McCain the elistist NOT Obama
Find a Conversation
McCain the elistist NOT Obama
| Thu, 08-21-2008 - 11:13pm |
Obama raps McCain for ignorance of his own houses
WASHINGTON - John McCain may have created his own housing crisis.
Hours after a report that the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting didn't know how many homes he and his multimillionaire wife own, Democratic rival Barack Obama launched a national TV ad and a series of campaign stops aimed at portraying McCain as wealthy and out of touch.
With the economy the top issue in the race, Obama sought to turn McCain's gaffe into one of those symbolic moments that stick in voters' minds

Pages
I fear the task is more hopeless than I originally thought. See if you can understand this:
Your link stated that the increased revenues were due to increased corporate profits.
When I corporation is allowed to keep more of its revenue it can use that revenue to "grow". That means it hires more people or builds more things to sell and then potentially it makes more profit the next year.
If those profits are taken away through taxation that growth potential is reduced.
The greater corporate tax revenues were a "result" of the lower tax rates.
You do realize that corporate tax rates were also reduced?
>>Nice try, but try dispensing this message to people who have to spend their money on food, rent/mortgage, transportation costs, home energy costs, retirement, health care costs first and then have barely enough money for other things like kids clothes or dental costs, home repairs and maintenance never mind being able to invest in non-retirement stock risks. It is a foreign language to them. If you don't have the money you can't do it. You obviously don't have earnings near the median income range.<<
Gladly. I believe there are plenty of those people who would be able to grasp fundamental economics if someone would take the time to explain it to them. I'm quite sure they understand inflation very well.
I don't think you care at all about the average American. If you did you'd wish to help protect and preserve their jobs. Because really it's all about jobs. If you insist on penalizing and hindering those who provide the jobs and those who support the jobs through investment you are only hurting those who would fill the jobs. The very people you claim to care about. You seem to care far more about hurting those who aren't living paycheck to paycheck at the expense of those who are. That is the fallacy of democratic economic principles.
<>
Are you trying to promote supply side economics as the one and only?
<>
Who said I wasn't about preserving jobs?
I fear the task is more hopeless than I originally thought right back at you.
Hello Slow,
You're not reading your own article. I did. It contradicts itself as I pointed out.
You can't say "the tax cuts did not increase revenue" but then acknowledge that the revenue increase could be attributable to "corporate profits" (corporate tax cuts also having been made).
The tax reduction caused the greater corporate profits which caused the greater tax revenues.
I fear you may not be understanding the terminology.
Oh please!
Let's not leave out the important points....like 2nd quarter GDP being higher here than anywhere else:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/28/business/usecon.4-326710.php
But I know the fact that there is a slowdown worldwide and at home it's remained relatively modest is all President Bush's fault.
In reality it's because of some of his policies we've not had it much worse. But hey, what do I know about business cycles.
I understand it fine - I know macroeconomics is difficult to understand, and supply side doesn;t work under any sustainable economic model. Can you prove differently? TIA
Pages