What does Obama stand for?

[MassJester]

Ever since he became Senator, he's been running for President. Has he actually done anything as Senator?

Read backwards, and you will have your answer.

 

[MassJester]

He is the most liberal possible. Aint it grand?

 

[LoraJ]

Ever since he became Senator, he's been running for President. Has he actually done anything as Senator?

Here's a link for you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4578207

 

[lilyv]

Here's a link for you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4578207

LoraJ-Thank you for the link!

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

What doesn't make sense? Are there more weathly people today than say 50 years ago? And what doesn't make sense about making your own wealth?

Broken down to simplicities, in trickle down economics, the tax break is given to the top 2% so that they go out, invest in companies (either their own or others), those companies hire people to work, those workers make money, spend that money, which in turn benefits the top 2%. It's reason for the tax break is not to simply hand money back to the richest 2%, it's done so for economic stimulation. However, when the top 2% gets the tax break, spends only a small portion, banks the rest and tells the rest of the public to go make their own, it doesn't work. I'm fairly certain that even Ronald Reagan didn't see trickle down economics working in the way you seem to be proposing.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Send us a thank you note. We are "the wealthy" who won't be getting a portion of our taxes back.

Thanks!

 

[bsnyder]

We are talking about promoting a strong fiscal policy, right? I mean, in trickle down economics, the idea is, you give the money to the wealthy, they provide opportunity to the other 98% by way of jobs, and the entire population benefits. However, I think that your question alone is living proof of why IRL, it doesn't work...

I'm just trying to read through this thread from the beginning, and before I get to the last few pages I have to comment on this.

It's just such a stark example of the liberal mindset. And why we have such a disconnect between the two parties on basic economic theory.

I mean, in trickle down economics, the idea is, you give the money to the wealthy

Excuse me, but who is giving money to the wealthy? It's money they earned.

But in a liberal's worldview, if the government lets us keep some of that money by lowering taxes, it's money the government has "given" to us.

 

[bsnyder]

Broken down to simplicities, in trickle down economics, the tax break is given to the top 2% so that they go out, invest in companies (either their own or others), those companies hire people to work, those workers make money, spend that money, which in turn benefits the top 2%. It's reason for the tax break is not to simply hand money back to the richest 2%, it's done so for economic stimulation. However, when the top 2% gets the tax break, spends only a small portion, banks the rest and tells the rest of the public to go make their own, it doesn't work. I'm fairly certain that even Ronald Reagan didn't see trickle down economics working in the way you seem to be proposing.

There you go again -

It's reason for the tax break is not to simply hand money back to the richest 2%,

This seems to imply that all of the money originally belongs to the government.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I'm just trying to read through this thread from the beginning, and before I get to the last few pages I have to comment on this.

It's just such a stark example of the liberal mindset. And why we have such a disconnect between the two parties on basic economic theory.



Excuse me, but who is giving money to the wealthy? It's money they earned.

But in a liberal's worldview, if the government lets us keep some of that money by lowering taxes, it's money the government has "given" to us.

I've give you this Bet, you are the queen of frickin' semantics....

Had I said "tax breaks" instead of "money", you would have had nothin' to say...give me a break!!

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

There you go again -



This seems to imply that all of the money originally belongs to the government.

OK, let's get semantical, did I say that "all of the money originally belongs to the government"? No! Two can play at this game, all day...

Why don't enlighten us as to why Reagan thought trickle down economics was such a winner for economic stimulation?

 

[MassJester]

Excuse me, but who is giving money to the wealthy? It's money they earned.

But in a liberal's worldview, if the government lets us keep some of that money by lowering taxes, it's money the government has "given" to us.

The argument behind the last round of tax cuts is that it favored the income groups that it did becuase their reinvestment would spur growth that would "raise all boats." Well, that didn;t work, and so those cuts no longer make sense--particularly in a war economy.

What absolutely doesn't make sense from the other side of the aisle is that they think you can have massive tax cuts, and huge increases in spending (through war expenditure and other large spending increases), and hope that tomorrow brings some new solution. Frankly, that's just garbage.

 

[bsnyder]

I've give you this Bet, you are the queen of frickin' semantics....

Had I said "tax breaks" instead of "money", you would have had nothin' to say...give me a break!!

Then why didn't you say tax breaks?

There are a myriad of ways you could have said it. The way you've said it in half a dozen posts on this thread tells a lot about your basic economic worldview. And you've got a lot of company.

 

[Feralpeg]

I agree up to a point. My question is Why just ask this about Senator Obama? All the candidates speak in 'campaign speak' but Obama gets the 'where does he stand?' 'what are his intentions?'

I'm wasn't saying this only about Obama. I was just referring to previous posters who said we should go read his book if we want to know his intentions. Well, like it or not, most Americans will not take the time to read a book. They want the candidates to spell it out. I think they should. It would be a breath of fresh air to actually get a straight forward honest answer.

 

[Charade]

The argument behind the last round of tax cuts is that it favored the income groups that it did becuase their reinvestment would spur growth that would "raise all boats." Well, that didn;t work, and so those cuts no longer make sense--particularly in a war economy.

What absolutely doesn't make sense from the other side of the aisle is that they think you can have massive tax cuts, and huge increases in spending (through war expenditure and other large spending increases), and hope that tomorrow brings some new solution. Frankly, that's just garbage.

Me, personally, I'm for less taxes and less spending. Much less spending. How about you?

 

[MassJester]

Me, personally, I'm for less taxes and less spending. Much less spending. How about you?

Oh yeah -- I could certainly sign up for that.

Less spending first -- then less taxes. We've tried it the other way, and the results stink.

 

[bsnyder]

Oh yeah -- I could certainly sign up for that.

Less spending first -- then less taxes. We've tried it the other way, and the results stink.

I'd be all for this. But it's never gonna happen.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Then why didn't you say tax breaks?

There are a myriad of ways you could have said it. The way you've said it in half a dozen posts on this thread tells a lot about your basic economic worldview. And you've got a lot of company.

Begging your pardon, Dr. Freud...it didn't realize our session had already started...

 

[bsnyder]

The argument behind the last round of tax cuts is that it favored the income groups that it did becuase their reinvestment would spur growth that would "raise all boats." Well, that didn;t work, and so those cuts no longer make sense--particularly in a war economy.

What absolutely doesn't make sense from the other side of the aisle is that they think you can have massive tax cuts, and huge increases in spending (through war expenditure and other large spending increases), and hope that tomorrow brings some new solution. Frankly, that's just garbage.

We're probably going to have to agree to disagree here. The liberals and the media have given President Bush zero credit for the economic and job growth that has occured for the last 4 years. The U.S. economy has outperformed its peer group of Canada, the European Union, and Japan. The U.S. led in real GDP growth, investment, industrial production, employment, labor productivity, and price stability.

The economy is cooling now, because the business cycle does go through, well, cycles, and you want to act like it's been that way all along. Sorry, I'm a lot better informed than to fall for that.

I could provide reams of stats to back this up. But my computer is acting very sluggish, and I've got real life work to do - but hopefully the government will actually give me some of the money that I earn today.

I would like to ask one question though. For those of you who say cutting taxes for the top earners doesn't help the economy. What about on the flip side? Is there a hypothetical tax rate that's so confiscatory that you think it could slow growth?

 

[Fitswimmer]

I'm wasn't saying this only about Obama. I was just referring to previous posters who said we should go read his book if we want to know his intentions. Well, like it or not, most Americans will not take the time to read a book. They want the candidates to spell it out. I think they should. It would be a breath of fresh air to actually get a straight forward honest answer.

That really makes me sad. People will vote for the Leader of their nation, but they won't take time to read a book or check out a website to find out what that person is about before they do it?

I guess that's what they mean when they say we get the government we deserve.

 

[tinkerbee]

That really makes me sad. People will vote for the Leader of their nation, but they won't take time to read a book or check out a website to find out what that person is about before they do it?

I guess that's what they mean when they say we get the government we deserve.

Were there really books on our first Presidents for voters to read to learn about candidates? WOW how misinformed they must of been. I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting them to speak straight forward and not tell us what they think we want to hear, and I mean all of them not just Obama.