Understanding Obama

[quote]Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I just fail to see how BHO will be any more disastrous than GWB.

Nothing anyone can say about BHO can scare me in light of the last 8 years.

A step closer to single-payer healthcare?

which would be scary why? cheaper, better healthcare usually a good thing.

Because I have better healthcare than the government could provide.[/quote]

Oh, I said better and cheaper.

[quote]makkun wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
There’s less thinking that goes on in this forum than anyplace else I’ve ever seen. Does anybody here tossing around the word “socialist” even know what it means? […]

There are intelligent threads here on occasion. I wouldn’t bother too much with it at the moment though - PWI always goes rabid before an election. Time to take a holiday from it until we can home in on gay marriage again. :wink:

Makkun

PS: And, wrt to ‘socialism’ - yes, most people here never have experienced real socialism and the its use as a buzz word shows they know fuck all about it. That doesn’t deter is usage - see my main paragraph for an explanation.[/quote]

“Socialism” and “socialist” are two different things. Government control of businesses is a socialist tactic. Government involvement is social issues is, by nature, a socialist tactic.

Taking $700 billion from private citizens to give away free houses, and bailout crooked banks is a socialist tactic.

Pretty much everything Obama wants to do can be considered socialist. Some of his stances border on outright criminal.

Much of what McCain wants to do is socialist.

How can someone voting for the new baby jesus admonish ANYONE for not thinking? That would have to be the classic example of the pot and the kettle.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Journeyman wrote:
Mick28 wrote:

While this may not be true, he will NOT produce a birth certificate…odd huh?

Do you mean the one shown on http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert
and
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html ?

Fact check states, “Of course, it’s distantly possible that Obama’s grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.”

Ummm…or just to make sure he was recognized as an american citizen back then.

Who funds fact check?[/quote]

LOL. Does the tin foil hat fall off if the wind blows too hard?

You fucking people and your liberal conspiracies. Unbelievable.

[quote]pat wrote:

Wanna bet? The left in this country are dangerously stupid people. So willing to hand control of themselves and their families to others. I want change too, but for the better not worse. Change for the sake of change is just plain stupid.
[/quote]

Oh fucking stop. The stupid ass right wingers that voted in dicksmack Bush in the last eight years have destroyed the country because they were drinking the kool aid. They were more than willing to hand over control of whatever was asked after 9/11.

This country has changed for the worse socially, economically, and politically. We’ve been demolished. But you people just keep on talking all of this shit, which is the same stuff that those of us on the left have been saying about the warmongering, fearful nancies on the right for the last eight years. Too ironic.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:

well said…you’re the shining line on this forum…i love you,man.

Obviously you cannot refute my facts, if you could have you have little boss…

Its obvious that no one cares what YOUR facts are but you…which would make them opinions.

One more post by you and still no refutation. Next time, before you log onto T Nation, think about how worthless your posts are.
[/quote]

Next time before you log onto T-Nation(a bodybuilding website),think about how you’re always called out for your idiotic posts. PWI is were you belong…that is certain…lol.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I just fail to see how BHO will be any more disastrous than GWB.

Nothing anyone can say about BHO can scare me in light of the last 8 years.

A step closer to single-payer healthcare?

which would be scary why? cheaper, better healthcare usually a good thing.

Because I have better healthcare than the government could provide.

Oh, I said better and cheaper. [/quote]

No. I mean, I’d have better healthcare sticking to my private plan. Please don’t use the force of government to change that.

I think we’re all using it in the sense of “taking money from people who have it and giving it to people who don’t through government taxation.” Do you have a definition that works better? Of course, both candidates support the same, we’re just arguing over the degree to which each supports it.

“Progress,” these days, tends to have an Orwellian definition to many people. Many view “progress” as “sucking babies into garbage disposals,” (Obama) or “wealth re-distribution,” (Obama more so than McCain) or “government ownership of lending institutions,” (both) or “hate speech laws,” or “gun confiscation.” (Obama) I guess the question is, who’s definition are you using?

Perhaps the middle class will expand and grow richer under Obama. Perhaps my right to keep and bear arms will be respected. Perhaps I will keep more of my monthly paycheck, and that monthly paycheck will continue to grow in size. I certainly hope so. That would be “progress” to me.

I find that the people who need to mention intelligence all the time in these discussions are the ones who are generally insecure about their own level of it. Don’t you find the same?

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Oh fucking stop. The stupid ass right wingers that voted in dicksmack Bush in the last eight years have destroyed the country because they were drinking the kool aid. They were more than willing to hand over control of whatever was asked after 9/11.

This country has changed for the worse socially, economically, and politically. We’ve been demolished. But you people just keep on talking all of this shit, which is the same stuff that those of us on the left have been saying about the warmongering, fearful nancies on the right for the last eight years. Too ironic.[/quote]

How did Bush destroy the country?

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
There’s less thinking that goes on in this forum than anyplace else I’ve ever seen. Does anybody here tossing around the word “socialist” even know what it means?

I think it’s ironic T-Nation tries so hard to play up the “intelligence” of this site and its members.

Well don’t worry, things will get better for you too under the next administration, even though you won’t appreciate it or even acknowledge it. There is always a large group of people that must be dragged kicking and screaming toward progress.

My definition of "things getting better? is NOT over taxing small business and those who are actually making the economy work.

I’m funny that way.[/quote]

Then I fail to see where the problem lies. Obama’s plan eliminates (or at least greatly reduces, I can’t exactly remember) capital gains taxes for small businesses and cuts corporate taxes for companies that invest in the US. He also exempts small businesses from the mandatory employee health insurance regulations.

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
There’s less thinking that goes on in this forum than anyplace else I’ve ever seen. Does anybody here tossing around the word “socialist” even know what it means?

I think it’s ironic T-Nation tries so hard to play up the “intelligence” of this site and its members.

Well don’t worry, things will get better for you too under the next administration, even though you won’t appreciate it or even acknowledge it. There is always a large group of people that must be dragged kicking and screaming toward progress.

My definition of "things getting better? is NOT over taxing small business and those who are actually making the economy work.

I’m funny that way.

Then I fail to see where the problem lies. Obama’s plan eliminates (or at least greatly reduces, I can’t exactly remember) capital gains taxes for small businesses and cuts corporate taxes for companies that invest in the US. He also exempts small businesses from the mandatory employee health insurance regulations.
[/quote]
You haven’t actually read his economic plan, have you?

That’s where that came from, moron. Once again, the biggest critics of Obama’s plan…have no idea what his plans actually are. Nice job.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You fail to see the larger picture here. Over taxing “the rich” or at least those he difines as “rich” is not good for the economy and totally unfair as “the rich” as he defines them already pay too high a burden in taxes.

When you over tax people in that bracket there is a disastrous after effect felt by others.

When tax hikes such as this are implemented businesses tend to lay people off, raise prices and cut back expansion plans.

At the very time we need to cut government spending obama will launch the largest government expansion in the history of the country.

obama is bad for America in every way, but economically he’s a disaster.

[/quote]

I don’t think so. I think it’s the McCain supporters here that fail to demonstrate much in the way of logical reasoning, or memory.

First of all, the assertion that higher taxes on the rich result in “disastrous” consequences is so full of shit that I’m not even going to lend it credibility by talking about it except to say that remember back in the 90s when the capital gains tax was much higher than it is now, the economy was doing much better .

Now I’m NOT saying that higher capital gains taxes=better economy, but it certainly does NOT discourage investing or cause businesses to have to lay people off.

I’m also very curious as to why you feel that the rich shoulder too heavy a tax burden. I don’t think they shoulder near enough. The top 10% of wage earners control something like 90% of the wealth in the country. If you have 90% of the wealth, you should pay 90% of the taxes.

Also, cutting back government spending is NOT going to help the economy. The deficit is certainly a problem (mainly due to the Bush administration), but when the economy is struggling, ceasing to put money into it is the last thing that’s going to help.

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
That’s where that came from, moron. Once again, the biggest critics of Obama’s plan…have no idea what his plans actually are. Nice job.[/quote]

well then you need an interpreter to read it for you again.

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
You fail to see the larger picture here. Over taxing “the rich” or at least those he difines as “rich” is not good for the economy and totally unfair as “the rich” as he defines them already pay too high a burden in taxes.

When you over tax people in that bracket there is a disastrous after effect felt by others.

When tax hikes such as this are implemented businesses tend to lay people off, raise prices and cut back expansion plans.

At the very time we need to cut government spending obama will launch the largest government expansion in the history of the country.

obama is bad for America in every way, but economically he’s a disaster.

I don’t think so. I think it’s the McCain supporters here that fail to demonstrate much in the way of logical reasoning, or memory.

First of all, the assertion that higher taxes on the rich result in “disastrous” consequences is so full of shit that I’m not even going to lend it credibility by talking about it except to say that remember back in the 90s when the capital gains tax was much higher than it is now, the economy was doing much better .

Now I’m NOT saying that higher capital gains taxes=better economy, but it certainly does NOT discourage investing or cause businesses to have to lay people off.

I’m also very curious as to why you feel that the rich shoulder too heavy a tax burden. I don’t think they shoulder near enough. The top 10% of wage earners control something like 90% of the wealth in the country. If you have 90% of the wealth, you should pay 90% of the taxes.

Also, cutting back government spending is NOT going to help the economy. The deficit is certainly a problem (mainly due to the Bush administration), but when the economy is struggling, ceasing to put money into it is the last thing that’s going to help.
[/quote]

Jesus, you have absolutly no idea what you are talking about. First, if you are going to post numbers, make sure they are accurate. Secondly, you might want to read a book on eoomomics if you plan to discuss it here. Otherwise you’re getting in over your head.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

cutting back government spending is NOT going to help the economy.

A smaller government would cost less and the tax burden could be less on the populace.

First of all, the assertion that higher taxes on the rich result in “disastrous” consequences is so full of shit that I’m not even going to lend it credibility by talking about it except to say that remember back in the 90s when the capital gains tax was much higher than it is now, the economy was doing much better .

The capital gains tax was not “much higher” it was 20% as opposed to a current rate of 15%. Also, I don’t find your argument at all logical.

First, “rich” people are the ones who set pay scales, expand their businesses, raise prices and spend a great deal of money. If the government takes more of it how does that NOT effect these four areas?

Answer this first and then we can move on to your other points okay?
[/quote]

Answer your own question, high did higher tax rates ever effect your criteria under Clinton, LBJ, JFK ?