rulemylife
Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mrbob726 The decreased taxes SHOULD have resulted in decreased cost of goods and services. There were a lot of other factors involved, including the cost of loans that businesses need to operate. Back in 2000, wall street and the mortgage industry was deregulated. It took a while for the results to be felt, especially because the Fed kept playing with interest rates; whenever the stock market faltered, Greenspan was right there to manipulate the money supply. Reduced taxes may not have decreased cost of goods and services, but there's no way in hell that the wealthy corporate types are going to take a pay cut (in taxes) without passing it on to consumers. My own opinion is that the socialistic interference by the government is what got us in trouble to start with. Obama isn't going to fix that; it will be the same, only much more. I will not be voting for "that one". I'm not proud of what Bush has done, but tarring McCain with the "Bush brush" isn't the answer. Now the lefties are complaining about $150,000 supposedly spent on Governor Palin's wardrobe. That's peanuts compared to the upwards of $2 million Mr. O is going to be spending out of campaign funds for a big party in Chicago's Grant Park on Tuesday night, win or lose. Did you give to Obama's campaign so he could throw a party? I live close enough to Chicago to know the kind of heavy (crooked) politico's that are supporting the "one" to know I want no part of him, or them. That was quite a few different points packed into one short paragraph, so let me see if I'm understanding what you are saying. Your first point, if I'm understanding correctly, is that deregulation is beneficial but we just didn't give it enough time. Only deregulation of Wall Street and the banking and mortgage industry did not begin in 2000, as you claim. It can be traced back to Reagan's first term. If you saw the recent Congressional hearings then you saw Greenspan admit that he was wrong about deregulation. As far as your second point, which, again correct me if I'm wrong, was that increased corporate taxes are going to be passed on to the consumer. I believe that's true, but only to a certain degree. You only raise prices so far before you lose sales to competition or you decrease overall demand due to the high prices. The fact is we have reached an enormous level of national debt and we have to increase taxes to pay it down. Where should that burden rest? On those who can least afford it or those who make in excess of $250k a year, who may have to scale back on discretionary spending but will be in no danger of becoming destitute. As far as "tarring McCain with the Bush brush", he has done that to himself. Even the policies that he previously opposed Bush on, the tax cuts for example, he reversed himself on (flip-flopped) in order to appease the far right of his party. Yes, $150K is peanuts in presidential politics. It's not peanuts to "Joe six-pack" that Sarah Palin claims to be just like. Not only is it laughingly ironic, it is the epitome of hypocrisy to claim you are just like the average American and then spend more on a wardrobe than many average Americans' homes are worth. Your next point is just irrelevant unless you want to complain about the post-election event McCain will be having, Bush had, Kerry had, Gore had, Clinton had etc., etc.. Whether these events are justified or not, you can't single Obama out for planning it. As for your last point, I lived in Chicago. I'm truly tired of hearing about how supposedly corrupt the politics are from those who live "close enough" to Chicago. It's no more or less corrupt than any other major city. Kind of reminds me of someone who said they had foreign policy experience because they could see Russia from their doorstep.
|