Stronger growth rates under Democratic administrations

[jsp326]

Obama may have become more moderate in his proposals. I don't know how often his proposals or website are changed-maybe as often as he changes socks. If I'm wrong, I apologize. I know 60/40 was one of his early targets.

Obama's site, however, has its share of misinformation, such as "Palin's Planned Banned Books List." (They may have already taken it off, but it was on there.) That was such an obvious lie/joke, I can't believe it made an official candidate's site.

As for media bias, I think US magazine covers tell a better story than anything else:

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/02/pds-alert-us-magazines-partisan-hit-job/

Note: just look at the covers. You don't have to agree with Malkin's comments or site. I'm not claiming she's a neutral observer or anything.

I will say that the Internet media has been much better than the traditional media (major networks, mainstream newspapers and magazines).

Quote from jonbig04:

About your first point, well it's simply not true. Did you make it up? From Obama's website:

--Families with incomes below $250,000 would pay current capital gains rates (a maximum tax of 15% on gains on assets held more than one year). Those earning more than $250,000 would face an increase -- a top rate of 20%.

About your second point, I will assume you are right as I couldn't quickly find anything on the FICA tax in his economic plan

On your third point you again seem to have pulled that one out of nowhere,

The top dividend tax rate would remain the current 15% for those earning less than $250,000, but would rise to 20% for those earning above that threshold.
For single people, the tax increases above would apply to those earning more than $200,000.

About your last point, it is simply very misleading:

"Obama has proposed to apply the tax only to estates valued at more than $3.5 million ($7 million for couples)



This seems to be the general drill around here. Don't believe the media, instead check on the facts. I though thought the media hype was a liberal phenomenon. Clearly that's not the case.

 

[volente_00]

How is spending billions on a war in iraq helping the
US economy ?


Republicans dislike social programs in the US but have no problem spending money on war and then spending more money to help rebuild the country they tore apart.

I also find it funny that if you even mention about cutting social security benefits or raising the age to receive them, all the old republicans go apeshit.



Guns or butter ?

 

[thn5625]

I cant believe the threadstarter is trading in a capitalistic market.

This is soooo easy to explain. Noticed the Democrats who improved their economy were in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 1 was after a world war. In those years, Democrats supported less govt intervention and free markets. Through time, positions of the Dems change to be more leftist/liberal and the Republicians became more right/conservative. Note how no new Dem administration helped the econ except Clinton who had a more free market focus.

The thread starter is right but wrong about the conclusions. Remember Polictical Science 101????

since the late 70s and on there has been a switch in ideology in the 2 primary parties. Democrats in the past were more like Repulblicians today and vice versa (Republicians of old used to be social welfare centric).

The conclusion is that we all know that an emphasis in free markets and less govt intervention is best for the economy. The Republicians do that.

As for the Democrats they will HAVE to dig in the coffers to spend for their social programs and as we all know, bureaucracy will always drift toward inefficiency through time.

Also, if a Democrat is in office, the economy will pick up in spite of their spending. The problem is after 1 or 2 yrs after money has been drained they will start to raise taxes. Why? B/c governement inefficiency will slow growth and hence there will be less taxes b/c corporations make less and in the end they will raise taxes which doesnt fix anything but will slow the economy down even more and on and on...

Bottom line, free markets are best. Less govt intrusion except for public institutions. Taxes no matter how you spin it is treated as an expense in the financial books by any corporation (except Fannie Mae/Mac). To run a company the key is to reduce the expenses. Not that hard people.

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from volente_00:

How is spending billions on a war in iraq helping the

As of right now? It's not. At least not in ways that I can see. However I think you are looking at a very short term picture, when maybe it will do some good to look at things on a larger time scale.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2053356#post2053356

Consider the region we are occupying and why we may be there. I think there is some pretty compelling, logic-based reasons behind our presence in the middle east, all of which, ironically, state economics as our reason FOR the war. Check the link.

 

[saliva]

If the economy is better off under the helm of dems in the white house, and the stock market is its direct beneficiary, why are so many assholes on Wall Street blowhard republicans?

 

[saliva]

Quote from jonbig04:

As of right now? It's not. At least not in ways that I can see. However I think you are looking at a very short term picture, when maybe it will do some good to look at things on a larger time scale.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2053356#post2053356

Consider the region we are occupying and why we may be there. I think there is some pretty compelling, logic-based reasons behind our presence in the middle east, all of which, ironically, state economics as our reason FOR the war. Check the link.

No matter how you slice and dice it, this administration fucked us all with their lies. As a result, we depleted our valuable resources that could have been used to capture the real culprit, Osama bin Laden. To say otherwise is fucking disingenuous.

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from thn5625:


Bottom line, free markets are best. Less govt intrusion except for public institutions. Taxes no matter how you spin it is treated as an expense in the financial books by any corporation (except Fannie Mae/Mac). To run a company the key is to reduce the expenses. Not that hard people.

I dont mean to keep posting in this thread, but I can't help it. Look at our economy! Look at housing, credit, and inflation. What was this caused by? Over-leveraged companies buying up all the paper they could, lending money to any top, dick, or harry because they were so leveraged they could buy all the paper. Loans on loans. These massive companies had ridiculous debt and no one was there to say "hey what the hell?". Usually I would agree with you, free market is best. However in the last year or so we've seen what happens when companies get to do whatever they want, how ever they want for long periods of time. It's not just their business, how they run their company when its a public company that can have a huge impact on our economy. Periodically the reg's have to step in to make sure shit like this doesnt happen.

It's just funny to me that after whats happened in the last year and a half, you still think that deregulation is ALWAYS the answer. Most of the time? Yes, but now we are all suffering because they large companies weren't regulated enough.

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from saliva:

No matter how you slice and dice it, this administration fucked us all with their lies. As a result, we depleted our valuable resources that could have been used to capture the real culprit, Osama bin Laden. To say otherwise is fucking disingenuous.

its obvious you didn't click the link.

 

[runningman]

Quote from saliva:

If the economy is better off under the helm of dems in the white house, and the stock market is its direct beneficiary, why are so many assholes on Wall Street blowhard republicans?

you might want to rethink that-- there are a lot of blowhard republicans on wall st, but there are a ton of prominent democrats as well, Warren Buffett comes to mind for one...several of the biggest and best HF managers were also big donors to Hillary Clinton, as well as John Mack who was a Bush Ranger...he switched to back Hillary.

 

[saliva]

Quote from jonbig04:

its obvious you didn't click the link.

I did click the link and read a few posts, but they were more of talking points on the ulterior motives behind Iraq invasion. My point was more in connection to the spirit of this thread, namely, why dems are better than repubs. The bottom line is republicans are a bunch of liars that is so readily apparent in the oppotunism of MaCain in this election.