United States Presidential Election 2008 - Official Discussion Thread

Started by xmarksthespot143 pages

Y-yes?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Y-yes?
Xenophobe. I double owned you.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Again, does that chart reflect the increase in cost for all goods on those people in the bottom 3 (or even bottom 4) brackets if Obama raises business taxes?

None of you get it do you?

um, why would it? That's just looking at taxes.

Originally posted by lord xyz
No, we British don'thave a dream, like you. Mostly because we're awake.

I'm just saying there are factors you don't know, the story of your uncle sounds like the book "An Inspector Calls".

Oh God, you people with your "We British" actually make me sick. Britain's a ****ing shit hole, but for some reason you have some odd patriotic duty to group all people from this absolute hole into a category of seemingly noble people, who love their country, but hate everywhere else.

Originally posted by Strangelove
um, why would it? That's just looking at taxes.

Because it's another part of Obama's tax plan.

He plans on being able to pay for certain things and also to guarantee those tax cuts by increasing tax on businesses.

Which as I've stated, would be bad for the average consumers.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Because it's another part of Obama's tax plan.

He plans on being able to pay for certain things and also to guarantee those tax cuts by increasing tax on businesses.

Which as I've stated, would be bad for the average consumers.

You're also over simplifying it. Sure the increase (or part of) will be passed onto the consumer in some areas, but there is a limit into how high a gallon of milk is going to cost.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're also over simplifying it. Sure the increase (or part of) will be passed onto the consumer in some areas, but there is a limit into how high a gallon of milk is going to cost.
Sure you say that now, just wait 'til you go to the supermarket to find milk on special at $1,000 a gallon...

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Because it's another part of Obama's tax plan.

He plans on being able to pay for certain things and also to guarantee those tax cuts by increasing tax on businesses.

Which as I've stated, would be bad for the average consumers.

Trying to including perceived "costs" of a candidate's tax plans is an exercise in demagoguery. How does McCain plan to pay for the federal government when he's cutting taxes across the board?

Originally posted by Strangelove
Trying to including perceived "costs" of a candidate's tax plans is an exercise in demagoguery. How does McCain plan to pay for the federal government when he's cutting taxes across the board?
The costs of their tax plans aren't that significantly different; just the distribution. So the same question could easily be asked of Obama.

Originally posted by Strangelove
How does McCain plan to pay for the federal government when he's cutting taxes across the board?

Hopefully by severly cutting it?

Well then fine, let it be asked. But Obama would answer "ending the $300 billion/month war in Iraq" and McCain would answer "cutting Medicaid/Social Security/Medicare".

I wonder how that's going to go.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Well then fine, let it be asked. But Obama would answer "ending the $300/month war in Iraq" and McCain would answer "cutting Medicaid/Social Security/Medicare".

I wonder how that's going to go.

$300/month? Probably a bit off.

Hmm, could be per person...nevermind.

edited, thanks for pointing that out.

Originally posted by Bardock42
$300/month? Probably a bit off.

Hmm, could be per person...nevermind.

Quite a bit... while $300 billion a month... is also incredibly off...afaik

Unless the Iraq war is amazingly costing more than your entire Federal budget...

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Quite a bit... while $300 billion a month. Is also incredibly off...afaik
Haha, yeah, but that could be exaggeration, and linguistically valid.

I don't know exact figures, but that's a pretty fair estimate.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I don't know exact figures, but that's a pretty fair estimate.
Haha, nah. That's pretty off. Even Reason...doesn't go much further than 1 Trillion Dollar from 2003 till now.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I don't know exact figures, but that's a pretty fair estimate.
Your GDP is roughly $13 trillion/annum. Your Federal budget is approximately $3 trillion/annum.

Your figure is roughly $3.6 trillion/annum or 120% of your Federal budget or 30% of your GDP...

Really?

Common sense should just make you see that's off. There seems to be a swallowing of talking points on both sides.

****, I've never been good with numbers.

We spend a lot of money there, alright? haermm

As far as I'm aware the grand total amounts to somewhere along the lines of $600 billion. Which is of course a huge amount in itself. But still only accounts for a reduction in discretionary spending of around $100-120 billion dollars.

Which brings us back to that both tax policies will either require other large budget cuts or further increases in your national debt. And as far as I can tell it will likely be the latter.

I.e. as I said earlier, both plans seem crap, Obama's is just less crap.