1:23

4/17/2008 3:34:57 PM

"This is the politics of old"

I heard a good joke.

Hillary and Obama are going down a rough river together in a boat. The boat tips overs..who was saved?


PS, Obama was horrible last night.

4/17/2008 3:41:36 PM

those moderators were horrible last night. nearly an hour before a substantive question was asked.

4/17/2008 3:53:19 PM

^^am i supposed to be waiting for the punchline? if it's already there i don' get it

4/17/2008 4:08:38 PM

nearly an hour before obama could get to his talking points.

They asked about his bitter statement, clinton's gaffe, they actually mentioned Robert Ayers..kudos.

I thought he answered those better than he did when it came to taxes, capital gains, the second admendment question. It was by far his worst performance..imo

4/17/2008 4:09:43 PM

Oh the punchline is...... AMERICA

4/17/2008 4:10:05 PM

^ Your joke sucked.

At this point if I were the Democrats I'd just run both of them, and they could do a 2-on-1 against McCain.

[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 4:13 PM. Reason : /]

4/17/2008 4:12:54 PM

There's too much ego for either Obama or Clinton to take the back seat, even though their stances on key issues are nearly identical.

[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 4:17 PM. Reason : 2]

4/17/2008 4:16:57 PM

ryan, I thought it was pretty good. I said Obama since he can walk on water.. SO the america thing caught me by surprise.

4/17/2008 4:19:00 PM

Let me just go ahead and say what eyedrb is trying to work this thread towards.

OMG POOR PEOPLE SUCK. THEY ARE BANKRUPTING AMERICA WITH ENTITLEMENTS. LET THEM GET WHAT THEY DESERVE. RARARARAR.

4/17/2008 4:22:43 PM

its hard to argue that entitlements arent bankrupting this country, since that is where we spend the majority of our money on.. and its growing.

Seriously, Obama speaks well. Thats really all that matters.

4/17/2008 4:28:52 PM

Quote :

"Seriously, Obama speaks well. Thats really all that matters."

And you wonder why people call you racist on this board, with your "he speaks so well" bullshit. Obviously that isn't all there is to him, but it's a really easy jab for all the racists out there.

Shut the fuck up, you prick.

4/17/2008 4:31:10 PM

How the fuck is that racist? You are such a fucking moron. Saying someone is a good speaker is saying just that. Instead your ignorant ass has to go from 0 to moron in .2 secs and claim race.

4/17/2008 4:36:39 PM

HE SPEAKS WELL AND THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS

shut the fuck up dude

4/17/2008 4:41:20 PM

^^how is your medical practice coming along? You spent a lot of time posting on the internet for supposedly being a doctor.

4/17/2008 4:43:21 PM

Quote :

"And you wonder why people call you racist on this board"

are you serious?

4/17/2008 4:46:32 PM

terp, there really was nothing racist about this one. If we was white and as powerful a speaker it wouldn't be racist so why does it matter if he's black. You're getting overly bent out of shape over this one.

And you can rest assured this is truly what I believe because I'm siding with eyedrb on this one who I agree with on almost nothing else.

4/17/2008 4:47:19 PM

Doing well, thanks for asking nuts. Relevant?


Exactly terp, you are all bark with no substance.(kinda like your candidate)

4/17/2008 4:47:39 PM

Sorry, I figured everyone on this board dislikes you as much as I do and would just have fallen right in line

Guess I was wrong

4/17/2008 4:50:13 PM

eyedrb is still a racist, but that is besides the point.

4/17/2008 4:51:12 PM

Quote :

"Guess I was wrong "

Happens alot terp. jk


How so nuts? Why do you feel that way about me?

[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 4:54 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2008 4:53:44 PM

If a racist talks about the only black candidate not being able to do anything but "speak well," when that is obviously not the case, I'll call a spade a spade and let you know your racist BS doesn't go over my head.

4/17/2008 4:54:49 PM

[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 4:56 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2008 4:55:50 PM

His speaking ability is his best asset by far. What else does he have? What is his record that is deserving to be president? Did he vote against the war? What has he done?

Quote :

"Because you are. "

LOL, what are you five?


Here is the clip of him coming making NO sense.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EGY1BEahmJQ

2:05 is when it starts. 4:40 is when he gets called out on it.

[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 5:04 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2008 5:00:21 PM

HE BRUSHED HIS SHOULDERS OFF!!!1

what a pimp

4/17/2008 5:09:14 PM

^^since when is someone making $200,000-$250,000 middle class?

4/17/2008 5:40:40 PM

^what?

I love the class warfare. He claims he needs money, so he is going to raise capital gains. When gibson confront him with facts that it reduces revenue.. he doesnt know what say. Goes on about how he needs to raise it anyways to be "fair". Typical class warfare. He will actually be taking LESS of thier money in an attempt to penalize them.

4/17/2008 5:44:30 PM

nah. i'm not talking about that. i'm talking about the preface to the question: "pledge not to raise middle class taxes" and then $200,000/yr is the number. that's higher than the top %5 in the us. as far as capital gains tax cuts increasing revenues, it seems that's the case. does correlation imply causation? i don't know.

4/17/2008 5:51:35 PM

seriously though, obama is a good ass speaker....like you could write down what he says and almost not have to spellcheck/grammar check...i mean that aint the only reason i think the world would be a better place with him but its definitely one of them..especially after president bush...aka president awesome speech

4/17/2008 8:41:20 PM

I see eyedrb's point. Obama speaks surprisingly well for being black.


There I said it for you, terpball. Now you have a point

Quote :

"seriously though, obama is a good ass speaker....like you could write down what he says and almost not have to spellcheck/grammar check"

are you fucking joking? I see spelling errors in most of his speech.



[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 9:33 PM. Reason : DNL -1]

4/17/2008 9:32:20 PM

Obama DOES speak well, its only racist if "for a black person" is implied. I think he speaks well (for any person) and have probably said so not even thinking about race at all. Does this make me racist? Color was never even considered when I formed the opinion that he speaks well, so who is more racist: the person who comments on someone or the person who immediately sees an innocent comment as racist.


Of course, I don't know the posting track record so "for a black person" could have been implied

4/17/2008 9:34:58 PM

eyedrb doesn't say anything overtly racist (not like salisburyboy use to say), be he does say lots of things that are subtly racist.

http://www.dallasdancemusic.com/forums/awareness-politics/239628-blatant-vs-ambiguous-racism-whites-blacks-affected-differently.html

This study explains why eyedrb thinks he's not racist, and terpball is so irked by him.

4/17/2008 9:37:32 PM

haha honestly and this is me just being conspiracy theorist-ish, but i think we have yet to hear obama really speak well...i think hes saving it for near november...i bet he kills mccain in debates

4/17/2008 9:39:02 PM

Quote :

"Obama DOES speak well, its only racist if "for a black person" is implied. I think he speaks well (for any person) and have probably said so not even thinking about race at all. Does this make me racist? Color was never even considered when I formed the opinion that he speaks well, so who is more racist: the person who comments on someone or the person who immediately sees an innocent comment as racist. "

Very well said. You sum up my point of view. You see where I get called racist is because I feel that obama is a great speaker but doesnt have a track record to go on. Suddenly im "subtly" racist. LOL

As Ive said before, I dont like alot of people. IT has NOTHING to do with the color of their skin, but thier actions. Terp, like many on this board, DO NOT want everyone to be treated equal. It is very evident in thier posts. I have been VERY consistent in that I feel everyone should be treated equally by our govt. EQUAL, nothing more or less. However, this appears to be an extremely racist view on this board.

4/18/2008 12:32:21 AM

Quote :

"And you wonder why people call you racist on this board, with your "he speaks so well" bullshit. "

gimme a fucking break.

ever heard the story of "The Boy Who Cried Racist"?

(fuck, i said "boy". now i'm gonna get labeled as a racist.)

Quote :

"^^since when is someone making $200,000-$250,000 middle class?"

uhh, that's definitely still upper middle class in my book.

4/18/2008 12:43:37 AM

Quote :

"I love the class warfare. He claims he needs money, so he is going to raise capital gains. When gibson confront him with facts that it reduces revenue.. he doesnt know what say. Goes on about how he needs to raise it anyways to be "fair". Typical class warfare. He will actually be taking LESS of thier money in an attempt to penalize them. "

You conservatives have an odd definition of "facts." It's a theory that capital gains cuts result in increased revenues, and there's only one data point that supports it (that I could find).

Considering a raise in capital gains hasn't happened recently, there's no data to evaluate for what happens the other way, but this does not default to it causing an increase.

In 97 there was a drop in the tax on capital gains, and there was no inflection in the revenues generated (it was a solid upward trend even through the higher tax rate):


In 03 there was an increase, but Bush taking office caused the revenues to plummet so much, it had no where to go but up at that point anyway:


http://time-blog.com/curious_capitalist/2008/01/do_capital_gains_tax_cuts_incr.html

Really, the only thing i'd feel comfortable saying right now is that the capital gains tax is loosely correlated with the tax revenues from capital gains. Which means you'd be far better off looking at the current trend, than making a half-assed guess. At the current trend (that's already slowing), we'd gain more revenue, at least temporarily, from an increase in capital gains tax.

4/18/2008 1:02:47 AM

Quote :

" I have been VERY consistent in that I feel everyone should be treated equally by our govt. EQUAL, nothing more or less. However, this appears to be an extremely racist view on this board. "

This view doesn't make any sense. From your perspective, should women not get maternity leave? Should handicapped people not get wheel chair ramps? The problem with your "they should be treated 'equal'" is that it grossly neglects the unequal treatment that still exists in society, and only recently was purged for the gov., that has directly resulted in several generations of blacks that were practically engineered by poor gov. and social policies to be a second class group of citizens. When you are forming gov. policy, it's ludicrous to not consider and acknowledge this (which the gov. has been doing). The "problem" i guess you could say for you is that you want to completely ignore the reality of the situation, look at the stats, and then declare with no actual facts that these people are ignorant/lazy/leeches. This is what makes you look racist. I guess you can hold these beliefs without being racist, but then the choice is going to be that you're extremely ignorant, which is just as bad.

It's inherently NOT fair to form economic policy without recognition of our very recent historical factors that cause things to be the way they are now. As someone once said "The past isn’t dead and buried, In fact, it isn’t even past."

4/18/2008 1:13:34 AM

Do you not understand that a rise in capital gains tax causes less mobility in your investments. Since you can avoid the tax simply by holding onto your shares. Therefore less transactions equals less income.

In 1969 Nixon raised the capital gains tax from 28 to 49%, and revenue dropped 34 percent. It also reduces the amount of venture capital so that limits growth of new businesses.

You see what im dealing with Duke? geez

4/18/2008 1:26:59 AM

But there's definitely a sweet spot where too low taxes will reduce the total revenue. 28% seems too high because it reduces transactions and 15% seems too low because revenue is reduced. If the goal is to maximize revenue then 20% seems pretty close to ideal.

4/18/2008 1:30:07 AM

moron it seem that YOU are the one fixated on race. Why is it when I get upset at people being lazy and relying on govt programs you immediately turn to blacks and govt social policies. What about white trash, what is your excuse for them? I have a problem with trash, not colors.

And yes, everyone should be treated as equal by law. May I ask why should anyone born in 1990 have a legal advantage over someone else born in that time? Why should we tax people differently? Give tax breaks to a few, give out rebates to a few? Why not treat everyone equally by law? What kind of economic policy would you suggest? Why should our govt view someone different simply because of the color of thier skin? Thats what caused a helluva problem in the past.. would you agree?

420, I dont agree with the tax at all. I guess im kinda libertarian on that. Its just another way to take money from one to give to another... or theft. Besides the money being used for the investments has already been taxed.

[Edited on April 18, 2008 at 1:38 AM. Reason : .]

4/18/2008 1:35:53 AM

But if you make capital gains on stock that's basically income. It's income on money you invested, but income nonetheless. The government taxes all sorts of income and this isn't really any different.

[Edited on April 18, 2008 at 1:42 AM. Reason : ]

4/18/2008 1:41:54 AM

Quote :

"Do you not understand that a rise in capital gains tax causes less mobility in your investments. Since you can avoid the tax simply by holding onto your shares. Therefore less transactions equals less income."

What you're describing is theory, not fact. You can't say it's a fact revenues will drop if capital gains are raised, because you don't know, and you don't have enough information to even say with reasonably certainty what will happen.

Here's an even clearer chart, since your grasp of math is as bad as hooksaw's:



The correlation between capital gains tax rate and the corresponding revenues is very loose. In fact, the clearest trend is that capital gains tax revenue has been steadily rising, which means that an increase on the tax is almost certainly, in the long run, cause an increase in revenue. In the short term (less than a year) it will definitely increase revenue, then what happens after that is not certain.

Quote :

"In 1969 Nixon raised the capital gains tax from 28 to 49%, and revenue dropped 34 percent. It also reduces the amount of venture capital so that limits growth of new businesses."

What talking point did you get this from? From 69 to 72, the period of the highest of the tax rate increases, revenue increased all those years, not decreased. And guess what? In 75, the tax rate was hiked yet again, and revenues INCREASED for the following 3 years or so. And to stomp your poor argument even deeper in to the ground, the tax rate was cut by MORE THAN HALF in 78 and revenues DROPPED for the next for years, despite record-low capital gains taxes. And with no changes in the tax rate, revenues reached record high levels.

So, once again, you are wrong, and Obama is right. I guess he has more going for him than how he speaks? Or does his skin color prevent you from realizing this?

4/18/2008 1:42:31 AM

From that graph it looks like the biggest factor is how the stock market is performing. It makes sense if you think about it. Profit is profit, no matter what the tax rate is on capital gains. If you want to sell stock and cash out on it the tax rate probably won't have that big of an effect on your decision to hold or sell.

4/18/2008 1:46:27 AM

Quote :

"From that graph it looks like the biggest factor is how the stock market is performing. It makes sense if you think about it. Profit is profit, no matter what the tax rate is on capital gains. If you want to sell stock and cash out on it the tax rate probably won't have that big of an effect on your decision to hold or sell. "

Yeah, exactly right.

This link corroborates this idea, if your common sense doesn't work for you (i'm looking at you eyedrb) this http://time-blog.com/curious_capitalist/2008/01/do_capital_gains_tax_cuts_incr.html

[Edited on April 18, 2008 at 1:49 AM. Reason : ]

4/18/2008 1:47:44 AM

Quote :

"In fact, the clearest trend is that capital gains tax revenue has been steadily rising, which means that an increase on the tax is almost certainly, in the long run, cause an increase in revenue. In the short term (less than a year) it will definitely increase revenue, then what happens after that is not certain. "

I don't see how you could draw those conclusions at all. First you said the correlation between tax rates and revenue is very loose, now you are saying that an increase would "almost certainly" cause in increase in revenue in the long term. Try to stay consistent, man. If anything, the correlation between tax rates and revenues appears negative in the graphs you posted. In the years following capital gains tax cuts, revenues soared.

Your conclusions are much more of a stretch than the one that you called eyedrb out on. You did the hard part and found the data. Now at least try to be impartial and look at that graph with an open mind.


[Edited on April 18, 2008 at 3:24 AM. Reason : 2]

4/18/2008 2:56:47 AM

But that graph only goes to 2000. If you include data after that it basically destroys that theory. Like I said, that strongest correlation is between revenue and how well the stock market is performing. When the market is going up, revenues go up. When the market goes down, revenues go down. It makes pretty good sense. The only argument after that point is whether cutting the tax rate stimulates the stock market as a whole which would be pretty inconclusive no matter what data you look at and would mostly depend on the strength of the economy as a whole.

Also, unlike other kinds of tax rates the capital gains tax would give pretty much immediate effects and there would be no lag to interpret whether a particular action works or not. If it shows on the graph would be attributable to the cut or hike immediately preceding a dip or increase in revenue. Not so with other forms of taxes. This just lends more to the argument that the tax rate has almost no effect on revenue when compared to the overall strength of the stock market because there are dips and rises in revenue for both cuts and hikes.

[Edited on April 18, 2008 at 3:38 AM. Reason : ]

4/18/2008 3:35:02 AM

Quote :

"eyedrb is a racist"

ive been saying that for a while.

its obvious that he fears the darker races.

4/18/2008 3:51:01 AM

Quote :

"its obvious that he fears the darker races"

I heard he has something against the Sith too

4/18/2008 4:38:31 AM

OKAY

I'm not crazy

It took a day, but others are noticing Obama flipping off Hillary

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/18/did-obama-give-hillary-the-finger/

4/18/2008 4:37:07 PM

4/18/2008 5:32:02 PM