PDA

View Full Version : Elections McCain/Giuliani 2008


recxjake
08-27-2008, 08:39 PM
1

BucEyedPea
08-27-2008, 08:42 PM
Good Lord! Mac must be tryin' to lose.:eek:

banyon
08-27-2008, 08:42 PM
Uh, your avatar is wrong then?

Captain Obvious
08-27-2008, 08:44 PM
I hope you are right for once.

noa
08-27-2008, 08:51 PM
Uch

banyon
08-27-2008, 08:51 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/customavatars/avatar6570_25.gif
.
http://weblogs.litmusgreen.com/lare/archives/waldorf-statler.jpg

bango
08-27-2008, 08:52 PM
Just a matter of time.....

This will be the greatest of combos for a Presidential Ticket in the history of the world.

Nightfyre
08-27-2008, 08:52 PM
So does jake just guess every possible combination to say "I told you so" at the end of the week? If McCain selects Giuliani, I WILL vote for Obama rather than staying at home on election day.

HolmeZz
08-27-2008, 09:01 PM
McCain isn't that retarded.

BucEyedPea
08-27-2008, 09:02 PM
So does jake just guess every possible combination to say "I told you so" at the end of the week? If McCain selects Giuliani, I WILL vote for Obama rather than staying at home on election day.

That's exactly what my first thought was. Gotta keep these guys out. :cuss:

SBK
08-27-2008, 09:04 PM
:Lin:

DaKCMan AP
08-27-2008, 09:10 PM
If only...

Logical
08-27-2008, 09:12 PM
Friday at 11.... I can feel it!
ROFLROFLROFL

Well we know Rudy has no chance, I think I have said that before.

DeezNutz
08-27-2008, 09:13 PM
Ok. Great thought...

Next.

Logical
08-27-2008, 09:14 PM
So does jake just guess every possible combination to say "I told you so" at the end of the week? If McCain selects Giuliani, I WILL vote for Obama rather than staying at home on election day.You won't be alone. That is a combination to scare almost any rationale human being.

dirk digler
08-27-2008, 09:18 PM
LMAO

You can't be serious?

My guess is Romney

Taco John
08-27-2008, 09:21 PM
If this is true, it's a horrible mis-step on McCain's part.

It would only go to show just how in his head Barack Obama is.

It reveals a lot about McCain's so called "leadership." He's not setting the pace in this race, he's reacting to what the Obama camp is doing. Picking Giuliani is all about how to counter the Biden selection, anot anything to do with the conservative values of the people. He's cutting off his own nose to spite his enemies face. It's a bad selection.

This is how Republicans lose elections.

dirk digler
08-27-2008, 09:21 PM
I am 100% serious.

Romney is out.

How do you know?

dirk digler
08-27-2008, 09:22 PM
Listen if McCain picks Rudy it is all over for him because he can't put a pro-choice candidate on. There is no freaking way.

Logical
08-27-2008, 09:24 PM
I am 100% serious.

Romney is out.You are so lame, just yesterday and for several days before that you were telling us you knew for sure it would be Powell.:spock:

DeezNutz
08-27-2008, 09:24 PM
How do you know?

Because he looked down before flushing?

In all seriousness, my sources are saying it's going to be Rumsfeld; the Republicans have to counter the Biden selection.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 09:25 PM
I hope so.

HolmeZz
08-27-2008, 09:26 PM
I am 100% serious.

Romney is out.

Why the hell is Romney out if Rudy isn't?

dirk digler
08-27-2008, 09:27 PM
Cmon Jake you said it was Rudy give us your inside info if you have any.

DaneMcCloud
08-27-2008, 09:28 PM
Friday at 11.... I can feel it!

Have they declared war on any country yet?

dirk digler
08-27-2008, 09:34 PM
I just think with some of the stories I'm reading... it's Pawlenty or Rudy....

I figured since you worked for Rudy's campaign you might have some inside info.

Why is Romney out?

dirk digler
08-27-2008, 09:39 PM
I didn't work his campaign...

I'm assuming Romney is out... way to much video/audio against McCain.

Oh I thought you went and met him at the airport or something like that.

IMO that is a silly reason to dump Romney. Out of all his choices he is the best IMO which isn't saying much.

DaneMcCloud
08-27-2008, 09:43 PM
I didn't work his campaign...

I'm assuming Romney is out... way to much video/audio against McCain.

Which country are they planning to invade first?

Mr. Kotter
08-27-2008, 10:06 PM
Hell, if recxjake is gonna get silly....WTF.

Go, Fred Thompson.... :thumb:


John and Fred have an immediate "in-road" with many Americans.

The only real question is can they get Ann Margaret to show up next week at the convention?

:hmmm:

Taco John
08-27-2008, 10:06 PM
Which country are they planning to invade first?


Georgia. Didn't you hear? Today, all American's are Georgians. Forget the fact that 90% of Americans don't know that another Georgia exists.

Chiefspants
08-27-2008, 10:08 PM
I'm with you on this one Recxjake.

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 10:15 PM
Listen if McCain picks Rudy it is all over for him because he can't put a pro-choice candidate on. There is no freaking way.


I agree, this would be a bad pick for VP.

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 10:16 PM
My guess is Pawlenty

noa
08-27-2008, 10:16 PM
My guess is Pawlenty

That would be a pretty good pick IMO

Direckshun
08-27-2008, 10:20 PM
There are a few poisin pill candidates that, if chosen, will lose McCain the election.

Perhaps worse than all these, Giuliani.

Giuliani ran the worst national campaign in modern history. He would tank all the progress McCain's made thus far.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 10:21 PM
There are a few poisin pill candidates that, if chosen, will lose McCain the election.

Perhaps worse than all these, Giuliani.

Giuliani ran the worst national campaign in modern history. He would tank all the progress McCain's made thus far.

It's not like McCain is running a good national campaign.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 10:22 PM
That would be a pretty good pick IMO

It still wouldn't tip Minnesota.

noa
08-27-2008, 10:24 PM
It still wouldn't tip Minnesota.

Yeah, VP candidates rarely deliver on crucial states. Still, I think Pawlenty is a good choice for other reasons. Especially with the economy being such an issue, and he has a good track record with blue collar folk.

Mr. Kotter
08-27-2008, 10:25 PM
It still wouldn't tip Minnesota.

Don't be so sure about that. Minnesota will be "in-play" even if it, according to the polls....is leaning Obama. It's precisely the sort of state that the dreaded "Bradley factor" might throw a monkey-wrench into what SHOULD be a pretty decisive Obama victory.

MGRS13
08-27-2008, 10:25 PM
ROFLROFLROFL

Well we know Rudy has no chance, I think I have said that before.
No according to rexjake "the best political mind ever", Rudy will win the primary in a landslide and be the next president.

Guru
08-27-2008, 10:26 PM
Listen if McCain picks Rudy it is all over for him because he can't put a pro-choice candidate on. There is no freaking way.
Agreed. If he does that, it all but forces me to not vote at all or at least vote for Barr. More than likely to not vote though.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 10:27 PM
Don't be so sure about that. Minnesota will be "in-play" even if it, according to the polls....is leaning Obama. It's precisely the sort of state that the dreaded "Bradley factor" might throw a monkey-wrench into what SHOULD be a pretty decisive Obama victory.

Obama is not losing Minnesota, Michigan, or Wisconsin. I'll leave the board forever if he does, and you can print that a billion times.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 10:28 PM
Yeah, VP candidates rarely deliver on crucial states. Still, I think Pawlenty is a good choice for other reasons. Especially with the economy being such an issue, and he has a good track record with blue collar folk.

So when they get to the debate on the economy and McCain is disemboweled, his choice of Veep is going to resonate because of his perceived knowledge of the economy?

Nightfyre
08-27-2008, 10:29 PM
So when they get to the debate on the economy and McCain is disemboweled, his choice of Veep is going to resonate because of his perceived knowledge of the economy?

Obama and McCain debating on the economy is a cripple fight and nothing more.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 10:31 PM
Obama and McCain debating on the economy is a cripple fight and nothing more.

While I realize that Obama doesn't share your blood lust for hypercapitalism and the wondrous days of the 19th century in all its deregulated bliss, he can at least articulate a point about what his economic policy is beyond "My opponent is gonna raise taxes on the middle class"...which isn't even true.

Mr. Kotter
08-27-2008, 10:31 PM
Obama is not losing Minnesota, Michigan, or Wisconsin. I'll leave the board forever if he does, and you can print that a billion times.

Wow. :eek:

Feel free to back off that anytime you wish...unless McCain totally tanks it in the next nine weeks....he's likely to out-perform expectations in each of those states IMHO. I think if he picks Romney, he wins MI. And the may even pick off MN if the convention there next week goes well.

If so, the "Bradley Effect" will....sadly....be alive and well. You are over-estimating the "tolerance" of working class/middle class white folks here in the North.

I hope I'm wrong; I really do. I suspect as someone living in this area of the country for the last 18 years or so....that I am more likely right.

Guess we'll see. :shrug:

Nightfyre
08-27-2008, 10:33 PM
While I realize that Obama doesn't share your blood lust for hypercapitalism and the wondrous days of the 19th century in all its deregulated bliss, he can at least articulate a point about what his economic policy is beyond "My opponent is gonna raise taxes on the middle class"...which isn't even true.

"Hey, I know. Let's stimulate the economy by increasing capital gains taxes. Let's provide a boon to small business by upping the social security tax to 250k." I'm sorry, this doesn't sound SANE to me.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 10:34 PM
"Hey, I know. Let's stimulate the economy by increasing capital gains taxes. Let's provide a boon to small business by upping the social security tax to 250k." I'm sorry, this doesn't sound SANE to me.

That and raising the income tax rate. I didn't get either of those, especially in light of his $1000 stimulus plan.

That doesn't sound like a bright idea.

MGRS13
08-27-2008, 10:36 PM
McCain won't win Mn. can't be sure about the rest but he won't win Mn.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 10:37 PM
Wow. :eek:

Feel free to back off that anytime you wish...unless McCain totally tanks it in the next nine weeks....he's likely to out-perform expectations in each of those states IMHO. I think if he picks Romney, he wins MI. And the may even pick off MN if the convention there next week goes well.

If so, the "Bradley Effect" will....sadly....be alive and well. You are over-estimating the "tolerance" of working class/middle class white folks here in the North.

I hope I'm wrong; I really do. I suspect as someone living in this area of the country for the last 18 years or so....that I am more likely right.

Guess we'll see. :shrug:

I am many things, but I am a man of my word. I have the utmost confidence that he will win both of those states.

Jenson71
08-27-2008, 10:38 PM
I am many things, but I am a man of my word. I have the utmost confidence that he will win both of those states.

Both? Both!? Lookit here Lou, this guy's setting us up.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 10:39 PM
"Hey, I know. Let's stimulate the economy by increasing capital gains taxes. Let's provide a boon to small business by upping the social security tax to 250k." I'm sorry, this doesn't sound SANE to me.

The only thing that you are going to depress through raising capital gains taxes is the gap between the richest Americans and the rest. The unfettered crony capitalism policies of the last 8 years, and the 12 Reagan/Bush years are proof of that pudding. It's not happenstance that we are approaching an income disparity rivaling that of developing nations.

wazu
08-27-2008, 10:39 PM
It's not like McCain is running a good national campaign.

Oh yes he is. He should be trailing by double digits, yet his juvenile attack ads have pulled him even with the Messiah. His campaign is currently riding a wave of political genius that is unparalleled in modern politics. If it works it will become a model for presidential campaigns.

Pulling in Giuliani would be disastrous. At the very least McCain should take a safe pick like Pawlenty just to not rock the boat. If he's smart, though, he'll go with Palin and start pulling ahead.

Nightfyre
08-27-2008, 10:39 PM
That and raising the income tax rate. I didn't get either of those, especially in light of his $1000 stimulus plan.

That doesn't sound like a bright idea.
The Social Security thing is especially devastating to small businesses because the self-employed business owners have to pay both their employee portion in withholdings AND their employer match portion. So it effectively has double the effect on those people and THAT is the biggest source of competition. The impact of raising the social security cap will resound THROUGHOUT the economy in slightly higher prices due to higher barrier costs, you can mark my words on that.

Additionally, this strikes me as a particularly marxist sentiment in that it effectively takes from the people who are least likely to need social security in order to supplement the program for those who will be dependent on it.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 10:40 PM
Oh yes he is. He should be trailing by double digits, yet his juvenile attack ads have pulled him even with the Messiah. His campaign is currently riding a wave of political genius that is unparalleled in modern politics. If it works it will become a model for presidential campaigns.

Pulling in Giuliani would be disastrous. At the very least McCain should take a safe pick like Pawlenty just to not rock the boat. If he's smart, though, he'll go with Palin and start pulling ahead.

Let me rephrase.

McCain isn't running a good campaign.


Just because the average American is a dumbass doesn't make it a good campaign.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 10:41 PM
The Social Security thing is especially devastating to small businesses because the self-employed business owners have to pay both their employee portion in withholdings AND their employer match portion. So it effectively has double the effect on those people and THAT is the biggest source of competition. The impact of raising the social security cap will resound THROUGHOUT the economy in slightly higher prices due to higher barrier costs, you can mark my words on that.

Additionally, this strikes me as a particularly marxist sentiment in that it effectively takes from the people who are least likely to need social security in order to supplement the program for those who will be dependent on it.

So it's bad because it is a progressive system.

Mr. Kotter
08-27-2008, 10:42 PM
Both? Both!? Lookit here Lou, this guy's setting us up.

I think that was his way of saying McCain could pull-off WI, I guess. ;)

wazu
08-27-2008, 10:43 PM
So it's bad because it is a progressive system.

Yes. It gets progressively shittier every year.

Mr. Kotter
08-27-2008, 10:44 PM
Let me rephrase.

McCain isn't running a good campaign.


Just because the average American is a dumbass doesn't make it a good campaign.

THIS is why many Americans consider liberals to be elitist.

And it's also why elitist and liberal have become pejoratives.

(Even if, technically, I agree with him.)

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 10:44 PM
So it's bad because it is a progressive system.

Do you really think that SS as it stands is a good system?

MGRS13
08-27-2008, 10:44 PM
His campaign is currently riding a wave of political genius that is unparalleled in modern politics. If it works it will become a model for presidential campaigns.
What going NEGATIVE? Yea total genius your right if it wworks someone else might try it in the future......................Christ you are reaching for straws calling this "unparalleled" this is how the GOP has run every campaign for the last 20 years.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 10:45 PM
THIS is why many Americans consider liberals to be elitist.

And it's also why elitist and liberal have become pejoratives.

(Even if, technically, I agree with him.)

I never said there weren't smart conservatives ahead of the dumbass line.

Guru
08-27-2008, 10:47 PM
Let me rephrase.

McCain isn't running a good campaign.


Just because the average American is a dumbass doesn't make it a good campaign.

Not this shit again.

Mr. Kotter
08-27-2008, 10:47 PM
McCain won't win Mn. can't be sure about the rest but he won't win Mn.

If they get I35W fixed, offer cigerettes and 40s to the locals in Minneapolis, and free rides to a Prince concert.....you could be right. But I wouldn't be sure of it, if I were you.

;)



You are probably right; but contrary to conventional wisdom, after the convention "bounce" the state will likely be "in-play."

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 10:48 PM
Not this shit again.

?

Nightfyre
08-27-2008, 10:48 PM
So it's bad because it is a progressive system.

Selective reading much?

wazu
08-27-2008, 10:49 PM
What going NEGATIVE? Yea total genius your right if it wworks someone else might try it in the future......................Christ you are reaching for straws calling this "unparalleled" this is how the GOP has run every campaign for the last 20 years.

No, not going negative. The whole Obama as "the biggest celebrity", and "The One". I saw those commercials and thought they were so bizarre and stupid that no way would anybody ever see them and have a change of heart. Yet almost immediately public opinion shifted and the race evened.

It's just weird. It was almost like something you would read in The Onion or see on SNL. And the person who predicted accurately that the approach would stick deserves the label of political genius. And the campaign that actually funded that strategy deserves credit for having a lot of balls.

J Diddy
08-27-2008, 10:49 PM
What going NEGATIVE? Yea total genius your right if it wworks someone else might try it in the future......................Christ you are reaching for straws calling this "unparalleled" this is how the GOP has run every campaign for the last 20 years.


The thing being is I think Barack can whip his ass in a debate. Kerry had the charisma of a dirty sock, as did gore.

Clinton well you know.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 10:52 PM
Selective reading much?

No, it's just that you were contradicting yourself, by claiming how much such taxes would hurt small businesses, then saying that they would be the ones who would need them the least. If they hurt small business that much, they would need SS all the more, since they wouldn't make any duckets from such a heavy tax burden and/or the economic ramifications. If they don't hurt small businesses, and they will still make more than enough to not need SS, then all it is doing is helping people without flush retirement funds.

MGRS13
08-27-2008, 10:53 PM
If they get I35W fixed, offer cigerettes and 40s to the locals in Minneapolis, and free rides to a Prince concert.....you could be right. But I wouldn't be sure of it, if I were you.

;)



You are probably right; but contrary to conventional wisdom, after the convention "bounce" the state will likely be "in-play."
Bounce? Have you been to Minny lately? The whole city is pissed that the GOP would show their faces in the general area. The lack of Gov. funds for infrastructure, sorta a hot topic there. Not to mention its a pretty blue state in the first place.

wazu
08-27-2008, 10:54 PM
The thing being is I think Barack can whip his ass in a debate. Kerry had the charisma of a dirty sock, as did gore.

Clinton well you know.

It'll be interesting. McCain is going to be tough in debate. He'll have the zingers and one-liners lined up, and those are what people tend to remember. I remember when he turned to Romney in the primary and with a smirk said that "indeed, Governor, you are the candidate of 'change'."

He'll have those stacked 10 high for Obama. Obama's only hope is to go heavily on the attack against McCain and the Iraq war. Foreign policy is McCain's weakness, not his strength.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 10:54 PM
No, not going negative. The whole Obama as "the biggest celebrity", and "The One". I saw those commercials and thought they were so bizarre and stupid that no way would anybody ever see them and have a change of heart. Yet almost immediately public opinion shifted and the race evened.

It's just weird. It was almost like something you would read in The Onion or see on SNL. And the person who predicted accurately that the approach would stick deserves the label of political genius. And the campaign that actually funded that strategy deserves credit for having a lot of balls.

People still don't get it.

It's not McCain's ads that are working, it's the fact that the media wants it to be an incredibly tight race so that they can continue to suck in viewership, which for them leads to more advertising dollars and a higher profit.

If Obama jumps out, run highly anti-Obama pieces. If McCain starts to separate, bring him back to the pack.

It's a simple manipulation of the viewing audience. Look at the spikes in negative stories on Obama immediately after he secured the nomination and had a double digit lead. It bears it out.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 10:54 PM
No, not going negative. The whole Obama as "the biggest celebrity", and "The One". I saw those commercials and thought they were so bizarre and stupid that no way would anybody ever see them and have a change of heart. Yet almost immediately public opinion shifted and the race evened.

It's just weird. It was almost like something you would read in The Onion or see on SNL. And the person who predicted accurately that the approach would stick deserves the label of political genius. And the campaign that actually funded that strategy deserves credit for having a lot of balls.

Again, just because the average American can't see through those ads doesn't mean his campaign is a good one.

SBK
08-27-2008, 10:54 PM
The thing being is I think Barack can whip his ass in a debate. Kerry had the charisma of a dirty sock, as did gore.

Clinton well you know.

I can't wait for the uh, uh, ummmmm, well, uhhhh, um's to get started. :D

MGRS13
08-27-2008, 10:55 PM
It'll be interesting. McCain is going to be tough in debate. He'll have the zingers and one-liners lined up, and those are what people tend to remember. I remember when he turned to Romney in the primary and with a smirk said that "indeed, Governor, you are the candidate of 'change'."

He'll have those stacked 10 high for Obama. Obama's only hope is to go heavily on the attack against McCain and the Iraq war. Foreign policy is McCain's weakness, not his strength.
I hope he got practice in those debates NOBODY watched.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 10:55 PM
People still don't get it.

It's not McCain's ads that are working, it's the fact that the media wants it to be an incredibly tight race so that they can continue to suck in viewership, which for them leads to more advertising dollars and a higher profit.

If Obama jumps out, run highly anti-Obama pieces. If McCain starts to separate, bring him back to the pack.

It's a simple manipulation of the viewing audience. Look at the spikes in negative stories on Obama immediately after he secured the nomination and had a double digit lead. It bears it out.

Very, very true.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 10:56 PM
It'll be interesting. McCain is going to be tough in debate. He'll have the zingers and one-liners lined up, and those are what people tend to remember. I remember when he turned to Romney in the primary and with a smirk said that "indeed, Governor, you are the candidate of 'change'."

He'll have those stacked 10 high for Obama. Obama's only hope is to go heavily on the attack against McCain and the Iraq war. Foreign policy is McCain's weakness, not his strength.

And most of those one-liners will go over about as well as "Change you can Xerox".

I seem to remember him making a monumental ass of himself when he tried to go on the attack during the Cali debates at the Reagan library.

wazu
08-27-2008, 10:58 PM
Again, just because the average American can't see through those ads doesn't mean his campaign is a good one.

Maybe not in your view, but I think history generally credits the campaign that wins as the "good" one. Even if it wasn't.

ClevelandBronco
08-27-2008, 10:58 PM
McCain/Giuliani would be just fine with me. McCain/Romney would be better, but assuming that the GOP is going to lose this election I'd rather not have Romney associated with that loss. Let's keep him fresh for 2012.

On the other hand (or maybe it's on the other foot) there's always Rep. Paul.

[Posted via stationary device]

Nightfyre
08-27-2008, 11:01 PM
No, it's just that you were contradicting yourself, by claiming how much such taxes would hurt small businesses, then saying that they would be the ones who would need them the least. If they hurt small business that much, they would need SS all the more, since they wouldn't make any duckets from such a heavy tax burden and/or the economic ramifications. If they don't hurt small businesses, and they will still make more than enough to not need SS, then all it is doing is helping people without flush retirement funds.

I certainly did not contradict myself. You see, these people are already on their way to independent retirement. However, there is this thing called a Laffer Curve. You will drain the capability/incentives out of small businesses to grow so fast, it will tighten the grip corporations have on the country. So who's really contradicting themselves here?

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 11:02 PM
I certainly did not contradict myself. You see, these people are already on their way to independent retirement. However, there is this thing called a Laffer Curve. You will drain the capability/incentives out of small businesses to grow so fast, it will tighten the grip corporations have on the country. So who's really contradicting themselves here?

The guy who is spouting a philosophy constructed on a napkin whose very inventor said it wasn't meant to actually be taken completely seriously.

wazu
08-27-2008, 11:05 PM
And most of those one-liners will go over about as well as "Change you can Xerox".

I seem to remember him making a monumental ass of himself when he tried to go on the attack during the Cali debates at the Reagan library.

We'll see. I'm interested to see it unfold. Like I said, I expect McCain will do well in debate, but it's not like he hasn't struggled before. It just seems like he has a knack pulling off the memorable one-liners.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 11:05 PM
FWIW, Nightfyre, most economists currently agree that we are far below the point of maximum revenue on the Laffer Curve, so again, you are contradicting yourself.

ClevelandBronco
08-27-2008, 11:05 PM
The guy who is spouting a philosophy constructed on a napkin whose very inventor said it wasn't meant to actually be taken completely seriously.

Shut the **** up, government employee. I'm listening to Mr. Lewinsky.

Clinton. I meant Clinton.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 11:06 PM
We'll see. I'm interested to see it unfold. Like I said, I expect McCain will do well in debate, but it's not like he hasn't struggled before. It just seems like he has a knack pulling off the memorable one-liners.

The one thing I really wished Obama would have done is agree to a couple of town halls in exchange for two Lincoln-Douglas debates.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 11:06 PM
Shut the **** up, government employee.

Another ignorant reply. At least this time you aren't advocating the murder of a Senator's wife.

Nightfyre
08-27-2008, 11:07 PM
FWIW, Nightfyre, most economists currently agree that we are far below the point of maximum revenue on the Laffer Curve, so again, you are contradicting yourself.

Not for self-employed business owner, you aren't. I guarantee that.

EDIT: Additionally, an economies strength is not measured in the governments ability to gather revenue.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 11:11 PM
Not for self-employed business owner, you aren't. I guarantee that.

EDIT: Additionally, an economies strength is not measured in the governments ability to gather revenue.

EDIT: Don't espouse the Laffer Curve if you don't know what it relates to.


Again, nothing drains the incentives of a small business to grow. It's not like there is a magic 100% tax rate. It is a progressive system, not a stepped system. You don't pay a 35% rate on all your income, only that which is in the highest bracket. Therefore, once a portion of your income knocks you into a higher (or the highest bracket) you still make more money than you did previously.

No company is going to refuse to make more widgets if widgets # 7-8 million only generate a profit of 8% and 1-7 million generate a profit of 9%. You are still making more money than you are putting out for each widget made.

ClevelandBronco
08-27-2008, 11:11 PM
Another ignorant reply. At least this time you aren't advocating the murder of a Senator's wife.

To be fair, you'd be more accurate if you acknowledge that I believe that the good Senator from Illinois should bury Hobama in a hole in the desert.

Barack Obama is the only man for that job.

[Posted via stationary device]

Nightfyre
08-27-2008, 11:13 PM
EDIT: Don't espouse the Laffer Curve if you don't know what it relates to.

I know what it espouses to. It adapts the principle of incentive to generate income into a model for tax collection. I was merely utilizing the underlying principle.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 11:16 PM
To be fair, you'd be more accurate if you acknowledge that I believe that the good Senator from Illinois should bury Hobama in a hole in the desert.

Barack Obama is the only man for that job.

[Posted via stationary device]

Which most would agree is advocating for the murder of a US Senator's wife. Thanks for playing, your prize is a bag of dicks. Enjoy!!

wazu
08-27-2008, 11:17 PM
No company is going to refuse to make more widgets if widgets # 7-8 million only generate a profit of 8% and 1-7 million generate a profit of 9%. You are still making more money than you are putting out for each widget made.

This is wrong. Making more widgets often requires taking on additional risk. If the rewards are "progressively" less the harder they work, there comes a point when it isn't worth investing capital for a profit that would only be marginally better. Just settle in and take the safe revenue you already have, no need rocking the boat.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 11:19 PM
This is wrong. Making more widgets often requires taking on additional risk. If the rewards are "progressively" less the harder they work, there comes a point when it isn't worth investing capital for a profit that would only be marginally better. Just settle in and take the safe revenue you already have, no need rocking the boat.

Bill Gates approves this message.

ClevelandBronco
08-27-2008, 11:20 PM
Which most would agree is advocating for the murder of a US Senator's wife. Thanks for playing, your prize is a bag of dicks. Enjoy!!

Only if Sen. Obama follows through.

Nightfyre
08-27-2008, 11:24 PM
This is wrong. Making more widgets often requires taking on additional risk. If the rewards are "progressively" less the harder they work, there comes a point when it isn't worth investing capital for a profit that would only be marginally better. Just settle in and take the safe revenue you already have, no need rocking the boat.

Additionally, the progressive nature of the tax structure makes it more difficult to acquire enough capital to maintain growth as well.

Additionally #2, it reduces incentives to continue growth. I may not feel compelled to make a widget for $1 after tax profit instead of $2 because I may be able to generate more income by investing the variable costs of said widget elsewhere (likely a public corporation instead.)

Nightfyre
08-27-2008, 11:27 PM
Bill Gates approves this message.

Take some finance and cost accounting; it really does matter. (I'm saying this sincerely.) Investment valuation is really intriguing stuff. I particularly enjoyed it, so I took boatloads of both.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 11:27 PM
Additionally, the progressive nature of the tax structure makes it more difficult to acquire enough capital to maintain growth as well.

Additionally #2, it reduces incentives to continue growth. I may not feel compelled to make a widget for $1 after tax profit instead of $2 because I may be able to generate more income by investing the variable costs of said widget elsewhere (likely a public corporation instead.)

It begs the question, then. What tax rate is sufficient for the pro-corp crowd?

How much money is enough?

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 11:29 PM
Take some finance and cost accounting; it really does matter. (I'm saying this sincerely.) Investment valuation is really intriguing stuff. I particularly enjoyed it, so I took boatloads of both.

But this is where we have to agree to disagree. You are coming at if from a perceptive bias of making absolutely as much money for the stockholders as possible (if public) and turning as big of a profit as possible (if private). At what point, if any (in your opinion), has said company met its tax obligation, or do you feel that it has any to the very economy that helped sustain it and bought its products?

wazu
08-27-2008, 11:31 PM
It begs the question, then. What tax rate is sufficient for the pro-corp crowd?

How much money is enough?

Depends. How low does the unemployment figure need to be to be "low enough"? How high does the median income of U.S. citizens need to be to be "high enough"?

If a $3.1 trillion budget for the federal government isn't enough to fulfill the basic commitments of the U.S. Constitution, what is?

SBK
08-27-2008, 11:31 PM
Anyone who has ever owned a business will have a completely different view of how they're taxed than a teacher will. Theory and experience are 2 different beasts.

ClevelandBronco
08-27-2008, 11:31 PM
It begs the question, then. What tax rate is sufficient for the pro-corp crowd?

How much money is enough?

"It begs the question" doesn't mean what you think it does, professor.

That aside, the appropriate corporate tax rate is 0%.

Corporations don't pay taxes at all. They collect any tax they are expected to pay from their customers and pass the revenue on to the government.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 11:33 PM
Depends. How low does the unemployment figure need to be to be "low enough"? How high does the median income of U.S. citizens need to be to be "high enough"?

If a $3.1 trillion budget for the federal government isn't enough to fulfill the basic commitments of the U.S. Constitution, what is?

Well, this is where our policy will both converge and diverge. Our budget is too big, but I feel that most of our wasteful spending is concentrated upon the Military-Industrial Complex. I have a feeling that you would argue it is in various social programs that those of your ilk ( ;) ) like to call "the nanny state".

I also hate the capitalistic idea that we need an unemployment rate of 3-6% or whatever in between. It strikes me as intrinsically sociopathic.

Nightfyre
08-27-2008, 11:34 PM
It begs the question, then. What tax rate is sufficient for the pro-corp crowd?

How much money is enough?
Well, it's also tricky because corporations are doubly-taxed. Personally, at this point I think the key to stimulating the economy is strengthening the dollar. That will have a profound trickle-up effect. To effectively do that, we need to come in at a budget surplus. In order to come in at a budget surplus at this point, we need to cut spending, as raising taxes would be self-defeating for the purposes of stimulating the economy. Additionally, we have to get the credit crisis under control, but that again is a job that is self-defeating for the purposes of strengthening the dollar. I'd say, therefore the best thing we can do is to cut spending considerably and eat away at that national deficit until the economy is more stable.

It is interesting to note that the entire credit crisis we are in was caused by excessively low interest rates for the last two decades, creating credit malinvestment, but that is an issue to tackle another day when the economy is a bit less fragile.

And, not to toot my own horn or anything, but I've been pretty dead on about the economy for the last year or so. It scares the crap out of my dad.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 11:36 PM
Well, it's also tricky because corporations are doubly-taxed. Personally, at this point I think the key to stimulating the economy is strengthening the dollar. That will have a profound trickle-up effect. To effectively do that, we need to come in at a budget surplus. In order to come in at a budget surplus at this point, we need to cut spending, as raising taxes would be self-defeating for the purposes of stimulating the economy. Additionally, we have to get the credit crisis under control, but that again is a job that is self-defeating for the purposes of strengthening the dollar. I'd say, therefore the best thing we can do is to cut spending considerably and eat away at that national deficit until the economy is more stable.

It is interesting to note that the entire credit crisis we are in was caused by excessively low interest rates for the last two decades, creating credit malinvestment, but that is an issue to tackle another day when the economy is a bit less fragile.

And, not to toot my own horn or anything, but I've been pretty dead on about the economy for the last year or so. It scares the crap out of my dad.


I agree with you on the deficit, but given that the dollar is currently backed by a commodity that is both inelastic and controlled by other countries, and there are powerful and moneyed interests in this country that will lobby their asses off to see that such a shift does not take place, what do you do?

Furthermore, who do you believe is the engine of the economy? I would think that if you see it as the upper tier of wage earners then you would be against tax increases, but if you see it as the middle class, you would probably advocate a plan similar to Obama's as you still bring in additional revenue without shifting the burden (as the current plan has done) onto the middle 60% of the country.

Nightfyre
08-27-2008, 11:38 PM
Well, this is where our policy will both converge and diverge. Our budget is too big, but I feel that most of our wasteful spending is concentrated upon the Military-Industrial Complex. I have a feeling that you would argue it is in various social programs that those of your ilk ( ;) ) like to call "the nanny state".

I also hate the capitalistic idea that we need an unemployment rate of 3-6% or whatever in between. It strikes me as intrinsically sociopathic.

Adam and I would agree with you that the Military-Industrial Complex is a huge waste. Where we diverge is that it is the big sore thumb. (Hope I didn't put any words in your mouth you wouldn't agree with adam ;))

The nanny state is a big issue as well, to me. Particularly concerning is the state of CORPORATE welfare. There is some intense hypocrisy there. The wall street guys all say "oh failure is such a big deal to capitalism," (which it is) but as soon as its their bacon frying they cry for a bailout. :shake:

wazu
08-27-2008, 11:38 PM
Well, this is where our policy will both converge and diverge. Our budget is too big, but I feel that most of our wasteful spending is concentrated upon the Military-Industrial Complex. I have a feeling that you would argue it is in various social programs that those of your ilk ( ;) ) like to call "the nanny state".

I also hate the capitalistic idea that we need an unemployment rate of 3-6% or whatever in between. It strikes me as intrinsically sociopathic.

You are right on your first point, although I feel both the military industrial complex and the social programs are way out of control. Both need to be cut to the bone. Unfortunately while that could be done fairly painlessly with the military, the social programs are complicated by entitlements and promises that retiring generations have already been promised. This, essentially, is why liberalism is harder to undo in many ways than imperialism, even though imperialism holds risks that are more dire.

On your second point, if we have a truly free economy with a constitutional government, I'll accept the cycles of our economy as they ebb and flow. Central planning is not the answer, and I don't want our politicians trying to actively manipulate unemployment figures.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 11:40 PM
Adam and I would agree with you that the Military-Industrial Complex is a huge waste. Where we diverge is that it is the big sore thumb. (Hope I didn't put any words in your mouth you wouldn't agree with adam ;))

The nanny state is a big issue as well, to me. Particularly concerning is the state of CORPORATE welfare. There is some intense hypocrisy there. The wall street guys all say "oh failure is such a big deal to capitalism," (which it is) but as soon as its their bacon frying they cry for a bailout. :shake:

I'm reminded of Bill Maher's quote on those who support capitalism until it fails, then those same people become socialists (the Bear Stearns's of the world).

:D

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 11:43 PM
One thing that I would say in closing:

I don't think that many would support a continued expenditure the likes of which we currently have ad inifinitum. The way I see our current systems of support is as follows:

They need to be constructed to build up an infrastructure in our country that is able to raise educated and independent citizens who are able to become valuable contributing members of society. I guess I view it similar to an urban renewal program. You invest and go into debt initially with the hope that the investments you have made come to fruition and ultimately pay for your own outlay many times over.

Rep to both for your civility, I'm off to the gym.

ClevelandBronco
08-27-2008, 11:44 PM
Hey, humus: Admit that you don't know shit about the language even though you are overpaid to teach it.

"Begs the question". You freaking moron.

Learn the language, then try to practice it for a while before accepting taxpayer dollars to teach it.

Nightfyre
08-27-2008, 11:48 PM
I agree with you on the deficit, but given that the dollar is currently backed by a commodity that is both inelastic and controlled by other countries, and there are powerful and moneyed interests in this country that will lobby their asses off to see that such a shift does not take place, what do you do?

Furthermore, who do you believe is the engine of the economy? I would think that if you see it as the upper tier of wage earners then you would be against tax increases, but if you see it as the middle class, you would probably advocate a plan similar to Obama's as you still bring in additional revenue without shifting the burden (as the current plan has done) onto the middle 60% of the country.

I think it is in oil's best interest to get the dollar stronger at this point. Prices are too high, increasing the demand and cost-feasibility of alternatives. I imagine they want alternatives to come around just as their wells go dry as opposed to being stuck with gobs of the stuff and nowhere to sell to. Again, it's a balancing act for them. Mostly, we should never have gotten into that situation to begin with. It's a little too late to take back now though.

The engine of the economy, to me, is whoever is spending the money. I think it probably wavers back and forth personally which probably contributes to our cycles some, though I admit this is purely speculation on my part. (Don't tell BEP, she'll get in here and try to indoctrinate me! :p)

Nightfyre
08-27-2008, 11:49 PM
I'm reminded of Bill Maher's quote on those who support capitalism until it fails, then those same people become socialists (the Bear Stearns's of the world).

:D
Did you read my essay about Bear Stearns? I posted it back in may.

SNR
08-28-2008, 12:01 AM
Cool. A bullshit thread turned into thoughtful discussion.

Take a picture, it won't last long.

dirk digler
08-28-2008, 06:12 AM
If he's smart, though, he'll go with Palin and start getting head.

FYP :D

Ultra Peanut
08-28-2008, 06:29 AM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/customavatars/avatar6570_25.gif
.
http://weblogs.litmusgreen.com/lare/archives/waldorf-statler.jpgahemmmmmmmm

http://i37.tinypic.com/2s1800x.png

Frankie
08-28-2008, 10:12 AM
Friday at 11.... I can feel it!

How many boxes of Kleanex have you bought for this?

Thig Lyfe
08-28-2008, 11:32 AM
At this point, Jake has become a parody of himself.

Taco John
08-28-2008, 11:59 AM
At this point?

DaneMcCloud
08-28-2008, 12:00 PM
At this point, Jake has become a parody of himself.

That line was crossed in November 2005.

L.A. Chieffan
08-29-2008, 05:03 PM
This is gonna be so awsome. When does this get announced?

VAChief
08-29-2008, 05:05 PM
Friday at 11.... I can feel it!

Quite possibly the only choice worse than Palin.

banyon
08-29-2008, 05:10 PM
ahemmmmmmmm

http://i37.tinypic.com/2s1800x.png

LOL, you beat me to it. But the pics jake put up were just too close!