View Single Post
      08-28-2008, 07:53 PM   #49
scalbert
Major General
 
scalbert's Avatar
 
Drives: '08 E90 M3, '13 Volt, '08 Ody
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Woodstock, GA

Posts: 5,707
iTrader: (7)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mistermojorizin View Post
isn't this just a simplified explanation of republicans vs. democrats?

i think you're just looking at the expense side of things. How about the revenue side? the economy prospered under Clinton, a democrat, and is in the crapper under Bush, even though Bush cut taxes. When the economy tanked, business revenue suffered, businesses had to lay off employees. I would much rather pay a little extra in tax and have more job security and make my $40K bonuses than worry about not having enough work. Obama will be better for the economy than McCain, because you need to tax to be able to spend. Repubs think you can spend without taxing. Also, a big drain on the economy is the war. Economists don't believe, like they used to, that wars help the economy. It is killing our economy and McCain wants to perpetuate it.

also, i don't like analogies. they don't prove anything. they can be useful for explainig highly technical concepts in simplified terms if that concept is PROVEN already, but I don't think the concept of who will be better for our pocket book has been proven yet.
Perhaps on the first account. As stated, I was being lighthearted. Does everyone here need to be called Francis? The analogy was stated as such. Shall I provide an analogy for the use of Reverse Thermal Oxidation processes used in Carbon conversion processes since it is better suited for technical discussions.

If I recall correctly, Clinton was fiscally moderate and benefitted from some international changes in the marketplace unrelated to any Government action. Obama isn't presenting himself this way. Bush was not fiscally conservative. So trying to play a party affiliation is irrelevant, thankfully. Your concept of spend without taxing does not follow traditional fiscal conservatism. It is spend only where needed and tax an appropriate proportion.

If we are to get into misinterpreted stereotypes, do you feel more comfortable that your employer may have to let you go due to additional burdens? I just do not see how the additional taxes placed on you and your employer will allow you to feel more secure.

Additionally, where has McCain’s plan spelled out lower taxes with additional spending? From what I have gathered, spending would be reduced.
scalbert is offline  
0
Reply With Quote