Rnc

[jemshores]

Originally Posted by kjr_trig
http:///forum/post/2747244
Squid, you will never hear me say Obama is not a gifted speaker, if that were all there was to it, he would get my vote, he is a brilliant, charismatic speaker.
He is too idealistic, too socialistic, and too inexperienced. Period.
Palin's speech was great, and the most important speech of either convention, because if she didn't pull it off, it would have been a train wreck for McCain, she came through huge....Perhaps you just don't want to admit it.
Gifted?? Turned on the TV this AM to hear him giving a speach last nite, looking out to the crowd and in all his glory said" you Americans are stupid!" How dare he...As all were booing, he went on to give some hair-brain explanation of what that comment meant...didn't exactly hear it all-was so

Anyway, I have been a registered Dem all my life and I would never forgive myself for voting for this ignorant man; who hides behind his ethniticity and calls me and my fellow Americans stupid!This was the decisive moment I was waiting for-it just came toooo early in the AM for me to fully digest it!

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2750986
But at least the people in the military get respect. Parents expect the teachers to pretty much play babysitter and the parents take no responsibility for their child's education.
how many teacher appreciation days do we really need. I didn't see them choose a fireman or a police man to go up into space. They chose a teacher... I can go down and list all sorts of "teachers appreciation type programs" movies about teachers get this teaching. Come on.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2750984
You posted recent GDP number, it has been on average 2.5% gain, so either way, 3 percent inflation means we are technically shrinking.

For someone who gets straight A's and tutors. I'd hate to think what the guys with b's and C's think. Do you not read BLS reports? All my gdp numbers are real GDP numbers why would I bother quoting non-inflation-adjusted numbers. And BTW you just said supply side economics work. I'll quote it in a little bit.... We've had one quarter with negative growth and that is 4th quarter 07 till we go back around september 11th 2001.

 

[oscardeuce]

Where was this "stupid" comment? I'd love to hear it!
Mr. Obama's true colors are showing, but his press secretaries in the media will hide them.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2750984
But an indirect transfer, tax cut, can do nothing but increase productivity.
That is further than I'll go advocating supply side economic idea. I think think there is diminishing marginal utility. But you agree with the idea? Come on this Reaganomics in a one sentence description you have to admit.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2751052
Where was this "stupid" comment? I'd love to hear it!
Mr. Obama's true colors are showing, but his press secretaries in the media will hide them.
I think he was refering to the tone of Obama's speeches.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2751053
That is further than I'll go advocating supply side economic idea. I think think there is diminishing marginal utility. But you agree with the idea? Come on this Reaganomics in a one sentence description you have to admit.
There's not cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all economic plan IMO.
During stagflation trickle down economics jump starts the economy and creates jobs. This has been proven by John Kennedy and Ronald Regan. That doesn't mean that the principle works for a thriving economy or for a recession. I believe that during the prosperous times the U.S. should cut back federal spending and pay down debt. We always seem to do the opposite, spend, spend, spend.

 

[reefraff]

These will probably all end up posted as "facts" in a thread at some point so I figured I'd post the fact check here on the smear campaign against Palin.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ing_palin.html

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2751057
There's not cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all economic plan IMO.
During stagflation trickle down economics jump starts the economy and creates jobs. This has been proven by John Kennedy and Ronald Regan. That doesn't mean that the principle works for a thriving economy or for a recession. I believe that during the prosperous times the U.S. should cut back federal spending and pay down debt. We always seem to do the opposite, spend, spend, spend.
I've yet to see a time when after significant tax cuts our federal income didn't increase. Clearly indicating that as a whole the growth in our economy outpaced the cutbacks of federal taxes.
I'm not going to argue spend spend spend. Bush's biggest failure was to not curtail domestic spending. And without someone willing to be a one term president and be crucified by the media and opposing party I don't see it happening.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2750984
I believe I said 'it only works in certain situations, such as stagflation.' This is different than saying it only works in stagflation. To think that supply-side economics works all the time is to say the economy is static. I, however, am arguing that it is dynamic, and that other policies provide tax relief to the lower classes. Why? Because you take a gamble on who will actually spend the money. Supply-side= the rich might spend it, depends on how many HD tv's, etc. they have. Where as if you have a transfer, or tax break for lower classes, they will spend the money. There are always things those who don't have much want to buy. So as far as stimulating our current economy....I think this is better. The rich benefit either way, either they get a tax break, or more people buy their goods and services. This was the goal of the stimulus plan, but that was dumb b/c we now have to pay for that over the next 14 years.

Lets look at this in two ways, one it isn't the government's money to take. Lets look at Exxon Mobil. And their massive numbers. Now I haven't heard anyone reputable refute the numbers but some exxon-mobil bigwig quoted some number the other day. He used some semantics that some golden-goose killer used. Saying exxon mobil earns 1000 dollars a minute (in profit) mean while they pay about 4000 dollars a minute in taxes. The government takes no risk in the drilling, and let me tell you the oil industry is a capital heavy industry. To build a 1/2 a billion dollar platform is a small operation. IMO the government reaps the rewards yet does not take on the risk day to day that exxon mobil takes. This is a problem.
Second you are looking at high end tax cuts incorrectly. Thinking that, the "rich" consumer spending on high end items aren't (imo) going to make enough of an impact to reflect on our economic indicators. And if this was the case supply side economics wouldn't work. Investment is going make the real difference. And rich people/ Corporations don't stick their money in a bank like you and me per-say. They have it invested. This is a very broad term. Maybe they purchase property, a struggling business, but the key is they grow their business. Even if they invest it in some sort of monetary note like a corporate bond. It is finds its way to someone who wants capital. In order to grow their business. This is where supply side economics work. Even in saving they are funding other peoples/corporations/organizations capital expenditures. And at the bottom what happens a bank opening another branch, to an engineering firm hiring another engineer, a manufacturing plant purchases another machine. People grow their business.
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2750984
Isolated case. Houston is doing awesome, but is the steel belt? No. Macroeconomic policy, as you know, takes the entire economy into account. What houston is experiencing is somewhere between micro and macro. Plus, most of the profit in Houston is off of energy, the very thing that is dragging down the rest of the economy.

You freely admit houston's economy is booming. Due to what higher profits. What is the difference between higher profits coming from an increase in the costs of your product or a decrease in your tax rate?
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2750984
A handout is one thing, and I agree, free riders ruin it. But an indirect transfer, tax cut, can do nothing but increase productivity.

This is the concept of supply side economics. a tax cut is not an indirect transfer of wealth. It is people keeping the money they have earned.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2750984
Well, lets start with the misery index. 11 something. We generally want it around 7, 4 for unemployment and 3 for inflation. But considering we have 6.1 unemployment and 5 something inflation...this creates a problem. You posted recent GDP number, it has been on average 2.5% gain, so either way, 3 percent inflation means we are technically shrinking. We will disagree on what should be in the inflation numbers, but people buy fuel and food...ALOT...so you are only playing games to make the economy look better if you don't include them.

Once again, the growth was quoted using real numbers. It wasn't too long ago that 6% was thought to be the low end of frictional unemployment. It isn't as good as what we've seen over the past 12 years. But you can't have record lows in unemployment and highs in growth every quarter, it is unsustainable. I think you and I can both agree that 5% inflation is directly linked to the fed playing fast and loose with the money supply. (the last quarter oil has dropped around 35%) And if you want to attribute the high numbers to fuel prices. That is what one gets when govt limits supply and having growing demand. Then starts putting artificial additional demands on food products like corn.
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2750984
It's not like they were all keynesians. When I was at Nebraska Wesleyan University (small, private college in Lincoln, Ne), my main prof said she would describe herself as neo-keynsian, but that didn't stop her from teaching everything. I transferred, because my, now wife, fiance got a job in Omaha. The University of Nebraska-Omaha profs I've had are not the same. There is much more diversity. At this school, my favorite prof has been a Schumpeterian guy, he taught the econ of technology. Cool class, creative destruction is an interesting concept with no models, yet. Did you take History of Economic thought? What school did you go to?
Sam Houston State. Yes the concept of our economy being creatively destructive was pretty interesting. Game theory and Monetary policy was more fun however.
I didn't take a classed called history of economic thought, but it was definitely incorporated into some of the international economics/3rd world economics/advanced macro classes.
btw neo-Keynesian means friggen really liberal. Keynes went nuts around 1936 with his book he released, (I can't remember the name of it right now) but he reached a turning point (imo due to lack of information) concluding that the only way to fix the great depression was government intervention (what he had been advising FDR to do) because the market wouldn't correct itself. This was THE major train of thought till Reagan in the 80's. When he embraced the Freedman lassie-fare approach and imo this departure from Keynesian economics lead to the largest growth spurt in our history. Even clinton was smart enough to listen to greenspan. (a Reagan appointee)

 

[rylan1]

I have to agree with sickboy here.... The tax cuts have disporportionately advantaged the wealthy. A McCain plan does nothing to generate growth from the bottom up...so the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Our economy is good when the middle class has purchasing power... and now they do not. The release of our budget forecast shows a new record of debt... something like $482 billion... which could potentially grow with the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac takeover... The AMT may also be taken off the books which would increase the debt by another $50 billion. This next president/congress will have to raise taxes.... if McCain wins... this is something that he will need to do if he is a responsible president... however the last 8 years have shown that republicans are not fiscally responsible.
A continuation of the Bush tax cuts will hurt us!

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2751228
A McCain plan does nothing to generate growth from the bottom up...
Growths comes from the top down. If the top isn't growing the bottom won't have jobs.

the "poor" as you call them don't hire anyone.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2751051

For someone who gets straight A's and tutors. I'd hate to think what the guys with b's and C's think. Do you not read BLS reports? All my gdp numbers are real GDP numbers why would I bother quoting non-inflation-adjusted numbers. And BTW you just said supply side economics work. I'll quote it in a little bit.... We've had one quarter with negative growth and that is 4th quarter 07 till we go back around september 11th 2001.
Thanks for calling me stupid....its real nice of ya.
As for your numbers....
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred...=true&&s_1=1&s[1][id]=GDP
C1&s[1][transformation]=pch&s[1][scale]=Left&s[1][range]=Custom&s[1][cosd]
=2005-01-01&s[1][coed]=2008-04-01&s[1][line_color]=%230000FF[/url]

 

[sickboy]

OK, so the link doesn't work, but the entire url should go to my saved graph.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2751229
Growths comes from the top down. If the top isn't growing the bottom won't have jobs.

the "poor" as you call them don't hire anyone.
See, here is the main disagreement we are having. You think the top will only grow if the government stays out of the way, but will stop if they have to pay taxes. I disagree. The top will grow no matter what. It is the bottom and middle that need to grow to push the economy. I am categorized as middle class, and while I'm not 'hurting', there is a lot of stuff I would like to buy. I believe the bottom up is the way to go, you believe the top down.
The top still makes money in bottom up policies, like you said they hold their money in investment, meaning when we buy things, they make money! Plus, when the top puts so much money into investments (stocks etc), it doesn't spur economic growth at all, this is the wrong type of investment.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2751235
Thanks for calling me stupid....its real nice of ya.

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2751235
You posted recent GDP number, it has been on average 2.5% gain, so either way, 3 percent inflation means we are technically shrinking.
When have you EVER seen the GDP referred to in actual not real numbers?

You'll see it buried in the report but the BEA never goes out and reports the GPD not adjusted for inflation.
The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) has issued the following news release today:
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 3.3 percent in the second quarter of 2008, (that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to preliminary estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
The full text of the release on BEA's Web site can be found at
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/nati...ewsrelease.htm

 

[sickboy]

I should also mention that I'm in favor of changing the tax brackets in an upward direction.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2751249
See, here is the main disagreement we are having. You think the top will only grow if the government stays out of the way, but will stop if they have to pay taxes. I disagree. The top will grow no matter what. It is the bottom and middle that need to grow to push the economy. I am categorized as middle class, and while I'm not 'hurting', there is a lot of stuff I would like to buy. I believe the bottom up is the way to go, you believe the top down.
The top still makes money in bottom up policies, like you said they hold their money in investment, meaning when we buy things, they make money! Plus, when the top puts so much money into investments (stocks etc), it doesn't spur economic growth at all, this is the wrong type of investment.
You are missing the point i was trying to make even when the "rich" are saving they are lending their money to people who need capital. Or using their money as capital for their own business. And what do you need capital for? Growing business. And it is insane to think growing business doesn't equate to increasing payrolls and employment.
You bottom up people are stopping one step early, where do the people on the "bottom" get the money to fuel our economy? It isn't from money tree's in their back yard. I repeat my anecdotal thought, I've never seen a poor man hire someone. I work for a once small start up company. The guy didn't hire me when he was poor.

 

[kjr_trig]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2751228
The tax cuts have disporportionately advantaged the wealthy.
Where the heck do you get your info? Tax rate % goes up with increased income not down...An example
Tax Year: 2008
Filing Status: Married filing jointly
If your taxable income is between... your tax bracket is:
0 and 16,050 10%
16,051 and 65,100 15%
65,100 and 131,450 25%
131,450 and 200,300 28%
200,300 and 357,700 33%
357,700 and ABOVE 35%
Explain how this is advantagous for the wealthy? The upperclass pay plenty in taxes.