* Hillary - Barack Skirmish Thread *

[VeeJay]

It's on ABC.

Barack plays basketball, not sure if he can dunk. Hillary was devastated when Bill cheated, and always tells the truth.

Let the fun begin!

[StoopTroup]

Barack's Wife was on The Colbert Report last night.

She might be the brains of the operation.

[soonerloyal]

You silly man, women are always the brains of the operation...
:cool:

[Sooner_Havok]

You silly man, women are always the brains of the operation...
:cool:

You're just bitter:D

[def_lazer_fc]

are the gloves coming off yet?

[soonerloyal]

You're just bitter:D

After 28+ years of matrimony, I ain't bitter. I'se a saint.
:D

[MojoRisen]

Hillary forgives Bill because she can tell a white lie very well- and somethings are better left unsaid...

Barak - can't even dunk :)

[VeeJay]

Hillary did a nifty explanation of the Bosnia story. She didn't say she "mis-spoke." She actually apologized. Brought Gen. Wesley Clark into the fray, claiming that there was evil around, and snipers were maybe a threat.

Bill, on the other hand, said she mis-spoke and it was 11 o'clock at night.

I love these two.

[VeeJay]

Hillary forgives Bill because she can tell a white lie very well- and somethings are better left unsaid...

Barak - can't even dunk :)

He's not that tall - I don't think he can even grab the rim. But he can dribble. His passing needs some work. He's not considered a threat from the three's.

[tommieharris91]

I wonder how easy it would be to ask them a set of questions such that their answers contradict the answers of other questions, or of their respective platforms...

[Sooner_Havok]

I wonder how easy it would be to ask them a set of questions such that their answers contradict the answers of other questions, or of their respective platforms...

Hell, Hillary does that without any help already.:D

[SCOUT]

I thought the capital gains rate question was very interesting. Barack tried his best to skirt around the question but Charlie get him on task. He finally just admitted that he wanted to raise the capital gains tax because it wasn't fair for successful market players to pay less in taxes than other lines of work. This despite the fact that it would reduce tax revenue.

[Sooner_Havok]

I thought the capital gains rate question was very interesting. Barack tried his best to skirt around the question but Charlie get him on task. He finally just admitted that he wanted to raise the capital gains tax because it wasn't fair for successful market players to pay less in taxes than other lines of work. This despite the fact that it would reduce tax revenue.

How would it lower tax revenue? I doubt people would just stop playing the stock market.

[SCOUT]

How would it lower tax revenue? I doubt people would just stop playing the stock market.

You would have to go back to the study that was referenced in the question. It was the fundamental aspect of what was asked. When rates go down revenues go up. If you raise rates, revenues will go down. Will you raise rates?

[Sooner_Havok]

I call shenanigans on that.

[MojoRisen]

You tax corporations, loose jobs, less spending, less tax revenue.

Lower Capital Gains tax, higher tax revenue - it is the truth. Explain

[Sooner_Havok]

So by that logic we would be making fist fulls of money by not taxing corporations at all? They would then have more money to spend right?

Also, when did corporations (other than investment forms) get so much of their money from buying and selling stocks?

[VeeJay]

Is Barack a solid shot blocker?

I think he's more a back court kind of guy, occasionally making the steal but waiting on a power forward to get in the paint for an alley-oop.

[tommieharris91]

So by that logic we would be making fist fulls of money by not taxing corporations at all? They would then have more money to spend right?

Well, obviously, there's only so far the gubmint can go before this idea starts to break down.


Also, when did corporations (other than investment forms) get so much of their money from buying and selling stocks?

Corporations often are large players in the stock and bond markets. Usually they invest cash that would otherwise be sitting CDs, checking accounts, etc. to make more money. Heck, some corporations could be like Wal-Mart and start building banks and lending their extra cash.

[Sooner_Havok]

I still don't buy this trickle down garbage.

If we give big corporation lots of money, the money will magically work it's way from them to the average American

Sorry, I don't know many saintly CEOs. So if we raise capital gains taxes, they would lay off workers to make up for their losses. So to keep them from laying off people, the federal government bribes them. The companies stuff the bribe money in their coffers, or give it to their CEOs.

I mean, let's call a spade a spade here. Without these kickbacks, these corporations would still be profitable to their shareholders.

[sooner n houston]

I still don't buy this trickle down garbage.


Sorry, I don't know many saintly CEOs. So if we raise capital gains taxes, they would lay off workers to make up for their losses. So to keep them from laying off people, the federal government bribes them. The companies stuff the bribe money in their coffers, or give it to their CEOs.

I mean, let's call a spade a spade here. Without these kickbacks, these corporations would still be profitable to their shareholders.

Yes, they would. And where, pray tell, do you think they would get the money to pay these new taxes???? From the consumer maybe? Soooo if you raise taxes on corporations, they raise prices on YOU! See how that workes?

[swardboy]

Yes, they would. And where, pray tell, do you think they would get the money to pay these new taxes???? From the consumer maybe? Soooo if you raise taxes on corporations, they raise prices on YOU! See how that workes?

Now you've done it....gone and used logic.

A tax on a corporation is always a tax on the end-user ultimately.

[soonerloyal]

They raise prices on us anyway. They get huge tax breaks, have record-setting profits, and still make us bend over and take it right up the wazzoo so they can pay the CEOs vomitous sums of cash and srill make the shareholders happy.

We'll be getting rolled and robbed regardless, so I damn sure want to stop giving them more fist power to hit me. Stop giving the bastids tax breaks. It's the middle class spending that stimulates the economy. Doesn't anyone remember the economic havok that the Gilded Age caused? The more you shackle the middle and lower classes, the more you set up the fall of the entire economy.

[sooner n houston]

They raise prices on us anyway. They get huge tax breaks, have record-setting profits, and still make us bend over and take it right up the wazzoo so they can pay the CEOs vomitous sums of cash and srill make the shareholders happy.

We'll be getting rolled and robbed regardless, so I damn sure want to stop giving them more fist power to hit me. Stop giving the bastids tax breaks. It's the middle class spending that stimulates the economy. Doesn't anyone remember the economic havok that the Gilded Age caused? The more you shackle the middle and lower classes, the more you set up the fall of the entire economy.

Cut your nose off to spite your face much? :D

[soonerloyal]

No, the bigazz corporations are hacking away at every appendage.
Nice for them that some people still swallow what they're serving, though.


Thanks for playing. Choose any consolation prize on the third row or lower.
:cool:

[tommieharris91]

They raise prices on us anyway. They get huge tax breaks, have record-setting profits, and still make us bend over and take it right up the wazzoo so they can pay the CEOs vomitous sums of cash and srill make the shareholders happy.

We'll be getting rolled and robbed regardless, so I damn sure want to stop giving them more fist power to hit me. Stop giving the bastids tax breaks. It's the middle class spending that stimulates the economy. Doesn't anyone remember the economic havok that the Gilded Age caused? The more you shackle the middle and lower classes, the more you set up the fall of the entire economy.

OK, I don't see how you get the conclusion that corporate tax breaks cause you to pay more for goods. I do understand that, as the workers continue to demand (and get) more wages, firms must up their prices and your dollar allovasudden doesn't go as far. It also ain't helpin that, as the Fed tried to induce domestic investment by cutting interest rates to the bare minimum, the dollar weakens and we US citizens have to pay more for imports.

Now currently, a lot of that middle and lower class has to shoulder some of the blame for this recession. Just about everyone should know that, if your household income is $60,000 per year, you shouldn't go out and buy a $300,000 house to live in. The lenders who approved these such loans should have known that too, especially when the lenders know that they are gonna jack up the interest rate on those ARMs to a brazilian percent.

[MojoRisen]

No doubt -

Corporate or Industry Tax - will loose jobs and less spending. If we have more jobs than talent - count on wages going up - again more spending.

Tax revenue will go down, and we will have less disposable income anyway and empty our pockets for programs that can run much better with less budget.

One year under Clinton I paid 38K in taxes - with the same amount of earnings I pay 16K now with a large return.

33% was too much

[tommieharris91]

Corporate or Industry Tax - will loose jobs and less spending. If we have more jobs than talent - count on wages going up - again more spending.


:confused:
Maybe I misunderstood your point here, but actually, as the unemployment rate rises, wages should fall because, as the pool of unemployed workers increases, finding a replacement for an employee who demands too much money or benefits becomes easier. The employer will just fire the person and hire someone who is unemployed.

Taxing an employer can cause unemployment by increasing the costs of production. Since the firm's costs will increase, the firm must cut costs somewhere else in order to keep profit margins the same or increase the prices of their goods produced (sometimes both). So, the tradeoff here is do you take the inflation or the unemployment? (And yes, you Econ guys. I do understand that both are, in fact, tied together through the Philips Curve equation.)

[MojoRisen]

Corporations are taxed currently - just not at a rate that democrats would like. Just because they have a successful industry or are a well ran organization doesn't mean the government should be able to take all the profits... That isn't the idea unless you are commie/ socialist.

I would say that most of the spending is comming from people who are making 60K-250K.

I would be willing to bet that the unemployment % doesn't account for a ton of the actual spending tax revenue. The disposable income would be limited -

Atleast Barak though said he would cut payroll tax, create more jobs likely. Clinton bashed it and only said she could do better- Barak called her out on that and she still didn't have a plan...

can't knock one idea if you don't have the gaul to put one out yourself -

[Tulsa_Fireman]

It's kinda funny.

Coporate profits DO get stuffed in the pockets of CEOs and whatnot. It's the nature of the beast, and by no means do I agree with it. But what's ignored is the basic premise of having a successful product or service, and in the interest of filthy luchre, dirty, nasty profit, reinvesting profits into refinement or expansion of said successful product or service NOT because the business deems it only right to provide jobs to Joe Public because they're loving, giving souls driven to support the American economy, but because they're interested in more filthy luchre, dirty, nasty profit.

But the beauty of it is that more filthy luchre, more dirty, nasty profit most often equals more expansion or refinement of products or services which to do so, requires a larger workforce, a more specialized workforce, or the purchasing of equipment to better a product or service which all lead to positives in the economy. So those nasty profits corporations are making?

It allows them to enable themselves to make more profit. Which in turn, provides for a potential increase in the workforce or the increase in purchasing which in turn supports OTHER businesses participating in the economy. Which when you boil it down to the bare, bleached bones of business...

Is the exact reason why a business is IN business. To make filthy luchre, dirty, nasty profit.

[SoonerInKCMO]

Doesn't anyone remember the economic havok that the Gilded Age caused?

Dang. You must be older than I thought. ;)

[MojoRisen]

As a politician only - I am pretty sure I like Barak better than Hillary. I will not vote for either and Barak's mentor pastor and his rise to power through the black/church going vote only in Chicago makes me not like him personally. But politically he doesn't just bash the republicans to get snickers from the blind faithful like hillary - it's just rah rah with no substance.

I am sure people remember the .com busts and the economy prior to even 9/11.

If you invested in wallstreet at 9600 Dow - I am sure you would not be crying now even at a low 12600 - and 14000 was the all time record in history. So prior to bashing the republicans who had to deal with 9/11 and the .com bust I would consider the crap we came out of - which is way worse than it is now.

The housing market has very little to do with Corporate tax- it has to do with people who spent way more than they could and signed up for an ARM and thought they could just refinance and get over on the world who typically earns it through other means.

Hey if the OIL companies are gauging prices - and it is proved in an investigation well then tax them windfall. We need off oil in 15 years or less as it is or drill more here in the US. I would be willing to bet though that those same oil companies are making the biggest capital investments in new energy than anyone- and by taxing them- does that mean the government will do it for us? I don't believe that

We just got a Maryland Tech Tax repealed that would have killed IT industry in MD- they were going to hit our employers for 6% just because they are considered Tech companies. That in this market would have trashed the market worse than it would help them ballance the budget.

Guess what- people raised holy hell - and they"Dems in office" figured out another way to cut 300 Million a year from the annual budget for the Gov to blow it on BS contracts and high priced luxuary for the politicians.

Reform washington first- then talk about taxes - you political bastages.

[SCOUT]

I call shenanigans on that.

You should take it up with Charlie Gibson and his recounting of the tax revenues.


ABC's Charles Gibson Explained That When The Capital Gains Tax Rate Was
Increased In The Past, Revenues Decreased. Gibson: "But actually, Bill
Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to
20 percent. ... And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent. ... And in
each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the
government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased
to 28 percent, the revenues went down.... But history shows that when you
drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up."(Charles Gibson, ABC
Democrat Candidates Presidential Debate, Philadelphia, PA, 4/16/08)

[Sooner_Havok]

Ok, riddle me this then all you "Tax breaks for big corportaions are great ideas" folks.

Does the system not work in reverse? If you give the lower and middle class folks the massive tax breaks, and force the corporations to actually provide a good or service at a fair market price, won't the consumers (Who now have the corporate tax breaks) just spend their money on these goods and services? Ok, so it costs more to buy your H3. But guess what, folks has got more money now.

[tommieharris91]

Ok, riddle me this then all you "Tax breaks for big corportaions are great ideas" folks.

Does the system not work in reverse? If you give the lower and middle class folks the massive tax breaks, and force the corporations to actually provide a good or service at a fair market price, won't the consumers (Who now have the corporate tax breaks) just spend their money on these goods and services?

This is the kind of logic that the government is banking on to ease the recession. The little guy will spend their tax rebate on things like groceries, gasoline, clothing, and other fun things that the poor and middle class buy. The difference between cutting taxes to the poor and middle class and cutting taxes to corporations is that corporations can lower prices when their taxes get cut, whereas the poor and middle class will just spend their tax cuts on whatever they feel they need. Usually, this cut in prices increases revenues more than the loss from the cut because people will buy more products at the lower price than what they were buying before at the higher tax level.

My problem with this is that too many tax cuts increase the budget deficit. I would like to see our government running a budget surplus sometime soon, because sometime soon the government will have to start raising taxes to pay off debts, and I am young and I would like to keep some of the money I eventually make.

Ok, so it costs more to buy your H3. But guess what, folks has got more money now.

This is what economists like to call "inflation".

[Sooner_Havok]

This is the kind of logic that the government is banking on to ease the recession. The little guy will spend their tax rebate on things like groceries, gasoline, clothing, and other fun things that the poor and middle class buy. The difference between cutting taxes to the poor and middle class and cutting taxes to corporations is that corporations can lower prices when their taxes get cut, whereas the poor and middle class will just spend their tax cuts on whatever they feel they need. Usually, this cut in prices increases revenues more than the loss from the cut because people will buy more products at the lower price than what they were buying before at the higher tax level.

My problem with this is that too many tax cuts increase the budget deficit. I would like to see our government running a budget surplus sometime soon, because sometime soon the government will have to start raising taxes to pay off debts, and I am young and I would like to keep some of the money I eventually make.


Doubt many of them actually do. Cut tax breaks, prices go up because they have to make up the lost revenue, give them the breaks back, prices stay the same because they know people will still have to buy their crap.

[tommieharris91]

Doubt many of them actually do. Cut tax breaks, prices go up because they have to make up the lost revenue, give them the breaks back, prices stay the same because they know people will still have to buy their crap.

Not true. When a corporation can cut their prices, more people will buy their stuff because the price is lower. The gain is often larger than the loss from the price cut. There's plenty of empirical evidence of this being true.