Why should we re-elect Obama

[OCinBuffalo]

You've posted the most crap-laden dishonest posts of anyone in the history of this board (save Holcomb's Arm). You're not deconstructing anything soon.

Yes, this is the conner verson of "declare victory and go home".

 

He seems to forget that some of us where there for every single idiotic thread...when he was strating 4 a day in 2008, etc.

 

Didn't seem to hate the board too much then...did he?

 

But, now that everything we told conner would happen, literally, everything has come to pass....he hates that he has to come here....and face the music.

 

The fun part: he can't help himself....so it seems we WILL have him to kick around...again.

[/dev/null]

The fun part: he can't help himself....so it seems we WILL have him to kick around...again.

 

Aww, c'mon now. It's fun to have conner back. PastaJoe even showed up for the election. If only BishopHedd and Dave_in_Norfolk would come back, it would be like the Special Ed class re-union

[OCinBuffalo]

Aww, c'mon now. It's fun to have conner back. PastaJoe even showed up for the election. If only BishopHedd and Dave_in_Norfolk would come back, it would be like the Special Ed class re-union

pBills would also be nice.... Although ....lybob has sorta taken over the "I'm largely drawing conclusions based on my confusions" role.

 

But I want my personal whipping boy, Bad Lieutenant to return. Used to love ripping him up, then trolling him, then back to ripping. He had no clue...and he would get sooooo angry.

[dayman]

1) He saved GM

2) He prevented the US from having another great depression

3) He inspires me

4) He can sing

5) He carries a big stick

 

/DIN, Conner, Fjind, TheNewBills

 

LMFAO at you. Do you actually read my posts? No wonder it's taking you time after time to still fail that accounting test or whatever you can't pass. BURN

 

And for the record it's about connecting with anyone in terms of political skill I was discussing in the inspiring bit I said a while ago to which I basically said every president in resent times did to some people Dem or Rep and that I wasn't sure who Romney was speaking to aside from teh "not Obama crowd." It was a political discussion but I get that you all are so defensive you can't understand what a discussion about political skill is or recognize that Romney is at best below average. And you seem to not even be able to recognize that when someone says that...it says just that...and has nothng to do with ability to be president it's a different question entirely just one that so happens to directly correlate with who gets to actually be president.

Edited August 13, 2012 by TheNewBills

[meazza]

 

 

LMFAO at you. Do you actually read my posts? No wonder it's taking you time after time to still fail that accounting test or whatever you can't pass. BURN

 

And for the record it's about connecting with anyone in terms of political skill I was discussing in the inspiring bit I said a while ago to which I basically said every president in resent times did to some people Dem or Rep and that I wasn't sure who Romney was speaking to aside from teh "not Obama crowd." It was a political discussion but I get that you all are so defensive you can't understand what a discussion about political skill is or recognize that Romney is at best below average. And you seem to not even be able to recognize that when someone says that...it says just that...and has nothng to do with ability to be president it's a different question entirely just one that so happens to directly correlate with who gets to actually be president.

 

You admittedly troll so don't be surprised when someone takes a shot like you.

 

Not a cool burn by the way. Ill forget about it while I'm downing booze in Ibiza

[dayman]

You admittedly troll so don't be surprised when someone takes a shot like you.

 

Not a cool burn by the way. Ill forget about it while I'm downing booze in Ibiza

 

lol just a burn I do hope you did well IDK if you know yet or not man no bad wishes lol

[meazza]

 

 

lol just a burn I do hope you did well IDK if you know yet or not man no bad wishes lol

 

No I failed level 3:( no hard feelings

 

[fjl2nd]

Of course you are. move to Canada. Done.

 

Car insurance and car warranty models are already there to model health insurance after (and homeowners too, but I digress).

 

Open the competition accross state lines.

 

 

You don't do well at reading comprehension, do you? Cutting taxes increases tax revenue every time it's tried. Ryan's plan ( unlike Booooooosh) cuts taxes, eliminates "loopholes", simplifies the reporting process, and cuts the rate of increase(NOTE: Doesn't cut dhit, just slows the rate of growth. If you say his plan cuts, guts, eliminates anything, YOU ARE LIER. You lie.).

 

 

Yes. Sort of, but wrong. You will see more in the coming days.

 

 

Planned parenthood is a private endeavor that should not be funded by my tax dollars. What pisses me off is when you leftist leave off the descriptor in front of "immigrant"! Nobody on the right side of center talks "strong against immigrants". Illegals, yes. They broke the law. As far as taking stances on fair pay... Wtf are you talking about? Lilly Ledbetter? Christ what a waste of time. Brining that up just tells me all I need to know about how married you are to the false narratives of the leftist mindset.

 

 

You have yet to articulate why "that is the nail in the coffin"?

 

1. Health Insurance is unlike any other type of insurance. To model it after car insurance is disaster. (Not sure if you are even being serious here) Regardless, you will never agree in this area probably.

 

2. The tax cut issue. I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion a few times back on the BBMB. Even using the link you provided, tax receipts are shown going down after Bush's tax cuts from 2001 to 2002 in current dollars, 2005 dollars, and as a percentage of GDP. 1982 to 1983 also showed a drop in receipts after a Reagan tax cut. Looking at most of Reagan's presidency, tax collections are at some of the lower rates in our history as a percentage of GDP. We can also look at receipts going up after a tax increase by the Clinton administration. Revenues kept climbing during this time in office without the help of many major tax cuts.

 

So, there is no hard evidence that tax cuts raise revenues or there isn't much evidence to show raising taxes will always revenue either. Economic growth as a whole increases revenues. Tax cuts can help economic growth in some cases, but that doesn't mean that is cure for all economic woes.

 

3. Foreign Policy - nothing to add.

 

4. Planned Parenthood provides good service in my opinion. It's a ridiculous target for the right. Focus on something else. Legal or illegal immigration - what the hell is Romney's plan?? Is it still to build a giant fence? Romney also refuses to take a stance on the Fair Pay Act. Make a choice!

 

5. Nail in the coffin for me as a voter because I fundamentally disagree with him on most of economic proposals. That's it. I've said in the primaries I could possibly vote for Romney or Huntsman. Romney's campaign has been so horrific though.

 

Ox, I'd like to hear your reason for voting for Romney. What does HE bring to the table?

[3rdnlng]

 

 

1. Health Insurance is unlike any other type of insurance. To model it after car insurance is disaster. (Not sure if you are even being serious here) Regardless, you will never agree in this area probably.

 

2. The tax cut issue. I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion a few times back on the BBMB. Even using the link you provided, tax receipts are shown going down after Bush's tax cuts from 2001 to 2002 in current dollars, 2005 dollars, and as a percentage of GDP. 1982 to 1983 also showed a drop in receipts after a Reagan tax cut. Looking at most of Reagan's presidency, tax collections are at some of the lower rates in our history as a percentage of GDP. We can also look at receipts going up after a tax increase by the Clinton administration. Revenues kept climbing during this time in office without the help of many major tax cuts.

 

So, there is no hard evidence that tax cuts raise revenues or there isn't much evidence to show raising taxes will always revenue either. Economic growth as a whole increases revenues. Tax cuts can help economic growth in some cases, but that doesn't mean that is cure for all economic woes.

 

3. Foreign Policy - nothing to add.

 

4. Planned Parenthood provides good service in my opinion. It's a ridiculous target for the right. Focus on something else. Legal or illegal immigration - what the hell is Romney's plan?? Is it still to build a giant fence? Romney also refuses to take a stance on the Fair Pay Act. Make a choice!

 

5. Nail in the coffin for me as a voter because I fundamentally disagree with him on most of economic proposals. That's it. I've said in the primaries I could possibly vote for Romney or Huntsman. Romney's campaign has been so horrific though.

 

Ox, I'd like to hear your reason for voting for Romney. What does HE bring to the table?

[/dev/null]

No I failed level 3:( no hard feelings

 

Bummer. Just keep trying over and over again. Not only will you make it to level 3, you will eventually get to level 3.5

Edited August 13, 2012 by /dev/null

[WorldTraveller]

 

 

1. Health Insurance is unlike any other type of insurance. To model it after car insurance is disaster. (Not sure if you are even being serious here) Regardless, you will never agree in this area probably.

 

2. The tax cut issue. I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion a few times back on the BBMB. Even using the link you provided, tax receipts are shown going down after Bush's tax cuts from 2001 to 2002 in current dollars, 2005 dollars, and as a percentage of GDP. 1982 to 1983 also showed a drop in receipts after a Reagan tax cut. Looking at most of Reagan's presidency, tax collections are at some of the lower rates in our history as a percentage of GDP. We can also look at receipts going up after a tax increase by the Clinton administration. Revenues kept climbing during this time in office without the help of many major tax cuts.

 

So, there is no hard evidence that tax cuts raise revenues or there isn't much evidence to show raising taxes will always revenue either. Economic growth as a whole increases revenues. Tax cuts can help economic growth in some cases, but that doesn't mean that is cure for all economic woes.

 

3. Foreign Policy - nothing to add.

 

4. Planned Parenthood provides good service in my opinion. It's a ridiculous target for the right. Focus on something else. Legal or illegal immigration - what the hell is Romney's plan?? Is it still to build a giant fence? Romney also refuses to take a stance on the Fair Pay Act. Make a choice!

 

5. Nail in the coffin for me as a voter because I fundamentally disagree with him on most of economic proposals. That's it. I've said in the primaries I could possibly vote for Romney or Huntsman. Romney's campaign has been so horrific though.

 

Ox, I'd like to hear your reason for voting for Romney. What does HE bring to the table?

 

I'm no social conservative, as a matter of fact I'm pro choice, but the planned parenthood argument is a reasonable argument. The argument is not to end PP but to withhold federal tax payer dollars. From social conservatives, they don't want their tax dollars going to organizations that help fund abortions. This something they fervently against, which is having no part in the terminating of an unborn child. I respect their values, specially in such a controversial issue.

[Oxrock]

1. Health Insurance is unlike any other type of insurance. To model it after car insurance is disaster. (Not sure if you are even being serious here) Regardless, you will never agree in this area probably.

 

2. The tax cut issue. I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion a few times back on the BBMB. Even using the link you provided, tax receipts are shown going down after Bush's tax cuts from 2001 to 2002 in current dollars, 2005 dollars, and as a percentage of GDP. 1982 to 1983 also showed a drop in receipts after a Reagan tax cut. Looking at most of Reagan's presidency, tax collections are at some of the lower rates in our history as a percentage of GDP. We can also look at receipts going up after a tax increase by the Clinton administration. Revenues kept climbing during this time in office without the help of many major tax cuts.

 

So, there is no hard evidence that tax cuts raise revenues or there isn't much evidence to show raising taxes will always revenue either. Economic growth as a whole increases revenues. Tax cuts can help economic growth in some cases, but that doesn't mean that is cure for all economic woes.

 

3. Foreign Policy - nothing to add.

 

4. Planned Parenthood provides good service in my opinion. It's a ridiculous target for the right. Focus on something else. Legal or illegal immigration - what the hell is Romney's plan?? Is it still to build a giant fence? Romney also refuses to take a stance on the Fair Pay Act. Make a choice!

 

5. Nail in the coffin for me as a voter because I fundamentally disagree with him on most of economic proposals. That's it. I've said in the primaries I could possibly vote for Romney or Huntsman. Romney's campaign has been so horrific though.

 

Ox, I'd like to hear your reason for voting for Romney. What does HE bring to the table?

Thank you Frank! At least you present a thoughtful argument without name calling here.

Romney brings executive experience. Leadership in coalition building. Understanding of economies of scale.

Since most of you libs think this is important, he attended Standford for one year before he transferred and received his bachelors degree from Brigham Young University in Provo, UT. He also received an MBA and JD from Harvard.

He has given more than lip service to his faith. He lives it. (Full disclosure: My wife is a "Jack" Mormon).

 

As for 2001 - 2002... Really, Frank? You don't see an anomaly happening, oh say sometime in September 2001?

And I was serious about Car insurance. You're not old enough to remember how expensive it was prior to the changes allowing more competition into the mix. I do. It cost more than my car each month.

Reagans tax cut of 1981 was not immediate. In was implemented over time (three years).

Edited August 13, 2012 by Oxrock

[Rob's House]

2. The tax cut issue. I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion a few times back on the BBMB. Even using the link you provided, tax receipts are shown going down after Bush's tax cuts from 2001 to 2002 in current dollars, 2005 dollars, and as a percentage of GDP. 1982 to 1983 also showed a drop in receipts after a Reagan tax cut. Looking at most of Reagan's presidency, tax collections are at some of the lower rates in our history as a percentage of GDP. We can also look at receipts going up after a tax increase by the Clinton administration. Revenues kept climbing during this time in office without the help of many major tax cuts.

 

So, there is no hard evidence that tax cuts raise revenues or there isn't much evidence to show raising taxes will always revenue either. Economic growth as a whole increases revenues. Tax cuts can help economic growth in some cases, but that doesn't mean that is cure for all economic woes.

You didn't follow my advice and read up on this. If you analyze tax receipts before and after Reagan's tax cuts the revenues collected from the middle class did go down (I don't remember the exact figures but IIRC the rate was apx. 35% before being cut). The revenues from the top earners whose rates were cut from over 70% to 50% and then to 28% went up.

 

The relationship between tax rate and revenue isn't linear and isn't necessarily inversely related. This is something every 8th grader should understand, but economics has been cast aside to make way for sociology and the like.

[fjl2nd]

You didn't follow my advice and read up on this. If you analyze tax receipts before and after Reagan's tax cuts the revenues collected from the middle class did go down (I don't remember the exact figures but IIRC the rate was apx. 35% before being cut). The revenues from the top earners whose rates were cut from over 70% to 50% and then to 28% went up.

 

The relationship between tax rate and revenue isn't linear and isn't necessarily inversely related. This is something every 8th grader should understand, but economics has been cast aside to make way for sociology and the like.

 

I never said this was the case. The relationship is more complex than that. I don't necessarily agree with the Laffer Curve though.

[Rob's House]

I never said this was the case. The relationship is more complex than that. I don't necessarily agree with the Laffer Curve though.

Which part do you disagree with?

[Oxrock]

 

Which part do you disagree with?

The "right" part. If I'm not mistaken Frank is an Economics major. Unlike Ryan, another Economics grad, Frank worships Krugman and keynesian economics.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I'm in total disbelief over Krugman worship. I've never seen anyone proven emphatically wrong or contradict and argue against themselves as often as him. And that lays aside the obvious distaste that anyone of intellectual pursuits should have for a plagerist.

[fjl2nd]

The "right" part. If I'm not mistaken Frank is an Economics major. Unlike Ryan, another Economics grad, Frank worships Krugman and keynesian economics.

 

Lol. You are correct on the first part. Graduated May 2011. Headed back for my Masters starting in a couple weeks.

 

I don't worship Keynesian Economics or Krugman, but I do lean that way a bit. There is plenty of problems with it, but I think it's funny when people say Keynesian economics has failed here. We are far from using Keynesian policies here.

 

Which part do you disagree with?

 

A. The theory assumes nobody would work/produce at a 100% tax rate. That is a huge assumption to begin with.

B. It's a little simplistic. The tax code is more complex. The curve is basically taking into consideration one single tax rate. A higher income tax rate could shift more activity into capital gains, etc. We also have payroll taxes and different tax brackets.

C. It also bases itself in the assumption that the rich create the output and they need incentive to act instead of doing nothing.

 

I find the Laffer Curve interesting and I'm probably more accepting of it than most "Keynesian hacks". Lol. But, it still has it's problems as most theories do.

[/dev/null]

I'm in total disbelief over Krugman worship. I've never seen anyone proven emphatically wrong or contradict and argue against themselves as often as him. And that lays aside the obvious distaste that anyone of intellectual pursuits should have for a plagerist.

 

But he won a Nobel Prize!

[WorldTraveller]

The laffer curve has to do with the tax rate and the relationship it has with tax revenues. I don't see how any reasonable person can dispute it. Btw, the answer you provided didn't address the laffer curve, at least not rationally. If you are taxed at 100% you believe that there would be productivity? How?

Edited August 14, 2012 by WorldTraveller