Jake Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 11:18 AM) By cutting the revenue you're kicking the economy into gear and increasing your revenues over time. Obama's plan is basically nothing at this point. Wait it out. We've been waiting 4 years and not much has improved. This is speculation. Recent history has shown this to not have much of an effect. Moody's predicts that at our current pace, we will gain 12 million new jobs by 2016 (that number sound familiar?). This would probably encourage a sitting President to wait it out. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 11:20 AM) Europe has shown pretty clearly that austerity will only make things worse, as well as our own experience with the Bush tax cuts. Yep. A better argument would be if we had European-level tax rates to begin with, kind of like the levels they were at when Reagan slashed them down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 11:24 AM) Europe hasn't cut the revenue they've enacted higher taxes and less gov't spending. Romney's plan is stimulus, it's just republican stimulus. Tax cuts and military spending. Spending on military doesn't count against deficit IYAR. It would work though. If Obama is elected, Republicans will demand austerity. If Romney is elected, they will allow huge tax cuts and increased spending. Vote republican! They won't hold the economy hostage if you do! I think we were talking about the hypothetical fantasy world where Romney and Republicans would actually make a balanced budget or at least significantly reduce the deficit. But you're right that the European countries have slashed services and raised taxes while bailing out the bankers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 05:25 PM) This is speculation. Recent history has shown this to not have much of an effect. Moody's predicts that at our current pace, we will gain 12 million new jobs by 2016 (that number sound familiar?). This would probably encourage a sitting President to wait it out. It would absolutely boost growth. It just would not make up the revenue they claim it would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 A good percentage of the stimulus was in fact tax cuts! But their multiplier is pretty low and are far from the most effective forms of spending and do not "pay for themselves" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 11:28 AM) It would absolutely boost growth. It just would not make up the revenue they claim it would. The problem is that for every tax cut there's always some massive spending that follows. We need tax cuts/tax modifications that directly impact the middle class AND a reduction in spending, including military spending. This, of course, is like kyrptonite to the two political parties. "ZOMG, we can't cut taxes! We have to pay for things!" "ZOMG! We can't cut military spending, our military will be so outdated!" Ugh, so stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 A lot of anger towards the system in this thread. My only hope is that one day my generation will be the ones in power and that we wont sell out future America for a few dollars today. Not overly optimistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) Though cuts to military spending is somewhat hard to sell, it's much easier to sell than cuts to Medicare/Social Security, the only other expenses that rival the military. There are just a huge amount of people that use or are thinking about the time they will use Medicare/Social Security and don't want to think of those things changing. Edited October 23, 2012 by Jake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 11:35 AM) A good percentage of the stimulus was in fact tax cuts! But their multiplier is pretty low and are far from the most effective forms of spending and do not "pay for themselves" Tax cuts are not a form of spending. They are a form of you keeping your own money. They also do not involve a loss in spending money for someone to determine how to spend your money better for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 09:45 AM) What I don't get about you is why you're in the bag for Obama. Who was against gay marriage until it suited him to be for it. How does that fact NOT annoy you? He's an opportunist...and you let him be. Spoiler alert, first term presidents are completely run by their party's desires. ALL presidents are run by where the money comes from. And living in Illinois, my presidential vote doesnt mean s*** anyway. I'm going with the funniest name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 07:56 AM) [rant] Yesterdays waste of time debate highlights exactly what is wrong with everything political in this country, from the politicians themselves to the media, to the people, and in doing that, highlights why we are where we are as a nation. A nation of consumers, for consumers, by consumers. Beg, borrow, and declare bankruptcy...and then do it all over again. Nobody takes anything seriously anymore. Not even the politicians we elect. It's a joke to them, and while we laugh along with them at home, or on blogs, or Twitter, or Facebook, or by the water cooler, the reality is they're not laughing with us, they're laughing at us. After all, they're all millionaires we keep electing to fix the problems that affect the middle class/poor. Only they never fix them. But all the while they never fix them, this much is true: Every. Last. One. Of. Them. Gets. Richer. All these debates were to 99.999999999998% of the people/media -- including most of us here -- were reality TV events to laugh at. Point 1) What do we all talk about from the first debate? Big Bird. Point 2) What do we all talk about from the second debate? Binders. Point 3) What will do we all talk about from the third debate? Bayonets. In other words, 99.9999999998% of rest of the debates are forgotten or outright dismissed, because these three key points are all that matter...and they're all anyone talks about. Because, I don't know, they funny? But if you actually stop to think about it for a second, they're not funny...they're sad. It's sad we have politicians on a pedestal and these are the types of things that come out of their mouths. And we allow it. People making domain names for bayonets, binders, big bird, trend similar hashtags on the Twitterverse, etc...it's so honestly and profoundly sad to me that we all watch our nation crumble around us and all we can do is laugh at the morons that are hammering at the foundation with sledgehammers. The Fillibuster just got its best post ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 12:28 PM) Tax cuts are not a form of spending. They are a form of you keeping your own money. They also do not involve a loss in spending money for someone to determine how to spend your money better for you. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I missed the debate last night but just read the transcript. Yikes. Was Romney's performance on tv as poor as the transcript seemed to make him? Did he make any good points whatsoever? Seemed like BO dominated this one pretty easily... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) With the election allegedly pretty close to call, is it safe to say Obama actually blew it in the debates? If Obama loses, were the debates the key? He came across as kind of mean and sort of arrogant. Edited November 2, 2012 by greg775 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 His collapse in the polls came right after the first debate, where he was detached and boring. He rebounded with the later ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 2, 2012 -> 12:22 PM) His collapse in the polls came right after the first debate, where he was detached and boring. He rebounded with the later ones. Did he do well in the later ones or did he still seem mean? I only watched Debate No. One. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 2, 2012 -> 01:18 AM) With the election allegedly pretty close to call, is it safe to say Obama actually blew it in the debates? If Obama loses, were the debates the key? He came across as kind of mean and sort of arrogant. the race isn't close anymore. people will tell you it is, but everything is trending Obama's way. I predict an electoral college landslide. Check this out (Nate Silver): the big dip is after the first debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 2, 2012 -> 04:34 PM) Did he do well in the later ones or did he still seem mean? I only watched Debate No. One. The consensus (and my take, too) was that he was boring, uninterested and ineffectual in the first debate, not mean. If anything, in the remaining debates he was much more forceful and directly critical of Romney, calling his bulls*** to his face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 2, 2012 -> 05:37 PM) the race isn't close anymore. people will tell you it is, but everything is trending Obama's way. I predict an electoral college landslide. Check this out (Nate Silver): the big dip is after the first debate. You'd obviously rather be in Obama's position, but a 20% chance isn't horrible and far from the realm of impossible. Nate gave a good football analogy the other day. Obama's 79% (at the time) chance is like being up by a field goal with 3 minutes left in the 4th quarter. Odds are, you're going to win, but it wouldn't be shocking if the other team managed to pull it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 2, 2012 -> 05:49 PM) You'd obviously rather be in Obama's position, but a 20% chance isn't horrible and far from the realm of impossible. Nate gave a good football analogy the other day. Obama's 79% (at the time) chance is like being up by a field goal with 3 minutes left in the 4th quarter. Odds are, you're going to win, but it wouldn't be shocking if the other team managed to pull it out. right - but he's in a MUCH better place than on Oct 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts