GORD: Are you suggesting that Bush was correct in leading the US to attack Iraq?!?!? Are you saying that our 12 BILLION per month expenditure is proper to stop the possibility that "Saddam will (in the future) develop a WMD" ??? Is Iraq is any better condition than the day we invaded?!?!?! Every American death in Iraq is a death in vain. Every budget-deficit dollar that we have spent in destroying Iraq is a dollar that could have been spent improving America (or Iraq, or the world in general). Is Bush the worst president in our generation: 70% of Americans say 'yes'. He is the epitome of a dying nation and our grandchildren will pay for his sins.
That and the twa flight that got blown out of the sky. The one they claimed had fuel tanks exploded while there is irrefutable evidence that they were hit by a missile. The TWA flight was a huge coverup. John
The wife is calling me to bed so a more complete answer to your question will have to wait for tomorrow. But tell me: Would it have been better to have Moammar Gadhafi with nuclear weapons with absolutely no intel knowledge of them, as would have been the case had he not voluntarily given up his nuke program because of W's invasion of Iraq?
The Left are Wimps The Right is Wrong.. One thing they do share in common: THEY ARE ALL THE FUCKING SAME SOCIALISTS
Somehow I can't help but feel that in Hillary's case "Faith" is really her lesbian lover. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Seriously though I love when I hear people especially politicians wanting our troops home immediately. Bottom line is they can't. We still have civilians over there from companies like Haliburton trying to rebuild Iraq. If we brought the troops home today the Haliburton boys would be dead in 2 hours or less of the last US troop taking off from Iraq. So until Haliburton leaves our troops will remain no matter what any politician promises. As far as which candidate is the right one to vote for? Sadly NONE of them currently have an economic plan that is worth a damn. Not Hillary, not Obama, and not John. Not a one has a clue how to fix our current economic situation. Ron Paul might be the best guy for the job economically speaking but he doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning.
back to the title of this thread. I believe that either choice of Bama or Hill will piss off lots of supporters. However, if they end up on the same ticket, regardless of how much they hate each other, I bet you get a record turnout for the Dems just as they have had during primaries. You may have light Repub turnout due to the pissed off conservatives. And guys, please stop this Gore nonsense. A second ballot would allow the delegates to pick whomever they want, but then BOTH Hillary and Bama supporters would cry bloody murder. These supporters are fanatical on both sides. It would wreck the Party for sure. "Lets just ignore ALL the people who voted". Not going to happen. I see a dual ticket compromise way before that. Who knows. BTW, I hope the above scenario does not happen. Although I am Independent, I believe in voting for the lesser of two (or maybe three) evils. In my mind, McCain. Both Hill and Bama have already said they will dramatically increase taxes. Just what our econ needs! What we need is to cut spending.
I think now is a great time to debunk that theory that 'cutting taxes' is the way to spur the economy. What difference does it make, in the velocity of money, whether the government spends it or the consumer spends it? In either case the money 'moves'. I would also argue that government spending, if done properly, would be better for the nation. MAintaning roads, investing in space & ocean research, investing in all other kinds of research, improving our infrastructure, etc. is far better than consumers buying more crap in a nation that already has too much crap. BTW, Rangel's tax bill would relieve middle-class of the current tax burdens and shift the taxes to the weathly. If 10% of the population control 85% of the wealth then they should pay 85% of the country's tax bill. Obviously, the very worst thing is to continue the current levels of DEFICIT spending which have occurred under Bush and wll continue under McCain.
I apologize in advance that this probably belongs in the economics thread, but just had to respond to the above quote. I'm not promoting cutting taxes further, just don't raise em. The Laffer Curve is very valid BTW, but experiences declining marginal returns at these lower rates. Its been shown time and again that high taxes have several negative effects. First of all, it only increases revenue significantly for the year immediately following the tax increases. Then people go out of their way to avoid paying any draconian increase, even if it costs them money to do so (such as larger IRA contributions, investment property that may not even make money, but can be depreciated, etc). This is instead of blowing the said money on consumer goods, additional vacations, etc. And it decreases any funds that they may have for economic based investment incentives vs tax based incentives. Or they stop working. Why work harder when 50% plus of the marginal pay goes to the Gov? (Federal + State). They definitely have less to invest in equities outright. And then factor in the nearly doubling of cap gains that Obama wants. Waddya think that's going to do the equity markets? Finally, yes, the rich control most of the wealth, but they already pay a ridiculously disproportionate percentage of the taxes (top 5% pay 53 to 55% of all taxes). You raise their taxes noticeably, and what do they do? They hire the best tax accountants to change their investment or expense patterns to not pay these higher taxes. Those cap gains taxes are going to hammer the middle class investor, and BTW, 60% of the middle class now invests in equities. This was not the case back before the Reagan tax cuts were enacted. It was about 25% then. The socialist regimes of Hillary or Obama WILL hammer the economy. What we need is a tax system that stays the same for at least a decade at a time (like most countries have), so that we can plan forward. And yes, we need infrastructure investments, as well as spending less on the military imo. This is going to take awhile. What we need more than anything else, is to get a handle on entitlement spending, and outlaw worthless pork. We are now bringing in RECORD revenue with the current tax system, and revenues have been growing substantially faster than GDP. Enough said. If its not broke, don't fix it. Spending side is broken. I am an economist by training BTW, and that is not just university degrees.
I disagree with all three points: First, the reason economies do not grow through taxation is that all Governments are notorious of being the worst employers in terms of creating wealth for the country. For example, several studies have shown that only about 10% of welfare money ends up with the welfare recipient and the rest stays with the civil service bureaucracy - as opposed to private charitable organizations, many of which deliver 95% of each dollar to the needy. In summary, money spent directly by the Government enters something like a "slow moving lane" while money run by private enterprise travels at much higher speeds. Therefore, the final wealth effect for the whole country is much greater if the country's wealth is governed by private enterprise. This is one of the major reasons that Socialist systems failed economically: if you work for the Government you essentially do not work, not nearly as hard and effectively as if you worked for a private concern, period. Second, our tax system is both progressive and focused on "income" not "assets" like some primitive civilizations had in the past. In other words, the Government taxes people's income, not their wealth. It is up to them to use their after tax income and build wealth. So, if one looks at that, I would say that the people who are at the top income brackets pay not only their "fair" taxes, but many times over, as the top 10% of income earners pay 90% of the taxes overall. That is not "fair" but necessary, or else the system would not work. BUT, every time you take $1 from the hands of those who are your smartest and most successful citizens, you pay the price of not being able to see as much return in terms of new business and jobs as you would otherwise. Again, it is something to be balanced carefully, and not by demagogues. Look at many places in Europe to see the disastrous results of overtaxation. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with deficit spending to an extent, as it allows you to get out of tight spots, like periodic business slowdowns and wars. Stimulating an ailing economy or paying for a sudden need is what the Government's borrowing capacity (a small % of the GDP) is there for. We all have mortgages, but we don't fret over them, not usually. Of course, we must be vigilant to return to balanced budgets soon after the special need has been met. The best way to do that is to freeze spending and allow the economic growth to work the % of deficit spending back to close to zero. If you tax your way out of a deficit without lowering your spending, then you are burning the candle on both ends, by slowing down the economy through overtaxation. That's what McCain wants to do, freeze spending and spur the economy, while both of the other two are advocating populist agendas to tax us to death. OK Mr and Mrs American, you got your new tax plan that has the "wealthy" pay for EVERYTHING (not just the huge % that they [we] do today) and celebrated the victory of the "working class" but the factory closed. Welcome to Ohio and Pennsylvania. Do you think that the Government will open a new one? OOPS! Oh well.