|
|
On September 19 2012 07:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:34 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 07:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 19 2012 07:29 kmillz wrote:
Obama
47%
-1
Romney
46%
+1
Gallup poll. Looks like all you folks saying "Romney is in alot of trouble after that 47% comment in that leaked video!" are wrong. Don't Gallup results lag by a day? Romney's leaks happened last night. If they called people this morning I don't think they would have heard about them yet. It's a 7-day running average poll. We won't know the effects for a week. I assumed he was talking about the Gallup-daily poll at the right margin.
Right, and that daily tracking poll is based upon a 7-day running average.
|
On September 19 2012 07:29 kmillz wrote:
Obama
47%
-1
Romney
46%
+1
Gallup poll. Looks like all you folks saying "Romney is in alot of trouble after that 47% comment in that leaked video!" are wrong.
That's funny. Ramussen has Obama +2, Washington Post +8, NBC/WSJ/Marist +5.
You can check out a comprehensive poll-tracker here.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-virginia-president-romney-vs-obama#!
I tend to lean towards the xDaunt position that individual polls in isolation mean jack-squat.
|
On September 19 2012 07:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 19 2012 07:34 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 07:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 19 2012 07:29 kmillz wrote:
Obama
47%
-1
Romney
46%
+1
Gallup poll. Looks like all you folks saying "Romney is in alot of trouble after that 47% comment in that leaked video!" are wrong. Don't Gallup results lag by a day? Romney's leaks happened last night. If they called people this morning I don't think they would have heard about them yet. It's a 7-day running average poll. We won't know the effects for a week. I assumed he was talking about the Gallup-daily poll at the right margin. Right, and that daily tracking poll is based upon a 7-day running average.
Oh, my bad. I had assumed they would have labeled the tracking poll as Sept. 11-17th if that were the case. If this sticks, though, it will show that the Romney comments about the "apology" in Libya didn't hurt him too much I suppose.
|
On September 19 2012 07:26 madsweepslol wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 06:16 madsweepslol wrote:On September 19 2012 05:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 05:48 madsweepslol wrote:On September 19 2012 05:19 xDaunt wrote:
I think that a little much is being made of the significance of the 47% comments. Was it helpful? Of course not. Is it harmful? Possibly at the margins, and probably only short term. Hopefully Romney will use this as an opportunity to take the gloves off and throw out some meaty policy for people to chew on. Like all the meaty policies he's detailed so far? To be fair, I don't think Obama's put out any meaty plans of his own. If he has, let me know - I'd love to know what he'd do with another 4 years. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/06/comparing-romneys-and-obamas-jobs-plans/ So he's just going to resurrect whatever past bills got voted down already? That can't seriously be it. You mean he's going to keep trying to push a proposal that was never seriously considered in the first place since Republican reps just stuck their fingers in their ears and shouted 'NONONONO!'? Yes.
They'll just should no no no no again...
If he can't make them say yes now why can he make them say yes in a couple months?
|
That video may not cost him the election, but its going to hurt. He lost some undecided voters who might have gone his way.
|
On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:48 HunterX11 wrote:On September 19 2012 06:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 19 2012 06:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:
If you can find me a single quote from a Democrat that won an election that dismisses the entire Republican party as [insert negative property here] I will agree with this. I could probably offer numerous examples. Obviously it won't be as explicit as you want it to be. But the first comment that comes to mind is this one by Obama, quite obviously referring to many Republican voters: "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Obama probably did permanently lose a lot of voters from that remark. And despite how people like to explain it away, "You didn't build that" hurt him as well. Actually, I'm not sure it really has. It's hard to look at the polls and say, "that comment cost Obama X%." I just don't really get the sense that the comment has demonstrably moved public opinion one way or another since it was made three-four months ago. I wouldn't say "public opinion", but it had its effect on small business owners, not all of whom were always, or automatically in Romney's camp. I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us.
Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that.
|
On September 19 2012 07:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:26 madsweepslol wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 06:16 madsweepslol wrote:On September 19 2012 05:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 05:48 madsweepslol wrote:On September 19 2012 05:19 xDaunt wrote:
I think that a little much is being made of the significance of the 47% comments. Was it helpful? Of course not. Is it harmful? Possibly at the margins, and probably only short term. Hopefully Romney will use this as an opportunity to take the gloves off and throw out some meaty policy for people to chew on. Like all the meaty policies he's detailed so far? To be fair, I don't think Obama's put out any meaty plans of his own. If he has, let me know - I'd love to know what he'd do with another 4 years. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/06/comparing-romneys-and-obamas-jobs-plans/ So he's just going to resurrect whatever past bills got voted down already? That can't seriously be it. You mean he's going to keep trying to push a proposal that was never seriously considered in the first place since Republican reps just stuck their fingers in their ears and shouted 'NONONONO!'? Yes. They'll just should no no no no again...
Because that's been good for the Republican brand.
|
On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:48 HunterX11 wrote:On September 19 2012 06:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 19 2012 06:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:
If you can find me a single quote from a Democrat that won an election that dismisses the entire Republican party as [insert negative property here] I will agree with this. I could probably offer numerous examples. Obviously it won't be as explicit as you want it to be. But the first comment that comes to mind is this one by Obama, quite obviously referring to many Republican voters: "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Obama probably did permanently lose a lot of voters from that remark. And despite how people like to explain it away, "You didn't build that" hurt him as well. Actually, I'm not sure it really has. It's hard to look at the polls and say, "that comment cost Obama X%." I just don't really get the sense that the comment has demonstrably moved public opinion one way or another since it was made three-four months ago. I wouldn't say "public opinion", but it had its effect on small business owners, not all of whom were always, or automatically in Romney's camp. I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that.
Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory.
|
On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:48 HunterX11 wrote:On September 19 2012 06:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
I could probably offer numerous examples. Obviously it won't be as explicit as you want it to be. But the first comment that comes to mind is this one by Obama, quite obviously referring to many Republican voters:
"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Obama probably did permanently lose a lot of voters from that remark. And despite how people like to explain it away, "You didn't build that" hurt him as well. Actually, I'm not sure it really has. It's hard to look at the polls and say, "that comment cost Obama X%." I just don't really get the sense that the comment has demonstrably moved public opinion one way or another since it was made three-four months ago. I wouldn't say "public opinion", but it had its effect on small business owners, not all of whom were always, or automatically in Romney's camp. I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. Alternatively: Trust massive state expansion, it worked for Russia, France and the U.S! It can work for you too.
I love the delusion of left wingers that the State isnt culpable in manipulation of the markets. Half the country is at the beck and call of the Government.
|
The debates will be fascinating.
If all Romney's campaign did was sit on their hands for seven weeks, they would be in a better position entering the debates than they are today.
Mind-blowing. Obama has so many more lines of attack and openings to exploit than two weeks ago. It's like Rick Santorum leaked that video or something. Unreal.
|
On September 19 2012 08:00 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:48 HunterX11 wrote:
[quote]
Obama probably did permanently lose a lot of voters from that remark. And despite how people like to explain it away, "You didn't build that" hurt him as well. Actually, I'm not sure it really has. It's hard to look at the polls and say, "that comment cost Obama X%." I just don't really get the sense that the comment has demonstrably moved public opinion one way or another since it was made three-four months ago. I wouldn't say "public opinion", but it had its effect on small business owners, not all of whom were always, or automatically in Romney's camp. I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. Alternatively: Trust massive state expansion, it worked for Russia, France and the U.S! It can work for you too. I love the delusion of left wingers that the State isnt culpable in manipulation of the markets. Half the country is at the beck and call of the Government.
Yes, we are at the beck and call of the government. They are called laws.
|
On September 19 2012 08:00 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:48 HunterX11 wrote:
[quote]
Obama probably did permanently lose a lot of voters from that remark. And despite how people like to explain it away, "You didn't build that" hurt him as well. Actually, I'm not sure it really has. It's hard to look at the polls and say, "that comment cost Obama X%." I just don't really get the sense that the comment has demonstrably moved public opinion one way or another since it was made three-four months ago. I wouldn't say "public opinion", but it had its effect on small business owners, not all of whom were always, or automatically in Romney's camp. I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. Alternatively: Trust massive state expansion, it worked for Russia, France and the U.S! It can work for you too. I love the delusion of left wingers that the State isnt culpable in manipulation of the markets. Half the country is at the beck and call of the Government.
That's not really the alternative. The alternative is don't lower taxes for the rich. That's all.
|
On September 19 2012 08:00 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:48 HunterX11 wrote:
[quote]
Obama probably did permanently lose a lot of voters from that remark. And despite how people like to explain it away, "You didn't build that" hurt him as well. Actually, I'm not sure it really has. It's hard to look at the polls and say, "that comment cost Obama X%." I just don't really get the sense that the comment has demonstrably moved public opinion one way or another since it was made three-four months ago. I wouldn't say "public opinion", but it had its effect on small business owners, not all of whom were always, or automatically in Romney's camp. I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. Alternatively: Trust massive state expansion, it worked for Russia, France and the U.S! It can work for you too. I love the delusion of left wingers that the State isnt culpable in manipulation of the markets. Half the country is at the beck and call of the Government.
Uh, I fail to see how not even creating a public option in your healthcare reform is massive state expansion. Or preventing the collapse of private enterprises. Or, well, much of anything Obama has done or is proposing to do.
It's especially funny when conservatives are tongue-lashing Obama for cutting Medicare funds in an attempt to increase efficiency that healthcare leaders approved of while still continuing to maintain wasteful government spending is bad. Everyone needs to screw their heads on a little straighter.
|
On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:48 HunterX11 wrote:On September 19 2012 06:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
I could probably offer numerous examples. Obviously it won't be as explicit as you want it to be. But the first comment that comes to mind is this one by Obama, quite obviously referring to many Republican voters:
"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Obama probably did permanently lose a lot of voters from that remark. And despite how people like to explain it away, "You didn't build that" hurt him as well. Actually, I'm not sure it really has. It's hard to look at the polls and say, "that comment cost Obama X%." I just don't really get the sense that the comment has demonstrably moved public opinion one way or another since it was made three-four months ago. I wouldn't say "public opinion", but it had its effect on small business owners, not all of whom were always, or automatically in Romney's camp. I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory.
This isn't trickle down economics. This is how a market economy is supposed to function. When profits go up competition should increase and push profits back down. We aren't currently seeing that and there's no one "there it is!" problem and solution.
A reasonable diagnosis of the problem is that businesses do not see current profits as sustainable and / or see uncertainty as too great a factor. Lowering taxes would then help remedy that. If you disagree, fine, but please offer some logic behind your disagreement.
|
I wasn't disagreeing. Read my post.
|
On September 19 2012 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:48 HunterX11 wrote:
[quote]
Obama probably did permanently lose a lot of voters from that remark. And despite how people like to explain it away, "You didn't build that" hurt him as well. Actually, I'm not sure it really has. It's hard to look at the polls and say, "that comment cost Obama X%." I just don't really get the sense that the comment has demonstrably moved public opinion one way or another since it was made three-four months ago. I wouldn't say "public opinion", but it had its effect on small business owners, not all of whom were always, or automatically in Romney's camp. I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. This isn't trickle down economics. This is how a market economy is supposed to function. When profits go up competition should increase and push profits back down. We aren't currently seeing that and there's no one "there it is!" problem and solution. A reasonable diagnosis of the problem is that businesses do not see current profits as sustainable and / or see uncertainty as too great a factor. Lowering taxes would then help remedy that. If you disagree, fine, but please offer some logic behind your disagreement.
Businesses are willing to expand and hire more workers when they see opportunity for growth, i.e., more products to sell. Cutting taxes is simply a false growth for business - they didn't sell more products or necessarily make more of their goods, they simply got more money off of what they're already doing. You basically made status quo practices more profitable. So you just gave them some extra cash which won't go into investment, because opportunity and demand didn't change.
|
On September 19 2012 08:07 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 08:00 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:52 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
And despite how people like to explain it away, "You didn't build that" hurt him as well. Actually, I'm not sure it really has. It's hard to look at the polls and say, "that comment cost Obama X%." I just don't really get the sense that the comment has demonstrably moved public opinion one way or another since it was made three-four months ago. I wouldn't say "public opinion", but it had its effect on small business owners, not all of whom were always, or automatically in Romney's camp. I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. Alternatively: Trust massive state expansion, it worked for Russia, France and the U.S! It can work for you too. I love the delusion of left wingers that the State isnt culpable in manipulation of the markets. Half the country is at the beck and call of the Government. Yes, we are at the beck and call of the government. They are called laws.
Yes because half of Americans being dependent on the Government, Government spending as a share of GDP being about 40%-- thats all synonymous with merely having a legal system. Thats what I'm railing against. Curse dem laws!!11!. Thanks for your input.
|
On September 19 2012 08:44 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 08:08 Risen wrote:On September 19 2012 08:00 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:55 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Actually, I'm not sure it really has. It's hard to look at the polls and say, "that comment cost Obama X%." I just don't really get the sense that the comment has demonstrably moved public opinion one way or another since it was made three-four months ago. I wouldn't say "public opinion", but it had its effect on small business owners, not all of whom were always, or automatically in Romney's camp. I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. Alternatively: Trust massive state expansion, it worked for Russia, France and the U.S! It can work for you too. I love the delusion of left wingers that the State isnt culpable in manipulation of the markets. Half the country is at the beck and call of the Government. That's not really the alternative. The alternative is don't lower taxes for the rich. That's all. Yes because half of Americans being dependent on the Government, Government spending as a share of GDP being about 40%-- thats all synonymous with merely having a legal system. Thats what I'm railing against. Curse dem laws!!11!. Thanks for your input. Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 08:08 Risen wrote:On September 19 2012 08:00 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:55 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Actually, I'm not sure it really has. It's hard to look at the polls and say, "that comment cost Obama X%." I just don't really get the sense that the comment has demonstrably moved public opinion one way or another since it was made three-four months ago. I wouldn't say "public opinion", but it had its effect on small business owners, not all of whom were always, or automatically in Romney's camp. I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. Alternatively: Trust massive state expansion, it worked for Russia, France and the U.S! It can work for you too. I love the delusion of left wingers that the State isnt culpable in manipulation of the markets. Half the country is at the beck and call of the Government. That's not really the alternative. The alternative is don't lower taxes for the rich. That's all. Yeah, no ones ever mentioned cutting Government spending, deregulation, privatization, decentralization of programs [to make them more efficient/responsible to the public] free trade etc etc. Thats never - ever to be completely clear - been offered as a clear alternative to massive ever growing state intervention and debt. Brilliant.
Please tell us where you got the statistic of 40% of Americans being dependent on the government, and what exactly being dependent means.
|
I still don't understand how anyone in the United States could vote for Romney... HOW could you think that is a good idea? Someone explain this to me, completely take Obama out of the picture and say what Romney is bringing to the table that isn't either a hidden idea that he won't explain or just plain awful.
|
+ Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2012 08:08 Risen wrote:
Show nested quote +
That's not really the alternative. The alternative is don't lower taxes for the rich. That's all.
Yes because half of Americans being dependent on the Government, Government spending as a share of GDP being about 40%-- thats all synonymous with merely having a legal system. Thats what I'm railing against. Curse dem laws!!11!. Thanks for your input.
On September 19 2012 08:08 Risen wrote:
Show nested quote +
That's not really the alternative. The alternative is don't lower taxes for the rich. That's all.
Yeah, no ones ever mentioned cutting Government spending, deregulation, privatization, decentralization of programs [to make them more efficient/responsible to the public] free trade etc etc. Thats never - ever to be completely clear - been offered as a clear alternative to massive ever growing state intervention and debt. Brilliant.
Spoilered in case whatevername is just reformatting it to respond to the proper people instead of just me twice.
Ummm... the initial talk was about cutting taxes on the rich. You responded that the alternative to cutting taxes on the rich is having a massive government. That's not true, the alternative to cutting taxes for the rich is to NOT cut taxes for the rich. There is nothing that says there has to be big government if we don't cut taxes for the rich. Your statement is simply false.
|
|
|
|
|
|
19759
720
177
EPT
