Vinny sounds bitter.

Also, I find it extremely insulting when people blame another's youth for a lack of understanding.

And if you do it again I'm telling my mom.

strange, australia has very liberal (american definition, not australian liberal party) views, and yet we dont try and take things down levels.

Also, if you truely believe that progress is against the founding principals of the US, then why do you accept all the liberties that have been given since the nation was founded? Also, I remind you that insulting someone to people that share your views is pointless, as calling someone liberal is pointless if they are already conservative voters, and those that dont care about liberalism don't see it as an insult (though they may see the person using it as childish, because using a non-insult as if it were an insult is quite childish).

So, my point is, who does he think he will convince to switch merely by saying that someone is liberal?

you're a flaming something :p

I'm sorry, I can't relate to you since you have different political perspectives and definitions. I'll try to remember that you're an aussie and disregard you in the future.

If anything, the founding principles of this country most closely identify with libertarianism. So you right-wingers are in the same boat :p

What the **** is this ****?

As much as I hate Olbermann, he's exactly right.

Oh, like freedom of speech?

O.o

what are you talking about?

Indeed, they are, and I don't believe Obama believes that the government has a limitless supply.

Please note that I've supported Obama's tax increases on the wealthy even when I thought it would affect me. I'm comfortable with not getting my tax refund. I plan my finances around not getting a single dime back. I consider that $1300 to the federal and the $1200 to Kansas and the $800 to Missouri gone from the moment it's deducted from my paycheck.

McCain shows no real signs of stopping deficit spending, while Obama, who does openly support expansion of the government, supports it only as long as the government can afford it. I'd be wary of Obama's policies if not for his support of pay-as-you-go, which signals to me that he'll balance the strength of our economy, the dollar, and our government's budget with the welfare of the people; if it can't be afforded, it won't be done.

Wouldn't it make sense to tax the rich LESS since it gives them more money to blow on houses, cars, boats, clothes, etc. Basicially money going back into the economy that ultimately will come to us in one way or another? Thus giving a necessary revival to our rotting economy?

Just a thought but I could be totally wrong and I'm sure by the time I check later today five of you will have told me why I am wrong, and then proceed to squabble about it.

This is called the "trickle down" theory of economics, or the horse and sparrow theory: If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.

I won't argue that rich people shouldn't be able to spend their money on nice things, but a few people buying cars doesn't have that much of an influence on the economy. If they were, say, investing it in companies, then, yes, that could have a significant impact on the economy.

I'm all for lower taxes if we can avoid deficit spending while doing so. The problem is, the Republican party doesn't seem to think that there's anything wrong with cutting taxes and increasing spending - I don't know if it's an extension of the "we're a superpower and can get away with massive amounts of debt and not ruin our country immediately" mentality or what, but it's a problematic mentality that will bite us in the *** unless we pay off some of our debt.

The government needs to tax its citizens in order to pay for services. The Articles of Confederacy taught us this much. If John Q is making $300,000 a year and Suzy Q is making $24,000, who can afford to be taxed more?

well... i will try and break it down for you in a cartoon strip...

this is a comparison of applying sunblock conservatively vs. liberally...



3 hours later...

6 hours later what at first seemed like a grand idea has unexpected consequences...

you get stuck in a glob of hardened sunblock.

and that is why.... er... you should use a moderate amount of sunscreen...

So in other words the middle and lower class are pissed on and get to eat ****.

As someone who is in favor of supply side economics(with a slight twist), I always thought those two ways of describing it were the worst possible ways a supporter could describe it.

The funny thing is that you will never find a textbook or an economist that actually acknowledges a "trickle down theory". It's a simplistic term hardly used by economists, but BOY do politicians love to use it, along with most sort of media. No trickle-down theory actually exists, in any economics book, ever.

Those who actually sincerely believe in "trickle-down" economics certainly does not understand the process of investment, or creating a business....at all.

And fish, I see you read Galbraith

That's exactly what they do. The 'tax cuts for the rich' were cuts to the capital gains tax, which is a tax applied to profit made on things like stocks and real estate investments. Raising this tax decreases the reward and increases the risk of investing, which means less people will. And while cutting this tax did 'help' the mega-rich, it effected the upper-middle-class and small business owners much more. You see, Bush didn't just cut the taxes on rich people across the board; he cut a very specific tax, which encourages increased investment.

You can actually learn a lot about this by playing Sim City. If you suddenly raise taxes, you get a revenue spike. But then your businesses start going under, your economy collapses, your population vanishes; and takes your revenue with it. If you cut taxes, businesses prosper, your economy surges, your population spikes - and your revenue goes through the roof.

Obermann whining as usual? I really someday hope that he goes down in a huge ball of flames.

I disagree. Liberals seems to want a socialist welfare state and I know the founding fathers would not have wanted that.

pretty sure kirby was referring to the video itself, not olbermann's commentary on it.

and hes right, if anyone else had done it, they'd be *****ed at for exploiting the dead.

also, "it happened on September 11th....9/11." why not say 2001, instead of repeating the same thing twice in different ways?

sithlord said libertarians, not liberals. libertarians are generally just right of center in my experience.

Seems a pretty relevant issue still today. Still, who else could do it? The Democrats could never have done a tribute like that because they already oppose virtually every policy that will help prevent another massive attack. That's why people that think that way are so offended be being reminded of what happened and what is still at stake.

Plus, Obermann really is a whiny *****. The simple fact that he holds any opinion is enough to disqualify that opinion outright.