Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Exit Mundi Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
President George W.Bush; your opinions about our leader
Topic Started: Jul 15 2006, 07:51 PM (1,006 Views)
Zer0
Member Avatar
LOEV 2 KONSOLE
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
严加华
Jul 20 2006, 08:47 AM
Zer0
Jul 20 2006, 04:10 PM
Yes, the majority of people in the U.S. are that superficial.

Here, allow me to correct your typo for you:

Quote:
 
"Yes, the majority of people are that superficial."


It's the reason I think that democracy is a failed experiment.

Point taken.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Irockwayhard
Disgraced Dictator
[ *  *  * ]
Tech Junkie
Jul 20 2006, 10:40 AM
Allow me a few corrections:

By "save the abortion thing", I didn't mean anything about saving abortion. I meant "except for" abortion and the tax cuts. My fault for not being clear.

Fine, allow me to illustrate the male half of the superficial equation:

"She's a woman, therefore I must vote for her to avoid appearing sexist, reguardless of any and all reasons I can come up with the vote against her."

OR for general purpose:

"It's time to put a woman in office. It doesn't matter which woman. After all, it'll make us look good for about 10 minutes."


On funding cuts: Were you listening? GOVERNMENT revenues went up as a result of tax CUTS. The Government provides the services you mentioned being cut. If they're being cut despite an INCREASE in revenue (and by cut, they generally mean the rate of spending increase has been reduced), then you may want to take that up with your elected officials.

On a woman being more sympathetic to women's issues: My bullshit detector's blaring at this one. Given the inequalities in our current legal system that favor females, despite over 200 years of men running the country, it appears that male leaders didn't seem more sympathetic to male issues. Given that we're all the same species, and much of our psychological makeup is the same, it stands to reason that a female leader would be just as out of touch with female issues as male leaders have been with male issues. Ya gotta remember, a politician is a politician. They say what it takes to get your vote, then do what they were gonna do anyway.

Back to a little economics: The reason the upper classes see the most benifit from a tax cut is simple: THEY PAY MOST OF THE TAXES. The upper tax bracket is in the 30% range (I can't remember the exact figure), the lowest . . . doesn't pay. The lower class doesn't pay income tax, and much of the working class don't either. The middle classes pay a little, and the upper classes pay the most. Therefore, when taxes are cut, who benifits the most? That's right, those paying the most taxes. This means they have more money to spend and invest. They spend more, this means others have to produce more to meet those needs. This means more jobs. This also means more money for the companies involved, which buy more stuff to keep their businesses running, which . . . well, you see where this is going.

So, in a nutshell:

Tax cuts in the current economy allow both more money into the system and more money to fall into federal coffers.

Hillary Clinton is a liberal.

A lot of voters are superficial and more than a little braindead, unfortunately. (I blame the education system as wrecked by the past 2 presidents)

Vote Liberetarian :P

Okay, abortion and capital gains tax point taken.

Tax cuts - You quote, "GOVERNMENT revenues went up as a result of tax CUTS", then, "when taxes are cut, who benifits the most? That's right, those paying the most taxes. This means they have more money to spend and invest. They spend more, this means others have to produce more to meet those needs. This means more jobs"

It sounds like your a fan of Reaganomics - you base your assessment of the effectiveness of such economic policies on the "trickle-down affect" and supply side economics. But, the assumtions these work under depend on companies using their profits to expand and produce more jobs - in the light of the recent outsourcing boom, where are these proposed "jobs" going? Not here. The financial profits stay with the company and its executives.

Also, we tried supply side economics in the 80's - Reagan, Kemp and others promised (and made some intresting arguments) that such policies would work - they didn't. Debt skyrocketed, intrest rates rose like 20%, savings rates fell etc. One of Reagan's guys even admitted that alot of the tax-cutting policies, promising growth for the lower and middle classes where just ploys "to bring down the top marginal tax rate" - the proposed social benifits were just attempts at justification.

And yes, those in the lower class do pay income taxes - the lowest bracket - those making less that $7,300 dollars still pay at a 10% rate.

Yes Clinton is a liberal, by our American standards and labels, but she is still a moderate centrist. You want a liberal democrat, see Jon Corzine, Ted Kennedy or Jack Reed.

And the criticism of a male's need to vote for a female to "avoid appearing sexist, reguardless of any and all reasons I can come up with the vote against her" - is just wrong and presumptive. Yes, though a femal politician is still a politician and she does still have to play the game - she's going to be more in line with women's intrests - just like leaders with aristocratic backrounds are sympathetic with aristocrats, and those coming from blue collar labor backgrounds are more sympathetic to fellow laborers.

I'd vote Gore anyway.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tech Junkie
Member Avatar
Styx Ferryman
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Point on the lower-class tax taken. My appologies for the error.

On Reganomics and outsourcing:

There is a point at which tax cuts actually reduce revenues. The chart on which the tax profit maximization point is a curve that begins and ends at 0. Based on the effect of the recent tax cuts, I'd say we're still on the "cuts equal increased revenue" side.

And people speak of outsourcing as a bad thing. Why? Does anyone in the US complain that Japan outsources jobs to the US? How about when other companies open US plants or US offices? Further, outsourcing reduces costs, so long as labor remains cheaper in the location outsourced to. The job pool is not a zero-sum game. As those jobs are created, the offices in the US have a greater profit from their foriegn operations, money they spend in our system. Companies require land, supplies, equipment. . . those in charge of companies still require all the same things other humans require, and can afford high-ticket luxury items. With more cash changing hands comes a greater GDP.

If you really want to reverse outsourcing, go bash in some union skulls and vote out the democrats. Both create/force to higher wages, which leads companies to do what makes the most sence and hire people where they can recieve the most labor for the least cost. I find it hard to blame companies for doing the economical thing.

Oh, and if you're searching for a Dem to vote for, do back Mr. Lieberman. Rumor has it he'll run as an Independant if he loses the Dem primary. I think that, as far as Democrats go, he seems rather reasonable.

On politicians being more sympathetic to their background, I still don't believe that ones gender would make one more sensative to that gender's issues in a political capacity. Wasn't true of the past 42 male presidents (Why do we count Grover Cleveland twice? So he was elected in 2 non-consecutive terms. He's still only one guy). I'd only buy the sympathy to one's background if that one stands to personally benefit, and doesn't stand to take a political hit.



On a totally unrelated note:

(Insert Ted Kenedy joke here, followed by racuous laughter)
May the blessing of Our Lady of the Workshop be upon you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Irockwayhard
Disgraced Dictator
[ *  *  * ]
Tech Junkie
Jul 21 2006, 12:06 PM
Point on the lower-class tax taken. My appologies for the error.

On Reganomics and outsourcing:

There is a point at which tax cuts actually reduce revenues. The chart on which the tax profit maximization point is a curve that begins and ends at 0. Based on the effect of the recent tax cuts, I'd say we're still on the "cuts equal increased revenue" side.

And people speak of outsourcing as a bad thing. Why? Does anyone in the US complain that Japan outsources jobs to the US? How about when other companies open US plants or US offices? Further, outsourcing reduces costs, so long as labor remains cheaper in the location outsourced to. The job pool is not a zero-sum game. As those jobs are created, the offices in the US have a greater profit from their foriegn operations, money they spend in our system. Companies require land, supplies, equipment. . . those in charge of companies still require all the same things other humans require, and can afford high-ticket luxury items. With more cash changing hands comes a greater GDP.

If you really want to reverse outsourcing, go bash in some union skulls and vote out the democrats. Both create/force to higher wages, which leads companies to do what makes the most sence and hire people where they can recieve the most labor for the least cost. I find it hard to blame companies for doing the economical thing.

Oh, and if you're searching for a Dem to vote for, do back Mr. Lieberman. Rumor has it he'll run as an Independant if he loses the Dem primary. I think that, as far as Democrats go, he seems rather reasonable.

On politicians being more sympathetic to their background, I still don't believe that ones gender would make one more sensative to that gender's issues in a political capacity. Wasn't true of the past 42 male presidents (Why do we count Grover Cleveland twice? So he was elected in 2 non-consecutive terms. He's still only one guy). I'd only buy the sympathy to one's background if that one stands to personally benefit, and doesn't stand to take a political hit.



On a totally unrelated note:

(Insert Ted Kenedy joke here, followed by racuous laughter)

*extends hand in a peaceful gesture*

On Reaganomics: Supply side economics and the trickle down dollar make credible arguments, but history speaks against them. In 1955, under Eisenhower, the those in the top marginal tax bracket were taxed 88% (real high) - the economy grew at an annual rate of just over 4%, I believe - under Reagan they were taxed around 20% - annual growth was around 2%. I know there were other factors involved - but that's still a huge difference.

Outsourcing: It's inevitable as we continue to grow as a service industry country, but I still think we have ot protect jobs here. I'm pro-union (they're not perfect, but they give a voice to the powerless, so I'll take them.) And I"m for raising the minimum wage - there are just too many people living below the poverty line.

About gender in politics: It took us 150 years to give women the vote, and even then it was sort of a reward for helping out during WWI. But you've made your point and I accept it.

"According to rumors, Ted Kennedy may have had a child out of wedlock. Well, who hasn't? But you know, something like this could damage Kennedy's image with women." --David Letterman
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
严加华
Member Avatar
Magister Ludicrous
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tech Junkie
Jul 22 2006, 12:06 AM
And people speak of outsourcing as a bad thing. Why?

Racism blended in roughly equal parts with jingoism.
LC Sez: Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Necronomicon
Member Avatar
omar comin' yo
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
'They took our jobs!'
omar yo. omar comin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
justinianthelast
Disgraced Dictator
[ *  *  * ]
ok i looked over this. i think we should do like in the first bush's election i believe where more people wrote in homer simpson then voted really. all the runners do is make u hate the people running against them making them both look bad. we should vote for sumbody not against sumone.

oh yea about bush well i dont like the idea that because u know the right people your president quote american dad " do you know how many people really voted for bush 7"

if you want to see something funny on bush go to campchaos.com and the thing about myspace.
conformist faciest racest nazi cheerleader
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
« Previous Topic · Politics and Religion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Theme Made by Sionthede of the IFSZ.