RE: Hillary's speech:opinion's

RE: Hillary's speech:opinion's (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Thadius -> RE: Hillary's speech:opinion's (8/27/2008 1:54:42 PM)
Just a simple question... How many more jobs were created between 1988 and 2002? What were the unemployment rates during the periods you cite, compared to those I point out, I am not even going to bring up the fact that during most of the periods you cite we were also at war (in a conflict) with a draft? Also what were the rates being paid in other countries at the time? I think those are pretty important facts to have on hand, when making a claim that increased corporate tax rates encourage job growth.

subtee -> RE: Hillary's speech:opinion's (8/27/2008 2:03:45 PM)
~FR This has veered wildly off topic. Sometimes Democrats are their own worst enemies. Hillary had a specific agenda which she executed very well; she needed a cohesive, succinct and to-the-point message: Get behind Obama, as am I. You can't convolute or the point is lost. She wanted the delegates (the audience) to understand that she unequivocally supports Obama. She did all that she could to that end. I hope they took it to heart.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Hillary's speech:opinion's (8/27/2008 2:03:50 PM)
quote: QUOTE: rulemylife: Where is this Democratic Socialist agenda published so we can all be clear? Currently being produced in Denver as we speak based upon what's been published so far. I think we have to wait until tomorrow's stage show to see it finished.

DomKen -> RE: Hillary's speech:opinion's (8/27/2008 2:12:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Just a simple question... How many more jobs were created between 1988 and 2002? What were the unemployment rates during the periods you cite, compared to those I point out, I am not even going to bring up the fact that during most of the periods you cite we were also at war (in a conflict) with a draft? Also what were the rates being paid in other countries at the time? I think those are pretty important facts to have on hand, when making a claim that increased corporate tax rates encourage job growth. The numbers are the numbers. Set the tax rate at 52% for 9 years ( a period with no major wars) and the economy grew at rates to make modern economists wet themselves. As to your non sequitur, are you actually claiming more job growth occured in those 14 years than occured in any 14 year period with highter corporate tax rates? You really might want to check those numbers.

Thadius -> RE: Hillary's speech:opinion's (8/27/2008 2:21:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Just a simple question... How many more jobs were created between 1988 and 2002? What were the unemployment rates during the periods you cite, compared to those I point out, I am not even going to bring up the fact that during most of the periods you cite we were also at war (in a conflict) with a draft? Also what were the rates being paid in other countries at the time? I think those are pretty important facts to have on hand, when making a claim that increased corporate tax rates encourage job growth. The numbers are the numbers. Set the tax rate at 52% for 9 years ( a period with no major wars) and the economy grew at rates to make modern economists wet themselves. As to your non sequitur, are you actually claiming more job growth occured in those 14 years than occured in any 14 year period with highter corporate tax rates? You really might want to check those numbers. Again you are avoiding the one comparison that is missing. The US corporate tax rate vs the corporate tax rates abroad. I suggest that the rates abroad were higher. Also that many of the loopholes in the tax code, that allowed for offsetting those taxes here, have since been closed, thus making it much more profitable and desirable to open a corporation overseas, too, that raising rates will further drive companies to move completely overseas and pass such expenses as tariffs on to the consumers. By no means am I suggesting that part of the reason for investment here was not due to the industrious nature and work habits of Americans during those periods. What incentives are there for corporations to pay these proposed higher taxes and create jobs? Just one more question to add to the mix, what constitutes a windfall profit for being taxed? Is it based on a dollar ammount or is it based on a percentage over operating expenses?

rulemylife -> RE: Hillary's speech:opinion's (8/27/2008 2:24:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: Archer The US already has the highest corporate tax rates in the world. http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1188.html And you want them even higher? Can you say outsourcing of jobs overseas? Other mations have been lowering their corporate tax rates because they realized one simple fact. Corporations don't pay taxes they transfer them to their customers and thus become less competative. Seems like the Dems want the US to be more like Europe.....right down to the higher unemployment and higher taxes. "Change we can believe in"? Say, rather "Change we can do without." Well, I guess that depends on which countries in Europe you are talking about. As it stands we rank far down the list worldwide in everything from GDP to infant mortality to general quality of life. Unless, of course, you fall into that top 1% category on the overall net worth scale that is affected by the estate tax.

Politesub53 -> RE: Hillary's speech:opinion's (8/27/2008 2:29:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Do you really want an answer? I've got no problem with making the inheritance a very progressive tax. Start at something like 5% for estates valued ay 100k and max out at 95% for estates valued at 1 billion+. Same thing for gift taxes and any other attempt to distribute wealth across generations, trust funds and the like, or to move wealth out of the country. The inheritors didn't earn the money and I have no problem breaking down an increasingly stagnant class structure. The only problem with this, is that it stops people working hard to provide for children and grand children. I think your top end should be a little lower, with the bottom end much higher. In many cases 100k wouldnt pay for the house.

philosophy -> RE: Hillary's speech:opinion's (8/27/2008 2:30:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Seems like the Dems want the US to be more like Europe.....right down to the higher unemployment and higher taxes. most up to date figures i can find are, for unemployment... http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/unemployment_rate_2006_0.html ......the US is 93rd worst in the world, which is pretty good, UK is 97th, which is better....Ireland does even better at 100th worst. Tax is a far more complex issue, but i did find this page... http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922307.html ......which seems to suggest that if we're comparing the US with Europe then the Us comes soewhere in the middle. Income tax fora single person in the US being 16.5, UK 15.9, Spain 12.7, Netherlands 8.5, Italy 18.6. However because tax can mean a lot of different things it's difficult to get an exact read on the issue. What is clear from a quick look around is that the US is not markedly better than Europe in either unemployment or tax respects. Furthermore, most of those European countries have universal health care, paid for out of general taxation. So, if low unemployment and taxation is what you want to see then the US could stand to be a little more like Europe........

celticlord2112 -> RE: Hillary's speech:opinion's (8/27/2008 2:33:37 PM)
quote: Well, I guess that depends on which countries in Europe you are talking about. The European Union, as a whole, has approximately 6.7% unemployment--and that's down from earlier levels in the 8-9% range (7% in May of 2007).

bipolarber -> RE: Hillary's speech:opinion's (8/27/2008 2:42:54 PM)
Well, I was going to say that I thought it was rather nice that she remembered the Democrats who died during this election season, (Including local Chairman Gwatney, who was shot dead by a gun toting republican nutcase.) But the thread has veered off into the miasma of economic gobbledygook. Still, great speech. Thought the orange pantsuit clashed a bit with the red white and blue backgrounds, though. I think Chelsea is turning into a major babe. Hillary needs to learn to allow the crowd to chant back with her... she kept stepping on their responses like "Keep going!" and the "No!" that wanted to be pushed with hurricane force each time she brought up the rethuglican failings.... (or their comparison to slave hunting racists... funny none of the talking heads on FOX seemed to pick up on that one) she needs to deliver baptist-style sermons more, and pick up that sympatico with the crowd. ... and I think it's pretty obvious now that the media has once again built up a chimera with this "conspiracy" how Hillary is planning to undermine the party to better her chances in 2012. And the republicans bought into this "American Idol" reality TV schtick ...hook, line, and sinker. Oh, well, at least it kept the news cycle focused firmly on the Dems, while McCain is off... doing what again? Talking in front of another closed factory? In front of another troubled reactor? In a grocery store with cans being knocked over? Maybe he could do a photo op at the local senior's cafeteria... have some "damned good meat" (to quote Futurama's Prof. Farnsworth) sucked through a straw.

Thadius -> RE: Hillary's speech:opinion's (8/27/2008 2:44:32 PM)
Try clicking on some of the countries in your list of unemployment... It lists Mexico as being at 3.6% then the link lists "3.7% plus underemployment of perhaps 25% (2007 est.) " It lists the US as being at 5.1% and the link "4.6% (2007 est.)" I am afraid to look at the countries they list with better... you know those free market places like CHINA and CUBA. Curiousity got the better of me.. it shows China being at 4.2% then in the link "6.1% unemployment in urban areas; substantial unemployment and underemployment in rural areas (2006 est.) "

bipolarber -> RE: Hillary's speech:opinion's (8/27/2008 2:56:22 PM)
Hummm... I wonder how accurate China's figures really are? They aren't exactly known for keeping close track on things like birth certificates, or indeed any paperwork concerning political dissidents... who have disappeared under mysterious circumstances... They can't even prove the legal age of some of their gymnasts.... So how accurate can their unemployment figures be? You don't suppose they might "massage" the figures to make the success of their economic system seem rosier to the rest of the world, do you?

rulemylife -> RE: Hillary's speech:opinion's (8/27/2008 2:56:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: Well, I guess that depends on which countries in Europe you are talking about. The European Union, as a whole, has approximately 6.7% unemployment--and that's down from earlier levels in the 8-9% range (7% in May of 2007). Again, depends on which countries you are talking about. The EU is not comparable to the US as each country sets its own policy. There are EU countries with lower employment rates, which I'm sure you are aware since you used the qualifying "as a whole". Which also was not what I was talking about. You can seperate certain issues, like unemployment, and say we're doing well but this is not the America that used to be the unqualified leader in standard-of-living as a whole.

philosophy -> RE: Hillary's speech:opinion's (8/27/2008 4:17:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Try clicking on some of the countries in your list of unemployment... It lists Mexico as being at 3.6% then the link lists "3.7% plus underemployment of perhaps 25% (2007 est.) " It lists the US as being at 5.1% and the link "4.6% (2007 est.)" I am afraid to look at the countries they list with better... you know those free market places like CHINA and CUBA. Curiousity got the better of me.. it shows China being at 4.2% then in the link "6.1% unemployment in urban areas; substantial unemployment and underemployment in rural areas (2006 est.) " ...fair enough. i just spent ten minutes trying to find a comparative site with relatively up to date figures. The point i was (ineptly) trying to make was that CL's generalisation was not based on facts. His attempt to make a comparison with the EU as a whole with the US is just sheer bunkum, it's comparing oranges and apples. Now a fairer comparison would be the EU compared with the whole of the Americas, if we're getting continental about it........put Mexico and, say, Bolivia into the mix..... There seems to be a widespread notion among those right of centre in the US, that the EU taxes more and has higher unemployment. On the whole it seems that unemployment and taxation are broadly similar.....all that, and EU citizens don't have to fork out money over and above taxation for health care. Seems to me, compared to the US, that europeans on the whole get far more value for money when it comes to taxation. Damn sneaky socialists eh?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Hillary's speech:opinion's (8/27/2008 4:24:46 PM)
quote: Seems to me, compared to the US, that europeans on the whole get far more value for money when it comes to taxation. Damn sneaky socialists eh? Well off the "Hillary speech" thread topic. The reason the socialists can accomplish this is that in the EU there is nothing similar to the civil courts of the United States. Why is health care so expensive and costs skyrocket? If a Doctor doesn't give every possible text, MRI, C-Scan, EEG, EKG, et al; and the patient coming in for a hangnail dies of leukemia 6 months down the road - the Doctor and the hospital will be sued by some John Edwards wannabe. Put in Tort Reform or adopt something similar to the UK system of Civil Court and Doctors get to be Doctors again and not insurance loss prevention administrators. Besides there is universal health care in the USA. No emergency ward can refuse treatment. It's why many are bankrupt in the inner city. You may have to wait a few dozen hours to be seen; but you have to wait 6 months to get a tooth pulled in Canada with their system.

Vendaval -> RE: Hillary's speech:opinion's (8/27/2008 5:04:22 PM)
Does China keep accurate records of the number of prisoners and child laborers? How about all the human trafficking? quote: ORIGINAL: bipolarber So how accurate can their unemployment figures be? You don't suppose they might "massage" the figures to make the success of their economic system seem rosier to the rest of the world, do you?

slvemike4u -> RE: Hillary's speech:opinion's (8/27/2008 8:25:07 PM)
Okay ,so now it is time for all loyal republicans to rip apart President Clinton's speech...roll call please...

christine1 -> RE: Hillary's speech:opinion's (8/27/2008 8:26:18 PM)
i'm not a loyal republican, but hillary sounds just as naggy and shrill as she ever has. i didn't watch billy's speach, i'm just not interested enough really.

Thadius -> RE: Hillary's speech:opinion's (8/27/2008 8:30:27 PM)
Just for you Mike. I really enjoyed the pause and lip bite after he spoke of the lovely Mrs. Biden. It was a Clinton moment. [;)]

slvemike4u -> RE: Hillary's speech:opinion's (8/27/2008 8:45:43 PM)
Yeah he can work a crowd can't he!!!!

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

2.734375E-02