Sarah Palin's speech

[Vedubin01]

Im interested in where you got this information. Can you factually back it? Not picking a fight, would like to read fact! Thank you.....

I don't think people are interested in Palin because she spends money like no tomorrow and then lies about it, but doesn't believe in taxing corporations. I believe there is a large percentage of Americans that will vote for the candidate with the largest belt buckle. If it weren't for having Palin on the ticket, you'd see a lot more photo ops with McCain wearing a cowboy hat and clearing brush from his ranch. It's more an urban vs. rural thing than a "I understand the tiny details of everyone's tax plan" type thing.

If everyone really cared about fiscal responsibility, they'd admit Palin was a lying, big government, earmark loving whore. Maybe they would prefer her over Obama/Biden, but at least they'd acknowledge her deficiencies.

[ragged325]

I don't think people are interested in Palin because she spends money like no tomorrow and then lies about it, but doesn't believe in taxing corporations. I believe there is a large percentage of Americans that will vote for the candidate with the largest belt buckle. If it weren't for having Palin on the ticket, you'd see a lot more photo ops with McCain wearing a cowboy hat and clearing brush from his ranch. It's more an urban vs. rural thing than a "I understand the tiny details of everyone's tax plan" type thing.

If everyone really cared about fiscal responsibility, they'd admit Palin was a lying, big government, earmark loving whore. Maybe they would prefer her over Obama/Biden, but at least they'd acknowledge her deficiencies.

[rwh11385]

And the gov makes more money by lowering taxes, no shit.

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676

7 year old term paper FTW. The events following that year of negative economic shock, and then recovery in times of rising commodity costs confirmed once again supply-side economics work.

Even though many people profited from the tax cuts, it is not true that the gains were made at the expense of low-income Americans. The wealthiest Americans did not pay fewer taxes, but they in reality paid more taxes after the income tax rate cuts in 1981. The richest 10 percent of Americans paid $177 billion in federal income taxes in 1980 but paid $237 billion in 1988, while the other 90% of the country paid $5 billion less. The wealthy earned more income and therefore paid more taxes, even if at lesser rates. “The share of total income taxes paid by the wealthiest 1 percent of all Americans actually rose from 18 percent in 1981 to 25 percent in 1990. The wealthiest 5 percent of Americans saw their tax share rise from 35 to 44 percent.”

Another problem that critics had claimed was that of the disappearing middle class. The fact was that some of the middle class simply moved on up to higher incomes. “In 1989, there were 5.9 million more Americans whose salaries exceeded $50,000 a year than there were in 1981 (adjusting for inflation). Similarly, there were 2.5 million more Americans earning more than $75,000 a year, an 83% increase. And the number of Americans earning less than $10,000 a year fell by 3.4 million workers.” Therefore, the rich got richer, but the poor also gained. After the Reagan’s tax rate cuts, the median family income rose by nearly 10%. As the adage states, a "rising tide lifts all ships." During the Reagan years, every quintile, from the richest to the poorest, gained income.

Finally, the opponents of Reaganomics were incorrect when labeling the 1980s, the ‘era of greed’. The truth was quite the opposite, as many people were generous with their wealth. “Not only did the rich and the middle class pay more in taxes, but they also gave more in charity. Indeed, the 1980s saw the greatest outpouring of private generosity in history. Americans donated a total $65 billion in 1980, but gave $100 billion in 1990, with the average annual individual charity increased from $377 to $493. “Nor did Americans merely contribute their money; more people volunteered their time for churches and civic groups than ever before.”

“In the 1980s, incomes, employment, investment, wealth, consumer confidence, the stock market, and tax-payments rose. Interest rates, inflation and bankruptcies plummeted.”

[rwh11385]

Not if you keep electing Republicans. They like to limit the liability of doctors, gunmakers, and other big contributors.

EDIT: Of course the upside, is that there will be more opportunities for collections, bankruptcy and foreclosure attorneys to deal with those in McCain's "middle class" who do not make six or seven figures.

And the democrat solution would be to keep feeding people transfer payments to deal with layoffs of when Obama's polcies make their companies uncompetitive globally?

Nice sig, I think Obama already thinks himself as them messiah anyway.

[Vedubin01]

Not if you keep electing Republicans. They like to limit the liability of doctors, gunmakers, and other big contributors.
.

the down side if the republicans or who ever did not do, would be that no one would want be doctors, gun makers and such because they fear a frivolous lawsuit with no caps. Which only the lawyers make money on anyway.

Come on Dave, your smarter than that!

[BenM]

Good thread. Great thread. would read again.

[Dave]

Well, there's plenty of growing sectors here, it's just not shit unskilled jobs.

we'll always need doctors, and lawyers to sue doctors if they mess up

Not if you keep electing Republicans. They like to limit the liability of doctors, gunmakers, and other big contributors.

EDIT: Of course the upside, is that there will be more opportunities for collections, bankruptcy and foreclosure attorneys to deal with those in McCain's "middle class" who do not make six or seven figures.

[Pinepig]

pwnt!

Not pwnt.

[Pinepig]

No you didn't.

You're is a contraction. As in "You are".

You are digging yourself a bigger hole.

Your is a contraction showing ownership.

Your hole is being dug deeper.

It was a joke to reference the correction you made on the post you were answering with the horrible spelling.

[Pinepig]

Reaganomics were highly successful and everyone benefited. Even the poor became richer (although not at the same rate as the rich) - but the rich own the capital, the foundation of capitalism. They not only earned more but they weren't suffering from the inflation and lack of jobs that marked Carter's years.

Maybe if you were educated, you would know better.

And the gov makes more money by lowering taxes, no shit.

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676

[rwh11385]

Everything else is leaving America

Well, there's plenty of growing sectors here, it's just not shit unskilled jobs.

we'll always need doctors, and lawyers to sue doctors if they mess up

[Vedubin01]

Umm, haven't you noticed the large numbers of people who adopt kids from China already . . . .???????

The act of sex alone does not ensure that you will have a child every time. I was making a joke. Everything else is leaving America when will the pleasure of sex itself be outsourced?

[CorvallisBMW]

No you didn't.

You're is a contraction. As in "You are".

You are digging yourself a bigger hole.

Your is a contraction showing ownership.

Your hole is being dug deeper.

pwnt!

[Danny]

Fixed that for ya.

No you didn't.

You're is a contraction. As in "You are".

You are digging yourself a bigger hole.

Your is a contraction showing ownership.

Your hole is being dug deeper.

[DarkWing6]

OBAMA FTW...why do you guys hate on him so much?? we all want the troops out of iraq and thats what obama is gonna do..

They are both for a similar timetable, but Obama is more careless about it by putting a set time on it. McCain has even said that 16 months (Obama's plan) seems reasonable. McCain just feels it is careless to make a promise on a certain time line that may not necessarily be able to be kept if the climate changes, which I respect. 2 years from now is a long ways away. If everything goes as planned then they will be out quickly, but there is the chance that something happens that is out of our control.

I'm for set objectives, completing them, and get out. I am also not a 1 issue voter like most of Obama's followers seem to be.


And seriously, why not listen to a man that has actually been part of a war before? Didn't you see how Obama's feelings changed after actually going to Iraq and talking to the generals? At the time reports said that he said it would be a 16 month minimum before troops are out (this is after talking to the generals), but his website currently says 16 months total (take that for what you will).