PDA

View Full Version : What happened to the Trickle Down theory.



Qtec
08-03-2008, 06:13 AM
the myth destroyed (http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/9933-stephen-colbert-talks-to-jim-cramer-about-his-on-air-meltdown)
Trickle Down- the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

Q

LWW
08-03-2008, 06:15 AM
Actually, both got richer.

Any questions?

LWW

hondo
08-03-2008, 06:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, both got richer.

Any questions?

LWW </div></div>


Sure, but you don't have any answers.

pooltchr
08-03-2008, 08:26 AM
Let me see if I can explain this in terms that even you can understand. Th"poor" have two different options for financial gain. First, they can get handouts from the taxpayers after the money is funneled through the government. The second is they can get it from an employer (usually referred to as the "rich"). Now, if the government insists on taking money from the "rich" employers, the "rich" have less to use to generate more jobs or more opportunities for the "poor" to make money. That means more of the "poor" are left with only one option...take what the government gives them.

In other words, in order for the "rich" to get richer, they must grow their business, and have a portion of their wealth spent employing more "poor" people. The only source of wealth the "poor" have is for it to trickle down from someone who has it already. That would be either the "rich" or the government. An added benefit for the government is that the more people who are employed, the more income tax they can collect.

It's a win-win-win. The rich can get richer, the poor can get richer, and the government can get richer.

By the way...how old is that video?

Steve

sack316
08-03-2008, 08:48 AM
good call Steve. I noticed the video was posted on that site eleven months ago... so we know it's at least that old.

I do like Jim Cramer though. Dude went from living in his car to being filthy rich. Gotta respect that. He may be a tad loopy, but when it comes to money he has a no nonsense, common sense approach to making it work. Plus, he's evidence that anyone can pull themselves up by the bootstraps and make a living if they are willing to try and sacrifice.

I get sick of listening to the homeowner stuff, and how evil the mortgage companies are. I mean, some years ago when i was about 21, 22 or so I guess, I got approved for roughly 150K home here in Prattville, AL. At the time I was just pulling MAYBE ten bucks an hour, and the girl that I was with at the time was bouncing around jobs making a cool $6/hr when she could actually hold a job, and generally it wasn't even full time. As tempting as it was to buy this beautiful house I was approved for, I knew in the given situation I couldn't afford it. So... I didn't buy. Doesn't seem too difficult.

Don't get me wrong, these companies that are tossing out dreams and taking risks on people in hopes of making that extra money and extra commission or whatever are reaping what they sow when they can't get paid. But some responsibility needs to be on the buyer too. I don't think either one should get bailed out. Everyone wants reward/reward... somewhere in there is lost about how it's supposed to be risk/reward.

By the way, on a side note, is the "starter house" as lost thing these days? I remember my parents, buying a cheap house when starting out... staying there a few years building up equity and saving money. When the finances got right and it was OK to do so, they sold and bought a nicer house in a nicer neighborhood, but still within their means. Doesn't seem that difficult.

Sack

pooltchr
08-03-2008, 05:35 PM
Sack,
That seems to be another of the values that are quickly disappearing from our society. We want instant gratification. We want more than everyone else, and we want it right now.

My parents did me a big favor when I was just a kid. When a lot of other kids parents were buying them cars when they turned 16, my parents told me if I wanted a car to go out and get a job and save enough to buy one. I thought it was so unfair at the time, but looking back, they gave me something of far greater value than just a car.

Whoever said "Patience is a virtue" knew what they were talking about!
Steve

Qtec
08-03-2008, 07:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me see if I can explain this in terms that even you can understand. Th"poor" have two different options for financial gain. First, they can get handouts from the taxpayers after the money is funneled through the government. The second is they can get it from an employer (usually referred to as the "rich"). Now, if the government insists on taking money from the "rich" employers, the "rich" have less to use to generate more jobs or more opportunities for the "poor" to make money. That means more of the "poor" are left with only one option...take what the government gives them.

In other words, in order for the "rich" to get richer, they must grow their business, and have a portion of their wealth spent employing more "poor" people. The only source of wealth the "poor" have is for it to trickle down from someone who has it already. That would be either the "rich" or the government. An added benefit for the government is that the more people who are employed, the more income tax they can collect.

It's a win-win-win. The rich can get richer, the poor can get richer, and the government can get richer.

By the way...how old is that video?

Steve </div></div>

The facts.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A Look at the Numbers: How the Rich Get Richer
How the rich get richer.
See Sources" /&gt;

Clara Jeffery" /&gt;
May 01" /&gt; , 2006" /&gt;

IN 1985, THE FORBES 400 were worth $221 billion combined. Today, they’re worth $1.13 trillion—more than the GDP of Canada.

THERE’VE BEEN FEW new additions to the Forbes 400. The median household income has also stagnated—at around $44,000.

AMONG THE FORBES 400 who gave to a 2004 presidential campaign, 72% gave to Bush.

IN 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002.

IN 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000.

ONLY ESTATES worth more than $1.5 million are taxed. That’s less than 1% of all estates. Still, repealing the estate tax will cost the government at least $55 billion a year.

ONLY 3% OF STUDENTS at the top 146 colleges come from families in the bottom income quartile; only 10% come from the bottom half.

BUSH’S TAX CUTS GIVE a 2-child family earning $1 million an extra $86,722—or Harvard tuition, room, board, and an iMac G5 for both kids.

A 2-CHILD family earning $50,000 gets $2,050—or 1/5 the cost of public college for one kid.

THIS YEAR, Donald Trump will earn $1.5 million an hour to speak at Learning Annex seminars.

ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, the federal minimum wage has fallen 42% since its peak in 1968.

IF THE $5.15 HOURLY minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation since 1990, it would now stand at $23.03.

A MINIMUM WAGE employee who works 40 hours a week for 51 weeks a year goes home with $10,506 before taxes.

SUCH A WORKER would take 7,000 years to earn Oracle CEO Larry Ellison’s yearly compensation.

ELLISON RECENTLY posed in Vanity Fair with his $300 million, 454-foot yacht, which he noted is “really only the size of a very large house.”

ONLY THE WEALTHIEST 20% of Americans spend more on entertainment than on health care.

THE $17,530 EARNED by the average Wal-Mart employee last year was $1,820 below the poverty line for a family of 4.

5 OF AMERICA’S 10 richest people are Wal-Mart heirs.

PUBLIC COMPANIES spend 10% of their earnings compensating their top 5 executives. </div></div>

Or,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wealth sharesIn 1989, with that year's Forbes 400 wealth factored in, the
average family in America's richest 1 percent held 106 times the average
net worth of families in America's bottom 90 percent. In 2004, with the
Forbes numbers again taken into account, the average top 1 percent family
held 176 times more wealth than the average bottom 90 percent family.

What do these multiples and percentages mean in actual dollars and cents?

If the bottom 90 percent of America's families and the wealthiest 1
percent held the same share of the nation's income in 2004 as they did in
1989, the average family in the bottom 90 percent would have had $12,208
more to its name and the average top 1 percent family $1.7 million less.

THE PAPER:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/Pubs/FEDS/2006/200613/200613pap.pdf </div></div>

Under Bush, the rich have got richer, the poor have got poorer and he has almost doubled the Nat Debt to pay for it.
Nike became big through using cheap labor from abroad, ie they had 9 yr old kids sewing soccer balls for a dollar a day or less.
WalMart is the biggest importer of Chinese goods, again goods made under slave labor conditions.
Trickle down to whom Steve? Certainly not the 40% of Americans who have none or little wealth.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> % of US Population % of Wealth Owned
================================================== ========
Top 1% 38.1%
Top 96-99% 21.3%
Top 90-95% 11.5%
Top 80-89% 12.5%
Top 60-79% 11.9%
General 40-59% 4.5%
Bottom 40% 0.02%</div></div>

Imagine the 40% were to unite! Imagine they said as one "we are not going to take this anymore".

If GW had given the 40% ALL the tax cut money THEY would have spent it. The economy would have 'surged'creating demand for the rich to produce more , more jobs. etc etc.
The TD theory is a huge con.

Q

Qtec
08-03-2008, 08:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Expert on bailouts: Bank regulators should investigate themselves
08/03/2008 @ 9:37 pm
Filed by Reuters

NEW YORK, Aug 3 (Reuters) - The United States is in the second inning of a recession that will last for at least 18 months and help kill off hundreds of banks, influential economist and New York University Professor Nouriel Roubini told Barron's in Sunday's edition.
Advertisement

Taxpayers will pay a big price for helping bail out the rest of the financial services industry as well, Roubini said -- at least $1 trillion and more likely $2 trillion.

The banks will become insolvent because of mounting losses as a result of the housing bust and because they have only written down their subprime loans so far, he said. Still in front of them are their consumer-credit losses, for which they lack the reserves, Barron's reported.

He also said there are hundreds of millions of dollars outstanding in home-equity loans that could be worth zero, too.

U.S. consumers, meanwhile, are "shopped out" and saving less, while the Federal Reserve's performance in handling the crisis has been poor, Roubini said, because it failed to see that the problem extended beyond subprime mortgage debt.

Now, Roubini told Barron's, the government is overregulating, bailing out troubled participants and intervening in every market.

"The regulators should investigate themselves for bailing out Fannie Mae (FNM.N) and Freddie Mac (FRE.N), the creditors of Bear Stearns and the financial system with new lending facilities. They have swapped U.S. Treasury bonds for toxic securities," he told Barron's. "It is privatizing the gains and profits, and socializing the losses as usual. This is socialism for Wall Street and the rich."

He said that sometimes it is necessary to use public money to rescue institutions, but in a way that does not bail out the people who made the mistakes. "In each one of these episodes, the government bailed out the shareholders, the bondholders, and to some degree, management," Roubini told Barron's.

As for the banks that will go bankrupt, they will include community banks that finance homes, stores, downtown areas, commercial real estate and other mainstays of U.S. towns and cities, Roubini said.

"Of three dozen or so medium-sized regional banks, a good third are in distress," he told Barron's, saying half of the group could go bankrupt. Some big banks could wind up insolvent, he added, but said they might be deemed too big to fail.

Nouriel stressed that he is "quite bullish" about the state of the global economy and that he is positive about the medium and long term.</div></div>

Q

eg8r
08-04-2008, 08:42 AM
You are wasting your time. Common sense is not something Q has an abundance of. His head is stuck in the sand and he hates the evil rich. There is nothing you can say that will sway it. Your only chance is that someone with an open mind will actually read it and make a change.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-05-2008, 04:53 PM
You are soooooooooooo Niave'!

Gayle in MD
08-05-2008, 05:03 PM
Q,
Ted Kennedy gave an outstanding presentation on the Senate Floor just two years ago using government charts which proved beyond any doubt that Republican economics hurt the country, increase the vast chasm between the rich and poor, and every respected economist I've ever heard speak about the trickle down theory, has said that is favors the rich, at the expense of the middle class.

Republicans cannot follow the dotted line. They think that these kind exploitative sob's with their hot little fists full of money, want to provide jobs for the poor and middle class. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we've all watched them do over the years, is exactly what Ken Lay did, and I could name may other corporate CEO's who have done exactly the same.

Corporations do not regulate themselves. They hire illegals, at cheap prices, compliments of George Bush, one and two, and Ronald Reagan, and regular working class Americans, pay the price.

They hide their money in the Carribbean, and utilize the sneaky enron loopholes, to bilk working class Americans out of their tax dollars, paying for the Republican wars for profit!

Republicans, like Tom Delay, go on golfing trips to Scotland, compliments of the human torturers of the Marianna Islands, and promise to keep legislation off the floor that would demand American labor protection to the women and children that are locked in warehouses like slaves, raped and tortured, working their fingers to the bone, for the cronies of Republicans.

there is nothing more disgusting than listening to some Republican blow hard who thinks they know anything at all about taxes, and economics. They're dunces, plain and simple, who don't know where their own best interests lay! Hence, they vote for idiots like George Bush!

Gayle in Md.

Wally_in_Cincy
08-06-2008, 06:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


If GW had given the 40% ALL the tax cut money THEY would have spent it. </div></div>

on crack nd 40's?

Q, you don't take someone out of poverty by giving them money. We've been doing it for 40 years and it has destroyed more lives than you can imagine.

"Broke" is a temporary condition. Poverty is a way of life.

Do you think I am naive too Gayle?

Wally_in_Cincy
08-06-2008, 06:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are soooooooooooo Niave'! </div></div>

What part of his post do you disagree with? Be specific please. Focus like a laser beam.

Chopstick
08-06-2008, 08:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

IN 1985, THE FORBES 400 were worth $221 billion combined. Today, they’re worth $1.13 trillion—more than the GDP of Canada.

</div></div>

Did you happen to look up the party affiliations of these individuals? I did. I got through the top 35 and quit. They're all democrats.

Conservatives want everyone to get rich. Democrats just want other democrats to get rich and have the rest of the population dependent on them for handouts. They are the ones yelling about the rich republicans because they don't want anyone looking into their business.

Qtec
08-06-2008, 10:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

IN 1985, THE FORBES 400 were worth $221 billion combined. Today, they’re worth $1.13 trillion—more than the GDP of Canada.

</div></div>

Did you happen to look up the party affiliations of these individuals? I did. I got through the top 35 and quit. They're all democrats.

Conservatives want everyone to get rich. Democrats just want other democrats to get rich and have the rest of the population dependent on them for handouts. They are the ones yelling about the rich republicans because they don't want anyone looking into their business.

</div></div>

Are the Waltons Democrat? There is a whole bunch of them in the top 20.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wal-Mart's message: Obama win means more unions

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they'll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies - including Wal-Mart.

In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if stores were to be unionized.

According to about a dozen Wal-Mart employees who attended such meetings in seven states, Wal-Mart executives claim that employees at unionized stores would have to pay hefty union dues while getting nothing in return, and may have to go on strike without compensation. Also, unionization could mean fewer jobs as labor costs rise.

The actions by Wal-Mart - the nation's largest private employer and Colorado's largest employer - reflect a growing concern among big business that a reinvigorated labor movement could reverse years of declining union membership.

That could lead to higher payroll and health costs for companies already being hurt by rising fuel and commodities costs and the tough economic climate.

The Wal-Mart human-resources managers who run the meetings don't specifically tell attendees how to vote in November's election but make it clear that voting for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama would be tantamount to inviting unions in, according to Wal-Mart employees who attended gatherings in Maryland, Missouri and other states.

"The meeting leader said, 'I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won't have a vote on whether you want a union,' " said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. "I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote," she said. </div></div>


Q

Gayle in MD
08-06-2008, 10:26 AM
Could us provide us a link, or some proof for your statements?

Thanks,
Gayle

eg8r
08-06-2008, 12:01 PM
So you are stating you are the one jumping on Q's bandwagon without actually looking at the data? Figures, that is what you sheep do.

eg8r

Chopstick
08-06-2008, 12:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Could us provide us a link, or some proof for your statements?

Thanks,
Gayle </div></div>

The list is published. Do your own homework. Unless you are waiting around for someone to tell you what to think. Take the names one at a time and look them up.

Warren Buffet (D)
Bill Gates (D)
etc.
etc.

Let me know when you hit a republican. I didn't find one.

Chopstick
08-06-2008, 01:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Are the Waltons Democrat? There is a whole bunch of them in the top 20.

Q </div></div>

I didn't look up the rest of the but Sam Walton claimed to be an independent. However, he voted democratic, endorsed Hillary Clinton and put her on the board of directors. Here's her picture with the rest of them.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/05/20/us/20walmart_span.jpg

wolfdancer
08-06-2008, 01:17 PM
Conservatives want everyone to get rich. Democrats just want other democrats to get rich and have the rest of the population dependent on them for handouts. They are the ones yelling about the rich republicans because they don't want anyone looking into their business.
As Johnny Carson used to say "I didn't know that"

I'm thinking if you lined them all up, buck-naked, you couldn't tell one fat-assed politician's party affiliation from another's

Deeman3
08-06-2008, 03:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I'm thinking if you lined them all up, buck-naked, you couldn't tell one fat-assed politician's party affiliation from another's </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Lord aint that the truth? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>

Qtec
08-06-2008, 06:35 PM
J Walton (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/54/richlist07_Jim-Walton_JI38.html)

# 12 on the list. According to this (http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/S_Robson_Walton.php) site, 77% of political donations that he gave went top the GOP and 6% to the Dems.

Q

pooltchr
08-06-2008, 07:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm thinking if you lined them all up, buck-naked, you couldn't tell one fat-assed politician's party affiliation from another's </div></div>

And I'm thinking if you did that, I would hope I went blind before I caught sight of the speaker of the house!!!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/eek.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cry.gif

Steve

Qtec
08-06-2008, 09:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me see if I can explain this in terms that even you can understand. Th"poor" have two different options for financial gain. First, they can get handouts from the taxpayers after the money is funneled through the government. The second is they can get it from an employer (usually referred to as the "rich"). Now, if the government insists on taking money from the "rich" employers, the "rich" have less to use to generate more jobs or more opportunities for the "poor" to make money. That means more of the "poor" are left with only one option...take what the government gives them.

In other words, in order for the "rich" to get richer, they must grow their business, and have a portion of their wealth spent employing more "poor" people. The only source of wealth the "poor" have is for it to trickle down from someone who has it already. That would be either the "rich" or the government. An added benefit for the government is that the more people who are employed, the more income tax they can collect.

It's a win-win-win. The rich can get richer, the poor can get richer, and the government can get richer.

By the way...how old is that video?

Steve </div></div>

You just totally ignored my post. The Govt statistics show that the wealth has NOT trickled down but is trickling up, more of a gush really.
My point was that if you want to stimulate the economy, you give the money to those who will spend it. If you give a billionaire 100 million in tax cuts etc, he won't even notice it.
Capitalism requires poor.

Q

pooltchr
08-07-2008, 04:27 AM
Q,
When it comes to economics, I can't help but believe that your perspective is tainted by the economic environment in your country. A capatalist society has worked just fine here...how is socialism working out in your neck of the woods?

Steve

cheesemouse
08-07-2008, 06:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q,
When it comes to economics, I can't help but believe that your perspective is tainted by the economic environment in your country. A capatalist society has worked just fine here...how is socialism working out in your neck of the woods?

Steve </div></div> How is it that the best example of capitalism in action is coming from communist China? A real head scratcher:)

Deeman3
08-07-2008, 07:12 AM
[quote=Qtec
Capitalism requires poor.

Q

[/quote]

<span style="color: #FF0000">Wanna name the communist system that results in less poor? You think the Olympics this week will show the tens of millions that are underfed and dying of disease and natural disaster? Wanna see parts of Russia to compare to the worse off in our evil capitolist system?

The poor here have cell phone, designer clothes and wealth that would be beyond belief to most of the real poor in the world. We share more of what we have than anyone.

You are living in a make beleive world if you think any other system of governement could do better. </span>

Gayle in MD
08-07-2008, 08:40 AM
Corporate Power running government is not capitalism, it's fascism.
G.

Deeman3
08-07-2008, 08:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Corporate Power running government is not capitalism, it's fascism.
G. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">While that would perfectly describe Hugo Chavez and a few others who has taken over private business, it is a far cry from what we have in the U.S. </span>

Chopstick
08-07-2008, 09:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I'm thinking if you lined them all up, buck-naked, you couldn't tell one fat-assed politician's party affiliation from another's </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Lord aint that the truth? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span> </div></div>

Hell yeah.

Qtec
08-07-2008, 10:05 AM
I'm just stating a fact. In a Capitalistic society there will always be people at the bottom of the ladder. There will always be poor people. The Q is, how poor do you let them be?


The same party that pushes the TD theory is the same party that has consistently opposed a rise in the Min Wage!

Q

Deeman3
08-07-2008, 10:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm just stating a fact. In a Capitalistic society there will always be people at the bottom of the ladder. There will always be poor people. The Q is, how poor do you let them be?

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Of course, my point is that those down the ladder in a capitalistic society are way up the ladder from those communist and authoritian regimes. Q, most of our poor are similar to your porr, a lot more entitled than those I have cited. </span>


The same party that pushes the TD theory is the same party that has consistently opposed a rise in the Min Wage!

Q

</div></div>
<span style="color: #FF0000">We just began a series of raises in the minimum wage. I do not oppose these increases. </span>

sack316
08-07-2008, 11:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We just began a series of raises in the minimum wage. I do not oppose these increases. [/color] </div></div>

I don't oppose the idea behind a minumum wage increase, in fact I think it is an excellent thing... in theory. The problem is when it's put into practice. The result becomes that the cashier at a retail store, or the fry cook at a fast food restaurant that was getting 30 hours per week, winds up getting 20-25 hours per week. The first cost control measure of any company is that of payroll. I think all of us know that. In general, most will be no better off. Of course there will be those that do benefit from it. And of course we can then say our lower end makes as much per hour as others middle class on the scale. But in bottom line terms, those that it's designed to help will usually see no overall gain. In fact, just as many will get less hours to "balance" out the increase, some will lose jobs as companies attempt to keep payroll to a minumum. Fortunately I have yet to have to let anybody go at my store, but I sure have seen my store hours cut in the last few weeks. Of course my cashiers are happy to see that number go up on their hourly pay... but it's hard to explain to them why they are only getting 20 hours a week.

Again, I'll say I think an increase is a good thing. But the way it's put into practice doesn't yield any overall benefit. I, of course, can't speak for all companies. But anywhere I have ever managed, this has been the case.

Sack

Chopstick
08-07-2008, 11:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Q is, how poor do you let them be? </div></div>

It's not a matter of letting them be poor. Everyone has a chance to advance themselves. How far they advance is up to them. Communist societies remove that right and as a result everyone becomes poor and the country eventually collapses. The only way to forestall this collapse is to enforce total dominance over the population and reduce their lives to one of servitude to the state. That is why all communist societies are totalitarian and always will be.

Capitalism works better because it is more in line with natural human behaviour. Wealth redistribution is not the answer. The richest man in the world can't even afford to buy every hungry person a hamburger. If you take that money and build businesses and develop resources then maybe everyone could get fed. Capitalism does that better than any other system. There isn't even a close second place.

The only long term solution is to reduce the world population. Every three and a half years the world population increases by an amount equal to the total population of the United States. The Earth cannot sustain this and it is overdue for a correction. Whether it comes from famine, plague or war, it is going to happen. No doubt people will blame Bush or whatever their pet blame cause is at the time. The simple fact is that to ignore population control as the number one issue facing the world today is to invite Armageddon.

Back in the fifties everyone in America that wanted a job could get one. They could also buy a house and raise a family with a single income provider. Know what else we had back then? Zero population growth. Yes, we had a stable population and life was good. Then congress(guess which side) changed the immigration laws and started to grow the population. Poverty, pollution and crime grew right along with it. As a matter of fact, every single problem facing this country and the world today can be traced back to over population and no one is even talking about it at all.

The US government can not take care of 300 million people. It simply can not do it. To even suggest it is ridiculous. Yet some people make entire careers out of this fallacy.

wolfdancer
08-07-2008, 11:57 AM
the answer to feeding the poor........is soylent green.
One problem though is processing a dead Republican....you can cook the sh*t out of them, but they still leave a bad taste in your mouth.....

Deeman3
08-07-2008, 12:25 PM
Larry Craig may!

eg8r
08-07-2008, 02:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm just stating a fact. </div></div>Q, you don't know what a fact is. Deeman is stating reality. A reality you could actually see if you walked through the streets.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
08-07-2008, 02:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The Govt statistics show that the wealth has NOT trickled down but is trickling up, more of a gush really.
</div></div>

Q,

Here's some reality. Around 1980 Bush the Elder put a big luxury tax on expensive boats. You may think "Good, those people should pay their fair share".

The result was thousands of people in the boat-building business lost their jobs and the income tax they sufddenly were not paying was far and above the luxury tax that Bush had placed on the boats.

Like pooltchr said, if the rich have the bulk of the money that is where the money will come from for the less wealthy folks.

You will never be employed by a poor man.

wolfdancer
08-07-2008, 07:17 PM
Gayle, I only have a cursory knowledge of economic theory and the great economists of the past, but I see a similarity between the dangers of a small percentage of the people controlling the wealth, and the reasons that anti-monopoly laws were enacted to prevent a few companies from swallowing up all competition.
Once you get to be the 500 lb gorilla in the dark alley...you control everything.
As I linked before...this kind of disparate wealth distribution happened before...and led to the great depression.
It ain't politics...it's economics....
Anyway, here's some interesting reading, (IMO ):
$$$ (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html)

wolfdancer
08-07-2008, 07:23 PM
Q, few people know this, but the right did not invent the trickle down theory....Marie Antoinette did "Let them eat cake"
When you check that out though, it could have been the right wing
Maria Theresa of Spain that originally said that (ain't Google amazing?).

Qtec
08-08-2008, 01:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Capitalism works better because it is more in line with natural human behaviour. Wealth redistribution is not the answer. The richest man in the world can't even afford to buy every hungry person a hamburger. </div></div>

W Buffett is worth 60 B.
World pop is 7 B.
ie he could buy the whole world a BigMac and still have B's left over.

Q

Qtec
08-08-2008, 02:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I see a similarity between the dangers of a small percentage of the people controlling the wealth, and the reasons that anti-monopoly laws were enacted to prevent a few companies from swallowing up all competition.
Once you get to be the 500 lb gorilla in the dark alley...you control everything. </div></div>

Now you have companies that have a greater turnover than the GDP of most countries!

Q

Gayle in MD
08-08-2008, 07:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As I linked before...this kind of disparate wealth distribution happened before...and led to the great depression.
</div></div>

Yes, and we're seeing the same kind of lack of regulation and Republican favored loopholes for the greedy corporate fascists, now, as we saw then.

The one thing about Republicans that never changes is their ability to cherry pick information, and skew reality. Bush's tax cuts for the rich, are referred to as such, because that is exactly what they are, yet we have to put up with righties and their condescending statements like, "Let me try one more time to explain this to you." LMAO.... They're getting hosed, and they don't even know it.



Gayle in Md.

Sid_Vicious
08-08-2008, 08:17 AM
"They're getting hosed, and they don't even know it."

Ain't that the truth Gayle, and we're supposed to be the most educated nation in the world....sid

Sid_Vicious
08-08-2008, 08:22 AM
"As I linked before...this kind of disparate wealth distribution happened before...and led to the great depression"

You're crowding me on my soapbox Wolf...sid

wolfdancer
08-08-2008, 08:30 AM
lol....sorry about that

Deeman3
08-08-2008, 09:22 AM
As one of the "victims" of the trickle down theory, I appreaciate the bit that has dripped down to me. It, of course, aint Buffet worthy, but on the whole, it has sustained my modest and occasional cake eating lifestyle.

Please don't burst my bubble suggesting I should have gotten more of Mr. Buffett's humble pie. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
08-08-2008, 10:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

They're getting hosed, and they don't even know it.



</div></div>

My taxes went down when Bush became Prez. If that's getting hosed, give me more of it.

Gayle in MD
08-08-2008, 11:32 AM
You're atleast thrity thousand dollars in the hole, and many more thousands to come.

With that statement, you prove everything I have said all along about Republican voters. Uninformed, in denial, and penny wise, pound foolish.

Your tax cut may eventually have you and/or your children, who must pay for that tax cut, eventually, with interest, speaking Chinese, while the exhorbitant costs you're paying at the pump in part because of increased oil demand, and lower Iraqi oil output, all involved in prosecuting this war, ADD, healthcare for our poor abused Veterans, degraded equipment, and the expansion of the government under Bush, will have far exceeded that measly tax cut.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
08-08-2008, 11:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">W Buffett is worth 60 B.
World pop is 7 B.
ie he could buy the whole world a BigMac and still have B's left over.</div></div>What happens 4 hours later when everyone is hungry again? Do they beg daddy Buffet for another BigMac or did they take the time to run out and find a job to pay for their own BigMac?

eg8r

Chopstick
08-08-2008, 12:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">W Buffett is worth 60 B.
World pop is 7 B.
ie he could buy the whole world a BigMac and still have B's left over.</div></div>What happens 4 hours later when everyone is hungry again? Do they beg daddy Buffet for another BigMac or did they take the time to run out and find a job to pay for their own BigMac?

eg8r </div></div>

Assuming the logistical cost is zero and he has that much cash, which he doesn't, that's 14.5 billion for one hamburger. In a couple of days he's bankrupt and nothing will have been accomplished.

There is not enough money in the whole world to buy someone else out of their problems. They have to do it themselves. I believe that is a law of the universe.

Deeman3
08-08-2008, 01:21 PM
[quote=Chopstick They have to do it themselves. I believe that is a law of the universe. [/quote]

<span style="color: #C0C0C0"> Chopstick,

You must have seen the Henny Penny Story! I do believe that survival of the fittest is among the most basic laws of the universe. The left would seen to want to embrace that, as their most supream examples, China and The Former Soviet Union displayed for so long. It seems, it was our evil country that recognised the need to take care of the helpless among us. Problem is, now almost everyone who does not a large boat and trust fund are helpless.

No fault for being victimised by the rest of us. No fault for shooting themselves in the streets, choosing the wrong foods and smoking themselves to death. NPR had two starving people on their web site last week. Each over 320 lbs. What a shame. Must have been tto many McDonalds in their neighborhood. Won't happen again in L.A. or New York. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>

Wally_in_Cincy
08-08-2008, 03:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Your tax cut may eventually have you and/or your children, who must pay for that tax cut, </div></div>

Revenue increased after the cut.

The problem is the Republican Congress spent too much. On this we can agree.

My grandchildren won't be paying for the tax cut. They will be paying for some $5 million bike path in some Congressman's district that nobody uses. Or $50 billion in AIDS relief.

Qtec
08-08-2008, 08:55 PM
[quote=eg8r]<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">W Buffett is worth 60 B.
World pop is 7 B.
ie he could buy the whole world a BigMac and still have B's left over.</div></div>
Can't you read?
Chopstick said, <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The richest man in the world can't even afford to buy every hungry person a hamburger. </div></div>

I proved he can! C also said in another post that the top 35 richest Americans were all Dems! This is obviously not correct. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What happens 4 hours later when everyone is hungry again?

eg8r </div></div>

That wasn't the question.

Q

Qtec
08-08-2008, 08:56 PM
..........and still you will vote GOP.

http://static.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/greenberg21.jpg

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif

Gayle in MD
08-09-2008, 07:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Revenue increased after the cut.

</div></div>

So did DEBT! I notice none of you righties ever wants to talk about the horrendous debt, much of it to CHINA!


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My grandchildren won't be paying for the tax cut. <span style="color: #000066">Whom do you think is going to pay off all of the debt accrued since Bush took office? </span> They will be paying for some $5 million bike path in some Congressman's district that nobody uses. <span style="color: #000066">
A Republican Congressman, no doubt. </span> Or $50 billion in AIDS relief. <span style="color: #000066">You are against helping with AIDS relief?

BTW, I don't hate Christians, or anyone else...(you're statement from another thread) I'd appreciate it if you could make an effort to debate without the slander and personal insults. Highlighting the negative results of mixing religios interference into national and international policies, and the negative effects on our foreign policy which results from a far too powerful Israeli Lobby, does not add up to personal hatred.

The right wing seems to thrive on outlandish accusations against anyone who endeavors to draw attention to Republican failed policies, hence, many of us were called terrorist lovers, because we're against torture, and Bush is given a bye after thousand of AFricans die because he prevents proahiactic distribution, etc., but their accusations usually fly when they have no credible way to defend the horrendous debt, deaths, corruption, and the many other bad results of Republican administrations.

We learn of bridges to no where, golf trips to Scotland, and payoffs for those who practice inhumane behavior, (Tom Delay)lies that lead to war, outing covert agents, sexual predators, and people like Barr who railed against abortions, but paid for his own wife's abortion with his personal check, Gingrich's mistress, Bush One's mistress, McCain's womanizing past, and none of you wishes to admit that it is your own party that weights down the scale on the sexual misbehavior and corruption.

You're in debt, and much of that debt is still hidden by Bush's creative use of emergency funding. Saving pittance on taxes by covering up the results with unbridled borrowing, is never addressed by any of you.

I'll be waiting for a big insult, now. When hit with the truth, it's the usual Republican response, insults and slander don't change a thing, but if it warms your Christian heart, have at it.

Gayle in Md.</span> </div></div>

pooltchr
08-09-2008, 01:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Revenue increased after the cut.

</div></div>

So did DEBT! I notice none of you righties ever wants to talk about the horrendous debt, much of it to CHINA!


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My grandchildren won't be paying for the tax cut. <span style="color: #000066">Whom do you think is going to pay off all of the debt accrued since Bush took office? </span> They will be paying for some $5 million bike path in some Congressman's district that nobody uses. <span style="color: #000066">
A Republican Congressman, no doubt. </span> Or $50 billion in AIDS relief. <span style="color: #000066">You are against helping with AIDS relief?

BTW, I don't hate Christians, or anyone else...(you're statement from another thread) I'd appreciate it if you could make an effort to debate without the slander and personal insults. Highlighting the negative results of mixing religios interference into national and international policies, and the negative effects on our foreign policy which results from a far too powerful Israeli Lobby, does not add up to personal hatred.

The right wing seems to thrive on outlandish accusations against anyone who endeavors to draw attention to Republican failed policies, hence, many of us were called terrorist lovers, because we're against torture, and Bush is given a bye after thousand of AFricans die because he prevents proahiactic distribution, etc., but their accusations usually fly when they have no credible way to defend the horrendous debt, deaths, corruption, and the many other bad results of Republican administrations.

We learn of bridges to no where, golf trips to Scotland, and payoffs for those who practice inhumane behavior, (Tom Delay)lies that lead to war, outing covert agents, sexual predators, and people like Barr who railed against abortions, but paid for his own wife's abortion with his personal check, Gingrich's mistress, Bush One's mistress, McCain's womanizing past, and none of you wishes to admit that it is your own party that weights down the scale on the sexual misbehavior and corruption.

You're in debt, and much of that debt is still hidden by Bush's creative use of emergency funding. Saving pittance on taxes by covering up the results with unbridled borrowing, is never addressed by any of you.

I'll be waiting for a big insult, now. When hit with the truth, it's the usual Republican response, insults and slander don't change a thing, but if it warms your Christian heart, have at it.

Gayle in Md.</span> </div></div>
</div></div>

Wally points out that cutting taxes resulted in increased revenue. Gayle can't stand it when Wally actually makes a legitimate point, so she immediately changes the subject and talks about debt (spending). They are two different subjects. This is how the left thinks. If they can't argue against a fact, they just start talking about something else. I would like to hear her thoughts on Wally's comment. How about it, Gayle? How do you argue the fact that cutting taxes actually increases revenue???

Steve

DickLeonard
08-09-2008, 02:03 PM
pooltchr, the same people who were hiding the real cost of the war were dumbing up the increases in Taxes. I don't believe one word a Republican says. Especially this administration.

Name me one statement from the Bush administration that was correct. Al Franken had it right Liars and the lies they tell.####

sack316
08-09-2008, 10:15 PM
random question to no one in particular. But say do away with the tax breaks. Take away stimulus package. Allow taxes to go back up. after all that, then what is all this minimum wage increase for? Would it not more or less balance out to the same for the individual?

Sack

pooltchr
08-10-2008, 06:00 AM
Sack,
I think you may have hit on something here! The reason for increasing the minimum wage is to collect more in taxes. I know that most minimum wage earners probably don't pay very much in taxes anyway, but it also increases the amount taken out for social security, so either way, there is more money going to Washington when the minimum wage goes up!

Steve

wolfdancer
08-10-2008, 12:03 PM
You explaining economics, is like you playing for $$ at Derby city with a house cue.

"One of the greatest pieces of economic wisdom is to know what you do not know." Galbraith
I know little myself, but believe the current economic policies are not sustainable, and will eventually cause the economy to collapse, as many are now predicting.
Our borrow more, print more, produce less goods, does not fit into any classical economic theory.....I don't think that Keynes, Galbraith, or Friedman...could fix your beloved trickle down theory.
While an increase in the min wage might help out people in the service industry...we will lose more lo wage production jobs, as Wal-Mart and others...buy more from third world countries, and even less from US companies.
Sad fact is we still can't compete with the wages paid in India, the Philippines, etc....
Sorry to tell you this, but this added "tax revenue" won't be enough to reduce the unfair tax burdens of the super rich, that you worry and complain about....
Again from Galbraith:
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. "

eg8r
08-10-2008, 06:46 PM
She makes continual statements that we don't want to talk about the debt yet we were the first ones to denounce W's spending. Gayle does not have the ability to talk to the subject simply because it is not the story of the day so there is no one feeding her a reply. She is the queen sheep because she earned it.

eg8r

wolfdancer
08-10-2008, 08:10 PM
"She is the queen sheep"
that's getting so old it's lost it's shock value....your posts now resemble lww's.
"Sticks and stones will break......."

sack316
08-10-2008, 09:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You explaining economics, is like you playing for $$ at Derby city with a house cue.

</div></div>

For the record, anybody at the Classic looking for action playing with a house cue would be the last person I'd wanna try.

Sack

pooltchr
08-11-2008, 04:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You explaining economics, is like you playing for $$ at Derby city with a house cue.

</div></div>

For the record, anybody at the Classic looking for action playing with a house cue would be the last person I'd wanna try.

Sack </div></div>

You got that right!!! lol

Steve

eg8r
08-11-2008, 09:20 AM
LOL, you were shocked to find out she was the queen sheep? What did you think she was when she was busy gathering your thoughts for you?

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
08-11-2008, 09:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I'll be waiting for a big insult, now. </div></div>

The only insult I have is to say you are not a very good debater. Excellenter ranter, but not much of a debater.

Hope I did not disappoint. That's the best I could come up with.

Gayle in MD
08-11-2008, 10:11 AM
LMAO! And YOU are the authority on good debating skills? ! !

BWA HA HA HA...pahleeeze, my sides are splitting!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

wolfdancer
08-11-2008, 11:50 AM
Ed, you should take your new found, sophomoric, debating skills over to AZB,....the neonuts over there need all the help they can get in their never ending battle to suppress, truth, justice and the American way.
BUT if you need to argue at a street level, because of a paucity of facts to bolster up your stance.....
I'll try to lower myself down to your level to accommodate you.
I have to admit though, that Gayle is way more well read, and current on politics then I am. I follow her links on topics that i am interested in,while also recognizing that she is just expressing her anger and disgust on some other generalities....so I guess you might say she does help me gather my thoughts.
Your use of the label "sheep" is particularly amusing, since you blindly believe that GWB "walks on water"...while we just question many of his policies, knowing that " sh*t floats "
(another poor metaphor on my part)

Gayle in MD
08-11-2008, 12:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> You explaining economics, is like you playing for $$ at Derby city with a house cue.
</div></div>

LMAO! Good one friend! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

eg8r
08-11-2008, 06:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have to admit though, that Gayle is way more well read, and current on politics then I am.</div></div>You don't have to admit this, I already told you it was so. She is the one that feeds you. You are her lowly dirty sheep.

eg8r

wolfdancer
08-11-2008, 06:46 PM
your post is ...for lack of a better word.....silly
I know Mike60 is beating your brains in figuratively...and try as you might...you just can't beat up on "Grandma" Gayle, so I'm your last chance to save face????

eg8r
08-12-2008, 10:43 AM
Yep, mikey is beating my brains and grannie gayle is too tough also. You always have been the low rung on the ladder though.

eg8r

heater451
08-13-2008, 06:17 PM
Q- the "Trickle Down" theory works just fine--although, be aware that it's sh*t rolling downhill. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/eek.gif

Gayle in MD
08-14-2008, 05:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again from Galbraith:
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. "
</div></div>

Love it. Got a link, friend. Is this from a book?

Gayle

Gayle in MD
08-14-2008, 05:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wally points out that cutting taxes resulted in increased revenue. <span style="color: #000066">AND three trillion dollars debt, and a huge deficit! </span> Gayle can't stand it when Wally actually makes a legitimate point, <span style="color: #000066">Only Your own pseudo economics would allow you to subscribe to such denial and pretense. The greatest results of the tax cut, benefitting the richest, the most, AND led to this huge budget deficit, and huge foreign and financial institutional debts. </span> so she immediately changes the subject and talks about debt (spending). <span style="color: #000066">If that statement isn't proof of your own ignorance of economics, I don't know what is. </span> They are two different subjects. <span style="color: #000066">THEY ARE NOT TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS! One, (Borrowing, and spending, money you don't have) leads to the other, DEBT. Anyone who thinks that what you spend and borrow has nothing to do with what you take in, is an economic dummy.</span> This is how the left thinks. <span style="color: #000066">Do you ever experience anything in life outside your prism of left and right? </span> If they can't argue against a fact, <span style="color: #000066">LOL, conservatives don't have, or use, facts. You and Wally are showing your vast ignorance, and refusal to include the results of Republican irresponsible economics and lies, ignoring the results of waging un-necessary wars, while cutting taxes, using emergency funding to mask the truth about what is actually being spent, all combine together, and the debt is a central part of any discussion about tax cuts. When you address your own economic picture, do you think your debt isn't part of it? <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They are two different subjects. </div></div> THAT is dumbest statement I've ever read about economics.</span> they just start talking about something else. <span style="color: #000066">That something else, as you put it is central to the issue, which means that you and Wally are the ones who want to refer to the subject, while leaving out the central issue, which is the debt that is a result of the tax cuts. </span> I would like to hear her thoughts on Wally's comment. <span style="color: #000066">You just did, now it's up to you and Wally to explain your quasi economics, that exempt resulting debts. </span> How about it, Gayle? How do you argue the fact that cutting taxes actually increases revenue???

Steve

<span style="color: #000066">Just a hint to protect your continuing practice of displaying your own ignorance. You can't talk about taxes, without addressing the resulting debts accrued, with interest.

Economics 101, as you like to say.

Gayle in Md.
Nothing more skewed than so called conservative Repuglican economic policies, spend and pretend! </span>

</div></div>

wolfdancer
08-14-2008, 12:09 PM
I can't believe that they called you out on that. The two are intertwined as you noted...what good is increased revenue, when it doesn't keep up with the accumulating debt?
It's an economic issue that they are taking a political stance on: Re:you're wrong because you are not a Republican...


Way off the subject....but I had similar thoughts ( partisan de-nilers )last nite while watching the discovery (or the history) channel....about a similar happening to the present uh, "climate change"...this happened some 25 million years ago with devastating effects. What was really interesting was the part about how the ocean water heating up allows bacteria to flourish, and it also could lead to the ocean itself releasing massive amounts of cO2 into the atmosphere, etc (course we also disagree
They have a "model" to study...some lake in NY, where 70 ft down the water is red where the bacteria flourish.

eg8r
08-14-2008, 01:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just a hint to protect your continuing practice of displaying your own ignorance. You can't talk about taxes, without addressing the resulting debts accrued, with interest.
</div></div>That is the dumbest statement I've ever read about taxes and debt.

eg8r

sack316
08-14-2008, 01:53 PM
just happened to be watching Outside The Lines on ESPN where they were doing a story on Kenyan runners, and their roles in killings and revolt and such over there. But the story showed the difference in the well to do areas, and as well showed the lower end too, which was very third world to say the least. Made me think about how I'm probably as close to being on the "bottom rung" as far as our country goes as you can be without actually being bottom. I think our poverty level is quite aceptable when comparing it with most other places. Of course we could do much better by our poor... but we sure could do a helluva lot worse. I'll take what trickles down to me here over what would be trickling elsewhere anyday. Plus I, as well as other here have one other great thing that most other countries won't have for "our" level... opportunity to get better.

Sack

Deeman3
08-14-2008, 02:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">just happened to be watching Outside The Lines on ESPN where they were doing a story on Kenyan runners, and their roles in killings and revolt and such over there. But the story showed the difference in the well to do areas, and as well showed the lower end too, which was very third world to say the least. Made me think about how I'm probably as close to being on the "bottom rung" as far as our country goes as you can be without actually being bottom. I think our poverty level is quite aceptable when comparing it with most other places. Of course we could do much better by our poor... but we sure could do a helluva lot worse. I'll take what trickles down to me here over what would be trickling elsewhere anyday. Plus I, as well as other here have one other great thing that most other countries won't have for "our" level... opportunity to get better.

Sack </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Sack,

I think you have hit the nail on the head. I, myself, have seen poor in other countries; China, India, Thailand, Burma, Viet Nam, MOngolia, Russia and a few other places. Our poor are much better off but do have the opportunity to pull themselves up better than anywhere else on earth. In Europe, you'd have a little better lifestyle off the government, at least as long as it lasts but your chances of gaining wealth and independence from the government is much lower. One of the major problems is our ability to separate the truely needy and deserving from those that will take advantage of every program and learn to subsist, forever, off the social programs. I know it is not perfect but, unlike some would have you think, we do not have masses starving in the streets. Hell, we don't even have masses in the streets without cell phones!

My wish is that we spent more time and money rewarding those who try, weeding out those who cheat and really caring for those not able to care for themselves. I do agree with some on here that we also encourage corporate welefare in many cases and that should be stopped as well. of course, it would help to get our own congress and senate off the money grubbing train before we try and reform the other systems.

Many may think they riot in the streets in Europe becuase they don't get enough subsities (the Islamics). Study what the government gives them there and you may decide to change religeon and move to France. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>

pooltchr
08-14-2008, 06:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> [the central issue, which is the debt that is a result of the tax cuts. </div></div>

The debt is a result of spending too much. Tax cuts actually increased revenue...just not enough to cover all the wasteful spending.

And I never said debt and spending were two different subjects...I said tax cuts and debt are two different subjects. If you would learn to comprehend the written word rather than trying to interperate it, life might get a little easier.

Steve

Gayle in MD
08-14-2008, 08:33 PM
If you would learn the relationship between spending, taxes, and debt, maybe you could grasp basic economic principles enough to
understand all the far reaching affects of Bush's tax cuts, and what they're actually doing t9o the country.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And I never said debt and spending were two different subjects...I said tax cuts and debt are two different subjects. </div></div>
LMAO, oh, so borrowing money, isn't spending? And taxes aren't supposed to pay for spending and debt?

Wolf had it right with his pool stick analogy to your take on economics.


You cannot address any budget, of any kind, without the consideration of accumulating debt, period. Taxes, spending and debt are all part of the budget. Bush has been borrowing from Peter to pay Paul throughout, in order to get the votes of his base, that's you. Every economist I have heard, and read, has said that tax cuts during wartime, and this is an exceptionally expensive fiacso in Iraq, are very bad economics. It is actually unprecedented. It is why we will owe three trillion dollars for his mess in Iraq when everything finally comes out in the wash.

I can just hear you righties, had Clinton put us in this dangerous global situation with all this debt to communist countries. Our weakened dollar is also affected by debt. Bush has left it to the next generation. Your righties should just admit that you're fine with leaving it to your kids and grandkids, as long as you get that measly tax cut you're so fond of. Meanwhile, each of you is over thirty thousand dollars in debt. Make hey while the sun shines. All that debt will surely affect all our futures. Revenues from tax cuts, aren't really revenues at all, when you have to borrow money, with accumulating interest to pay for the tax cuts.

The biggest spending has been spending On Iraq, money spent and also wasted, by an incompetent and flagrantly irresponsible administration. We're headed for tough times, and our debt, and the your beloved tax cuts, are a central reason why things are getting worse as time goes on.

Gayle in Md.

Sid_Vicious
08-14-2008, 10:31 PM
"debt. Bush has left it to the next generation. Your righties should just admit that you're fine with leaving it to your kids and grandkids"

Ditto...sid

Gayle in MD
08-14-2008, 11:18 PM
They'll do anything to skew the results of Repiglican Economics.

What happened to the Trickle Down Theory, is what always happens, it gushes up! Then we have a recession, after all the big Republican spenders have made all their cronies rich, as they robbed the rest of us blind. The wealthy put all their money is tax deferred financial vehicles, and trusts.

"Only the little people pay taxes"
Leona Helmsley

pooltchr
08-15-2008, 04:27 AM
I will admit I do see one thing that ties them all together...
Borrowing (debt), over-spending, raising taxes....all bad for the economy.

Steve

Gayle in MD
08-15-2008, 09:49 AM
Fifty Million dololars an hour, and a President who borrowed more than all previous administrations combined, and blocked every effor toward renewable energy, with his secret oil deals.

How do yoou purpose Bush's debt will ever get paid off, and how is it you can't see how our debt affects our very national security.

While Russia, China, and the Middle East are enjoying the biggest transfer of wealth, from us to them, in history!

How do you think Nations fall? What's happening to our dollar? where is all the global wealth going, while McCain has voted against every single renewable energy effort, and Bush and Cheney held their secret oil deals? What happened to Russia? What happened after the Solviet Union crashed and burned from wasting money in those Middle East countries. All our oil money, and war money is building up our enemies, building up the global mafia, with the war on drugs, and the war in Iraq. All we have left is a service economy, and China is cheating us blind, fake yen dollar, and fake knock offs for our products, while they poison us!

Our sovereignty cannot withstand Republican policies. When a business accumulates debts like we're doing, what happens to it.


We have to raise taxes, get off oil, legalize drugs, and stay out of the Middle east. All wer'e doing is financing the global mafia with our policies.
G.

Wally_in_Cincy
08-15-2008, 10:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
We have to raise taxes, </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif

eg8r
08-15-2008, 10:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We have to raise taxes</div></div>How does raising taxes curb all the spending. I understand we are spending a fortune in Iraq, but if Obama pulls out of Iraq, he has no intentions of stopping that money flow. He just wants to point it in another direction. The spending is not going to stop no matter how many times they raise the taxes. In order to cover the spending issues the government must RAISE money. Ironically enough the best way to do that is to CUT taxes. This has been proven a million times but your grasp of economics and history will not allow you to see it.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-15-2008, 11:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Investing in our infrastructure increases jobs, and hence, revenues. Spending money of becoming energy efficient, and spending for research on Renewable energy, increases jobs. When a nations national debt reaches epic proportions, raising taxes on those who are making over $250,000.00 a year is in order. There are many ways of increasing revenues, other than tax cuts for the rich, and for the corporations that are screwing over us, getting subsidies, and not paying any income taxes, as they export our jobs.

The money we're spending in Iraq is being totally wasted, and we're not getting anything out of it at all, in fact, it has made everything worse. That alone would save this country 50 million dollars an hour, actually, much more than that, if one figures in all the debt, and intereest on that debt. I wonder, with the all our vast knowledge and American spirit, how far away from dependence on rogue nations for our oil we could have gotten had we not had OIL MEN running this country, cutting secret deals, destablizing the middle east, and propping up corrupt governments. Wasting money on the wrong policies, and failing to address our energy problems, as we borrow ourselves into oblivian, isn't the way to solve our problems.

Face it, no matter who is in the WHtie House, we have too much debt. We will have to increase taxes in order to pay it off, AND cut spending. The first thing we have to make our tops priority, is fuel independence, which Mccain has blocked throughout his tenure, as has Bush. With the correct tax policies, we can promote those smaller energy companies which are spending more their profits on research, and give THEM the subsidies, instead of giving them to companies like Exon, who jus buy up their own stock, and spend less than ten % on reasearch and development, and are one of the three biggest oil exporters in the world. Tax policies that reward corporations which hide their money, export our jobs, and don't spoend enough of their profits, to promote energy independence, are a big part of our problem.

Cuttting taxes for the richest among us, is not the best way to stimulate the economy. The rich already have everything they need, and they invest the bulk of their money in tax havens. Energy independence must come first, and more jobs can result. The Maufacturing secter must be restored, and automobile companies must be forced to improve on their cafe' standards, and mileage. We need a comprehensive program which reduces everything we import, and creates more manufacturing jobs and job opportunities here, since we're being robbed on the global market by China, while they poison us, and build up their military, on our money, we need to get tougher on all the ways they cheat us with their knock offs, and faking the value of the yen. Same thing with Russia. We're helping them build up their military, with out need for oil. We've lost eight years. It's long past time to bite the bullet, pay off our debt, and improve on conservation, and clean safe renewables, instead of continuing with policies that subsidize corporations that hurt our country.

We will have to buid more nuclear, and yes, increase our oil drilling as a temporary bridge to using more solar, wind, and natural gas, of which we have plenty, and it is two thirds cleaner, along with more investment in clean coal. We can't get any of it done with a president who is in the pocket of big oil.

Gayle in Md.</div></div>

wolfdancer
08-15-2008, 11:51 AM
I have this great idea for a movie scene, but haven't constructed the story line yet....
It's not quite original, as it borrows heavily from the "Manchurian Candidate" ladies garden club meeting
The scene begins in a boardroom, where the CEO is explaining that sales are down, and the company is in debt. One member suggests that they give a cash refund to the customer with every sale. This would increase sales of course, but they would lose on every transaction and go deeper in debt......
Now as the camera pans back and forth among the participants, the CEO and Bush alternate, as does the board members and the cabinet...and the rebates become stimulus checks.
In both parallel scenes, a book is seen lying on the table:
"Economics by and For Idjits"( by Ed8r )

Deeman3
08-15-2008, 11:55 AM
Of course, now even more stimulous checks are being proposed, but not by Bush. If course, in your movie, they would be really proposing, "Let's give our less prospherous customers a refund and the ones who don't buy anything one as well!" /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I wanna play the part of the book.

Gayle in MD
08-15-2008, 11:56 AM
LMAO! Good one! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

wolfdancer
08-15-2008, 11:59 AM
When I was growing up, we were a lender nation...now we are a debtor nation. What was once the richest country in the world, reduced to getting payday loans at the Chinese "Money Store"
And since we buy our goods at the "Company Store"...we just keep giving the $$ back to them, for additional loans to us

sack316
08-15-2008, 12:00 PM
I wanna play the cashier. And then a well to do haberdasher (any excuse to use that word) comes in to buy something. Customer gives me $100 for goods sold totalling $30. I give him his said refund of $30, and then take the remaining $70 to give to a less fortunate customer that may come in later. "Have a nice day!" /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

Gayle in MD
08-15-2008, 12:46 PM
Yeah, and we'll also have to reduce SS and Medicare, but if we remove the Republican regulations that increase our medical costs for prescription drugs, and stop providing health care and welfare for the offspring of illegal aliens, we can reduce our costs there, and apply the saving to SS and Medicare, still help out seniors with their prescriptions, by promoting opportunities to buy cheaper drugs from Canada, another thing that Bush blocked, and mcCain supported.

We'll have to also initiate more regulatory action to prevent the pigs from stealing form the rest of us.


The housing market crisis was strongly influenced by Republican legislative manuvers.

The actions of Phil Gramm (top economic advisor to McCain) and others lead to banking deregulation, which enabled banks to disguise their poorly awarded loans. It enabled "bundling", which is the cause of all of the banking issues that we are faced with today. Preditory lending practices hurt many, but made a few very, very rich.

The NY Times had been writing about the coming mortgage meltdown for over a year before it happened. But what did this administration do about it? NOTHING!

Gramm also wrote the Enron loophole that lead to that financial crisis. You can look at the past 8 years and see that the Republican economic philosphy does not encourage a healthy, stable market.

wolfdancer
08-15-2008, 01:06 PM
Michael Milken proved how dumb Bank loan officers really are, buying their loans at a discount, then selling them back to them at a profit. A tax loophole allowed the banks to write off the loss, and the only one that really profited was Michael....seems they didn't learn much since then...no-doc, lo-doc loans....wtf, what did they expect from the " r.e. pyramid scheme " ???

Wally_in_Cincy
08-15-2008, 01:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When I was growing up, we were a lender nation...now we are a debtor nation. </div></div>

Wolf, I may be wrong but I think there have only been 2 years in the last 70 when the gov't ran a surplus. Something like 1956 and 1996. This has been going on a long time and it's not just Republicans. There's plenty of blame to go around.

eg8r
08-15-2008, 01:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Face it, no matter who is in the WHtie House, we have too much debt. We will have to increase taxes in order to pay it off, AND cut spending.</div></div>Taken directly from your quote is the ABSOLUTE EXACT THING WE HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS. LOL, good job Gayle. Hey I don't care when you begin to believe it or who you actually believe when they say it to you, but finally the truth comes out. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
08-15-2008, 01:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The scene begins in a boardroom, where the CEO is explaining that sales are down, and the company is in debt. One member suggests that they give a cash refund to the customer with every sale. This would increase sales of course, but they would lose on every transaction and go deeper in debt......</div></div>LOL, you really are an idiot aren't you. Just take a look at the gaming industry and see if this is not an absolute brilliant idea. Instead of a cash refund they give a free game with the machine. They lose money on the machine and the game, but what happens a year or two down the road...They bring in millions upon millions in profits. You would not understand though because you have zero business sense.

eg8r

wolfdancer
08-15-2008, 01:31 PM
Ed, cheer up...no matter how bleak things look to you right now, with so many posters, treating you like a red-headed stepchild
there is still hope...
There is a light at the end of the tunnel!!!!

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/3397/att000011pu2.jpg

eg8r
08-15-2008, 01:36 PM
So many posters treating me like a stepchild? Hmm, we have gayle the queen sheep, you the ankle biter, and a few others that come and go but no one listens. So bleak...

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-15-2008, 01:38 PM
It's just REpublicans who borrowed more money than all previous administrations put together, and broke the record on earmaarks, and deregulated all the industries that turned right around and swindled the public, ENRON, etc.

It's just the Republicans who have had the majority for most of the last fifteen years.

It's just the Republicans who have been blocking everything in Congress lately.

You can dig back in history all you want, it's the recent economics of Republicans, their foreign policies, their oil policies, they'
re Enron Loopholes, and their everything for the bottom line corporate fascists, that have put us into the mess we're in right now! JUST THE REPUBLICANS!

Gayle in MD
08-15-2008, 01:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> We will have to increase taxes in order to pay it off, AND cut spending.</div></div>

Show me one damned post where any of you righties have said we need to increase taxes, Ed. Just one.

You're hopeless.

eg8r
08-15-2008, 01:42 PM
Gayle follow along...I am referring to the "AND cut spending" part. I have already told you that reducing taxes generates large revenues.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-15-2008, 01:46 PM
Ed, try and keep up. I've been on here compalining about spending and running up debt, for YEARS!

You're wrong, AGAIN!

Wally_in_Cincy
08-15-2008, 01:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's just REpublicans who borrowed more money than all previous administrations put together, and broke the record on earmaarks, and deregulated all the industries that turned right around and swindled the public, ENRON, etc.

</div></div>

The one-trick pony returns.

Gayle in MD
08-15-2008, 01:55 PM
You're the one trick poney. That's your standard answer when you're proven wrong.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/tired.gif

wolfdancer
08-15-2008, 02:03 PM
"So bleak..."
Cheer up Ed, both the problem and the solution can be found in the following, from Shivas Irons:
"Oor brain is a distillery, pumpin" strange whiskeys into the bloodstream to produce a permanent intoxication. Ye've got to feed the right things to the distillery, or ye get some bad green whiskey"
That's Scottish for... Garbage in, garbage out

wolfdancer
08-15-2008, 02:11 PM
Just take a look at the gaming industry
Uh, the gaming industry is unique as their product is entertainment. I mentioned goods manufactured for a profit....like GM cars....???

pooltchr
08-15-2008, 07:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The rich already have everything they need,

Gayle in Md.</div></div> [/quote]

And there you have it. Let them keep only what they need and take the rest to give to others with less.
Is that the basis for socialism or communism? I forget.
Or is it just a case of class envy?

Humans only "need" food and water, clothing, and shelter. Everything else is just what we desire.
Do you really "need" a boat? Do you really "need" a car? Do you really "need" a pool cue?
Oops, maybe there is one more to be added to the need list.

Steve

Qtec
08-15-2008, 09:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The scene begins in a boardroom, where the CEO is explaining that sales are down, and the company is in debt. One member suggests that they give a cash refund to the customer with every sale. This would increase sales of course, but they would lose on every transaction and go deeper in debt......</div></div>LOL, you really are an idiot aren't you. Just take a look at the gaming industry and see if this is not an absolute brilliant idea. Instead of a cash refund they give a free game with the machine. They lose money on the machine and the game, but what happens a year or two down the road...They bring in millions upon millions in profits. You would not understand though because you have zero business sense.

eg8r </div></div>

What an idiot YOU are!

In Wolfs 'scene', the CEO is the government and the customer is the American citizen- sorry , taxpayer.
ie, The government is giving real cash back [ tax cuts] to Americans[ and foreigners] with no guarantee where they will spend it that money or if will even spend it at all.
Add to that the fact that they have to borrow the money [ go further into debt] just to finance these tax cuts.



Q....

BTW, Getting a free roll on a slot is nowhere near getting cash in hand.

wolfdancer
08-16-2008, 04:01 AM
Oddly enough, while Ed picked a "service" industry, to enlighten me, he picked the one I am most familiar with, the gambling industry. All those retirees busing up to Reno, spending their money gambling, and putting off buying durable goods, etc....he may think it's great for the economy...I don't.
Ideally my $600 tax refund is circulated throughout the economy, with each transaction bolstering the economy, and adding to the tax revenues.
But, not being an economist...I'm wondering...if I buy that new big screen tv, made in China, or elsewhere, doesn't that in effect take money out of our economy?
I could take the money up to the Mustang Ranch, just east of Reno( also in the service industry) and "buy American"

pooltchr
08-16-2008, 07:52 AM
Wolf,
If you buy that big screen tv, only a portion of the money ends up in China. Much of it ends up going to Circuit City or Best Buy or wherever you purchase the tv. And even if the manufacturer is in China, chances are you chose the model because of brand recognition. That was probably a result of the advertising dollars Sony or whoever spent with ABC or NBC or whoever.

If you go to the Mustang ranch, you may be buying American, or Hispanic, or Oriental, or whatever your personal preference. Again, most of what you spend is redistributed in the local economy.

The TV will last a lot longer than you will at the Mustang!!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Steve

Gayle in MD
08-16-2008, 09:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And there you have it. Let them keep only what they need and take the rest to give to others with less. <span style="color: #000066">Where did you find that statement in my post. </span>
Is that the basis for socialism or communism? I forget.
Or is it just a case of class envy? <span style="color: #000066">LOL, I am one of those who already have everything I need, FYI. I surely don't have to worry about every dollar I have to pay in taxes, nor do I have to hustle pool lessons, to get by. </span>

Humans only "need" food and water, clothing, and shelter. Everything else is just what we desire. <span style="color: #000066"> FYI, it has been proven that most of the money from Bush's tax cuts for the rich, they have added to their investments, not spent to enrich the economy. There was Senate Testimony which you can probably find if you're interested in some facts, which indicated that raising the minimum wage, actually pusts more dollars into our economy, than tax cuts for the rich, who invest in tax havens.</span>
Do you really "need" a boat? Do you really "need" a car? Do you really "need" a pool cue?
Oops, maybe there is one more to be added to the need list.

<span style="color: #000066">Hell no, I don't need anything. I already have everything I need. And, I don't need more pool lessons, either, since I have a brain, and can access volumns of information about pool, and use my own intellect, and eyes and ears, to figure out what I need to do. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Steve
</div></div>

Wally_in_Cincy
08-16-2008, 09:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

FYI, it has been proven that most of the money from Bush's tax cuts for the rich, they have added to their investments, not spent to enrich the economy. </div></div>

It would seem to me that when people invest in something (stocks, bonds etc.) it would help to enrich the economy. Not in the same manner as spending it but enrich it nonetheless.

And I would bet that a lot of those tax cuts for the rich were used to hire more employees and create jobs.

Gayle in MD
08-16-2008, 09:53 AM
Tax havens. Tax exempt. Carribbean accounts. Deferred tax investments.

"Only the little people pay taxes"

Leona Helmsley

Wally_in_Cincy
08-16-2008, 09:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tax havens. Tax exempt. Carribbean accounts. Deferred tax investments.

"Only the little people pay taxes"

Leona Helmsley </div></div>

you are paranoid

Gayle in MD
08-16-2008, 10:01 AM
You are nuts.

All you have to do is study the charts. You can't stand the truth. Republican policies increase the chasm between the rich and the middle class. That's a fact. You, have a real problem with getting snippy with people who write about the truth, which irritates you to no end.

I think I heard that it is now 89% who say this country is going in the wrong direction last night.

You, and a few others here, are loathe to admit the mess made by Republicans. All the wasted lives and treasure, all the lies and law breaking, all the loss of rights and freedom, trashing the Bill Of Rights, and the Constitution. Destroying the budget surplus, which had us on the mend, and the invasion of a country which has brought us nothing but a weakened economy, more terrorists, a de-stablized region which is rich in oil, and a new coalition of our international threats.

Meanwhile, the middle class has suffered, and the rich have increased their wealth.

The trickly down theory doesn't work for anyone but the very wealthy.

That's a fact that you can't stand to admit, eventhough our own government charts prove it, and then you say I'm paranoid?

BWA HA HA HA...

I'l bet you'd love Disneyland!

Wally_in_Cincy
08-16-2008, 10:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are nuts. </div></div>

Yeah my statement was really crazy. To think that investing in the economy might actually be worthwhile. Looking at my statement again I see how nutty it is.

It would seem to me that when people invest in something (stocks, bonds etc.) it would help to enrich the economy. Not in the same manner as spending it but enrich it nonetheless.

And I would bet that a lot of those tax cuts for the rich were used to hire more employees and create jobs.

yeah that's pretty crazy I admit.

Wally_in_Cincy
08-16-2008, 10:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


Meanwhile, the middle class has suffered, and the rich have increased their wealth.

</div></div>

Oh yeah I can see the "suffering" middle class all around me, buying SUV's and houses twice as big as the one I grew up in.

Suffering indeed.

Gayle in MD
08-16-2008, 10:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It would seem to me that when people invest in something (stocks, bonds etc.) it would help to enrich the economy. Not in the same manner as spending it but enrich it nonetheless.
</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">Things aren't always what they seem. The charts don't lie. The Government Accounting Offfice is the most independent agency of government. Their charts prove you wrong. The trickle down' theory doesn't work, for anyone but the very wealthy, who hide most of their money in tax deferments the keep their money safe for thirty years. </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And I would bet that a lot of those tax cuts for the rich were used to hire more employees and create jobs.
</div></div>

Yep, in China, then they hide their profits in the Carribbean, and use other methods to avoid paying their fair share.

The charts prove that the trickle down theory enriches the wealthy, and the Middle class loses ground. What don't you get about that?

Gayle in MD
08-16-2008, 11:31 AM
Nancy Pelosi is built like a brick ****house. Wow, your partisanship even affects your manhood!

Unbelievable!

wolfdancer
08-16-2008, 12:28 PM
Aw, lighten up...Steve's infatuated

she's a brick, house
She's mighty mighty, just lettin' it all hang out
She's a brick, house
She's stacked and that's a fact,
ain't holding nothing back.

The clothes she wears, the sexy ways,
make an old man wish for better days
She knows she's built and knows how to please
Sure enough to knock a man to his knees

I want a brick, house
She's mighty mighty,
just lettin' it all hang out
She's a brick, house
She's the one, the only one,
who's built like a amazon

pooltchr
08-16-2008, 08:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And there you have it. Let them keep only what they need and take the rest to give to others with less. <span style="color: #000066">Where did you find that statement in my post. </span>
<span style="color: #FF0000">I quoted your exact words. The "rich" have everything they need.
If that's true, why do they continue to work? Maybe because they have compassion for the people who work to help them become wealthy. The owner of my company doesn't need to work. He could shut down our business tomorrow and not suffer a bit. But the 25 or so employees would suffer at the loss of a paycheck. I, for one, am glad that some of his wealth "trickles down". </span>
Is that the basis for socialism or communism? I forget.
Or is it just a case of class envy? <span style="color: #000066">LOL, I am one of those who already have everything I need, FYI. I surely don't have to worry about every dollar I have to pay in taxes, nor do I have to hustle pool lessons, to get by. </span>
<span style="color: #FF0000"> I'm so glad you don't stoop to personal attacks in your posts. It's so much more civil that way.
YOU, my totally unimformed friend, don't know a damn thing about what I do or why I do it. Further more, I doubt if you could keep your cool long enough to teach anyone anything about pool. Tell me something. When you miss a shot, to you blame GW????</span>

Humans only "need" food and water, clothing, and shelter. Everything else is just what we desire. <span style="color: #000066"> FYI, it has been proven that most of the money from Bush's tax cuts for the rich, they have added to their investments, not spent to enrich the economy. There was Senate Testimony which you can probably find if you're interested in some facts, which indicated that raising the minimum wage, actually pusts more dollars into our economy, than tax cuts for the rich, who invest in tax havens.</span>
<span style="color: #FF0000">What does your comment have to do with what I posted? I was talking about the difference between needs and wants and you just drift off on your own cloud. </span>
Do you really "need" a boat? Do you really "need" a car? Do you really "need" a pool cue?
Oops, maybe there is one more to be added to the need list.

<span style="color: #000066">Hell no, I don't need anything. I already have everything I need. <span style="color: #FF0000">You had everything you needed long ago...are you now saying you also have everything you want? </span> And, I don't need more pool lessons, <span style="color: #FF0000">I don't know that anyone suggested that you needed pool lessons. </span> either, since I have a brain, <span style="color: #FF0000"> Still in the box, hardly ever used???</span> and can access volumns of information about pool, <span style="color: #FF0000"> Do they have a pool section on Huffington???</span> and use my own intellect, and eyes and ears, to figure out what I need to do. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif
<span style="color: #FF0000">Congratulations! You must believe you are one of the smartest human beings to ever walk the planet. (In some circles, that might be considered delusional) </span>

Steve
</div></div> </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">You're meds are wearing off
Steve </span>

wolfdancer
08-16-2008, 10:42 PM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

pooltchr
08-17-2008, 08:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nancy Pelosi is built like a brick ****house. Wow, your partisanship even affects your manhood!

Unbelievable! </div></div>

OK, I'm lost. When did I ever make any comment regarding her physical assets? To be honest, I don't think I have ever paid any attention one way or another.

Oh, never mind...when Gayle is the poster, the post doesn't need to make any sense, or even be relevent to the topic being discussed.


Steve

Gayle in MD
08-17-2008, 12:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
OK, I'm lost. When did I ever make any comment regarding her physical assets? To be honest, I don't think I have ever paid any attention one way or another.

Steve
</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And I'm thinking if you did that, I would hope I went blind before I caught sight of the speaker of the house!!!!

Steve </div></div>


You can't even keep up with your own BS...

Nancy pelosi, is the Speak of the House. You've have heard of her?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh, never mind...when Gayle is the poster, the post doesn't need to make any sense, or even be relevent to the topic being discussed.


Steve
</div></div>

You are incapable of understanding the relevance of relationship between taxes and debt, in the context of the subject of this post, and our economic circunstances, and the financial hole in which such ignorance will bury the next generation, not to mention our national security.

I notice none of you righties offers any clues as to how this country can plow its way out of threatening debt without raising any taxes.

When the top 1% in a country, own over 90% of the wealth, they can do without tax cuts.

The debt is the subject which you all refuse to address, while you're touting yourselves as economic geniuses, who think that the Bush tax cuts, had nothing to do with the fact that we are now approaching 10 trillion dollars of debt.

And yes, btw, I have everything I WANT.

pooltchr
08-17-2008, 04:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

And yes, btw, I have everything I WANT.

</div></div>

Then why are so bitter???

Steve

sack316
08-17-2008, 10:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I notice none of you righties offers any clues as to how this country can plow its way out of threatening debt without raising any taxes.
</div></div>

I'm sure someone has broached it before... but here's a novel idea. Spend less! Officials of both parties spend money like it's water... oh no wait, they actually take measures to protect water.

But logically speaking, even with low taxes, they gov't takes in plenty of money... period. Problem being they spend it at a much higher clip. That equals debt (to save some people a post, YES I know the war is a huge part of that... so save that story).

We keep equating this whole thing to business finances. Hell, the government is a business I suppose. So what does any other business do in a similar situation? Well they can't generally jack up the prices, that would cause unrest from the customers. Hence the first move is what kids? That's right, cut out some overhead. So maybe some of these pointless studies that millions get spent on, don't get done. Maybe some useless workers who get a paycheck and a title for doing nadda need to seek employment one someone else's payroll that mine. You seek out the waste, and eliminate it, and then the long slow process of recovery begins. And yep, it would be long and slow at this point. But perfectly doable, and doable without taking much (if any) more out of my and your pockets during what is already turbulant economic times.

So short answer... quit the BS spending. And there ya go, a clue from a righty on how it could be done without raising taxes.

Sack

bonus: helpful solution to gas prices and the economy? take away the madate that requires ultra-low sulfur content in diesel fuel. Then see what happens.

pooltchr
08-18-2008, 04:16 AM
Now, Sack...there you go actually making sense! What's the matter with you? You can't use logic and facts to win a debate! What were you thinking???????????
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Steve

Gayle in MD
08-18-2008, 05:55 AM
I'm not bitter, I'm disgusted with uninformed people, and especially the "Rah Rah WAR, but don't raise my taxes to pay for it, leave it to me kids and grand kids to pay the price for my poor judgement in the voting both" types.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Gayle in MD
08-18-2008, 05:57 AM
OVER TEN TRILLION DOLLARS! And your answer is to spend less!

I give up!

You guys don't see the big picture, and the immediate results and costs of this war, and all the borrowing to pay for it, AND the tax cuts, nor the immediate threats due to the results.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

Let's just close down the government, throw all the hungry, ill, and old out on the streets, so that we can bomb and kill more people, produce more refugees all over the world, and piss off more people!

Republican ideology in a nut shell, and I do mean NUT!

You have a president, who has borrowed trilliions from China, Japan, even MEXICO, to pay for the damned tax cuts, and the war, so that he can paint a false picture on the economy, and the disasterous economic results, hence, 78% of AMericans say that Bush's economic policies are wrong.

Everyone wants the government to eliminate waste, that goes without even mentioning. That alone is not enough. Our infrastructure is collapsing, our debts are creating a very dangerous situation, and China, Russia, and Iran, are all breathing down our throats, and your answer for all of it is to cut spending. It's a little l;ate for that!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Incredible!

Gayle in MD
08-18-2008, 06:34 AM
Jared Bernstein


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Every year around this time, the Census Bureau releases one of the most important government reports: the annual status of poverty, household income, and health insurance coverage. The release is scheduled for the morning of August 26th at 10; you can usually watch the press conference over the web if that kind of thing turns you on as much as it does me.

With your approval, I'd like to take you on a pre-release tour of these data, discussing what to expect -- slightly lower poverty and higher median income; less health coverage -- and, more importantly, the context within which to interpret these results.

While 2007 probably seems just so last year, the release is uniquely important...even historical. That's because 2007 was almost certainly the last year of the 2000s recovery, and the Census release enables us, for the first time, to evaluate how the living standards of middle- and low-income families fared over this recovery. It's not likely to be pretty.

What's that? You already know how they/you did? Good point. But this makes it official, and the release, which generally gets front page status for a day or two, gives us a chance to reflect on an economic expansion that left most people behind. It also happens to be a presidential election year, with the economy front and center in precisely the manner invoked by these data. As I've said in this space before, the candidate who understands this disconnect between growth and living standards, and whose ideas are best crafted to reconnect them...that's the one who should win.

The first thing you should know about these data is that they refer to calendar year 2007, as the Census Bureau treats insurance coverage and poverty as annual concepts for this report: if your family income was below the official threshold last year, or you went without any kind of health coverage, public or private, for the whole year, they count you as poor or uninsured.

There are known glitches: the poverty concept is way outdated, and is generally agreed to understate the degree of actual material deprivation. In 2006, 12.3% of the population -- 36.5 million people -- were officially poor. But when a couple of statistical scholars put together a more comprehensive, alternative measure, they found a 2006 poverty rate of 17.7%, adding 16 million more persons to the poverty rolls compared to the official measure.

Also, the income measure is pretax, and since taxes have been cut a lot in recent years, a post-tax measure would show more income growth, though this is less important for the middle-class relative to the rich, whose taxes have been cut the most.

So, with all that throat-clearing out of the way, here's what to look for. Wait...one more caveat. When it comes to forecasting economic reports, econometricians are no better than weather-persons. So, if I get these right, tell everyone. If I'm way off, we never spoke.

• Poverty probably fell a bit, I'd say to 12.1% (from 12.3% in 2006).
• Median household income, adjusted for inflation, probably rose about 1%.
• There are likely more uninsured people, especially due to lost employer coverage.

If the economy's in the tank, why do I think things improved? Because for most of 2007, the economy wasn't in the shape it's in now, and usually -- not always -- in the last year of an expansion, poverty goes down. The key determinants tend to be jobs, wages, and inflation, and all were actually in decent territory until the last quarter of last year. However, things have of course deteriorated since -- we'll get to the 2008 story in a moment.

But here's the first contextual kicker: assuming I'm right about the direction of these results, before anyone uncorks the champagne over the first two of them, consider these facts. Compared to the peak of the last business cycle in the year 2000:
--a larger share of the population will be poor;
--real median household income will be lower;
--there will be millions more people without health coverage.

(I'm sure about #'s 1 and 3. I could be wrong re #2, but if real household income surpasses the 2000 level, it won't do so by much.)

Remember folks, over these years, productivity was up 19%, growing faster over the 2000s than in the 1990s (on a yearly basis, productivity was up 2.5%, 2000-07, vs. 2% per year in the 1990s; that little 0.5% difference actually means a lot over a few years). The mantra among economists is that as grows productivity, so shall living standards. But in the 2000s, most of the American workforce worked harder and smarter, yet ended up earning less. Looks like we need a new mantra.

Here's the second kicker: last year was as good as is gets for awhile. The historical precedent is extremely clear on this score. In recessions, poverty rises and median income falls. And it's not just recessions. The last few recoveries started out as jobless, meaning the economy as a whole was expanding, but employment was still contracting. Poverty rose and incomes fell for the first few years of the last two recoveries.

The reason for these weak-start recoveries is that labor market conditions are a primary determinant of working/middle-class living standards. These families depend on their paychecks, not their stock portfolios, and with jobs and real wages in decline all year so far, the clear expectation is that middle-class incomes are down in 2008, and poverty is up.

Plugging current conditions into the models, I get poverty back up to 12.4% in 2008, and real median household income down around 1%, a loss of about $600. (For those interested in the sausage-making process, this assumes inflation subsides in the second half of this year; if it stays elevated, that $600 loss could become a $1,000 loss).

Going back to the 1940s, we've never completed an economic expansion where the middle-class family income failed to regain its prior peak (note the subtle switch from 'household' to 'family' income -- the Census family series goes back to the mid-1940s; the household series only goes back to the mid-60s; the main difference is that families exclude one-person units). I can think of no more damning indictment of the current economy -- no better example of how it is broken.

That's why next Tuesday's release is such an important one. True, it's last year's news, but if I'm anywhere close regarding these forecasts, the results will shine a red-hot spotlight on the biggest challenge we face: the disconnect between growth and living standards.

Look for the candidates to release statements based on the findings. Both will distance themselves from the Bush policies that have surely played a role in the disconnect. The problem for McCain is that his economic agenda seems to have been formed by looking approvingly at results like these and deciding the best path forward was to double-down on Bushonomics. He extends the Bush cuts for the wealthy, and throws in a big corporate tax cut for a cherry on top. His health care plan will be much less effective in covering the uninsured.

Obama (for whom I'm an informal advisor) starts with tax relief targeted at the middle and lower income families. After-tax income grows most for the poor under Obama, and most for the rich under McCain (see figure 1 here). Obama offsets the disconnect; McCain exacerbates it.

But tax policy can only offset the disconnect; it can't repair it. For that you need robust job creation, restraints on capital excesses, deep infrastructure investment, single-payer health care, and long-term energy policy with job-creating investments in green tech and alternative energy sources.

So, I hope to join all of you on the Census Bureau website next Tuesday, August 26th. I recognize that my forecasting prowess is on the line, but somehow, I think the stakes are a little higher than that. The release and the analysis surrounding it should provide a close and critical look about where we've been and we're we need to go.


Jared Bernstein

Jared Bernstein joined the Economic Policy Institute in 1992. His latest
book is "Crunch: Why Do I Feel So Squeezed? (And Other Unsolved Economic
Mysteries)" which follows "All Together Now: Common Sense for a Fair
Economy." His areas of research include income inequality and mobility,
trends in employment and earnings, low-wage labor markets and poverty,
international comparisons, and the analysis of federal and state
economic policies. He is the co-author of eight editions of the book
"The State of Working America" and has published extensively in popular
and academic venues. Mr. Bernstein is on the Congressional Budget
Office's advisory committee and is a contributor to the financial news
station CNBC. He serves on the boards of the Coalition on Human Needs
and the Mertz Gilmore Foundation and holds a PhD in social welfare from
Columbia University.

Wally_in_Cincy
08-18-2008, 10:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I'm so glad you don't stoop to personal attacks in your posts. </div></div>

And she feigns offense when other folks respond in kind.

Gayle in MD
08-18-2008, 10:18 AM
Offense, LMAO, neither of you could offend me. It's more like boredom since neither of you having any documentation to prove any of the illogical things you write, and hence, ONLY personal attacks.

Same ol' same ol'... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/tired.gif

Bush's economics have been a huge failure. If you can't start from that premise, there's no point in discussing anything with either of you.

Wally_in_Cincy
08-18-2008, 10:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Offense, LMAO, neither of you could offend me. </div></div>

I guess I'll have to try harder. I love a good challenge.

Gayle in MD
08-18-2008, 10:31 AM
You lost that challenge eight years ago. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/tired.gif

sack316
08-18-2008, 04:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OVER TEN TRILLION DOLLARS! And your answer is to spend less!

I give up!

</div></div>

Gayle, I never said you were wrong per say with what you were saying. But you made mention of how no republican had anything to contribute on a solution without raising taxes, I gave ya one. And I even admitted that it would be a long slow process in order to do it that way... but it's a way. Simple answer, the government does happen to take in a shitload of money each year. They also spend a shitload plus some every year. Spending less than a shitload would equal reduction in debt. I would think you'd actually go for that ideal, as that actually would include, among many many other things, your wants in regard to Iraq... yet you fail to see that because you are so blinded by your need to be right absolutely. A statement by myself stating things about spending less plays RIGHT into your hands, and you don't even realize it! This would include things like spending millions to send letters to let us know our rebate was on the way, studying DNA of some bears in Montana I think (mcCains fav. answer), etc. etc. etc. and countless other pointless stupid ways we waste money. Save a few million multiplied by the number of stupid things we spend millions on, and I think you'd be surprised at how trillions would be saved... over time of course.

I also thought of another solution. Don't tons of countries owe us a ton of money too? Maybe we should call in our markers sometime.

At any rate Gayle, I wasn't saying taxes won't be increased, I wasn't saying that it may not even be a decent idea to do so at some point. I happen to not think it's a good idea right now... but at some point. But all I did was give you what you asked for previously in this thread. that's all dear.

Sack

Gayle in MD
08-19-2008, 07:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Everyone wants the government to eliminate waste, that goes without even mentioning. That alone is not enough. Our infrastructure is collapsing, our debts are creating a very dangerous situation, and China, Russia, and Iran, are all breathing down our throats, and your answer for all of it is to cut spending. It's a little late for that!

</div></div>

Sack,

I think I have made it clear throughout, how I feel about frivolous spending. It's just that none of you seems to realize the magnitude of our circumstances, regarding all the borrowing, with interest accumulating, from countries who are not really our friends, and the threats that are inherent in such a foolish policy.

It is incredible and annoying to read a condescending post, (Not from you) on our economic situation which states that spending and tax cuts are not separate from borrowing. That is absurd on its face!

As for being right, none of this is about me, until someone who is irritated by my opinions, makes it about me. I have grave concerns about my country. I also have grave concerns about McCain, and the situation Bush has put us into, and will leave us burried in when we finally get rid of him.

Iraq, corporate power and corruption, including the Military Industrial Complex, elitists investors and hedge funders, de-regulation, an influx of illegal immigrants to provide cheap labor for corporate interests, and hugely, this idiotic war in Iraq, are direct causes of our economic woes. As far as I can tell, McCain supports all of that.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At any rate Gayle, I wasn't saying taxes won't be increased, I wasn't saying that it may not even be a decent idea to do so at some point. I happen to not think it's a good idea right now... but at some point. But all I did was give you what you asked for previously in this thread. that's all dear.

Sack </div></div>

If I misunderstood, I apologize. It sounded to me that you were saying that cutting spending was the solution. It is a huge part of the solution, but we probably wouldn't agree on the best way to do that immediately, and we also wouldn't agree on the true costs involved in this losing situation in Iraq, which is costing us in excess of a million dollars an hour, not to mention the life and limbs of our youth.

BTW, McCain voted for the DNA testing on the bears! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif

sack316
08-19-2008, 10:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

BTW, McCain voted for the DNA testing on the bears! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif </div></div>

I never meant to imply that he was immune or exempt from stupid spending (I don't like the terms "frivolous" or "wasteful"... I prefer to call it for what it is... stupid). When I speak of stupid spending, that goes for everyone right or left, and I doubt we could find one person who has not done so at some point. I realize your point was meant as it relates to McCain's statements about it, I just wanted to make sure you knew that I wasn't blaming waste solely on one side.

Sack

pooltchr
08-19-2008, 07:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It is incredible and annoying to read a condescending post, (Not from you) on our economic situation which states that spending and tax cuts are not separate from borrowing. That is absurd on its face!

</div></div>

I don't know if you are having a difficult time with your reading comprehension, or you just enjoy screwing up the fact to fit your agenda. Either way, if you can't comprehend what I actually said, then you would probably do well to ignore it.

I have tried to explain that tax cuts actually generate more revenue, but you can't get that through your thick head. Spending more than you take in most definitely will result in borrowing....my DOG understands that concept. But then, I think my dog probably listens better than you do as well.

Steve

Gayle in MD
08-20-2008, 05:57 AM
Actually I made a mistake, and meant so write it this way,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> which states that spending and tax cuts are separate issues from borrowing. That is absurd on its face!

</div></div>

But then, what can be expected from someone like me, who is dumber than your dog.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have tried to explain that tax cuts actually generate more revenue, but you can't get that through your thick head. Spending more than you take in most definitely will result in borrowing.... </div></div>

You are such a genius!

Waging a war and cutting taxes at the same time, can only result in huge deficits, and debt. A Building debt, with interest, does more damage than cutting taxes does good, during wartime.

The things that are hurting our country the most, are accumulating debt, the loss of independence due to a lopsided foreign trade balance to the tune of 800 billion dollars a year, the huge losses in the manufacturing industry, creating more dependence for goods and services from foreign countries, and the costs of waging an un-necessary war, which provides absolutely no advantage to our country, and the American way of life. "Charge the whole thing and don't worry about tomorrow"

Imperialistic notions that we can bomb our way out of our dependence on foreign oil, or dig our way out, or deal with any of it by forcing with guns and bombs our wishes upon other countries, all these false notions are at the core of our coming national disaster.

To say that tax cuts, debt, and expenditures are not all related, is stupid. It's about as stupid as believing that Conservatives cut spending, and shrink government.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
08-20-2008, 06:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


I have tried to explain that tax cuts actually generate more revenue, but you can't get that through your thick head. </div></div>

Apparently not, judging by this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


Waging a war and cutting taxes at the same time, can only result in huge deficits, and debt.
</div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Gayle, you don't need a pool lesson, you need an economics lesson /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
08-20-2008, 06:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A Building debt, with interest, does more damage than cutting taxes does good, during wartime.

</div></div>

You need a reading lesson, AND an economics lesson. It is unprecedented to cut taxes during war time. Just as pre-emptive war, against a nation which is not an immediate threat, and has never attacks us, is unprecedented.

Buy now, pay later, doesn't cut it. Credit is not infinite.

Cutting taxes when we are holding huge debts, waging two un-necessary 3 trillion dollar plus wars, (on false premises) while growing the size of government, and carrying 800 billion dollar annual trade deficits, all insane Republican policies.

Being a debtor nation, is not an advantage, and being a debtor nation to countries like China and Mexico does not serve our purposes, at all. Sooner or later, the chickens come home to roost. The debt must be addressed eventually. Expecting .05 of our population to make all the sacrifices for this idiotic war, while we here at home, sacrifice nothing, is absolutly a disgrace.

Gayle in Md.