Forum: HoseHeads Sprint Car General Forum (go)
Moderators: dirtonly  /  dmantx  /  hosehead

Member of this message board since 1997

pat. i would tend to agree with you if we had just been given an estimate from a quick visual inspection. but obama told us he had "rigorously researched" the problem and gave us a proposal based on that research. he didn't tell us that he would have to get into the project to find out just what needed to be done and the cost/time table to fix it. he told us he knew what was wrong and what it was going to take.

now if he would have missed it by a little, that might not have been so bad for him. but he didn't miss it by a little. i realize he never "promised" to keep unemployment under 8%, but he told us his "rigorous research" showed his stimulus would keep unemployment under 8%. unemployment shot up to almost 11% and has never come down to under 8% even using fuzzy math to do it. he told us he would reduce the deficit by half in his first term. he has increased it by one third. he told us if he couldn't do those things he would be a one term president.

he didn't tell us that he thought he could do that stuff, but things might be worse than he thought and if he couldn't he was going to need more time. he didn't state anything like that. he didn't say he was going to blame everything on someone else. he said he wasn't going to blame anyone and he was going to take charge. he didn't say he was going to play class and racial and gender warfare and try to divide the people. he said he was going to unite the country. he didn't say he was only going to help the poor, or the illegals. he said he was going to to help everyone. the only people it seems he has helped so far are the large donors to his campaign. he didn't tell us he would just pick and choose what laws he was going to enforce or not enforce. he didn't tell us he would sue states for trying to implement immegration laws in their state that paralleled federal laws. he didn't tell us he would make end runs around congress to implement policies.

so you are telling me obama made statements that he passed off as a full assessment of the situation when in fact he had no accurate knowledge of the depth of the damage?

like i said, he either grossly over stated his ability to perform, and told us he could do things he knew he couldn't, or he didn't know what he was getting into. either way, he has failed to live up to the ability to perform as he himself specified.

i too respectfully relate this to you as you have related your opinions to me.

to indy and beyond!!

800,000 job losses a month when Obama took office 30 months of job growth sure would like to go back to repub plan 3500 dead and 50,000 injured in IRAQ WAA a lie to enrich a few sure would like to get in another repub war gut medicare to enrich insurance companies and wall street sounds like another great republican plan, Glad I was able to vote early for Obama. Romney needs to move to the Caymans with is worshiped money please tqke ryan with BUT LEAVE LARSON IN SPRINTS

That commercial he's showing about Teacher's, Firemen & Policemen are all Union jobs that are payed by taxpayers. How in the hell can you keep adding those jobs when there are less & less taxpaying people working. Out of the estimated 23 million that don't have jobs, You put 15 to 18 million of them to work & have Federal taken out at even at a piddly 15 hundred a year & so on with Medicare, Etc.. Damn thats some serious funds.

Member of this message board since 1997

Member of this message board since 1997

don't forget we are paying almost the highest business tax in the world. i thi nk it is the second highest.

we are also paying twice as much for gas than when obama came it. we are paying the highest sustained prices we have ever paid. we are also paying higher costs for just about every living expense.

also obama care is going to kick into full swing shortly and there are about 20 + more taxes in it.

our taxes are not what they are because of obama. he has been trying to raise them ever since he came into office.

also the percentage of people in the work force is the smallest it has been in decades, but obama is trying to tell us he is creating jobs.

also that table you posted is for the HIGHEST tax rates. not the taxes you and i pay.

let me direct you to the heritage foundation and their studies on high tax rates for the rich. i have to log out of fire fox and into IE to paste.

from the article:

There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy's growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and "rich" taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden - a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians to support lower tax rates.

Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. In other words, when politicians attempt to "soak the rich," the rest of us take a bath. Examining the three major United States episodes of tax rate reductions can prove useful lessons.

1) Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.

The tax cuts of the 1920s

Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:

The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.

there is more if you wish to see it:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

the heritage foundation is a respectible foundation, not some left wing business rag run by Henry Blodget. henry is the guy who wrote the article you posted the tax table from.

here is a little about henry from his wikipedia page:

Henry Blodget (born 1966) is an American former equity research analyst, currently banned from the securities industry for lying in his stock analyses, who was senior Internet analyst for CIBC Oppenheimer during the dot-com bubble and the head of the global Internet research team at Merrill Lynch. Blodget is now the editor and CEO of The Business Insider, a business news and analysis site, and a host of Yahoo Daily Ticker, a finance show on Yahoo.

more on henry:

n 2002, then New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, published Merrill Lynch e-mails in which Blodget gave assessments about stocks which conflicted with what was publicly published.^[4] In 2003, he was charged with civil securities fraud by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.^[5] He agreed to a permanent ban from the securities industry and paid a $2 million fine plus a $2 million disgorgement.^[6]

to indy and beyond!!

Watkinsgrady says:

"How much has that little conflict in Afganhistan cost? and how about the other wars that we have been in the last 4 yrs cost? All of that cost has to be borrowed, we have had no budget in 3 yrs. Republican or Democrat we have no business in the middle east no matter what the cost in dollars or lives"

Couldn't agree more. So you should be against Romney, who keeps talking tough on the Mideast. Obama needs to get out faster, tho

we have to talk tough on the middle east. as soon as we try to be nice to them, they invade our emassies and kill our people.

it seems to me that iran is bent on getting nukes. if that happens and they keep threatening to use them, do we wait for them to use them, or do we try to keep them from getting them in the first place?

obama has been in charge of afganistan for one third the time a bush, yet two thirds of the US deaths there have come under obama's watch. why aren't the media pounding those numbers into our heads or the colateral damage to innocent drone victems?

to indy and beyond!!

Member of this message board since 1997

um, i don't think we have had 30 months of job growth. to have job growth you need to be adding more jobs than you are losing per month. i have not seen that happen. also to have had job growth, you first have to replace the jobs that were lost, then you can start counting the additional added jobs as growth. that is the way is has been measured in the past.

think about this. if you go to las vegas and you start with 1000.00 and you lose 900.00 then you win 500.00 you haven't made 500.00. you have still lost 400.00.

also remember when people run out of unemployment money and fall off the unemployment rolls they are not counted as unemployed anymore in figuring the unemployment numbers, even though they are still actually unemployed. so if everyone ran out of unemployment money and no one was collecting unemployment, obama would say unemployment is at zero, even when millions of people were not working.

also when you have lost a lot of jobs you get to a point where there aren't as many jobs left to lose, so the job lose rate slows down. if everyone in the country was out of work, and there were no more jobs left to lose, obama would say job loss number were down to zero.

so if we had no one claiming unemployment money, and everyone was not working, obama would bre claiming we were at zero unemployment and zero job loss. he would be correct about the job loss numbers because he would have already put everyone out of work.

to indy and beyond!!

pat, the tax revenues from the periods in history prove the point that when you let tax the rich less, they don't shelter their money. they put it to work and tax revenues are increased. JFK lowered taxes on the rich becuase they had gotten so high and got those results as well. also the tax table you posted specifically said it was for the highest tax rates.

the heritage foundation is a lot more respectible than a left wing criminal who was banned for lying and telling one story to one set of people while giving other info to another set of people.

he was banned by the SEC so he formed an internet business site so he could promote his lies there.

the fact still remains that obama has incured more deaths in afganistan in a shorter time, and afganistan is looking like a losing deal. i remember obama saying afganistan was the just war.

as far as not talking about politics any more on this site, i tend to agree as this is a racing site.

but if i couldn't support my opinions properly i guess i would bail too! lol! just giving you crap pat. i have no problem going back and forth with you. we both see things in our own way.

anyway, nice to talk to you even though we have differences.

ps: your link to world-wide tax shows the US at a 15-35% business tax rate as well as individuale tax rates. since the capitol gains tax is 15% and income tax rates are 35% for highest earners, that pretty much put the US in the highest tax bracket for income taxes. my statement that the US has about the highest business tax rates seems to be correct, even using your link.

to indy and beyond!!

Don't have time to set you straight on everything at one time, but I'll start here... You say.

"we are also paying twice as much for gas than when obama came it. we are paying the highest sustained prices we have ever paid. we are also paying higher costs for just about every living expense".

First, Obama has no control over the price of oil or gas, the traders do. Second, we are producing more oil than anytime in our history, and right now! Third, we are exporting our oil to other counrty's for a $, and again Obama has no control of this either.

You've made more than a few other statements that need addressing as well. I'll be back.

Half the lies they tell about me aren't true. 

wow.....

did no one take a Civics class in school or what?

CONGRESS makes the laws, the President either signs them or vetoes them. Blame CONGRESS for taxes, spending, etc. Both sides (Dems and Republicans) are guilty of overspending and passing stupid laws.

President is Commander in Chief (primary job description)

The Courts INTERPRET the laws when challenged in court (no more, no less).

Perfect example of people not knowing the difference is the current vendetta against the Iowa Supreme Court Judges by Bob VanderPlaats. Since the judges ruled that the LAW written violated the constitution, they said it was null and void. VanderPlaats and his cronies took that to mean that the judges created a law making same-sex marriage legal (they did not, they just said the law that was written violated peoples rights). The IA Legislature can go in and re-write or make a new law with different wording so they don't violate someone's rights (they choose not to).

As far as Romney and Obama go - it's which one is WORSE, not which one is better. Obama has some leanings about redistribution of wealth that is kinda scary (even for a lower middle-class worker like me), but Romney is out of touch with normal people working. He views EVERYTHING as a handout when it involves the poor or middle class, but tax breaks are OK for the "job creators". What he fails to understand is this. They can cut corporate taxes to 0% and it will create exactly ZERO jobs.

No business is adding payroll or creating more products until there is a DEMAND for their products. You can increase taxes on corporations and it will create ZERO JOBS (and may cost some jobs as well), however increasing taxes on PEOPLE that make $250,000 or more (even small businesses, this # is a NET figure, not GROSS - most small business owners wouldn't even be affected as they don't take home $250,000 out of their business each year) will not cost people jobs either. The CEO of a company is NOT going to cut 50 jobs because his PERSONAL income taxes went up. He may ask for a raise at a shareholder meeting or ask for deferred compensation, but raising his PERSONAL INCOME TAX is not going to cost anyone a job (his PERSONAL INCOME TAX IS NOT tied to the company).

if obama , as president, has no control over gas prices, then why did the libs blame bush every time gas prices went up.

ok, start your double talk babble now.

to indy and beyond!!

If Bush had no control over how the economy turned out, then why are you blamming Obama? That's all I heard 4years ago was that the president did not determaine the gas prices and that the economy was not his fault. When Bush was in office we went from a surplus to a national debt, our country was attacked and because of that we spent billions and trillions of dollars in national security, had 2 wars that all conservatives were for because we needed to bring all of those people to justice and when we found Saddam Hussein all we heard was we needed to stay there and bring democracy to those people. Meanwhile all we heard was that Osama was hiding in a cave somewhere and we were just going to keep searching until we found him. Then we go to hurricane Katrina and we have a president who basically does nothing for them and they are Americans (at least Obama visited people in Missouri last year and declared states of emergancy in proper time) and stock market continued to drop with economy and all we were told was to keep living our lives and go shopping.

I agree that Obama has not done a lot for this country but what people fail to look at is look at what he inherited. And as far as the economy goes, I am far more concerned about people like my wife who and Mitt's stupid policies when it comes to my wife's rights and health than I am about a few rich people concerned about their stocks.

Buzz RR says: "periods in history prove the point that when you let tax the rich less, they don't shelter their money. they put it to work and tax revenues are increased." Fantasy. Didn't work that way under Dubya, did it? They invested in ridiculous scams like "derivatives" (Create ZERO jobs) & when the house of cards collapsed, they went crying to the big bad Federal gov. to bail them out, with OUR money. Both parties guilty, current system of legalized bribery (campaign contributions) creates government of the rich, by the rich & for the rich.

Nick 14 says " agree that Obama has not done a lot for this country but what people fail to look at is look at what he inherited. And as far as the economy goes, I am far more concerned about people like my wife who and Mitt's stupid policies when it comes to my wife's rights and health than I am about a few rich people concerned about their stocks".

Totally agree

Vande77 says: "As far as Romney and Obama go - it's which one is WORSE, not which one is better"

Also agree

System is rigged, they got us by the balls either way.... one corporate tool posing as a liberal & another posing as a fascist

Do you know we (CIA) overthrew the legally elected government of Iran in 1953? (cause they wanted to nationalize oil companies, why else?) Don't you think other countries also have the right to defend themselves?

I don't want present fanatic Iranian government to have nukes either. But they see us & Israel with nukes, obviously feel threatened, can't blame them. They consider Israel to be a colonial invader, Britain gave land to Israel without consulting Palestinians.... who gave Britain that right? UN told Israel to give up occupied territories years ago, no action taken.

I think the only way out of this mess (& not likely) is for all countries to be like the good ole USA & separate church from state. No Islamic, Christian, or Jewish states... and WE need to butt out....

Oh yea.... NO F1 for Kyle!

We should probably have a separate political ranting thread....

By the way, nice photos, Hawker!