McCain Policy: The Economy

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   
2008 Presidential Candidate Platform Discussion



A pro-growth, pro-jobs strategy to get our economy back on track. John McCain's strategy includes taking the near-term actions needed to provide immediate help to American families while also taking the longer-term steps necessary to secure America's economic prosperity and leadership in the world.


www.johnmccain.com...

Presented for critical discussion and analysis by ATS members under the spirit of the new guidelines announced in This Thread.




posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
This is part of an earlier post that I had on another thread:

Sen. McCain economic plan is so alike to Bush economics that it wont help this country AT ALL. The Bush taxcuts where supposed to be the linchpin of his economic plan, by giving more money to the companies they were supposed to create jobs and improve the economy instead what it did was to give more revenue to the companies who them move their operations overseas slashing jobs in the U.S. which help in great part to the foreclosures that ignited this current economic crisis that has claimed many banks and investment firms and also has expanded our national debt with all the bailouts that has been given so far. Thats Bush economics in its simpler form.


Cut The Corporate Tax Rate From 35 To 25 Percent: A lower corporate tax rate is essential to keeping good jobs in the United States. America was once a low-tax business environment, but as our trade partners lowered their rates, America failed to keep pace. American workers deserve the chance to make fine products here and sell them around the globe.


This is a repeat of Bush economics, the wishful thinking that if we give more money to BIG corporations they would return the favor by creating more jobs here in the U.S. The reality is that the companies dont care about doing any favors, they only care about their bottom line as they should.



John McCain believes that globalization is an opportunity for American workers today and in the future. Ninety-five percent of the world's customers lie outside our borders and we need to be at the table when the rules for access to those markets are written. To do so, the U.S. should engage in multilateral, regional and bilateral efforts to reduce barriers to trade, level the global playing field and build effective enforcement of global trading rules.

www.johnmccain.com...

I read somewhere a statement that is very true, it went something like this : "The U.S. has never "LOST" a war but has never WON a trade agreement"

All this NAFTA and FTA's that Bush has signed have resulted in the job losses that we now face, the idea in theory is good but the result are better for those that sit on the other side of the table.

Bottomline, Sen. McCain economic plan is basically and sorry for the cliche "MORE OF THE SAME" failed Bush policies that have created this present economic chaos.


EDIT TO ADD: Sen. McCain has been saying for months now that the fundamental of the economy are strong. Yesterday he was taken to task for his statement:


McCain softened his earlier comments that "the fundamentals of the American economy are strong."

"What I obviously was saying, and I believe, is the American workers, the most productive and the most innovative -- they are the fundamentals of our economy and the strength of it and the reason why we will rebound," he said Tuesday on CNN's "American Morning


Still, how can workers can produce and innovate if they have no job! This guy clearly has no idea IMO about the economy.






[edit on 16-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 



Originally posted by Bunch
This is a repeat of Bush economics, the wishful thinking that if we give more money to BIG corporations they would return the favor by creating more jobs here in the U.S. The reality is that the companies dont care about doing any favors, they only care about their bottom line as they should.


Question: Who will create new jobs if not for private enterprise? The gov't?

Another point: Democrats have been attempting to paint a McCain victory as "four more years of Bush". There is no basis for that assumption.

However, Bush's record regarding jobs and the economy is satisfactory. But this thread is not about Bush; it is about McCain.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky


Question: Who will create new jobs if not for private enterprise? The gov't?


The idea that by lowering taxes it would correlate to job creation in American soil has been debunk by this current administration current economic plan. The companies ran with the revenue from the tax cuts to build plants and shipping jobs overseas.


Another point: Democrats have been attempting to paint a McCain victory as "four more years of Bush". There is no basis for that assumption.


Is the same plan, tax cuts for corporations and praying that they return the favor by creating jobs here which would not happen.


However, Bush's record regarding jobs and the economy is satisfactory. But this thread is not about Bush; it is about McCain.


Bush record regarding the economy satisfactory!!!

People loosing homes, loosing jobs, bank and financial firms failing, government bailouts, we are on a recession by many analyst estimates and on the brink of a DEPRESSION some of them say. Sheez!!

No wonder why you are McCain supporter, some of the people in the GOP are really out of touch with reality. I bet that you also think that the fundamentals of the economy are strong.

I dont want to see what the GOP supporters would call an economic downturn!!! Some GOP supporters wouldn't recognize a Depression even if it hit them right in the face.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 



Originally posted by Bunch
The idea that by lowering taxes it would correlate to job creation in American soil has been debunk by this current administration current economic plan. The companies ran with the revenue from the tax cuts to build plants and shipping jobs overseas.


It is a proven tenet of economics. You keep saying it doesn't work, but you have not provided any stats or facts to support it.

Once again, I ask you: Who will create new jobs if not for private enterprise? The gov't?


Originally posted by Bunch
Is the same plan, tax cuts for corporations and praying that they return the favor by creating jobs here which would not happen.


It is an economic fact of life that a consumer will not pay $100 for a pair of sneakers that can be manufactured overseas and sold for $25. If you force the issue through import tariffs, you fuel inflation, since the worker will need higher wages to purchase a product simply because it has "Made in the USA" stamped on it.

One would think that the auto industry, now dominated by Japan, would have taught you this lesson.

And please answer my question about job creation.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
What I believe people should look at, are the corporations that give large donations to the DNC and/or RNC.
Here is the list of top 100 donors in 2008:
www.opensecrets.org...

Of the top 100 organizations in the list, only 15 lean to, or are solidly behind Republicans, while 85 lean to, or are solidly behind Democrats.
As someone once said, follow the money.

NOTE how virtually ALL of the Wall Street brokerage firms support the Democratic party, and not the Republican party.
These, people are the FACTS.

Comments like "Republicans and their wall street buddies have caused this mess" are shown to be what they are- ABSOLUTE LIES.
Wall Street is in the pocket of the Democratic Party. Those are the FACTS. Those are the NUMBERS. People can have their opinions, but the NUMBERS SPEAK louder than OPINIONS.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 



The companies ran with the revenue from the tax cuts to build plants and shipping jobs overseas.


Can you please name these companies?


Is the same plan,


Democrats are predicted to win Congress. In addition neither candidates plan is guaranteed. It is subject to change once they get in the White House. Things could have changed by then for better or worse. This would nullify their current plan.


People loosing homes, loosing jobs, bank and financial firms failing, government bailouts, we are on a recession by many analyst estimates


and many analysts say otherwise. Did anything special happen to affect the unemployment rate? How does ours compare to other countries? What percentage of Americans are losing their homes? Is government also responsible for businesses conducting bad deals, mismanaging their money, and cooking their books?



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Lets go back here for a second to your assertion that President Bush has done satisfactory job on the economy:


Three out of four Americans, including large numbers of Republicans, blame President Bush’s economic policies for making the country worse off during the last eight years, according to a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll released today, reflecting a sharp increase in public pessimism during the last year.

Nine percent of respondents said the country’s economic condition has become better off since Bush became president, compared with 75% who said conditions had worsened. Among Republicans, 42% said the country is worse off, while 26% said it is about the same, and only 22% thought economic conditions had improved

Times poll: 75% blame Bush’s policies for deteriorating economy

If for that you mean satisfactory that’s entirely up to your interpretation.


It is a proven tenet of economics. You keep saying it doesn't work, but you have not provided any stats or facts to support it.


The number of articles and studies that have analyzed the effect of Bush tax cuts policies impact in our economy reach the hundreds by now, a simple search and you can find many of them, this is not new stuff. But since you aske me for facts let me give you some:


The Bush tax cuts did not produce new jobs. In 2003, the President’s Council on Economic Advisers promised 1.4 million new jobs by the end of 2004, over and above the 4.1 million jobs expected from
normal economic growth. Although the actual jobs created failed to even match those expected in a normally functioning economy, let alone one supposedly supercharged by tax cuts, that hasn’t stopped
conservative forecasters from returning to the “tax cuts create jobs” mantra in 2005 (a year in which only 2 million new jobs were created).
Changes in tax policy have no clear impact on job growth. Tax cuts have sometimes been followed by periods of increased unemployment; at other times, tax cuts have been followed by sharp declines in unemployment. By the same token, tax increases have not always been followed by the doomsday predicted by conservatives. One of the most robust periods of job growth and economic expansion followed the Clinton tax increases of 1993.
The quality of jobs as measured by income, health insurance and retirement benefi ts has declined appreciably since the 2001 tax cuts. Between 2000 and 2004, inflation-adjusted family income has declined, and the number of U.S. workers covered by employer-provided retirement benefi ts and health insurance has contracted. The less than normal number of jobs created have been less than what is
needed to provide a reasonable standard of living.
African-American and Latino families have seen their economic security deteriorate at an even greater rate than white families. Despite the President’s statement that tax cuts would create jobs for all who want them, we have instead seen a widening of the racial economic divide. African-American unemployment remains about twice as high as that of white workers. In addition, the earnings gap between white workers and workers of color has grown even wider since the 2001 tax cuts.
Tax cuts for today’s taxpayers are a tax burden for tomorrow’s taxpayers. While politicians say that tax-cut plans won’t increase the deficit, there’s little evidence that this is anything but an “urban legend” popular in Washington, D.C.

www.faireconomy.org...

Let me emphasize this point again:
One of our most robust periods of job growth and economic expansion followed the Clinton tax increase. Wow!…imagine that.

More…

Changes in tax law since 2001 reduced federal government revenue by $870 billion through September 2005. Supporters of these tax cuts have touted them as great contributors to growth in jobs and pay. But, in reality, private-sector job growth since 2001 has been disappointing, and a closer look at the new jobs created shows that federal spending—not tax cuts—are responsible for the jobs created in the past five years. If tax cuts have created jobs at all since 2001, it will have happened in the private sector. Assuming that job growth in 2006 matches the Bush Administration's projections, the economy will have added about 2.0 million jobs to the private sector from FY2001 through FY2006. But how many of these two million jobs actually can be attributed to tax cuts and how many to increased government spending—particularly increased defense spending—in this period?

Based on Defense Department estimates of the number of private-sector jobs created by its own spending, we project that additional defense spending will account for a 1.495 million gain in private sector jobs between FY2001 and FY2006. Furthermore, increases in non-defense discretionary spending since 2001 will have added yet another 1.325 million jobs in the private sector, for a total of 2.82 million jobs created by increased government spending. Increased mandatory government spending—which is not even included in these estimates or the accompanying chart—would account for even more job creation. The mere fact that the projected job growth resulting from increased defense and other government spending exceeds the actual number of jobs projected to be added to the economy through 2006 clearly indicates that the tax cuts hardly seem plausible as the engine of the modest job growth in the economy since 2001.

www.jobwatch.org...

That’s part of the answer to your question, but I will address it in full at the bottom.

More..

- Based on the CBO data, the top one percent of households (whose incomes average nearly $1.2 million) will receive an average tax cut of approximately $40,990 in 2004. This is more than 40 times the average tax break for those in the middle fifth of the income distribution. The gap is dramatic even though this calculation does not include the effects of two major tax cuts that disproportionately benefit very high-income households — the “bonus depreciation” business tax cut and the phase-out of the federal estate tax. The CBO study is the most comprehensive analysis available by a governmental body of who benefits from the Bush tax cuts.
-The resulting increase in after-tax income is, on average, more than two and a half times larger for the top one percent of households than for those in the middle of the income scale. As a result, the top one percent will enjoy a larger share of the after-tax income in the nation than they would have received absent the tax cuts, and the bottom 80 percent will receive a smaller share. Economists generally believe that changes in after-tax income represent the most appropriate measure of the distributional impact of tax cuts, since after-tax income reflects the income a household has available to spend or save.
-The top one percent will gain by far the most from the tax cuts even though it has already been the main beneficiary of income trends since the 1970s. Data from a separate CBO study, released in April of this year, indicate that between 1979 and 2001 (the latest year CBO examined), the average after-tax income of the top one percent of households rose by a stunning $409,000, or 139 percent, after adjusting for inflation.[1] This dwarfed the $6,300, or 17 percent, average increase among the middle fifth of the population, over this 22-year period, and the $1,100, or 8 percent, increase among the bottom fifth of the population.

A study by Mark Zandi, the chief economist at the independent economic research firm Economy.com, finds the tax cuts were poorly designed for purposes of stimulating the economy. If designed differently, the stimulus package would have generated significantly more economic and jobs growth for each dollar it cost.

• Zandi examined the average “bang for the buck” of provisions in the enacted tax cuts. He finds that the significant majority of these tax cuts consist of policies that return little bang for the buck, yielding less than $1 of short-term economic demand for each $1 of cost. Altogether, Zandi’s study indicates that the average bang for the buck from the tax cuts has been 74 cents. (In other words, each dollar of tax cuts has produced only 74 cents of added economic demand the next year.)

•Zandi also examined an alternative stimulus package and found it would have yielded far more short-term demand — $1.20 for each $1 of cost — and thus have generated significantly more economic and job growth. The alternative package would have put more money into the hands of those who immediately spend it — low- and middle-income Americans — through tax cuts targeted on this group, greater temporary unemployment benefits, and more federal fiscal relief to states to lessen state budget cuts and tax increases. As noted, the federal tax cuts that were enacted are heavily skewed toward high-income households, who are much less likely than other households to spend their tax cuts quickly. (They are more likely to save their tax cuts.)

The Economic Policy Institute finds that the number of jobs created in the wake of the tax cuts has already fallen 2.7 million jobs short of Administration predictions made in 2003.

www.cbpp.org...

To be continued in next post



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
(Continuation of earlier post}

More..

The numbers tell the story, and it's not a pretty tale. We have 2.3 million fewer jobs than in February 2001 -- a month after President Bush took office. That is the worst sustained period of job loss since jobs data began at the end of the Great Depression.Unless things turn around very soon, Bush will have presided over the first administration since Herbert Hoover's to end with fewer jobs than it started with.

There are two fundamental problems with this administration's economic policies. First, despite the fact that many in Congress applaud the president's appeal to make the tax cuts permanent, most people outside the Beltway fear that a budget train wreck is imminent. Given the magnitude of current and future government borrowing, interest rates on business loans will soar once the Federal Reserve and our foreign creditors stop their easy-money policies. Knowing what is around the corner, businesses have hunkered down and not made long-term commitments to hire and invest.


The EPI was predicting that this economy through Pres. Bush tax cuts policies for the rich and corporation would spell disaster for the budget and the economy as early as 2004.


The failure of the tax cuts to reignite job growth has taken a toll on living standards. The real income of the typical household fell in both 2001, a recession year, and 2002, a nonrecession year; relative to 2000, the median household's income had decreased $1,400 by 2002 (the most recent year such data are available). With job creation so weak, many workers lost the bargaining power that had enabled them to bid wages up in the latter 1990s. The pace of wage growth slid consistently in 2003, ending the year at 1.9 percent, just about the rate of inflation and the slowest yearly growth rate since 1987. Part of this decline in wages has to do with the fact that we're losing higher paying jobs in manufacturing and professional services (including information technology) and adding jobs in lower-end services. Since the recession ended, the jobs we've lost are in industries that pay about $2 more per hour than the jobs we've gained.

www.epi.org...

And where does high end paying jobs have gone, overseas thanks to all the FTA’s this current administration has signed.

Look to be honest I don’t even think that the Bush administration had any idea that these economic policies would be that terrible. The problem with this president can be summarized in one word, he was and still is too stubborn. He was stubborn with Iraq, he was stubborn with his economic policies, he turns a deaf ear to criticism and by the time he realized that the economic policies were a mistake, it was like trying to stop an avalanche. From that point on is been patches after patches to see if anything can get us in the right direction.

Finally this:

Question: Who will create new jobs if not for private enterprise? The gov't?


As you point out the private sector is the motor of our economy. The problem is that when the government inject the wrong set of policies in order to create jobs lots of bad things can happen. That’s all that happen with the Bush administration policies on tax cuts, IT WAS A FAILED POLICY, one that Sen. McCain wants to continues and if it hasn’t work in the last 8 years why do you think that is going to work now? Please explain that to me.

And now if you are going to ask why do I favor Sen. Obama’s economic plan he are my top reason:
-It offers more rights and protection for workers instead than to companies
-Fight for fair trade
-Amend NAFTA and other FTA’s
-End tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas
-Reward companies that support American workers
-Clean Energy plan that would create jobs across the spectrum and at the same time guide us towards energy independence.
- Make R&D tax credit permanent
-He has talked about letting the Bush tax cuts expire, close corporate loopholes on taxable revenue, a responsible withdrawal of troops from Iraq all of which would bring down considerably our deficit depending how this current administration leaves it at.

The bottom line on this tax cut issue and Sen. McCain plan is that we have been down this road for the past 8 years and has been proven to be a failure of historic proportions, we are talking about Great Depression kind of failure. We need someone that first and foremost can protect American jobs, that can sit a the negotiating table and level the trade playing field, that knows when tax credits are appropriate for a particular corporation and when is not. And that the difference between Sen. Obama’s plan to that from Sen.McCain.







[edit on 16-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Here are we trying to debate the platforms of the candidate an you bring the kind of deflection, childish attacks and clearly off topic that this type of thread and ATS is trying to fight and get rid off.




posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   


And now if you are going to ask why do I favor Sen. Obama’s economic plan he are my top reason:
-It offers more rights and protection for workers instead than to companies


I would HARDLY call taking away a workers' right to a secret vote on whether to join a union is giving MORE rights and protection to those workers:
townhall.com...

WASHINGTON -- When Barack Obama was seeking AFL-CIO support in the primaries, he promised to sign a bill that would effectively deprive workers of a private-ballot vote in unionization drives.

The bill, which is No. 1 on organized labor's wish list, is seen by union bosses as the only way to increase depleted membership rolls because it would be easier to unionize workplaces without the bother of the private ballot to protect workers in a free and democratic election.
Obama doesn't talk about this issue much before general audiences, but it his No. 1 promise when he speaks to unions -- pledging that the so-called Employee Free Choice Act will become law in 2009 if he wins the presidency in November. "We're ready to play offense for organized labor. It's time we had a president who didn't choke saying the word 'union.' A president who strengthens our unions by letting them do what they do best: organize our workers," the freshman senator told the AFL-CIO in Philadelphia on April 2.

"I will make it the law of the land when I'm president of the United States," he told the labor federation.

The labor-law reform is known as the "card-check bill" because it would allow employees to form a union simply by publicly collecting a majority of cards signed by workers supporting unionization of their employer's business. Union leaders would, of course, know how each worker voted, opening them up to pressure and intimidation.

Under current law, once a majority of workers submit cards requesting union certification, an election is held where workers vote by secret ballot on whether to ratify unionization. The bill, pushed by labor and supported by Obama, would effectively abandon that procedure in most cases.

John McCain opposes the bill, saying it would deny a democratic right of workers to decide by secret ballot whether they and their co-workers will come under union representation.

The Arizona Republican thinks the card-check bill is nothing more than "a poorly disguised attempt by the labor unions to swell their ranks at the expense of workers' rights and employers."


Note also that John McCain is opposed to this change.

Now, WHO did you say is for the WORKER?

Obama seems to be for the UNION BOSSES.
McCain is for the WORKER.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321


Can you please name these companies?

I could but to be honest I am tired of feeding people information on these boards, people should come here BEFORE they throw they support on the platform of ANY candidate with some knowledge about the issues.


Democrats are predicted to win Congress. In addition neither candidates plan is guaranteed. It is subject to change once they get in the White House. Things could have changed by then for better or worse. This would nullify their current plan.


Thats why I think Sen. Obama's plan has more chance of getting through. Plans are always subject to changes but what you have to analyze is the ideas that the candidates bring to the table which gives you a pretty good idea on the direction that they want t take the country.


and many analysts say otherwise.


Please name me one respected economy analyst that dont think that we are facing a serious economic downturn ot that we are already on a recession.


Did anything special happen to affect the unemployment rate?



The nation's unemployment rate zoomed to a five-year high of 6.1 percent in August as employers slashed 84,000 jobs, dramatic proof of the mounting damage a deeply troubled economy is inflicting on workers and businesses

Jobless rate skyrockets

I have said this before so dont think I'm only talking to you, an uninformed voter does a great disservice to this country. Common people we got educate ourselves instead of repeating verbatim what the candidates say.


How does ours compare to other countries?


Completely irrelevant because I could care less what the unemplyment rate is in Canada, I want jobs in the U.S. and I want them NOW!


What percentage of Americans are losing their homes?


Educate yourself


Is government also responsible for businesses conducting bad deals, mismanaging their money, and cooking their books?


Yes! When the policies that they enacted and the deregulation they created contributed to the situation.


[edit on 16-9-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


I'm not going to derail the thread by talking about Bush or Clinton. Feel free to start another thread, though, and I'll see you there.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 





Here are we trying to debate the platforms of the candidate an you bring the kind of deflection, childish attacks and clearly off topic that this type of thread and ATS is trying to fight and get rid off.


My post is on target. It deals with the Economic Issue. Have you not been following the news the last week? It is you who is name calling. I pointed out that the firms that are causing the financial upheaval are all supporting the Democrats. You are stating that McCain's policies are not the solution, but the people who have manipulated the books, pushed commodity markets higher, then lower, through wild speculation, want it to continue, and believe that Obama will allow it. McCain is committed to reform the corrupt financial system that caused these problems, and as a result, he has become a target of those corrupt companies. As I said, follow the money to see what really is going on. The link I posted deals with that. Besides, if the moderators felt I was off topic, I'm sure it would have been removed.
Why not let the moderators do their job, and just stick to the debate.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Bunch
 


I'm not going to derail the thread by talking about Bush or Clinton. Feel free to start another thread, though, and I'll see you there.


The points that I have brought forth between past administrations are to point out were I consider that you are wrong in your view.

You said:

It is a proven tenet of economics. You keep saying it doesn't work, but you have not provided any stats or facts to support it.


And in my view you way wrong on that statement and I gave you the facts to support my arguement. Is not Bush or Clinton, is the facts that you asked for regarding the issue of tax cuts.

I also answer your question, but you haven't ask mine so let me ask you again, why do you think that lowering taxes combined with more globalization as Sen. McCain proposes would equal job creation and economy recovering, it hasn't work in the past 8 years, why is going to work now?

We can agree to disagree but I just want to hear your answer.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


I thought we were here to discuss the platforms of the candidate, but you are well within you right to write whatever you feel like, I just dont think it has nothing to do with the debate on economics and much to do with government reform.

The economy is an issue IMO that people often dont know, and it would serve better if we analyze the current economic situation a compare both candidates platforms to see which one would take this country out the economic swamp that we find ourselves this days.

I have brought facts and figures to this thread, I have read John McCain plan for the economy more than 15 times already, I have heard what he has to say about the economy. None here that support Sen. McCain have come to explain why his plan would work, I have already gave you my position of why it wouldn't, so would anyone care to explain why it would? Like I said in a earlier post we can agree to disagree, I just want the point of view from a McCain supporter.

BTW, that deal with Sen. Obama with the Employee Free Choice Act, is something that I wouldn't support. Not saying that because of that his plan is no good, just pointing out that it is a flaw.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


you made a statement I asked you to name the companies.


analyze is the ideas that the candidates bring to the table which gives you a pretty good idea on the direction that they want t take the country.


How can you gauge direction if they were to totally revamp their plans once elected.

Edward E. Leamer source


Completely irrelevant because I could care less what the unemplyment rate is in Canada, I want jobs in the U.S. and I want them NOW!


you should. If people are unemployed overseas they are less able to buy our goods and services. This reduces business profits and forces companies to lay off which could possibly lead to higher unemployment.

Educate yourself...You go yacking your mouth about people losing their homes and I ask you to give me percentage and you tell me to educate myself.....Come on I thought you said people people should be knowledgeable before they bring up issues. Quote me a percentage. you mentioned it not me.

What deregulation are you talking about?

Do you realize how much things would cost if government had to dot every I and cross every T for every business?



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Im not going to waiste my time with people that dont want to take their time and assess the comments that I put forth.

You come here and question the credibility of my statements? Then you do own research and call me out when you find that I have made a mistake or given wrong information, thats how you debate, not with endless request for facts when a simple google search would give you the information that I could provide you.

I have spent more than enough time going through facts and figures and preparing post on this thread. You think I'm lying or that my facts are innacurate do your own research and present them here.

I apologize if you think I'm being snide towards you, it is not my intention at all but its really frustrating to be presenting facts and points of view and all I get in reply are one or two liners that either deflect, or do not add anything uselful to the topic.

One more time, assuming you are a McCain supporter. Why this plan of more tax cuts that hasn't worked in the past 8 years, all of the sudden would work with McCain, why is so different? How is going to turn the economy and create jobs? We can agree to disagree but I just want to see your point of view.

Last post on the thread, until some serious discussion starts to take place.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


I don't take it personally and I am not attacking you either. You have posted some interesting things that I will research further, but not to prove you right or wrong. We learn from all walks of life.

Example..the media is constantly talking about people losing their home and people see it as a serious problem and believe lots o people are losing them. I see you mention it so I ask you a curious question, What percentage losing their home? Another good question is what type income are these people making? I ask you because you might have something on that and also because the media is renown for sensationalizing things.

Personally, I feel both parties are feeding us a bunch of bull. I do lots of research and researching on vague plans are hard to do. Neither one will change anything. Congress will still have the ultimate say and will still be bickering with each other. And the parties will continue to divide us by red and blue so we will never see what they are really doing.

What you have to say, whether I agree or not is still beneficial to many people. We can all learn from each other. Especially since we all see the glass from different points.

So post on. On some things I will agree with you and on others I will not. I will try to provide proof if I don't agree. America comes first, not the candidates. And I find fault with plans by both candidates.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


Answer to your question. By the way not McCain supporter. I believe tax cuts in certain areas will work like in corporate taxes. On the personal income I think taxes should be increased on rich but not so severely.

Corporate taxes are paid by consumers. Corporations only make profits if consumers buy their products. If you increase this tax consumers could face higher prices.

Personal income on rich- should be increased but not so drastically that they will quit buying their toys and luxury items. They cut back on these expensive items and States and local communities lose out on sales taxes. Businesses also will sell less and could possibly lead to layoffs.

So part of McCain plan is ok depending where he cuts taxes. Not the full Bush tax cuts.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join