Obama will end all global poverty

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by EyezForYou, Sep 10, 2008.

  1. lordofhats

    lordofhats New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,022
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    The Hat Cave
    You're right but your leaving out Obama's plan to hike up taxes on corporations who certainly do not sit on profits. Profits are used for expansion and increasing taxes on them will cut in on those profits thus limiting expansion. A company that doesn't expand dies so they have to find a way to make up for the lost revenue that has been paid into taxes which includes cutting off the workers who just got a tax cut.

    besides the way the economy is now any tax cuts to the lower class will go to utilities and cost of living not consumption (Contrary to your argument, saving doesn't expand the economy, it just keeps it from growing larger or smaller). Also, your definition of savings is wrong. What you described is consumption at the corporate level.

    You've also misused the word "Capital." Its an often misused term. Capital is not money (accountants sometimes call money capital but its a misnomer). Capital in economics is defined as factors of production (factories, land, machinery etc). For example. Capital for a pizza delivery service would be a pizza maker. They need it to make their product.

    Your company X is taking out a loan to invest in capital, which is just a fancy way of saying they are buying the factory. Its still consumption (not savings) its just happening at a Corporate level rather than an individual consumer level.

    Savings would be Company X choosing not to invest in capital (factories and equipment) and instead storing the money away into a bank; in other words sitting on it. No corporation would do this its wasted money that can be used to make more money. Profits are used to expand the company not make the CEO richer.

    We're arguing Macro and Micro Economics. Obama can cut taxes to the poor but with the economy as bad as it is, they'll just buy gas for their car and food and pay their energy bill while the prices of these things go up and workers get laid off because Obama has forced corporations to cut back on their expenses with his tax increases and has likely decreased the poors earnings because these companies can't pay them as much. The economy won't do any better under Obama it will do worse (it will do worse under any politician really because they all suck at it but the Democrats imo have a notoriously poor understanding of economics).

    Frankly, we need tax cuts all around if we want fast improvement but that won't work because then the government will either go way deep into debt or have to cut back its spending (Which it will do neither).

    I have no idea where the idea of the economy being driven by savings came from but it makes no sense. If you don't consume (Classified as any act where money is spent for a good or service) the economy goes no where and grinds to a halt. If we all saved our money we gain nothing.

    EDIT: I apologize, I misread one part of you post that threw me slightly off. Savings is important for the economy but is not the way to drive the economy forward. Its always good to have cash to fall back on, but you can't save everything you have. You have to spend some of it and consume to get what you need and if you have extra, what you want. This is true for all persons and corporations. In the current economic state, Obama's tax cuts will make the economy worse and those who got the cuts won't be spending their money on anything that will expand the economy. They'll pay more things they would have paid for anyway.
     
  2. Scattercat

    Scattercat Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Under there.
    *cough* (video link; two high-end economists endorse Obama.)

    (Guy 1 and Guy 2, for reference, if you don't follow Nobel laureate economists.)

    Economists for Obama Blog.
     
  3. TWErvin2

    TWErvin2 Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,374
    Likes Received:
    1,629
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    When one doesn't earn enough to pay federal income taxes, yet a 'tax cut plan' drops additional money into an individual's lap--a refund, is that really a tax cut? Or is it redistribution of wealth? Or something else?

    Terry
     
  4. lordofhats

    lordofhats New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,022
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    The Hat Cave
    I've watched your video and I'd like to point out only one of the men endorses Obama (Who you have labeled Guy 1 and endorsement isn't the right word. He was given options and picked one there's a difference). The other never even mentioned him all that specifically. Furthermore, Guy 1 only talked about Obama vs Clinton which is explained by the fact the video is from April when the primary was still in debate. Frankly he didn't even mention McCain or explain anything economic about Obama. He repeated the same sound byte we've been hearing since 2007 (Change and Hope!).

    Well thats all nice and dandy but frankly its not conviencing me (or anyone as edvident by McCain's increasing lead in recent polls). It seems to me he was more focused on Obama vs Clinton and not so much as mentioned McCain. This is a primary video not a Presidential Race video.

    Furthermore he didn't mention any of Obama's policys. Like I said he just said lets get some change in here more or less. So I hardly find this video convincing for the given situation.

    Anyone with an understanding of Economics and has read Obama's economic proposal should be able to see the glaring flaws in his plan. Seeing how this video doesn't even address Obama's economic plan in anyway other than calling it change, judging by which I assume this guy was less interested in economics and more interested in some of Obama's other proposals, which is just me guessing. Therefore I render this "endorsement" moot.

    Your other link is much more informative and has several nice articles on the various economic options, except for the fact they aren't mentioning McCain as much as they are all about Palin, who as mentioned is not running for president. Theres a few on there about McCain vs Obama which I'll probably read when I have more time, but seeing how the leading ones in the main column are titled "Palin Bans Books" and "Lipstick Pig" I'm not that impressed.
     
  5. Scattercat

    Scattercat Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Under there.
    That's because it's a blog; Palin is the most recent development. You can read back further and see more discussion of the candidates themselves.

    Blogs tend to discuss everything as it comes up, and this happens to be a blog BY economists, but not necessarily strictly ABOUT economics.

    ETA: And with a 72-year-old candidate whose health is not spectacular, Palin's policies - and lack thereof, as in the recent foreign policy interview - are of a bit higher importance than a VP's usually are.
     
  6. TWErvin2

    TWErvin2 Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,374
    Likes Received:
    1,629
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    My estimation of the value of being a nobel prize winner dropped considerably when Al Gore won one for his efforts with respect to Global Warming. Demonstrates how 'political' the awards have become over the years.
     
  7. Scattercat

    Scattercat Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Under there.
    *opens his mouth*

    *pauses*

    *closes his mouth*

    *shakes his head in bemused wonderment and goes to take an aspirin*
     
  8. lordofhats

    lordofhats New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,022
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    The Hat Cave
    Trust me I'm not all that excited about Palin either. The whole US soldiers are on a mission from God thing sort of turned me off. I hate zealots putting words in my religions mouth and frankly my family's friends aren't dying for God right now. Banning books didn't make me too happy either. But we aren't choosing Palin economics over Obama economics we're talking McCain and Obama.

    Personally McCain strikes me as the type to step down if his health becomes so bad he can't do his job (unless he has a sudden heart attack, can't really see that one coming XD) but since his health seems pretty good I'm not to worried.

    Palin economics as currently presented aren't that different from McCain economics anyway (If she has indeed made a turn around on her position on earmarks, which I'm still waiting to see). Besides most economic policies are party based. If McCain sets a bunch of economic plans in motion, I don't see Palin doing a 180 on them.

    Agreed. Is Al Gore worthy of a nobel prize? Meh. I don't really care, it has no real effect on me or anyone other than the prize itself and Gore. But most people should be able to agree that the NPP has become rather political in the last decade.
     
  9. TWErvin2

    TWErvin2 Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,374
    Likes Received:
    1,629
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    I believe the whole quote that Charlie Gibson didn't use was: "Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

    I have no problem, as a Christian, praying that it's God's plan that we're working toward and not a politician's. I can see where someone who did not believe in God would be bothered by it, but since she's a Christian, that is what one probably should expect. I would hope, and I strongly suspect that Senator Obamba does, as a Christian, pray for guidance and wisdom and strength as well.

    Right off, I would have to see the full context of the quote by Palin...what came before and what came after to be fully comfortable with what was said, but while in the interview, when Gibson said the quote was: "Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God." and ended there...I don't think it was proper to stop there. And Palin's answer, with reference to the context, quoting Lincoln and all. I'd have to hear the whole thing...actually I think everyone would before they could come away with the intent and direction of what Gov. Palin was saying.

    But that's not what American Politics is about. Sadly it's more and more about soundbites and snippets used for and against on all sides.

    Terry
     
  10. lordofhats

    lordofhats New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,022
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    The Hat Cave
    I'm mostly against it because I think God and politics really don't and shouldn't mix (I like to think the framers put in the constitution for a reason), but I had not seen the later part of that quote which really does change the apparent meaning.
     
  11. TWErvin2

    TWErvin2 Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,374
    Likes Received:
    1,629
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It doesn't mention anywhere the 'separation of church and state'.

    One would think that someone in politics who follows a religious faith would have that as an element of what guides their decisions. That is why I indicated:
     
  12. Scattercat

    Scattercat Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Under there.
    Yes, the phrase "separation of church and state" only came from the actual letters and writings of the founders. How silly of us to assume that there was a reason they put in explicit laws preventing the government from making any laws about religion, pro or con.

    When church and government mix, it degrades and weakens both of them.
     
  13. Banzai

    Banzai One-time Mod, but on the road to recovery Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    12,834
    Likes Received:
    151
    Location:
    Reading, UK
    If religion is an important part of a person's life, how can you expect them not to include it in their decision making process? :confused:
     
  14. lordofhats

    lordofhats New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,022
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    The Hat Cave
    History proves it too: 18th Century France (Actually pretty much France period up until the Revolution), Spain up until the 17th Century, Britain till about 1860 etc.

    I just don't like politicians mentioning religion at all. Its always either being abused as a scape goat or degraded into nothing more than a campaign slogan which belittles the entire faith either way.

    The government imo needs to leave it be and it should leave the government be. If people want to use it in their decision making process thats fine but come up with another reason for saying abortion is wrong other than God says its bad. Government and Religion just don't mix well (unless nitro glis is suddenly good to shake around :p) and I don't like seeing what politicians do with it or what it does with governmental authority.

    Sure seperation of church and state isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution but its a good thing to have anyway.
     
  15. Scattercat

    Scattercat Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Under there.
    A person can make their decisions with the help of prayer. That's fine. A politician has to lead everyone, though; they need to be aware of and sensitive to the needs of all of their citizens.

    Palin's comment makes me wince, because it shows very little ability on her part to think about these things. The full quote is a bit better, and I don't see any problem with a politician trying to do the best they can to follow the will of God as they perceive it. One still needs to be careful about saying things like "mission from God." It implies a degree of fanatacism, especially to those who don't share one's worldview.

    However, my point is primarily that the church, as in the actual organizations, and the government, as in the actual laws and structures, should not be blended. Obviously, a politician will vote for laws/make judgements/etc. based on his/her personal conscience and faith; that's fine, as that's what we elected them to do. However, politicians should not attempt to remold the government to include their personal religious faith.

    On the other hand, I have a pretty odd viewpoint on a lot of things. What it boils down to, for me, is that you can't legislate morality. A person who follows a rule because it's a law and they're afraid of punishment isn't actually a moral person, any more than someone would be a safe driver if they followed the speed limit whenever a cop car was around, but would go eighty if they could.

    The job of the government is to keep the peace, not ensure "proper" behavior. Personal moral choices that don't disrupt society should be left to the individual, as what they do in their own lives is between them and God.
     
    1 person likes this.
  16. TWErvin2

    TWErvin2 Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,374
    Likes Received:
    1,629
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    The letter I believe you're referring to was written by Jefferson in the early 1800s, assuring a Baptist community as to state's responsibility to refrain from exerting authority over religious bodies, but in no way limits religion in the state.

    If one were going to take/pick and choose letters of the founding fathers, and implement them, then, for example, the intent of the second ammendment's right to bear arms, would be much less restricted than it is today. While there may be some who would argue, I don't see it as silly that there are some firearms and weapons restricted from the average citizen.

    Terry
     
  17. Scattercat

    Scattercat Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Under there.
    But it IS silly to implement laws incorporating religion into government. As Lordofhats said, you only have to look to history to see why.

    Edit:

    To clarify, you say you can see why all weapons should not be freely available to any citizen simply because s/he wants one. However, would you say that banning firearms completely would be in accord with the Constitution?

    In the same way, the Constitution clearly prohibits government from interfering with churches, of any kind. Does this mean that no politicians should believe in God? No, that would be silly. However, saying that religion should take the lead in the government would be just as much against the Constitution as banning firearms completely, or preventing the press from reporting the news.
     
  18. TWErvin2

    TWErvin2 Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,374
    Likes Received:
    1,629
    Location:
    Ohio, USA

    And as far as the firarms issue/letters, you missed the point of the analogy, that being: to selectively pick and choose from all the letters written by the founding fathers to make a point about the contents of the Consitution and its intent. This is especially true in light of the one letter brought up that does not support the arguement being made--as implied, but rather the opposite in the context of the author's (in this case Jefferson's) intent.

    Who is advocating for religion to take the lead in government? That is a straw man arguement.
     
  19. Scattercat

    Scattercat Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Under there.
    Lord of hats: OMG Separation of Church and State

    TWErvin: LOL n00b it r not in Constitution

    Scattercat: ROFL it was obv. on t3h founders' minds. j00 can see it on his Facebook.

    TWErvin: No wai! We has gun controlz. they ttly hatezor gun control.

    Scattercat: Gun controlz iz comun sense & not haXXoring Constitution. Same thing for religion, plzkthx.

    TWErvin: ZOMG STFU STRAWMAN

    Scattercat: ???

    My point is only that the Founders were very, very leery of putting religion in control of the government or vice versa, and they built the system in such a way as to prevent that, in the same way that they built checks and balances to keep any one branch from becoming more powerful than the others. When politicians start adopting the language of religion and co-opting its imagery and using it as justification for their actions, people like myself (and apparently Lordofhats) get nervous.

    The phrase "separation of church and state" might not be in the Constitution, but the intent of it surely was. I don't see how else you can interpret the injunction against making any laws about churches, for or against.

    Basically, I felt that your argument about whether the phrase was in the Constitution or not to be irrelevant and somewhat pointless.
     
  20. TWErvin2

    TWErvin2 Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,374
    Likes Received:
    1,629
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    Again, a straw man argument. You are 'arguing' against a point or assertion that has not been made. Of course you would feel the point pointless and irrelvevant, since the founding father letters cited actually don't support what you were putting forth. Kind of silly. But that's okay. The term 'Separation of Church and State' was also used in court rulings, such as teaching religion in public schools etc.

    In my opinion, living under a Theocracy is generally a bad thing for just about everybody involved. A church or religion controlling a state or the other way around...

    The point, I think, goes back to Charlie Gibson's truncated quote of Gov. Palin, which, if the next phrase she uttered was included, makes it a non-issue, or much more so of one.

    As an aside, it would appear that Gibson's Interview had at least on other flaw: Charlie Gibson's Gaffe

    But the thread started about Obama changing the world, possibly by taking on world poverty. Seems like he's into the same old politics: Obama mocks McCain as computer illiterate in ad. Not a lot of change.

    Guess this article cools Senator Obama's attack Wondering No More

    But in the end, I kind of wish that Ross Perot would've won way back when. Then we might have had another choice today. If nothing else, maybe he'd have broken up some of the entrenched interests and two party hold. I voted for him for that reason. Not necessarily because I thought he'd be a great President. In the end, just no worse than many of the others.

    Terry
     
  21. Scattercat

    Scattercat Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Under there.
    You were the one who brought up that specific letter, not me.

    And if you didn't disagree with Lordofhats in the first place, then why bother making the silly argument that the phrase "sep. etc." never appeared in the Constitution? Just to be contrary? My point is that your point was irrelevant, and now you're telling me I'm irrelevant. Of course I'm irrelevant! The whole thing was a ridiculous segue that didn't need to be brought up.


    A third party would be nice. I find it interesting that we ostensibly have a "two party" system, but within each party there is considerable variance. I think it's rather unfortunate that we tend to emphasize the extreme ends of both of them. There's quite a lot of overlap when you get towards the middle ground, but that gets drowned out in ridiculous party-line posturing. I think we could use a third party that all the moderate Dems and Reps could join, thus freeing them from their obligations to their nutty co-partyists.

    At least Ron Paul is President on the Internet...
     
  22. lordofhats

    lordofhats New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,022
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    The Hat Cave
    I have no idea how the discussion came to Church and State it just did and I went with it :confused:.

    History shows the drastic flaws of that system too (Read up on Germany circa 1920-1929 and Britain in from 1945 to about 1960). A third party would offer another choice but look at how little gets done when we have two parties pulling at the rope. Add a third and we'll have permanent gridlock. Add a "moderate party" and we'll probably get nothing new. We'll just have divided power further and increased the partisanship and polarization that already plagues our electoral system. We'd just add another extreme as the political specturm is not a line but rather a square and we tend to focus on our two parties on taking two quarters of the square each.

    As I've said in other threads on this subject the system doesn't need another party, there are problems with it just as there are in any and they just aren't going to go away.

    Back to the topic: Can we all at least agree Obama isn't going to end world poverty? :p (yes or no should suffice)
     
  23. TWErvin2

    TWErvin2 Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,374
    Likes Received:
    1,629
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    If not the letter I referenced you to after you brought letters of the founding fathers up, then what letter(s) was/were you making reference to?

    As far as 'gridlock', in general, the less the government does...the fewer laws they pass, the less regulation, on average would be a benefit to the citizens. We've had 'divided' government quite often--Republications holding the house or senate while a democrate in the whitehouse, or a republication in the whitehouse with the democrates in control of at least one house. It's been that way for quite some time except for short instances.

    A third party may help some, bringing in another voice, another choice for the population. Someone like Liberman may have a place to go, for example. There are not enough who 'cross the aisle' for positions they feel strongly on that go against their party. And McCain has done it as a republican, angering many of those who are far to the right, just as Liberman has angered many in his party far to the left. After the election, if the Democrats hold the senate (which they probably will) and maybe increase their numbers, and they don't need Liberman to caucass with them so that they have a majority...he'll basically be stripped by the democrats of any chairmanships and power or influence on committees--if they even allow him to be seated on one.

    Ron Paul had a chance to take off, I think, as he had (and still does) a solid base of staunch supporters. Not large numbers, but a core. I suspect, however, that he may fade to 'Nader status' should he try to run for president as an independent, possibly in 2012. However, if the problems with Iran's nukes and Iraq and Afghanistan are moving toward resolution by 2012, his more isolationist positions may play better with republicans and independents...maybe some conservative democrats.

    I am still a fan of the Fair Tax (mentioned earlier in this thread) as it would take a way much of the 'power' of the federal government while remaining a progressive, revenue neutral tax method that would boost greatly the American economy--and far simpler and doom the IRS to fade into oblivion. Then, the two party system, even if it remained, would have less influence, as would lobbiests. But the reduction in power that would result of those currently in power, is in my opinion, exactly why it hasn't gone too far, yet.

    Terry
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice