Obama's Speech in Berlin

[30A Skunkape]

Wow! I wonder if their socialized medicine paid for those enhancements?!

Funny, I was paying attention to the red cans. Note how the cute little leftists crave that red-blooded capitalism;they will hop on a boat to get at it, like Cubans, Haitians or Vietnamese.

 

[elgordoboy]

Boat? This only lends strength to your argument though. They really wanna be here!

 

[Cheering472]

Funny, I've always had a much better paycheck, lower taxes, and noticed an overall better economy when a democrat is president. Please note these are only my meager 28 year observations and don't have any links or "experts" to back it up.

Reasonable observation SWGB.

Say what you want about the Clintons but my investments were in triple digit returns (112%, otherwise known as the good ol days) when he was in office. I don't hate paying capital gains taxes as much when I have those kinds of gains.
I still came out ahead. I had more disposable cash and my company was experiencing real growth and good profits. Our company's distribution of profits was double what it's been under the current adminstration.

Sadly I don't think either of the candidates will be able to fix things guickly. I wouldn't want the job.

 

[6thGen]

I think they have free markets in a lot of third world countries, where the leaders also divert much of the wealth and the resources to cronies who fund their quests for power. Sweden has a pretty decent standard of living.

The success of ideologies depends a lot on the people that put them into practice.

Well, then it's not a free market, now, is it?

True enough on ideologies, but one system depends on an enlightened despot making decisions that benefit the populace, the other depends on the populace making decisions that benefit themselves. Absolute power corrupts, and stuff.

 

[6thGen]

Funny, I've always had a much better paycheck, lower taxes, and noticed an overall better economy when a democrat is president. Please note these are only my meager 28 year observations and don't have any links or "experts" to back it up.

28 years earning, or 28 years in general? Either way, the only Democrat president was Clinton, who governed from the middle, presided over a historical innovation that created a ton of wealth (much of it false), and was pushed into tax cuts by a GOP Congress. Regardless, unless presidents do something drastic, like cut taxes, which Bush did and it stimulated growth and somewhat shortened, somewhat forestalled a recession, or double the capital gains rate, like Obama plans to do, their effect on the economy is not as much as it is made out to be. Right place, right time, wrong place, wrong time, etc. Depends on where the economy is in cycle. Bush should have taken a knife to the corporate rate, and eliminated the capital gains rate, but he didn't have the political capital to do so.

 

[rapunzel]

28 years earning, or 28 years in general? Either way, the only Democrat president was Clinton, who governed from the middle, presided over a historical innovation that created a ton of wealth (much of it false), and was pushed into tax cuts by a GOP Congress. Regardless, unless presidents do something drastic, like cut taxes, which Bush did and it stimulated growth and somewhat shortened, somewhat forestalled a recession, or double the capital gains rate, like Obama plans to do, their effect on the economy is not as much as it is made out to be. Right place, right time, wrong place, wrong time, etc. Depends on where the economy is in cycle. Bush should have taken a knife to the corporate rate, and eliminated the capital gains rate, but he didn't have the political capital to do so.

So you don't believe a wee bit of regulation might have prevented the 20% May over May housing price drop that was just reported? And if cutting taxes is the way to spur growth, how do you grow and still provide the services of government and a strong defense? Further, do you not believe that some of the devaluation of the dollar can be blamed on the fact that taxes were cut and spending was increased and we now have a record deficit?

 

[rapunzel]

Well, then it's not a free market, now, is it?

True enough on ideologies, but one system depends on an enlightened despot making decisions that benefit the populace, the other depends on the populace making decisions that benefit themselves. Absolute power corrupts, and stuff.

Which system is which in this analogy you're using?

Is there a truly free market anywhere on this planet? If so, where? And if you support free markets, how can you support any candidate for President running? If that's where you're coming from, it seems to me your negativity toward Obama could and should be directed equally at Bush/McCain.

I'm all for free markets -- free markets with a free press and no monopolies or oligopolies. Unfortunately, I think that human nature corrupts any ideology, and a pure free market will never exist, just like a pure socialist state will never exist.

Government is the mechanism we developed to keep us from being savages, whether physical savages preying on the weak or fiscal savages preying on the weak. Democracy helps us move back and forth like a pendulum between free markets and socialism, and the better educated and respected the voters in a democracy are, the more accountable we hold the leaders, the less crazy the swings.

That's why I've been so disappointed with the current administration, and the path McCain has chosen. Manipulation and obfuscation will only destabilize our markets further.

 

[6thGen]

So you don't believe a wee bit of regulation might have prevented the 20% May over May housing price drop that was just reported? And if cutting taxes is the way to spur growth, how do you grow and still provide the services of government and a strong defense? Further, do you not believe that some of the devaluation of the dollar can be blamed on the fact that taxes were cut and spending was increased and we now have a record deficit?

A wee bit of regulation is one thing that caused the runup in the first place, and it will extend the downturn, as it takes longer to flush out the toxins. The angels are not governing, but I know we'll have regulation regardless, but I'm for taking away the safety net and leaving everyone accountable. The runup, like the devaluation of the dollar, is mostly on the Fed, offering a negative cost of borrowed money for too long. Spending is another factor, and I've constantly criticized Bush and the 108th on spending. You also know that tax revenues were up, BECAUSE OF the tax cuts, right? Or did you not (not trying to be an ass, just comes across that way)? Because reading your post it doesn't appear so. I'm for cutting the services of the government, but providing a strong defense. That's entirely possible with tax and spending cuts. The Laffer Curve isn't theory.

I'll get to your other, longer response later.

 

[rapunzel]

A wee bit of regulation is one thing that caused the runup in the first place, and it will extend the downturn, as it takes longer to flush out the toxins. The angels are not governing, but I know we'll have regulation regardless, but I'm for taking away the safety net and leaving everyone accountable. The runup, like the devaluation of the dollar, is mostly on the Fed, offering a negative cost of borrowed money for too long. Spending is another factor, and I've constantly criticized Bush and the 108th on spending.

Oh my god. We agree on something.

You also know that tax revenues were up, BECAUSE OF the tax cuts, right? Or did you not (not trying to be an ass, just comes across that way)? Because reading your post it doesn't appear so. I'm for cutting the services of the government, but providing a strong defense. That's entirely possible with tax and spending cuts. The Laffer Curve isn't theory.

I'll get to your other, longer response later.

I understand your position. I should have said at what point can you not cut taxes further? What is the floor of government services? And when you reach it, how do we continue to grow?

It seems to me that that it would be almost impossible to cut government services beyond the point where we break even. The amount of cut backs just to get rid of the deficit would probably send the economy into a tailspin. Am I wrong on that? That's a legitimate question, not a smarmy one.

 

[traderx]