/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.838946]

Ignoring /pol/'s barrage of shit-posting, who's the right candidate to support this coming election according to /biz/?

[Anonymous No.838947]

Jeremy Corbyn.

[Anonymous No.838948]

RAND PAUL IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE ECONOMY

[Anonymous No.838959]

>>838948
whenever I tell someone I want to vote rand paul they laugh at me, why?

[Anonymous No.838963]

>>838946

big business people: christie
wall street people: bush
flat tax people: paul

[Anonymous No.838965]

>>838959
because infidels

[Anonymous No.838968]

>>838946
I took a political alignment quiz and it said I have a 73% compatibility rate with Rand Paul's ideas so chances are I'll vote for him but I'll read more on his specific views first. I just want a 2nd Andrew Jackson to unfuck our shit.

[Anonymous No.838971]

It doesn't matter

It's gonna eventually come down to Walker vs Clinton.

Then it will become a contest of who loves Israel more.

[Anonymous No.838975]

FEEL THE BERN 2016

[Anonymous No.839005]

Clinton will win because she has a vagina. After Clinton will be the first gay president. That's Jebs time to shine.

[Anonymous No.839026]

Vote Trump. Because fuck politics.

[Anonymous No.839033]

I'm currently planning on voting for Bernie if only because I want to see how his programs go.

We have at no point ever tried a tried and true socialist economic system and I'm curious as to see the changes it will bring, for better or worse.

I would love to vote for Paul as I do identify with libertarianism and if he's anything like his father then his Austrian school ideologies would be a great implementation into Washington.

But when all is said and done I just can't see paul winning the primaries, hence bernie as a form of morbid curiosity.

[Anonymous No.839041]

>>838946

Bernie.

Millionaires aren't buying more shit.

Working/Middle class people do.

The more money they have, the more potential customers I have.

[Anonymous No.839046]

>>839033
I'd rather be curious about someone who actually wants to improve the economy. Wage equality does not equal economic growth

[Anonymous No.839052]

>>839046
As I said there are no such candidates available that stand a chance in the primary elections.

[Anonymous No.839055]

>>838946
Too many people right now with all different views. I would vote trump for the chaos and guaranteed low capital gains and dividend taxes.

[Anonymous No.839067]

>>839041
>implying Apple uses those shitty fonts

[Anonymous No.839098]

Why is he so based?

[Anonymous No.839103]

My politics are more in line with Bernie's, but Hilary's got big business's back and they know it.

[Anonymous No.839104]

>>839067

Why are you mad?

[Anonymous No.839347]

>>838975
>>839041
Oh yeah, because nothing stimulates the economy like raising corporate taxes.

America grew to be the biggest economy in the world by being solidly capitalist, not socialist.

[Anonymous No.839352]

>>839347

We had the biggest period of GDP growth Shortly after WW2 when we had more akin to a "regulated capitalism" than the current neo liberal capitalism that we have today.

Also Adam Smith still believed in SOME regulation.

[Anonymous No.839353]

>>838975
>>839033
>>839041

Oh yeah because nothing stimulates the economy like raising corporate taxes.

America grew to be the world's largest economy by being solidly capitalist, not socialist.

[Anonymous No.839359]

>>838946
It's a fucking circus.
Clinton is dealing with scandal after scandal.
Sanders is a meme candidate.
And people are actually taking Trump seriously:
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/trump-surges-new-nbc-news-wsj-poll-n402036

[Anonymous No.839360]

>>839352
>We had the biggest period of GDP growth Shortly after WW2 when we had more akin to a "regulated capitalism"

LOTS of other things happened at that time, too. During WWII all kinds of materials and services were rationed in order to support the war effort, and many companies produced war-related products rather than their normal consumer products. (I.e. General Harvester and General Motors both produced M1 Garands)

The combination of business getting back into their normal industries, rations lifting on metals and other materials, and literally millions of soldiers returning home to the workforce played a huge roll in the post-war economic upswing.

>Also Adam Smith still believed in SOME regulation.
Sure, nothing wrong with that. We have SOME regulation now (more than "some", frankly). Perhaps we could use some more (I personally don't think so, but that's just my views). But going full Euro style socialist isn't the answer.

[Anonymous No.839374]

>>839359
>Clinton is dealing with scandal after scandal.
What scandals? The email thing? Benghazi? Neither of those will resonate with voters, especially the email one. "She used HER OWN EMAIL SERVER AS SOS!!!" Isn't going to click with the vast majority of middle-of-the-road Americans. People who hate her will be offended, of course, but they weren't going to vote for her anyway.

>Sanders is a meme candidate.
Absolutely true.

>And people are actually taking Trump seriously
From a practical stand point, don't take polls too seriously at this point. If 2012 taught us anything, the debates will have a HUGE impact on the race - especially the Republican nomination. At this point Trump is entertainment. Polled Republicans have seen and heard of him before on TV, and now he's spouting rhetoric that appeals to the far right. He's too volatile to maintain his poll numbers. To this point, remember what the 2012 GOP pre-Iowa nomination process looked like? EVERYONE got their turn as the leader in the polls. Bachman, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Santorum - they all had their turn as #1. It's way to early to look at poll numbers as a legitimate way of predicting the GOP nominee.

Personally, I predict Trump will drop out of the race either before Iowa, or shortly after.

[Anonymous No.839398]

>>839353
>America grew to be the world's largest economy by being solidly capitalist, not socialist.

This is, in fact, the opposite of what actually happened. The times of greatest economic expansion in the US were where worker protections were the highest, and capitalism fettered the most by state-enforce social responsibility.

Furthermore, you're American, you have no idea what the word "socialist" even means.

[Anonymous No.839403]

>>839353
You've never heard of FDR?

[Anonymous No.839434]

>>839374
so who would you support

[Anonymous No.839438]

>>838946
Poor fag here I like Bernie sanders but that may change after I start paying taxes on my upcoming inheritence

[Anonymous No.839448]

>>839438
Inheritance taxes are at an all time low dumbass

If it's less than 2 million it doesn't even matter

[Anonymous No.839455]

>>839448
We have to pay taxes on profits of house apparently and the Ira

[Anonymous No.839458]

>>839403
Well I have only read economic papers on how he prolongued great depression by 3 years, pleasde enlighten us!
>>839398
>workers in 1950s have more rights as they do today
need that citation boi

[Anonymous No.839460]

>>838946

Trump.

[Anonymous No.839465]

>>839458
>need that citation boi

"right to get fired without cause" laws, AKA "right to work" legislation.

[Anonymous No.839476]

>>839465
From wiki "right to work"
>Such laws are allowed under the 1947 federal Taft–Hartley Act.
also http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/osha.htm
Most worker rigths reforms were in 1970s and 1960s

[Anonymous No.839478]

Trump or Bernie

They are the only ones who aren't bought. Well Bernie is very union friendly but I prefer that to the bankers.

[Anonymous No.839481]

>>838963
>wall street people: bush

Clinton is their primary choice. Bush is just too dumb to be trusted.

[Anonymous No.839484]

>>839476
>workers in 1950s have more rights as they do today
>need that citation boi

>>839476
>Most worker rigths reforms were in 1970s and 1960s

Yeah, no shit. That's just what I said.

[Anonymous No.839485]

>>839465
>>839484

Labor market changed a lot between then and now.

The laws are not really going to do much when companies can hire from a large pool of desperate employees and force them into contractual work that carries no benefits.

Laws are better for the most part but the current economy is pretty crap when it comes to employing them so they are worst off.

[Anonymous No.839496]

So I don't see how boosting working class income is a problem?
It brings in more money for those who know how to run a business and offers a decent way of living for not being a couch potato, my only concern would be inflation due to the fact that increasing minimum wage along with cooperate taxes would end up causing just more cooperate greed as profits would decline pretty heavily.

Though lets say he didn't increase minimum wage but increased infrastructure investment and cooperate taxes, he would have just created a couple million government jobs and made our cities look nicer. Not to mention that a majority of those in the infrastructure field wont have half a wit to not spend their money on booze or what have you. So: creating jobs, which gives dumb people money, which gives smart people money, which gives government money, who then create more dumb jobs, so us smart people earn more cash.
It's a good income loop, only problem is initial investment..

[Anonymous No.839518]

>>839496
http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurengensler/2015/05/08/u-s-companies-cash-pile-hits-1-73t/

http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/corporations-cash-hoard-trillion-profits/

Basically US corps right now have trillions in cash that they have no idea what to do with. That's all money that could be generating wealth, creating jobs and building the US. Instead it's sitting in the bank accounts of these corporations while a bunch of incompetent CEOs try to figure out which new Twitter or Instagram to buy next.

>private enterprise in charge of innovation

By comparison NASA's budget is just about 10% of that

But I don't mean to demonise the corporations. It's the government that is at fault for not creating the necessarily environment for innovation. Corporate taxes need to be much higher than they are so that corporations have then two options:

1. Let the government have the money which is surely going to generate more ROI than it currently is.

2. Actually use the money productively in ways that create wealth an innovation.

[Anonymous No.839520]

>>839448
fuck

[Anonymous No.839533]

>>838946
Bernie. Universal health care would SAVE us money (we already apend more per citizen than countries that do it)

He would close the fax loopholes bringing in billions more from conglomerates.

If you look at the peer reviewed eviden e increases in minimum wage are a good thing (regardless of what pol tells you) , hint "velocity of money"

He's a jew , /pol/ sees that as a liability but this is /biz/ and were utilitarian , hes like a magnet for cash

[Anonymous No.839539]

It's a presidential race... please tell me you're not all who stupid as to believe the president is relevant. Obama has pushed, and successfully exceeded, the maximum bounds of his authority with fucking nothing to show for it but the legacy of "the never vote nigger president".

[Anonymous No.839545]

>>839518

>the cash is to protect you
>this is why the banks have cash too

system shocks when companies have no cash leads to the great recession you people bitch about constantly.

[Anonymous No.839546]

>>839539
>nothing to show for it

>
>>
>>>the American right

[Anonymous No.839553]

>>839546
I think you may have misposted... >>>/lgbt/ is that way.

[Anonymous No.839602]

>>839533
>all of this misinformation
Literally everything you said is wrong. My favourite part is the "close all tax loop holes" part. Not only is this out of the presidents capabilities, it would shut off a lot of trade with companies registered internationally and make the economy significantly worse.

Bernie and his fans confirmed for economically illiterate.

[Anonymous No.839650]

Rand Paul. He's the only one that actually gives a shit about reducing our denbts and isn't intimidated by the military industrial complex

Trump might actually be the kind of sledgehammer that we need to break up lots of government bureaucracy. I want to hear what his plans are.

Clinton will just maintain the unsustainable status quo of more socialism with an increasingly bloated/inefficient government.

I actually want basic income to be a thing, but it requires getting rid of the current system.

[Anonymous No.839651]

>>839539
Please remove your uneducated ass from the thread. Thanks

[Anonymous No.839661]

>>838946

I would like to see Sanders vs Paul but it's most likely going to be Bush vs Clinton.

I'll enjoy watching Trump debate although I think he's a joke of a candidate. I don't understand how he says he'll defeat China when his clothing line was made in China. He's a huge hypocrite that would actually make for a terrible president but he's the only fresh thing the republican party really has. He also shit talks the candidates a lot which is fun.

It'd be an interesting debate if it was Paul vs Sanders. It would be the debate of less taxes = better opportunities of people versus everyone working and getting a little bit more = greater spending by consumers.

I just really do not want another Clinton or Bush in office - although it would be entertaining to see first man Bill Clinton.

[Anonymous No.839669]

>>839650
>Rand Paul.
>I actually want basic income to be a thing

You are three fabled champion of cognitive dissonance that pol and tumblr have prophesied! Good on you!

[Anonymous No.839672]

>>839669
What a stupid comment. Did it occur to you that it's possible to prioritize reducing the national debt over ensuring Jamal has more money?

[Anonymous No.839675]

>>839669
Didn't I tell you to eject yourself from the thread already? Shoo

[Anonymous No.839676]

>>839026
I feel the same m8

[Anonymous No.839677]

>>839672
>Did it occur to you that it's possible to prioritize reducing the national debt over ensuring Jamal has more money
>He actually believes it's possible to reduce gimme dats spending
>He thinks basic income is actually feasible

Thanks for playing anon, you can leave now

[Anonymous No.839688]

>>839677
>He thinks basic income is actually feasible

A lot of people think it's feasible, bub. I highly doubt some 4chan shitposter is going to convince me over supporters like former secretary of labor Robert Reich who have done actual analyses.

[Anonymous No.839691]

>>839688

The conditions required to make basic income a reality are politically impossible

It's a liberal pipe dream

[Anonymous No.839696]

>>839691
>politically impossible

A little over a third of Americans support introducing basic income. I predict that'll quickly move into a majority with the next recession and an ever shrinking labor participation rate. Things change, anon.

[Anonymous No.839698]

>>839691
>The conditions required to make the womens vote / abolition of slavery / gay marriage legal etc a reality are politically impossible

[Anonymous No.839702]

>>839696

>Implying what a third of gimme dats think matters

>>839698

>muh false analogies

[Anonymous No.839708]

>>839702
>muh idiotic smug meme arrow comments

[Anonymous No.839711]

>>839708

>Muh free money from the government

Arguing with basic income supporters is like arguing with PandaCoiners. Everyone but them knows that shit is retarded

[Anonymous No.839714]

>>839711
You have no argument

[Anonymous No.839720]

>>839714

>The government will create a utopia for us
>Everything should be free because it's a right
>Why won't you guys take me seriously

[Anonymous No.839729]

>>839650

>Trump might actually be the kind of sledgehammer that we need to break up lots of government bureaucracy

Trump is not a libertarian, bro. Did you not watch him talk? Go give it a watch if not.

A lot of what he said was stuff that you'd never hear a libertarian or even a Republican utter. He is big on trade protectionism for example.

[Anonymous No.839731]

>>839729

this. try isidewith. if you are anti-bureacracy you will see trump, clinton and omalley at the bottom in that order.

[Anonymous No.839732]

>>839696
>A little over a third of Americans support introducing basic income

And like 95% of them support income tax cuts. Doesn't mean it will happen because it's simply not possible.

[Anonymous No.839735]

>>839731

Well I actually like Trump. He's the only Republican candidate that's not bought and paid for and I like his talk of reigning in the US corporations that use US infrastructure yet export all possible jobs abroad.

Then again I'm not anti-bureaucracy whatever that means.

[Anonymous No.839736]

if you care about the stability of american and world economies, hillary clinton
similar for bernie sanders, except less giving a shit about other countries, and like many other of the democrats, a bias for small business of America. i personally like to invest in smaller businesses so my vote is here. plus i also invest all over the world, so "murica first" doesnt actually help me

if you dont give a shit about world economies and only want to see our economy go "well" in terms of higher highs and lower lows, but overall greater averages in the short term, then rand paul or ron paul

if you want to see both the world economy and national economy go to shit, go for another republican candidate

its more a matter of picking the least worst, as most political elections now a days seem to be
keep in mind im biased towards the democrat side, though i must say i cant stand where extremist liberals are taking the country.

>>838968
andrew jackson would fuck us hard right now
>>839041
Bernie is no fucking messiah, without the house and senate on his side he wont get shit done
>>839353
raising wages it doesn't mean it necessarily will, but it will mean more money is moving around, meaning more opportunities to reap profit
America got to this point on 3 things, strong capitalist motivation to do well in markets, strong socialist attitudes to pick shit up when things will go wrong, and dumb luck.
its about balancing the 3 of those if anything

[Anonymous No.839737]

>>839720

Except GBI is just another name for fiscal stimulus that is given to consumers instead of banks. The only even remotely controversial thing about it is how much to give, rather than would it work. Effectively, GBI pays consumers in a consumer economy to consume, something they would normally need jobs to do, but cannot have due to economic circumstances.

The only other objection is people who go on about the ****moral hazard*** of giving someone "something for nothing", as if a welder who likes his job is going to give it up to do nothing and earn one tenth as much.

[Anonymous No.839741]

>>839729
>>839732
>>839735
trump is no libertarian, he's for promotion of himself and what helps him and pretty much no one else

[Anonymous No.839742]

>>839691
explain why they are politically impossible in the best way you can so we can see why you believe this and if it is a solid argument
and please do not just say "it just works"
citations would be nice, but not nessesary

[Anonymous No.839743]

>>839741

>trump is no libertarian,

That's fine with me. I'm not a libertarian either.

>he's for promotion of himself and what helps him and pretty much no one else

He's the only one campaigning on his own finances. There's always going to be special interests pulling the strings. I'd rather it be Trump only than the whole of Wall St.

[Anonymous No.839744]

>>839729
He mentions cutting taxes and smaller government all the time. He needs to go into more detail. EVERYONE in government is big on trade protectionism. Do you have any idea how many subsidies we have? Restrictions on trade?

>>839732
>And like 95% of them support income tax cuts.

Nope.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx

[Anonymous No.839748]

>>838959
He isn't mass media approved.

[Anonymous No.839750]

>>839736
>clinton
>stability of the economy
Retard detected.

[Anonymous No.839754]

>>839602
universal healthcare could save us if the necessary implementations were in play and money stayed out of politics.little things such as a limit on what healthcare providers could charge for what would help
its feasible, but it would take time and essentially a political vacuum where it couldn't be corrupted
weather minimum wage increase could have a bad effect on the economy in the short run but would ultimately have a better effect in the long run. Even better, businesses might actually start paying living wages! try making a spreadsheet that details how someone can live an entire year on 7.25 an hour budget working around 44 hours a week. just try and plan out how you would live on that. now try and consider how you would take care of a child on that.

[Anonymous No.839758]

>>839748
would you care to explain how her economic policies would lead to greater variance or standard deviation of America's and other civilized nation's domestic product? how her policies would cause most indexes to crash? or how her opposition would do better?
or would you rather just call someone on the Internet a retard

[Anonymous No.839759]

>>839744
thank you so much for citing information

[Anonymous No.839764]

>>839758
All you have to do is look at what her husband did to our economy, she supports the same shit he did. Or would you care to actually back up your claims of her being good for the economy like you are insisting that others do?

Then again you're a retard that can't even use proper capitalization.

[Anonymous No.839777]

>>838946
The illusion of choice is incredible

[Anonymous No.839839]

>>839438
Welfare rats like you keep me voting

[Anonymous No.839842]

>>838946

I'm most likely voting Scott Walker.

I live in Wisconsin btw.

[Anonymous No.839852]

>>839353

Like I said, from a small business perspective, better off with consumers having more disposable income in their pockets than billionaires having lower tax rates.

You sound like a corproate shill

[Anonymous No.839903]

I think you all may actually be retarded.

>I promise if im elected there'll be no more homework.

[Anonymous No.839910]

I'm not American and I don't really care for Bernie but I can't help but stress the fact that Social Democracy =/= Socialism? Social democratic countries are still fundamentally capitalist as the means of production are privatized and not commonly owned by the workers. The aforementioned countries employ a mixed market economy, not a socialist economy. Even radical Marxists criticize social democrats for this fact.

[Anonymous No.839917]

I'm not American and I don't really care for Bernie but I can't help but stress the fact that Social Democracy =/= Socialism. Social democratic countries are still fundamentally capitalist as the means of production are privatized and not commonly owned by the workers. The aforementioned countries employ a mixed market economy, not a socialist economy. Even radical Marxists criticize social democrats for this fact.

[Anonymous No.839973]

The typical neo-conservatist line these days is to cut government spending at all cost, and if you don't you're a socialist monster.

To the point where the leader of the federal reserve has to get on their knees and beg big banks to take FREE LOANS because the federal government is utterly gridlocked and unable to get any sort of useful stimulus (public infrastructure spending) out the door on time.

I'm all about free markets and limited government, but there's nothing wrong with public spending where it makes sense.

[Anonymous No.839981]

>>839917
>>839973
The Republican party depends entirely on pop economics.

I'm voting for Hillary, but it's going to feel like a chore.

[Anonymous No.840000]

>>839981

>pop economics
>probably believes piketty
>probably considers self neokeynesian

[Anonymous No.840009]

>>839917

>Florida jews voting for Paul

You're seriously naive.

[Anonymous No.840132]

>>839839
Never have received welfare

[Anonymous No.840350]

>>839981
>there are people on 4chan actually planning to vote for Hillary

[Anonymous No.840354]

>think Trump, a billionaire who has mastered the art of trade deals wouldn't be the best for the economy

This board is a joke, I bet you get your news from Jon Stewart.

[Anonymous No.840457]

>>838947
I hope you die

[Anonymous No.840684]

>>839973
If it wasn't for this governments out of control spending on useless crap it would have enough money for the important things like infrastructure.

[Anonymous No.840728]

>>839478
Trump doesnt represent bankers either though
He has an enormous fortune - he can fund his campaign entirely by himself and his far right views are exactly whats needed in response to the far left political scene as of late.
The pendulum always swings back, and Trump is taking full advantage of that.

[Anonymous No.840739]

>>839744
trumps manifesto has all his policies and political fixes to problems in the past 4+ years

unfortunately its a book you have to pay for
lel

[Anonymous No.840806]

>>840684
Government spending hasn't changed since the Bush years, despite what modern memes tell you.

The 2009 stimulus was mostly tax cuts (lol).

[Anonymous No.840824]

>>840806
>Government spending hasn't changed since the Bush years
I never claimed it did you retard. Do you honestly think the government spending to much is a recent thing? Are you a youngin or something? Excessive government spending has been an issue for a long time.

[Anonymous No.840825]

>all my friends on FB pullin for Sanders
>Most of them make 6 figures

I think a lot of people are going to be surprised to find out how 'rich' they are when a guy like that gets power

[Anonymous No.840978]

>>839737
>Effectively, GBI pays consumers in a consumer economy to consume, something they would normally need jobs to do,

FREE MONIES GUYS I DID IT, WOOOP WOOP

its not like that income they use to "consume"came from somebodie's lack of consumption/investement, owait it did.

[Anonymous No.841200]

>>840978
>its not like that income they use to "consume"came from somebodie's lack of consumption/investement, owait it did.

It sure did, but the economic stimulus of tens of millions of people suddenly buying basic shit they couldn't before far outweighs the stimulus of a few hundred thousand or even million pumping up stock prices more or buying luxury goods.

The International Monetary Fund agrees: Wealth and income inequity are bad for growth.

[Anonymous No.841209]

Why is this /pol/ thread allowed in /biz/?

[Anonymous No.841290]

JEB BUSH

Seriously.

[Anonymous No.841380]

>>841200
The tax cuts that have the best effects are the ones that are all across the board rather than targeting a specific group. Secondly the tax cut has to be a permanent cut rather than a cut that expires after a certain time or the people just put the money saved by the temporary tax cut into savings.

[Anonymous No.841384]

Trump

[Anonymous No.841858]

>>839764
she does not support Glass–Steagall, his big fuckup. Not to mention the GDP per capita did great for a while after Clinton. plus low intrest rates, more private investing, and more research and education. that with a little more regulation is what we need right now and
as for evidence that lower taxes don't work
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42729.pdf
though quite a few have tried to refute it citing external validity, read that shit. its pretty legit in terms of economic reviews.
do you have actual evidence other than garbage that holds the same flaws of external validity?
>>839981
agreed
>>840739
these "fixes" make many of the problems worse
>>840806
govt spending hasn't changed much. and that's not how the stimulus worked.
>>840825
bait
>>841209
there isn't enough antisemitism in here to be a /pol/ thread
>>841384
>>841290
Bait

Seriously.
>>841380
not exactly, if you want an economy in which all groups have equal ability to influence the market tax cuts can't be the only thing at work

[Anonymous No.841893]

>>839458
>he prolongued great depression by 3 years
3 years compared to what? Did the person who wrote your article have a device that allowed him to travel to an alternate dimension in which Hoover was re-elected?

How exactly is "do nothing and allow 25% of Americans to live in slums named after me" going to bolster the economy to recover faster? Sure, some of FDR's protectionist strategies, for instance, may have held back the supply side of the economy a little.

MAKE NO MISTAKE: No recovery will have ever occured in the US if the middle class is too busy in bread lines. Middle class spending drives economic recovery much stronger than a lax business climate.

[Anonymous No.841902]

>>839602
This reminds me of a book I read about Tax Law that suggested that every 10 years or so somebody comes around and puts forth legislation to "close all tax loopholes once and for all". They cherry pick a few loopholes to close, while simultaneously opening new loopholes for down the road. Then, when the legislation passes, they have loopholes that prioritize their pet causes and a popularity boost for being so "progressive".

It's not something that members of either party have a monopoly on, either, since tax reform is a pet project of both sides.

[Anonymous No.841906]

You know who.

[Anonymous No.841909]

>>839691
*cough*earned income tax credit* cough cough* child tax credit*cough cough cough* already exists*cough cough*

[Anonymous No.841931]

B0ss please, No b0ss

[Anonymous No.841933]

Just don't vote, they're all cancer

If you have to vote vote trump incase he wins and invades mexico on his way to claim all of south america, and then gases them all.

[Anonymous No.841935]

>>839973
>I'm all about free markets and limited government, but there's nothing wrong with public spending where it makes sense.

I consider myself to be socially liberal, fiscally conservative and this fits my bill exactly. You may think my social and fiscal views are incompatible, but they really aren't. It pretty much comes down to "If public spending will help, do it. But whether you raise government spending or cut taxes (I'm looking at you, NeoCons), YOU MUST HAVE A WAY TO PAY FOR IT! (Oh and stop shoving your religion down my throat!)"

[Anonymous No.842110]

>>841858
>pushed for china to get into the WTO
>caused the subprime mortgage collapse
>only declaring that glass-steagall is no longer necessary is his big fuck up
I stopped reading there. Please go and educate yourself.

[Anonymous No.842117]

>>839353
>raising corporate taxes will hurt the economy
You're the reason why America is in the shitter. If you keep money to yourself then the money loses its value due to inflation. That's what the rich do with their money, they keep it. What do I expect from the baby boomers who are consider the most fiscal irresponsible generation to have lived.