... and the failed economic policies of their party.



Virtually 8 years of unopposed Republican control of government, and look what we have here!

I expect your bullshitting to involve the following ingredients:
(1) Liberals
(2) Arabs and terrorists
(3) Smith puts honey on his porridge -- he is not a true Scotsman!

3/18/2008 1:35:14 AM

If the variable in question is 8 years of unopposed Republican control of government, I'm guessing the most appropriate scale would be... 8 years?



well, yes, it shows a similar thing. But let's be accurate here.

3/18/2008 1:40:00 AM

A weak dollar is not necessarily a bad thing.

A weak dollar is not indicative of the economy.

The president doesn't control the economy.

There's a lagging effect from Clinton's presidency.

9/11 changed everything.

It's the market correcting itself/cyclical process.

We should switch to the gold standard.

We're fighting a war, sacrifices have to be made.

3/18/2008 1:46:49 AM

the answer is simple:

War is Peace

Slavery is Freedom

Ignorance is Strength



http://www.studentsfororwell.org/

3/18/2008 1:55:32 AM

Right now

I Euro = $ 1.57

I should have bought 10,000 Euros when 1 Euro was = $0.85.

3/18/2008 2:29:14 AM

Quote :

"The president doesn't control the economy. There's a lagging effect from Clinton's presidency. "

wat?

3/18/2008 11:06:35 AM

There are people on here who have asserted that everything good, economically speaking, that happened during Clinton's presidency was due to Reagan, and that everything bad that's happened during Bush's presidency was due to Clinton.

3/18/2008 11:21:00 AM

You know what's really funny about this graph?






The Democrats will still lose the election because of their unabashed and keen sense on how to destroy themselves.



Do you know what's even funnier?







You people think that introducing new and massive government handouts that will never, ever go away will somehow help our ailing economy.

[Edited on March 18, 2008 at 11:31 AM. Reason : .]

3/18/2008 11:30:53 AM

Is that what I think? Wow, I didn't even realize. Thank you for enlightening me on what you think my views are.

3/18/2008 11:44:26 AM

The dollar has suffered for many good reasons. But the main reason it has not recovered has been the subprime mess convincing foreigners that U.S. investments are unsafe. As they stop spending their dollars here as investments, the dollars instead flood the currency markets driving down the dollar.

Now, what caused the subprime mess? Well, two fold: interest rates too low for too long; blame Greenspan. second, new inventions in the mortgage market during the Clinton years which took advantage of Greenspan's mess to produce an unprecedented housing mess.

3/18/2008 12:44:19 PM

Not trying to say the economy is all great or anything, but, people have this misconception about "value of the dollar". People tend to look at nominal exchange rates, which is simply how many pieces of our green paper ($) we give them for their green paper (Euros). The real exchange rate is what is important, which fluctuates based on their demand for our goods relative to our demand for their goods.

3/18/2008 1:33:52 PM

LiusClues

i agree with you. The repubs argued the "lag of economic policy" during the 2001 tech bubble bust but attributing the current problems in the economy to an 8 year lag from the Clinton administration is bullshit.

Nonetheless I am voting McCain b.c i refuse to support Hillary and prefer McCain over Obama.

but i do agree with some others that a devalued dollar is not always a bad thing.

[Edited on March 18, 2008 at 2:27 PM. Reason : a]

3/18/2008 2:26:07 PM

Quote :

"You people think that introducing new and massive government handouts that will never, ever go away will somehow help our ailing economy"

BINGO

3/18/2008 3:01:44 PM

Quote :

"handouts"

Wait, where the fuck are these "handouts?" You mean like the IRS handout I'll get in May? I don't get it. That isn't a handout, that's my own money!

You couldn't be talking about welfare, we've been reforming and cutting that back since I was born.

What fucking handouts are you referring to? The investments in America's research? Industry? Are those "handouts?"

3/18/2008 3:11:20 PM

government healthcare, more welfare programs, more food stamps, more school wavers, etc...

handouts. terp you and me are going to pay for all of those. not the rich man and not the poor man. the middle class man.

3/18/2008 3:12:55 PM

I'm paying more for our broken healthcare system now. I don't mind paying for poor kids to get the same opportinity I got when I was growing up - I'm sure I'd end up getting my money back in the long run, if not me, my kids will. More food stamps? Please - did you see anything in Obama or Clinton's platforms about increasing the budget for food stamps? Welfare has been shown to be a problem already, that's in the past, no congress will ever reform welfare BACK to the problem thet it once was. I don't see what "handouts" you guys are talking about.

We need to increase our education spending, or do SOMETHING, we're at the bottom, our kids are STUPID.

3/18/2008 3:18:39 PM

healthcare for kids I am fine with. adults, however need to provide for their own. the overall system needs to be fixed, but 'universal' healthcare will make you and I pay through the nose.

compared to healthcare, the other stuff is peanuts. I think the money being pushed by BO and HC for universal healthcare would be better off in our schools and preschools and would support paying more taxes for that.

3/18/2008 3:26:55 PM

^^ you already do pay for those kids.

We're talking about paying for EVERYONE's kids.

25% of our budget already goes to the Social Security trust fund. We don't have the surpluses required to start a whole new massive overhaul to supply healthcare. So where's it going to come from?

Obama proposes a 50% estate tax, because when you're dead, you can't fight back, a raise on social security tax for the "rich" or those making over $97,500 a year, increasing capital gains/dividend taxes which would further harm the economy by removing incentive for investment, no taxes for seniors making $50,000 (great! now they can pay nothing and receive money too!), increasing the effective tax rate of the upper class from 37.9% to 50.3% which would be akin to repealing the Bush tax cuts.... 3 times over, and he still hasn't even paid for his health plan or his tax decreases to the working class.

[Edited on March 18, 2008 at 3:34 PM. Reason : .]

3/18/2008 3:33:20 PM

I voted for Nader, I hate everyone!

/Red vs. Blue

3/18/2008 3:35:55 PM

kids are stupid because parents are not fufilling their roles. no time is put into studying outside of school. They sit around and play video games all day. If parents do not demand their children to excel in school, it aint gonna happen. if you give a kid a book and say "read it" or go play halo, theyll go play halo. if you tell them to read the book and theres a reward, they will skim through it and get the reward and not learn anything. If you generally act interested and read the book with the kid, theyll learn what they need to learn.

I am normally a free market guy, but I think the government should step in and take more control of the health care industry. People are working jobs not because they dont have money, but because they are scared of what will happen if they get in an accident. The Dr. will take their life savings away which means no retirement. I am against universal health care, but there needs to be more regulation. same with energy. These two sectors, which are essential to the economic success of our country and the livelyhood of our citizens must be controlled better. we already live in a mixed-capitalism society..add these two to the list.

3/18/2008 3:40:48 PM

Quote :

"increasing the effective tax rate of the upper class from 37.9% to 50.3% which would be akin to repealing the Bush tax cuts.... "

Just that line alone makes me 100% sure you don't know what you're talking about. I think you're just making everything up. Either that, or you're believing a bogus source.

Quote :

"kids are stupid because parents are not fufilling their roles. no time is put into studying outside of school. They sit around and play video games all day. If parents do not demand their children to excel in school, it aint gonna happen. if you give a kid a book and say "read it" or go play halo, theyll go play halo. if you tell them to read the book and theres a reward, they will skim through it and get the reward and not learn anything. If you generally act interested and read the book with the kid, theyll learn what they need to learn. "

Well what about the kids with shitty parents? The kids with uneducated parents? The cycle of these socioeconomical inequalities won't end until we do something to stop it.

Because they are born into a poor uneducated family in the ghetto, they have to grow up to be uneducated, and probably 100000X more likely to end up in jail? How much better would American society be if each kid who has a horrible home has a better chance to make something good of him/herself.





[Edited on March 18, 2008 at 3:51 PM. Reason : ]

3/18/2008 3:42:57 PM

Quote :

"25% of our budget already goes to the Social Security trust fund. We don't have the surpluses required to start a whole new massive overhaul to supply healthcare. So where's it going to come from? Obama proposes a 50% estate tax, because when you're dead, you can't fight back, a raise on social security tax for the "rich" or those making over $97,500 a year, increasing capital gains/dividend taxes which would further harm the economy by removing incentive for investment, no taxes for seniors making $50,000 (great! now they can pay nothing and receive money too!), increasing the effective tax rate of the upper class from 37.9% to 50.3% which would be akin to repealing the Bush tax cuts.... 3 times over, and he still hasn't even paid for his health plan or his tax decreases to the working class. "

I havent checked your facts/figures, but if you are right, JESUS

3/18/2008 3:52:48 PM

Quote :

"Just that line alone makes me 100% sure you don't know what you're talking about. I think you're just making everything up. Either that, or you're believing a bogus source."

what makes you say that? most of us pay 30-40% now in real taxes.

3/18/2008 3:56:04 PM

anyone listening to the news would know that our gov't spent 20 billion of our fucking tax money as a handout to help JP Morgan Chase bail out Bear Stearnes.

So JP Morgan will get to reap extra profits thanks to our taxes. Bush's corporate welfare strikes again. I do not support the current social welfare program but at least it has a humanitarian purpose. I would describe the Fed's 20 billion hand out to JP Morgan chase un-capitalistic at its best and plutocratic at the worst.

3/18/2008 3:56:49 PM

It's 100% bogus. Obama didn't propose that shit. If he did, he is keeping it a huge secret and only that 1 guy knows.

3/18/2008 3:57:06 PM

^^ Wasn't that technically a loan??

sorry, double post - but on TV they said this "bailout" was a loan

[Edited on March 18, 2008 at 3:58 PM. Reason : ]

3/18/2008 3:57:51 PM

^^^^^^yes, its bad parenting.

[Edited on March 18, 2008 at 4:00 PM. Reason : .]

Hey DaBird,

you forget...most college kids dont know what it feels like yet to get out of school and have to pay 30% of their pay for taxes...for social programs that they disagree with...to pay for other students educations, when you own thousands of dollars in financial aid that could be going for your education

[Edited on March 18, 2008 at 4:05 PM. Reason : ..]

3/18/2008 4:00:13 PM

maybe i missed something but from i heard it didn't sound like JP Morgan had to pay the reserve back

Quote :

"On March 16, 2008, JP Morgan Chase Bank announced plans to purchase the troubled organization for approximately $2 per share or approximately $240 million.[16] The exact terms of the transaction are JPMorgan Chase will exchange 0.05473 shares of its stock for each share of Bear Stearns. To illustrate the severity of Bear's financial condition, the sale price is only 2.4% of the bank's book value and only 1% of its market value only 16 days prior to the sale. The real estate value of the bank's Manhattan headquarters alone is about $1.2 billion. Additionally, in a rare move, the Federal Reserve agreed to fund up to $30 billion of Bear's less liquid assets. The transaction is a fast-track deal, that has already received the approval of both boards, but not its shareholders. JPMorgan is expected to close its purchase by the end of June 2008, pending shareholder approval on both sides.[17]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_Stearns

[Edited on March 18, 2008 at 4:02 PM. Reason : a]

3/18/2008 4:00:27 PM

woops, thought it was a loan

wait, it is a loan

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120580165705943813.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Quote :

"There is a silver lining for the Federal Reserve in the unprecedented $30 billion loan it has made to Bear Stearns Cos.: The central bank might make money on it. "

In the quote above, (your quote, HUR) it uses the word "fund" - not donation. Federal Funds given to banks are loans.

[Edited on March 18, 2008 at 4:10 PM. Reason : ]

3/18/2008 4:04:44 PM

that makes sense then

3/18/2008 4:25:00 PM

Quote :

"I am normally a free market guy, but I think the government should step in and take more control of the health care industry. People are working jobs not because they dont have money, but because they are scared of what will happen if they get in an accident."

More government is not the answer to this problem.

Do you mean that people are tied to their job because of the health insurance they're receiving via said job?

3/18/2008 5:09:22 PM

Quote :

"Just that line alone makes me 100% sure you don't know what you're talking about. I think you're just making everything up. Either that, or you're believing a bogus source."

From the WSJ

Quote :

"Mr. Obama's modest improvements to Social Security's financing come at a steep cost. The top marginal federal tax rates would effectively increase to 50.3% from 37.9%, equivalent to repealing the Bush income tax cuts almost three times over."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120528180300228815.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

From the Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/28/obama_proposes_increasing_social_security_tax_on_wealthy/

Check my facts. Go for it. I don't make shit up.

3/18/2008 6:53:07 PM

terp hates facts, he would rather call you names and claim you dont know what you are talking about. He will go away now. That or attack me.

Obama is going to be a disaster. I think more people are starting to realize it. You touched on a great point Oeuvre on capital gains. Can you imagine the sell off that would take place if it looked like he was going to get elected? Raising it to 28% from 15%. Saves them 13% just by pulling out their money...not bad. Good ole liberal economics

3/18/2008 7:15:44 PM

not only that, but an an additional fact here is that many, if not all Americans owning a 401K receive some sort of dividend, which would then be taxed at a higher rate, effecting the life savings of all Americans.

3/18/2008 7:21:27 PM

Quote :

"terp hates facts, he would rather call you names and claim you dont know what you are talking about. He will go away now. That or attack me. "

Looky here you fucking idiot (me attacking you), he quoted the "top marginal federal tax rate" and called it the "effective tax rate of the upper class"

The effective tax rate is by no means the top marginal federal tax rate. If I must spell it out for you, the top marginal federal tax rate is the rate at which the last dollar you make on that fiscal year is taxed. The "effective" rate would be the average rate at which each of your dollars earned is taxed.

In any graduated tax system, the marginal rate is ALWAYS greater than or equal to your average, or "effective" tax rate.

Care to take an econ class before you look like an even bigger idiot "eyedrb?" I mean, you seem to have a shitload of free time all day - sure you can take some time to educate yourself.

^ I can see how the article could be confusing for people who don't have a background in econ - but this eyedrb fag is getting on my nerves, acting like he's the smartest fucker on the internet - more like the most misinformed and ignorant

[Edited on March 18, 2008 at 7:33 PM. Reason : ]

3/18/2008 7:31:44 PM

Quote :

"We need to increase our education spending"

We spend more federally and on the state level than any other country....the problem is the teachers unions, not spending

3/18/2008 7:33:34 PM

^ Dude, I knew there was something wrong with that as I typed it - all I know is SOMETHING needs to be done

3/18/2008 7:34:41 PM

^^ my bad... but is that still any better??


^ fuck the federal DOE... spend that shit on the local level. Get rid of the DOE.

3/18/2008 7:34:44 PM

Quote :

"^^ my bad... but is that still any better??"

Most likely yes, it is much better. If the marginal rate goes up that high after you've already made a fortune, you most likely are doing a lot to avoid paying taxes anyway. I'd have to research more about the details of our tax system, but shit, if we could get tax breaks for investing in domestic companies, I don't see how it wouldn't help our economy. Especially if Barack introduces this system that provides incentive to make these investments or get taxed at 50%

Rich people know what they're doing anyway, and it won't really make that much of a difference in their personal finances IMO.

[Edited on March 18, 2008 at 7:47 PM. Reason : ]

3/18/2008 7:43:31 PM

if i were a teacher i'd want to teach at a private school...i'd hate to teacher public school kids now a days

3/18/2008 7:46:20 PM

Where is eyedrb? at work finally?

3/18/2008 7:52:14 PM

what about the tax hike on the rich, or those making 97500 with two kids in college? What about the capital gains and dividend taxes? YOu think that will encourage investment in our economy?

3/18/2008 8:04:56 PM

If all you look at is the unattractive qualities of a plan, how could you even make a half-way educated guess on what it's effect on the economy would be? Bush's plan looked pretty to some, but it didn't seem to work. We can make arguments that it was just a part of the business cycle, but who really knows? All I know is the economy was doing GREAT when Bill was in office.

I can say one more thing, I have much more faith in what Obama OR Clinton would do to our economy than anything McCain's people would cook up. Bush's policies made a few people rich, they all happen to be involved in oil and defense contracts. McCain would probably do the same shit.

I'd like to see it go in a different direction after the next election.

3/18/2008 8:12:29 PM

Quote :

"A weak dollar is not necessarily a bad thing."

It is bad for consumers, which constitute all of America. It's only good for the manufacturing sector.

Quote :

"A weak dollar is not indicative of the economy."

Yes it is

Quote :

"The president doesn't control the economy."

No, but his policies affect them heavily

Quote :

"There's a lagging effect from Clinton's presidency."

After almost 8 years of Bush rule?

Quote :

"9/11 changed everything."

No it didn't.

Quote :

"It's the market correcting itself/cyclical process."

But 9/11 changed everything right? Is that why the housing market rallied for nearly 4 years?

Quote :

"We should switch to the gold standard."

Or oil should be priced on the Euro

Quote :

"We're fighting a war, sacrifices have to be made."

But we should make the Bush tax cuts permanent!

[Edited on March 18, 2008 at 8:19 PM. Reason : ]

3/18/2008 8:16:08 PM

Quote :

"In any graduated tax system, the marginal rate is ALWAYS greater than or equal to your average, or "effective" tax rate."

graduated tax rate is bullshit in the 1st place. Their just needs to be a flat tax. When i go to the grocery store i do not get charged a "top sales tax bracket" for buying a $5000 plasma TV versus someone poor paying the "lowest sales tax bracket" for buying a $300 20" set.

a progressive tax system in bullshit for no other reason then a lot of that additional money collected is being redistributed to the lower classes for shit they should have been saving for in the first place. Instead they buy a corvette while living in the trailer park or fore go health insurance because it takes out of their weekly alcohol/drug money.

3/18/2008 8:33:46 PM

Quote :

"Their just needs to be a flat tax."

Yes, I agree. Fuck poor people.

Quote :

"a progressive tax system in bullshit for no other reason then a lot of that additional money collected is being redistributed to the lower classes for shit they should have been saving for in the first place. Instead they buy a corvette while living in the trailer park or fore go health insurance because it takes out of their weekly alcohol/drug money."

Yes this is exactly what happens, you've got it. Fuck you, poor people -- I've got mine.

3/18/2008 8:37:31 PM

^^ you're so far off it's hard to make a serious reply.

As selfish as your post seems, lets see how this flat tax would effect YOU

- you'd get taxed more now, and possibly less later
- you'll still probably get taxed more later, as taxes will increase to pay for the increased budget for the police to combat the sharp increase in crime

- you'll probably be a victim of multiple robberies, and some of your family members will probably be murdered in what appears to be a civil war outside your house

- you'll have to pay for one fuck of a security system

I'm just speculating, but the point is that nothing GOOD would come out of a flat income tax

[Edited on March 18, 2008 at 8:46 PM. Reason : ]

3/18/2008 8:46:15 PM

Quote :

" the failed economic policies of their party."

Where the GOP went wrong is where they turned into democrats--- spend spend spend spend spend spend spend spend spend

3/18/2008 9:23:05 PM

Quote :

"Where the GOP went wrong is where they turned into democrats--- spend spend spend spend spend spend spend spend spend"

Do you listen to yourself?

3/18/2008 9:28:30 PM

oh wait, you wanted to talk about class warfare, right?

3/18/2008 9:36:34 PM