What Obama is all about, check it out

honestly as much as we would all love to think were actually changing anyones mind here, its not gonna happen. Everyone has their own views and then sometimes there are those who are undecided but reallly those cases are pretty rare. Its pointless really to argue politics because nobody is really gonna change their opinions. People just get all pissed off at eachother when shit like politics is brought up. Im a liberal, but i have many really conservative friends who are good people also. So basically what im trying to get at is no one is going to change their opinions and dont generalize Liberals and Conservatives.
 
And you probably think Keynesian economics are great.

Reagan is responsible for the boom under Clinton. Talking about the Laffer curve makes sense when trying to explain economics to NS, to somewhat simplify it. Obviously the concept is not full proof, but making it simpler in a model helps convey information. And there are many truths in the Laffer curve, just discrepancies on how it should be drawn.

You said it only works in select situations, yet failed to elaborate, so I'd say your viewpoint irrelevant.

 
I purposely made that post retarded.my bad..

I think McCain is opposed to many traditionally conservative and republican ideas. Its funny that he has been embraced by so many conservatives.

Obama= Change. McCain= Honor.

Change and Honor= Words that politicians use to distract us from real issues.

Obama and McCain=Politicians who use words that distract us from real issues.
 
racistbf5.png
 
i mean... did you see what he wrote? did you see that picture i posted? there were definitely implications by several people that either due to his relationship with muslim nations, or with a man who was a terrorist 40 years ago, he was a terrorist.
 
No, demand side economics are not the whole answer. Read some fucking journal articles talking about the newest growth models, that shit entice me at all.

Reagan isn't responsible for the boom under clinton, nor was clinton. It was due to tech change and efficiency, stagnate growth leading up to it, and rising global demand. Not lowering tax rates and dumping money into defense spending.

No the Laffer curve doesn't make sense trying to explain economics to anyone. It is the Michael Moore of economics. You might think its so ground breaking and explains so much if you are of average intelligence. It's applications are pointless and already should be transparent.

In select situations meaning really high tax rates, say 65% or more. Its common sense, you don't a fucking curve for it.

 
The only people talking about racism here are democrats. They think that the only way he will lose this election is if the racist people dont vote for him.

Mark my words, if Obama loses the election it isnt because people are racist,,, its because after 2 plus years of obama campaining we still dont know that much about him and what he has done, (ie community organizer) Obama hasnt acomplished jack.
 
take a look at that billboard i posted and tell me again the only racist people are democrats
 
We should really consider doing a surprise election. Like hold it tomorrow. That way, all this bullshit attacking and negative campaigning that WILL happen in the next couple of weeks wont effect the latent "stupid" American voter.
 
i agree some that thats true. but i still think that in a lot of this country there is deep rooted racism. like "i refuse to vote for a ni____, regardless of what he stands for"

that and morons who thinks hes muslim, and therefore a terrorist.

as for being screwed. thats not what the polls are saying
 
If the election were held today there would be two primary possibilities as to why Obama might lose: 1. his voters didn't come out and actually vote, or 2. latent racism. In that order. But that's neither here nor there, as the election isn't tomorrow, there's still one debate left, and plenty of time for polls to narrow. So back to the thread topic on what Obama is all about,

Here's some video of a recent rally that displays the kind of class the Republican ticket has completely failed to show in the last month, along with some substantive economic policies.

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cnn_live_obama_toledo_081013a.wmv?mid=6582
 
but as you said. i think that that negativity is less the fault of mccain, and more that of his advisors. mind you its his fault for not telling his advisors to fuck off... but still
 
Which is in turn taken by the 'conservative' media and thrown back and forth until everyone in the country is sure to have heard of it, which leaves both sides feeling more angry at the other for have ever bringing it up.
 
Yeah, it probably has nothing to do with his and Palin's constant accusations of Obama being affiliated with terrorists. In fact I bet that the liberal media is actually planting people in the crowds of palin's rallies and paying them to shout racial epithets and call for Obama's death. Fucking liberal media. Rupert Murdoch is the biggest pinko of all and they all report to him, so no wonder.
 
Yeah I hear they write Palin's speeches for her. Do you actually have any idea what we're talking about here, or do you just throw out random conservative catchphrases like "liberal media" and hope they stick to something? Congratulations, you look like an idiot. The "negativity" he was referring to was that espoused in rallies lately by the republican ticket. The media has nothing to do with it besides pointing a camera in its direction.
 
Financial and welfare benefits? So how is the government going to pay for that? Oh yeah...by punishing the wealthy and successful.
 
So... your analysis of what he had to say was to take three words, come to a negative conclusion about their meaning, and thereby dismiss everything else in the speech? Excellent work my son, you may have a future as Tucker Bounds' intern.

Seriously, everyone's complaining about Obama being anti-business and not giving adequate tax incentives to startup companies, and here he's saying basically the opposite, but we shouldn't believe him and should believe McCain because...

Partisan crap. Is it so difficult to admit when the other party says something you like? Apparently not if you're Obama, but if you're anyone else...
 
Bullshit. I'm not being partisan, I'm being logical. Some of those ideas are good ones (the idea of paying less taxes for hiring domestic is a good one), but trying to incorporate all of his idea into the same plan doesn't work. Anybody that has any concept of money or a budget wonders were all the money is going to come from to allow people to take money out of their benefit packages as well as receive tax cuts. You'd be effectively making the honey jar smaller while expecting people to get more honey out of it. Government overspending would explode.
 
...and the only way to try and compensate for that is to tax. Its not gonna come from the middle and lower classes, and its not going to come from the large companies that choose to stay domestic. It's going to come from the upper class who will get stuck with higher and higher taxes. Hence the punishing the wealthy and successful.

Partisan my ass.
 
Dear Six Figure Income Taxpayer,

As a "reward" for making money and paying well over 90% of the Federal tax revenue, you now get to pay an even greater amount. This amount will, of course, be totally disproportionate to everybody else and will adjust according to our inflated and broken budget.

Lovingly Yours,

The US Government
 
so the liberal media is who is making palin and mccain slam him every chance they get rather than discuss the issues? the liberal media are the ones accusing him of associating with terrorists? the liberal media are the ones putting people in the crowds screaming racial slurs? ah i understand totally now. please, let whoever is planting this conservative bullshit in you continue to brainwash you, its been doing well so far.
 
you clearly misunderstand the situation, the people who made smart choices in life clearly make to much money.... keep the money i make? WTF? thats a novel idea.
 
or we could get the fuck out of iraq and quit handing out billions in laughably inflated government contracts. Personally I'm more willing to spend taxpayer money on programs that at least attempt to address many of the serious socioeconomic problems in our society. Investing in long-term benefit programs seems like it's working out pretty well for countries that already have universal healthcare and better education than us.
 
Except that Obama said he'll actually move troops to Afghanistan, not bring them home. You don't even have to take my word for it, it came right from his mouth in the first debate.
 
that's hilarious. i watch the news on a regular basis. i actually have a lot of liberal views, but still consider myself conservative. you can argue any of these issues either way and people are always going to slam you one way or another.

and J.D., you've been so fucking pompous since the day you joined NS :)
 
That analysis is very hypothetical. So much so that it disregards virtually every major factor that determines the performance of an economy. No investor uses their checkbook depending on which party has the Oval Office. Correlation does not imply causation.
 
What's the objection to Obama moving troops back to Afghanistan?

If we go by what Sec. of Defense Robert Gates suggested, then if we want to end our military spending on occupation of the middle east, and call an end to the 'War on Terror' it'll only happen in Afghanistan.

 
Because in the context of this argument, we're talking about government spending. Ask any Democrat what would be the first thing they'd cut from the budget. Their answer would be our military prescience abroad. Moving them to Afghanistan from Iraq does not cut any expenses. Your money will still be feeding the military whether you want it to or not.

...so on top of that, we're supposed to increase our social programs at the same time? How logical.
 
is it alright to say that moving troops to Afghanistan doesn't reduce spending prima face, but the long term goal of ending our occupation in the middle east will be a reduction of spending, and in doing it in this fashion means that we wouldn't have to do it again later, thus higher spending?

Also, is the plan to retain the same number of troops only having them in Afghanistan, or would there be an overall reduction of troops, while still increasing the amount currently in Afghanistan? Because this could still be seen as a cut
 
Yeah, but increasing troop levels in Afghanistan and Pakistan would hopefully not be the type of long-term quagmire we are experiencing in Iraq. I feel that the Bush administration has failed terribly in afghanistan by shifting attention from it to Iraq and allowing the taliban to rebuild and grow in many regions. By ignoring afghanistan and miring us in Iraq, I can't take any republican claims to want to "balance the budget" seriously. As far as I am concerned that is GOP speak for cutting corporate taxes and spoon-feeding their corporations of choice with war contracts, major agricultural subsidies and questionable rulings, (blackwater group etc.) The only people who are really serious about balancing the budget are the libertarians, and I don't see any of them as contenders.
 
Not have to do it gain later? You're kidding right? Conflict is perpetual and there is never a definite ending point. You have no idea what we may or may not have to do in 10, 20, or 50 years down the road.

Now, back to spending. It would be higher spending combined with everything else. You're not thinking about the big picture. I'm not taking about just money going to our armed forces, but all the money going towards social security, welfare packages, healthcare, education, as well as every price of fat that already in our budget. The government will just get bigger because they'll spend more, as well as tax more to try and cover the expenses.

You want to talk about unnecessary debt? Thats a good recipe.
 
I'd also like to point out that for a party that supposedly prides itself on business sense, the Bush administration's approach to the Iraq war was roughly equivalent to a greedy kid opening a lemonade stand and with no regards for long term success using lemon scented dish soap instead of investing in at least some old tyme lemonade powder or maybe even some real lemons and sugar. We had unlimited time to plan this invasion. There is no excuse for the fact that we went in with such minimal planning and so clearly under-staffed. I would love to see Bush explain to the parents of dead american soldiers that he ignored the advice of his generals and allocated such an inappropriately small number of troops that we were unable to guard the weapons caches that we captured, abandoned and now are being killed by.
 
Hope? That the plan? Throw them someplace else and "hope" it works out better? Ah yes...The Audacity of Hope without a "Plan B".

Before you paint me with a big brush as a true-blooded GOP, both parties are guilty of overspending. Hell, the American people are guilty of it as well.

I will say this, the only way to fix our spending problems is to actually work within a real budget.
 
what? that makes no sense. clearly you have no idea since you just blamed the liberal media for the fact that mccain is running a dirty campaign. as J.D. said, all they do is point the cameras.
 
They certainly are to blame as well, but they didn't lead the charge. The bush administration did a pretty stellar job of selling the war and scaring people into it, so I lay most of the blame with them. It's kind of to be expected at this point that the majority of our politicians will never take an unpopular stance.
 
Wow, way to jump on one word and try and paint me with the silly liberal brush. I say hopefully because I don't really know what's gonna happen, and neither do you. I think we could use a lot more skepticism in politics these days.I have some serious doubts about the legitimacy of our entire government so I'm certainly not a rabid Obama is a messiah type.

I would like to throw them where there has actually been a legitimate threat to American safety as opposed to Iraq.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top