By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Why are you voting or not voting for Barack Obama?

akuma587 on 05 September 2008
Kasz216 said:

I don't think you can blame the weakening dollar on Bush. It's the Federal Reserves fault.

Those guys have been putting off this recession for ages and it's just gotten uglier and uglier.

Also, as a Re on the Gini Coefficent. It looks as if the Gini Coefficent raised much higher under Clinton then it did Bush.

In otherwords. Clinton was worse for the "widening gap."

Infact in 2007 the Gini Coeeficent is practically back to where it was under Clinton!

Unless there has been a huge change... the rich haven't gotten richer... Bush has been the first president in a long time to keep the gap between the rich and poor about the same.

 

The U.N. didn't think so, and guess what?  They were right.  The timeframe from the beginning of the year to now the dollar has been taking a beating like a red-headed stepchild.  The Bush adminstration has had way more responsibility for driving up oil costs than anyone else.

http://pressesc.com/01180629622_dollar_falls

US debt could trigger dollar collapse, UN warns

Submitted by Desha Priya on Thu, 2007-05-31 16:47.

The United States dollar is facing imminent collapse in the face of an unsustainable debt, the United Nations warned today.

United States debt, which had now deepened to well over $3 trillion, might turn out to be unsustainable in the rest of 2007 or next, putting further downward pressure on the United States dollar, Rob Vos, the Director of the Development Policy and Analysis Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), told correspondents at a Headquarters press conference.

He pointed out that since its peak in 2002, the dollar had depreciated vis-à-vis the major currencies by some 35 per cent and by 25 per cent against a broader range of other currencies.

Vos made these comments at the launch of the 2007 World Economic Situation and Prospects report midyear update.

With that increased debt the risk of a sharp depreciation of the dollar continued, he warned. If countries willing to invest in United States dollar assets expected further depreciation, they might be less willing to hold dollar assets, triggering a much sharper fall in the United States dollar. The risk of disorderly adjustment and the steep fall of the dollar existed. The policy challenge was how to prevent a hard landing of the United States dollar and forge a benign adjustment of the global imbalance.

In terms of the United States housing sector, he noted that a recession in the housing sector had continued in 2007, with a slowdown in activity and a large number of unsold homes. While house prices had not fallen, that might happen in the months and years to come if the recession continued as expected. A decline in prices would affect the domestic market, particularly household consumption in the United States, resulting in the risk of a serious recession in its economy, slowing growth from 2.1 per cent to 0.5 per cent in 2007 and 2008. That would then significantly slow the world economy and transmit the recession into the rest of the world.

The United States deficit had increased to $860 billion at the end of 2006, and was expected to fall to $800 billion in 2007. That deficit was basically being financed by surpluses in the developing and oil exporting countries, as well as some major developed countries, in particular Japan and Germany. The European Union,at large, was projected to continue to have a slight deficit on its current account.

Continuing, he said the current tendency in macroeconomic policy was not all in the right direction, particularly in the surplus countries where there had been a tightening of monetary and fiscal policies, particularly in Germany and Japan, making it more difficult for the United States to lower its external deficits by export growth. The United States would also need to adopt some contractionary policies to slow down its deficit, he recommended.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 05 September 2008
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:

I don't think you can blame the weakening dollar on Bush. It's the Federal Reserves fault.

Those guys have been putting off this recession for ages and it's just gotten uglier and uglier.

Also, as a Re on the Gini Coefficent. It looks as if the Gini Coefficent raised much higher under Clinton then it did Bush.

In otherwords. Clinton was worse for the "widening gap."

Infact in 2007 the Gini Coeeficent is practically back to where it was under Clinton!

Unless there has been a huge change... the rich haven't gotten richer... Bush has been the first president in a long time to keep the gap between the rich and poor about the same.

 

The U.N. didn't think so, and guess what?  They were right.  The timeframe from the beginning of the year to now the dollar has been taking a beating like a red-headed stepchild.  The Bush adminstration has had way more responsibility for driving up oil costs than anyone else.

http://pressesc.com/01180629622_dollar_falls

US debt could trigger dollar collapse, UN warns

Submitted by Desha Priya on Thu, 2007-05-31 16:47.

The United States dollar is facing imminent collapse in the face of an unsustainable debt, the United Nations warned today.

United States debt, which had now deepened to well over $3 trillion, might turn out to be unsustainable in the rest of 2007 or next, putting further downward pressure on the United States dollar, Rob Vos, the Director of the Development Policy and Analysis Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), told correspondents at a Headquarters press conference.

He pointed out that since its peak in 2002, the dollar had depreciated vis-à-vis the major currencies by some 35 per cent and by 25 per cent against a broader range of other currencies.

Vos made these comments at the launch of the 2007 World Economic Situation and Prospects report midyear update.

With that increased debt the risk of a sharp depreciation of the dollar continued, he warned. If countries willing to invest in United States dollar assets expected further depreciation, they might be less willing to hold dollar assets, triggering a much sharper fall in the United States dollar. The risk of disorderly adjustment and the steep fall of the dollar existed. The policy challenge was how to prevent a hard landing of the United States dollar and forge a benign adjustment of the global imbalance.

In terms of the United States housing sector, he noted that a recession in the housing sector had continued in 2007, with a slowdown in activity and a large number of unsold homes. While house prices had not fallen, that might happen in the months and years to come if the recession continued as expected. A decline in prices would affect the domestic market, particularly household consumption in the United States, resulting in the risk of a serious recession in its economy, slowing growth from 2.1 per cent to 0.5 per cent in 2007 and 2008. That would then significantly slow the world economy and transmit the recession into the rest of the world.

The United States deficit had increased to $860 billion at the end of 2006, and was expected to fall to $800 billion in 2007. That deficit was basically being financed by surpluses in the developing and oil exporting countries, as well as some major developed countries, in particular Japan and Germany. The European Union,at large, was projected to continue to have a slight deficit on its current account.

Continuing, he said the current tendency in macroeconomic policy was not all in the right direction, particularly in the surplus countries where there had been a tightening of monetary and fiscal policies, particularly in Germany and Japan, making it more difficult for the United States to lower its external deficits by export growth. The United States would also need to adopt some contractionary policies to slow down its deficit, he recommended.

Interestingly enough ... You're both right

 

Uncontrolled deficits will (eventually) drive down the value of the dollar and drive up the cost of everything; in particular anything with real value (like commodities). At the same time, the government has changed the way they calculate inflation under several presidents (including Clinton) which has resulted in a dramatic underestimate of real-inflation; as a consequence of this, Alan Greenspan (and Ben Bernanke) have left the interest rates too low for too long which has resulted in several bubbles (Dot-Com, Housing Bubble) and lowered the value of the dollar.

 



Impulsivity on 05 September 2008

First off I am amazed just how conservative a lot of people are on here (and there's a strange correlation between being conservative and being a MS fan I've noticed reading the posts here of people I know from other areas vs Sony/Nintendo fans which seem to be either foreign or more liberal). Second I am amazed by how out of sync a lot of views here are from reality.

First off if you look through the last 100 years pretty much every recession has started under a Republican (Hoover, Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Bush) while most democratic presidencies (except carters) have had improvements in the standards of livings for all americans except the upper 1% or so (and the 1% or so did equally well under republicans and liberals).

With Democrats all boats tend to rise, with republicans only the ultra expensive yachts rise and even then, not any more quickly then when all boats rise. There is a mistake in thinking democrats want socialisim. In fact what democrats tend to want is more money in the hands of the poor and middle class and less money in the hands of the ultra rich.

That is good for everyone in the long run, here's why. The ultra rich don't spend, and when they do spend, its A)a fraction of what they make and B) usually foreign goods. If someone has billions of dollars that is impossible to spend on anything that improves the US economy. Someone like Bill Gates bought a 130 million dollar house (complete with trampoline room), has a private jet and tons of other consumption and yet STILL couldn't spend it all. After a certain point, around 10 million, it becomes very hard to spend it all no matter how conspicuous your consumption becomes.

On the other hand give someone making 30,000 dollars or even 100,000 dollars more money in their pocket and its spent immedietly. The 30,000 dollar person might buy a car when before they could not, or spend it on going out to eat once in a while when they would never be able to afford it before. The 100,000 dollar person might buy a new car when they were holding off (freeing the current car to the used car market the 30,000 dollar person is looking at), they will go out to eat more often giving the 30,000 dollar waitress more money, they will buy that new TV at best buy instead of waiting. People just getting by spend more readily and more domesticly then the super rich. If someone who makes 100k is taking a vacation its probably to Florida or Hawaii not to China or Europe.

This economy runs on the middle class not on the super rich. Also the reason the super rich do JUST as well despite higher taxes under liberals is exactly the point I was making. The super rich became better off under Clinton despite higher taxes because more middle class people had money to buy the things the super rich CEO's companies are selling. If you're just barely making payments are you going to get new furniture, a big tv or a new car? Of course not! US companies making money depends largely on US consumers having money to spend.

All the huge tax cuts to the rich at the expense of the middle class republican supply side platform does is put more money in the wrong hands. It increases the deficit so a dollar is worth less, takes money from those who need it and gives it to those who won't spend it and throws our currency and our country into recession and depression. Republicans are short term thinkers who really seem to have no idea how to control an economy responsibly. There's a reason that most of the richest people in the country like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and George Soros are liberals (discounting the Walmart Heirs which didn't really earn any of the money they recieved).

Lastly, if you want a great example of the obscenely unfair nature of Republican rule here's one from Warren Buffet. He asked a group of high powered traders like him if any of them could prove they paid a higher marginal tax rate then their secretary. He even bet a million dollars on it. Surprise surprise, since most of them made the majority of their income from investment (taxed at only 15% capital gains) not one of them could. A secretary making 70k (since they work for a top executive) pays 40% income tax+social security/medicare tax, the rich fat cat she works for pays 15% capital gains. In fact the highest tax rate of all goes to the self employed small business man who pays around 30% in income taxes plus 15% self employment for nearly a 50% marginal tax rate. The CEO with NO investment income (just normal job income) pays well under 40% since anything over 90,000 doesn't get taxed for social security at all.

Should the secretary pay more then her boss and the small business owner pay more then the CEO? I sure as hell don't think so. It's a recipe for continued failure and the main reason I'm voting for Obama. I do hate religious zealots also, but that's a minor reason in comparison. Ever notice how liberal families never seem to have these 16 year old teen moms? I know 7 under 20 women who ended up having a baby they didn't really prepare for/want while unmarried, every single one of them in a hard core christian family. That's the republican way, lets pretend the problem doesn't exist "abstinence only education" and then watch the consequences "teen pregnancy" stack up.




 PSN ID: ChosenOne feel free to add me

Impulsivity on 05 September 2008
HappySqurriel said:
Paul_Warren said:

"- For increasing taxes as well as government spending at multiple levels, and against a flat tax (I am for lower taxes, smaller government, and a flat tax)"

Everyone says that Obama is going to raise taxes. However, the truth is he is planning on cutting taxes for everyone that makes under $50,000.00 a year. I'm all for raising taxes on the wealthy. And if Obama is going to do that, then more power to him.  Higher minimum wage + no taxes for the poorer citizens = a real shot at upward mobility for poorer people in society.  If you make less than $250,000.00 a year, you should not vote for Mccain in November.

 

In the United States the "Wealthy" pay a disproportionately large ammount of the taxes, which means that you can raise taxes without rasining them for people under a certain income level.

 

   That is SUCH a lie.  The hedge fund traders pay 15% capital gains on millions or even billions which is less then even someone making 20 something thousand a year.  Super rich 10+ million dollar making CEO types pay 35% but DON'T pay any social security tax on most of their income (anything above 90k) meaning they pay around 36% effective tax with medicare/social security.  Someone making around 90k pays over 40%  between their around 30% income tax and paying the full ammount for social security/medicare on every dollar they earn.  If they're an independent contractor or small business owner paying self employment tax makign 90k a year its more like 50% since they pay the ful 15% for self employment tax on every dollar.  So a Hedge fund trader pays 15%, a CEO pays 38% but a mid level employee is paying 40% and a small bussiness owner is paying 50%.  How are the super rich paying a disproportionate ammount?

 

   It seems like the lower and middle classes are the ones paying too much, and Obama agrees (he says taxes will be lower for 95% of Americans, higher for 5%, which seems right to me).

 

   This taxes are higher for everyone Republican talking point is BS, taxes are only higher for those who don't spend the extra money to improve the economy anyway.




 PSN ID: ChosenOne feel free to add me

Kasz216 on 05 September 2008

Seriously, does nobody find it surprising that Bush apparently was a better president when it came to the gap between the rich and poor then Clinton... who appears to be the worst president.

Him or Reagan anyway.

 



Around the Network
Impulsivity on 05 September 2008
Kasz216 said:

Seriously, does nobody find it surprising that Bush apparently was a better president when it came to the gap between the rich and poor then Clinton... who appears to be the worst president.

Him or Reagan anyway.

 

 

   Better as in he made the gap the widest its been since the gilded age over a century ago?  He completed what Reagan couldn't by making us oil barons and everyone else again.




 PSN ID: ChosenOne feel free to add me

HappySqurriel on 05 September 2008
Impulsivity said:
Kasz216 said:

Seriously, does nobody find it surprising that Bush apparently was a better president when it came to the gap between the rich and poor then Clinton... who appears to be the worst president.

Him or Reagan anyway.

 

 

   Better as in he made the gap the widest its been since the gilded age over a century ago?  He completed what Reagan couldn't by making us oil barons and everyone else again.

 

Name 1 Oil Barron that is alive today?

 



HappySqurriel on 05 September 2008
Impulsivity said:

 

   That is SUCH a lie.  The hedge fund traders pay 15% capital gains on millions or even billions which is less then even someone making 20 something thousand a year.  Super rich 10+ million dollar making CEO types pay 35% but DON'T pay any social security tax on most of their income (anything above 90k) meaning they pay around 36% effective tax with medicare/social security.  Someone making around 90k pays over 40%  between their around 30% income tax and paying the full ammount for social security/medicare on every dollar they earn.  If they're an independent contractor or small business owner paying self employment tax makign 90k a year its more like 50% since they pay the ful 15% for self employment tax on every dollar.  So a Hedge fund trader pays 15%, a CEO pays 38% but a mid level employee is paying 40% and a small bussiness owner is paying 50%.  How are the super rich paying a disproportionate ammount?

 

   It seems like the lower and middle classes are the ones paying too much, and Obama agrees (he says taxes will be lower for 95% of Americans, higher for 5%, which seems right to me).

 

   This taxes are higher for everyone Republican talking point is BS, taxes are only higher for those who don't spend the extra money to improve the economy anyway.

 

Do you even know what a Hedge fund or a hedge fund trader are?

A fund manager is an employee who works for a large financial firm and manages other people's investments; he pays the exact same income tax on his income that anyone else makes.



Paul_Warren on 05 September 2008

@Timmah!

My father was a millionaire defense attorney and he had very little work to do other than go in to court, smile at the jury and the judge, lay out some sob story for his client, and most of the time, my father would get his client out of the jam he was in, and then my father would go spend the vast majority of his time partying.

There are millionaire psychiatrists in the world. They sit at their desks have some housewife come into their office, write out a prescription for whatever antidepressant she's into, and send her off on her way after about five minutes while they've made a cool $500.00 for all those grueling minutes of hard work, and they prepare for the next housewife to come in when they will repeat the procedure, pocket another $500.00 plus royalties from the insurance and prescription companies for the pills they've despensed.

These are high paying jobs; however, they are not very stressful and the people that do the actual work at such offices are the secretaries and receptionists. So don't try to put forth that people with high paying jobs deserve everything they get because they are under so much stress.



My most anticipated games:  Whatever Hideo Kojima is going to do next, Final Fantasy XIII, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, Gran Turismo 5, Alan Wake, Wii Sports Resort.  Cave Story Wiiware.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqqLMgbtrB8

HappySqurriel on 05 September 2008
Impulsivity said:

First off if you look through the last 100 years pretty much every recession has started under a Republican (Hoover, Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Bush) while most democratic presidencies (except carters) have had improvements in the standards of livings for all americans except the upper 1% or so (and the 1% or so did equally well under republicans and liberals).

 

Just because an event happens under a particular party does not mean that it was caused by a particular party ...

The housing bubble that is one of the major problems was caused by the loose fiscal policies of Alan Greenspan, and by the change in mortgage financing under Bill Clinton. George W. Bush (certainly) played a part in it, but he is not the only one who is responsible for it.

At the same time, the Dot-Com crisis impacted George W. Bush's presidency but was a problem that started in the Clinton adminsitration.

 

Impulsivity said:

With Democrats all boats tend to rise, with republicans only the ultra expensive yachts rise and even then, not any more quickly then when all boats rise. There is a mistake in thinking democrats want socialisim. In fact what democrats tend to want is more money in the hands of the poor and middle class and less money in the hands of the ultra rich.

As Kasz already demonstrated, under the Clinton administration disparity increased and it leveled off durring the Bush Presidency ...

 

Impulsivity said:

That is good for everyone in the long run, here's why. The ultra rich don't spend, and when they do spend, its A)a fraction of what they make and B) usually foreign goods. If someone has billions of dollars that is impossible to spend on anything that improves the US economy. Someone like Bill Gates bought a 130 million dollar house (complete with trampoline room), has a private jet and tons of other consumption and yet STILL couldn't spend it all. After a certain point, around 10 million, it becomes very hard to spend it all no matter how conspicuous your consumption becomes.

On the other hand give someone making 30,000 dollars or even 100,000 dollars more money in their pocket and its spent immedietly. The 30,000 dollar person might buy a car when before they could not, or spend it on going out to eat once in a while when they would never be able to afford it before. The 100,000 dollar person might buy a new car when they were holding off (freeing the current car to the used car market the 30,000 dollar person is looking at), they will go out to eat more often giving the 30,000 dollar waitress more money, they will buy that new TV at best buy instead of waiting. People just getting by spend more readily and more domesticly then the super rich. If someone who makes 100k is taking a vacation its probably to Florida or Hawaii not to China or Europe.

 

Have you ever heard of 'investments'?

Where do you think the money comes from for mortgages, car loans and credit cards? It primarily comes from the sale of complicated derivatives that are bought (primarily) by the wealthy.

Whey do you think that start-ups get the money, and companies get the investment capital to grow? It comes from venture capatalists, or from the sale of bonds, which is (primarily) from the investments of the wealthy.

 

Impulsivity said:


This economy runs on the middle class not on the super rich. Also the reason the super rich do JUST as well despite higher taxes under liberals is exactly the point I was making. The super rich became better off under Clinton despite higher taxes because more middle class people had money to buy the things the super rich CEO's companies are selling. If you're just barely making payments are you going to get new furniture, a big tv or a new car? Of course not! US companies making money depends largely on US consumers having money to spend.

All the huge tax cuts to the rich at the expense of the middle class republican supply side platform does is put more money in the wrong hands. It increases the deficit so a dollar is worth less, takes money from those who need it and gives it to those who won't spend it and throws our currency and our country into recession and depression. Republicans are short term thinkers who really seem to have no idea how to control an economy responsibly. There's a reason that most of the richest people in the country like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and George Soros are liberals (discounting the Walmart Heirs which didn't really earn any of the money they recieved).

The reason the super rich do well inspite of tax rate is because they're entirely in controll of how much money they make ... If you're Bill Gates and you're suddenly paying far more in taxes what you're going to do is increase the price of all Microsoft products to a level where you generate the same after-tax revenues.

The ecconomy doesn't run on the poor, middle class, wealthy or super rich. It runs on the incentive driven hard-work of individuals within the ecconomy, and from the investments made by these individuals. If you eliminate the incentive to work harder, or to invest money, the ecconomy can not function.

 

Impulsivity said:


Lastly, if you want a great example of the obscenely unfair nature of Republican rule here's one from Warren Buffet. He asked a group of high powered traders like him if any of them could prove they paid a higher marginal tax rate then their secretary. He even bet a million dollars on it. Surprise surprise, since most of them made the majority of their income from investment (taxed at only 15% capital gains) not one of them could. A secretary making 70k (since they work for a top executive) pays 40% income tax+social security/medicare tax, the rich fat cat she works for pays 15% capital gains. In fact the highest tax rate of all goes to the self employed small business man who pays around 30% in income taxes plus 15% self employment for nearly a 50% marginal tax rate. The CEO with NO investment income (just normal job income) pays well under 40% since anything over 90,000 doesn't get taxed for social security at all.

Should the secretary pay more then her boss and the small business owner pay more then the CEO? I sure as hell don't think so. It's a recipe for continued failure and the main reason I'm voting for Obama. I do hate religious zealots also, but that's a minor reason in comparison. Ever notice how liberal families never seem to have these 16 year old teen moms? I know 7 under 20 women who ended up having a baby they didn't really prepare for/want while unmarried, every single one of them in a hard core christian family. That's the republican way, lets pretend the problem doesn't exist "abstinence only education" and then watch the consequences "teen pregnancy" stack up.


Warren buffet may have paid a lower marginal tax rate than her secretary, but he certainly paid a lot more taxes, and his action created wealth for millions of people in the process who then paid taxes on this gained wealth ...