Update: McCain Selects Gov. Sarah Palin as Running Mate

[dmek25]

schneed, back in 2000, our president promised a balanced budget, without raising taxes. have we ever had a president that didnt raise taxes. and Mr McCain still wants the tax breaks for the big players in the economy, regardless. the oil companies, who routinely make record profit. and the production outfits, that continually ship American jobs over seas. and McCain talks about pork barrel spending, but how does his record speak? this administration has blatant disregard for spending, and McCain votes right along party lines over 90% of the time. how much of a maverick is he, really? he voted for the tax cuts, now he opposes them? is that what we dems call a flip flop?

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by saden1

I couldn't get past Fred Thompson's throat clearing let alone listen to his nonsensical babel. All I heard was "Drill...Country First...Terror...POW...Hero...John McCain."

Wow...it must take a lot of hard work to be so blindly ignorant.

Either that or you need a new TV.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

So are we talking "trickle down" economics?

Yes and no. In a true trickle-down, or supply-side economic system, you would only want to reduce taxes on the rich based on the theory that giving the rich more money would cause them to invest more, spurring growth in American business.

So Obama's proposed increase in taxes would hurt American business growth in this manner.

But neither Obama nor McCain are suggesting that middle class or the poor should have the Bush tax cuts revoked. Both suggest that they should not pay more, and Obama even suggests they pay less. So neither is championing a true Supply-Side economic theory.

But here are some works provided by some of the greatest economic minds in history, explaining and supporting a trickle-down approach:

The Wealth of Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Adam Smith

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

OK, ask and ye shall receive.

Obama proposes to increase taxes on big business, small business, and citizens who make over $250,000. These groups are responsible for employing nearly 100% of the American workforce.

Now, think of the money flowing into these companies and businesses as a river. The government is like a dam in that river. The more they tax, the more they choke off the river, and the less water/money actually flows into the businesses downstream.

The less water/money that flows into these businesses, the less water there is for fishermen to find work, and the less fish there are to catch. The less money there is for companies to use, the fewer people they can afford to employ, and the fewer new products and services they can afford to bring to market.

Result? Unemployment invariably rises when taxes are increased. Look at history, it'll show it.

When businesses are forced to cut back on goods and services they offer, they are forced to try to make money in other ways. The most common is increased prices on existing services.

Result, higher prices (inflation) for the daily goods and services we all rely on.

You might say that inflation has gotten out of control even with the Bush tax cuts in place. That's true, but it's not the result of the tax situation. We've experienced inflation in food because of increasing demands for corn and rice to develop ethanol. As demand goes up, prices go up. Corn and rice is used to feed cows and chickens, making it more expensive to feed animals, meaning prices for meats and dairy have gone up. In addition, we've seen increased demand for food products as other huge nations like China and India have developed, and now have the funds to eat finer foods that we Americans enjoy, increasing demand and therefore prices for more than just your basic corn and rice.

In other words, had taxes been higher than they were under Bush, inflation would have been EVEN HIGHER than it already has been. These global changes in demand would have been no different under a different tax structure. It would be entirely inappropriate and categorically incorrect to blame inflation on the Bush tax cuts.

Why do you perpetuate the lie that he will raise taxes on small businesses?

As for raising taxes on big business, why not reduce their taxes? According to you they'd do a lot better with more money in their pockets. What's a fair cutoff line? Why not move their tax bar down to 0%?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yeah, I have to echo SS.

Just because you survived hell as a POW doesn't mean you're qualified to be president. It does mean you're a tough dude. But it's McCain's record that makes him qualified.

Jsarno is right in saying that Thompson is right that raising taxes, even on just the rich, will hurt every single American, most notably in the form of higher inflation. Who wants an econ lesson, and who wants to just take my word for it?

I don't think Obama is out for just himself. He genuinely loves his country and is doing what he thinks is best. He's just, quite simply, wrong on several key issues.

And Obama's campaign has never even come close to attacking Sarah Palin or her daughter on the teen pregnancy issue. He said kids and family are off limits, and he has stuck to it.

Obama does not need to attack Sarah's family their are enough people in his party doing it for him.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Buster

Wow...it must take a lot of hard work to be so blindly ignorant.

Either that or you need a new TV.

You know, I try to work really hard on my ignorance but the truth is after watching Obama coronation speech my expectation gone up.

As for my TV, it's actually a really nice TV (a true baller's TV). With it I can clearly see McCain's old age...wrinkles and freckles and all. If I try hard enough and look into his eyes I can actually see his soul.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Why do you perpetuate the lie that he will raise taxes on small businesses?

As for raising taxes on big business, why not reduce their taxes? According to you they'd do a lot better with more money in their pockets. What's a fair cutoff line? Why not move their tax bar down to 0%?

Well according to your source not all of Obama's speach was accurate.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well according to your source not all of Obama's speach was accurate.

Don't tease me, elaborate.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Don't tease me, elaborate.

FactCheck.org: FactChecking Obama

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

You just buy into the democratic rhetoric blindly, don't you? How exactly is McCain a carbon copy of Bush?

Troop Surge
McCain: Yes
Bush: Yes
Was it a good idea? Yes.

Federal Spending
McCain: Cut back, balance the budget
Bush: Spend spend spend

Stem Cell Research
McCain: Yes
Bush: No

Healthcare
McCain: $5000 tax credit to families, and $2500 to individuals, so they can buy any coverage in any state
Bush: Status quo

Taxes:
Bush: supported his own tax cuts, regardless of spending
McCain: liked tax cuts, but came out against them when spending accelerated

Not sure why people will blindly believe he's a carbon copy of Bush. It's an uneducated belief.

I don't know, how different from Bush can you be if you vote with him 95% of the time?

Straight from the Elephant's mouth:

[firstdown]

The claim is true. According to Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies, in 2007 McCain voted in line with the president's position 95 percent of the time – the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office – and voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time. However, McCain's support of President Bush's position has been as low as 77 percent (in 2005), and his support for his party's position has been as low as 67 percent (2001).

This is a paragraph from your link.

The 95% of the time is in 2007 and its not the entire time Bush has been in office as we are lead to believe.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The claim is true. According to Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies, in 2007 McCain voted in line with the president's position 95 percent of the time – the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office – and voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time. However, McCain's support of President Bush's position has been as low as 77 percent (in 2005), and his support for his party's position has been as low as 67 percent (2001).

This is a paragraph from your link.

The 95% of the time is in 2007 and its not the entire time Bush has been in office as we are lead to believe.

Not the entire time, just recently as he moved closer to being a Presidential candidate. Coincidence? Why the dramatic rise from as recently as 2005?

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Not the entire time, just recently as he moved closer to being a Presidential candidate. Coincidence? Why the dramatic rise from as recently as 2005?

maybe bush was the one actually voting a bit different, maybe bush was agreeing more with McCain. who knows, maybe they were voting on issues that were different from 05.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by saden1

As for my TV, it's actually a really nice TV (a true baller's TV). With it I can clearly see McCain's old age...wrinkles and freckles and all. If I try hard enough and look into his eyes I can actually see his soul.

is that sold at dems-r-us ?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Why do you perpetuate the lie that he will raise taxes on small businesses?

As for raising taxes on big business, why not reduce their taxes? According to you they'd do a lot better with more money in their pockets. What's a fair cutoff line? Why not move their tax bar down to 0%?

Sounds good to me. No corporate taxes would make U.S. business far more competitive in the global economy (creating jobs) and bring foreign businesses here (creating jobs). FairTax anyone?