Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
chub

Alright......

61 posts in this topic

Who has thus far been converted from one side to the other? grin

Score Card:

Obama hasn't dished out the "meat and potatoes" yet.

McCain has yet to do the same.

Biden is a Bulldog.

Palin is a "dancing with snakes", poor mother, good public speaker, Hockey mom - pitbull.

I am an American, and as an American, I am going to exercise my privilage of hunting geese. Time to pack and hit the road.

Have a good weekend and have all this stuff sorted out upon my return. crazy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've voted both sides in the past, and was trying to hold out on my decision until I heard some debates. If I were to go purely on each party's national convention, it would be hands-down Obama. The rebups convention this week was nothing but hate-filled, sarcastic speeches filled with arrogance. The sad part was it actually got the morons in the excel fired up.

"Drill baby drill!" I bet a few oil execs thought they were having a wet dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Drill baby drill!" I bet a few oil execs thought they were having a wet dream.

Don't forget all the Americans who have to put gas in their tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
Originally Posted By: shooter_mcgavin

"Drill baby drill!" I bet a few oil execs thought they were having a wet dream.

Don't forget all the Americans who have to put gas in their tanks.

...in ten years. The American Public doesn't think of anything that far out on a national scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'd have that oil now if Clinton wouldn't have veto'd the opening of domestic drilling 10 years ago.

I guess he wasn't thinking either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see drilling as being very helpfull in getting ourselves off our dependence on oil. There isn't a magical endless reserve, talk about not looking into the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've voted both sides in the past, and was trying to hold out on my decision until I heard some debates. If I were to go purely on each party's national convention, it would be hands-down Obama.

Conventions have never been "debates".

Me thinks your mind was made up along time ago.

Good luck with obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'd have that oil now if Clinton wouldn't have veto'd the opening of domestic drilling 10 years ago.

We would have bin laden too, if he (Clinton) was'nt pandering to his rich arab oil buddies. wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drilling is not the answer. At some point we need to take our medicine and find a way to lessen our dependence on oil of any kind foreign or domestic. Sooner or later it will run out and my bet is on sooner rather then later.

I won't support anyone who is so short sighted. Not to mention that I am tired of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. That is the republican way.

I almost threw a shoe at the tv listening to Palin talk about how McCain will cut taxes and Obama will raise them. She didn't mention that Obama will raise taxes on the richest 5% and cut taxes on the poorest 95% and McCain will be doing the opposite. The only people better off with a republican in office are the richest who already have things pretty easy.

Here is an interesting article from the NY Times. Not free from a particular bias but if someone can find me a 100% unbiased political article I'll write your name in on the presidental ballot.

-----------------------------------

Is History Siding With Obama’s Economic Plan?

By ALAN S. BLINDER

CLEARLY, there are major differences between the economic policies of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class. The two men also disagree on health care, energy and many other topics.

Such differences are hardly surprising. Democrats and Republicans have followed different approaches to the economy for as long as there have been Democrats and Republicans. Longer, actually. Remember Hamilton versus Jefferson?

Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences between the two parties. But few are aware of two important facts about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly delineated in a new book, “Unequal Democracy,” by Larry M. Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton. Understanding them might help voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in November.

I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.

The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.

That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.

Such a large historical gap in economic performance between the two parties is rather surprising, because presidents have limited leverage over the nation’s economy. Most economists will tell you that Federal Reserve policy and oil prices, to name just two influences, are far more powerful than fiscal policy. Furthermore, as those mutual fund prospectuses constantly warn us, past results are no guarantee of future performance. But statistical regularities, like facts, are stubborn things. You bet against them at your peril.

The second big historical fact, which might be called the Great Partisan Inequality Divide, is the focus of Professor Bartels’s work.

It is well known that income inequality in the United States has been on the rise for about 30 years now — an unsettling development that has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980.

The Great Partisan Inequality Divide is not limited to the poor. To get a more granular look, Professor Bartels studied the postwar history of income gains at five different places in the income distribution.

The 20th percentile is the income level at which 20 percent of all families have less income and 80 percent have more. It is thus a plausible dividing line between the poor and the nonpoor. Similarly, the 40th percentile is the income level at which 40 percent of the families are poorer and 60 percent are richer. And similarly for the 60th, 80th, and 95th percentiles. The 95th percentile is the best dividing line between the rich and the nonrich that the data permitted Professor Bartels to study. (That dividing line, by the way, is well below the $5 million threshold John McCain has jokingly used for defining the rich. It’s closer to $180,000.)

The accompanying table, which is adapted from the book, tells a remarkably consistent story. It shows that when Democrats were in the White House, lower-income families experienced slightly faster income growth than higher-income families — which means that incomes were equalizing. In stark contrast, it also shows much faster income growth for the better-off when Republicans were in the White House — thus widening the gap in income.

The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64 percent). Eight years of growth at an annual rate of 0.43 percent increases a family’s income by just 3.5 percent, while eight years of growth at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent.

The sources of such large differences make for a slightly complicated story. In the early part of the period — say, the pre-Reagan years — the Great Partisan Growth Divide accounted for most of the Great Partisan Inequality divide, because the poor do relatively better in a high-growth economy.

Beginning with the Reagan presidency, however, growth differences are smaller and tax and transfer policies have played a larger role. We know, for example, that Republicans have typically favored large tax cuts for upper-income groups while Democrats have opposed them. In addition, Democrats have been more willing to raise the minimum wage, and Republicans have been more hostile toward unions.

The two Great Partisan Divides combine to suggest that, if history is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama menu don’t you like?

Alan S. Blinder is a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. He has advised many Democratic politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan S. Blinder is a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. He has advised many Democratic politicians.

Enough said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't support anyone who is so short sighted. Not to mention that I am tired of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. That is the republican way.

I almost threw a shoe at the tv listening to Palin talk about how McCain will cut taxes and Obama will raise them. She didn't mention that Obama will raise taxes on the richest 5% and cut taxes on the poorest 95% and McCain will be doing the opposite. The only people better off with a republican in office are the richest who already have things pretty easy.

Ok I guess this is a concept I just don’t understand.

Why do Libs/Dems fully accept that It is OK to keep taking money from the wealthiest????

Look I make an average wage, maybe even below average, but I don’t want handouts from anyone. Why is this universally accepted by the left?

It’s almost like it’s jealousy or something.

That is just one stance that I will never understand.

I’ve said this before, but I would fully support a complete drop of any Fed/State income tax in exchange for an across the board sales tax. Even if it’s as high as say 18% or even higher.

That way it is spread out amongst consumption. I tell you this right now, those wealthy people will spend their fair share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to hear about any more stupid tax cuts.

I want to hear about how the candidates are going to balance the budget & stop spending my kids money.

The GOP had their chance - six years of control of the House, Senate, & White House - & they went crazy with tax cuts AND raised spending faster than Slick Willie ever did.

And if anyone responds "Well, Obama will do worse" I suggest you go back & see just what the GOP did with spending (even excluding the Iraq war). There isn't anything worse.

THAT's a concept I don't understand, that the GOP has the cojones to keep calling themselves "fiscally responsible" when nothing is further from the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not jealousy atleast on my part. I am young and doing very well for myself compared to others in my age group. I have a good job I own my own house have 2 new cars and am not living pay check to pay check.

I have the freedom to buy what I want when I want it and that about all I can ask for.

Except I can ask for that courtesy to be given to others who may not be so fortunate as me. Republican's want to put the tax burden on everyone but them? Why is that? I know they think if you lessen the tax burden on the rich they will spend more and in turn boost the economy which will help the poorer people but that doesn't appear to be working.

I think this is less about jealousy on the part of liberals and more about selfishness of Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THAT's a concept I don't understand, that the GOP has the cojones to keep calling themselves "fiscally responsible" when nothing is further from the truth.

I hear ya Max. It's an absolute nightmare to disagree with the Dems on so many approaches to social issues and to have my #1 issue, fiscal conservativism, ignored by the GOP.

About the only one's making any headway financially right now are CEO's and contractors in Iraq. Oops, forgot one, politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I wrong it happens a lot but doesn't the so called rich pay about the same proportionally "percetage" what we all pay.

Maybe someone could post the break down.

I guess I don't mind someone making a Million a year having to pay a few percentage points higher, just so it's not like 10-15 percent higher!

Thanks Pier!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
I guess I don't mind someone making a Million a year having to pay a few percentage points higher, just so it's not like 10-15 percent higher!

Pier just divide what you make by 20 and you will find what a guy has to pay if he made a million grin

Sorry, had to do it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not jealousy atleast on my part. I am young and doing very well for myself compared to others in my age group. I have a good job I own my own house have 2 new cars and am not living pay check to pay check.

I have the freedom to buy what I want when I want it and that about all I can ask for.

Except I can ask for that courtesy to be given to others who may not be so fortunate as me. Republican's want to put the tax burden on everyone but them? Why is that? I know they think if you lessen the tax burden on the rich they will spend more and in turn boost the economy which will help the poorer people but that doesn't appear to be working.

I think this is less about jealousy on the part of liberals and more about selfishness of Republicans.

It sounds like you are doing better than me financially because I don't have the money to buy what I want when I want, I don't own 2 new cars and I AM living paycheck to paycheck. I think you should help me to live as good as you do so please e-mail me and I will give you the address where you can start sending the weekly checks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that like to pander on and on about tax cuts for the wealthy here are the tax rates (single but they are all similar)

The last tax cuts were pretty much across the board, the fact is the more you make the more you pay both in percentage and in dollars. Why is it you feel the need to redistribute wealth?

Disclaimer I am just an average middle class kinda guy

# 10% on income between $0 and $8,025

# 15% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550; plus $802.50

# 25% on the income between $32,550 and $78,850; plus $4,481.25

# 28% on the income between $78,850 and $164,550; plus $16,056.25

# 33% on the income between $164,550 and $357,700; plus $40,052.25

# 35% on the income over $357,700; plus $103,791.75

Sutty did the work on this from a similar thread thank you very much and those are his lines at the beginning as well.

Hope that helps Pier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better yet, I'm just going to quit working, have a bunch of babies and set 'er on cruise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is less about jealousy on the part of liberals and more about selfishness of Republicans.

It's ALL about wealth redistribution. Your typical Robin Hood economics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like you are doing better than me financially because I don't have the money to buy what I want when I want, I don't own 2 new cars and I AM living paycheck to paycheck. I think you should help me to live as good as you do so please e-mail me and I will give you the address where you can start sending the weekly checks.

I think you are confusing welfare for the right to keep a little more of the money you have already earned.

If your taxes go down and you see a little more money in your pocket do you consider that a handout? If you don't want it I'll give you my address and you can send it to me. I will invest it in the company you work for, I make more money off as the company does better and maybe a little will trickle back down to you in the form of a 3% per year raise. After all thats the republican way isn't it? Benefit the rich and hopefully something will trickle down to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your taxes go down and you see a little more money in your pocket do you consider that a handout?

Where in the H E double hockey sticks do you think that money is coming from? Tinkerbell the Money Princess?

We ALL want to keep more of our money, not just the "Rich"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Big Dave2

It sounds like you are doing better than me financially because I don't have the money to buy what I want when I want, I don't own 2 new cars and I AM living paycheck to paycheck. I think you should help me to live as good as you do so please e-mail me and I will give you the address where you can start sending the weekly checks. [/quote

I think you are confusing welfare for the right to keep a little more of the money you have already earned.

If your taxes go down and you see a little more money in your pocket do you consider that a handout? If you don't want it I'll give you my address and you can send it to me. I will invest it in the company you work for, I make more money off as the company does better and maybe a little will trickle back down to you in the form of a 3% per year raise. After all thats the republican way isn't it? Benefit the rich and hopefully something will trickle down to you.

I am pretty sure you are the one who may be confused. Why do you have any more right "to keep a little of you money you have already earned" Than someone who has worked hard and become wealthy? Doesn't that person have the same rights as you? And if they don't have the same rights then that is why you should start sending me check since I am clearly the one who should get a piece of your pie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0