It took you FAR too long to respond to this thread UGB.

That statement sounds as though your faith in Mr. Obama is waning. Could this be true?

LOL.........*President*/*Mr.*

You actually agreed with one of my statements!!! The hypocrisy in his campaign regarding spending versus what he's done so far.

I have very few doubts that we will come out of this hole smelling like roses, regardless of who occupied the White House this term. I just don't like seeing money fly out the door as is typical whenever a dem sits in the Oval Office. Anyone that voted for Obama because of his fiscal policy has got to be kicking themself right now. I just hope this mega-spending doesn't delay the economy's rebound. Little companies like the one that I work for may not be able to survive another year or two if things don't improve.

As always, nice to hear from you UGB.

UGB I disagree with both views you had in your post. Bush didn't create this, at least only partly, and casting the blame solely on him is, at the very least, misinformed. Second, while I can't say that McCain would have been a better president, I believe that Obama has shown that his economic approach is very lacking. He follows the old mantra of tax and spend. At the very least, McCain couldnt've done worse than Obama so far, he would have at least been forced to be bipartisan because of the democratic majority in congress. Obama on the other hand is pursuing a pure leftist agenda after talking about bringing the country together and changing Washington, etc. In my opinion, if there was any sort of belief in Obama's economic policies, the market wouldn't be down to 6600. Even though I'm skeptical I hope it works, but I don't think it will.

Nice rebound UGB. You argued well that round.

Obama's tax cuts are going to the poorer citizens of the U.S. (the one's who pay the least amount of taxes to begin with). He is increasing taxes on everyone else which overall probably earns the federal government more money (I haven't researched this, so don't hold me to it). The fact that the polls are at 67% for him isn't a sign that he's doing well, it's a sign that he campaigned to get the biggest idiots in the country out to the polls and those are probably the same ones that are approving of him now. If I were poor, on welfare, had 5+ kids, was in foreclosure, or were on food stamps, I'd be approving of him too!!! (those descriptions describe a large part of the American populace)

"The rest of the republicans helped out there too!"
You seem to be ignoring the Democrats in Congress during the Bush presidency that claimed there was nothing wrong when warned repeatedly about Freddy and Fannie by the Republicans, including Bush. I place blame on both parties, not just the Republicans.

BUZZ. He's proposing lower taxes for most US citizens.
He's compensating for that with an increase in the capital gains tax, which hits ALL Americans, not just stock holders. Not to mention some of the people that Obama is cutting taxes for already pay very little tax. In addition to that he's hitting small businesses the hardest (roughly half of Americans making $250,000 are small business owners, and the money they do make goes back into their business), who will have to lay off workers in order to pay the extra tax.
It also looks like $1.6 trillion of "savings" Obama has found is him assuming that he will pay for the surge for 10 years, while knowing that he will pull combat troops out of Iraq by 2010.

"The rich should pay the most..."
They already do? I don't understand that comment. In 2007, the richest 5% of Americans paid over half of federal income taxes. The top 1% of income earners pay 25% of total income taxes. Forty percent of Americans pay no federal incomes tax at all although it is the government's largest revenue source. Quoted from wikipedia.


BUZZ. The polls say you're wrong and that the markets are not an indicator of the publics support of his policies.

Citing a poll as fact is unreliable, use it to back up your argument, not as your argument. A poll taken on Wall Street would show Obama's approval rating much lower than a poll taken outside of a welfare line. Say what you like but the market has much more meaning now, both politically and economically, than it ever has before. Why else would Obama say that now is a good time to start investing. He realizes the market is important in the eyes of the American public.

americans are finally getting what they deserve.

1. they have two main political parties:
republicans - red
democrats - blue

red is the internationally recognised colour for socialist parties, blue is for the upper-class, i.e. the blue-bloods.

2. they claim to be a democracy - what bullshit. a democracy is where everyone has a vote. it's not even close to being one.

the federal election is fixed to be on a tuesday every time because the founding fathers didn't want it to interfere with church going folk.

on tuesdays workers have to work but the wealthy (the rupubliclan base) are more likely to be able to afford to not work or at least be able to take the time off to vote.

- are americans so uneducated they forget saturday exist.

"Storm, you seem to be ignoring the spin that your report puts on perceived income. it is literally impossible to make more then a dollar per dollar in food stamps. What your figures are saying is that for every dollar in food stamps 1.84$ worth in goods/services will circulate. however this is not to say that more goods/services will be produced. Money does not multiply by itself it increases as the net amount of products and services grow compared to their respective demands. "

Who taught you economics? Look up the "multiplier effect".

"However I will agree that the economic mess is not entirely the Bush presidency's fault. The rest of the republicans helped out there too! Yes I agree that it was a perfect storm of economic crap and that no one single person is to blame."

Sorry, I can't read between the lines where you said other republicans helped out. Unless I'm mistaken the republican party consists of more than one person, so "no one single person is to blame" doesn't mean you included democrats in it. I must've missed the part where you explicitly stated that more than one party was involved, and only saw the part where you blamed republicans. You should read what you say before accusing me of not reading it.
I also noticed you ignored the second part of that short paragraph. I would like your take on that as well.

I'll concede the points on small business because I don't have the facts to back them up, increasing the capital gains tax and taxes on the wealthy is just a difference of ideology.

I never said that the market is a leading indicator of overall approval ratings of Obama's economic policies. Why would it be? All I said was the market is more important now than it was before, ie, how often was the stock market covered by the media during the Bush years versus under Obama's first few months. The economy wasnt a large issue for Bush's first seven years (with the exception of 9/11), so it wasn't scrutinized as closely. This is just my opinion by the way.

I guess I can see how what I said came off as conspiracy nuttish. I thought that the President trying to help the economy was a given, I guess I'm bad at writing out what I'm thinking, at least when it comes to politics. What I meant when I said it is that if the stock market was going up and not down then there would be more belief in his policies from both parties and from wall street, so by trying to get people to invest and from that causing a positive effect on the market than it would continue rising. Besides, his approval ratings are still high and he's president for the next 4 years no matter what his approval ratings are at the moment.

Greenoaks, there is such a thing as early voting and absentee ballots. Though not all states do them.

greenoaks... America is not a democracy... we are a republic.

And am I the only one that was left with jaw dropped open at Shev's Marxist statement:

"I think the main problem with capitalism is that a single person is allowed to earn billions of dollars. Compared to an average person who has maybe a couple of thousand dollars that is about 1 million times more. Now i ask you all, what justifies this? Did the rich guy work a million times harder? Is he maybe a million times smarter?
I dont know about you, but i think nobody can truly deserve that amount of money."

Seriously? What are you saying... that there should be a cap on how much money you can make? Talk about your classic wealth envy... I cannot believe he was not called out by anyone on this. And I hear the same sentiments from several of you... just not laid out in such a plain and [I guess] bold statement.

And to say (dont remember who) that the rich are more reliant on the government is retarded. Seriously retarded. If the government was invaded (I cannot believe I'm about to repeat this drivel) by a socialist system of government... the rich take their money and leave. They continue to be rich somewhere else. The poor... they lose their free ride and have to start working their factory jobs in that case... those welfare checks are not so free and easy anymore. But really... is that why the rich get taxed more than the poor... the threat of of government takeover? Surely you guys can do better than that...

>> The top 1% of income earners pay 25% of total income taxes.

> And they have well over 30% of the money.




so what? Are we supposed to be trying to make everyone equal? How about I pay 20%, you pay 20% and the next guy pays 20% and the one that makes the most money is paying the most money (still)... but fairly.

Actually... forget this income-based tax system and let's move to a much better consumption-based system (Fair Tax). Why are we taxing income to begin with? We had to amend the constitution just to even allow that to happen.