OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[wco81]

Not sure what you mean here. If my taxes are cut I have more money, but I'm not sure how you equate that to the dollar being devauled. The drop in the dollar is mainly due to the Fed continuously printing more of it in order to keep the credit market bubble from deflating too quickly. I don't think that cutting taxes is going to devalue the money I have.

Dollar has been declining throughout the decade, not just this past year or two.

And the Fed cut rates at the start of the Bush admin., which led to the real estate boom/bubble, as well as within the past year to counteract the credit crisis.

Trade and federal deficits throughout this decade figure in the decline of the dollar.

Now in the past year, with the Euro around 1.60 to the dollar, exports increased and the trade deficits closed for a few months. But the decline of the dollar made oil and other commodities more expensive.

Now, those exports are slowing down because the EU and other regions are slowing down (their central banks had kept rates high to combat inflation) and the dollar has recovered to under 1.45 against the Euro.

[RobVarak]

If taxes arent raised Im moving to Canada.

Can't find good souvlaki in America's Hat, bro.

[wco81]

Interesting. If you remember in the 2000 campaign, Bush advocated tax cuts when there were surpluses to give money back to taxpayers.

Then in the wake of the recession, they positioned the exact same tax cuts as stimulating the economy.

It's the supply-siders who are ideologues on taxation. Look up Norquist and remember that "deficits don't matter."

George Bush's belief in tax cuts for all economic conditions is just as bad as Obama's belief in tax increases for all economic conditions.

Just because I'm critical of Obama in this thread doesn't mean I supported George W. Bush. Never voted for him either.

I just don't pretend to believe one side is guilty of prejudicial tax policy while the other isn't.

Obama's tax plan distributes tax cuts across more income ranges. I posted the chart earlier in this thread.

If there are other data indicating otherwise, lets see them.

The Bush tax cuts are due to sunset, as they were originally drafted.

The debate is about whether to let some of them expire or making them permanent.

Doing the latter isn't free. The nation is deeply in debt and the more it gets in debt or the longer it keeps a high debt balance, the more costly it is.

There's no free lunch. If not in taxes, you'll pay in other ways for the debt and deficits.

[MACTEPsporta]

Touhy Ave in Park Ridge is just like any Canadian road anyway

[XXXIV]

If taxes arent raised Im moving to Canada.

Can't find good souvlaki in America's Hat, bro.

...Its not easy but Toronto and Vancouver can both bring it.

Touhy Ave in Park Ridge is just like any Canadian road anyway

How do you figure? are you following me?

[MACTEPsporta]

How do you figure?

It's small, narrow, bumpy, and has traffic lights where there aren't any intersections

are you following me?

I am not at liberty to say

[Feanor]

Businesses can only pass on all their increased costs, such as higher taxes, to consumers if they are a monopoly.

That is false. I have worked for companies that needed to raise their prices because the prices they in turn paid for materials went up. These companies were not monopolys.

It is not false. You probably missed the word "all".

[matthewk]

Not sure what you mean here. If my taxes are cut I have more money, but I'm not sure how you equate that to the dollar being devauled. The drop in the dollar is mainly due to the Fed continuously printing more of it in order to keep the credit market bubble from deflating too quickly. I don't think that cutting taxes is going to devalue the money I have.

You completely misunderstood everything that I wrote. Since, I am pretty sure I can't phrase this any better, I can only suggest you go back and read it again.

I wasn't trying to be mean or sarcastic. I really didn't understand what you were getting at. BTW, I re-read it 3 times and it still doesn't make sense.

Can someone else try and enlighten me? Maybe I just can't grasp it because I didn't go to Harvard

[wco81]

It'll be amusing to see which schools people here send their kids to.

[MACTEPsporta]

Not sure what you mean here. If my taxes are cut I have more money, but I'm not sure how you equate that to the dollar being devauled. The drop in the dollar is mainly due to the Fed continuously printing more of it in order to keep the credit market bubble from deflating too quickly. I don't think that cutting taxes is going to devalue the money I have.

You completely misunderstood everything that I wrote. Since, I am pretty sure I can't phrase this any better, I can only suggest you go back and read it again.

I wasn't trying to be mean or sarcastic. I really didn't understand what you were getting at. BTW, I re-read it 3 times and it still doesn't make sense.

Can someone else try and enlighten me? Maybe I just can't grasp it because I didn't go to Harvard

I am putting more emphasys on the economic situation than on who will raise/cut taxes. As an example, I stated that even if your taxes are cut, but economy continues to be poor, your actual buying ability (amount of things you can buy for the money you have) may be worse off than when you are paying more taxes when the economy is strong.

[fsquid]

It'll be amusing to see which schools people here send their kids to.

Private here, the publics have failed us.

[matthewk]

Not sure what you mean here. If my taxes are cut I have more money, but I'm not sure how you equate that to the dollar being devauled. The drop in the dollar is mainly due to the Fed continuously printing more of it in order to keep the credit market bubble from deflating too quickly. I don't think that cutting taxes is going to devalue the money I have.

Dollar has been declining throughout the decade, not just this past year or two.

And the Fed cut rates at the start of the Bush admin., which led to the real estate boom/bubble, as well as within the past year to counteract the credit crisis.

Trade and federal deficits throughout this decade figure in the decline of the dollar.

Now in the past year, with the Euro around 1.60 to the dollar, exports increased and the trade deficits closed for a few months. But the decline of the dollar made oil and other commodities more expensive.

Now, those exports are slowing down because the EU and other regions are slowing down (their central banks had kept rates high to combat inflation) and the dollar has recovered to under 1.45 against the Euro.

I understand all that, but I'm not sure how any of it directly relates to how putting more money in my pocket is a bad thing for the dollar. That's what I got out of his orginal post.

[matthewk]

It'll be amusing to see which schools people here send their kids to.

?

[matthewk]

Businesses can only pass on all their increased costs, such as higher taxes, to consumers if they are a monopoly.

That is false. I have worked for companies that needed to raise their prices because the prices they in turn paid for materials went up. These companies were not monopolys.

It is not false. You probably missed the word "all".

Didn't miss it. I Still say it's false.

[matthewk]

You completely misunderstood everything that I wrote. Since, I am pretty sure I can't phrase this any better, I can only suggest you go back and read it again.

I wasn't trying to be mean or sarcastic. I really didn't understand what you were getting at. BTW, I re-read it 3 times and it still doesn't make sense.

Can someone else try and enlighten me? Maybe I just can't grasp it because I didn't go to Harvard

I am putting more emphasys on the economic situation than on who will raise/cut taxes. As an example, I stated that even if your taxes are cut, but economy continues to be poor, your actual buying ability (amount of things you can buy for the money you have) may be worse off than when you are paying more taxes when the economy is strong.

OK, that makes more sense (at least to me), and I agree. I read the original statement as if my taxes went down it would directly result in the dollar being devalued becasue more money would be "in the wild".

[Feanor]

That is false. I have worked for companies that needed to raise their prices because the prices they in turn paid for materials went up. These companies were not monopolys.

It is not false. You probably missed the word "all".

Didn't miss it. I Still say it's false.

Then you're just wrong. No business in a competitve industry can pass on 100% of a cost increase to consumers, it's just basic economics. If they had that much market power, they would have raised their prices already.

[GameSeven]

It is not false. You probably missed the word "all".

Didn't miss it. I Still say it's false.

Then you're just wrong. No business in a competitve industry can pass on 100% of a cost increase to consumers, it's just basic economics. If they had that much market power, they would have raised their prices already.

But if the supply curve drops due to increased costs to manufacture while demand remains constant, doesn't the price of a good increase while units manufactured decrease at the new equilibrium point? In conjunction with reduced manufacturing, one might consider the possibility of a staff reduction as well. And what of secondary effects of my reduced manufacturing? What other suppliers are then summarily affected?

Also, although a business owner might not be a monopoly, if the increased cost affects you and your competitors across the board, might there not be a universal effect to push a significant portion of the costs onto consumers whether the individual companies are monopolistic or not?

[XXXIV]

It is not false. You probably missed the word "all".

Didn't miss it. I Still say it's false.

Then you're just wrong. No business in a competitve industry can pass on 100% of a cost increase to consumers, it's just basic economics. If they had that much market power, they would have raised their prices already.

Why not? They arent taxed in a vacuum.

Whats the tax that doesnt tax their competition at the same time? All of them will have their taxes raised so they can all pass it down....and they will...or they could just lay off some guys. They will do what it takes to keep the bottom line where it is and moving up.

One way or the other Mr CEO will not pay. I will. You will.

[FatPitcher]

Deficit spending is fine if the economy grows fast enough to lower the Debt/GDP ratio, and this is what happened between 1945 and 1981. Unfortunately since then, apart from the Clinton/Gingrich years, the U.S. has simply been living beyond its means and the Debt/GDP ratio has more than doubled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_d ... tial_terms

A couple things. One, what would Reid-Pelosi-Obama do with a surplus? Pay off the national debt? Unlikely. Second, the "surplus" in the Clinton years was an accounting trick. He never had a surplus, and the national debt never once went down in total dollars during Clinton's term (although it decreased as a % of GDP, as it has under Bush II).

Edit: here are the debt numbers from treasury.gov at the beginning of each fiscal year from 1993 (when Clinton's first budget took effect) to 2001 (when his final budget ended).

Code: Select all

Date	      Total Debt	             "Surplus"	
10/1/1993	4,406,339,573,433.47	-280,130,650,595.75	
10/3/1994	4,686,470,224,029.22	-301,116,938,973.67	
10/2/1995	4,987,587,163,002.89	-247,143,623,623.61	
10/1/1996	5,234,730,786,626.50	-185,775,002,946.84	
10/1/1997	5,420,505,789,573.34	-120,064,703,652.98	
10/1/1998	5,540,570,493,226.32	-112,108,837,384.70	
10/1/1999	5,652,679,330,611.02	-8,868,715,063.51	
10/2/2000	5,661,548,045,674.53	-144,603,343,515.68	
10/1/2001	5,806,151,389,190.21		

[JackB1]

This isn't just an Alaska thing man. Why do you insists on sticking to that state? Is it because of political reasons? Where's the grief for the Democratic led state of Wyoming killed coyotes?

http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/08/01 ... 030485.txt

Coyotes have for years been the No. 1 target of USDA Wildlife Services agents in Wyoming, with annual kills in the range of 6,000 to 7,000.

County predator management boards hire the federal agents to take out predators in the hope of protecting livestock. And now with the new infusion of state funding, the boards are also required to spend some of the dollars to enhance local wildlife populations.

"We're hopeful (the increased coyote take) will translate into a reduction in losses of livestock," Krischke said. "But we're also hoping we will see some increases in deer, antelope and bighorn sheep."

Wildlife Services added about 20 people to its statewide force following the funding increase, and now 40 to 45 in-the-field agents are working in Wyoming, Krischke said.

Of the nearly 11,000 coyotes destroyed by the agents in fiscal year 2007, nearly 7,500 were shot from airplanes, according to the USDA statistics released last week.

Another 1,480 were killed by firearms on the ground. The next most common method used was neck snares, with which agents killed 871 coyotes.

Fewer sheep losses

You pinned this on Palin but you've yet to mention the other states they do this in out west. Why?

Anyhow,don't answer that. I know the answer. My last thought on this is simple. They are considered preditors and until that changes it is what it is.

Jack. I realize this is going on in other states, but I found out about this while I was researching Palin's background. I am against ALL cruelty to animals...not just in Alaska and not just by Republicans. This is a thread about the upcoming election, so it relates to Palin.

[XXXIV]

Jack. I realize this is going on in other states, but I found out about this while I was researching Palin's background. .

You stalking her Jack?

Did you find any good pics? ...If so, please post.

[JackB1]

I am sure you do. Thanks and good luck. I hope you both have a better year.

Thanks. I hope we do to!

I regret any comments I previously made about Palin that may have come off as "sexist". That wasn't my intent. I really could care less if our President or VP were male or female. As long as they are competent and serve the best interests of our country. I sometimes get too riled up by this stuff ans say things I didn't mean.

[FatPitcher]

Jack. I realize this is going on in other states, but I found out about this while I was researching Palin's background. I am against ALL cruelty to animals...not just in Alaska and not just by Republicans. This is a thread about the upcoming election, so it relates to Palin.

What about cruelty by animals to other animals?

[JackB1]

That's very close-minded to think your financial situation will be worse off if your taxes go up. It's naive as well. Economy is the determining factor in how well an individual is doing. If your taxes are cut but nothing is made to help economy recover your money, granted more of it is left, will continue to devalue. It's not how many dollars you have that determines how much money you have, it's how much you can buy with it. With dollar plummetting internationally, markets down and inflation and unemployment rising, dollar values no longer represent what we are used to. It's hard to draw parallels in financial world, since so many factors are at play, but to grossly simplify - 200K in 2008 is roughly about 110-130K in 1998. That's money recieved and spent, without considering any long or short term investments. So, if, and this is a big if, democrats can restore economy to the level of ten years ago, even the people who end up paying for majority of this tax increase (250K and up) could be better off than they are now.

Great post. Taxes are just one tiny part of the entire picture. But McCain continues to spout "He will raise taxes. I will cut taxes". You don't know how many American's will vote with just this in mind. It's sad.

[JackB1]

Not sure what you mean here. If my taxes are cut I have more money, but I'm not sure how you equate that to the dollar being devauled. The drop in the dollar is mainly due to the Fed continuously printing more of it in order to keep the credit market bubble from deflating too quickly. I don't think that cutting taxes is going to devalue the money I have.

You completely misunderstood everything that I wrote. Since, I am pretty sure I can't phrase this any better, I can only suggest you go back and read it again.

I know exactly how you feel.