Obama Calls Sarah a Pig

[Crud's Uncle]

SO Obama is soooo smart? Seems like he lacks judgment or has an inflated idea of the Secret Service respect for him.

I bet at some point during the next 60 days, he will be in the vicinity of Todd Palin. I would put a lot of money that Todd can kick his ass big time. From what I hear, the Secret Service may turn their heads for at least a few punches.

[concretejungle]

SO Obama is soooo smart? Seems like he lacks judgment or has an inflated idea of the Secret Service respect for him.

I bet at some point during the next 60 days, he will be in the vicinity of Todd Palin. I would put a lot of money that Todd can kick his ass big time. From what I hear, the Secret Service may turn their heads for at least a few punches.

Does your wife beat you over the head with a frying pan as you sit at the computer and write this drivel?

"From what I hear," either spill the source or STFU. I find it hard to believe that you have an in with the Secret Service and even harder to believe that they'd allow a fight with a Presidential nominee.

[Tuckerman]

I wounder how he talks to his mom, wife...

[Crud's Uncle]

The Secret Service agents in general suport a pro-gun strong law and order candidate, and that ain't the guy calling another candidate a pig.

I do have friends in federal law enforcement and that is actually what I hear from them. I don't think they would allow a full blown brawl, put a couple punches when they are shaking hands is a possibility.

Anyways, it was a joke. the Palins have much more class than the uppity Obamas. They will not sink into the cesspool that the Obamas wallow in. Actions tell us the identity of the true pigs.

[Mathematics]

he also said something about fish stinking. but atleast he has that anti-molestation stance over mccain.

PS - most on the left & those in the center that are sick of the way this countrys going are more than happy to see Obama swinging back the way he is. you could argue not swinging back is how gore, kerry, dukakis, etc all lost

[Crud's Uncle]

The politics of personal attacks, that is change for you.

It is going to backfire. How many women are going to appreciate the sexist slanders? How many parents and relatives of special needs children are going to appreciate Biden's statements?

Looks like you can send the boy from the hood to Harvard, but you can't make him smart.

[schindlerpiste]

Is it worse when Howard Cosell or Jimmy the Greek refers to a black man as a "monkey", or when Obama refers to Palin as a "Pig"?

Didn't both Cosell and The Greek get fired?

[Mathematics]

The politics of personal attacks, that is change for you.

quoted for comedy.

calling someone out for not just misrepresenting the truth but flat out lying to the american people is a plus in my book.

and seriously, you guys have a pro-molestation candidate. you're ok with that?

[toiletduck]

The politics of personal attacks, that is change for you.


Isn't the republican party notorious for finding anything they can undermine or attack and throwing everything they have at it? Like, for example, a pretty normal analogy and then making a massively big deal of it?

Seriously, I love this forum. It totally re-iterates my faith in how pointless politics, and the majority of people are.

[PowTron]

Hey Dumbass, McCain said the same exact "pig with lipstick" thing....many, many times when talking about MRS. Clinton's health plan...

http://thebagofhealthandpolitics.wordpress.com/2008/09/10/video-proof-that-john-mccain-is-a-hypocrite/

So in typical fashion, as the article says, we are supposed to do as John McCain says, not as he does, right?

You seriously need to have your head examined...and to open your ears and eyes before you spout off another un-educated post.

[Crud's Uncle]

Can't agree more.


Seriously, I love this forum. It totally re-iterates my faith in how pointless politics, and the majority of people are.

[toiletduck]

Can't agree more.

I assume you meant you agree to the entireity of my post, in that you and the party you support are an endemic problem in the system and are far more guilty and hypocritical of the issues you try to highlight than the apparent perpertrators? Right? You wouldn't just ignore the releveant part and quote the irrelevance just for a glib reply? That'd be the icing on the hypocritical cake, no, given that's exactly what I was saying re-iterates my lack of faith in humanity?

[Crud's Uncle]

Nice try, but no. I agree with your conclusion, but for different reasons.
I assume you meant you agree to the entireity of my post, in that you and the party you support are an endemic problem in the system and are far more guilty and hypocritical of the issues you try to highlight than the apparent perpertrators? Right? You wouldn't just ignore the releveant part and quote the irrelevance just for a glib reply? That'd be the icing on the hypocritical cake, no, given that's exactly what I was saying re-iterates my lack of faith in humanity?

[toiletduck]

Nice try, but no. I agree with your conclusion, but for different reasons.

So what do you think to the part of my post you keep ignoring? Don't you see that the more you overlook it the more you underline my point? You're agreeing with everything I've posted just by intentionally overlooking it.

[Crud's Uncle]

I see that both sides are just two faces of the same person. Both use the same tactics, the Democrats seem more over the top..

I am neither a Republican or a Democrat. I see both sides as they are.

[toiletduck]

I see that both sides are just two faces of the same person. Both use the same tactics, the Democrats seem more over the top..

I am neither a Republican or a Democrat. I see both sides as they are.

Buuuut you're posting on the internet calling one candidate by their last name and one VP candidate by their first. You defend the Republican party, after saying they use the "same tactics". You're biased.

Anyway, I'd argue that the Democrats seem over the top because the Repub machine is a lot more experienced at fighting dirty, while the Democrats are historically bad at it and just starting out at it.

[gorms]

I wounder how he talks to his mom, wife...

Who? John Boy? he's used some lovely names for cindy in his past.

[Crud's Uncle]

Remember LBJ's commercial?

I also refer to Bush and McCain by their last name. I like Palin.
Buuuut you're posting on the internet calling one candidate by their last name and one VP candidate by their first. You defend the Republican party, after saying they use the "same tactics". You're biased.

Anyway, I'd argue that the Democrats seem over the top because the Repub machine is a lot more experienced at fighting dirty, while the Democrats are historically bad at it and just starting out at it.

[Buster Highmen]

Crud's Uncle's icon eviscerates any speck of credence for his position here on matters of respect.

In addition, Palin's name was never mentioned and it's just as likely he's referring to the Republican platform.

[Crud's Uncle]

Really, you have no problem with the photoshop images of Sarah, but object to an degrading image of Obama. My dad used to say, turn around fair play.

I am glad you find it offensive, I find it funny.

[toiletduck]

Crud's Uncle's icon eviscerates any speck of credence for his position here on matters of respect.


Uh.. explain to the stupid euro?

*edit* I didn't even see Obama's head, but the meaning of it is still over my mine.

[natty dread]

Is it worse when Howard Cosell or Jimmy the Greek refers to a black man as a "monkey", or when Obama refers to Palin as a "Pig"?

Didn't both Cosell and The Greek get fired?

OK it's official. You are an idiot.
McCain using the same phrase when referring to Hillary's health plan=no big deal
Obama using the phrase when referring to the McCain/Palin assertion that they will "change washington"=no big deal
It's a common expression.
Comparing this comment to the blantantly racist comments of Cosell or the Greek=assinine

[PappaG]

Poor choice on the political expression because after the "bulldog with lipstick" comment Palin made at her nomination speech, people will see this as a personal attack versus Obama being cute with words.

[schindlerpiste]

OK it's official. You are an idiot.
McCain using the same phrase when referring to Hillary's health plan=no big deal
Obama using the phrase when referring to the McCain/Palin assertion that they will "change washington"=no big deal
It's a common expression.
Comparing this comment to the blantantly racist comments of Cosell or the Greek=assinine

No. What's official is that you are a dumb asshole of the largest order.

First, both McCain and Obama are wrong for their choice of words, and I don't condone either statement. Second, I only made a comparison and asked two questions. Third, McCain, while out of line, referred to A healthcare policy. Obama, like you dickhead, made a personal comment.
Go fuck yourself, dweeb!

People try to refrain from personal comments, but you make it difficult.:fuckyou:

[Tippster]

Let's take a look at what he ACTUALLY said, shall we?

Obama accuses McCain camp of lies, phony outrage

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
12 mins ago
NORFOLK, Va. – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday accused Republican John McCain's campaign of using "lies and phony outrage and Swift-boat politics" in claiming he used a sexist comment against vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
Calling it "the latest made-up controversy by the John McCain campaign," Obama responded to the Republicans' charge that he was referring to Palin when he used the phrase "lipstick on a pig" at a campaign stop Tuesday.
"I don't care what they say about me. But I love this country too much to let them take over another election with lies and phony outrage and Swift-boat politics. Enough is enough," he said.
Obama's reference was to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an outside group that in 2004 made unsubstantiated allegations about Democratic nominee John Kerry's decorated military record in Vietnam.
On Tuesday, Obama criticized McCain's economic policies as similar to those of President Bush, saying: "You can put lipstick on a pig ... it's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years."
The McCain campaign contended that the comments were directed at Palin, the GOP's first woman on a presidential ticket. In her acceptance speech last week, she had referred to herself in a joke about lipstick being the only difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull.
Accusing Obama of "smearing" Palin in "offensive and disgraceful" comments, the McCain campaign demanded an apology — though McCain himself used the folksy metaphor a few times last year, including once to describe Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care plan.
The McCain campaign on Wednesday issued an Internet ad that said Obama was talking about Palin and said of Obama: "Ready to lead? No. Ready to smear? Yes."
Obama began a discussion of education at a Norfolk high school on Wednesday by assailing McCain's campaign.
"What their campaign has done this morning is the same game that has made people sick and tired of politics in this country. They seize on an innocent remark, try to take it out of context, throw up an outrageous ad because they know that it's catnip for the news media," Obama said.
Obama's campaign has accused the GOP camp of engaging in a "pathetic attempt to play the gender card." In an e-mail to reporters Wednesday, the campaign noted two other instances of McCain using the phrase "lipstick on a pig" and its use by other Republicans such as House Minority Leader John Boehner and Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl.

[hutash]

^^^only because the McCain camp are making it so. They are trying real hard to keep Palin in the spot light, as they realize it is their only hope of victory. Pretty weak platform if you ask me, but you got to play to your few strong points.

Obama also said "If you wrap an old piece of fish in new paper it still stinks in 8 days." So why isn't the McCain camp up in arms about male sexism, or old people bigotry?

Why is the pig in lipstick sexist if Obama used it, but not when McCain used it?

It is a sad state when the GOP platform is so weak, or so similar to the last 8 years that they have to get mileage out of something so inane.

Now if they said Palin's vagina smelled like old fish, that would be different, but Todd is a fisherman, so he might like it.

[smitchell333]

SO Obama is soooo smart? Seems like he lacks judgment or has an inflated idea of the Secret Service respect for him.

I bet at some point during the next 60 days, he will be in the vicinity of Todd Palin. I would put a lot of money that Todd can kick his ass big time. From what I hear, the Secret Service may turn their heads for at least a few punches.


No. What's official is that you are a dumb asshole of the largest order.

First, both McCain and Obama are wrong for their choice of words, and I don't condone either statement. Second, I only made a comparison and asked two questions. Third, McCain, while out of line, referred to A healthcare policy. Obama, like you dickhead, made a personal comment.
Go fuck yourself, dweeb!

People try to refrain from personal comments, but you make it difficult.:fuckyou:

It is simply a turn of phrase that has been used by McCain, Cheney, as well as Obama to refer to make something look more attractive than it really is - in this case he was referring to McCain's co-opted message of Change and didnt have anything to do with Palin as a woman.

If you cant see this you are either:

1) So filled with your partisan bile that you can't see straight.

2) Stupid

So which is it?

[cloudpeak]

the Palins have much more class than the uppity Obamas.

Your avatar and your choice of words are beyond offensive. I'd always wondered if you were racist. Now everyone knows.

[spindrift]

SO Obama is soooo smart? Seems like he lacks judgment or has an inflated idea of the Secret Service respect for him.

I bet at some point during the next 60 days, he will be in the vicinity of Todd Palin. I would put a lot of money that Todd can kick his ass big time. From what I hear, the Secret Service may turn their heads for at least a few punches.

Maybe someone else did it already, but this one is a paired rapid post and avatar preservation for the Project on Correlation Between Utter Stupidity and Bigotry.

Ohio must be proud!

That is all...

[schindlerpiste]

[QUOTE=hutash;1990405
Why is the pig in lipstick sexist if Obama used it, but not when McCain used it? [/QUOTE]

It is, or would be, if he used it in the context of Hilary. No doubt about it.

[Buster Highmen]

Really, you have no problem with the photoshop images of Sarah, but object to an degrading image of Obama. My dad used to say, turn around fair play.

May I point out that:
0) I do not have any offensive pictures of political candidate as an icon.
1) I have never posted any offensive pictures of any political candidate.
2) I have never supported in any way any offensive picture of any political candidate.
3) For the record, anyone that posts offensive picture of any political candidate is a colostomy bag sucking wad of mangled failure with a tattoed donkey cock up their butt.




I am glad you find it offensive, I find it funny.

I don't really find it offensive or funny. Hypocritical and sociopathic, yes, bit not offensive.

Crud, there have been times when I thought that maybe there was something to your posts. But again and again, I'm just dissappointed to find a man who can't begin to articulate any position and consistently retreats into infinitely juvenile fits that embarass not only yourself, but everyone who comes across these types of messes. You consistently levy empty maxims and personal attacks and attempt to prop them up as arguments. It may amuse some, but it fools no one.

If someone can constructively address the issue of the national debt, privacy and some of the fundamental cornerstones of America in this election, I'm all for it.

[Tippster]

It is, or would be, if he used it in the context of Hilary. No doubt about it.

He wasn't using it in the context of Palin, C. You know that. Stop trying to stir shit - it's beneath you.

[Dirty Hoar]

Let's take a look at what he ACTUALLY said, shall we?

Thread killer!

[Buster Highmen]

Uh.. explain to the stupid euro?

*edit* I didn't even see Obama's head, but the meaning of it is still over my mine.

It's a picture of a common garden decoration that depicts a slave holding a lantern.

Anyway, TD, you're not a stupid Euro. Rest assured that there are millions of Americans who feel similar to what youve expressed regarding the election and the Republican platform.

[toiletduck]

Let's take a look at what he ACTUALLY said, shall we?

I went to find what was actually said after my last post in the thread and found the same on BBC News.

You guys are fucked. How can politics be about "who can make a fuss about nothing best"? Seriously, that's not even close to sexist, or to do with Palin.

[toiletduck]

It's a picture of a common garden decoration that depicts a slave holding a lantern.

Anyway, TD, you're not a stupid Euro. Rest assured that there are millions of Americans who feel similar to what youve expressed regarding the election and the Republican platform.

Thanks - no slave gnomes in the UK, I had no idea. That's where my stupidity ends, don't worry ;)

[Barack H. Obama]

Hey fellas, just stopping by to see what the word on the street is!






































oh shit, if this is how we're looking we're fucked. Anyone got Karl Rove's number? I need some help!

[hutash]

^^^No, but you have those short, chubby gnomes like in "The Full Monty". I find that offensive and bigoted towards short fat people. Are there any of those in the election that can complain about it?:rolleyes:;)

[schindlerpiste]

He wasn't using it in the context of Palin, C. You know that. Stop trying to stir shit - it's beneath you.

Tipp, this is the quote that I read: "Democratic Congressman Russ Carnahan on Tuesday – introducing Joe Biden at a campaign event – ripped into Palin’s record and punctuated it with this snarky jab. “There’s no way you can dress up that record, even with a lot of lipstick,” he said. Obama himself used similar langauge later in the day about the McCain-Palin reform rhetoric, saying "You can put lipstick on a pig," he said. "It's still a pig."

From that, it sounds sexist to me. However, your excerpt has educated me. I'm not trying to stir the pot; I'll leave that to the obvious psuedo-intellects on the board.:rolleyes:

[Buster Highmen]

I went to find what was actually said after my last post in the thread and found the same on BBC News.

You guys are fucked. How can politics be about "who can make a fuss about nothing best"? Seriously, that's not even close to sexist, or to do with Palin.
It's precisely this approach that corrupts the political process and reduces it to a popularity contest.

Yes, we're fucked unless somehow the boat can get turned away from this type of juvenile wankfest to focus on something of substance.

Maybe we can, maybe we can't. But futility is no excuse for not trying.

[Buster Highmen]

However, your excerpt has educated me.
See! The facts can have an impact.

[philippeR]

...
3) For the record, anyone that posts offensive picture of any political candidate is a colostomy bag sucking wad of mangled failure with a tattoed donkey cock up their butt.
....

Well, that's slightly over the top, isn't ?
I mean, some photoshops of Palin are rather funny :

http://www.grizzlybay.org/SarahPalinVikings.jpg

http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/ftwainwright_govp_05s.jpg

http://www.grizzlybay.org/PalinBear.jpg

[Tippster]

I'll leave that to the obvious psuedo-intellects on the board.:rolleyes:

You talkin' to me? ;)

Hope you're around in Jan.

[TeleHoar]

May I point out that:
0) I do not have any offensive pictures of political candidate as an icon.
1) I have never posted any offensive pictures of any political candidate.
2) I have never supported in any way any offensive picture of any political candidate.
3) For the record, anyone that posts offensive picture of any political candidate is a colostomy bag sucking wad of mangled failure with a tattoed donkey cock up their butt.


Don't you know how hard it is to find a tattooed donkey??

Its not so bad once you get used to it.
The post-anal drip is a bitch though...

[Buster Highmen]

Thanks - no slave gnomes in the UK, I had no idea. That's where my stupidity ends, don't worry ;)
Hey, if you're spending winters in Fernie, the stupid path may continue.

[Barack Obama]

Hey fellas, just stopping by to see what the word on the street is!

oh shit, if this is how we're looking we're fucked. Anyone got Karl Rove's number? I need some help!

^^^NOT really me! :nonono2:

[Buster Highmen]

Don't you know how hard it is to find a tattooed donkey??

Obviously you haven't been to Guadalajara.




Its not so bad once you get used to it.
The post-anal drip is a bitch though...

America suffers from it as a whole.

[GoldMember]

It's precisely this approach that corrupts the political process and reduces it to a popularity contest.

Yes, we're fucked unless somehow the boat can get turned away from this type of juvenile wankfest to focus on something of substance.

Maybe we can, maybe we can't. But futility is no excuse for not trying.

Buster, you're absolutely right. I made a comment on this several months ago, not even related to a political race I don't think. I think it was related to what news coverage we get but the principle is the same. We get what we get in terms of television 'reality' shows, news coverage, and political sound bites because it's shown that that's what we, as a people, want and what sways our views. So, whoever seems to get the people's passions involved is what sells advertising, drives what shows we watch, and who we vote for. The 'public' tries to place themselves into the roles of what they see and then react to the emotions it evokes. In none of those circumstances is any deep thought or analysis involved. We are a society of emotional reaction rather than analytical thinking and the end result is we get what we deserve. And in that respect, you're right, we're fucked.

[The AD]

So, Crud, after reading Tippster's post do you still think Obama called Palin a pig?

[Buster Highmen]

Buster, you're absolutely right. I made a comment on this several months ago, not even related to a political race I don't think. I think it was related to what news coverage we get but the principle is the same. We get what we get in terms of television 'reality' shows, news coverage, and political sound bites because it's shown that that's what we, as a people, want and what sways our views. So, whoever seems to get the people's passions involved is what sells advertising, drives what shows we watch, and who we vote for. The 'public' tries to place themselves into the roles of what they see and then react to the emotions it evokes. In none of those circumstances is any deep thought or analysis involved. We are a society of emotional reaction rather than analytical thinking and the end result is we get what we deserve. And in that respect, you're right, we're fucked.


Right, so, despite the whiney PMs and advres distaste for this fouling the board, this is a place where we can choose to make the difference in how the election is treated.

Do it here. Don't tolerate the bullshit like Crud or most of the puerile posteurs spew. Stand up and make a real point on real issues. Say what matters and keep it up out of this shit. Because if you can't start it at home, it's never going to go anywhere.

I'm positive that a wide variety of garden dumbasses will continue to try to levy their tarted nihilism on the topic. But they can get fucked. THis shit matters and people do change their minds and it's OK to change YOUR mind. You haven't got one if you don't.

[GoldMember]

While I suspect (actually rather certain) that our political beliefs are a ways apart, I certainly agree on what you're saying. Most of the jabbing that occurs here and relative to the news is more about how the campaigns are being run, not what either side's policy positions would mean to us. The "ground noise and static" are dominating the reporting and conversation, not the substantive issues. To that end, I've tried to stay out with only one real forray into this forum and that was related to Obama's statements regarding defense spending. So, with that, I will again withdraw and wait to see what comes up in future conversations. Back to lurk mode. Later.

edit: Page top, bitches! (I never get to say that.....)

[Crud's Uncle]

You Obamites are so brainwashed. It is absurd to think that this man of such great intellect would not realize that his comment would be taken as a personal insult. He phrased it in a way that he could plead plausable deniability. I even give him credit for being smart enough to know what he did.

[Buster Highmen]

You Obamites are so brainwashed. It is absurd to think that this man of such great intellect would not realize that his comment would be taken as a personal insult. He phrased it in a way that he could plead plausable deniability. I even give him credit for being smart enough to know what he did.
Who's brainwashed?

If anything, Obama did not think clearly about the remark.

Stop bitching about the flamingos.

[The AD]

He phrased it in a way that he could plead plausable deniability.

Plausible deniability? The comment had nothing to do with Sarah Palin and anyone with half a brain should recognize that. You're connecting dots where there are no dots to connect.

It's been said in other threads that the Democrats are trying to find any little shred they can against Palin. Don't you think the Republicans are doing exactly the same thing here? "Palin is a woman, and women wear lipstick, therefore Obama's crack about a pig in lipstick is clearly aimed at Palin." God, I hope Obama doesn't say that McCain is trying to "skirt the issues." That would be so sexist!

[Jax]

Posted in a link earlier, but I think it's worth repeating. Why isn't the news playing this one?


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WMPYkNQlJMM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WMPYkNQlJMM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Buster Highmen]

While I suspect (actually rather certain) that our political beliefs are a ways apart, I certainly agree on what you're saying. Most of the jabbing that occurs here and relative to the news is more about how the campaigns are being run, not what either side's policy positions would mean to us. The "ground noise and static" are dominating the reporting and conversation, not the substantive issues. To that end, I've tried to stay out with only one real forray into this forum and that was related to Obama's statements regarding defense spending. So, with that, I will again withdraw and wait to see what comes up in future conversations. Back to lurk mode. Later.

edit: Page top, bitches! (I never get to say that.....)
Yes, I'm sure there's differences, but there's probably common ground too.

Like on the budget and the deficit. Do you really want to vote for a guy who's going to make it bigger and who balances the burden on the middle class? Do you really believe in trickle down economics? These are the big issues for me.

With regard to defense, we need a strong defense, but I don't agree that it's purely based on firepower.

Focus on the issues, not the people.

[Barack H. Obama]

^^^NOT really me! :nonono2:

What are you talking about? I'm me! I'm sitting right here at my iMac. I'm trying to clean up these nasty internet rumors flying about! You sir, reek of a Republican plant!

IMPOSTER!

[Buster Highmen]

Posted in a link earlier, but I think it's worth repeating. Why isn't the news playing this one?


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WMPYkNQlJMM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WMPYkNQlJMM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Good question. Who owns the news?

[The AD]

Posted in a link earlier, but I think it's worth repeating. Why isn't the news playing this one?

Because it's OK to call Hillary Clinton a pig.

[hutash]

Focus on the issues, not the people.

Well, this is the political asshattery forum. What's the fun on actually talking about issues? That takes logic and actual thought, neither of which are strong points for several people who post here.






But, ya, I agree, lets vote on issues, not popularity.

[Rubicon]

You guys are fucked. How can politics be about "who can make a fuss about nothing best"?

Because the American people think in 8 second soundbites. If it sounds good in an 8 second soundbite it will get traction.



Seriously, that's not even close to sexist, or to do with Palin.

It's not sexist, it's politics. Go dig up some of the campaign posters from the late 19th century. At it's worst our political environment today is tame compared to what it used to be.

But all the Obama supporters, please don't insult everyones intelligence by trying to assert that he wasn't taking a dig at Palin.

Palin made her lipstick/pitbull comment, Obama's surrogates have said that Palin's record can't be dressed up with lipstick, and now Obama says this. Is anyone seriously trying to assert that Obama didn't know how his words would be taken? If he is that out of it he has no business being in the White House.

Obama was either continuing to build his reputation as a gaffe machine or he is was taking a dig at Palin while trying to maintain plausible deniability about his intent. Maybe he didn't know Carnahan had said what he did about Palin's record? That might change things a little, but still, Obama's smart enough to know how the comment would be taken, isn't he? :wink:

[Buster Highmen]

Because the American people think in 8 second soundbites. If it sounds good in an 8 second soundbite it will get traction.




It's not sexist, it's politics. Go dig up some of the campaign posters from the late 19th century. At it's worst our political environment today is tame compared to what it used to be.

But all the Obama supporters, please don't insult everyones intelligence by trying to assert that he wasn't taking a dig at Palin.

Palin made her lipstick/pitbull comment, Obama's surrogates have said that Palin's record can't be dressed up with lipstick, and now Obama says this. Is anyone seriously trying to assert that Obama didn't know how his words would be taken? If he is that out of it he has no business being in the White House.

Obama was either continuing to build his reputation as a gaffe machine or he is was taking a dig at Palin while trying to maintain plausible deniability about his intent. Maybe he didn't know Carnahan had said what he did about Palin's record? That might change things a little, but still, Obama's smart enough to know how the comment would be taken, isn't he? :wink:
Do you really think any of this shit matters. It detracts from the real issues and worrying it is exactly the pink flamingo. Who's getting played?

I think you've made it clear you believe in trickle down, right? If that's really the reason you're down on Obama, just keep the argument there, not on this bullshit prom queen pottywhisper crap.

[Crud's Uncle]

Do you think that raising taxes makes economic sense, given the state of the economy? Banks are failing, private and public debt are at astronomical levels. Somehow slowing the economy down more by raising taxes isn't the best plan. And let's increase corporate taxes while we are at it.

Both McCain and Obama are wrong on global warming. Set aside whether it exists or not, we can not afford to destroy our economy by imposing a carbon tax.

As I recall, Obama sponsored a global welfare bill that would have sent billion of dollars overseas. That will reduce the deficit.

All the weapons in the worl are useless, if one does not have the fortitude and will to use them to defend the USA. Obama would rely on the UNs Security Counsel to tame the Russian Bear. O wait, Russia has veto power on the council. Gee, I know so much about foriegn affairs, how could that slip my mind.

McCain is better for the economy and defense.
Yes, I'm sure there's differences, but there's probably common ground too.

Like on the budget and the deficit. Do you really want to vote for a guy who's going to make it bigger and who balances the burden on the middle class? Do you really believe in trickle down economics? These are the big issues for me.

With regard to defense, we need a strong defense, but I don't agree that it's purely based on firepower.

Focus on the issues, not the people.

[GoldMember]

Like on the budget and the deficit. Do you really want to vote for a guy who's going to make it bigger and who balances the burden on the middle class? Do you really believe in trickle down economics? These are the big issues for me.

With regard to defense, we need a strong defense, but I don't agree that it's purely based on firepower.

Regarding budget and deficit, neither side is particularly different in impact. Both proposed tax plans as related to government expenditures indicate growing deficits, McCain's more than Obama's, mostly due to higher overall tax cuts. McCain's plan cuts taxes for all income brackets whereas Obama's has lesser cuts overall but raises taxes on those in higher brackets. http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm

There are two camps on this argument, both of which I understand their points. First, the higher incomers pay an incredibly higher amount of the overall taxes collected in this country so cutting taxes on lower incomers who may not even be paying taxes currently, other than payroll taxes (FICA), aren't actually getting taxes cut; they're being paid cash from the taxes collected from the high incomers. That reflects Obama's "Work Pays" format, or whatever it's called.

The other argument is that the higher incomers aren't the ones suffering, at least to the same degree from higher cost increases for everyday items such as food, gas, clothing. Therefore, the lower incomers need the relief. However, this is where the trickle-down economics play in. If businesses see lower tax burdens and immediate write-downs for new equipment and machinery, as proposed by McCain, the impact on the overall economy provides a growth stimulus which would allow the economy to expand as a whole, lifting all boats. Additionally, in the case of publically traded companies, the shareholders all benefit through improved profits, better dividends, and further corporate investment that allows U.S. companies better foreign market competitiveness. As a 401k participant, I think there's value to that.

On defense, I agree that foreign relations policy and practice are considerable elements to a strong national defense. So is having the strength to support our negotiations. As I noted in a different thread, I believe in always negotiating from a position of strength. What I saw in Obama's remarks was a weakening, relative to where we are, of our defensive capabilities. I think what he said in the video is different from what his stated position paper says but it makes me wonder where he truly stands on the subject.

[Buster Highmen]

Do you think that raising taxes makes economic sense, given the state of the economy. Banks are failing, private and public debt are at astronomical levels. Somehow slowing the economy down more by raising taxes isn't the best plan. And let's increase corporate taxes while we are at it.

Obamas tax plan lowers taxes on the middle class.

There's a lot of data to indicate that the middle class drives the economy, not the upper class. So this could strengthen the economy.

Banks that are failing should fail, they floated shitty bonds based on unregulated, fairy dust home loans. What pisses me off is that this and the deficit creates an environment where my savings are worth less due to inflation and failing international confidence.

The current level of debt makes the US unattractive to foreign investors, lowering the value of the dollar.

Where's the argument that increasing the national debt is good for the economy?




Both McCain and Obama are wrong on global warming. Set aside whether it exists or not, we can not afford to destroy our economy by imposing a carbon tax.


There you go again, attempting to masquerade opinions as facts. Global warming exists. How much of it is man made can be argued. A carbon tax may boost the economy and create opportunities for businesses not yet viable. So you're only flailing. Again.



As I recall, Obama sponsored a global welfare bill that would have sent billion of dollars overseas. That will reduce the deficit.

And the current platform of tax breaks for sending jobs overseas does what again?


All the weapons in the worl are useless, if one does not have the fortitude and will to use them to defend the USA. Obama would rely on the UNs Security Counsel to tame the Russian Bear. O wait, Russia has veto power on the council. Gee, I know so much about foriegn affairs, how could that slip my mind.

McCain is better for the economy and defense.

At least you're trying. But you fail. You're just spewing your opinion and not backing up anything with facts.

[cloudpeak]

Why does Sarah Palin require so much protection from the McCain team? Can such a fragile flower be ready to step in as POTUS should the occasion arise?

When people were throwing sexist comments at Hillary, many GOP spokespeople complained that she needed to stop whining. Palin herself was among those criticizing Hillary. After all, Hillary was in a campaign and campaigns can be rough. The same should apply to Palin.

Now, these same people say Palin will remain unavailable to the Press until people start showing her proper deference. In fact, they're complaining about a statement that can only obliquely be construed as being about Palin. The feigned GOP shock at the pig statement just allows them to avoid having her or McCain talk with the Press. They get to repeat the same canned lines over and over without any one asking them hard questions about real issues like the economy and foreign policy. And the circus rolls on...

[Buster Highmen]

Why does Sarah Palin require so much protection from the McCain team? Can such a fragile flower be ready to step in as POTUS should the occasion arise?

When people were throwing sexist comments at Hillary, many GOP spokespeople complained that she needed to stop whining. Palin herself was among those criticizing Hillary. After all, Hillary was in a campaign and campaigns can be rough. The same should apply to Palin.

Now, these same people say Palin will remain unavailable to the Press until people start showing her proper deference. In fact, they're complaining about a statement that can only obliquely be construed as being about Palin. The feigned GOP shock at the pig statement just allows them to avoid having her or McCain talk with the Press. They get to repeat the same canned lines over and over without any one asking them hard questions about real issues like the economy and foreign policy. And the circus rolls on...
Because the Republican keep changing their position to try to win. They have no platform. First they mocked change, now they're all about change. First they mocked lack of experience, now they champion it. It's a party flailing to keep people from thinking much about Obama's position of shifting the tax base back towards the wealthy.

[Rubicon]

Do you really think any of this shit matters.

No. But it does pass the time while I am waiting for a phone call.


It detracts from the real issues and worrying it is exactly the pink flamingo. Who's getting played?

Do you really think anyone is going to have their vote influenced by things we discuss? They might. But I never really gave that much significance to the discussions here.


I think you've made it clear you believe in trickle down, right?

No, not as a whole. There are some aspects of it that I believe have some validity, and I have argued for those aspects without intentionally distancing myself from the other aspects of it that I find to be lacking. So I understand how that could give the impression of blanket support of the concept.



If that's really the reason you're down on Obama, just keep the argument there, not on this bullshit prom queen pottywhisper crap.

I'm down on Obama because I don't believe him. I have learned to trust my instincts when it comes to people and Obama causes my BS alerts to light up like a Christmas tree.

Ultimately, most people cast their votes based on who they like and who they identify with(or in my case based on who is running against the guy I trust least). The vast majority of people don't dig into the issues deep enough to have an educated opinion.

[GoldMember]

Banks that are failing should fail, they floated shitty bonds based on unregulated, fairy dust home loans. What pisses me off is that this and the deficit creates an environment where my savings are worth less due to inflation and failing international confidence.

The current level of debt makes the US unattractive to foreign investors, lowering the value of the dollar.

Just going to pick on this part for a second. The dollar has actually been strengthening against foreign currencies quite nicely for the past month or so and is at its best level since about a year ago. That's good and reflects strengthening confidence from foreign investors. The bad news is that a stronger dollar ultimately increases our trade deficits as our exports shrink. The other good impact though is that global commodities....oil in particular have a relatively lower price as a result. The drop in oil prices over the past month are directly related to the strengthening dollar more so than a reduction in demand. OPEC's move to lower daily production is a mask of the real cause.

[Steven S. Dallas]

This is a ridiculous, manufactured issue, and it basically defines the entire McCain strategy of smearing Obama's character to detract from the stuff that actually matters. Complete and utter horseshit.

[Buster Highmen]

Regarding budget and deficit, neither side is particularly different in impact. Both proposed tax plans as related to government expenditures indicate growing deficits, McCain's more than Obama's, mostly due to higher overall tax cuts. McCain's plan cuts taxes for all income brackets whereas Obama's has lesser cuts overall but raises taxes on those in higher brackets. http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm

Obamas plan cuts taxes for more people, so you're really not stating this fairly. The impacts are definitely different. McCain is relying on trickle down, Obama is trying to restore the middle class's buying power.



There are two camps on this argument, both of which I understand their points. First, the higher incomers pay an incredibly higher amount of the overall taxes collected in this country so cutting taxes on lower incomers who may not even be paying taxes currently, other than payroll taxes (FICA), aren't actually getting taxes cut; they're being paid cash from the taxes collected from the high incomers. That reflects Obama's "Work Pays" format, or whatever it's called.

The other argument is that the higher incomers aren't the ones suffering, at least to the same degree from higher cost increases for everyday items such as food, gas, clothing. Therefore, the lower incomers need the relief. However, this is where the trickle-down economics play in. If businesses see lower tax burdens and immediate write-downs for new equipment and machinery, as proposed by McCain, the impact on the overall economy provides a growth stimulus which would allow the economy to expand as a whole, lifting all boats. Additionally, in the case of publically traded companies, the shareholders all benefit through improved profits, better dividends, and further corporate investment that allows U.S. companies better foreign market competitiveness. As a 401k participant, I think there's value to that.
If all this is true, then why is the economy not doing well? Unemployment is up, inflation is high, money market returns are in the toilet, banks are defaulting? GM and Ford are in the shitter, no retooling has gone on there, instead MASSIVE, fucking MASSIVE bonuses are going to executives that do fucking nothing across all industries and businesses. Wall Street should be bombed for those asshole making millions when they're reaponsible for the failure of banks and financial institutions.

Let me ask this: do you really think the current economy is doing well? And does history tell us anything about what the Gini Index means? My 401k is sucking ass right now.


On defense, I agree that foreign relations policy and practice are considerable elements to a strong national defense. So is having the strength to support our negotiations. As I noted in a different thread, I believe in always negotiating from a position of strength. What I saw in Obama's remarks was a weakening, relative to where we are, of our defensive capabilities. I think what he said in the video is different from what his stated position paper says but it makes me wonder where he truly stands on the subject.
The way I interpret is is that he intends to cut military spending. And there's a shitload to cut both in involvement in Iraq as well as domestic military pork barrels.

But his position on Afghanistan is right on and what I thought we should do right after 9/11 instead of heading into a situation that didn't directly address the perpetrators of 9/11.

[Buster Highmen]

Just going to pick on this part for a second. The dollar has actually been strengthening against foreign currencies quite nicely for the past month or so and is at its best level since about a year ago. That's good and reflects strengthening confidence from foreign investors. The bad news is that a stronger dollar ultimately increases our trade deficits as our exports shrink. The other good impact though is that global commodities....oil in particular have a relatively lower price as a result. The drop in oil prices over the past month are directly related to the strengthening dollar more so than a reduction in demand. OPEC's move to lower daily production is a mask of the real cause.

C'mon. A month?

Consider the dollars value 4 or even 8 years ago. A 5% rebound doesn't really help. And the only reason oil has dropped is because they know the world economy is so dependent on the US they have to back off.

All I know is that my investments have hit bottom since I've had any game. Right now is the worst I've seen.

[SteepnDeep]

Stupid-stupid-stupid. Palin cracks a joke about a lipstick and a pig, as it was sorta funny, everyone remembers it. Stupid Obama uses an old analogy using the words pig + lipstick. Of course people, especially women, can construe that as him calling Palin a pig. Other than the C word, what derogatory word do men use to disparge woman>PIG. I did not think the analogy even made sense to what he was talking about. What does this have to do with the issues of the country? nothing.

This is about Obama and McCain. The Dems keep talking about Pallin, they are gonna lose.

[Buster Highmen]

Do you really think anyone is going to have their vote influenced by things we discuss? They might. But I never really gave that much significance to the discussions here.

That says a lot about your self esteem.




I'm down on Obama because I don't believe him. I have learned to trust my instincts when it comes to people and Obama causes my BS alerts to light up like a Christmas tree.

Ultimately, most people cast their votes based on who they like and who they identify with(or in my case based on who is running against the guy I trust least). The vast majority of people don't dig into the issues deep enough to have an educated opinion.

So:
0) You vote with your gut.
1) You run with the herd.

Sweet.

I think I'm out of time for this.

But as far as the fashionable nihilism goes, if anybody even thought about thinking about the issues, then it matters and something was accomplished.

[schindlerpiste]

After listening to the CNN, CNBC and FOX takes on this, as well as the opinions of senior members of both the McCain and Obama Camps, I have the following opinions:

1) On it's face, was this a remark made about S.P.? = Absolutely not

2) Was this statement made with S.P. in Obama's mind? = Unknown

3) Given S.P.'s reference to "lipstick", could the timing of the remark have included an implicit "shot" at S.P.? = Absolutely

4) Did Obama use a poor choice of words? = I think so.

5) What will the public think of Obama's comment, and the GOP's response? = Generally, I think that there is a growing sense of distrust about B.O., individually, and politics (both Dems., and Reps.) in general. I think that it would be wise for B.O. to assert that he has said his peace regarding this non-issue, and from this moment forward address only the "real" issues that confront this country. I'll tell you one thing, it's time for the Dems. to completely stop the non-issue related attacks on S.P. They should let the GOP shoot itself in the foot. They are likely to do it.

[David Witherspoon]

Hey fellas, just stopping by to see what the word on the street is!
Thanks for droppin' by.
Buh-bye now. (http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/profile.php?userlist=ignore&do=addlist&u=21132)

[Crud's Uncle]

I think it may be time to short bonds.
C'mon. A month?

Consider the dollars value 4 or even 8 years ago. A 5% rebound doesn't really help. And the only reason oil has dropped is because they know the world economy is so dependent on the US they have to back off.

All I know is that my investments have hit bottom since I've had any game. Right now is the worst I've seen.

[GoldMember]

I had typed out long responses to your questions but got logged out TWICE before they would post. I'm not doing it a third time (work to do and all that). I'll try to get back to your points from home tonight. I think Advres sabotaged my pc.

[13]

SO Obama is soooo smart? Seems like he lacks judgment or has an inflated idea of the Secret Service respect for him.

I bet at some point during the next 60 days, he will be in the vicinity of Todd Palin. I would put a lot of money that Todd can kick his ass big time. From what I hear, the Secret Service may turn their heads for at least a few punches.

it's a reference to economic policy, not palin.

besides which, mccain has used the exact same phrase himself.

you're a fucking retard.

edit: should have read the thread first.

ps - nice avatar, you have a pointy white hat in your closet?

[The AD]

Why does Sarah Palin require so much protection from the McCain team? Can such a fragile flower be ready to step in as POTUS should the occasion arise?

Good question. Apparently from Crud's point of view she also needs her honor defended by her husband. I think if she's a viable VP candidate she should be able to stick up for herself. What's next? McCain throwing his coat down so Sarah Palin doesn't need to walk through a puddle?

[Toadman]

So Palin insults Hockey Moms all over the world, and no one says anything? Or do Hockey moms like being called dogs with lipstick. Uncle Crud can you help explain this conundrum. Or any Hockey Moms out there care to chime in? I know my dog was none to pleased when Palin made that comment.

[Core Shot]

IT WAS INTENTIONAL BY OBAMA

If you don't believe me, watch the video again.

"It's like putting lipstick"

He smirks,

"On a pig"

He pauses,

He smirks again

The crowd ROARS AND GIGGLES (they get the joke and reference immediately)

then Obama finishes "it's still a pig"

Watch the video - this is so intentional he deserves the pain and repercussions - it might even lose him the election. What a misogynistic dumbfuck.

[The AD]

Other than the C word, what derogatory word do men use to disparge woman>PIG.

Really? I've heard women call men "chauvinist pigs," but do men really call women pigs, unless they're fat? I'd say calling someone a pig is primarily directed at men.

[Rubicon]

That says a lot about your self esteem.

That's entirely possible. I broke up with my girlfriend last night. She is an amazing person but we aren't right for each other. She disagrees, adamantly. It wasn't an easy decision and I have been feeling like shit all morning because of it, so you may be on to something there.

It could also say something about my approach to other people.

I'm not interested in trying to convince anyone that they should believe as I believe, think as I think, or make their decisions the way I make my decisions. I add my thoughts to the mix like everyone else. How people react is up to them. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that a lot of people choose their beliefs and then use rational thought to insulate themselves against doubting those beliefs. Their arguments are designed to avoid conflict in their chosen belief system rather than to explore the subject matter. Those who allow their beliefs to be shaped by the discussion aren't distracted by the flamingos, so the flamingos are of no consequence, one way or the other.


So:
0) You vote with your gut.
1) You run with the herd.



You are wrong. See the last paragraph^^^for why I am not going to argue with you about it.

[Rubicon]

So Palin insults Hockey Moms all over the world, and no one says anything? Or do Hockey moms like being called dogs with lipstick. Uncle Crud can you help explain this conundrum. Or any Hockey Moms out there care to chime in? I know my dog was none to pleased when Palin made that comment.


Black guy walks up to another black guy he doesn't know and says" 'sup nigga?"

White guy walks up to black guy he doesn't know and says" 'sup nigga?"

You think the reaction would be the same? 'nuff said.

[gorms]

Fixed it for you.


Republican stands at a podium and makes the "pig in lipstick comment"-which may be potentially aimed at his female opponent.

Democrat stands at a podium and makes the "pig in lipstick comment"-which may be potentially aimed at his female opponent.

You think the reaction would be the same? 'nuff said.

[Toadman]

Fixed it for you.


Originally Posted by Rubicon
Republican stands at a podium and makes the "pig in lipstick comment"-which may be potentially aimed at his female opponent.

Democrat stands at a podium and makes the "pig in lipstick comment"-which may be potentially aimed at his female opponent.

You think the reaction would be the same? 'nuff said.

This analogy makes more sense.

[Barack H. Obama]

Thanks for droppin' by.
Buh-bye now. (http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/profile.php?userlist=ignore&do=addlist&u=21132)

Dearest Mr Witherspoon,

I clicked on your link and it gave me the following response:


We can't help you ignore yourself.

I can only assume that you are trying to have others follow your lead in silencing me.

Please allow me to assure you that by disallowing speech that you may not agree with is explicitly counter to the very principles that our country was founded upon!

Please take a moment to rethink your actions. I urge you to join the Obama 08 team and help reach across party lines to make this a truly better country.

I trust I can count on your good senses.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Barack H. Obama
Democrat Candidate for President of the United States of America

[Rubicon]

This analogy makes more sense.


Sure it does, and it also explains perfectly why Hockey moms the world over didn't get upset over Palin's dog reference. :rolleyes:

[Dantheman]

IT WAS INTENTIONAL BY OBAMA

If you don't believe me, watch the video again.

"It's like putting lipstick"

He smirks,

"On a pig"

He pauses,

He smirks again

The crowd ROARS AND GIGGLES (they get the joke and reference immediately)

then Obama finishes "it's still a pig"

Watch the video - this is so intentional he deserves the pain and repercussions - it might even lose him the election. What a misogynistic dumbfuck.

You're being (I hope) intentionally dense.

The "pig" is the republican party, Palin is the lipstick.

[gorms]

Sure it does, and it also explains perfectly why Hockey moms the world over didn't get upset over Palin's dog reference. :rolleyes:

But it doenst explain why people are still hammering away at what a big mistake it was for Obama to say it-but it was no biggie for McCain to do the same thing.

I realize mudslinging is part of the game now.....I just wish the rules were the same for each side.

[GoldMember]

Okay, one more try....


Obamas plan cuts taxes for more people, so you're really not stating this fairly. The impacts are definitely different. McCain is relying on trickle down, Obama is trying to restore the middle class's buying power.

I didn't respond to your question unfairly or, at least didn't mean to. I only answered it as I read it which was more macro. Regarding your point though, yes the impact is different. First, per the IRS, the top 10% of incomers paid 70.79% of income taxes. The bottom half of all incomers paid 2.99% of all taxes. the upper-middle group paid 26.22% of all taxes. The groups that will get hit with increases under Obama's plan are those that are already carrying virtually all the current burden. Add to it that the burden of the top 10% has increased steadily from 47% to the current 71% over the past 25 years and I think it's reasonable to conclude that the Obama plan only exacerbates the current concerns.

In the bottom 50% of taxpayers who currently only pay 3% of all taxes, exactly what is going to get cut for them? Many in the very bottom already either pay no income tax or get cash handouts. Under Obama's plan, even more burden is placed on the higher incomers to supplement additional cash payouts under the "Work For Pay" plan. Payroll taxes aside, which benefit the retiring poor much more in that their actual return compared to their input is already comparatively much greater, there is very little actual tax 'reduction' that can be provided. On payroll taxes, cuts to their rates are offset by both business and private citizens. I think that has very detrimental and unintended consequences.

As for McCain's plan, I favor lowering the corporate tax rate. As it is, we are much higher in corporate rates than most countries while trying to compete in a global economy. Raising those rates has the impact of further reducing our ability to compete, costing jobs, curtailing reinvestment and growth, and limiting what could otherwise translate into economic expansion. With lower rates and immediate deductibility of equipment and machinery investments, there would be a business stimulus impact that benefits all in that it would act as a catalyst for expansion by which all boats rise, including the underemployed. So yes, to that end, I favor trickle-down economics as I believe it's the best method to develop a long-term impetus to growth.

As for cutting taxes in the middle-lower brackets, it's a panacea that doesn't translate into long-term economic stability as well as building fundamentals that provide for growth.


If all this is true, then why is the economy not doing well? Unemployment is up, inflation is high, money market returns are in the toilet, banks are defaulting? GM and Ford are in the shitter, no retooling has gone on there, instead MASSIVE, fucking MASSIVE bonuses are going to executives that do fucking nothing across all industries and businesses. Wall Street should be bombed for those asshole making millions when they're reaponsible for the failure of banks and financial institutions.

Actually, the economy isn't doing as badly as many would like us to believe. We had growth in the second quarter, largely based on exports that relate to our having had a weaker dollar and global demand for base commodities. It's anticipated the growth will lull for third quarter as demand eases and the dollar strengthens but we're not in a recession. There certainly are pockets that are hurting more than others and sectors that have problems, such as housing and banking largely related to the housing problem but that is mostly credited to the house of cards built by sub-prime mortgages. That's another subject but, suffice it to say, those who put those mortgage plans out and profiteered from them should be in jail. But I digress.

If you issue is with executives who are massing compensation, regardless of performance, I agree. I think it's a real problem and needs oversight of some kind. But, reducing taxes to those who don't carry much burden in the first place does little to nothing for this issue. Again, it's a panacea that not only doesn't address that particular problem, it doesn't even approach the symptoms. The banking failures are again related to the con-scheme of subprime. The same with Freddie and Fannie. But, in my opinion, it's and isolated problem that's in the process of being worked through and will heal quite a bit within the next year or so, just in time for either of the candidates to take credit for after having been in office for a few months.


Let me ask this: do you really think the current economy is doing well? And does history tell us anything about what the Gini Index means? My 401k is sucking ass right now.

Actually, our business, a publicly traded non-residential construction materials manufacturer just posted a record quarter and we've revised our annual guidance upward to what we expect to be another record. We're doing just fine, as are our customers and, apparently, their customers. In spite of all the doom and gloom of the media, there are segments of our economy that are doing just fine. In fact, in spite of the very positive results and cashflow our company experiences, we're cast in the Construction Products sector and our stock price doesn't reflect our success. It's an interesting market right now that's being impacted by forces not natural to successful business results but more by short-selling and media forces. Like politics, people don't seem to respond to markets analytically, only emotionally. With the markets also, there are some corrections taking place that are putting P/E ratios into a more historically sustainable position that's acted to retard pricing. Things are more rational now than they were but we were definitely in some market times where 'irrational exuberance' was driving prices more than actual business conditions. Unfortunately, all our 401k's have been affected negatively but, it's a cyclical deal. By the way, all the money that's been driven into 401k's is partly responsible for the unsupported increase in the markets, hence the correction.



The way I interpret is is that he intends to cut military spending. And there's a shitload to cut both in involvement in Iraq as well as domestic military pork barrels.

But his position on Afghanistan is right on and what I thought we should do right after 9/11 instead of heading into a situation that didn't directly address the perpetrators of 9/11.

I don't disagree with you here. As noted in a different thread, I didn't support the Iraq war but also don't believe in walking away and leaving it in shambles. I think we need to see it to its end. I'm all for cutting waste but one man's definition of waste may not fit anothers. I'm on the fence on this with Obama as I have concerns over what exactly it is he wants to cut. Foreign policy is great and I support better dialogue with those who we're concerned with but I also always want to negotiate from a position of strength. Our military is an important piece of our ability to successfully negotiate and I don't want to lose the edge.

[GoEhuge]

Everyone still arguing about Palin and sexism is FUCKING RETARDED. Oh it's sexism!!! OH my god!!! My vagina hurts!!!

Yes, the American public can read into this and cry rape, but thats because they are, in general, a bunch of retards. They only listen to these 8 second sound clips and make judgments solely on shit like that, as opposed to policy. This doesn't mean people on this board have to follow along with being sensitive pussies. For the most part, it seems a lot of mags here are more educated than the average dumbass watching the news. But you guys are still faling into this nonsense of arguing and getting worked up about issues that have NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. Was it about Palin?! Was it about women?! Does Obama hate vagina?! Yeah, maybe if you are a hardcore womens rights bull-dike, you could get worked up over this, but other than that, open your fucking eyes and focus on what really matters. It has gotten to the point where anything said in reference to Palin is subjected to this "sexist" evaluation. SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY ABOUT SARAH PALIN.

[GoldMember]

C'mon. A month?

Consider the dollars value 4 or even 8 years ago. A 5% rebound doesn't really help. And the only reason oil has dropped is because they know the world economy is so dependent on the US they have to back off.

All I know is that my investments have hit bottom since I've had any game. Right now is the worst I've seen.

Ya gotta start somewhere! What's interesting is the rate of recovery as shown here:
http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/1y?usdeur=x

Granted, it's only a one year chart and the past five years aren't as impressive but, it's a start. Besides, there are those that will tell you is this a problem as we won't be able to compete as well globally. If you put additional tax burdens onto companies, our trade deficit will even be further challenged. As with all solutions, none of them are perfect and will undoubtedly have some negative consequences.

[philippeR]

You're being (I hope) intentionally dense.

The "pig" is the republican party, Palin is the lipstick.

It's obvious.

And I love how BH and GM try to debate seriously in the middle of the shitshow. Good job.

[Grange]

No, not as a whole. There are some aspects of it that I believe have some validity, and I have argued for those aspects without intentionally distancing myself from the other aspects of it that I find to be lacking. So I understand how that could give the impression of blanket support of the concept.



How do you support a part of trickle down economics but not all of it? Sounds like you're trying to play "Just the Tip" with the economy.

[natty dread]

[size=4]What a misogynistic dumbfuck.

Yep based on this tempest in a teapot, you can definitely come to that conclusion. :rolleyes:
Brilliant.

[Buster Highmen]

Okay, one more try....



I didn't respond to your question unfairly or, at least didn't mean to. I only answered it as I read it which was more macro. Regarding your point though, yes the impact is different. First, per the IRS, the top 10% of incomers paid 70.79% of income taxes. The bottom half of all incomers paid 2.99% of all taxes. the upper-middle group paid 26.22% of all taxes. The groups that will get hit with increases under Obama's plan are those that are already carrying virtually all the current burden. Add to it that the burden of the top 10% has increased steadily from 47% to the current 71% over the past 25 years and I think it's reasonable to conclude that the Obama plan only exacerbates the current concerns.

The wealthy are the least impacted by tax increases. I found a stat that says that the bottom 80% of the population in terms of income have over 60% of the expenditures. I don't have the exact #as, but I think that the bottom 95% of the population in income accounts fr well over 80% of the expenditures. So my argument rests on stimulating the economy from the bottom up.

And again, the Gini Index clearly shows that wealth is increasingly ending up in the hands of fewer people. So trickle down in the sense of distributing wealth doesn't work.

I'm mystified by the middle class's defense of the wealthy.




In the bottom 50% of taxpayers who currently only pay 3% of all taxes, exactly what is going to get cut for them? Many in the very bottom already either pay no income tax or get cash handouts. Under Obama's plan, even more burden is placed on the higher incomers to supplement additional cash payouts under the "Work For Pay" plan. Payroll taxes aside, which benefit the retiring poor much more in that their actual return compared to their input is already comparatively much greater, there is very little actual tax 'reduction' that can be provided. On payroll taxes, cuts to their rates are offset by both business and private citizens. I think that has very detrimental and unintended consequences.

Did you gloss over the middle class for a reason? Again, the lower 80% of the population in terms of income spends more than the upper 20%. If the middle class spends more, the economy may recover better.

I just can't support a tax plan that gives the wealthy even more money given the distribution trends in either accrual or dispersal.


As for McCain's plan, I favor lowering the corporate tax rate. As it is, we are much higher in corporate rates than most countries while trying to compete in a global economy. Raising those rates has the impact of further reducing our ability to compete, costing jobs, curtailing reinvestment and growth, and limiting what could otherwise translate into economic expansion. With lower rates and immediate deductibility of equipment and machinery investments, there would be a business stimulus impact that benefits all in that it would act as a catalyst for expansion by which all boats rise, including the underemployed. So yes, to that end, I favor trickle-down economics as I believe it's the best method to develop a long-term impetus to growth.

But, again, we have not seen profits go towards retooling in the last 8 years. Instead were seeing ridiculously high bonuses and payouts, even to executives who have obviously bungled it. I'm not favoring these kinds of tax breaks when the money is thrown away.



As for cutting taxes in the middle-lower brackets, it's a panacea that doesn't translate into long-term economic stability as well as building fundamentals that provide for growth.

Why not? As I've pointed out, if the middle class has more money, it will stimulate the economy too.

I've read Hayek who is one of the trickle down fathers and I don't see how his thesis can fly when one studies economic distribution in the 1910's and 1920's.



Actually, the economy isn't doing as badly as many would like us to believe. We had growth in the second quarter, largely based on exports that relate to our having had a weaker dollar and global demand for base commodities. It's anticipated the growth will lull for third quarter as demand eases and the dollar strengthens but we're not in a recession. There certainly are pockets that are hurting more than others and sectors that have problems, such as housing and banking largely related to the housing problem but that is mostly credited to the house of cards built by sub-prime mortgages. That's another subject but, suffice it to say, those who put those mortgage plans out and profiteered from them should be in jail. But I digress.

OK, if you can't admit that the economy is currently fucked, I guess we just don't have much of common ground after all. My financial scene is the worst it's been since I started working. Inflation is ridiculous, real inflation, real day to day costs as well as stuff like education and commodities.

I don't understand the definition of recession I guess, because this sure seems like one now.


If you issue is with executives who are massing compensation, regardless of performance, I agree. I think it's a real problem and needs oversight of some kind. But, reducing taxes to those who don't carry much burden in the first place does little to nothing for this issue. Again, it's a panacea that not only doesn't address that particular problem, it doesn't even approach the symptoms. The banking failures are again related to the con-scheme of subprime. The same with Freddie and Fannie. But, in my opinion, it's and isolated problem that's in the process of being worked through and will heal quite a bit within the next year or so, just in time for either of the candidates to take credit for after having been in office for a few months.

I completely disagree. Corporate tax cuts will continue to be squandered. The current financial faiure is due in part to a lack of regulation. It could be addressed by increasing taxes on the wealthy. The current tax scheme hasn't yet.




Actually, our business, a publicly traded non-residential construction materials manufacturer just posted a record quarter and we've revised our annual guidance upward to what we expect to be another record. We're doing just fine, as are our customers and, apparently, their customers. In spite of all the doom and gloom of the media, there are segments of our economy that are doing just fine. In fact, in spite of the very positive results and cashflow our company experiences, we're cast in the Construction Products sector and our stock price doesn't reflect our success. It's an interesting market right now that's being impacted by forces not natural to successful business results but more by short-selling and media forces. Like politics, people don't seem to respond to markets analytically, only emotionally. With the markets also, there are some corrections taking place that are putting P/E ratios into a more historically sustainable position that's acted to retard pricing. Things are more rational now than they were but we were definitely in some market times where 'irrational exuberance' was driving prices more than actual business conditions. Unfortunately, all our 401k's have been affected negatively but, it's a cyclical deal. By the way, all the money that's been driven into 401k's is partly responsible for the unsupported increase in the markets, hence the correction.

As I've said, my scene is fucked. 401k down, money market in the toilet, and my dollar buys significantly less , to the point where my income doesn't cover my costs.





I don't disagree with you here. As noted in a different thread, I didn't support the Iraq war but also don't believe in walking away and leaving it in shambles. I think we need to see it to its end. I'm all for cutting waste but one man's definition of waste may not fit anothers. I'm on the fence on this with Obama as I have concerns over what exactly it is he wants to cut. Foreign policy is great and I support better dialogue with those who we're concerned with but I also always want to negotiate from a position of strength. Our military is an important piece of our ability to successfully negotiate and I don't want to lose the edge.
We have lost the edge, we are completely overextended and Putin knows it.

We don't have the troops and we don't have the money to deal with anything significant which is part of the reason why I opposed the Iraq invasion as well.

Whether or not Americans are will to acknowledge it, we've royally fucked up our diplomacy worldwide. And firepower is not the main foundation of security.

So I disagree with McCains position on Iraq, but most importantly on the economy. There's a ton of information that shows that the wealthy have enough and are not redistributing it. If they enjoy the benefits to that level, make them pay for it.

[Jax]

I don't wear lipstick, but I sure do like bacon!



I can't believe this thread has come this far, with the word pig being mentioned so many times, and there is not one mention of bacon.

[flowtron's ghost]

IT WAS INTENTIONAL BY OBAMA

If you don't believe me, watch the video again.

"It's like putting lipstick"

He smirks,

"On a pig"

He pauses,

He smirks again

The crowd ROARS AND GIGGLES (they get the joke and reference immediately)

then Obama finishes "it's still a pig"

Watch the video - this is so intentional he deserves the pain and repercussions - it might even lose him the election. What a misogynistic dumbfuck.


Give me a fucking break. Misogynistic?! This was a funny crack with a well used phrase, which unfortunately for Mrs Palin, was lobbed into the match with her own witty, downhome improv when the teleprompter went down for a moment....(or so I've heard). With her hockey mom/pitbull line, she basically called herself a bitch and brought any sort of snarky political followup upon herself...particularly with her worn out 'attack dog' tactics and persona. After the shit she has said this week about 'community organizers' and the such (she'll need some new material soon) she (and you scary Palinatrons) had to expect a little blowback.
His line was not sexist. "Men are pigs" is a femenist conventional wisdom type-crack. Men generally do not refer to women as anything porcine...certainly not a lady with the MILFy look of Palin. It was a sideways, silly, well used campaign line that is fair game at this point.
I am a diehard Obama supporter and I will gladly admit that yes, Barack's lipstick line was a sideways jab at Palin and the Republican Party. Everybody is freaking out because they expected it to come from Biden first. I think it's great. Barack has some balls and he is showing them.
Sack up democrats, we've got plenty of highroad to play with here. We gotta show some cajones every now and then. Its fun to watch the conserva-douches get all riled up about dumb shit like this. Its not gonna cost him the election.

[Jer]

I think the important thing was that Obama made the couple thousand in attendance and the Librodouches here laugh and feel good that they're so smug and superior. I mean - those 2,036 are what's gonna win him the election.

This shit is WAY too funny.

[Mofro261]

C'mon Magilla Jerilla,don't be such a killjoy.
What's the point of maintaining my sense of superiority, but for the pleasure of the smugness?

At the end of the day, this was just another failed attempt of Barry to connect to the common man by trying to channel his desire to pork Palin.

And now a Primus Primer...

Grab yourself a can of pork soda
You'll be feeling just fine
Ain't nothin' quite like sittin' 'round the house
Swillin' down them Cans of swine!!!!!!

[Jer]

C'mon Magilla Jerilla,don't be such a killjoy.
What's the point of maintaining my sense of superiority, but for the pleasure of the smugness?

At the end of the day, this was just another failed attempt of Barry to connect to the common man by trying to channel his desire to pork Palin.

And now a Primus Primer...

Grab yourself a can of pork soda
You'll be feeling just fine
Ain't nothin' quite like sittin' 'round the house
Swillin' down them Cans of swine!!!!!!


Truthfully, I've been pondering the possibility that I pull the pud too much.

[Dirty Hoar]

Truthfully, I've been pondering the possibility that I pull the pud too much.

Pulling the pud is just a sure fire way of getting a bloody nose, uh... well, I guess you already know that.

[Karl Lagerfeld]

Have you seen how she dresses. Pig is too nice a word.

[Mathematics]

McCain using the "lipstick on a pig" remark discussing Clinton

WMPYkNQlJMM

:yourock:

[Rubicon]

I just wish the rules were the same for each side.


You and me both.

[Rubicon]

How do you support a part of trickle down economics but not all of it? Sounds like you're trying to play "Just the Tip" with the economy.

It's not that I support a part of trickle down economics. I have certain beliefs about taxing classes of people for no reason other than the fact that they belong to a certain class, and the effect that has on the economy. For example; taxing the class of people who contribute a disproportionate amount of money to the economy will not help the economy and is likely to hurt it. But I do not believe that cutting taxes on the same class of people will necessarily help the economy.

So some of my beliefs intersect with parts of trickle down economics but I don't subscribe to the theory as a whole.

[AstroPax]

the only reason oil has dropped is because they know the world economy is so dependent on the US they have to back off.

This has to be one of the most idiotic statements that I have ever read.

Really Buster, are you actually that clueless relative to economics, or what?

[natty dread]

The T shirt!

[Sir Jongalot]

Go Palin/McCain!!!

I'm so glad that the tortured soul of Lee Atwater had gotten a furlough from Hell(yes Satan loves irony) to come help Rove help Palin win this election!!!!

[splat]

It's nice to see symbolism in speech instead of flat-out bullshit lies like Bush perfected.
Nobody is gonna hold their tongue as it comes down to the wire.
Shit will go off.
Who will utter a racial slander?
Will Palin's new son-in-law accidentally shoot the pastor?
Will Bush order Obama's plane shot out of the sky accidentally on purpose?

[Grange]

It's not that I support a part of trickle down economics. I have certain beliefs about taxing classes of people for no reason other than the fact that they belong to a certain class, and the effect that has on the economy. For example; taxing the class of people who contribute a disproportionate amount of money to the economy will not help the economy and is likely to hurt it. But I do not believe that cutting taxes on the same class of people will necessarily help the economy.

So some of my beliefs intersect with parts of trickle down economics but I don't subscribe to the theory as a whole.

"Just the tip. You know to see how it feels".

[Buster Highmen]

This has to be one of the most idiotic statements that I have ever read.

Really Buster, are you actually that clueless relative to economics, or what?

Clearly, I am so clueless and idiotic that I warrant the personal attack symptomatic of those who can't explain themselves.


OK, it's a bit of a stretch. There's a lot of factors with regard to world demand, a slightly strengthened dollar (who'd a thunk that would happen at election time?).

But if you don't think that OPEC and Big Oil manipulate prices during the election, then we would have a disagreement.

Fortunately, I've got the sack to leave it at that.

[mrryde]

http://www.rovinglunatic.com/img/pigs.jpg

all this talk about pigs makes me think about bacon.

[Rasputin]

You're being (I hope) intentionally dense.

The "pig" is the republican party, Palin is the lipstick.

You hit nail on the head.

And for the dense, Palin wasn't being refered to by either the nail or the head in that metaphor I just wrote, it was just a commonly used phrase, suggesting a concise point of comprehension being expressed. :smile:

[Tunco]

You hit nail on the head.

Sexist pig.

[Adolf Allerbush]

I think the important thing was that Palin made the couple thousand in attendance at the convention and the Republicunts there laugh and feel good that they're so smug and superior. I mean - those 2,036 are what's gonna win her the election.

This shit is WAY too funny.

Fixed it for you.

[GoldMember]

The wealthy are the least impacted by tax increases. I found a stat that says that the bottom 80% of the population in terms of income have over 60% of the expenditures. I don't have the exact #as, but I think that the bottom 95% of the population in income accounts fr well over 80% of the expenditures. So my argument rests on stimulating the economy from the bottom up.

And again, the Gini Index clearly shows that wealth is increasingly ending up in the hands of fewer people. So trickle down in the sense of distributing wealth doesn't work.

I'm mystified by the middle class's defense of the wealthy.


Did you gloss over the middle class for a reason? Again, the lower 80% of the population in terms of income spends more than the upper 20%. If the middle class spends more, the economy may recover better.

I just can't support a tax plan that gives the wealthy even more money given the distribution trends in either accrual or dispersal.

First, on this, why not support a tax reduction plan that reduces taxes for all the people rather than raise taxes on those who already pay the substantial majority of the taxes while lowering the taxes on those who pay little to begin with? So far as I'm concerned, we can do away with the fed. income tax altogether for the lower 50%. It only amounts to a 3% loss of the taxes collected anyway so why not? Actually, on personal income tax policies, I'm not that concerned with either direction but feel the Obama plan is too heavily weighted toward punishing people who have been successful and are already carrying the bulk of the load anyway. I'd be in favor of no reductions or increases on anyone in the highest brackets while reducing the load on the middle and lower brackets.

As for why did I not comment on the middle class, the statistics I referred to weren't broken down in that way. There were breakouts for the top 5, 10, 20, and 50% brackets and simply lumped the bottom 50% into a single group, therefore I wasn't able to break it into thirds.

As for the middle-class supporting 'tax breaks' for the upper incomers, I would only guess that some may aspire to be part of that group someday and project themselves into that scenario and don't like the idea of laying the groundwork for higher taxes when they get there. I think also, given the heavy lifting the upper incomers already to with regard to tax burden, they may view it as being unfair.

Last point on personal taxes; our economy, by your reckoning and personal experience, is going the wrong way and the best way out is to provide more tax relief to the lower brackets and make up for it in the higher brackets. My problem with this is that the current conditions are as they are, all the while that practice is exactly what has been happening for the past 25 years shown in the IRS numbers. In other words, we've been doing exactly as Obama subscribes and the result is what it is today, yet he wants, and I gather you support, to continue the same trend anticipating a reversal of results. Not casting stones here but what was it Einstein said about doing the same thing over again expecting different results? We've gone from a 47% tax burden on the top 10% to a 71% tax burden on that group and look where we are. How much burden does the top 10% need to carry to make it all better?


But, again, we have not seen profits go towards retooling in the last 8 years. Instead were seeing ridiculously high bonuses and payouts, even to executives who have obviously bungled it. I'm not favoring these kinds of tax breaks when the money is thrown away.

First, an immediate deduction on investments in equipment and machinery drives investment, not CEO pay. I believe this would act as a stimulus that would drive manufacturing and create jobs and better jobs at that.

Second, not every CEO is paid exorbitantly in spite of performance. In fact, I would venture a guess that it's a fairly small number relative to all the public companies out there. Are there some who should be driven down and out? Sure, just as there are people in every profession who are overpaid and don't perform. As I mentioned before, deal with that issue separately from the tax question. But the other reality is that we've got one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world which acts to stifle our global competitiveness. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/23565.html I think this needs to be considered and changed. I personally don't agree that the CEO's would simply pocket the extra money and instead believe they would view it as an opportunity to expand their businesses, improve shareholder value (which any CEO worth his salt should be a significant holder too), and compete more effectively on a bigger stage. True for all companies? No but enough to make it a worthy goal and to keep the U.S. competitive in markets that we're getting beat in.

The point I'm trying to make is that the stimulus created would benefit the middle-class as well with more and better, and higher-paying jobs in the long run as opposed to a more short-term panacea that has historically shown itself as an ineffective means to an end.


OK, if you can't admit that the economy is currently fucked, I guess we just don't have much of common ground after all. My financial scene is the worst it's been since I started working. Inflation is ridiculous, real inflation, real day to day costs as well as stuff like education and commodities.

I don't understand the definition of recession I guess, because this sure seems like one now.

Obviously there are many who are negatively impacted by economic realities and I'm truly sorry you fall into that group; and I do mean that sincerely. But the causes of our current inflationary problems are largely oil and fuel related; what between gas at the pump, transportation costs for all goods and services (again related partly to oil but also a stressed trucking system following the new driver rules that went into effect two or three years ago), and ethanol subsidies that have driven up food prices, many basic goods are up substantially. But much of what's happening isn't related to things we can control. Demand worldwide is much greater with China and India leading the way, driving up much of the commodity markets.

As for the definition of a recession, the official definition is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. We're not there, in the macro sense. But again, there are recessed sectors and those impacted by them. But rather than a blanket recipe, why not work on those specific sectors and areas that need the help?


As I've said, my scene is fucked. 401k down, money market in the toilet, and my dollar buys significantly less , to the point where my income doesn't cover my costs.

Again, I'm sorry to hear this. I've got similar problems regarding not getting returns, my 401k, etc. but I'm not retiring any time soon and believe we will see rebounds in the various financial markets. It's going to be ugly for awhile, particularly as the economy absorbs the bad credit housing problem but the markets run in cycles. I recently read an article that related the long-term cycle of P/E ratios that went back over the past 100 years or so. I'll try to find it and post it. But the bottom line of the article and data showed something like a 14 year cycle of undervalued equities then overvalued equities, based on total P/E of the market. At this time, the market's about flush with the balanced ratio and there is potentially some more downside before it corrects upwardly. The point is that, in spite of who's in charge, the market has followed its own cycle and we're in the midst of the overvalued correction. Not good news but at least might demonstrate one of the keys to what's driving the market (and us) nuts.


We have lost the edge, we are completely overextended and Putin knows it.

We don't have the troops and we don't have the money to deal with anything significant which is part of the reason why I opposed the Iraq invasion as well.

Whether or not Americans are will to acknowledge it, we've royally fucked up our diplomacy worldwide. And firepower is not the main foundation of security.

So I disagree with McCains position on Iraq, but most importantly on the economy. There's a ton of information that shows that the wealthy have enough and are not redistributing it. If they enjoy the benefits to that level, make them pay for it.

On one hand, I agree with a potential diplomatic advantage with Obama: new party, fresh face, plus there apparently is a more welcoming opinion of him in the world. However, I don't think we can simply walk away from Iraq, and I don't believe he does either. Having said that, I do believe we need to reduce in Iraq and get better focused in Afghanistan (and I think we're in sync on this point). Putin scares me and, you're right, we're stretched thin. That is the concern I have with how Obama handles the military. Are we going to be further reduced? Lesser R&D for superior weaponry? Whatever else. I don't have a warm fuzzy feeling that we'll be reducing waste in the right areas of the military budget. But I won't outright claim he won't handle it properly either, it's just a concern and I need to get a better sense of where he really is on it.

[Buster Highmen]

First, on this, why not support a tax reduction plan that reduces taxes for all the people rather than raise taxes on those who already pay the substantial majority of the taxes while lowering the taxes on those who pay little to begin with?

Because:
0)They are the ones that profit the most from the current economic environment.
1) It hurts them the least.
2) Something has to be done to resistribute the wealth, because it is not happening.
3) The deficit needs to be payed off somehow.


So far as I'm concerned, we can do away with the fed. income tax altogether for the lower 50%. It only amounts to a 3% loss of the taxes collected anyway so why not? Actually, on personal income tax policies, I'm not that concerned with either direction but feel the Obama plan is too heavily weighted toward punishing people who have been successful and are already carrying the bulk of the load anyway. I'd be in favor of no reductions or increases on anyone in the highest brackets while reducing the load on the middle and lower brackets.



As for why did I not comment on the middle class, the statistics I referred to weren't broken down in that way. There were breakouts for the top 5, 10, 20, and 50% brackets and simply lumped the bottom 50% into a single group, therefore I wasn't able to break it into thirds.

As for the middle-class supporting 'tax breaks' for the upper incomers, I would only guess that some may aspire to be part of that group someday and project themselves into that scenario and don't like the idea of laying the groundwork for higher taxes when they get there. I think also, given the heavy lifting the upper incomers already to with regard to tax burden, they may view it as being unfair.

Last point on personal taxes; our economy, by your reckoning and personal experience, is going the wrong way and the best way out is to provide more tax relief to the lower brackets and make up for it in the higher brackets. My problem with this is that the current conditions are as they are, all the while that practice is exactly what has been happening for the past 25 years shown in the IRS numbers. In other words, we've been doing exactly as Obama subscribes and the result is what it is today, yet he wants, and I gather you support, to continue the same trend anticipating a reversal of results. Not casting stones here but what was it Einstein said about doing the same thing over again expecting different results? We've gone from a 47% tax burden on the top 10% to a 71% tax burden on that group and look where we are. How much burden does the top 10% need to carry to make it all better?
[/quote]
On the last point, I have a different understanding. The burdun has been lifted from the wealthy and placed increasingly on the middle class. You can't ignore Capitol Gains tax breaks.

So the snidelyness is lost.





First, an immediate deduction on investments in equipment and machinery drives investment, not CEO pay. I believe this would act as a stimulus that would drive manufacturing and create jobs and better jobs at that.


I still haven't been able to find exactly how McCain ands Obama differ on this point.



Second, not every CEO is paid exorbitantly in spite of performance. In fact, I would venture a guess that it's a fairly small number relative to all the public companies out there. Are there some who should be driven down and out? Sure, just as there are people in every profession who are overpaid and don't perform. As I mentioned before, deal with that issue separately from the tax question. But the other reality is that we've got one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world which acts to stifle our global competitiveness. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/23565.html I think this needs to be considered and changed. I personally don't agree that the CEO's would simply pocket the extra money and instead believe they would view it as an opportunity to expand their businesses, improve shareholder value (which any CEO worth his salt should be a significant holder too), and compete more effectively on a bigger stage. True for all companies? No but enough to make it a worthy goal and to keep the U.S. competitive in markets that we're getting beat in.

The point I'm trying to make is that the stimulus created would benefit the middle-class as well with more and better, and higher-paying jobs in the long run as opposed to a more short-term panacea that has historically shown itself as an ineffective means to an end.

This ("stimulus created would benefit the middle-class as well") is simply not true. See http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132354, plus any graph of Gini Index. It would be nice if it were, but it's just not.

[

Obviously there are many who are negatively impacted by economic realities and I'm truly sorry you fall into that group; and I do mean that sincerely. But the causes of our current inflationary problems are largely oil and fuel related; what between gas at the pump, transportation costs for all goods and services (again related partly to oil but also a stressed trucking system following the new driver rules that went into effect two or three years ago), and ethanol subsidies that have driven up food prices, many basic goods are up substantially. But much of what's happening isn't related to things we can control. Demand worldwide is much greater with China and India leading the way, driving up much of the commodity markets.

As for the definition of a recession, the official definition is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. We're not there, in the macro sense. But again, there are recessed sectors and those impacted by them. But rather than a blanket recipe, why not work on those specific sectors and areas that need the help?

C'mon, the economic indicators suck now.




Again, I'm sorry to hear this. I've got similar problems regarding not getting returns, my 401k, etc. but I'm not retiring any time soon and believe we will see rebounds in the various financial markets. It's going to be ugly for awhile, particularly as the economy absorbs the bad credit housing problem but the markets run in cycles. I recently read an article that related the long-term cycle of P/E ratios that went back over the past 100 years or so. I'll try to find it and post it. But the bottom line of the article and data showed something like a 14 year cycle of undervalued equities then overvalued equities, based on total P/E of the market. At this time, the market's about flush with the balanced ratio and there is potentially some more downside before it corrects upwardly. The point is that, in spite of who's in charge, the market has followed its own cycle and we're in the midst of the overvalued correction. Not good news but at least might demonstrate one of the keys to what's driving the market (and us) nuts.

I really don't think it reasonable that in any economic discussion to dismiss the deficit so glibly.





On one hand, I agree with a potential diplomatic advantage with Obama: new party, fresh face, plus there apparently is a more welcoming opinion of him in the world. However, I don't think we can simply walk away from Iraq, and I don't believe he does either. Having said that, I do believe we need to reduce in Iraq and get better focused in Afghanistan (and I think we're in sync on this point). Putin scares me and, you're right, we're stretched thin. That is the concern I have with how Obama handles the military. Are we going to be further reduced? Lesser R&D for superior weaponry? Whatever else. I don't have a warm fuzzy feeling that we'll be reducing waste in the right areas of the military budget. But I won't outright claim he won't handle it properly either, it's just a concern and I need to get a better sense of where he really is on it.

OK.

But my main point is that historically, as indicated, these upper end tax breaks do not help either the economy or the middle class.

[GoldMember]

Buster, this conversation would be better done face-to-face over a beer as it's getting difficult to follow who's quoting who and the issues get a little complex. I'll only hit one point and that's on deductibility of machinery and equipment: McCain is proposing an immediate deduction for full value of the purchase as opposed to the current accelerated depreciation or standard depreciation schedules. That effectively allows the diversion of cash that would otherwise potentially be necessary for tax payments into equipment purchases. Without divulging too much on a public site, suffice it to say that I've got close, personal experience in this arena and it's a huge issue for small to mid-size companies. Obama hasn't presented any proposals in the comparisons I've seen that proposes anything of similar nature and instead proposes a higher business tax rate that further exacerbates the cashflow issue for many companies. With that, I'm checking out of this rational discussion with a thread title that relates to pigs and their cosmetic habitry. Maybe someday if you're in Spokane or me in Seattle, we could hook up for a beer and continue the debate.

[hutash]

You hit nail on the head.

And for the dense, Palin wasn't being refered to by either the nail or the head in that metaphor I just wrote, it was just a commonly used phrase, suggesting a concise point of comprehension being expressed. :smile:

If you nailed the pig and got lipstick on your hammer, would that be sexist?

[WWCD]

If you nailed the pig and got lipstick on your hammer, would that be sexist?

Leave it to the vet to make an animal fucking joke.

[GoldMember]

Okay Buster, I lied..... I have to comment on this too:


On the last point, I have a different understanding. The burdun has been lifted from the wealthy and placed increasingly on the middle class. You can't ignore Capitol Gains tax breaks.

Capital Gains taxes are collected through the IRS in the same returns so no, it doesn't ignore them. The growth from 47% to 71% incorporates those reductions as well. The burden on the top 10% has still continued to grow over the past 25 years, even in light of the CG reductions.

[GoldMember]

Alright, one more......


....any graph of Gini Index....

Here is the U.S. Gini percentage for specific years:

1967 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967): 39.7 (first year reported)
1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968): 38.6 (lowest index reported)
1970 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970): 39.4
1980 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980): 40.3
1990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990): 42.8
2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000): 46.2
2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005): 46.9
2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006): 47.0 (highest index reported)
2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007): 46.3
The highest 10 year rate of growth from this is from 1990-2000, the Clinton years. From Bush's start in office, the rate grew by less than one point and shows a reduction from 2006 to 2007 to nearly the same ratio as when Bush took office. I don't see how this supports the taxation argument in your favor, other than Bush inherited a rapidly growing disparity and it's since slowed. I don't know there's enough information to support either argument, frankly but am curious as to what you see that leads your opinion.

[spindrift]

McCain is proposing an immediate deduction for full value of the purchase as opposed to the current accelerated depreciation or standard depreciation schedules. That effectively allows the diversion of cash that would otherwise potentially be necessary for tax payments into equipment purchases. Without divulging too much on a public site, suffice it to say that I've got close, personal experience in this arena and it's a huge issue for small to mid-size companies.

This is a hoot. If "someone else" had proposed this there'd be a mob looking to run the commie out of town... This is virtually a cash subsidy. But hey, I think exploring creative ideas is reasonable - but how about to limit people gaming the welfare system, something roughly like the following rule is added:


Any sale, directly or as part of a change in control, of an "instant depreciation asset" as described above will result in the selling entity immediately owing regular taxes on the full market value of the asset. The full market value will be computed as the greater of the actual sale price or the value calculated via a 15 year depreciation schedule applied against the MSRP of the item when it was purchased. If the owning entity ceases operations for any reason whatsoever and does not sell the asset in question, or if the entity no longer has the assets to pay taxes owed, the partners or shareholders or the entity will be personally liable for taxes on the total value as computed above.

Think you & your pals would be OK with that?

Money grubbing hypocrites looking for handouts. So hot right now!

[GoldMember]

This is a hoot. If "someone else" had proposed this there'd be a mob looking to run the commie out of town... This is virtually a cash subsidy.

Interestingly enough, there is a similar tax break for business in Washington State. Since there is no state income tax here, the State chose to not charge sales tax on qualifying machinery and equipment which roughly equates to about a 9% reduction on the cost. The biggest difference, other than structure, between what we have here and the McCain plan is that ours was enacted under the governorship of a democrat, Gary Locke, with a democratic legislature and remains in place under an even stronger democratic legislature and different democratic governor, Chris Gregoire. And no, no one proposed the 'commies' be run out of town and it's been an effective economic driver. It also shows that you don't have to be from one specific party or the other to utilize good ideas.

As for your question if I'm okay with the depreciation penalty if sold, yes, I think it's a good thing. You apparently have the misperception that all businesses are just rolling in the dough and aren't in need of assistance. You've apparently also never run your own business or you'd know differently.

[spindrift]

WA state is not the issue. And it has other tax structures/issues in play vs the federal tax system. You did not address the issue wrt to federal taxes (well, OK, you did to a degree...).

Nonetheless, if you and McCain want direct welfare payments to business owners - or if you believe in George Bush style voodoo economics - just say so.

[GoldMember]

What I want is the flexibility for industrial investment and economic stimulus and expansion. This happens to be a very good tool in providing some free cashflow to aid in that effort. My point about WA state is that it's here, it was instituted by the other party from McCain, and it's been an effective aid in driving our state to being one of the best states to do business in which has helped the overall state economy avoid some of the pitfalls other states have faced. I don't see the problem. It's not as though the CEO's are taking the tax credit and pocketing it. They have to actually buy the stuff to use in their companies which only helps them be more competitive, improving the overall economy. What do you see as the problem with that?

[timvwcom]

GoldMembers post count lately;

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/2830/odometer.gif

:smile:

[GoldMember]

GoldMembers post count lately;

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/2830/odometer.gif

:smile:

heh.....:redface:

[Tippster]

Can we get back to talking about Swine and Beauty supplies?

[GoldMember]

Can we get back to talking about Swine and Beauty supplies? Yeah, sure. Next you're going to want to talk about bacon, tacos, and skiing....party pooper.

[rideit]

Yeah, sure. Next you're going to want to talk about bacon, tacos, and skiing....party pooper.

Let's not forget Shania!

[Smokey McPole]

Everyone still arguing about Palin and sexism is FUCKING RETARDED. Oh it's sexism!!! OH my god!!! My vagina hurts!!!

Yes, the American public can read into this and cry rape, but thats because they are, in general, a bunch of retards. They only listen to these 8 second sound clips and make judgments solely on shit like that, as opposed to policy. This doesn't mean people on this board have to follow along with being sensitive pussies. For the most part, it seems a lot of mags here are more educated than the average dumbass watching the news. But you guys are still faling into this nonsense of arguing and getting worked up about issues that have NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. Was it about Palin?! Was it about women?! Does Obama hate vagina?! Yeah, maybe if you are a hardcore womens rights bull-dike, you could get worked up over this, but other than that, open your fucking eyes and focus on what really matters. It has gotten to the point where anything said in reference to Palin is subjected to this "sexist" evaluation. SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY ABOUT SARAH PALIN.

Hey genius - the "dumbfuck American public" is who is gonna put McCain/Palin in the whitehouse. That's why this "issue" has a lot to do with everything.

I don't seriously think anybody here is out to change anybody's mind. I know I'm not. I'm just here to rip on people for my own sick amusement. And because I'm an attention whore.

Man - I can't believe Barry half-heartedly apalogised for this. What a maroon. The debates are gonna be hilarious.