BF2S Forums If Obama looses the election, are we racists?

inb4 he isn't Black.

(Which he is really)

To answer the question.... No it does not, however some will always claim that...the reason is that America is still fighting a racial battle and therein lies the real reason he wasn't elected.

Obama is black, Biden is an arrogant eliteist, McCain is too old, Palin is a woman.   It is a foregone conclusion someone/group will complain.  Get the fuck over it I say...

I don't know about Obama but if the Republican Party wins the elections after generating massive amounts of national debt starting from a position of a balanced budget, overseeing giant leaps in oil price (partly through their own ratcheting up of tensions with Iran and invasion of Iraq), engaging in uncalled-for war in a distant nation (sacrificing US blood and money needlessly when the US, thousands of miles away, could not possibly have faced any meaningful threat) when they hadn't even nearly finished dealing with the nation that Osama Bin Laden calls home, overseeing an unhealthy increase in the level of unemployment, overseeing untold turmoil in the banking system and the effective nationalisation of the two biggest mortgage lenders in the US, happily watching the value of the dollar plummet, sanctioning torture in modern day concentration camps where habeas corpus is suspended (contravening the Geneva convention using lame semantic arguments) and generally making the US look like a unilateralist imperialist unscrupulous morality vacuum to the entire rest of the world (with the exception of Israel of course) then you only have yourselves to blame.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-09-14 16:32:00)

CameronPoe wrote:

I don't know about Obama but if the Republican Party wins the elections after generating massive amounts of national debt starting from a position of a balanced budget, overseeing giant leaps in oil price (partly through their own ratcheting up of tensions with Iran and invasion of Iraq), engaging in uncalled-for war in a distant nation (sacrificing US blood and money needlessly when the US, thousands of miles away, could not possibly have faced any meaningful threat) when they hadn't even nearly finished dealing with the nation that Osama Bin Laden calls home, overseeing an unhealthy increase in the level of unemployment, overseeing untold turmoil in the banking system and the effective nationalisation of the two biggest mortgage lenders in the US, happily watching the value of the dollar plummet, sanctioning torture in modern day concentration camps where habeas corpus is suspended (contravening the Geneva convention using lame semantic arguments) and generally making the US look like a unilateralist imperialist unscrupulous morality vacuum to the entire rest of the world (with the exception of Israel of course) then you only have yourselves to blame.

National Debt? Obama spending plan has 1 trillion of unpaid programs.
Tax cuts bring in more revenue and it is better for the economy, the only reason why were in so much debt right now is uncontrolled spending, which isnt all republican fault. For example, illegal immigration costs more than the war annually. George Bush actually grew the economy by 20?%.

The dollar? It is now rebounded to 71 cents to a euro.

Oil? Under 100 a barrell.

Unemployment? Give me a break its at a 4 year high but a 40 decade low its at like 6.50 percent and in the Clints days it was at like 9.50.

Ratcheting up tensions? What would you do if England said they were going to nuke Ireland? Just be like oh well just quit it?

Mortgage? I blame the people on one hand for taking high risk loans they couldn't pay, and on the other hand I blame the mortgage companies for giving out these loans.

Torture? Eye for an eye is what I believe in, they should be lucky were not doing this.

Mod:  Graphic image

i dont agree with torture though. I agree in holding them until the end of the war though, not letting them go back home so they can pick up arms again.

CameronPoe wrote:

engaging in uncalled-for war in a distant nation (sacrificing US blood and money needlessly when the US, thousands of miles away, could not possibly have faced any meaningful threat)

So youre saying that since the Germans were killing Jews, retards, and gays we should have kept letting it go on like we did?

Last edited by SealXo (2008-09-14 16:52:03)

TheAussieReaper wrote:

SealXo wrote:

Tax cuts bring in more revenue and it is better for the economy, the only reason why were in so much debt right now is uncontrolled spending, which isnt all republican fault.

How do tax cuts help the economy? You have a national debt and need higher taxes to pay it off, otherwise the accumulating interest is just going to kill you in the long run. And uncontrolled spending is also controlled by increasing taxes. It gives you a way to pay for it in the first place, rather than racking up more debt.

No party is going to say raising taxes is the solution, but how do you propose to solve the national debt from crippling America even further?

....sigh.....

look at the facts.

1981 capital tax cuts    Revenues up by 49%

1997 capital cuts                                       49%

2003 capital cuts                                    88%



When capital tax was sraised in 1986    Revenues fell by 44%





When caps are low people invest more because of the risk to reward. This doesnt only go for capital tax, It also works for all tax. If corporations are taxed less, there services or products are cheaper. Ad if income taxes are low, people have more money to go stimulate the ecnoomy. Much bett than stimulus plans.

Higher taxes make people pooer in a already mediocre inflating economy. Taxing business's that are already starving will make them cut employees and raise the unemployment.

Last edited by SealXo (2008-09-14 16:57:41)

SealXo wrote:

National Debt? Obama spending plan has 1 trillion of unpaid programs.
Tax cuts bring in more revenue and it is better for the economy, the only reason why were in so much debt right now is uncontrolled spending, which isnt all republican fault. For example, illegal immigration costs more than the war annually. George Bush actually grew the economy by 20?%.

The dollar? It is now rebounded to 71 cents to a euro.

Oil? Under 100 a barrell.

Unemployment? Give me a break its at a 4 year high but a 40 decade low its at like 6.50 percent and in the Clints days it was at like 9.50.

Mortgage? I blame the people on one hand for taking high risk loans they couldn't pay, and on the other hand I blame the mortgage companies for giving out these loans.

Torture? Eye for an eye is what I believe in, they should be lucky were not doing this.

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o155 … 65ee_o.jpg

i dont agree with torture though. I agree in holding them until the end of the war though, not letting them go back home so they can pick up arms again.

If political parties in my country presided over something similar, let's just say they wouldn't be getting back into power at the next election. The one advantage we have is that there are more than two viable parties in our elections.

PS

Clinton got unemployment down to 4% by January 2001 - a thirty year low.
If immigration is costing so much then why didn't the Republicans lift a finger?
Better regulation of the financial sector could have limited or averted the shitfest that is the property market/banking industry today.
USA hasn't been around for 40 decades.
West Texas crude is above $100 a barrel, which is $20 more than it was 12 months ago. There are many factors affecting the price of oil but I'm sure antagonising Iran and invading Iraq didn't help.
Tax cuts don't always bring in more revenue, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. If tax cuts brought in 'more revenue' then why don't we just tax everyone 0.01% of their income?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-09-14 16:58:51)

SealXo wrote:

oh boy 2 and a half percent and in a war! horrid!

you realize congress (democrat) is in power correct? And there to busy pulling out a global poverty tax

4 decades* typo thanks for pointing that out.

Well, it would be lower on speculation costs which are estimated 40% of final costs if Pelosi (liberal) would have let a vote for drilling pass. I could easily see <80 dollar a barrell gas by now.

Thats a silly quesiton.

I'm fairly sure Condoleeza Rice read the report 'Osama Bin Laden determined to attack within United States using Airliners' prior to 9/11 as she admitted to congressional hearings. I'm fairly certain 9/11 happened nearly a year into Bush' term. I'm fairly certain it could have been averted if US airport security wasn't as ridiculously shit as it was with no need for stupid and costly wars in dustbowl shitheap countries.

Yes I realise the democrats have been in for a year and a half out of the past seven and a half years of the Bush tenure. Oh and these ridiculous mortgages have been handed out for more than a year and a half...

I agree you guys should do more drilling but that won't affect the supply of oil for many years.

It may be a silly question but that's only because it's designed to expose the silliness of your comment on taxes.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-09-14 17:11:43)

CameronPoe wrote:

SealXo wrote:

oh boy 2 and a half percent and in a war! horrid!

you realize congress (democrat) is in power correct? And there to busy pulling out a global poverty tax

4 decades* typo thanks for pointing that out.

Well, it would be lower on speculation costs which are estimated 40% of final costs if Pelosi (liberal) would have let a vote for drilling pass. I could easily see <80 dollar a barrell gas by now.

Thats a silly quesiton.

I'm fairly sure Condoleeza Rice read the report 'Osama Bin Laden determined to attack within United States using Airliners' prior to 9/11 as she admitted to congressional hearings. I'm fairly certain 9/11 happened nearly a year into Bush' term. I'm fairly certain it could have been averted if US airport security wasn't as ridiculously shit as it was.

Yes I realise the democrats have been in for a year and a half out of the past seven and a half years of the Bush tenure.

I agree you guys should do more drilling but that won't affect the supply of oil for many years.

It may be a silly question but that's only because it's designed to expose the silliness of your comment on taxes.

yes? so... rices fault.

well, weve been in the shitter for a year and a half.  George Bush is George Bush, you can't generalize all Republicans with George Bush. I'm fine with a Liberman or a Hillary, who are moderates to democrat. But i dont generalize Obama with them. Obama is in a party of his own, Liberal leaning socialist.

Speculation Speculation Speculation

You know the answer to my comment. Such as capital, (look at my reply to aussie), is that the risk to reward is shit and less people will invest. I play stocks, and im not going to risk all my money for 30%. (Oreilly made him change his mind to 20%, flip flop tick tock)

The bottom 50% pay 2.9% in taxes, so i think raising taxes on the rich who earned there money from long hard work isn't 'fairness', or "neighborly" as obama puts it. Plus i dont trust the guy, he has 0 experice and he changes his mind by the interview, I can't clearly say what he is and isnt for.

Last edited by SealXo (2008-09-14 17:18:51)

CameronPoe wrote:

SealXo wrote:

You know the answer to my comment. Such as capital, (look at my reply to aussie), is that the risk to reward is shit and less people will invest. I play stocks, and im not going to risk all my money for 30%.

The bottom 50% pay 2.9% in taxes, so i think raising taxes on the rich who earned there money from long hard work isn't 'fairness'.

I understand economics perfectly well. What is not guaranteed is that tax reductions will prompt those with capital to invest. That is dependent on a lot more factors than simply a reduction in taxes. A reduction in taxes also fuels inflation, reducing the purchasing power of individuals, which is detrimental to the economy. The whole thing is far too elaborate to dictate that one measure is always right.

1981 capital tax cuts    Revenues up by 49%

1997 capital cuts                                       49%

2003 capital cuts                                    88%



When capital tax was raised in 1986    Revenues fell by 44%

I just point out the facts.

Cap gains increases might be good when the economy is good. But at this time last year the dow was at 16000+ and now its at 11,400. So an increase will cause not only a recession, but a depression as the chart shows. you want change? Just wait until uncompoyment is at 30% because all businesses that are already struggling, have gone under.

Last edited by SealXo (2008-09-14 17:24:09)

CameronPoe wrote:

SealXo wrote:

1981 capital tax cuts    Revenues up by 49%

1997 capital cuts                                       49%

2003 capital cuts                                    88%



When capital tax was raised in 1986    Revenues fell by 44%

I just point out the facts.

Cap gains increases might be good when the economy is good. But at this time last year the dow was at 16000+ and now its at 11,400. So an increase will cause not only a recession, but a depression as the chart shows.

Will cutting taxes cause people to invest in the one part of your economy that is dragging the rest of the economy down - the housing/construction sector? I think not. I would imagine it would be more beneficial to cut taxes for those who who are middle class, hopefully spurring expenditure on luxury items, which in turn will instil confidence in investors to invest again, and to cut taxes on those in the problem bracket: the foreclosure brigade.

100 million families own stock. Id say a lot of those people are middle class. So the whole 95% of america gets tax cuts, is bullshit. Taxing the rich  and not taxing the middle class is bullshit. The rich are the people who give jobs, so if these people are giving away half of what they make they arn't going to be hiring as much. I beileve in everyone getting rich from the ground up. Not a free lunch.

CameronPoe wrote:

At the end of the day your country has to pay for FreddieMac and FannyMae and has a hefty national debt so I don't really think it's time to be handing out tax cuts.

"Taxing a country into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle" - Churchill.

Last edited by SealXo (2008-09-14 17:30:46)

SealXo wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

At the end of the day your country has to pay for FreddieMac and FannyMae and has a hefty national debt so I don't really think it's time to be handing out tax cuts.

"Taxing a country into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle" - Churchill.

Fair enough then. continue living beyond your means. Not paying your debts is what personal responsibility is all about after all isn't it? Perhaps the debt will disappear by magic.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-09-14 17:32:51)

SealXo wrote:

The rich also made no overhead on his small business last month and had to rely on personal investments to make his income. He actually gave raises to all the employees, while all other business's were laying off, even though he took a massive loss by doing so out of his own pocket. If my dad gets taxed by Obama and has the same year as he had this year. Hes closing the doors.

So tax my dad.

Wasn't very wise giving raises to employees in the current economic climate. Rich people have millions of dollars, at least several hundred thousand, at their disposal - just to avoid any confusion over what I regard as a rich person. My dad has a business and employs labourers - he ain't rich. I'm talking about taxing a higher bracket than I think you are referring to.