Obama's Speech - comments

[rdean]

All their lunacy is burying the Republican Party.

Really? I hadn't thought about it before, but you may be right. All that behavior you call 'lunacy' is no doubt why the Republicans are buried with won elections, are stuck with all those generic polls showing the GOP is trusted more than Democrats on just about every issue now, and why it is more often the GOP candidate leading in the November races.

Yeah, they're pretty lunatic all right.

Seriously, the polls are not all that kind to the GOP as most Americans still feel those holding office are out of touch with the mainstream Americans. But I think the Tea Parties will probably fix a lot of that by November.

As the Dems don't have any Tea Partiers to wake them up and slap them into some sensibility, I guess they'll just have to settle for being out of the touch with mainstream Americans.

Are you sure they're Republicans? Nude Centerfold Scott Brown couldn't bring himself to say the word Republican except at his acceptance speech. How did it go? "This is not a seat for Democrats. This is NOT a seat for Republicans. This is a seat for the people".

Just so it's clear, Republicans are so ashamed at being Republican they can't even admit they ARE Republican? And this is a "winning" strategy????

 

[Foxfyre]

All their lunacy is burying the Republican Party.

Really? I hadn't thought about it before, but you may be right. All that behavior you call 'lunacy' is no doubt why the Republicans are buried with won elections, are stuck with all those generic polls showing the GOP is trusted more than Democrats on just about every issue now, and why it is more often the GOP candidate leading in the November races.

Yeah, they're pretty lunatic all right.

Seriously, the polls are not all that kind to the GOP as most Americans still feel those holding office are out of touch with the mainstream Americans. But I think the Tea Parties will probably fix a lot of that by November.

As the Dems don't have any Tea Partiers to wake them up and slap them into some sensibility, I guess they'll just have to settle for being out of the touch with mainstream Americans.

Are you sure they're Republicans? Nude Centerfold Scott Brown couldn't bring himself to say the word Republican except at his acceptance speech. How did it go? "This is not a seat for Democrats. This is NOT a seat for Republicans. This is a seat for the people".

Just so it's clear, Republicans are so ashamed at being Republican they can't even admit they ARE Republican? And this is a "winning" strategy????

You're wrong again. Most Americans these days do not identify themselves with either party. Among those who do, the Democrats have consistently been the majority party of registered voters for like forever, and they still have somewhat more people identifying themselves as Democrats than the Republicans have people identifying themselves as Republicans. But President Obama's sinking approval numbers are changing the fortunes of both parties. The Republicans are slowly but surely gaining numbers now while the Democrats are static or losing members.

 

[rdean]

Really? I hadn't thought about it before, but you may be right. All that behavior you call 'lunacy' is no doubt why the Republicans are buried with won elections, are stuck with all those generic polls showing the GOP is trusted more than Democrats on just about every issue now, and why it is more often the GOP candidate leading in the November races.

Yeah, they're pretty lunatic all right.

Seriously, the polls are not all that kind to the GOP as most Americans still feel those holding office are out of touch with the mainstream Americans. But I think the Tea Parties will probably fix a lot of that by November.

As the Dems don't have any Tea Partiers to wake them up and slap them into some sensibility, I guess they'll just have to settle for being out of the touch with mainstream Americans.

Are you sure they're Republicans? Nude Centerfold Scott Brown couldn't bring himself to say the word Republican except at his acceptance speech. How did it go? "This is not a seat for Democrats. This is NOT a seat for Republicans. This is a seat for the people".

Just so it's clear, Republicans are so ashamed at being Republican they can't even admit they ARE Republican? And this is a "winning" strategy????

You're wrong again. Most Americans these days do not identify themselves with either party. Among those who do, the Democrats have consistently been the majority party of registered voters for like forever, and they still have somewhat more people identifying themselves as Democrats than the Republicans have people identifying themselves as Republicans. But President Obama's sinking approval numbers are changing the fortunes of both parties. The Republicans are slowly but surely gaining numbers now while the Democrats are static or losing members.

Forever huh?

 

[Foxfyre]

And a graph showing conservative, liberal, and moderate relates to Republican, Democrat, and Independent how?

 

[Foxfyre]

And a graph showing conservative, liberal, and moderate relates to Republican, Democrat, and Independent how? You do know those are separate things, right?

 

[Harry Dresden]

And a graph showing conservative, liberal, and moderate relates to Republican, Democrat, and Independent how? You do know those are separate things, right?

no he doesnt...dean thinks conservative.....you must be a right wing Republican....he doesnt know that there are conservative Democrats out there as well as Liberal Republicans.....all Dean knows is....if you dont see it like i see it.....you must be a right winger....and since 90% of the country is to Deans right.....well you get the idea...

 

[Harry Dresden]

Neo-cons are lefties, Harry: big government, foreign interventionism, intrusion into private citizens' lives. Yeah, that's you, buddy.

so Jake your job now is to find ANY post out of my 5,000 were i back big government,foreign intervention and intrusion into private citizens lives....i hope you did your homework before you made this statement.....otherwise Jake i am going to rag on your ass every time i see you post....

JAKE.....have you found any yet?.....

 

[The Rabbi]

Neo-cons are lefties, Harry: big government, foreign interventionism, intrusion into private citizens' lives. Yeah, that's you, buddy.

so Jake your job now is to find ANY post out of my 5,000 were i back big government,foreign intervention and intrusion into private citizens lives....i hope you did your homework before you made this statement.....otherwise Jake i am going to rag on your ass every time i see you post....

JAKE.....have you found any yet?.....

The answer is no because he is, "Jake, King of the Unsubstantiated Statement"

 

[JakeStarkey]

Harry, you have supported the Patriot Act. Harry, you have supported Iraq. Harry, Bush grew the government like crazy, and you supported that. Stop the lying. You are that species of bottown dweller, the liberal neo-con pretending to be a Republican.

 

[Meister]

Harry, you have supported the Patriot Act. Harry, you have supported Iraq. Harry, Bush grew the government like crazy, and you supported that. Stop the lying. You are that species of bottown dweller, the liberal neo-con pretending to be a Republican.

Wow!!!!! Anyone see the irony in this statement?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Harry, you have supported the Patriot Act. Harry, you have supported Iraq. Harry, Bush grew the government like crazy, and you supported that. Stop the lying. You are that species of bottown dweller, the liberal neo-con pretending to be a Republican.

Wow!!!!! Anyone see the irony in this statement?

Yeah just leave neo-con out of it and Jake is looking in a mirror.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ollie, I respect your military service, but not your illiiterate partisanship. I have never supported Iraq, the Patriot Act, or big government. And I have despised the whacko right of our party as I have the whacko left of the Democratic Party.

Our whacko right is no more good for our country than is the loony left. Two words: got it?

 

[Foxfyre]

Harry, you have supported the Patriot Act. Harry, you have supported Iraq. Harry, Bush grew the government like crazy, and you supported that. Stop the lying. You are that species of bottown dweller, the liberal neo-con pretending to be a Republican.

Wow!!!!! Anyone see the irony in this statement?

Yeah just leave neo-con out of it and Jake is looking in a mirror.

I wonder why somebody would claim to be a member of a party that he has yet to say a single positive thing about? How would you define that? ignorant? Masochistic? Specious? (my new word this weekend).

 

[JakeStarkey]

foxy, you are lying again, miss.

I have said plenty of good about the Pubs, but not about the major components of the Cheney machine that hijacked my party. A party that depends on scum like the former veep and his wife, Tom Delay, the Duke from CA before he went to jail, the corporatists who make the poor scream, the militarists who can't get it through their heads we cannot remake the Middle East into our image through military power, those who love more intrusion into our private lives, those who love bigger government. . . who wants trash like that in the Republican Party?

 

[Foxfyre]

foxy, you are lying again, miss.

I have said plenty of good about the Pubs, but not about the major components of the Cheney machine that hijacked my party. A party that depends on scum like the former veep and his wife, Tom Delay, the Duke from CA before he went to jail, the corporatists who make the poor scream, the militarists who can't get it through their heads we cannot remake the Middle East into our image through military power, those who love more intrusion into our private lives, those who love bigger government. . . who wants trash like that in the Republican Party?

Well since you seem to have identified with a comment that didn't name you, perhaps you could enlighten us then? Point us to some posts of yours that have commended the GOP. And please list some attributes of the GOP that keep you in the party.

Thanks.

 

[Munin]

Middle class tax cuts don't create jobs.

I disagree, because this is a wrong assumption (you clearly ignore the economical reality):

Middle class tax cuts increase the income the middle class can use for consumption => more consumption means that companies can sell more products => selling more products means that companies have to increase production levels (that means creating new jobs) in order to take advantage of the economic situation: make more profit.

basically there is a balance between:

supply <-> demand
or
production <=> consumption
(companies) (people)


This is why it is wrong to assume that if you cut taxes only for companies that you will create new jobs, YOU DO NOT: you re cutting costs for companies, the companies will make more profits but will not create more jobs because the demand for their product has not increased. Why would a company create more goods than there are needed? It is not logical because that would be inefficient and result in debt, no self-respecting manager would do that.



You seem to have the wrong idea that companies just create jobs out of nowhere: THEY DO NOT, the economical situation (more consumption, which leads to higher production of goods/services by companies) creates jobs.

 

[Foxfyre]

Middle class tax cuts don't create jobs.

I disagree, because this is a wrong assumption (you clearly ignore the economical reality):

Middle class tax cuts increases the income the middle class can use for consumption => more consumption means that companies can sell more products => selling more products means that companies have to increase production levels (that means creating new jobs) in order to take advantage of the economic situation: make more profit.

basically there is a balance between:

supply <-> demand
or
production <=> consumption
(companies) (people)


This is why it is wrong to assume that if you cut taxes only for companies that you will create new jobs, YOU DO NOT: you re cutting costs for companies, the companies will make more profits but will not create more jobs because the demand for their product has not increased. Why would a company create more goods than there are needed? It is not logical because that would be inefficient and result in debt, no self-respecting manager would do that.



You seem to have the wrong idea that companies just create jobs out of nowhere: THEY DO NOT, the economical situation (more consumption, which leads to more production of companies) creates jobs.

I agree that putting more money into the pockets of consumers is a genuine economic stimulus. Some will pay down debts which is a good thing as it increases the money supply without artificial inflation. Some will spend it which spurs economc activity and growth. Some will save it which is also good because they will be able to provide for themselves and their families on rainy days and will also increase the monies available for others to borrow to buy stuff or expand their businesses.

I disagree that cutting taxes for business only serves to increase their profits though. When done right, it also gives them more money to invest, expand, increase wages paid, and hire to meet the increased demands of consumers with money to spend. As a result both spur economic growth and both will generate more taxes for the public treasury that will offset part or all of the reduction of tax rates.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Middle class tax cuts don't create jobs.

I disagree, because this is a wrong assumption (you clearly ignore the economical reality):

Middle class tax cuts increases the income the middle class can use for consumption => more consumption means that companies can sell more products => selling more products means that companies have to increase production levels (that means creating new jobs) in order to take advantage of the economic situation: make more profit.

basically there is a balance between:

supply <-> demand
or
production <=> consumption
(companies) (people)


This is why it is wrong to assume that if you cut taxes only for companies that you will create new jobs, YOU DO NOT: you re cutting costs for companies, the companies will make more profits but will not create more jobs because the demand for their product has not increased. Why would a company create more goods than there are needed? It is not logical because that would be inefficient and result in debt, no self-respecting manager would do that.



You seem to have the wrong idea that companies just create jobs out of nowhere: THEY DO NOT, the economical situation (more consumption, which leads to more production of companies) creates jobs.

I agree that putting more money into the pockets of consumers is a genuine economic stimulus. Some will pay down debts which is a good thing as it increases the money supply without artificial inflation. Some will spend it which spurs economc activity and growth. Some will save it which is also good because they will be able to provide for themselves and their families on rainy days and will also increase the monies available for others to borrow to buy stuff or expand their businesses.

I disagree that cutting taxes for business only serves to increase their profits though. When done right, it also gives them more money to invest, expand, increase wages paid, and hire to meet the increased demands of consumers with money to spend. As a result both spur economic growth and both will generate more taxes for the public treasury that will offset part or all of the reduction of tax rates.

I agree with you, foxfyre, in general. As my opinion, I trust citizens to spend their money the way the need, so that will indeed stimulate the economy. In particular, make business tax cuts accountable for demonstrable investing, expanding, wage increasing, etc., before the cuts can apply.

 

[Munin]

Middle class tax cuts don't create jobs.

I disagree, because this is a wrong assumption (you clearly ignore the economical reality):

Middle class tax cuts increases the income the middle class can use for consumption => more consumption means that companies can sell more products => selling more products means that companies have to increase production levels (that means creating new jobs) in order to take advantage of the economic situation: make more profit.


basically there is a balance between:

supply <-> demand
or
production <=> consumption
(companies) (people)


This is why it is wrong to assume that if you cut taxes only for companies that you will create new jobs, YOU DO NOT: you re cutting costs for companies, the companies will make more profits but will not create more jobs because the demand for their product has not increased. Why would a company create more goods than there are needed? It is not logical because that would be inefficient and result in debt: no self-respecting manager would do that.



You seem to have the wrong idea that companies just create jobs out of nowhere: THEY DO NOT, the economical situation (more consumption, which leads to more production of companies) creates jobs.

I agree that putting more money into the pockets of consumers is a genuine economic stimulus. Some will pay down debts which is a good thing as it increases the money supply without artificial inflation. Some will spend it which spurs economc activity and growth. Some will save it which is also good because they will be able to provide for themselves and their families on rainy days and will also increase the monies available for others to borrow to buy stuff or expand their businesses.

I disagree that cutting taxes for business only serves to increase their profits though. When done right, it also gives them more money to invest, expand, increase wages paid, and hire to meet the increased demands of consumers with money to spend. As a result both spur economic growth and both will generate more taxes for the public treasury that will offset part or all of the reduction of tax rates.

Yes, but I only assumed this to be when demand isn't increasing => but decreasing. If demand does not increase (less people buy their products) than companies re not stimulated to invest, expand, increase wages paid, hire more people ...

I do not think that lower taxes for businesses are entirely innefficiënt, only if you assume that only lowering taxes for businesses will save the economy. As a company that operates in a negative economic climate (decreasing demand for their products) will not invest, hire more people, ... as he is cutting his costs (as a result of a possible tax cut that is suggested).

Why I would support taxcuts for companies is because if it is combined with government spending, consumer taxcuts. Because then it can improve the economic perception, it will give companies multiple incentives: improved internal cost situation combined with increased demand from the consumers and the government (as a result of government spending).







Now I believe I ve said something very controversial and I ll explain why I think government spending is good in a desastrous economical situation:


In a ideal economical situation this happens
supply = demand
production = consumption

But now with the desastrous psychological negative reality as a result of a housing- & banking- & world economical crisis this has happened:
supply >>> demand
production >>> consumption






A really big gap between supply and demand: in a normal economical situation this would self correct (lower prices as a result of less sales would increase demand). But this is not normal decrease of consumption, companies can not bridge the gap on their own by pricing their way out of it because they didn't create the gap themselves by making too high prices. This is what makes this one of the rare situations where the government has to consume (spend) to close the gap between supply (production) and demand (consumption). The main reason for the government to step in: because the balance between supply and demand is BROKEN (there is a disproportional big gap between the 2 sides).

This temperarely spending of the government will keep people employed and change a their mindset: from "possibly loss of job" to "financial stability, because of no longer having to worry about losing their job" (no longer have to worry about paying the mortgage, ...), this will motivate them to consume (buy/spend products like gifts, ... they would otherwise not have done).

I understand why it doesn't really make sense for a government when looking at it from far away, because it doesn't seem logical: And this is because it just is not the same kind of logic that applies for most companies or individuals. On certain issues you simply can not compare the government with a company or an individual. The income of a government depends on a good functioning economy, more consuming means more tax-revenue for the government (this means that the "profit" of the government is dependant on the financial health of consumers and companies). So if a government can create an improved economic environment by temperarely spending money herself, to later take advantage as a result of more tax-income: I would say that this "spending" has been a good investment, because that is really how you should look at this. This is and INVESTMENT for future government "profits": that will benifit government, people and companies.

You would probably ask (and with good reason) why this would work and what proof there is of this theory: look at the government intervention in the financial crisis, the stock market has crashed. And it was the government that had created the bottom, by creating a sense of security (denying the failure of massive financial institutions and serious efforts from the FED). This has now saved the stock market, a lot of stocks have gone back to the value they had in 2008: WFC is a good example of this WFC Stock Quote - Wells Fargo & Co Stock Quote - WFC Quote - WFC Stock Price

The same reasoning of the stock market would apply to the economy (but then again, some would say that the stock market is the ecomony), as it is not spending that the gov is doing: it s litteraly investing in the future (the government has already recupperated most of its own money because of the rise of the stocks of government owned corporations)

 

[Harry Dresden]

Harry, you have supported the Patriot Act. Harry, you have supported Iraq. Harry, Bush grew the government like crazy, and you supported that. Stop the lying. You are that species of bottown dweller, the liberal neo-con pretending to be a Republican.

you have any quotes of me supporting that moron?.....i have said i dont know how many times i was against Iraq from day one....no need for it....and i have criticized Bush and have called him names that equal what i call Midcant.....your a fucking phony Jake and now since you are a liar too, i will put you in the same category i put Chris....a liar,a phony and a piece of shit to boot....and every thread i see you in,like i do to Chris and Midcant....i will remind you of that.... oh and Jake....i dont pretend to be a Republican.....i think that party sucks too,and have stated so many a time...read some posts some time and you may get to know who is who around here....see ya in the threads phony....