Obama's Speech - comments

[JakeStarkey]

Now you are lying, Harry? Why? Because you can't hold your own with the truth? Don't call me out, if you can't handle being called out in return, son. You have evidence, post it. You can't. And I don't need to until you admit that you lied. Burden of proof is on you, son.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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?

and its funny how after you have been reminded a half dozen times how you never mention the "Whacko Left"....that now you are suddenly mentioning them...one word Jake...PHONY...got it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have from the beginning opposed the loony left along with you fringe loonies on the Far Side Right, Harry. You are in good company.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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?

you havent said nothing good about the Republican party asshole....thats the whole reason your getting the shit your getting.....not ONE republican of any sort has come forward to defend your phony ass....but yet the far leftists here seem to back your every post....your a Joke...

 

[skookerasbil]

Deficit of Trust: Most Voters Don’t Believe President’s Assertions About Economy
Saturday, January 30, 2010 Email to a Friend ShareThis.Advertisement
During his State-of-the-Union address Wednesday night, President Obama spoke about a deficit of trust between the American people and political leaders. New Rasmussen Reports polling on the president’s speech shows just how deep that trust deficit has become.

The president in the speech declared that his administration has cut taxes for 95% of Americans. He even chided Republicans for not applauding on that point. However, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that taxes have been cut for 95% of Americans. Most (53%) say it has not happened, and 26% are not sure. Other polling shows that nearly half the nation’s voters expect their own taxes to go up during the Obama years.

The president also asserted that “after two years of recession, the economy is growing again.” Just 35% of voters believe that statement is true, while 50% say it is false.






O o o o o o o o o o o o o o p s !!!!!!

 

[Foxfyre]

To Munin:

I'm not going to repost your rather lengthy but well-articulated thoughts. I think we probably aren't too far apart in our view of how what government does re taxes and spending affects the economy. I bet we agree that certain taxes depress the very activity that generates economic stimulus and prosperity, and if used in a way to punish the successful and enrich the less successful, they will almost always result in reduced revenues for the national treasury than would otherwise be generated. Of course when this was pointed out to Candidate Obama, he said with a straight face that it wasn't a matter of tax revenues but a matter of fairness. That utterly stupid statement probably cost him millions of votes. Unfortunately, it didn't cost him enough.

But whatever approach is used, the fact remains that government is way too big and way too bloated and way too inefficient and way too expensive to be a good thing for the economy. I hope enough Americans come to understand that and fix it before it is too late.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Now you are lying, Harry? Why? Because you can't hold your own with the truth? Don't call me out, if you can't handle being called out in return, son. You have evidence, post it. You can't. And I don't need to until you admit that you lied. Burden of proof is on you, son.

no asshole the burdon of proof is on the ass making the claim.....YOU...and since you cant that makes you a ******* liar.....where are all your REAL Conservative friends backing your claim Jake.....there plenty of Conservatives around here from all different persuasions....were are your backers?....Willow leans to the right....she says your a phony....Meister leans to the right....he says phony....Liability....Ollie.....Crusader Frank....Foxfyre....Dr. House...Zander...all Right leaners,all say the same thing.....your a PHONYshall i continue dipshit?.....

 

[Meister]

Now you are lying, Harry? Why? Because you can't hold your own with the truth? Don't call me out, if you can't handle being called out in return, son. You have evidence, post it. You can't. And I don't need to until you admit that you lied. Burden of proof is on you, son.

no asshole the burdon of proof is on the ass making the claim.....YOU...and since you cant that makes you a ******* liar.....where are all your REAL Conservative friends backing your claim Jake.....there plenty of Conservatives around here from all different persuasions....were are your backers?....Willow leans to the right....she says your a phony....Meister leans to the right....he says phony....Liability....Ollie.....Crusader Frank....Foxfyre....Dr. House...Zander...all Right leaners,all say the same thing.....your a PHONYshall i continue dipshit?.....

I've called jake(chick with a dick) out several times and pawned his ass. I'm on his ignore list I think. He no longer responds to me.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. Let me help you out here.
When gov't "cuts taxes" it is simply taking in less money. Assuming they do not cut spending (a good assumption with our present gov't) that means the money to pay for the cuts must come from somewhere else. So the "middle class" enjoys a tax cut only at someone else's expense. It is a zero sum. No new spending is created.

But if you cut taxes at the margin for businesses (and workers) then they have extra incentive to produce more as they get to keep more of whatever extra money they earn. You are wrong that they will simply keep it as "profits." Companies do not keep profits. They invest the money i their own operations, they pay down their debt, they raise salaries to attract better workers, they cut the price of their product or otherwise make it more attractive, or they hand out dividends to their shareholders.. Thereby they sell more product. This is what creates jobs. Not handing out cash to people to spend. That's been a proven waste of money both under Carter and under Bush.

 

[Father Time]

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.

You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. Let me help you out here.
When gov't "cuts taxes" it is simply taking in less money. Assuming they do not cut spending (a good assumption with our present gov't) that means the money to pay for the cuts must come from somewhere else. So the "middle class" enjoys a tax cut only at someone else's expense. It is a zero sum. No new spending is created.

But if you cut taxes at the margin for businesses (and workers) then they have extra incentive to produce more as they get to keep more of whatever extra money they earn. You are wrong that they will simply keep it as "profits." Companies do not keep profits. They invest the money i their own operations, they pay down their debt, they raise salaries to attract better workers, they cut the price of their product or otherwise make it more attractive, or they hand out dividends to their shareholders.. Thereby they sell more product. This is what creates jobs. Not handing out cash to people to spend. That's been a proven waste of money both under Carter and under Bush.

So it's a zero sum game when applied to the middle class but not with the upper class?

 

[EriktheRed]

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.

You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. Let me help you out here.
When gov't "cuts taxes" it is simply taking in less money. Assuming they do not cut spending (a good assumption with our present gov't) that means the money to pay for the cuts must come from somewhere else. So the "middle class" enjoys a tax cut only at someone else's expense. It is a zero sum. No new spending is created.

But if you cut taxes at the margin for businesses (and workers) then they have extra incentive to produce more as they get to keep more of whatever extra money they earn. You are wrong that they will simply keep it as "profits." Companies do not keep profits. They invest the money i their own operations, they pay down their debt, they raise salaries to attract better workers, they cut the price of their product or otherwise make it more attractive, or they hand out dividends to their shareholders.. Thereby they sell more product. This is what creates jobs. Not handing out cash to people to spend. That's been a proven waste of money both under Carter and under Bush.

So it's a zero sum game when applied to the middle class but not with the upper class?

Nope. Then it's only class warfare.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Harry, you made the claim I was a phony Republican. You have to prove it, loon, not that I have to disprove it. Clear thinking Americans have defend me, others have not jumped on me, and any "Republicans" who are attacking me are from the loony far right or are only about power. I could give a crap about them, Harry, or about you.

You want to serve America? Be part of the process, not part of the panty wetting party of "no".

 

[rdean]

Why are these screwy Republicans whining for jobs and at the same time whining that government is too intrusive and they should cut the budget? Are they simply so ignorant that they don't understand that if you cut the budget, then NO NEW JOBS? Besides, they don't want those jobs that come from the government anyway.

 

[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 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.

You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. Let me help you out here.
When gov't "cuts taxes" it is simply taking in less money. Assuming they do not cut spending (a good assumption with our present gov't) that means the money to pay for the cuts must come from somewhere else. So the "middle class" enjoys a tax cut only at someone else's expense. It is a zero sum. No new spending is created.

But if you cut taxes at the margin for businesses (and workers) then they have extra incentive to produce more as they get to keep more of whatever extra money they earn. You are wrong that they will simply keep it as "profits." Companies do not keep profits. They invest the money i their own operations, they pay down their debt, they raise salaries to attract better workers, they cut the price of their product or otherwise make it more attractive, or they hand out dividends to their shareholders.. Thereby they sell more product. This is what creates jobs. Not handing out cash to people to spend. That's been a proven waste of money both under Carter and under Bush.

History doesn't support your opinion here. From JFK to the present, fiscal conservatives have known that cutting certain taxes across the board in intelligent ways is the very best way to stimulate a lagging economy. JFK was adament that you do not raises taxes in a recession. And if you use a good data source--not a propaganda blog--and look past such tax cuts in the past, each time you see a burst of financial energy that results in INCREASES in federal treasury revenues. Why? Because tax cuts change behavior both of business and consumers, generate more economic activity, and this results in more revenues for the treasury.

There would surely be a point of no return, of course, and the government must have some money to perform its Constitutionally mandated functions. But the government could be a whole lot smaller in size and scope than what it is which would of course dramatically reduce the amount of money it would need to take in.

It's all in whether you trust politicians and bureaucrats to spend your money on your behalf more wisely than you would spend it yourself.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. Let me help you out here.
When gov't "cuts taxes" it is simply taking in less money. Assuming they do not cut spending (a good assumption with our present gov't) that means the money to pay for the cuts must come from somewhere else. So the "middle class" enjoys a tax cut only at someone else's expense. It is a zero sum. No new spending is created.

But if you cut taxes at the margin for businesses (and workers) then they have extra incentive to produce more as they get to keep more of whatever extra money they earn. You are wrong that they will simply keep it as "profits." Companies do not keep profits. They invest the money i their own operations, they pay down their debt, they raise salaries to attract better workers, they cut the price of their product or otherwise make it more attractive, or they hand out dividends to their shareholders.. Thereby they sell more product. This is what creates jobs. Not handing out cash to people to spend. That's been a proven waste of money both under Carter and under Bush.

So it's a zero sum game when applied to the middle class but not with the upper class?

You don't get it, do you?
Any tax cut that does not serve to change behavior towards being more productive, saving or investing is a waste of money. Doesn't matter whether it goes to Warren Buffet or Warren the Elevator Man.
Take off your class warfare suit for 2 seconds and think about this.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. Let me help you out here.
When gov't "cuts taxes" it is simply taking in less money. Assuming they do not cut spending (a good assumption with our present gov't) that means the money to pay for the cuts must come from somewhere else. So the "middle class" enjoys a tax cut only at someone else's expense. It is a zero sum. No new spending is created.

But if you cut taxes at the margin for businesses (and workers) then they have extra incentive to produce more as they get to keep more of whatever extra money they earn. You are wrong that they will simply keep it as "profits." Companies do not keep profits. They invest the money i their own operations, they pay down their debt, they raise salaries to attract better workers, they cut the price of their product or otherwise make it more attractive, or they hand out dividends to their shareholders.. Thereby they sell more product. This is what creates jobs. Not handing out cash to people to spend. That's been a proven waste of money both under Carter and under Bush.

History doesn't support your opinion here. From JFK to the present, fiscal conservatives have known that cutting certain taxes across the board in intelligent ways is the very best way to stimulate a lagging economy. JFK was adament that you do not raises taxes in a recession. And if you use a good data source--not a propaganda blog--and look past such tax cuts in the past, each time you see a burst of financial energy that results in INCREASES in federal treasury revenues. Why? Because tax cuts change behavior both of business and consumers, generate more economic activity, and this results in more revenues for the treasury.

There would surely be a point of no return, of course, and the government must have some money to perform its Constitutionally mandated functions. But the government could be a whole lot smaller in size and scope than what it is which would of course dramatically reduce the amount of money it would need to take in.

It's all in whether you trust politicians and bureaucrats to spend your money on your behalf more wisely than you would spend it yourself.

Thank you for proving what I wrote. You are the one with a reading deficit.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why are these screwy Republicans whining for jobs and at the same time whining that government is too intrusive and they should cut the budget? Are they simply so ignorant that they don't understand that if you cut the budget, then NO NEW JOBS? Besides, they don't want those jobs that come from the government anyway.

Do you think gov't is responsible for creating jobs? They are not. I'll bet you are really one of Obama's economic advisors. That would explain just a whole bunch. Like why you've never met a Republican.

 

[Father Time]

You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. Let me help you out here.
When gov't "cuts taxes" it is simply taking in less money. Assuming they do not cut spending (a good assumption with our present gov't) that means the money to pay for the cuts must come from somewhere else. So the "middle class" enjoys a tax cut only at someone else's expense. It is a zero sum. No new spending is created.

But if you cut taxes at the margin for businesses (and workers) then they have extra incentive to produce more as they get to keep more of whatever extra money they earn. You are wrong that they will simply keep it as "profits." Companies do not keep profits. They invest the money i their own operations, they pay down their debt, they raise salaries to attract better workers, they cut the price of their product or otherwise make it more attractive, or they hand out dividends to their shareholders.. Thereby they sell more product. This is what creates jobs. Not handing out cash to people to spend. That's been a proven waste of money both under Carter and under Bush.

So it's a zero sum game when applied to the middle class but not with the upper class?

You don't get it, do you?
Any tax cut that does not serve to change behavior towards being more productive, saving or investing is a waste of money. Doesn't matter whether it goes to Warren Buffet or Warren the Elevator Man.
Take off your class warfare suit for 2 seconds and think about this.

Thanks for explaining it to me.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Harry, you made the claim I was a phony Republican. You have to prove it, loon, not that I have to disprove it. Clear thinking Americans have defend me, others have not jumped on me, and any "Republicans" who are attacking me are from the loony far right or are only about power. I could give a crap about them, Harry, or about you.

You want to serve America? Be part of the process, not part of the panty wetting party of "no".

you have disproved yourself dozens of times here Jake.........and about 15 Right leaning people backed me on that......already done Jake..... your the one who said i backed Bush,i backed Iraq,i backed big Government.....but you cant prove it.....pathetic....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Why are these screwy Republicans whining for jobs and at the same time whining that government is too intrusive and they should cut the budget? Are they simply so ignorant that they don't understand that if you cut the budget, then NO NEW JOBS? Besides, they don't want those jobs that come from the government anyway.

Do you think gov't is responsible for creating jobs? They are not. I'll bet you are really one of Obama's economic advisors. That would explain just a whole bunch. Like why you've never met a Republican.

he has....Jake is one....