United States Election Thread pt. II

I heard that one too. Awesome.

After he started out as a very effective community organizer in Chicago. After he has organized one of the most successful campaigns in political history. Defeated the Clinton machine in the primaries. And financed his campaign that has raised more than any other in history with small private donations less than $100 per person average. He has not taken one cent form PACs or lobbyists for his campaign. I think Obama has an idea he knows what he is doing and what he can accomplish if elected president today.

And seem to be a terrible person. Really

i’d be okay with cutting some of it back. maybe invest in education, health care, more essential day to day things.

i’d say we know who obama is now. even if your criticism is that he’s only been running for president and thats it…well we’ve had about 1 1/2 years to get to know who he is. i knew who exactly who he was when i voted for him today.

and i knew who john mccain became, and that was more depressing to me. although i myself am not a centrist, i would have voted for one because im more about unity and whats right and compromise then pushing only my own beliefs.

I didn’t say you’re not entitled to it.

You’re just not backing yourself up in any way, shape, or form.

For example, maybe you don’t like Obama’s healthcare plan. Maybe you’re worried about the way he’ll handle Russia.

But as it is, you’re providing blanket statements with no support.

Which lends itself to the inference that you don’t support Obama just because he’s Obama.

Which in turn lends itself to the inference that that dislike is because of character issues. The most prominent character issues about Obama are (a) that he’s supposedly a Muslim (b) that he wants to destroy the U.S., and © that he’s a terrorist because William Ayers bombed the government when Obama was eight years old.

Does that help?

and destroyed palin.

there was so much scrutiny of everybody involved. the “associations” are overstated, and we do know about his past. thats the thing. in the age of 24-hour news cycles we know ev-er-y-thing about all of these guys. probably too much, but thats another topic. you dont have to like obama, but you cant really say that we dont know who he is.

See my above post, then tell me how your statement directly above doesn’t lend itself to that inference.

We know Joe Biden. Obama will most likely have an amazing presidential cabinet. He’s smart enough to surround himself with smart, experienced politicians. I personally think the next 4 years will be much better.

and the date consumer confidence get back on track can be completely different. For example, with this recession, most economists say the recession is in its tenth month but most consumer spending has only recently (4-5 months ago) taken a major hit.

Businesses are usually ahead of the curve when it comes to spending and cutting spending in response to exogenous market conditions. With Obama simply passing these tax hikes, he would cut spending for companies as they plan their budgets far in advance and consumers would also take that into account when considering spending decisions. While the actual financial burden gets paid on tax day, but the consumer and business spending affects of future guaranteed increased taxes goes into effect immediately.

I can tell you there is no trickle down economics theory. This is a political theory, not an economics one. Macroeconomics in general is very “voodooish”, in that its very theoretical and not a very reliable estimator for future economic trends. But rather, microeconomics is gold. Microeconomics looks at the nitty gritty and has correctly predicted most economic trends because it looks at the small unit up.

Businesses, according to microeconomics, are interested in maximizing profit and to simplify our models, nothing else. Markets are in equilibrium (a profit maximizing state where no individual firm can gain by changing its position) or moving towards it. By increasing taxes on the top 5%, including most businesses, you change their equilibrium because you are increasing costs and reducing profits. Profits are maximized when marginal revenue (the revenue from one additional unit sold) = marginal cost and by increasing taxes one side of that equation will go up. To balance this equation, you will have to reduce costs or raise profits. In inelastic markets, prices will go up to increase revenue and balance this equation. In elastic markets (where you will loose to much sales with a price increase) costs must be cut. Because capital is thought of as a long-term asset, many firms lay off employees to lower marginal costs. Either outcome, it hurts the economy, and history has proven this. No matter who the tax increase is focused on, a tax hike is a tax hike is a tax hike, everyone will pay in the long run to get the economy back into equilibrium.

from elementary school to middle of high school, but now its just too liberal and biased. I remember watching that horrible school hostage thing in Russia live at like 3am, all the hurricane coverage (the year before Katrina when there were a lot of big ones), and the invasion of Iraq all exclusively on CNN. Now, CNN just provides awful coverage.

not just Congress, but a lot of businesses and consumers and Wall Street as well. This was definitely a group failure. Hopefully we fix it as a group. And not just let it fester.

which has a major effect on consumer spending.

Just adding something else. You appeared to be showing that the Bible has been used as an instrument of hate, exclusively, to which I added that that’s not always the case.

I’m in full agreement with you on your point above re: 8.

Facts? The gut has told me I’ve been right 100% of the time!
How can you beat that?