Obama wants to drop taces on 95% of Americans including capital gains for small biz

Quote from FightTheFuture:

Waffle Waffle!

Now the 0bama talks of lowering taxes. Make up yer mind. What's it going to be?

Improvise Improvise!
More...


Thanks for the mindless BS. It's so helpful.
 
Quote from Jayford:

exactly.

not only do oil companies NOT set oil prices, but they pay massive taxes. Exxon alone paid an amount equal to the lower 50% of all Americans!!!

its just politically popular to go after these guys cause oil prices are high.
More...


But the Dems will have you believe otherwise....Glad this was brought up.
 
Quote from jonbig04:

Thanks for the mindless BS. It's so helpful.
More...


No need to directly thank me. Hopefully 0bama will rig up a gummint program to indirectly thank those that contribute to your life.
 
Quote from jonbig04:

Now that we have that out of the way, what went wrong? Well, to protect the everyday people who invest in bonds, the bonds themselves are rated by some combination of letters, AAA being the best. Customers who invest in the AAA loans have a very low chance of any kind of default, but also get paid less interest. The greater the risk (rating), the greater the reward (interest rate) and the lesser the risk the lesser the reward. The most venerated bond rating company is Standard and Poor's (yea thats where the S&P 500 comes from). In a nutshell, these guys dropped the ball. The financial companies that were selling the mortgage backed securities were incurring debt to by more debt. Some of these companies were leveraged 50:1. That means that they had 50 times as much debt as cash. Can you imagine that? Go into your bank now with only $10,000 and nothing else, give it to the loan officer and tell him you want a loan of $500,000 and you will let him hold the $10,000 as collateral. Think that would fly? Thats exactly what these financial companies (the Wall Street guy in our example) were doing. Except, they didn't have $10,000, they had hundreds of millions. Multiply that by 50 and see how much debt these guys were carrying. So what did they use all that debt money for? To buy mortgage backed securities (and other debts). Basically they were buying debt with debt. Kind of like you getting a loan from the bank, then using that money as a down payment for a bigger loan etc etc again and again. Not the most responsible thing. These companies were raking in the cash though. Because all this debt was being bought up, the mortgage companies could pretty much sell any loan to the secondary market. Result? Every degenerate with a pulse was getting 100%-110% financing. They bond guys figured worst case, the guy defaults, housing prices are going up anyway, they could probably make some money back. Then it all came crashing down like a house of cards. Once people started defaulting on their loans, even though its only a small number of them, it caused a domino effect. These companies had so much debt with so little assets they couldn't cover their losses. Over night (literally) billion dollar companies went down the drain. Hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs. The whole stock market tanks thousands of points because investors don't know which company will go under next. It was also discovered the some of the analysts working at S&P were rating companies just before they went and worked for the making far more money. Can you say conflict of interest? How did this effect our economy?

Inflation. Because the stock market was tanking so badly the federal reserve had to drop interest rates substantially to pump the stock market back up. This creates more money. Does it help? Yes. However do you know what happens when you simply print money? It become worth less, thats inflation. Thats why the dollar is weak compared to other world currencies.

Credit crisis. Because people got burnt so bad buying what they thought to be good debt, a lot of investors are scared to reinvest their money. Debt is not a bad thing and it is necessary for growth. As we have seen too much can be very bad, but without it, it makes it very hard for companies and people to grow, which leads us to our next problem.

What about housing? Housing prices have fell through the floor. Why? Because people who are foreclosing have to move out, and even good borrowers can't get lans because everyone is so scared of lending money. More empty houses equals large supply, the fact that a lot of people can't get financed for them equals no demand. Do we know what happens when large supply meets no demand? The average families largest asset just got devalued by a whole lot.

Unemployment. This one is a no-brainer. If these huge companies are forced to lay off hundreds of thousands of people because of the problems I just mentioned, obviously that leaves a lot o people out of work.

High energy costs. Oil is by far the most important commodity on Earth. The price of oil has doubled in the last year. Doubled. It's my opinion thats this is largely due to factors outside our control, but one factor I've mentioned does have an impact on the price of oil. Inflation. Oil i s priced in dollars, so obviously if dollars are worthless the price of oil has to go up. Oil is in everything. It's how we get electricity, food, travel. There is no aspect of your life, large or small, that isn't affected by oil.


To sum up: We have less jobs, because the companies aren't making as much money. The price of oil has caused the price of nearly everything to rise, which we have to pay for with our dollar which is worth less, and the worth of our largest asset is going lower. Nice. We have to buy things that are more expensive, with less money, and even that is worth less than it was. Sucks.


Why did this happen? Because republicans (who have been in control 7 out the last 10 elections) believe in small government. They believe in letting the free markets work without interference. Do this and the country will prosper. You know what? I agree 100%. I believe that 90% of the time the government should stay out of our lives and, as our as the economy goes, let the markets work. However I also believe that when extended amounts of time go by, inevitably loopholes stat to be exploited. Companies start to act irresponsibly because they can. I believe the governments job is to step in and rein in these companies before they can do this much damage to the entire economy. These financial companies got away with this because they were not regulated at all. There was no one looking over their shoulder going "Hey, this isn't going to work". These companies had free reign to do as they pleased and, while I believe that is important, I also believe there is a point where the government NEEDS to step in. That point has come and gone. Because of conservative's lack of regulation, the whole country has to pay the price. This is the single biggest reason why I' voting for Obama. We need to enforce regulations on these companies so that , at least for a while, this won't happen again. We need the regulators to stick their nose in the business of these companies and set up some new rules. I'm afraid any pro-regulatory bill that comes across Mccains desk is going to get vetoed fairly quickly. Not to be cliche, but when it comes to regulating the financial sector, we need a change. haha.


One other quick reason I'm voting for Obama is because I believe more major conflict in the middle east is inevitable. Sorry pacifists, we can't yet live without oil. I know it, you know it, Mccain knows its, and yes Obama knows it. If/when it happens I believe our country will be much more unified in its efforts with peace loving Obama leading the way rather than POW Mccain, but that's another blog.


Honestly I'm a conservative guy. I hate the "fairness" policies of liberals. I believe if you don't succeed then you fail, and its not our responsibility to bail you out. I also believe that its our countries responsibility to defend those unable to defend themselves. However, in this moment in time, the facts have changed and so my mind has changed with it.



By the way everything I described was a very rough overview. I'm sure if you wanted to you could bust me on some technicalities.
More...

OK, I was right, you are young, but you seem pretty smart as well. I can understand that Obama is appealing. He's youthful, smart, cool and seems to have an answer for everything. The problem is, his answers are neither fresh nor intelligent. They are just the same old appeals to the basest of emotions, envy.

You discussed the economy intelligently. I don't think the Bush administration has done a very good job on the economy either. I recognize however that many of Bush's mistakes, overspending for example, were dictated by political pressures from the opposition. He went along with expensive programs to preempt the democrats from arguing that he was mean-spirited and against the poor. Of course, they did it anyway.

As for the mortgage crisis, can we stipulate there is enough blame to go around? Certainly the administration could have done better, but it is unfair to hold them soley responsible. The crux of the problem is the government sponsored entities, FNM and FRE. Republicans have tried for years to rein them in, but faced the sort of determined opposition from democrats that FNM and FRE's huge lobbying budgets bought. It didn't hurt that these companies' executive ranks are stuffed with former pols, mainly democrats such as the hapless Franklin Raines, who oversaw the disaster at FNM and left with a fortune in stock options loot.

If I thought centrist democrats would be running things, I wouldn't be overly upset. Obama is anything but a centrist however. He clearly is the most far left candidate ever to run for president. He has never held a private sector job, was a community organizer and clearly knows nothing about the economy. He appears to see it in terms of marxist class struggle, an amusingly outdated paradigm.

On security issues, I am on record as being uncomfortable with McCain's belligerency. But what does Obama offer except rhetoric? Hillary was right, he's not the person we want answering the 3 AM phone call. He's untested, unseasoned and basically an unknown.

To me, this all has a sense of deja vu. The 1976 election came against a backdrop of national unrest. An outsider who promised reform and change, Jimmy Carter, was elected. It didn't work out very well.
 
Quote from trendlover:

so they realize their hard work is only to be taken from them in the form of bigger taxes for the hard work that went into creating bigger profit. So why would most people continue to work hard for no gain? I am not saying there are no people who are so inspired by their work that money is not their goal, so maybe they keep working hard no matter the taxes. But we have to be honest and admit that money, and making money is the incentive for most people. So they can live a comfortable life.
I am not anti welfare. But for some it becomes a way of life passed down from generation to generation.
More...

Great. So what specific amount of welfare is the amount at which people stop working?

And a followup -- what specific percentage of taxes is the amount where people stop working?
 
Quote from bigdavediode:

Great. So what specific amount of welfare is the amount at which people stop working?

And a followup -- what specific percentage of taxes is the amount where people stop working?
More...

If you have a person who is content to just get by with welfare and aspires to nothing more, then they will not try for anything more. If you not allow them to be complacent, then they will have to learn a skill to survive if they are able to. What specific dollar number that is I do not know, and it will be different for each persons tolerance of getting by, and what they are willing to settle for.

For taxes that is also not a number I can say. But if someone can be less productive, and fall into a lower tax bracket, and avoid a huge tax but still make the same as if they were very profitable through hard work, but taxed, well what do you think most people will do? I am no expert or a person with all the answers, but I look at human nature.
 
Quote from bigdavediode:

Great. So what specific amount of welfare is the amount at which people stop working?

And a followup -- what specific percentage of taxes is the amount where people stop working?
More...

In the late 60's Senator Monihan published shocking stats about unwed minority mothers. Over 23% of children were born to single mothers.

This fact was part of the movement to the great society. The government decided to directly support these single mothers with welfare.

Well....30 years later we have 75% of minority children born out of wedlock, without a father.

So....How much welfare is too much? .....$1
Govt is only hurting a whole minority class of mothers with welfare.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

OK, I was right, you are young, but you seem pretty smart as well. I can understand that Obama is appealing. He's youthful, smart, cool and seems to have an answer for everything. The problem is, his answers are neither fresh nor intelligent. They are just the same old appeals to the basest of emotions, envy.

You discussed the economy intelligently. I don't think the Bush administration has done a very good job on the economy either. I recognize however that many of Bush's mistakes, overspending for example, were dictated by political pressures from the opposition. He went along with expensive programs to preempt the democrats from arguing that he was mean-spirited and against the poor. Of course, they did it anyway.

As for the mortgage crisis, can we stipulate there is enough blame to go around? Certainly the administration could have done better, but it is unfair to hold them soley responsible. The crux of the problem is the government sponsored entities, FNM and FRE. Republicans have tried for years to rein them in, but faced the sort of determined opposition from democrats that FNM and FRE's huge lobbying budgets bought. It didn't hurt that these companies' executive ranks are stuffed with former pols, mainly democrats such as the hapless Franklin Raines, who oversaw the disaster at FNM and left with a fortune in stock options loot.

If I thought centrist democrats would be running things, I wouldn't be overly upset. Obama is anything but a centrist however. He clearly is the most far left candidate ever to run for president. He has never held a private sector job, was a community organizer and clearly knows nothing about the economy. He appears to see it in terms of marxist class struggle, an amusingly outdated paradigm.

On security issues, I am on record as being uncomfortable with McCain's belligerency. But what does Obama offer except rhetoric? Hillary was right, he's not the person we want answering the 3 AM phone call. He's untested, unseasoned and basically an unknown.

To me, this all has a sense of deja vu. The 1976 election came against a backdrop of national unrest. An outsider who promised reform and change, Jimmy Carter, was elected. It didn't work out very well.
More...


Good points. I don't hold the bush administration responsible for the economy. I believe "letting the markets work" is usually the best policy. However they do periodically need to be reigned in when the inevitable loop holes are exploited for the profit of few, and to the cost of many. I simply can't see a conservative president signing into law bills that regulate companies, markets, etc. Thats big government, and I don't associated that with someone like Mccain. That and the fact that he doesn't even know the purpose of the federal reserve. Thats not just him though. I am AMAZED by the incompetence if our government officials. This is off topic and isnt directed towards repubs, or dems, but BOTH. I can't believe it. A guy running for president doesn't know what the fed rate does? The senate banking committee actually thinks oil companies set the price of oil? These are just some examples.These guys are ivy league educated, F'n senators! I turned 21 a month ago, and don't even go to college and yet I know more than those in congress? It makes me want to run haha. Too bad you have to be 25 :(.

Anyways, I see the media and other people painting obama as this ultra left wing guy, but frankly I don't see it. Example: in one of the posts above me someone mentions the fact about the children out of wedlock issue. Lets just say it. There are a lot of black people who have children out of wedlock, and then attempt to make us carry their burden by paying them welfare. White's and everyone else do this too, but its an epidemic in the black community. Someone like Jesse Jackson (ultra left) would say the solution is welfare and money. It's not, but Obama knows that. He understands that the problem can ONLY be solved in the home first. Thats where these problems initiate and take root in generation after generation. However we can't simply say "change your ways" and leave them on their own. We have to make an effort to instill values in their children through education. Their children are innocent and deserve the chance to be taught to develop a winning attitude, as opposed to their parents "the world owes me" attitude. I will concede also that Obama doesn't know much about the economy, but hell neither does mccain.

It's interesting what you say about Carter. I wouldn't know, but will think on it for a while. I'm watching Hannity and Combs right now and its just so ridiculous. I'll say it again, how can you subscribe to one set of ideals and beliefs that remain unchanged in a world that changes every second. Forget looking at the facts and making a decision, people who are "conservative", or "liberal" look at the facts and conform them to their biases and then expect to develop a winning solution. Idiots.

I also think its funny that people dismiss barracks oratorical skills as just that, a skill. Like its akin to being able to play basketball or solve math problems. The ability to speak to large amounts of people and influence them is one of the most powerful forces the world has ever seen; for good, or bad. Think hitler, or socrates. I just think thats funny, thats all.


One more thing, and this is thin and I know it...but I can't help but think about it. And that is Obama's ability to unite our country in the war that I think is inevitable.

I believe we're in Iraq because of Oil, and no not as some kind of Bush/Cheney conspiracy. We went into Iraw for WMD's, and they weren't there. We spend almost as much as the rest of the world COMBINED on our military/defense/intelligence, and you're telling me that, woops we just made a mistake? Oh, ok. So now were in the middle of the oil center of the world for no good reason other then "evil doers". Hmmm, ok. Then the price of oil doubles in 1 year. Why? No one seems to know. Its not oil companies. It's not speculators (they buy AND sell and thus do not have an effect on supply and demand in the way politicians would like to think they do). So what is it? It's supply and demand. Why, again are we in Iraq? All the while Iran threatens to block oil tankers etc.

I think that the Bush administration (or Clinton) discovered or realized that there was a problem, and that maybe there isn't enough oil to go around to the US, china, india, russia, without the price going up to currently unsustainable levels. I think it may be a case of us being in the middle easy to secure our future. We can't survive without oil, not yet. And not having any is way more dangerous than any kind of terrorism. Of course the bush administration couldn't very well say this to the public when gas was $1.50 a gallon. Especially because Americans tend to think the world is an easy place and that peace has no price. Americans woould have gotten behind a financial based war because they can't think that far ahead. Yet the terrorists provided a perfect excuse for the worlds largest military to be in the right spot at the right time if/when an oil crisis takes place, all with a relatively easy sell to the american people. I simply can't believe all this things happend:

1.The entire bush administration decided to go to war based on WMDs only

2.The entire intelligence network made a "mistake"

3.At the same time oil doubles because of supply and demand.

4. The mistaken intelligence sent us into the heart of the worlds oil country, yet our reason has nothing to do with energy.


It just seems fishy. I believe we are going to be at war, whether we like it or not, yes over oil. If mccain is president everyone is going to up in arms about the war and how its based on some kind of American profit conspiracy etc and all the other liberal BS. However is Obama is in office, maybe the US and rest of the world wont dismiss us as a conflict prone country and that we are going to war because we have to, not because we are being led by a war hero.


Just a conspiracy theory, but hey you never know. BTW I dont think you can call Obama socialist any more than you can call bush imperialistic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top