Bush tax cuts did nothing for the economy, well, again I ask where would the economy be now if we had had the Bush tax cuts without 9/11, Afhghanistan/Iraq, Katrina? Remember where the economy was when Bush inherited it? He wasn't exactly dealt a great hand to start with but if he hadn't had a progrowth economic policy we wouldn't be talking about if whether we are headed for a recession or not, we would be firmly entrenched in a deep one.
If we don't take concrete steps to grow our way out of the fiscal hole not only will we miss out on a great deal of the potential benefits of the global Bull market but we will also continue to lose ground to other nations economically. Why don't we ask Argetinians how well austerity measures work? Even the IMF admitt that those draconian measures instituted to service their debt were the wrong way to go in hindsight.
The growth has to come from the market sector and not the public sector. Look at what happened to the Soviet Union and China trying to grow under a command economy (Obama wants to grow using the Public not the private sector), it doesn't work. Now that they have allowed the market sector some freedom they are growing like the clappers. They are coming off a very low threshold so can still afford the significant impediments that their systems impose on business (especially with respect to the Chinese economy), also the Russian are oil rich, but in the US we have a far more sophisticated economy that is far more sensitive to policy impediments to economic growth. In this era where the playing field is more level than it has been in our economic history we need the edge that a progrowth fiscal policy can give us to be able to compete with economies replete with hungry billions who are all want a piece of the global pie.
I repeat: whatever Obama "saves" by pulling out of Iraq or whatever he gains from taxes will be spent on the usual suspects: welfare, education, environment, health care, more government agencies/programs, more nanny state.
Not sure about Hillary, but at least her husband is a pretty moderate Democrat. I don't care for him at all as a person (he's as political and corrupt as they come), but I'd take him over Obama any day.
Not sure about Hillary, but at least her husband is a pretty moderate Democrat. I don't care for him at all as a person (he's as political and corrupt as they come), but I'd take him over Obama any day.
Quote from Maverick74:
I also see there is no dicusssion on Obama's number one agenda, spending 100's of billions of dollars a year to stop gobal warming.
Quote from Specterx:
Progrowth policy for whom? I see that foreign nations - like the "command economy" in China - have grown quite substantially as American jobs go overseas, as domestic wages stagnate, and as our tax code penalizes actual productive work in favor of passive investment and moving money around. No doubt they will continue to do so, as our "progrowth" policies continue to export dollars by the half-trillion, which may then be used by these same foreign nations to buy up Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.
You have a point which is why something like the Fairtax proposal would be better than any income tax at all but that notwithstanding it is no surprise that a country where the average per capita income is less that $1700 (and in reality a lot less than that for the vast majority of the poulation) is able to exhibit high growth rates when the developed economies of the world are also growing. Here something to think about: If the US grows 4% a year, how much does China have to grow to add the same $ amount to its GDP? Given China's growth rate of 11% who is better off in $ terms, the US growing its GDP by 4% a year or China growing at 11%? The answer is that the US is substantially better off.
Quote from HotTip:
Am I the only one to think that McCain is the obvious choice? Not only is he a pork buster who's a strong believer of balanced budgeting, he also wants to control the growth of government.
I don't know why, but I still find it hard how even a person of below average intelligence would come to believe this.
When has a war hawk ever controlled spending or the growth of government? But rather than use logic & common sense, you just look up McCain's proposed budget which is definitely not balanced or going down.
McCain, Huckabee, Obama & Hillary have minor differences. The general agenda is the same.
For all of you to argue one over the other just goes further to illustrate the concept of "hoodwinking".