No one really focuses on Joe Biden, he's largely ignored. Just take a look at the treatment of Sarah Palin on just the general media.
Yeah but then again that is mainly the fault of extensive Media Bias.
chuboy said:
Your version of sane is no doubt different to mine so how about naming the one's you're using?
Obviously it is insane to think Obama is in double digits right now, just as it is insane to think McCain is leading over Obama right now. So Zogby, NYT, and Gallup are all out.
chuboy said:
That's true, I can't argue with that. The only problem is that you're assuming that by not handing out money that jobs will be created. It won't happen like that.
No but by not handing out money jobs will not be lost, and we will work our way out of this instead of deepening it even more.
chuboy said:
That was my point. Rich people buy stuff too you know. If you tax them higher they won't necessarily decrease spending because there wouldn't be much point in just saving the money.
Except they will be finding out ways to make up the tax difference, thus making cuts at their business. And really the one profession that will see a substantial increase under Obama's Tax Code would be Tax Attorneys as that is the first place the Rich go to find loop holes.
chuboy said:
It's just too bad that the hole is so big it's dragging the rest of America down with it then isn't it?
Umm no, the reason we are in a hole isn't from personal debt but because of the Housing Industry. And even if it were because of Personal Debt, we would still have to pay it instead of bailing everyone out, because at that point it only encourages personal irresponsibility.
chuboy said:
You don't seem to think that rich people will be affected by the behaviour of the meagre peasants that make up the lower and middle class, but you cannot deny that by virtue of their sheer number, they make up the majority of the business transactions in a US day. Take away their money and you hurt everyone.
Ahh again you put words in my mouth. I do wonder, you give them money, but take away their jobs and job security, what do you think they will do with that money? Save it or Spend it? Correct Answer: Save it. Using Redistribution of Wealth you are taking away Jobs and Job Security in favor of a short term injection of money. And as already proven, that doesn't help the economy.
chuboy said:
With the current economic climate, the only sensible expansion seems to be negative expansion. Maybe it's just from how you type, but it seems to me that you would make a very poor businessperson. We're coming into a recession, and you think businesses everywhere are going to be opening new shops and building big shopping malls?
Have you overlooked the fact that everyone who would use these places spends their money on credit debt? No, you haven't.
That is the most perplexing/hilarious part.
Ahh putting words in my post again, you seriously need a reading comprehension class.
Anyway, I never suggested that any business would do a radical expansion, yet some will expand, even just by highering one new person. And as we slowly crawl out of this recession in the next year that will continue. If you start taxing the rich and keeping them from investing into this market that will not happen, nor will any substantive expansions happen.
chuboy said:
Ohhh right. But you don't think that when shops have to close down because they're not making sales people will be layed off?
Of course, but giving free hand outs are not going to save the shops anyway. As already proven. What you should be worrying about is those shops that are staying open, but are looking to start cutting back on workers while increasing hours and lowering pay because the CEO is getting taxed more.
chuboy said:
I interpret those figures as saying "61% of people who received stimulus cheques did not make enough money to pay for basic needs".
Nice Spin and you can Interpret it any way you want. In the end you are wrong and this proves it. People will not take their check and use it on any non essential goods. Period.
chuboy said:
If people are not in a spending mood businesses are going to be hurt anyway. You can't blame Obama for that. The best thing to do would be giving people something to get them back on their feet, it expedites the process of putting people back in a spending mood.
Do you even read what I post? No matter how much money you give them, if this tax cut creates even more job loss, then they will not spend, they will save or put it toward essentials or use it to pay off their debt. I seriously cannot see why you continue to be unable to grasp that. Giving people a short term check won't off set them losing their job or not being able to find a job.
chuboy said:
But, amazingly, you think that by letting rich people keep their money that they will open shops and factories all over the USA!
I think they will keep their employees, continue short term expansion or no expansion, and soon begin to expand again. Taking their money away does not allow this and only hurts the industry even more.
chuboy said:
I really would like, for just a few minutes, to get inside your brain and try and understand how it works.
Personally I would love to get inside your head and see which posts you are reading and how you can fail to understand such simple facts. Sometimes I wonder if you just have pre scripted replies with out actually reading the facts.
chuboy said:
This is getting quite irritating. To pay wages owners DO have to have money. If they get taxed, to a point their income is harmed but they do not necessarily lead to the extreme job losses that you are raving about.
Yes it does, Higher Taxes = More Job Loss. Economics 101, and the only irritating part is that you are using "Chuboy's Fantasy World" logic to try and figure out this situation.
chuboy said:
However, if you cut off the income at the source, i.e. lower-middle class people, THEN you have a problem. You can't tax them anyway because they AREN'T MAKING ANY MONEY.
Problem is they are getting their income right now from jobs, not from the Government but from jobs. Jobs that wont necessary be around under a Obama Administration. But hey! They have a small tax check from the Government that should barely keep them alive, they will just have to some how live off of that.
chuboy said:
A stimulus may not create demand out of nowhere, but take a look around BigLutz. Is there much demand anywhere? You can isolate poor people if you want by saying they got themselves into the credit card debt but at the end of the day if they aren't buying, no one is making any money.
Well for one it isn't just poor people but the Middle Class that are deep in Credit Card Debt. Second as already proven a Stimulus isn't going to create demand, the economy will begin righting itself after the Housing Market finishes bottoming out and banks begin to lend again. At that point demand and greater expansion will occur. Problem is if you want to have 8% Unemployment by then, or 16% Unemployment.
chuboy said:
What I cannot grasp is your near-sightedness in this area. You can't see any further than the taxes that Obama is talking about. All you see is Obama and 'taking money from people' and you think 'this is just terrible, I will oppose this no matter how retarded it makes me sound'.
If you want to get into personal insults because you cannot understand the situation that is fine. It only tells me you are losing.
chuboy said:
Businesses aren't making money any more. Happy with that? People are losing their jobs EVERYWHERE, and Obama's tax plan isn't in effect. You can't blame it on that.
Never said I was. Thing is that this is going to continue into Obama's Administration, we know Stimulus Checks do not work, that is beyond arguing now. The problem is the last Stimulus Check was given out with out a Tax Increase. Try it again with a tax increase and you will have more job losses, and less job security everywhere. And you know what? Just like the last one, it WONT WORK!
chuboy said:
Letting rich people keep all the money from themselves is a recipe for disaster in economic times such as this - they may have their money now but a few years down the line when none of their businesses have made a cent and they have to close up the shop who is disadvantaged then?
Sorry but you are dangerously wrong on this one. Raising Taxes on times like these is a recipe for disaster. But see the difference between your statement and mine is. I have history to back mine up.
chuboy said:
Hehehehe, you didn't think about it though. You take (say) $500 from a business and share it with people, who spend their money at shops. The person who sells you the goods gets paid by the shop, so now they have a portion of the poor people's money. The shops have to replace the purchased stock so they call a distributor to come with new goods. The distributor now gets a portion of the money that the poor people spent at the shop. The distributor also owns a car which needs fuel and maintenence, so there are expenses on the car that also go to local businesses. Once again, the local businesses that repair the car also need to replace stock, so they call their own distributors. The distributors eventually need more of their own goods, so they go back further in the line again, and what you'll find is that the poor person's money eventually becomes spread over a very large area - from the pocket of the checkout girl to the hands of a farmer that grew the grain that went in the flour of the bread of the sandwich of the driver of the truck which delivered stock to Wal-Mart.
Ahh Pure Ignorance and a Complete Misunderstanding of Economics. Problem is that not all the shops that have money taken from them will be visited, or will be given the same amount of money taken away, even if you spread it out. Instead the money will be concentrated in a variety of spots, say Wal Mart or Best Buy. Not to mention when you spread money out like that, in the end the business which starts out losing $500 isn't going to get all of that $500 back, because the money is going to various shops, distributors, etc.
chuboy said:
There's more than two people involved in a business transaction.
You are right, there is also a disproportionate number of places in which people will spend money. Thus the Business that loses $500 dollars in taxes, wont always make $500 back, which is where layoffs and higher prices come in.
chuboy said:
Yep, think of how many jobs will be lost when stock-players get taxed
Wanna bet how many businesses get hit when you start raising the taxes on Capital Gains? The resulting Stock Market revolt wont be pretty.
chuboy said:
Your main complaint is that taxing rich causes job losses but stockbrokers do not create jobs, at least not while they're pulling out of all their slumping American investments and paying for skyscrapers in China and the Middle-East.
No but they do invest money and help businesses in a variety of ways. Tax Capital Gains and you will get a massive sell off as people try to sell before the new taxes take effect. Infact it is already starting to happen with a variety of people, including the owner of the Miami Dolphins looking to get out before a tax hike is put in place on Capital Gains.
chuboy said:
When you can't get a job because businesses can't afford to hire anyone, determination and hard work only gets you so far.
There are jobs out there, less now then a year ago, but there are jobs out there. You just have to lower your expectations and do it.
chuboy said:
Yeah...but they don't need money from the government. They need a job, because the recession meant the factory that Daddy worked at closed down. Luckily, when McCain is president rich business owners will open lots of new factories and shops where he can get a job with the money they save from not paying tax.
No. This is a recession. Stop being ridiculous.
Never said it wasn't a recession. Thing is you are right, in the next year or two the Housing Market will have righted itself, and more jobs will open themselves up as banks begin to lend money again to businesses for greater expansion. Unless say you try to pro long it by taxing businesses, adding insane amounts of Government Services to the debt, and just overall screwing this economy.
I mean isn't this what happened with Carter? We were in a mild Recession when he came in, and through far left policies we ended up with double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, a freaking misery index, and a overall weakened economy. Or during the Great Depression? FDR adding more spending, more taxation, etc etc in a New Deal which only helped to pro long the depression.
I mean seriously, third time isn't going to be the charm.
chuboy said:
No, Obama's plan targets rich people. YOU said that most rich people own businesses, so it was logical to assume that...wait, never mind - I forgot I was debating against BigLutz and that making any sort of logical connection is a pointless waste of time.
I said most, not all, and as I have already proven, Obama's plan would not only target Business Owners, but Stock Traders and a variety of fields as well. Most of which tend to help our economy.
And again if you want to continue with insults thats fine.
chuboy said:
Whatever. I just know that if I got free money from the government I certainly wouldn't be complaining about it.
I am sure you would once your parents lost their jobs because of that free money. Either way chalk up another loss for you by not understanding that the American People by and large hate Socialism.
