Political Hippo Circle Jerk - America, farg YEAH!

[phillymic2000]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/09/news/economy/obama_economy_changetour/index.htm?cnn=yes

Great, give out more cash our country doesn't have.  How about you make a real change and cut spending instead of blowing more money we don't have.

[rjs246]

Yep dumb idea.

Unless of course they remove $100 Billion from spending on the war (drop in the bucket) and direct half of that into the economy and then suddenly we are SAVING $50 Billion.

Rocket. Science.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Underfunding the troops isn't exactly a great idea either.  While it's become more of a buzzword than anything people actually attempt to understand, the "surge" has helped over there.  Before that, troops did not have access to needed resources.

Still, the whole spirit of economic stimulus is hilarious, because it's essentially a tax cut/rebate, the exact type of thing that Obama is saying the government needs to reign in.  It's simply pandering to offer up something like that, and it makes it clear that it is not a priority for him to get to any sort of fiscal responsibility.

[rjs246]

I'm not talking about just yanking money away and leaving the troops there, smart stuff. I'm talking about reducing the presense in the middle east proportionally with the amount of money we pull out of the war.

And besides, how has the surge 'helped'? Less US troops and civilians are getting killed right? How many US troops would be getting killed if they weren't there any more? Has our presense in Iraq led to a stable government? Is there any indication that it can or will lead to a stable government? Isn't stablizing war-torn countries the UN's domain? Saying that the surge has 'helped' assumes that we have some reason to have remained there en masse the first place. Whatever money we put into Iraq at this point should be directed towards helping to rebuild their infrastructure so they can be a self-sustainable country. An overwhelming military presense does nothing but drain our economy and put us further into debt.

[Seabiscuit36]

What ever happened to Digital Underground?

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

It is naive to think that the U.S. could simply pull the military presence and rebuild the infrastructure, with the current state of things over there.  I guarantee that when Obama sits in the Oval Office, his tact will change as well, and he will end up reducing funding to Iraq at a much slower clip than that on which he campaigns.

Going to war in Iraq was not a wise decision, but getting out shouldn't be similarly hasty.  You're buying into campaign rhetoric that tax increases on the "very wealthy" and reductions in spending in Iraq will fix all of the government's money problems.  Good luck with that.

[rjs246]

Ha. We're talking about one issue here, let's try to stick to it. I'm not buying into anything. I know what the Democratic MO is and I don't expect the idea of 'tax and spend' to go away with Obama.

I agree that a 'rapid pullout', while certainly a hilarious euphamism, is not the right way to go. My point is that decreased spending in Iraq, even gradually decreased spending, will free up a lot of money for addressing our problems at home. I doubt seriously that spending will go down significantly under Obama, but if that money can get redirected to something that actually benefits us here at home, we'll be in a much better place when he leaves office.

[Seabiscuit36]

ha.. "Rapid Pullout"!

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

if that money can get redirected to something that actually benefits us here at home, we'll be in a much better place when he leaves office.

I agree completely.  I haven't heard one part of his plan that will benefit "us" (the likes of you and I) here at home.  The hilarious part about his agenda is that he villainizes rich people and corporations, but he will need them to stay wealthy and profitable in order to harvest adequate money for his "Robin Hood" agenda.  Hilariously, re-distributing wealth doesn't really work out long-term, but hell, I suppose just putting the money in people's pockets is better than adding layers of bureaucracy to another wasteful long-term entitlement program.  So, BRAVO Mr. Obama!  BRAV. O.

[rjs246]

Once again, you are implying that taxing the wealthy is going to impact me in some sort of severe, life-altering way. I am happy to benefit the whole of the country by paying a little more in taxes. I've been a selfish prick my whole life and will likely remain a selfish prick in a lot of ways, but this country is failing rapidly and I think that a little sacrifice for the greater good is the least I can do. shtein, I collected unemployment the last time I was laid off so I owe a little back as far as I'm concerned.

[ice grillin you]

Once again, you are implying that taxing the wealthy is going to impact me in some sort of severe, life-altering way. I am happy to benefit the whole of the country by paying a little more in taxes. I've been a selfish prick my whole life and will likely remain a selfish prick in a lot of ways, but this country is failing rapidly and I think that a little sacrifice for the greater good is the least I can do. shtein, I collected unemployment the last time I was laid off so I owe a little back as far as I'm concerned.

amen

whats amazing is its not even taxing the wealthy that obama wants to do its that he wants to rescind the tax cuts that bush heaped on the wealthy


he also by most appearances cares about whats going on at home especially with the people who are worse off in our economy...where as mccain has surrounded himself with neo cons in preperation for extending the iraq stay as long as possible and very possibly going to war with iran...mccain has literally admitted he knows nothing about the economy so basically his solution is to do nothing but extend all bushes economic policies so that he doesnt have to deal with somethig he doesnt get

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

whats amazing is its not even taxing the wealthy that obama wants to do its that he wants to rescind the tax cuts that bush heaped on the wealthy

I dare you to prove it.  He conveniently leaves it off of his website's economic platform.  Besides, what's the difference between "rescinding cuts" and simply increasing taxes?  It's nomenclature only.

Again, your assertion that the wealthy and corporations can be taxed with no negative repercussions on struggling Americans is wildly naive.  Who do you think will end up making up for profits lost to increased taxes with increased prices?  Who will lose their jobs when corporations are used as a scapegoat to increase revenue?

It's not so much that I completely disagree with the spirit of much of Obama's platform, and I certainly believe that Bush gets a massive "fail" on the economy.  But none of you seem to have even a moment of pause in assessing Obama's platform, as if it's downright infallible just because it's something different.  I don't know or care if it's simply common reactionism from the negative outcome of Bush's policies or if it's just political idealism, but you fargers are all in a circle jerk around Obama without any criticial analysis at all.

[ice grillin you]

hey i hope youre right and he blasts the rich with more taxes

its insane the breaks they get and really even when they do get hit with more taxes they loophole themselves out of having to pay most of them anyway

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

its insane the breaks they get and really even when they do get hit with more taxes they loophole themselves out of having to pay most of them anyway

Tax code simplification and reform across the board is absolutely one of the most underrated issues out there.  Unfortunately, Obama only offers nebulous talk of closing loopholes and making tax time simpler for individual/family tax filers (and increasing the realm of the IRS to make up for it).  McCain hasn't proposed anything outside the status quo of which I've heard.

[Phanatic]

I don't think either platform has the answer. My guess is that something inbetween the two extremes is what we really need. Good luck with that...