4

10/11/2012 11:36:59 PM

^^^^381

[Edited on October 11, 2012 at 11:37 PM. Reason : -]

10/11/2012 11:37:34 PM

ahahaaha

10/11/2012 11:38:21 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50132981n&tag=breakingnews

Quote :

"Poll: Joe Biden wins vice presidential debate Fifty percent of uncommitted voters polled after watching the vice presidential debate picked Joe Biden as the winner while 31 percent thought Rep. Paul Ryan won. Anthony Mason reports."

The same pollsters that everyone used to say Romney won the first round are saying Biden clearly won this round.

10/11/2012 11:40:23 PM

how many times are you going to post that, dude?

10/11/2012 11:41:45 PM

The same pollsters also mention that VP debates are nearly useless

10/11/2012 11:41:54 PM

^"nearly" overestimates their usefulness

you don't have to be an expert in anything to comprehend sampling

[Edited on October 11, 2012 at 11:42 PM. Reason : .]

10/11/2012 11:42:09 PM

http://thewolfweb.com/poll.aspx

This poll has Obama ahead!!!!

[Edited on October 11, 2012 at 11:45 PM. Reason : 62% obama]

10/11/2012 11:44:59 PM

^^^^i was wondering the same thing.

10/11/2012 11:50:15 PM

LOL @ people getting upset at the poll showing their guy losing.

It's like the quote some guy on Bill Maher pointed out...

When liberals see a poll they don't like, they get mad at themselves, when conservatives see a poll they don't like, they get mad at the poll.

10/11/2012 11:52:19 PM

Quote :

"Poll: Joe Biden wins vice presidential debate Fifty percent of uncommitted voters polled after watching the vice presidential debate picked Joe Biden as the winner while 31 percent thought Rep. Paul Ryan won. Anthony Mason reports."

10/11/2012 11:57:13 PM

Quote :

" 1) The bitch could always make the choice not have sex. Then she doesn't have to worry about getting pregnant."

.

aaronburro

This is sure to get you laid.

10/12/2012 12:09:19 AM

is there anything particularly wrong about what I said? no, not really

10/12/2012 12:11:27 AM

yes there is

see there's this thing called rape

10/12/2012 12:22:18 AM

there's another thing wrong w/ it: it doesn't work.

it's the same as suggesting that we take care of our poor and elderly via willful donation. it'd be nice if it worked like that, but abstinence education just does not work.

probably b/c reproduction is, you know, the second strongest natural urge that all animals have after simply staying alive.

10/12/2012 12:37:35 AM

in theory, its super easy to tell humans to not have sex. however, as ^ said, its completely impractical to expect abstinence education to work. Social issues are why I wish there were a strong third party moderate candidate because i feel a lot of republicans are out of touch on social issues.

10/12/2012 12:46:19 AM

that's what you don't understand: they are not out of touch whatsoever. making it hard to get birth control, hard to get abortions, hard to get health care, higher taxes (which you will get w/ romney, assuming you're not obscenely wealthy), etc., cripple the non-elite.

even 1%'ers aren't safe, the 0.1% is quickly pulling away from the top 1%. it's social darwinism, and the goal is to keep everyone that is not a part of the bourgeoisie poor.

the way that you look at homeless people and think that they should just work harder and everything would be fine is the way that mitt romney looks at you, and the way that he will continue to look at you when his policies turn the middle class into the lower class.

10/12/2012 1:12:19 AM

This is my current facebook status but I want to pose the same question to all of you here:

Quote :

"I don't like mixing in politics when discussing religion, I think separation of church and state should go both ways. But when a vice-presidential candidate sits there and says that the government has infringed on his rights as a CATHOLIC while his entire social platform is based on pushing his religious views into law I just can't keep quiet. I want ANY and ALL non-Christians out there who are actually thinking of voting for the Romney-Ryan ticket to please explain to me...how could you?"

10/12/2012 1:23:51 AM

^ because why the fuck would I vote for the socialist, piece of shit in office right now.

[Edited on October 12, 2012 at 1:27 AM. Reason : as an agnostic, i do not care about their religious views]

10/12/2012 1:26:57 AM

When they clearly state their religion as the driving force behind their political beliefs, then you really should.

[Edited on October 12, 2012 at 1:34 AM. Reason : -]

10/12/2012 1:32:55 AM

^^ can you explain why you think obama is a piece of shit and why you think romney is not?

10/12/2012 1:37:31 AM

yes, i can

10/12/2012 1:46:11 AM

Quote :

" 1) The bitch could always make the choice not have sex. Then she doesn't have to worry about getting pregnant. ~aaronburro"

.

Quote :

"is there anything particularly wrong about what I said? no, not really ~aaronburro"

I am not gay if that's what you are asking.

10/12/2012 1:52:40 AM

What exactly does Obama want to do that's socialist, that Romney doesn't want to do?

10/12/2012 1:54:10 AM

Quote :

"The reductions in tax rates will stimulate the economy and increase revenue. http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.100.3.763. Christina Romer is a key Obama economic advisor"

Bullshit bullshit bullshit

Quote :

"Raising taxes on the highest earners would further stifle the economy. Even Obama's own advisor says so. Unemployment would increase further and tax revenue would suffer."

Also bullshit bullshit bullshit.

You are regurgitating the bullshit promise of trickle down economics / supply-side economics. Which is what every Republican President since Reagan has espoused, and it has NEVER worked. Yes, it has grown the economy and raised GDP. But it also raised our DEBT faster than it raised revenue.

Clinton's administration completely dismantled this theory in the modern era. He raised taxes on the wealthiest and ran the leanest debt ratio of any president since Gerald Ford. And under his administration, the GDP and economy grew FASTER that it did under either his predecessors or successors.

1981-1988 (Ronald Reagan, Republican), 3.4%
1989-1992 (George H. W. Bush, Republican), 2.17%
1993-2000 (Bill Clinton, Democrat), 3.88%
2001-2008 (George W. Bush, Republican), +2.09%

So look at that list. 3 "trickle down" presidents and one "tax the wealthy" presidents.

What did that GOP growth cost us?



Now, this chart is misleading because Clinton did not actually have a surplus. He robbed 250 billion dollars from social security and pensions. BUT even with the voodoo economics adjusted, his administration had the slowest and lowest debt accumulation of every president since Gerald Ford.

The whole notion of "taxing the rich will slow the economy" is total fucking bullshit. The data going back to the turn of the last century shows OVER AND OVER again that exactly the opposite actually happens.

When you reduce taxation on the wealthy, growth actually SLOWS in comparison, wealth becomes even more consolidated to the wealthy and the rest of us just continue to get fucked.

10/12/2012 1:57:02 AM

^^^^ ... go on.

10/12/2012 1:57:12 AM

Quote :

"1) The bitch could always make the choice not have sex. Then she doesn't have to worry about getting pregnant. ~aaronburro"

And dude wonders why he's single.

[Edited on October 12, 2012 at 1:58 AM. Reason : ']

10/12/2012 1:58:36 AM

Today we are all Jack Kennedy.

10/12/2012 8:19:19 AM

10/12/2012 8:39:43 AM

Quote :

"You are regurgitating the bullshit promise of trickle down economics / supply-side economics"

False. What I am saying, is that even if tax rates are lowered, revenue will increase.

If taxes are 0%, revenue will be 0%.
If taxes are 100%, no one will work, so revenue will be 0%.

Obviously, the curve has an optimum tax rate that generates the most revenue. Romer & Romer suggest this tax rate is around 30% of GDP. Obama/Biden is pushing for the overall tax rate to be about 40% while Romney/Ryan wants to bring it back to 28%. Per Romer's findings, for every percent of taxes, the GDP suffers by about 3%. Based on that logic, even with the tax cut, revenue would be increased, the GDP would be higher, and money would flow again.

What do companies do with profit? They certainly do not hide it under a mattress. They spend it, which is what our economy needs.

10/12/2012 8:55:29 AM

Isn't the optimal rate 33%, per recent research and a report by the Obama admin?

[Edited on October 12, 2012 at 9:00 AM. Reason : ./]

10/12/2012 8:58:59 AM

yes, the report I cited by Christina Romer?

10/12/2012 9:13:28 AM

Quote :

"What do companies do with profit? They certainly do not hide it under a mattress. They spend it, which is what our economy needs. "

Haven't there been several reports since the recession started of major companies doing exactly that, hiding the money under the metaphorical mattress, even if their profits are up?

10/12/2012 9:13:36 AM

In a recession, yes, because the risks of investment do not offset the reward.

10/12/2012 9:21:17 AM

A lot of companies do what mine does, put extra cash in CDs and other investments while the government figures out what the hell its doing.

10/12/2012 9:25:14 AM

The problem is that even if the rich are investing their Bush Tax Cut revenue in a resort or some other luxury, you are effectively swapping good to great wages with benefits (corporate employees) to low wages without any benefits (most construction workers). Who is to say that this comes out as a net positive for the middle class?

However, if you invest in the middle class, then you can get a stabilization on that front which triggers an investment into construction and other luxuries as they choose to chase the "American Dream" and spend money on homes and other ridiculous stuff.

10/12/2012 10:21:05 AM

Quote :

"A lot of companies do what mine does, put extra cash in CDs and other investments while the government figures out what the hell its doing."

Well to be honest, they aren't making jack shit off of CDs right now.

I remember taking a math class in college that talked about how awesome CDs were, because over time, compound interest is magic. I doubt they are teaching that same lesson plan these days, because the ROI is pitiful

[Edited on October 12, 2012 at 10:49 AM. Reason : .]

10/12/2012 10:48:21 AM

^ If there is such a thing as time value of money, the middle class of our generation sure don't have access to it.



As this shows, returns on a simple CD investment only intermittently creates value for you, and it's generally clumped with an entire generation's saving lifetime.

For a real blow to the kisser, you have to pay taxes on your "gains", which is really losing money on top of the money you already lost due to saving. But this doesn't really boil my blood compared to the other things we're doing. Not even close. It's insulting, though not massively economically damaging, to pay taxes on simple returns like this. I'm not even all that upset about the inherent wrongness of capital gains tax that ignores inflation. That tax is at least made up for by the fact that the rate was dialed down so low to begin with.

No, what really boils my blood is deflation. In case there was any misconception that you could avoid the continual leaching of money into our banking and government sectors from your savings, they won't even count the time-value of money for investments you make as business expenses. If they did, then a business could make a capital investment that gives a lousy 6% ROI and have people buy their stock as an alternative. We're prevented from doing that due to depreciation tax structure. The differential between corporate baseline internal rates of return and the market return is the theft committed on the American population.

Even this wouldn't be that bad, because, after all, we've got a debt to pay off. But we're not paying off the debt. So screw us all!

[Edited on October 12, 2012 at 11:08 AM. Reason : ]

10/12/2012 11:07:51 AM

For you and me yes, you're right. But big businesses can get high yield business CDs that can be between 2-3% APR which looks decent in a volatile market.

10/12/2012 11:08:14 AM

^ I was about to say "no, consumers can still get 2% for crying out loud"

Then I checked the rates for major banks online.

Now I want to cry.

[Edited on October 12, 2012 at 11:20 AM. Reason : ]

10/12/2012 11:15:27 AM

Quote :

"In a recession, yes, because the risks of investment do not offset the reward."

that's backwards. In a recession, acquisitions can be had on the cheap. It's literally the best time to invest.

My employer as well as many other cash heavy companies, however, are keeping cash offshore because they don't want to take the tax hit to repatriate the funds. With debt being cheap right now, we, and other companies are simply taking on debt to fund cheap acquisitions, and sitting on tens of billions overseas.

Romney endorses a corporate tax holiday to repatriate funds at a much lower rate so that these companies can create American jobs. What's not clear is why he assumes that such a tax holiday would result in new jobs.

Staffing is a cyclical cost that counts as an ongoing expense against your cyclical revenues and impacts profit margins. A one-time tax holiday simply moves money from one place to another, and has no impact on revenues, given that they've already been counted. So there is little incentive to use that money to hire by moving a massive lump sum back in to the US.

At best a company might invest in acquisitions without having to take on debt. Historically, that money's used to pay increased dividends and share buybacks. And.... quite the opposite of what the corporate tax lobbyists claimed most companies taking advantage of the corporate tax holiday slashed jobs soon afterward

10/12/2012 11:16:00 AM

Quote :

"Well to be honest, they aren't making jack shit off of CDs right now."

We are a small business (that is part of a huge organization, but we are independently incorporated and are very small) and have about a million in CDs right now not to make money but as a safe parking place. It's not that we are particularly concerned that if either person gets elected that something drastic will change, but the shit storm now of not knowing if the arguing will bring us back into a deeper recession makes us hesitant to reinvest that money into the company. It's not making us a ton of money in a CD, but its safe and risk free. I'm part of a few small business professional organizations and its a pretty common opinion. Some are worried about if one or the other gets elected, but most are just worried about what the uncertainty will do to the economy.

10/12/2012 11:23:53 AM

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

10/12/2012 11:30:58 AM

10/12/2012 12:27:30 PM

Quote :

"I was about to say "no, consumers can still get 2% for crying out loud" Then I checked the rates for major banks online. Now I want to cry. "

Yeah. I got some of my inheritance this year and figured since I'm not ready to buy a house yet, it would be a good idea to put it in a CD and let it earn some interest while I figured out what I wanted to do. Ended up putting it in a savings account. They gave me $200 for opening it

10/12/2012 12:39:34 PM

Inheritance should be taxed at 75%.

10/12/2012 12:53:27 PM

10/12/2012 12:54:36 PM

If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.
Proverbs 29:9
English Standard Version

10/12/2012 1:43:13 PM

why am i not surprised to see a romney/ryan supporter quoting the bible?

10/12/2012 1:46:40 PM

Why am I not surprised that you are not surprised. Fool

[Edited on October 12, 2012 at 1:50 PM. Reason : Now go ahead and post it 50 more times.]

10/12/2012 1:50:18 PM