Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Jobless Rate, Recession, and Obama

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 

Why does the US even need a president. How about a computer generated avatar. Or a sock puppet. How about a 5 year plan or a 10 year plan like the Soviets used to have. People would wait for improvement. The govt. could cook the numbers to show real progress.




posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Two big policies that are affecting our economy the NAFTA and the WTO are two issues that neither Obama and McCain has been able to come clean with it at all.

Because these two American crippling policies benefit corporate America.

While Barack Obama has been smart enough to talk about what the NAFTA is doing to America That is all he can do, even when he promises to renegotiate the treaty.

NAFTA was to help Mexico exports for the US but now Even Mexico is becoming a loser here as China and the WTO policies has made possible for China to exploit Mexico, NAFTA made possible for corporate America to dump US for cheap labor across the border, now the greedy corporations are Dumping Mexico for China.

What is McCain stance on NAFTA and the WTO?

McCain been the corporate puppet that he is something you can not avoid after been in Washington as long as he has been is a big supporter of NAFTA.

McCain Claims Dems' NAFTA Opposition Hurts Anti-Terror Effort

McCain doesn’t give a crap about American workers he care about who fattens his campaign pocket.

The WTO is crippling America’s ability to look for its best interest and those of the American people.

We have been put at the mercy of 140 nations that doesn’t give a crap about America.

When the US signed the WTO Congress agreed to give a major part of the US sovereignty and usurp its democratic legislative processes to other nations.

This was without the consent of the American people Jamie

What Obama and McCain think about this one.?

Take a very close look at what McCain and Obama voting record on the issue tells.

www.cfr.org...

As usual McCain once again fail, While Obama hesitate but at least with good reason.

Deny Ignorance Jamie we are not dumb and stupid here in ATS is a lot of people that do research and keep on top of the deceiving information that is posted here to confuse the voters in this site.


[edit on 7-9-2008 by marg6043]



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


I am reposting this info from another one of my posts in another thread, so I dont have to retype it all, some info may be out of context the the point still stands. But here is some clarification to the Obama tax plan. Feel free to answer the questions at the bottom if you want, they will provide others with some insight into your posts.




Individual Taxes
There is still no denying that the Obama tax plan will give more tax breaks to the largest number of people. Top 2% will be taxed higher, below $250K(98% of the population) will have lower taxes.

Death/Estate Tax
The estate tax currently only affects estates with values over $2 Million. This represents a very small portion of the estates nationwide. Every estate under $2 million is exempt from an estate tax. Source

Small Businesses
Yes taxes will raise for sole proprietor and partnerships but these types of small business rarely get to the point of making over $250K. Most businesses will be given advice by almost any attorney to convert to an S corp or an LLC in order to protect their personal assets. LLCs have the ability to choose how they want to be taxed, Scorp, sole, partner. You will be hard pressed to find a sole P that is not a LLC or S-Corp, especially one that is making any kind of real money.
Sole Proprietorship
LLC

Effect on Small Businesses
Your article that states that 2/3s of business will be getting taxed 50% is misleading. While 2/3s of small businesses are owned by an individual, most states allow for individuals to start LLCs. Again if you are making over $250K and you are still a Sole P, you are a fool and any attorney will tell you as such. And none the less most Sole Ps and straight up partnerships make less than $250K.
Census Source

I think your last source states that Hoover made his changes during the great depression. Are we currently in a depression? And keep in mind Hoover raised taxes on the top marginal rate who had just lost their collective asses in a stock crash. Also I have yet to see evidence that trickle down economics works in any fashion. Regan tried it and it created the same problems we are facing today.

Not to get to personal and you dont have to answer but are you in these high income brackets? Do you earn over $250k per year? Is your estate valued at over $2 million? Do you own a Sole P or partnership that makes over $250K? If not why are you arguing against policies that will benefit you?

Rich get richer, poor get poorer.



[edit on 7-9-2008 by iamcamouflage]



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   


Seriously, how would this make the economy weak even if it were true? Corporations could then use the money to expand their businesses and hire new people.


You need to do some reading on trickle down economics. Yes in theory giving corporations tax breaks should result in passing the savings down to the American people......but what incentive do they have. Many of the larger coporations are doing much of their work overseas. This means we dont see that re-investment. I would also makes sense that if companies are making all these producst overseas for super cheap labor, we would see those savings as well. But, remind me how much a pair of Nikes cost. Made by third world for pennies and we still pay close to $100!! Greed rules, why give the consumer a break when they are more than happy to pay $100 bucks, and the company can increase profit margins and reward the shareholder. Corporations are only liable to their shareholders. Not the American people. Trickle down is good on paper but greed rules and the consumer does not see any of the savings.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Here is the essence of Obama's economic platform. Today 35% of US households pay no federal income taxes. With Obama's plan to redistribute wealth this will rise to 50%. ( this is verifiable) Just think about that if you are a tax payer, you will be supporting the other 50%. How long can a democracy endure when the indolent are rewarded for their slough. If you are a middle class tax payer be very afraid because you will be hit the hardest. Socialism doesn't work and history proves that. Obama is a socialist make no mistake.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Let's be intellectually honest here... Obama's "plan" for the economy is nothing short of a recipe for disaster. Increasing the costs of doing business does two things - lowers government revenue in the form of taxes AND increases unemployment. There has never been a liberal economic plan that has worked. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong!

Moreover, I see a great number of people taking the Obama bait and blaming our sour economy on the Republicans. While I am NOT a Republican, I AM intellectually honest and feel compelled to point out the Republicans DO NOT control the legislative branch - the Democrats do! It is convenient to point out the President's low approval rating however many partisan hack Democrats simply fail to mention that Congress' ratings are abysmally lower than Bush's - a Congress led by... Democrats.

They also conveniently side-step the fact that the economy turned south under a Democrat controlled legislature, whereas it recovered and grew under the Republican controlled house after 9/11.

I am more than likely voting third party this election cycle as I believe that BOTH parties are compromised by the corporatocracy. What saddens me is to see so many seemingly intelligent people instantly resort to partisan arguments while skillfully avoiding the facts.

To that end, the fact of the matter is that the President has little to no control over the economy, the House has the most power to influence that through their legislative initiatives. Neither McCain nor Obama possess the "silver bullet" to slay what ails this nation economically, despite what they say. It would be most helpful to remember that while contributing to the thread.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I think the general claim made in this thread was that McCain's economic policy is better than Obama's. If you are going to answer JUST that question I would say it isn't. Neither of them have the "silver bullet". But this is an election of two evils. And to address the specific question earlier, increasing the cost of labor alone will not spur economic growth. Obama attempts to balance corporate interest with the individual American's interest by providing tax breaks to those corporations that decide to keep jobs within the country while at the same time raising the minimum wage. I think it's superficial to pick one point and harp on it in order to discredit or destroy a candidates position. The whole policy must be looked at, not just one facet that you may not like. Although it is an entirely different discussion if you factor in the potential for specific proposals to pass vs. all of them. I imagine some will pass in tandem while others may be compromised.

And it is, IMO, quite intellectually dishonest to attribute a current economic situation to a current congress or president. The economony usually lags behind administration policies. President's do submit budget proposals and have the ability to influence economic policy with their appointees to treasury (Paulson is a shill, IMO). And to suggest that a war in the Middle East, anti-regulation laws within the mortgage market, and rampant speculation haven't contributed to American's irresponsible spending and financial immaturity is overlooking a significant factor in today's economy. That's like saying Jimmy Carter wasn't responsible for the state of the economy in the late 70's. And we all know the popular perspective on that.

(Off Topic)
Anyways, I am strongly anti-McCain because I have seen him turn on his belly faster than a lame lizard the moment he began running for president. His political calculations with the Evangelical population, immigrant population, corporate tax, military spending, vet benefits, etc. was too obvious and too familiar. That being said, I would be more willing to take a chance with someone who hasn't been completely tainted by the system and isn't AS in bed with the same interests that are currently schtooping us. Lesser of two evils. I pick no one.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join