As much of a reasoned analysis as wasting your vote on 2 greedy, self-serving lowlifes as Obama and Romney. Of course I know that Ron Paul is no longer in the race as a presidential candidate. My point was "you're better off writing in Ron Paul, than voting for the other 2 guys". When it comes down to it I will write in Ron Paul or of course vote Gary Johnson before I ever supported either of the stance changing, lying pieces of crap.
I can help but say that Collegehumor although funny made a hug mistake. They talked about drink fancy champagne and stuff. Hate to break it to you all but the guys mormon. You know the kind of people that don't believe in having a good time by getting drunk. So other than that good video. I felt obligated because some of my friends are mormon and they always refused alcohol.
I guess your right you got some jews that eat pork and others who don't, so I guess it only normal to have some mormons that drink and others that don't.I can help but say that Collegehumor although funny made a hug mistake. They talked about drink fancy champagne and stuff. Hate to break it to you all but the guys mormon. You know the kind of people that don't believe in having a good time by getting drunk. So other than that good video. I felt obligated because some of my friends are mormon and they always refused alcohol.
My father in law is a die hard Mormon, and he's a major alcoholic, so your mileage may vary I guess.
The point of the video was to laugh, not to sit there and analyze it
If you don't want to disclose this "private" matter, than no one is forcing you.Its kinda rude to ask who your voting for isn't it? Voting is pretty private Mister.
Personally, for this election...
This is a very common misconception of how the economy works. It's simple supply and demand. If you have an economy at a stand-still like it was when the recession was at its worst, people are out of work and lack the income to buy things. Because of the lack of demand, businesses do not have a need for as many workers or as much supply as they normally would, so these workers get laid off. This causes the lack of demand to become worse, and the compounding effect continues until the economy is no longer functioning as it should (and likely would have led to a depression without the Stimulus). If the answer is to give tax breaks to the wealthy and the "job-creators," it is not profitable for them to use that money to increase supply or hire more workers because you still have the same low level of demand, so they sit on that money. In order to get businesses to hire workers, you need policies that actually stimulate the economy; food stamps and unemployment benefits are good examples of ways to do this in a poor economy because they spend that money rather than sit on it, increasing demand and stimulating the economy. As for regulation, it was the dismantling of regulatory policies that got us into this bad economy in the first place.
The companies that outsource are usually the big businesses that are not in a situation in which they need to outsource in order to survive; they do it because it's just that more profitable. The best way to stop the outsourcing of American jobs is to use tax incentives to make businesses want to keep jobs here. Likewise, it would probably be a good idea to stop the tax breaks that incentivize outsourcing.
Ignoring the fact that the woman in that video didn't really touch on any substantive policy issues whatsoever, I wouldn't call this the "average Obama voter." However, this reminds me of a video of interviews with the participants of Glenn Beck's rally. I'm not using this video to make any baseless claims about the average Romney-voter; it's just for your entertainment:
They're not going to sit on the money, because it's profitable for them to hire more people, create more and better products, market them, and bring in a profit. It increases the quality of the items and drives down the cost, the employees get paid and more are hired.
You have to go back to the main reason why people are outsourcing jobs: Taxes. It's much cheaper to hire someone in India than it is in America, this is because all of the taxes and rules and regulations put on by the American government. If these were removed, than business owners would hire people in AMERICA, which would give jobs to AMERICANS, and increase the economy. Everybody wins.
Last time I checked, Glenn Beck isn't running for President of the United States. And as you said, that video is much less "shocking".
An outsourced position in India has to pay taxes to both the US and India governments, doesn't it? How can taxes (to both countries) be the main factor that results in lower costs to hire internationally, where the company would have to pay twice, compared to hiring domestically where they'd only have to pay once? Taxes are proportional to income levels. The main reason it's cheaper to hire in India isn't because of taxes, but wages. American workers earn substantially more than workers in India for the same jobs, and their work conditions are also better. Even if you were to eliminate all taxes for domestic workers, it would still be far cheaper to operate out in a developing country.
If there is little or no demand for a product, businesses lose money if they invest in increasing product or hiring more workers than they need. For clarity, imagine a business that sells 5 products per minute, and it takes 5 workers to push those products. However, due to a failing economy, the demand for that product has gone down to 1 product per minute. The profitable thing to do is to fire 4 workers and not invest in making so many products that the business is losing money. If you just give the rich tax breaks, that demand is still going to be 1 product per minute. Would it be more profitable to A.) spend the extra money on more products and more workers, despite the fact that the business will still only sell as many products (1 per minute) as with 1 worker, or B.) sit on that money? The answer is B because A results in a net loss of money. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it.
Actually, tax rates in the United States, especially on the rich and corporations, are at historic lows. Taxes were higher during the Clinton years, and businesses and the economy did just fine. The idea that taxes are what are mainly driving businesses out of the United States is just silly; the main reason businesses outsource is because of lower wages. The best way to stop outsourcing of American jobs (other than lowering wages in the United States) is to give tax incentives to businesses that choose not to outsource and tax disincentives to businesses that do choose to outsource.
I'm not suggesting that increasing taxes on businesses causes businesses to hire in America (unless you're referring to tax disincentives to outsourcing); I'm saying that taxes are fairly low in the United States already, and there is no need to lower them more when it does not address the larger problems behind outsourcing.
I am aware of this. I posted the video to show you that you can find people of varying levels of craziness on just about any side of any discussion. However, I'm still unsure what the point of your video was other than to show me a passionate Obama-supporter who was only able to bring up the issue of Obama Phone, which BlueStar correctly pointed out is a non-issue.
If there's no demand for a product, or there's a better company that can provide a product of better value and cheaper cost, than the first business has failed, and if the 2nd business's product is really that good, then they will increase productions, which will open new jobs, and hire new employees. It's capitalism at work, increasing quality and driving down prices. Putting high taxes on hiring people and all these restrictions and rules is just going to discourage trying in the first place.
The richest people in the nation, or the "1%", are paying over half their income. 55 cents on every dollar or more. The money needs to be in the hands of the people who earned it, they know what's best, not the government. Like I stated earlier, if they had their own capital (which they themselves earned, not the government), they can re-invest it in the economy to increase it even further. This helps everybody, as more jobs are created, the economy increases, and their capital grows.
Yes, I'm sure taxes are fairly low for the 47 million people who were on foodstamps during Obama's last 4 year reign. The number of people on them doubled within the last 4 years of his presidency. But taxes are definitely not low for anything above the lower class.
.
I understand the basic premise of capitalism. The problem is that your explanation of how the economy works only works in a healthy economy. If you don't have demand because people are out of work, the economy stands still. That's why it's so difficult to come out of a depression or recession. When the Great Depression happened, stimulus policies such as infrastructure spending and World War II spending (the best example of stimulus) are what got us out of it. In fact, after the economy started to recover a little bit the first time, politicians came in and decided it was time to cut the debt and deficit, ending programs that stimulated the economy and sending the economy back down. We've been in this position before.
Well, first of all, the bank bailouts have been paid back with interest. I agree that the banks were reckless, which is why new regulation is in place to keep them from being reckless and stop future bailouts. It was deregulation in the Bush years that caused the financial meltdown in the first place. Thankfully, laws are now in place that prevent future bailouts.
I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers. The top marginal tax rate on ordinary income is 35%. However, it's very important to note that capital gains, interest, and dividends are taxed at a maximum of 15%. Since most rich people have their income come from a combination of these things, their effective tax rate is usually something less than 35%; this is why Mitt Romney's tax rate was something around 13.9% after deductions. The average effective tax rate for the top 1% is 20.6%. The average effective tax rate for the top 400 people is 16.6%.
The number of people on food stamps has gone up because we are in a recession and people were starting to be out of work long enough that they couldn't rely only on their savings anymore. And as I have already noted, food stamps are one of the best forms of economic stimulus (if not the best).
No one is asking you to argue with me.
Based on the polls, it is very likely that Obama will win in November. Can a lot happen between now and then? Yes. But with each passing day, the odds of that become less likely, and people are already voting early in swing states like Ohio with Obama's poll numbers as high as they are.My last statement is, if you actually think Obama can trick the American people into giving him 4 more years of tyrannical dictatorship, taxes and foodstamps, you have a surprise coming to you in November
Arkansas state rep. Hubbard believes that slavery was, in the end, a good thing for African-Americans:
“… the institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise. The blacks who could endure those conditions and circumstances would someday be rewarded with citizenship in the greatest nation ever established upon the face of the Earth.” (Pages 183-89)
Hubbard believes integrating schools is harmful to white students because, in his opinion, blacks are lazy, have no discipline and are causing a decline in education:
“… one of the stated purposes of school integration was to bring black students up to a level close to that of white students. But, to the great disappointment of everyone, the results of this theory worked exactly in reverse of its intended purpose, and instead of black students rising to the educational levels previously attained by white students, the white students dropped to the level of black students. To make matters worse the lack of discipline and ambition of black students soon became shared by their white classmates, and our educational system has been in a steady decline ever since.” (Page 27)
My last statement is, if you actually think Obama can trick the American people into giving him 4 more years of tyrannical dictatorship, taxes and foodstamps, you have a surprise coming to you in November
@
NormalCatelol:
@
The Real Jdbye:
