Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Why Obama will lose in the fall  (Read 83310 times)

Matthies

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5988
    • View Profile
    • Tell me where you are going to school and you get a cat!
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #800 on: September 20, 2008, 04:32:17 PM »
I've always had a soft-spot for Blue, but some of the morons in this thread make me appreciate him even more...

 ::)

I think he's a bot, the digitised Carl Rove's brain and the result is Blue
*In clinical studies, Matthies was well tolerated, but women who are pregnant, nursing or might become pregnant should not take or handle Matthies due to a rare, but serious side effect called him having to make child support payments.

Thistle

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 9234
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #801 on: September 20, 2008, 04:47:30 PM »
I've always had a soft-spot for Blue, but some of the morons in this thread make me appreciate him even more...

 ::)

I think he's a bot, the digitised Carl Rove's brain and the result is Blue


giggle


how do you explain julie?  an alt?
non ex transverso sed deorsum


JD

Matthies

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5988
    • View Profile
    • Tell me where you are going to school and you get a cat!
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #802 on: September 20, 2008, 04:55:32 PM »
I've always had a soft-spot for Blue, but some of the morons in this thread make me appreciate him even more...

 ::)

I think he's a bot, the digitised Carl Rove's brain and the result is Blue


giggle


how do you explain julie?  an alt?

She's the HAL 9000 version of Donna Brazil
*In clinical studies, Matthies was well tolerated, but women who are pregnant, nursing or might become pregnant should not take or handle Matthies due to a rare, but serious side effect called him having to make child support payments.

vercingetorix

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 726
  • Vive le quebec libre
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #803 on: September 21, 2008, 12:25:27 PM »
what is going to happen to Obama's massive boost in discretionary spending if the Treasury takes almost 1 trillion dollars off the table?  i think this is another serious issue facing the Obama campaign. 

Saxby Clemens II

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 820
  • I'm Chuck Bass.
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #804 on: September 21, 2008, 12:29:44 PM »
It becomes impossible, or nearly so, and thus the Republicans are happy. 
Quote from: Cady
::clutches doll with matching outfit::
Quote from: TheJ
::flippers Sax on ass just for the hell of it::
Quote from: For All Intensive Purposes
i'm not gonna judge, i just think you are a f-ing weirdo

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #805 on: September 21, 2008, 12:53:08 PM »
The lifting of the debt ceiling and Obama's tax raises on the top brackets make most of his spending proposals within reach -- or at least more within reach than either of you allow.  I'm also not sure what massive increases in discretionary spending to which you're referring. 
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

vercingetorix

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 726
  • Vive le quebec libre
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #806 on: September 21, 2008, 02:31:18 PM »
The lifting of the debt ceiling and Obama's tax raises on the top brackets make most of his spending proposals within reach -- or at least more within reach than either of you allow.  I'm also not sure what massive increases in discretionary spending to which you're referring. 
Obama would increase spending by close to 800 billion tomatoes over the course of 4 years.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/08/nation/na-obamaplans8
this will be very hard to do starting off almost one trillion dollars behind.

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #807 on: September 21, 2008, 02:52:16 PM »
The lifting of the debt ceiling and Obama's tax raises on the top brackets make most of his spending proposals within reach -- or at least more within reach than either of you allow.  I'm also not sure what massive increases in discretionary spending to which you're referring. 
Obama would increase spending by close to 800 billion tomatoes over the course of 4 years.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/08/nation/na-obamaplans8
this will be very hard to do starting off almost one trillion dollars behind.

Your number assumes that the middle-class tax cuts Obama proposes would not be offset by tax increases elsewhere (which, interestingly, is at odds with your complaint about being in the top tax bracket above) and that the government won't see any early returns on its investment in all of these mortgage-backed securities.  I agree that there may not be a whole lot of political will for new spending programs in the next several years, but if I were you I would be more concerned about the McCain tax cuts and his empty pork-cutting promises (see http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411750_updated_candidates_summary.pdf) than I would be about increased social spending under Obama.  For one, I think investment in infrastructure and government safety nets will be much more appealing to lawmakers in the wake of the crisis than lowering taxes on the wealthy will be.
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

vercingetorix

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 726
  • Vive le quebec libre
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #808 on: September 21, 2008, 03:28:11 PM »
The lifting of the debt ceiling and Obama's tax raises on the top brackets make most of his spending proposals within reach -- or at least more within reach than either of you allow.  I'm also not sure what massive increases in discretionary spending to which you're referring. 
Obama would increase spending by close to 800 billion tomatoes over the course of 4 years.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/08/nation/na-obamaplans8
this will be very hard to do starting off almost one trillion dollars behind.

Your number assumes that the middle-class tax cuts Obama proposes would not be offset by tax increases elsewhere (which, interestingly, is at odds with your complaint about being in the top tax bracket above) and that the government won't see any early returns on its investment in all of these mortgage-backed securities.  I agree that there may not be a whole lot of political will for new spending programs in the next several years, but if I were you I would be more concerned about the McCain tax cuts and his empty pork-cutting promises (see http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411750_updated_candidates_summary.pdf) than I would be about increased social spending under Obama.  For one, I think investment in infrastructure and government safety nets will be much more appealing to lawmakers in the wake of the crisis than lowering taxes on the wealthy will be.
it is not at odds with my complaint.  i think taxation rates are about where they should be.  further raising the capital gains taxation rates, for example, is a bad idea in my opinion.  so is raising the corporate tax which is already the second highest in the world. this is a philosophical difference we have MissP.  i think the federal government is given more than enough resources to have a robust social safety net.  like most large bureaucracies however, they do a piss poor job of keeping an eye on where money goes and they do an abysmal job of reevaluating if programs that get funding are meeting even the most basic benchmarks of success. throwing more cash at that nightmare isn't the solution.  by freezing spending in this area, you force the government to actually investigate which programs are worthy of government largesse and which programs are a colossal waste of time and money. fleecing the wealthy, who already bear the brunt of the tax burden (the top 1% of income earners, who represent 18% of all personal income, pay almost 30% of federal income tax) is not the answer. as an aside, these people paid fewer taxes under clinton than under bush (this is due to "bracket creep" but it is still factually correct).  it only discourages investment and encourages people with means to hire expensive accountants and lawyers to find loopholes instead of reinvesting in the economy.   

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #809 on: September 21, 2008, 03:36:16 PM »
Yes, those private investment dollars have obviously been a real boon to the economy over these last several years.  I can see why you'd want to keep more of them in individual hands.
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.