Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (507195)	9/9/2012 2:45:56 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Respond to of 793841

This rationale for helping out the wealthiest Americans has been trotted out for decades. It has secured the Republican alliance with wealth and corporate America but it is absolutely counter productive where, as now, the economy is spiralling downward as a result of an overburden of federal debt and substantially diminished economic demand for goods and services. Aliance with corporate America? Like GM and Solyndra? The economy isn't spiraling downwards, its growing at an anemic pace, with no signs of getting past the anemia. That's bad, if it stays that way its very bad, but its not "spiraling down". Bigger government will just increase the debt, while at the same time hitting both supply and demand from the private sector. Probably even more important than taxation is regulation (esp. if defined broadly to include legislation, regulatory interpretation, and government pressure, that has the effect of giving regulation like control to the government). The Republicans are often enough on the wrong side of this one, but the Democrats are, in recent years, almost always on the wrong side. All the red tape, and lengthy approval processes, don't only tie up the private sector (which is where durable economic growth has to come from), they also make government more expensive and less useful.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (507195)	9/9/2012 3:41:18 PM
From: Bearcatbob	14 Recommendations Respond to of 793841

"So there we have two conservative versus liberal views where the liberals weren't unthinking, bleeding hearts but were more rational, logical and clear thinking. " Your first is the issue of spending on wars. I will directionally give you that. I will note that the votes were bipartisan. Your second issue - the one of tax cuts - I will not give you. As pointed out elsewhere - the economy is NOT spiraling downward. To the extent the economy is not soaring - the blame needs to be attributed to Obama supported problems. Tax cuts did not prevent the building of the Keystone pipeline. Tax cuts did not shut down the GOM oil exploration effort. Tax cuts did not pass Dodd Frank and tax cuts did not pass Obama care. Obama is the anit Christ to business activity. Just think if Obama said taxes on the wealthy were a necessary part of the solution - not simply casting those paying the vast majority of taxes as not paying their fair share. Just think if Obama encouraged and boosted small businessmen - rather than saying they did not build their own businesses. If Obama was an auto mechanic he would put sand in the motor oil. The man is destructive to the national good and needs to be replaced. If he is not - the ruin will continue. Bob

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (507195)	9/9/2012 7:37:42 PM
From: unclewest	12 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793841

That's a big, big, mistake that our soldiers paid for and one where the allegedly challenged "liberal" segment of our population had a clearer vision. Concur Our soldiers, their spouses, kids and families, have paid a horrible price. If you liberal guys and gals had such clear vision why did you put an ignorant, inexperienced bozo up for election? And why did you elect him? After 4 years, why are you and your liberal Obama electees still hiding your clearer vision? When are you going to share your clearer vision with the rest of America? Obama's message is tax the rich. How will that help our soldiers serving on our battlefields?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (507195)	9/9/2012 8:18:36 PM
From: i-node	10 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793841

Some differences are simply the result of different social values. I found it remarkable that in the early and middle years of the Iraq war so many conservative (and a significant number of progressive) Americans could not see the writing in the sand. That tide has turned and most Americans recognize the insurmountable problems we were facing there, the limits of our power to change societies using military force and that there are things that we can't buy with billions of dollars. Many conservatives now bemoan the loss of blood, treasure and opportunities that were lost in the hard years of that war but the sad fact is that there was very little critical thinking to counter the neocon push to war especially among self identified conservatives and Republican elected leaders. (Chuck Hagel was a courageous exception.) Some conservatives did turn against the war after the fact, just as almost all liberals did (in spite of having supported it early on). However, it was clearly the right thing to have done under the circumstances. Condi Rice articulates the position better than anyone, in effect, that you go to war based on the facts you DO have, not those you DON'T have. It is clear today that disarming Saddam, then removing him, was totally sensible. Not only was it consistent with the "Freedom Agenda" -- which our current president totally bungled -- but it was essential as a matter of national security. The argument that we would somehow be better off with Saddam in power today just doesn't hold water, particularly, in light of what is happening in Iran. The claim that Saddam somehow, would have kept Iran in check is ridiculous; we'd just have that much more stringent at arms race in the ME than we now have. I continue to support what we did in Iraq, but I would much rather have seen Clinton take care of the problem in the 90s. When Saddam became belligerent in the 90s, Clinton should have said, "Okay, we gave you a chance to stay in power and behave, now we're going to take you out." He didn't have the "brass" for it (his words), so his successor had to handle the problem. Paraphrasing Jack Woltz, the most powerful country in the world "can't afford to look ridiculous." The second is the "liberals" rejection of the conservative theory that we create jobs for everyday Americans when we lower the tax burden on top income levels or reduce the estate taxes of massively wealthy individuals. Anyone who has the slightest understanding of economics should by now be familiar with the so-called "Laffer Curve" which is demonstrably a correct representation. This, of course, didn't originate with Laffer -- in fact, Adam Smith recognized that there was some tax rate beyond which productivity would decline. And obviously, a zero tax rate doesn't yield the necessary tax revenue. So, it comes down to which tax rate at which you find the vertex of the parabola. Somewhere between 99% and 1%. About all you can do is look at empirical results, and one need not look back too far -- Bill Clinton cut cap gain rates in 1997 and what happened? Reagan cut tax rates, and what happened? JFK cut tax rates and what happened? For that matter, revenues increased for four consecutive years after George W. Bush cut tax rates. And they probably would have continued had the Democrat-fueled housing crisis not brought down the economy. Estate taxes are a different matter and far more difficult to rationalize. Throughout their history, since 1916, estate taxes have never produced a significant amount of revenue for the government (prior to 1916, they were occasionally used to raise limited money for specific purposes). Anyway, as a revenue tool, they're immaterial in amount. So, what is the point of them? Simply put, the point, the ONLY point, today is to try and prevent the pooling of wealth. This, of course, doesn't work -- the arithmetic of compound interest prevents it from doing so. So what exactly is the point? In effect, it forces wealthy old people to contribute money to tax exempt foundations and that's about it. I suppose that's a good thing, but you don't need a particularly aggressive estate tax code to make that happen.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (507195)	9/10/2012 6:39:08 PM
From: greenspirit	9 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793841

The difference is critical thinking skills. On the one hand we have a President who desires to move the country toward marxism, which has failed every segment of society except the ones in power throughout history. In addition, the President has demonstrated a lack of leadership in every measurement of leadership captured through the ages. 1. Trust and trustworthiness - FAIL 2. Integrity and Honesty - FAIL 3. Competence and knowledge - FAIL 4. Teamwork and collaboration - FAIL 5. Responsibility and accountability - FAIL Obama is an across the board leadership failure. He has failed to follow through on practically every promise he ran on four years ago, yet some who lack critical thinking skills believe the next four years will be different. They won't; the results have demonstrated clearly he will fail in an even deeper way with four more years, and too many Americans are suffering as a result of his failed leadership. On the other hand we have a seasoned and successful businessman, who instead of retiring and living the high life flying around in a jet, or cruising the Med in a yacht, has decided to take on the task to fix the mess liberal Democratic politicians and Obama have left them. Will he succeed? We don't know for certain, but his past success in various leadership positions demonstrate there is a real opportunity for success. What we know for certain is he is not Obama. And Obama must go! Obama is a fraud and a failure!