Presidential Poll

[joanmcq]

Whatever! what really gets my goat is the redefinition of words by constant repetition to become emotional responses...ie 'elite' who really are the elites in this country?, or 'socialist' lets please really discuss what is socialism and not use it as an insult, along with 'war on terror' (how can we have a war on emotion?) or 'pro-american parts of the country' (say what????). I mean, what is a 'champagne socialist' even? someone who is wealthy but believes they should be taxed higher because of that because it contributes to the common good? So what is the opposite...greedy selfish fat-cat?

I fear for a country that is being trained to respond to attack words without thinking, like Pavlov's dogs. I mean think about it; who is the hero in Its a Wonderful Life, George Bailey, or Mr. Potter? But now so many are elevating the take, take, take, attitude of Mr. Potter and denegrating George, who would be a 'champagne socialist'.

[BHoffman]

of Obama's reply to Joe; the comment of 'its good when the wealth is spread around' referred to the growing disparity between the rich and everyone else, not to welfare, EIC or anything else. It referred to things such as multi million dollar golden parachutes going to executives that destroyed the companies they were leaving, while leaving the rank and file to collect unemployment. He wasn't referring to giving your tax dollars to me or mine to you as a handout, but creating conditions where we can ALL do better, especially the middle class.

And to whomever made the comment about the 'elites'...who do you think the 'elites', as defined by the right wing propaganda machine, are? YOU! Are you educated? You're elite! Are you well read? You're elite! Are you a professional? You're elite! How is Obama 'elite' and Cindy McCain isn't? Give me a break, sheeple. I'd expect more from a group of 'elites' than a bunch of regurgitated propaganda.

Hi Joan - twas I who made the 'elite' comment. I meant to say "Champagne Socialist".

[joanmcq]

Y'all missed the point

of Obama's reply to Joe; the comment of 'its good when the wealth is spread around' referred to the growing disparity between the rich and everyone else, not to welfare, EIC or anything else. It referred to things such as multi million dollar golden parachutes going to executives that destroyed the companies they were leaving, while leaving the rank and file to collect unemployment. He wasn't referring to giving your tax dollars to me or mine to you as a handout, but creating conditions where we can ALL do better, especially the middle class.

And to whomever made the comment about the 'elites'...who do you think the 'elites', as defined by the right wing propaganda machine, are? YOU! Are you educated? You're elite! Are you well read? You're elite! Are you a professional? You're elite! How is Obama 'elite' and Cindy McCain isn't? Give me a break, sheeple. I'd expect more from a group of 'elites' than a bunch of regurgitated propaganda.

[David1980]

For whatever reason, Pioneer family C was unable (or perhaps unwilling) to create anything that someone else wanted. Families A and B made gifts of food to family C.

Giving does not create wealth. It makes the recipient feel more wealthy, but it does not create wealth. Gifts and other transfer payments are not included in GDP by even the most liberal economists.

They payment itself does not. However now that C was given money, and more importantly because C has to make a choice of where to spend it on, families A and B are both going to produce more to meet the higher demand. As a result they might find themself needing to expand operations, perhaps even hire C on to create the higher output.

It's the same situation as the Bush stimulus payments. Encourage economic growth by getting money out there increasing demand.

That's why the much-maligned "trickle down" theory is the only one that makes sense. Who's the best at creating wealth? The people who have done it before and the people who have the know how and experience. Give money to the lowest in the pecking order, and they will spend 100% of it. They won't use it to create wealth.

And who do they spend it on? It ends up going to the people that make things AKA the big corporations. So now the people whoa re the best at creating wealth have more money and can create jobs.

Additionally it's not like a lack of money has really caused job creation to fall. If there was the demand for it any corporation can just borrow more money. They don't do it because when they run cost/benefit analysis the interest expense doesn't create enough additional revenues. But when demand changes suddenly that equation also changes and they do perhaps take out loans and expand.

In economics demand is just as important as supply.

[JCH]

You're equating wealth creation with transfer payments. That's a dangerous mistake.

Wealth is created when someone makes something that another person or persons want. At its most basic, pioneer family A grew vegetables, and pioneer family B raised livestock. A traded with B, vegetables for meat. Viola, wealth creation, and establishment of value.

For whatever reason, Pioneer family C was unable (or perhaps unwilling) to create anything that someone else wanted. Families A and B made gifts of food to family C.

Giving does not create wealth. It makes the recipient feel more wealthy, but it does not create wealth. Gifts and other transfer payments are not included in GDP by even the most liberal economists.

We need to create wealth right now. We lost a bunch (or more accurately, we were fooled into thinking we had more than we actually did).

All the redistributions transfer payments in the world are not going to create a dime's worth of wealth.

That's why the much-maligned "trickle down" theory is the only one that makes sense. Who's the best at creating wealth? The people who have done it before and the people who have the know how and experience. Give money to the lowest in the pecking order, and they will spend 100% of it. They won't use it to create wealth.

Nothing against lending a helping hand to those in need, but comparing those transfer payments to wealth creation is a dangerous misconception. Let the people who create wealth keep what's left after the already onerous taxation, and they'll be the ones to create wealth. Give more and more to those who will only spend, and you're going to have a net effect of draining wealth.

Trickle up is a wealth drain. Trickle down is a wealth creator.

Dippity Duck, you gotta be kidding, right? The trickle down theory died with Reagonomics back in the eighties. And where have you been the past 24 hours anyway? Did you miss the news that the people voted out the crowd that has proven this tired theory that has driven this great nation deeper and deeper into debt?

[dodgedipduck]

You're equating wealth creation with transfer payments. That's a dangerous mistake.

Wealth is created when someone makes something that another person or persons want. At its most basic, pioneer family A grew vegetables, and pioneer family B raised livestock. A traded with B, vegetables for meat. Viola, wealth creation, and establishment of value.

For whatever reason, Pioneer family C was unable (or perhaps unwilling) to create anything that someone else wanted. Families A and B made gifts of food to family C.

Giving does not create wealth. It makes the recipient feel more wealthy, but it does not create wealth. Gifts and other transfer payments are not included in GDP by even the most liberal economists.

We need to create wealth right now. We lost a bunch (or more accurately, we were fooled into thinking we had more than we actually did).

All the redistributions transfer payments in the world are not going to create a dime's worth of wealth.

That's why the much-maligned "trickle down" theory is the only one that makes sense. Who's the best at creating wealth? The people who have done it before and the people who have the know how and experience. Give money to the lowest in the pecking order, and they will spend 100% of it. They won't use it to create wealth.

Nothing against lending a helping hand to those in need, but comparing those transfer payments to wealth creation is a dangerous misconception. Let the people who create wealth keep what's left after the already onerous taxation, and they'll be the ones to create wealth. Give more and more to those who will only spend, and you're going to have a net effect of draining wealth.

Trickle up is a wealth drain. Trickle down is a wealth creator.

[BOB W]

I did not hear that "Joe the Plumber" was on welfare, just that Ohio checked for Welfare and Unemployement records. I do not believe that they found any.............

[David1980]

Before they "spread the wealth" they need to realize that in doing so they will be hurting the economy. The ones at the lower end of the income do not create jobs, the ones with the money. If money is taken from them they will not take a personal "paycut". They will eliminate jobs and the cycle will continue.

Well you have trickle down economics and trickle up economics. If you give everyone who makes less than 50k/year a free $5000 they're going to do something with that money. They're going to spend it, which then moves money "up" the chain, hence "trickle up".

Naturally whoever is given the money directly is going to be the happiest because they have the most short-term result. But I'm not sure trickle down is better from a job creation scenario, at least not as much as it's made out to be.

That said, I don't particularly like EIC and additional CTC and all that. I mean in the current system a question that comes up is "How much can I work before I lose money?" And of course a system that encourages those on the low end to reproduce isn't the best either.

Between Obama and McCain I would have picked Obama -- Palin as president scared me, I think she would have been more of a puppet than normal presidents are. Thankfully I had more than two options so I voted 3rd party.

[Jesse]

I don't understand why everyone is so shocked as if this is a total new concept.

Joe the plumber cries out he doesn't want to take someone else's money. He talked about being a single Dad and being on welfare. How it's not fair that some of his friends are on welfare and how it's not fair that when they work hard and earn that extra $1 all aide is cut off completely. Exactly where does Joe think his welfare comes from? But not to worry as he has formed a watchdog group to "keep an eye on government".


John I think you nailed it!

Bob:
Looks like you nailed it.

I have to add one comment. This election process is one of the many things I love about this fantastic country. Every 4 years we organize a revolution. It's messy and ugly at times, but it works fairly well. Sometimes we throw out the current crowd and other times we more-or-less choose the status quo. But when the revolution is over we don't execute the old crowd & their families or riot in the streets. Even though my favored people didn't do so well this time around, my day won't change very much tomorrow and the world isn't coming to an end. I'll still go to work and do my job just like I did today, as will most of the rest of those on this forum. Regardless of how anyone feels about the outcome, we should all be thankful that we are privileged to live in the greatest nation in the world. I certainly am.

Amen! I now pledge not to revisit this thread.

[ChEAr$]

I think I read that one

I personally believe that "O" will only have the one term. The same would be true if McCain had won. Unless they can miraculously pull off some legislation that turns the economy around in the first year they will not get re-elected.

While I don't want to pay any more taxes personally, I am willing to pay my fair share.

Before they "spread the wealth" they need to realize that in doing so they will be hurting the economy. The ones at the lower end of the income do not create jobs, the ones with the money. If money is taken from them they will not take a personal "paycut". They will eliminate jobs and the cycle will continue.

There was a letter to the editor in a local newspaper where someone described the spreading of wealth as taking points from a 3.0 student and giving them to the students with lower gpa. The graduation rate will rise but they still will not be able to read, write, etc. Unfortunately, without reading and writing, a lot of common sense goes out the window.

about the redistribution of grades in our local 12th street rag, here in Columbus, GA

But my favorite is about the guy entering a restaurant and seeing a homeless guy begging for food money. Later he pays for his meal and the waiter is obviously incensed due to
the lack of a tip, any tip whatsoever. The customer explains that he will help out and
redistribute the same amount to the homeless guy out on the street.

[Skate1968]

I personally believe that "O" will only have the one term. The same would be true if McCain had won. Unless they can miraculously pull off some legislation that turns the economy around in the first year they will not get re-elected.

Yes, I agree with BH & CinSee. This is a good point. I like Obama. But i think several of the people who were celebrating the other night will eventually grow disappointed. The damage has already been done.

[BHoffman]

Wrapped those up in oilcloth and hid them in a cave out in the desert along with the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights for future generations to ponder.

[Davc]

Except that tomorrow I'll be busy burying guns and enough money and canned goods in the backyard to tide us over until the redistributionistas come calling with their brand new government issued metal detectors

Don't forget your Bibles you bitter sounding person.

[BHoffman]

CinSee- Agreed. Would like to see those blue collar manufacturing jobs back in the US, but the EPA has created so much red tape that isn't likely to happen. Our environment is much cleaner, but our people are much poorer overall. The Elites don't care about people. After all, people are bad for the environment. Right?

I think McCain/Palin could have stood up to the special interests, unions, foreign powers, and our own EPA to help us be able to compete in the world market and get us back in business and create good factory jobs here at home for our people. Much of the economic problem is due to too much consumption and not enough production.

The bottom up theory is going to create a new class of welfare slaves, I'm afraid. These are the "working poor". The problem is not our people - they show a willingness to work - the problem is the scarcity of good blue collar jobs. Obama's solution is to move money from those few with good paying jobs to those many with low paying jobs. That might afford a higher standard of living for the working poor, but nothing compared to what a good paying job in a factory, where one can move up the ladder as skills improve, could bring.


The working class will work much harder and take home much less to support that new class of government dependents, while being told we should be grateful for the little we will get back in the form of national healthcare and a $1000 tax credit now and then.

[AuditorTurnedGood]

on the bright side

If McCain had won, we'd all be pretty slow because we'd really have no new tax policy to wrestle with every season. Think of all the changes that might be on the way. Good or bad for the bottom line of the 1040, they will be good for business.