-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why are the "Super Rich" supporting Obama?
- Thread starter OldRegular
- Start date
JustChristian
New Member
windcatcher said:
How do you support the argument that the rich will get richer and the poor poorer under Obama?
JustChristian
New Member
OldRegular said:
In what way is he a blasphemer?
So it is not "the" super rich that are supporting Obama as in all or most but it is in fact just a very few.OldRegular said:
Revmitchell said:
Probably so, hard to believe he is getting too many votes from the folks he said he would raise their taxes. It is true he is getting some of their support. Most of his support comes from average working people at the grass roots level who believes his plans for the economy is what we need at this time.
Sorry, I just don't see how giving Exxon who just had another record breaking quarter a tax cut will create any new jobs. If they don't hire anyone with the $14 Bill they just made last quarter then a few more dollars won't gain a job either.
I still don't know how you guys can be so sold on a tax cut equals more jobs. If that were true we shouldn't have lost 160k jobs in Sept since Bush gave lots of tax cuts.
How do you know the past tax cuts did not turn into more jobs? We want tax cuts all around and less federal programs period. The less the better.LeBuick said:
non-sequitureLeBuick said:
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
LeBuick said:
Unemployment is at record levels since when? Since the economic boom, yes. But in American history? no.
Have you seen the news of all the corporations reporting significant profits? Verizon, energy, oil, et.
Big business is going to fair ok. Small business will suffer, and suffer much more under Obama. Just in my area in hearing from small business owners they are delaying expansion plans and planning lay-offs if Obama is elected....why? First, they are going to be taxed more under his plan and the cost of healthcare to them will force them to reduce their workforce because they can't afford the healthcare expense.
Some thigns may sound like great ideals but they just don't work. My prayer is that there will be some balance of power in the house and senate if Obama is elected...ideally to render him useless for the next 4 years.
If the dems hold the house and senate and get the white house with Obama, my prediction is we will head into a very steep and prolonged recession and the markets will crash hard again. Why? No stability. A fully democratic government will allow massive change in economin policy. A balance will allow stability.
If the house and senate stays dem, and the repubs get the white house again, the recession will be shorter, there will be a large up-tick in the markets, and we will flatten out in 2009 as an economy. I predict under a democratic rule America won't pull out of a recession until 2011-2012...maybe.
RB
LeBuick said:
Wow...your knowledge of economic history leaves much to be desired.
Were you alive during the Carter presidency? 'nuff said.
And how 'bout showing us historical data that tax cuts lose jobs? You will find data diametrically opposed to such.
I know you're an Obama man...fine...but at least be honest with the facts.
You havent proven a relationship between the two. As I said your point is a non-sequiture meaning the logic doesn't lead to the conclusion.LeBuick said:
windcatcher
New Member
An example how 'spreading the wealth around' helps the rich to get richer and the poor poorer:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/07/photo-gallery-results-of-obamas.html
If that's not clear enough.......
consider.... if you tax industry profits including oil.... who really pays the tax.... you do every time you consume their product.
If you're building houses or repairing them with government grants and subsidies... administrative ('the rich') cost go up while the incentive to make cheap or somewhat temporary repairs with cheap materials and labor remains.... who benefits.... not the poor who will eventually be evicted when their housing is labeled unfit.... but the rich who adminster the contracts.
You may tell people that 95% will see lower income tax..... and may even lower income tax, but the disproportionate amount of income which they pay for necessities, just to get by, may go to make up for the passed on hidden taxes which increase their cost out of pocket.... and in such a way, they can't even pass it off on the long form as taxes paid to recover a little from their expense.
The poor have no way of passing on their expenses and their taxes. The rich have many options available to hide income, to purchase and avoid taxes, and to pass on to others the taxes which they are charged with. And no one can talk double speak like a lawyer (can we say 'what the definition of 'is' is?) who can say one thing..... knowing how the majority of people will take its meaning considereing their limited experience and education...... but he means another. Then later he might say "I never lied." when he knows full well he was misleading and not telling the truth!
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/07/photo-gallery-results-of-obamas.html
If that's not clear enough.......
consider.... if you tax industry profits including oil.... who really pays the tax.... you do every time you consume their product.
If you're building houses or repairing them with government grants and subsidies... administrative ('the rich') cost go up while the incentive to make cheap or somewhat temporary repairs with cheap materials and labor remains.... who benefits.... not the poor who will eventually be evicted when their housing is labeled unfit.... but the rich who adminster the contracts.
You may tell people that 95% will see lower income tax..... and may even lower income tax, but the disproportionate amount of income which they pay for necessities, just to get by, may go to make up for the passed on hidden taxes which increase their cost out of pocket.... and in such a way, they can't even pass it off on the long form as taxes paid to recover a little from their expense.
The poor have no way of passing on their expenses and their taxes. The rich have many options available to hide income, to purchase and avoid taxes, and to pass on to others the taxes which they are charged with. And no one can talk double speak like a lawyer (can we say 'what the definition of 'is' is?) who can say one thing..... knowing how the majority of people will take its meaning considereing their limited experience and education...... but he means another. Then later he might say "I never lied." when he knows full well he was misleading and not telling the truth!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
LeBuick said:
It is meaningless to speak of profit in dollar amount, it must be considered in the context of investment. Exxon made a smaller percentage of profit [about 10-12 %] than Microsoft did [20+%].
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
LeBuick said:
The above is pure nonsense. Unemployment is 6+% which at one time was considered full employment. The bottom did not fall out of the economy but it will if BO becomes president, another 8 year Roosevelt depression. Since you broke your piggy bank i assume you are too young to remember the Carter misery index.:laugh:
The rich young ruler that came to Jesus and asked what he must do to be saved. Jesus said that he, in short, must keep the Law. The young man replied that he had kept them from his youth up. Jesus knew this and then told him to give all that he had to the poor. The young ruler was very sorrowful and went away sorrowful.
Now the fact that Jesus did not demand that the young man turn around and force him to give it up, tells us much. Jesus goes into a discourse with His disciples about how it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The disciples responded with, "Who then can be saved?"
A rich man was assumed to be especially blessed by God, Remember Job? When Job lost everything it was assumed that God had abandoned him because of some great sin. This young man was very distraught at this request of Christ. However Jesus let him go and the man retained his riches.
Now turn to the Church in the book of Acts and you find that they gave all they had and had all in common. This was not forced on them by Rome. It was a change of heart that motivated them to do this thing. The Apostles did not suggest it they were motivated by the Holy Spirit to do this thing. The Apostles did not demand retribution if they did not give, they gave freely.
Now we have a man who wants to be POTUS. Then he wants to do something that Christ did not do, he wants to force the wealth from a group of folks that sacrificed their youth for hard work through school and then in the market place. As a result they have become very wealthy. This is punishment for their doing things right. Then he wants to turn that around and give it to a group of folks that have not made the efforts to better themselves.
These modern poor are not the same that Jesus was teaching His disciples to take care of. If you study the book of Acts and the letters of Paul you'll see that to be true. In fact you'll note that Paul say that "If a man does not work, he should not eat." Now who are we to rely on for employment? The homeless man on a park bench, drenched in his own urine and drowning in a bottle or the rich man willing to invest in business.
Now according to Obama we are to presuppose that the bench dweller would be rewarded for his life of wantonness and be given that which was taken by force from the rich as punishment for success.
Talking about turning the world upside down.
Well I guess that really is "Change."
Change from the way Jesus and the Apostles defined the poor and rich. :type:
Now the fact that Jesus did not demand that the young man turn around and force him to give it up, tells us much. Jesus goes into a discourse with His disciples about how it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The disciples responded with, "Who then can be saved?"
A rich man was assumed to be especially blessed by God, Remember Job? When Job lost everything it was assumed that God had abandoned him because of some great sin. This young man was very distraught at this request of Christ. However Jesus let him go and the man retained his riches.
Now turn to the Church in the book of Acts and you find that they gave all they had and had all in common. This was not forced on them by Rome. It was a change of heart that motivated them to do this thing. The Apostles did not suggest it they were motivated by the Holy Spirit to do this thing. The Apostles did not demand retribution if they did not give, they gave freely.
Now we have a man who wants to be POTUS. Then he wants to do something that Christ did not do, he wants to force the wealth from a group of folks that sacrificed their youth for hard work through school and then in the market place. As a result they have become very wealthy. This is punishment for their doing things right. Then he wants to turn that around and give it to a group of folks that have not made the efforts to better themselves.
These modern poor are not the same that Jesus was teaching His disciples to take care of. If you study the book of Acts and the letters of Paul you'll see that to be true. In fact you'll note that Paul say that "If a man does not work, he should not eat." Now who are we to rely on for employment? The homeless man on a park bench, drenched in his own urine and drowning in a bottle or the rich man willing to invest in business.
Now according to Obama we are to presuppose that the bench dweller would be rewarded for his life of wantonness and be given that which was taken by force from the rich as punishment for success.
Talking about turning the world upside down.
Well I guess that really is "Change."
Change from the way Jesus and the Apostles defined the poor and rich. :type:
JustChristian
New Member
rbell said:
Tax Cuts Jobs and the Election Economic growth is strong but too many people are out of work.
How will labor market woes affhttp://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/2003/11/01/352280/index.htmect the presidential race?
By Lou Dobbs
November 1, 2003
(MONEY Magazine) – Election Day 2004 is now 12 months away. And the same question is already consuming the political strategists of both George W. Bush and the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination: Is our economic recovery strong enough to create an adequate number of jobs to re-elect the incumbent?
The tax cuts so far have not helped in the creation of jobs, and at this stage in any economic recovery, that is both curious and frustrating. Dudley believes the tax cuts should have been designed differently to provide maximum stimulus to the economy in the short run. Dudley suggests the cuts could have been oriented "further down the income distribution and...[increased] the aid to state governments or [proposed] some sort of federal government infrastructure-spending program."
JustChristian
New Member
July 7, 2005
Do Tax Cuts for the Wealthy Stimulate Employment?
By ROBERT H. FRANK
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/business/07scene.html
THE centerpiece of the Bush administration's economic policy has been large federal income tax cuts aimed mainly at top earners. These tax cuts account for much of the $2 trillion increase in the national debt projected to occur during the Bush presidency. They prompted a large group of Nobel laureates in economics to issue a statement last year condemning the administration's "reckless and extreme course that endangers the long-term economic health of our nation."
Owners who used their tax cuts to finance the initial costs of new hiring would be acting, in effect, as their own bankers, lending money to themselves in the hope of future returns. The test for whether such internal loans make economic sense is exactly the same as the test for external loans.
A loan from a bank makes sense if the firm's ultimate gain from hiring extra workers is enough to cover not only their salaries but also repayment of the loan plus interest. Internal loans must meet the same standard. They are justified only if the firm's gain from hiring extra workers is enough to cover their salaries and repayment of the loan, including the interest that owners could have earned had they left their tax cuts in the bank. In hiring decisions, the implicit costs of internal loans have exactly the same economic standing as the explicit costs of external loans.
In brief, the president's claim that tax cuts to the owners of small businesses will stimulate them to hire more workers flies in the face of bedrock principles outlined in every introductory economics textbook.
A second way the Bush tax cuts might have stimulated employment is by inducing the wealthy to spend more on consumption. But a large share of the tax windfalls received by the wealthy are not spent in the short run. And even among those who are induced to spend more, the main effect is not increased demand for domestically produced goods and services, but rather increased bidding for choice oceanfront property and longer waiting lists for the new Porsche Carrera GT. Such spending does little to stimulate domestic employment.
Economists from both sides of the political aisle argued from the beginning that tax cuts for the wealthy made no sense as a policy for stimulating new jobs. And experience has proved them right. Total private employment was actually lower in January 2005 than in January 2001, the first time since the Great Depression that employment has fallen during a president's term of office.
Robert H. Frank, an economist at the Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University, is the author of "Luxury Fever."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now it's your turn to present evidence to the contrary if you can.
Do Tax Cuts for the Wealthy Stimulate Employment?
By ROBERT H. FRANK
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/business/07scene.html
THE centerpiece of the Bush administration's economic policy has been large federal income tax cuts aimed mainly at top earners. These tax cuts account for much of the $2 trillion increase in the national debt projected to occur during the Bush presidency. They prompted a large group of Nobel laureates in economics to issue a statement last year condemning the administration's "reckless and extreme course that endangers the long-term economic health of our nation."
Owners who used their tax cuts to finance the initial costs of new hiring would be acting, in effect, as their own bankers, lending money to themselves in the hope of future returns. The test for whether such internal loans make economic sense is exactly the same as the test for external loans.
A loan from a bank makes sense if the firm's ultimate gain from hiring extra workers is enough to cover not only their salaries but also repayment of the loan plus interest. Internal loans must meet the same standard. They are justified only if the firm's gain from hiring extra workers is enough to cover their salaries and repayment of the loan, including the interest that owners could have earned had they left their tax cuts in the bank. In hiring decisions, the implicit costs of internal loans have exactly the same economic standing as the explicit costs of external loans.
In brief, the president's claim that tax cuts to the owners of small businesses will stimulate them to hire more workers flies in the face of bedrock principles outlined in every introductory economics textbook.
A second way the Bush tax cuts might have stimulated employment is by inducing the wealthy to spend more on consumption. But a large share of the tax windfalls received by the wealthy are not spent in the short run. And even among those who are induced to spend more, the main effect is not increased demand for domestically produced goods and services, but rather increased bidding for choice oceanfront property and longer waiting lists for the new Porsche Carrera GT. Such spending does little to stimulate domestic employment.
Economists from both sides of the political aisle argued from the beginning that tax cuts for the wealthy made no sense as a policy for stimulating new jobs. And experience has proved them right. Total private employment was actually lower in January 2005 than in January 2001, the first time since the Great Depression that employment has fallen during a president's term of office.
Robert H. Frank, an economist at the Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University, is the author of "Luxury Fever."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now it's your turn to present evidence to the contrary if you can.
BaptistBeliever said:
Their not interested in reality nor are they open real discussion. They are convinced the conservative philosophy is the only ideology that works and they will defend it with malice and forethought. If they can continue to defend it seeing our current economic situation then there is no reasoning that will change their minds. They are like the bird with their heads in the ground.