The Blue Board

Why would someone vote for a politician based on how good of a speech they give? Why would anyone vote for someone who is "cool". If I am looking for someone to lead my company, I want someone who can get the job done. If I want someone that I like I will hire my grandma. Obama has proven he knows nothing about how the economy works. Notice there is no national debt clock at the DNC. Nor should there be, they don't want to talk about it. We are paying 6,000,000 every day on interest alone from the national debt but you will hear much more about some drudged up "war on women" than you will the real problem, which is the national debt, unemployment, and the state of the economy. You will hear how Republicans keep women from getting birth control (news flash: you can go to the health department and get it for free) and you will hear about Romney's tax returns, but what you won't hear is about the worst recovery in US history. Too many people vote for the wrong things because either they are not smart enough to understand the real issues, or they are too lazy to try.

Btw raising taxes on ANY class of individuals will not put a dent in the national debt. The democrats want you to believe that is the solution to all your problems but the truth is would barely budge the national debt. Tax revenues are not tied to tax rates anyway. Tax revenues are much more tied to GDP than anything. The best way to raise tax revenues is to increase income, not raise taxes.

It is an economic certainty - If you want to decrease something then you tax it, if you want to increase something then you subsidize it.

yup

There is no better feeling a human can get then listening to professional bull****artists preach a bunch of bull**** out loud

It truly moves me

Rather than call people names and talk in generalities, I am going to take each one of your statements and respond with specifics.

"vote to make the rich, richer, which has never "created" anything... "

No that is not the two choices at all and is a very shallow statement. For one you can't vote to make the rich richer which I will address later, and two - Obama has had 4 years. This statement proves to me that you buy into the "we must make the rich pay their fair share" stuff. The top 10 percent pay 71 percent of taxes. The economy is not a 0 sum game. Also it will not necessarily raise tax revenues. Want me to prove it? Track the total GDP from the past 50 years and then track the total tax revenues. Also track the top marginal tax rates from those years. If you do this you will find that total tax revenues will always equal 19% of GDP with a standard deviation of around 1 or 2 percentage points. What does this mean? It means that raising taxes does not by itself raise revenues. As I said before, Tax revenues are more tightly linked to GDP, because GDP growth indicates economic growth.

Also it is technically impossible to "vote to make the rich richer". You can't vote to make the rich richer. You can vote to allow the rich to keep more of THEIR money. Taxes are not the governments money. Taxes are our money that we allow the government to take.

" I really would be interested to see the recovery if Obama had a congress. "

When Obama came into office he had both the house and the senate and even after the mid terms he still has the senate. So to say that he hasn't had a congress is an asinine statement. Do you know how many votes Obama's budget has gotten from democrats? The answer is 0. His budget has not received a single vote from either party, and Reid and Obama don't want congress to vote on a budget right now because it would be a bad political move. In a normal presidency, the president would put pressure on Congress to pass a budget or at least vote on his. Obama would rather talk bad about the Supreme Court than he would talk bad about his congress.

Also, you do realize that same Senate that Obama inherited is the same senate (for the most part) that Bush had.

"but at least he's not the goddamn problem. (that would be you, republicans.)"

I am going to leave this one open ended and ask you a question before I respond. I am sure that you believe Republicans are to blame for the home mortgage crises so the question is this....why? Please explain to me how Republicans caused the home mortgage crisis. I already know what you are going to say, I just want to give you the opportunity.

i wrote a response, but it got oopsed..

basically, your "specifics" are just about as specific as generalities. You have no grasp on the issues, as they cannot be explained in such simplistic terms.

the economy is absolutely a zero sum game, according to your mentors, right? Pareto optimality and all that... ha ha ha ha ha... so, with all the rest of that nonsense, just hush.

ha ha ha.. you already know what i am going to say...

you, sir, are part of the problem. When someone, such as you, is just smart enough to understand just enough to make yourself seem smart enough to be effectual. One thinks they know everything, when the reality is that they know just enough of the spoon-fed shit that is fed to them by whoever they are fellating at the time... see, what you should do, is try and become a little impartial. try to forget all of the "facts" that have been shoved down your throat by the people that are using fear, and other base means to motivate you, and your moronic tribes of imbeciles. once you become just a bit more objective, and can see that the people that you are defending are the same ones that are manipulating the game, and its rules, you will understand... seriously... if the government were to have raised the taxes of the upper 1% just 4 short years ago, the government would be taxing ITS OWN MONEY. ha ha ha..

it is so sad to see someone marginally smart fall for so much horseshit. You could do some real good in this world if you would just cast off the yoke of partisanship... they are making of you a slave.

ha ha ha... inoerite?

unlike you, i will not deign to "explain" the flaws, both fundamentally, and peripherally, of the economic theories that created such a mess, as there is not enough time to do so in a message board post, as that is just as disingenuous as any attempt to defend any of these political thugs and thieves that have been in office in the past 30 years (and longer).

and yes, the republicans had quite a lot to do with the mortgage crisis, up to, and setting it off. this is common knowledge. the fiscal policy of greenspan and other "laissez faire" economists, aligned quite nicely with the right wing, i might add, have ruined this country financially, and even moreso, philosophically, at the very root. You moronic "republicans" who spent all those years worshiping at the alter of "investment" and "prosperity" did nothing more than carpetbag “pre-emptive asymmetric monetary policy," as according to Cooper, and more or less, profiteer off of insidious and idiotic policies that were born of reagonomics and other completely retarded theories.

was that what you thought i would say? you obviously do not truly understand the whole issue, which is fine, because you have been told just enough so that you THINK you do, and therefore, continue feeding off the teat of the sow.

now, if you would like to bring some objectivity to your arguments, i will debate it with you, but as long as you are continually spewing your diarrhea of demagoguery, why would i involve myself in a discussion where you already "know" you are right?

You could have saved a lot of time and effort if you would have just responded back that you have no clue what you are talking about and for that you don't want to debate. You provide no evidence for comments therefore I believe you are the one that spews what you are spoon fed. I atleast did some research of my own. All you did was use a bunch of fancy words in hopes of making yourself sound smart but you really added absolutely nothing to the debate. It is funny how liberals like to spew party lines but when it gets down to the nitty gritty you cop out. That is why liberals hate Paul Ryan. He actually knows math and knows that the policies do not work.

This was favorite part btw hahahaha "unlike you, i will not deign to "explain" the flaws, both fundamentally, and peripherally, of the economic theories that created such a mess, as there is not enough time to do so in a message board post"

I will now translate that: "I have no freaking clue what I am talking about and in hopes of saving myself embarrassment I am going to attempt to make myself sound intelligent".

Oh and yes I am partisan and you are not? How does that work? Oh and you don't know me. You have no clue how "smart" I am. You would love for me to be dumb but I can sense in your response that you don't really want to get into a debate with me.

what you are claiming is not represented in either graph.

don't be silly.

really, stop it...

What the he!! is happening here? I am agreeing with an Auburn fan and not with an Alabama fan.

I am glad I made you laugh buddy.

Michelle Obama is a liar. Neither her nor Barack grew up in a tough situation and neither grew up poor. The San Antonio mayor talking about people "pulling themselves up by the bootstraps" was a joke, as we all know that Democrats don't believe in that. The performances were good , great even but the substance was BS.

well?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but c'mon. So you're telling me that four years of a man in office can cause four times as many years of darkness for our country than our country has even existed?

Her dad made $50,000.00 a year in the 70s, adjusted for inflation that's about $282,00.00 a year today. Barack didn't grew up as well, but certainly didn't have it rough as he attended private schools growing up, and most of his college was free...I'll let you guess why. Since the '08 campaign they have tried to paint this rags to riches story and it's bull***.