to fellow americans, anyone catch the debate?

haha604

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
1,051
Location
Vancouver, Canada
No, its not as simple as "tax cut translates to boost in economies." YOu have to look at whose tax is being cut, and the marginal propensity to spend of those people. A person earning a million dollars a year is going to spend a lot less of his 10% taxcut in percentage than a person earning 50,000 a year. This is economics 101. And what George Bush is doing is cutting taxes and INCREASING government expenditures, causing the deficit to go out of control. The Fed is able to maintain a low interest rate only because Asian countries such as China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong have to buy American bonds at any rate to push down their own currencies. When these governments lose their appetite for the greenback, expect a dramatic rise in interest rates, suppresing any economic recovery. America can try to cure its budget now, or wait till later when the costs will be much higher.

The whatever stats you provided, if they are any indication of the true condition of the economy, only applies to the short term. Bush's reckless spending is going to haunt America in the next decade. Future taxpayers will shoulder most of the burden. I don't believe Kerry will turn around the deficit during his term but at least he doesn't think that the deficit isn't a problem.

And I am not goint to google a bunch of hollow facts supporting Kerry because anyone with access to google can do that.
 

Overheat

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Messages
5,739
Location
Bradford, UK
So people are voting for ush mainly cos of this taxcuts scam as far as I can gather. Why is raising taxes such a bad thing? Lost me...
 

justin syder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2003
Messages
4,096
Location
New York, USA
Car(s)
1986 Mercedes-Benz 300E
me and M_Power and not voting simply for tax cutes. we agree with most of the Presidents ideas and agenda for our country. :wink:
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2003
Messages
4,905
Location
Decorah, IA
Car(s)
2004 Subaru Impreza WRX STI (USDM)
True, Bush spent a lot, but in my opinion he spent it on things that were needed such as homeland security and the wars.
If you're dealing with homeland security and wars, you shouldn't focus on the deficit, you should spend whatever it takes to get the job done.
One thing I don't like about Bush is that in my opinion, he perhaps didn't spend enough on homeland security and the wars.
He says that if you take those two items out of the picture, he only increased spending by 1%.
The economy tanked a half a year before Bush took office, and quite frankly, that is the biggest factor in how big the deficit is.
Personally, I believe a president doesn't have that much short term control over the economy.
That is why I believe Clinton didn't create the booming ninetees (the economy got a jump before he got into office) and Bush didn't cause the drop.
As for the taxcuts, I'm not sure if that had anything to do with the economic growth over the last couple of years.
If it did, it's the "wealthy" Americans that own a small business and file taxes for that business under personal income that did it.

The deficit does concern me obviously, and so does the national debt, but quite frankly, the time to reduce the debt was when Clinton was in office, definitely not now.


Overheat said:
So people are voting for ush mainly cos of this taxcuts scam as far as I can gather. Why is raising taxes such a bad thing? Lost me...
Generally, the thought behind raising taxed being a bad thing is:
1) Raise taxes -> People have less money
2) Peaple have less money -> People don't buy as much
3) People don't buy as much -> Companies don't sell as many products
4) Companies don't sell as many products -> Companies fire people
5) Companies fire people -> People have less money (goto step 2)
 

MPower

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
767
Location
California, USA
haha604 said:
No, its not as simple as "tax cut translates to boost in economies." YOu have to look at whose tax is being cut, and the marginal propensity to spend of those people. A person earning a million dollars a year is going to spend a lot less of his 10% taxcut in percentage than a person earning 50,000 a year. This is economics 101. And what George Bush is doing is cutting taxes and INCREASING government expenditures, causing the deficit to go out of control. The Fed is able to maintain a low interest rate only because Asian countries such as China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong have to buy American bonds at any rate to push down their own currencies. When these governments lose their appetite for the greenback, expect a dramatic rise in interest rates, suppresing any economic recovery. America can try to cure its budget now, or wait till later when the costs will be much higher.

The whatever stats you provided, if they are any indication of the true condition of the economy, only applies to the short term. Bush's reckless spending is going to haunt America in the next decade. Future taxpayers will shoulder most of the burden. I don't believe Kerry will turn around the deficit during his term but at least he doesn't think that the deficit isn't a problem.

And I am not goint to google a bunch of hollow facts supporting Kerry because anyone with access to google can do that.
And how is Kerry's tax plan going to help spending. Yes, Kerry will get money from the tax raises, but he is going to use on a 5 trillion dollar increase in the medicare coverage. All Kerry's increased tax program is going to do is Kerry more of a reason to waste more money on ineffective terrorist policies and domestic issues.
 

haha604

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
1,051
Location
Vancouver, Canada
I have faith in Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury and economic adviser to the Clinton administration and now one of Kerry's key economic advisers. He was responsible for the budget balancing during Clinton's first term and the bailing out of Mexico.
 

MPower

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
767
Location
California, USA
Times are different now... just because he did a good job during the Clinton administrations doesnt exactly mean automatic success with Kerry... although I see where you are coming from and it is a good point.
 

Daniel

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2004
Messages
2,336
Location
Stavanger - Norway
Lower taxes and get:

Less health care, less roads, worse public schools (Private schools still good so it creates a gap in society)

When people have health care they feel safe and comfortable at work. They dont have to worry as much. They might do a better job, making more money, buying just as much.

Im just saying mPower, try to see stuff from more than one side. I'm not saying Im right, but I do think I have som good points here for you. :)
 

MPower

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
767
Location
California, USA
daniel said:
Lower taxes and get:

Less health care, less roads, worse public schools (Private schools still good so it creates a gap in society)

When people have health care they feel safe and comfortable at work. They dont have to worry as much. They might do a better job, making more money, buying just as much.

Im just saying mPower, try to see stuff from more than one side. I'm not saying Im right, but I do think I have som good points here for you. :)
You are making a direct connection from lower taxes to less of all you said... and that connection can not be made. If allocate the funds properly, you dont have to have it that way.

Just one point, its hard for people to feel safe when you have a Kerry terrorism policy.
 

justin syder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2003
Messages
4,096
Location
New York, USA
Car(s)
1986 Mercedes-Benz 300E
Just one point, its hard for people to feel safe when you have a Kerry terrorism policy.
Kerry has said, after 9-11, that Hussein needed to be disarmed and was a threat.

NOW, he seems to feel opposite, why? To get votes. :roll:

Atleast you know where Bush stands, like it or not its honest and he has conviction. He wont change his policy to get re-elected. :wink:
 

zenon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2004
Messages
2,545
Location
Vancouver, Canada
Okay, I'm going to jump into this petty bickering. :p I almost feel dirty doing it. :lol:

Anyways, tongue in cheek comments aside, Haha604 made an extremely good point that everyone ignored:
haha604 said:
Guess who is going to win in Boston, University Town? I guess all those academics at Harvard are idiots for voting for Kerry.
Now, I'm assuming all of you are getting the "facts" (economic statistics for example) from major media sources. All you have to do is read a few newspapers or watch the news on TV and you can find the "facts" to backup either Bush or Kerry. You can find one statistic saying the economy is good, one that says the economy is bad for example. Most take this as just varying standpoints and completely ignore the fact that these "facts" are coming from major media sources, which are one of the most politically biased and notoriously untruthful institutions in the United States. Nearly every major media corporation has strong political biases usually based on finances (governments or individuals connected to governments having large investments in their company for example) and will skew, bend, twist and fabricate "facts" to reflect this.

Now, if you look outside of mass media to the academics in the United States - specifically the political scientists, economists, and sociologist - they are unanimously against Bush and his policies. The vast majority of them are not motivated by finances and have no ties to government groups - instead they seek an objective viewpoint on the current political situation. Look at any academic peer reviewed publication or journal and you will see universal skepticism towards Bush and his policies.

These academics are the only true source for unbiased information - they aren't in the pockets of any major corporations or government groups - and they are all disgusted by Bush. I make a point of reading acadmeic sources whenever there are political situations as important as this one - otherwise you're reading the oozing rhetoric and propaghanda of a major corporation like Halliburtan. :roll:
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2003
Messages
4,905
Location
Decorah, IA
Car(s)
2004 Subaru Impreza WRX STI (USDM)
zenon said:
These academics are the only true source for unbiased information
No offense, but it's not like they're doing scientific research, they state opinions, and like it or not they have a subconscious (or other) bias that they project in their opinions.
The type of position that they hold seems to be a fairly liberal dominant.
I'm sure you can find some that will criticize Kerry just as much though.
 

zenon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2004
Messages
2,545
Location
Vancouver, Canada
ESPNSTI said:
zenon said:
These academics are the only true source for unbiased information
No offense, but it's not like they're doing scientific research, they state opinions, and like it or not they have a subconscious (or other) bias that they project in their opinions.
The type of position that they hold seems to be a fairly liberal dominant.
I'm sure you can find some that will criticize Kerry just as much though.
That's not really my point at all. Sure they have bias (everyone does), but they aren't puppets for major corporations and government groups. Mass media news sources disgust me.

If you look at an academic political scientist their job is to analyze and disect political situations - while you can't exaxtly say they are doing scientific research they do an ammount of research on political situations that is unparalleled in mass media sources.

Some do criticize Kerry, but an overwhelming majority of the academic community are adamantly against Bush. Call me crazy, but I'd rather get my "facts" from the acadmeic community rather than FoxNews or CNN. :roll:
 

haz

I AM OT!
Joined
May 28, 2004
Messages
5,519
Location
Oslo
Car(s)
Tesla Model S 75D BMW E39 Wagon
CNN sucks ass ... BBC is ok, but not great.

haz
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2003
Messages
4,905
Location
Decorah, IA
Car(s)
2004 Subaru Impreza WRX STI (USDM)
BBC has a bit of a left wing slant I think.
TV wise, I get most of my info from PBS (US public broadcasting), it's still a bit left wing, but not that bad (as close to neutral as you're going to get I think).
 

MPower

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
767
Location
California, USA
zenon said:
Okay, I'm going to jump into this petty bickering. :p I almost feel dirty doing it. :lol:

Anyways, tongue in cheek comments aside, Haha604 made an extremely good point that everyone ignored:
haha604 said:
Guess who is going to win in Boston, University Town? I guess all those academics at Harvard are idiots for voting for Kerry.
Now, I'm assuming all of you are getting the "facts" (economic statistics for example) from major media sources. All you have to do is read a few newspapers or watch the news on TV and you can find the "facts" to backup either Bush or Kerry. You can find one statistic saying the economy is good, one that says the economy is bad for example. Most take this as just varying standpoints and completely ignore the fact that these "facts" are coming from major media sources, which are one of the most politically biased and notoriously untruthful institutions in the United States. Nearly every major media corporation has strong political biases usually based on finances (governments or individuals connected to governments having large investments in their company for example) and will skew, bend, twist and fabricate "facts" to reflect this.

Now, if you look outside of mass media to the academics in the United States - specifically the political scientists, economists, and sociologist - they are unanimously against Bush and his policies. The vast majority of them are not motivated by finances and have no ties to government groups - instead they seek an objective viewpoint on the current political situation. Look at any academic peer reviewed publication or journal and you will see universal skepticism towards Bush and his policies.

These academics are the only true source for unbiased information - they aren't in the pockets of any major corporations or government groups - and they are all disgusted by Bush. I make a point of reading acadmeic sources whenever there are political situations as important as this one - otherwise you're reading the oozing rhetoric and propaghanda of a major corporation like Halliburtan. :roll:
If there were all these publications out there, dont you think Kerry would mention them from time to time?

I completely agree with you in that the media is a biased forum. Just take a look at the channels. Fox is pro-Bush, CNN or Clinton News Network. I mean, it is a terrible thing that we (the citizens) can not get unbiased (or as close to as possible) information now-a-days.
 

cvrefugee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
4,115
Location
Corona, CA
Car(s)
2005 Scion xB
I think the world likes Kerry because of his socialist outlook, or any Democrat for that matter.

I lived in Portugal for about a year and there was some animosity towards me because I'm an American. It seems to me that much of Europe has this distaste for Americans and I'm sure those abroad can give me plently of reasons.

However, I did spend some time in a West African country called Cape Verde. On one particular island (it is an island nation) called Fogo, the people just love America. I saw more American flags and stickers on their homes than their national flag. It is their dream to emigrate to the United States, in fact, there are more Cape Verdeans living the in the U.S. than in Cape Verde. It was just nice to know that not all countries dislike America.
 
Top