[quitbanningme68]

Here. We're going to play a game. I hand you 10 dollars (in ones). K? I hand another person 1 dollar (in dimes).

Got that so far? You have 10 dollars. K, no I will take 50% from both of you. That means I will take 5 dollars from you. K? I will take 50 cents from the other guy. K?

Ok. Now I am not a greedy commie democrat. So ok, you get 10 dollars again, the other person gets 1 dollar.

K. I am taking 10% this time. Now, I take ONE dollar from you, and 10 cents from the other guy.

Ok. Everyone clear on what took place so far? Now, YOU, represent the rich person. Right? Right. Now, according to the non communist me, you saved money. You got a tax break. Right? right. You saved 4 dollars. The little guy only saved 40 cents. Right? Right.

Now, PLEASE explain how every democrat believes that the rich get less taxes than everyone else. Cuz they don't. It'd be equal.

Yes, of course the rich get bigger tax cuts, BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE MONEY TO START OUT WITH! HOW ****ING COMPLICATED IS THIS?! THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!

- Ca$h

PS: One other thing. Do any of you democrats KNOW how big alaska is? Have you ever even been there? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Wait. Nope. You're democrat. ****ing idiots.

[EqualTime]

you rule, dude

[Cipher13]

Hehe, well said

Cipher13

[Macfreak7]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Hehe, well said

Cipher13

omg cipher! go to sleep!

[AlbertWu]

The rich tax brackets used to have a higher percentage of income going to taxes. Bush is basically cutting that back, but not for the lower tax brackets.

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


iThink therefore iBounceAbout

[andypolack]

Bush ROCKS!

Anyway, his tax cut will work and well. Lets just put it this way...IT'S BETTER THAN HAVING A MORON IN OFFICE WHO "INVENTED" THE INTERNET!

[AlbertWu]

bush bites

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


iThink therefore iBounceAbout

Bush is a chimpanzee....oh wait...he isnt smart enough

[nigeljedi]

Bush, no Gore! Republican, no Democrat! Aaaaahhhhh...who cares? There's not a damn thing we can do now. We can only wait to see what the next four years brings. If Bush sucks, we all have the chance to change that in 2004.

------------------
FireMac


[This message has been edited by nigeljedi (edited 03-11-2001).]

[krove]

Perfectly said. Well done
krove

------------------
*The next sentence is entirely true...
*The previous sentence is most decidedly false...

[Daishi]

Originally posted by nigeljedi:
Bush, no Gore! Republican, no Democrat! Aaaaahhhhh...who cares?

'Cause they're the same damn thing...


"What are you going to do? It's a two party system. You have to vote for one of us!"
"Why, I believe I'll vote for a third party candidate!"
"Go ahead. Waste your vote."

(Paraphrasing the simpsons... It all comes back to the simpsons...)

[MikeM32]

The rich tax brackets used to have a higher percentage of income going to taxes. Bush is basically cutting that back, but not for the lower tax brackets.

Yeah as usual the Rich get richer and the people who really need the extra $$$ get jack squat!!!

The party's over folks it's a big sh_t sandwitch and wer'e all gonna have to take a bite

Mike

[spicynacho68]

Originally posted by AlbertWu:
The rich tax brackets used to have a higher percentage of income going to taxes. Bush is basically cutting that back, but not for the lower tax brackets.

WHAT PART OF FLAT ****ING TAX RATE DO YOU NOT GET?!!?!

- Ca$h

[AlbertWu]

Last I checked it was not a flat percentage, although that was last year...

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


iThink therefore iBounceAbout

[spicynacho68]

No, Bush's plan was a flat tax.

[gwrjr33]

Bush's plan is not a flat tax. It calls for 4 brackets ranging from 33% to10%.

Originally posted by AlbertWu:
The rich tax brackets used to have a higher percentage of income going to taxes. Bush is basically cutting that back, but not for the lower tax brackets.

This is nonsense. The bottom bracket today is 15%. Bush's plan not only lowers that by 33% (to 10%) but some people will be taken off the rolls entirely. It's true that if you already don't pay any income tax you won't get a tax cut. But that's because Bush (unlike all the Democrats who think they are so much smarter than him) understands math. Any percentage of zero is still zero. Sorry about that. I guess the only thing to do now is blame Bush for the way math works.

[olePigeon]

Do any of you democrats KNOW how big alaska is?

Funny you should say that, Ca$h. The exact same thing was thought about this entire planet. Now we have a hole in our ozone layer and our fossile fules are nearly depleted.

But hey, I guess the next step is "Do any of you democrats KNOW how big our solar system is? We have 5 planets and a giant lightbulb!"

Your little tax example is also wrong. It's not about the rich getting back more money because they gave more money initially, it's that the rich are getting a higher percentage return than the lower income. It's called privlaged ecnomics. If you're rich an you give more money, the Republicans will make sure you get a higher percentage return on the next "tax break." Meanwhile the 40% of Americans who are below the poverty line will be recieving a smaller percentage return. Bush will drop taxes a few percent for the wealthy, but NOT for the poor. The average working American making $30k to $50k will pay up the ass in payroll and federal taxes. Meanwhile, those making $80k and up will have the privlage of less of their money being taken by the government.

Teachers, librarians, mechanics, etc. will have a higher percentage of their money take out in taxes than the corporate executive, CEOs, and lawyers. That is complete ******** .

And yes, you WILL pay income tax if you have a job of $10K a year or more. There is no leviation for those people, only the ones with their six figures.

[RDJL27]

We can add Cash to the list of idiots, along with Bush, and Carrots ( or other inanimate objects- yes plants live, until they are picked to be eaten). You want war, want to screw the enviroment, why not become a terroist Cash?

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by olePigeon:

Your little tax example is also wrong. It's not about the rich getting back more money because they gave more money initially, it's that the rich are getting a higher percentage return than the lower income. It's called privlaged ecnomics. If you're rich an you give more money, the Republicans will make sure you get a higher percentage return on the next "tax break." Meanwhile the 40% of Americans who are below the poverty line will be recieving a smaller percentage return. Bush will drop taxes a few percent for the wealthy, but NOT for the poor. The average working American making $30k to $50k will pay up the ass in payroll and federal taxes. Meanwhile, those making $80k and up will have the privlage of less of their money being taken by the government.

Teachers, librarians, mechanics, etc. will have a higher percentage of their money take out in taxes than the corporate executive, CEOs, and lawyers. That is complete ******** .

And yes, you WILL pay income tax if you have a job of $10K a year or more. There is no leviation for those people, only the ones with their six figures.

There isn't anything that you say here that is true. For example: if you are below the poverty line you aren't paying income taxes. In fact, you receive the EITC. It's kind of a welfare for the working poor. How can you give these people a tax cut when not only they are not paying any income tax but they are also receiving money via the EITC? It's just mathematically impossible. Or if you want to give them a break on the payroll tax, then you will need to consider Bush's proposal for partial privatization. (But we haven't put that debate on the table yet.) As for CEO's getting a lower percentage taken out than librarians that is just a lie.

If only life were as simple as Ca$h thinks it is. What a wonderful world we'd live in! Meanwhile, back in reality (where the United States and the IRS reside), the rich do not pay by a linear tax code. That is, just because they make more, they do not necessarily pay more thanks to all the tax dodges in place for them. Meanwhile, during the last ten years while Republicans have been crying to the high heavens about how horribly steep the tax rates for the rich are, the rich have seen their investment incomes soar while capital gains taxes have dropped. In other words, despite the higher tax rates (initially put in place by Bush Sr., of course), they have made out very, very well in the last ten years. And now, at the end of that wonderful financial period for the rich, W. intends to give them a huge refund on top of it all.

Meanwhile, the average wage-earner will get back a couple of hundred bucks with which to jump-start the economy.

Life is not as simple as Ca$h thinks it is. He, not being rich (yet), thinks that the more you make the more taxes you pay. If only that were true. I have no doubt as Ca$h goes through life getting richer and richer, he will pull every trick in the book to avoid paying taxes while loudly complaining about the tax rates (that he is skipping out on). At the same time, he will proclaim as jackasses those suckers who actually pay their taxes that he is avoiding through his accountant's tricks.

Yessir, life is good on planet Ca$h.

Just read this in an Op-Ed piece in today's NY Times. It's by John Kenneth Galbraith (hope I don't have to explain who he is in the context of economics...):

"The other political threat to the administration comes from tax reduction. This, as support to the economy, was announced immediately by President Bush on taking office. Most of the benefit, as now more than amply agreed, goes to the very affluent. In an economic downturn, those so favored do not spend, because they have no particular need. That is an aspect of wealth. And given the uncertainties of the economy, they do not readily initiate or invest.

It is true that middle- and lower- income folk do spend, but they do not get a significant share of the benefit, and the very poor get none at all. And such expenditure as there is here goes for the daily necessities of life, not for the things on which recovery depends. To repeat, those of middle and lower income are not the beneficiaries in any case. The effect of tax reduction is not on the economy but on the pleasure and political gratitude of those who receive it."

So let's cut the pretense that the tax cut is designed to ease the economic slowdown we find ourselves in. It isn't. W is merely using that as a convenient excuse.

[yoyo52]

Argument by analogy is always false because it leaves out the dirty little details. Simple minded analgies especially falsify reality.

[Don Pickett]

Life is not as simple as Ca$h thinks it is.

You are assuming Ca$h thinks. I am, myself, not so sure.

[This message has been edited by Don Pickett (edited 03-11-2001).]

[mikithecrackhead]

Alaska is pretty big, but why drill the yukon, there are other places. DRILL THE F*** OUT OF TEXAS AND LEAVE ALASKA ALONE!!
the natives where there first and the caribou where there first. SO LEAVE THEM THE F**** ALONE.. besides we need alaska to spy on russia and china

[Bandwagon]

Alright...First of all, you should check out the actual statistics on this before arguing so much about it. A lot of truths in this thread, but mixed up in some not-so-truths.

Bush proposal:
1. Make 5 brackets into 4
2. Lower all income tax rates (including poor)
3. Retroactive (this is only for the lower brackets. The rich don't get tax breaks until later in the ten year plan)
4. Ca$h is right, if the rich pay more, a tax break will be larger when measured in dollars. But, the lower brackets get a significantly larger break when measured by percentage of income (that's what is really important!).
5. When the tax cut is completely phased in, the rich will be paying a higher percentage of the gross income tax than they did before the break. That means that the tax cut is ACTUALLY bent more towards the lower brackets than the higher.
6. 4 million people will be taken off the income tax roll altogether.
7. Those already not paying taxes CANNOT be given any tax breaks since reducing it would mean paying them. (everyone pays SS and medicare taxes)

The only stupid thing about this tax cut plan is that they aren't tying it to the surplus. That idea is so logical that only a few senators are even mentioning it!!!!

[NewsHound]

OK, kids, let's get some facts straight. Using figures supplied by the White House, here's why Bush's tax cut benefits the rich:

(figures are taxable income)

Single person, current rate system:
--$0 - $27,050 .......... 15 percent
--$27,050 - $65,550 ..... 28 percent
--$65,550 - $136,750 .... 31 percent
--$136,750 - $297,350 ... 36 percent
--$297,350 and up ....... 39.6 percent

Married couple, filing jointly, current rate system:
--$0 - 45,200 ........... 15 percent
--$45,200 - $109,250 .... 28 percent
--$109,250 - $166,500 ... 31 percent
--$166,500 - $297,350 ... 36 percent
--$297,350 and up ....... 39.6 percent

Single person, Bush proposal:
--$0 - $6,000 ........... 10 percent
--$6,000 - $27,050 ...... 15 percent
--$27,050 - $136,750 .... 25 percent
--$136,750 and up ....... 33 percent

Married couple, filing jointly, Bush proposal:
--$0 - $12,000 .......... 10 percent
--$12,000 - $45,200 ..... 15 percent
--$45,200 - $166,500 .... 25 percent
--$166,500 and up ....... 33 percent


What those numbers mean is that most lower-middle-class singles and married couples will not see a penny from Bush's plan. How? Look at the numbers. A married couple, earning a total of $40,000 per year, filing jointly under the current system pays 15 percent. A married couple, earning a total of $40,000 per year, filing jointly under Bush's system pays ... 15 percent.

Another example: a single person earning $27,000 per year under the current system pays 15 percent. A single person earning $27,000 per year under Bush's plan pays ... 15 percent.

Just because the rich have more money and would therefore see a bigger percentage of the tax cut isn't the only reason Bush's plan is misguidedly biased toward the rich. The real reason is that people in the lower middle class won't save a dime.

-NewsHound

------------------
Exit, pursued by a bear.
--'The Winter's Tale,' Shakespeare

[Bandwagon]

If you want a real outlook on the tax plan - http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbud...int/bud02.html
or http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbud...nt/budtoc.html

See the info for yourself.

[NewsHound]

Bandwagon, the arguments, charts, etc. from the White House are valuable in furthering the understanding of this debate, but by no means is the information to which you posted links unbiased. In fact, that information is about as biased as you can get, because its intention is to convince people to support the plan. Think they included any information about why the tax cut might not work? No, of course they didn't.

Point is, there's more truth to the matter than what Bush argues on the White House Web site.

-NewsHound

[This message has been edited by NewsHound (edited 03-12-2001).]

[Bandwagon]

True. True. Personally, I don't like a tax cut right now, but I think the arguments against it are invalid. Sure, we could be more favorable to the poor by not cutting high bracket taxes at all, but I like a universal cut. I think a cut now is stupid though, since we still pay 12-15 percent of our outlays on the INTEREST of our debt and we have a lot of surplus to pay it off. But, in general, I am in favor of most tax cuts. Smaller is better, that's how I see goverment. But, I am certainly aware of the reasons for larger - I go to Wesleyan University. It is probably one of the most liberal campuses in America.

[AlbertWu]

We don't have that kind of money... All sorts of debt, and the Internation Space station getting into full swing, etc...

Also the "slowing" economy.

Screw the tax cut! Be like your dad!

Bush bites.

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


iThink therefore iBounceAbout

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by NewsHound:
OK, kids, let's get some facts straight. Using figures supplied by the White House, here's why Bush's tax cut benefits the rich:

(figures are taxable income)

Single person, current rate system:
--$0 - $27,050 .......... 15 percent
--$27,050 - $65,550 ..... 28 percent
--$65,550 - $136,750 .... 31 percent
--$136,750 - $297,350 ... 36 percent
--$297,350 and up ....... 39.6 percent

Married couple, filing jointly, current rate system:
--$0 - 45,200 ........... 15 percent
--$45,200 - $109,250 .... 28 percent
--$109,250 - $166,500 ... 31 percent
--$166,500 - $297,350 ... 36 percent
--$297,350 and up ....... 39.6 percent

Single person, Bush proposal:
--$0 - $6,000 ........... 10 percent
--$6,000 - $27,050 ...... 15 percent
--$27,050 - $136,750 .... 25 percent
--$136,750 and up ....... 33 percent

Married couple, filing jointly, Bush proposal:
--$0 - $12,000 .......... 10 percent
--$12,000 - $45,200 ..... 15 percent
--$45,200 - $166,500 .... 25 percent
--$166,500 and up ....... 33 percent


What those numbers mean is that most lower-middle-class singles and married couples will not see a penny from Bush's plan. How? Look at the numbers. A married couple, earning a total of $40,000 per year, filing jointly under the current system pays 15 percent. A married couple, earning a total of $40,000 per year, filing jointly under Bush's system pays ... 15 percent.

Another example: a single person earning $27,000 per year under the current system pays 15 percent. A single person earning $27,000 per year under Bush's plan pays ... 15 percent.

Just because the rich have more money and would therefore see a bigger percentage of the tax cut isn't the only reason Bush's plan is misguidedly biased toward the rich. The real reason is that people in the lower middle class won't save a dime.

-NewsHound

Where's you get these numbers from? I was looking all over the Whitehouse's website and I couldn't find these numbers. Maybe you cound provide a link. Thanx. (BTW, I'm middle class and looking at your numbers I'll get a tax cut.)

Anyway, you left out the effect of these provisions in the President's plan:

* Doubles the child tax credit to $1,000 per child and applies the credit to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).

* Reduces the marriage penalty by reinstating the 10 percent deduction for two-earner couples.

* Expands the charitable deduction to non-itemizers.

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by AlbertWu:

... Also the "slowing" economy....

Hmmm, the economy is slowing and the government is running a surplus. Looks to me like a tax cut should be a no brainer but I'm not as smart as all you Democrats.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Funny you should say that, Ca$h. The exact same thing was thought about this entire planet. Now we have a hole in our ozone layer and our fossile fules are nearly depleted.

But hey, I guess the next step is "Do any of you democrats KNOW how big our solar system is? We have 5 planets and a giant lightbulb!"

Your little tax example is also wrong. It's not about the rich getting back more money because they gave more money initially, it's that the rich are getting a higher percentage return than the lower income. It's called privlaged ecnomics. If you're rich an you give more money, the Republicans will make sure you get a higher percentage return on the next "tax break." Meanwhile the 40% of Americans who are below the poverty line will be recieving a smaller percentage return. Bush will drop taxes a few percent for the wealthy, but NOT for the poor. The average working American making $30k to $50k will pay up the ass in payroll and federal taxes. Meanwhile, those making $80k and up will have the privlage of less of their money being taken by the government.

Teachers, librarians, mechanics, etc. will have a higher percentage of their money take out in taxes than the corporate executive, CEOs, and lawyers. That is complete ******** .

And yes, you WILL pay income tax if you have a job of $10K a year or more. There is no leviation for those people, only the ones with their six figures.

Well said. Let's also remember that, smae amount of tax given back or not, all things are far from equal. The rich have far more opportunity to avoid taxes than do the average joes or the poor. What's happening here is that the rich basically double their fun. Hey, I understand the idea behind it- that the rich drive the economy- they should have more money to spend. I just don't agree with it.
Also- 2 points:
If Bush honestly wanted to push this thing to the people, he should spend less time preaching to the choir. Let's see him take his little road trip to Massachusetts. Convert those who are not in favor. Convince those opposed.
Next- perhaps he should spend less time trying to justify the tax cut by scaring the consumers into a recession. No, there is not one yet, but there will be if he keeps on declaring one. Economic strength is shored up by ONE thing: confidence. If the president continues to push the tax cut in this way, there WILL be a recession. Irresponsible and bullying. It is tantamount to using the pulpit as a weapon.
As usual, there's more to it than you show quitbangingme68. Must be great to have such simplified and "correct" views.

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by maxelson:

Also- 2 points:
If Bush honestly wanted to push this thing to the people, he should spend less time preaching to the choir. Let's see him take his little road trip to Massachusetts. Convert those who are not in favor. Convince those opposed.
Next- perhaps he should spend less time trying to justify the tax cut by scaring the consumers into a recession. No, there is not one yet, but there will be if he keeps on declaring one. Economic strength is shored up by ONE thing: confidence. If the president continues to push the tax cut in this way, there WILL be a recession. Irresponsible and bullying. It is tantamount to using the pulpit as a weapon.
As usual, there's more to it than you show quitbangingme68. Must be great to have such simplified and "correct" views.

The Nasdaq lost $3T in value in the past year. Japan's economy is sliding backwards again. Germany's is also not growing. Turkey is in the midst of the kind of financial crisis that Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia and Korea had a few years ago. Argentina looks like it may be next. Just how many bad things have to happen before you are going to give Bush permission to talk about the sputtering economy?

Bush is targeting states that voted for him but have Democratic Senators whose votes he needs to get his plan passed. Why should he waste his time in Massachusetts? There is no way in this lifetime that Ted Kennedy or John Kerry are going to sign onto his plan. And your admiration for OlePigeon's remarks shows how closed your mind is on the subject too.

"Hmmm, the economy is slowing and the government is running a surplus. Looks to me like a tax cut should be a no brainer but I'm not as smart as all you Democrats."

Evidently not, or else you would understand that cutting taxes never helps the economic problems they are targetted toward. They take too long to get here. By the time any of us see anything from the Bush tax cut, the current economic condition will have long since passed into something else.

Don't believe the lies that the tax cut is designed to help jumpstart the economy. W was pushing for the tax cut way back when any slowdown wasn't even a gleam in people's eyes. He's only using the slowdown now as an excuse to push this through. It has absolutely nothing to do with it and won't affect it one way or another. These things take too long. Government can't move as fast as the economy, so waiting for a bailout from the government to jumpstart the economy (actually, that sounds more Democratic than Republican, waiting for government welfare) is bogus.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by gwrjr33:
The Nasdaq lost $3T in value in the past year. Japan's economy is sliding backwards again. Germany's is also not growing. Turkey is in the midst of the kind of financial crisis that Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia and Korea had a few years ago. Argentina looks like it may be next. Just how many bad things have to happen before you are going to give Bush permission to talk about the sputtering economy?

Bush is targeting states that voted for him but have Democratic Senators whose votes he needs to get his plan passed. Why should he waste his time in Massachusetts? There is no way in this lifetime that Ted Kennedy or John Kerry are going to sign onto his plan. And your admiration for OlePigeon's remarks shows how closed your mind is on the subject too.

I'm sorry, is it that we are too stupid to understand what he is saying (in the monosyllabic words and simple sentences that are the hallmark of his speaking engagements?). Typical. Do we not vtoe as well? He want's support, fine. Just don't insult me by saying he's taking his case to the people... ok, some of the people... ok... the ones who support me. THat's NOT taking a case to the people ("I want to be everyone's president..." blah, blah, hypocrisy, blah).
As for my close mindedness, go on. Tell the folks how well you know me. C'mon. Describe my position. Thrill me with your acumen (look it up).
C-O-N-F-I-D-E-N-C-E. THe whole thing is in a tailspin due to confidence. Shore UP the confidence, you shore up the economy. Preeschool Economics.

[maxelson]

Another thought: What's all this business about a surplus? Vapor. DO we have a national debt? DO we owe money? I am thinking we do. No surplus. "Give the people who pay the bills a break." Give ME a break. Propaganda. Tools to win a popularity contest.
Build a trigger into that tax cut and I'm all for it. THe debt stops getting paid, the tax break is off. In my house, we must pay the bills before we have fun with the cash. I am pretty sure that the same should hold true for the Gov'T.

[fritzair]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Another thought: What's all this business about a surplus? Vapor. DO we have a national debt? DO we owe money? I am thinking we do. No surplus. "Give the people who pay the bills a break." Give ME a break. Propaganda. Tools to win a popularity contest.
Build a trigger into that tax cut and I'm all for it. THe debt stops getting paid, the tax break is off. In my house, we must pay the bills before we have fun with the cash. I am pretty sure that the same should hold true for the Gov'T.

If you have a mortgage at 7% do you pay it down or invest your money a 10%?
Why do the "rich" pay a higher % of their income to taxes? Is this "fair"?

The one argument no one has made is: Why does the SS or FICA end at 70K when the people who make millions stop paying after their first month of salary?

BTW, What do the democrats propose?
Raise the interest rates cause the economy is too hot?
Keep the money in DC, cause "we the people" can't possibly know what should be done with OUR money.
Thanks ca$h

"Why does the SS or FICA end at 70K when the people who make millions stop paying after their first month of salary?"

Don't know, but I would assume it's because SS is designed for those who actually need it. So there is a max amount that you pay in, and a max amount that you can collect back later. If you make more than the max, you must not need SS as much. Just my guess.

"BTW, What do the democrats propose?
Raise the interest rates cause the economy is too hot?"

That was Greenspan's ghost that he was chasing, not the Democrats.

"Keep the money in DC, cause "we the people" can't possibly know what should be done with OUR money."

Yes, basically, that seems to be the case. Or else why would we the people be clamoring for a refund when there is still plenty of debt to pay off? After all, if the surplus is "our money", isn't the debt "our debt"? Or do we only use the "our" argument when it's convenient?

[maxelson]

Originally posted by PrivateCitizen:
"Why does the SS or FICA end at 70K when the people who make millions stop paying after their first month of salary?"

Don't know, but I would assume it's because SS is designed for those who actually need it. So there is a max amount that you pay in, and a max amount that you can collect back later. If you make more than the max, you must not need SS as much. Just my guess.

"BTW, What do the democrats propose?
Raise the interest rates cause the economy is too hot?"

That was Greenspan's ghost that he was chasing, not the Democrats.

"Keep the money in DC, cause "we the people" can't possibly know what should be done with OUR money."

Yes, basically, that seems to be the case. Or else why would we the people be clamoring for a refund when there is still plenty of debt to pay off? After all, if the surplus is "our money", isn't the debt "our debt"? Or do we only use the "our" argument when it's convenient?

Right on, brudduh...


------------------
"never kiss a gun street girl..."

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by maxelson:

C-O-N-F-I-D-E-N-C-E. THe whole thing is in a tailspin due to confidence. Shore UP the confidence, you shore up the economy. Preeschool Economics.

Yeah, right. None of the rest of the signals matter. For someone who is as open-minded as you are I might have at expected more but never mind.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by gwrjr33:
Yeah, right. None of the rest of the signals matter. For someone who is as open-minded as you are I might have at expected more but never mind.

I'm sorry, when was it that I took a sledgehammer to you? Discussion, right? Let's keep it civil. Makes for more fun debate.
Back to it.
the indicators can be as high as we want them to be, but the bottom line is, if people are scared to buy, they don't buy. Economy is driven by those who are willing to shell out. If they are less willing to shell out... moving the money around is the game. Where is my faulty logic, please?

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by maxelson:
I'm sorry, when was it that I took a sledgehammer to you? Discussion, right? Let's keep it civil.

My reply was in the same tone as the one who felt the need to spell out the word confidence. I have no problem with keeping it civil

the indicators can be as high as we want them to be, but the bottom line is, if people are scared to buy, they don't buy. Economy is driven by those who are willing to shell out. If they are less willing to shell out... moving the money around is the game. Where is my faulty logic, please?[/B]

If energy prices go up sharply, if the capital markets get soft to the tune of $3T, if the second and third largest economies of the world can't get back on line, there's going to be less money to move around. For a loss of confidence, that drop in the Nasdaq all by itself easily dwarfs anything Bush has said or could have said. The federal government's share of GDP is the largest since 1944. Even if the economy wasn't going south, a tax cut would be a good idea. Tax cuts and interest rate reductions will reliquefy the economy. Will there be a lag? Yeah. That's not an argument against tax cuts. It's an argument that maybe it would have been a good idea to have had one last summer.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by gwrjr33:
If energy prices go up sharply, if the capital markets get soft to the tune of $3T, if the second and third largest economies of the world can't get back on line, there's going to be less money to move around. For a loss of confidence, that drop in the Nasdaq all by itself easily dwarfs anything Bush has said or could have said. The federal government's share of GDP is the largest since 1944. Even if the economy wasn't going south, a tax cut would be a good idea. Tax cuts and interest rate reductions will reliquefy the economy. Will there be a lag? Yeah. That's not an argument against tax cuts. It's an argument that maybe it would have been a good idea to have had one last summer.

Right. If energy prices go up, why is that? Supply, demenad, spending level. Nasdaq takes a dive? Why? Confidence in the market.
I am not arguing when we should've had this conversation- you're right. Last year would've been good. I am arguing the wisdom of doing exactly what has been done before. What happened post Regan? Ditto post Kennedy (who's tax cut plan the current administration loves to point out is remarkably similar)? A definite down turn in the economy. Hey, the economy goes in cycles like everthing else. SOmetimes we can slow it, sometimes we cannot. We can seldom stop it. Why this slowdown? Just from what I see, and oversimplistically put, people think things have been going too well for too long. "What goes up..." The economy may be on it's way south, what I'm saying is that there is no need for Bush to heap on the scare wagon. It's irresponsible for the leader of the free world to do so for political capital.
As for the spelling of confidence- no disrespect intended- I manipulate language for emphasis, not to call you a dolt. Not to condescend. Sorry for the misunderstanding.


[This message has been edited by maxelson (edited 03-12-2001).]

[NewsHound]

gwrjr33: The White House numbers didn't come from the Web site; they came from an Associated Press graphic that cited White House as source.

Another thing came to mind. George H.W. Bush is the holder of the biggest broken campaign pledge ever: "Read my lips: no new taxes." The reason he had to break it? Economic fallout from eight years of Ronald Reagan's voodoo, trickle-down economics. I think it's a tad ironic that now, 12 years later, H.W.'s son is working toward instituting the same sort of tax scheme responsible for H.W.'s broken campaign pledge and, as a result of that, the loss of the 1992 election.

-NewsHound

[Robin Hood]

Everyone is always talking about tax cuts, but how about no money at all. If we simply produced enough for everybody to have what they need, and allow people to have luxory items, then there would be no need for money or taxes. People would be given what they need to live and would have an alotment of what they can have which they don't need. It would be a lot easier that way.

[AlbertWu]

AUGH

COMMUNIST ALERT!
KILL HIM!



------------------
AlbertWu
Village iDiot

[This message has been edited by AlbertWu (edited 03-12-2001).]

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Right. If energy prices go up, why is that? Supply, demand...

Let's flesh out that supply and demand. During the mid 90's the Asian tigers caught pneumonia. Suddenly, they were no longer using oil as much as they were when they were flying high. So there was a glut. Prices dropped. Places like West Texas were no longer able to produce oil at the low prices that the markets were setting. This was a situation that couldn't last. Marginal wells were capped because the price for a barrel of oil wasn't covering the cost. This happened enough times that the markets started to show a bias towards the demand side (prices went up) instead of the supply side. With the Asian economies stabilized the glut has dried up. Problem is: many of those marginal wells won't be coming back on line even at these prices. It is not a small or inexpensive thing to cap a well but it was a neccessary thing to do to prevent groundwater contamination.

All of this doesn't even take into account the effect of a subtle shift by the buying public away from conservation towards more consumption. People bought more SUV's and fewer econoboxes.

... I am arguing the wisdom of doing exactly what has been done before. What happened post Regan?

A mild recession that was largely a consequence of a credit crunch (the S&L problem).

Ditto post Kennedy (who's tax cut plan the current administration loves to point out is remarkably similar)? A definite down turn in the economy.

There's no connection between Kennedy's economic policies and a downturn that didn't happen until he was dead 6 or 7 years.

... The economy may be on it's way south, what I'm saying is that there is no need for Bush to heap on the scare wagon. It's irresponsible for the leader of the free world to do so for political capital.

One could also make the argument that it would be irresponsible if he pretended nothing is wrong. Yes, we could really use a change in psychology right now. But a change in rhetoric without a corresponding change in policy is not going to create confidence. It will be seen (rightly) as nothing more than a charade.

BTW, that stuff about the Asian tigers also helped to drive our capital markets in the 90's. Money flowed out of Asia as people sought a safe haven - our markets.

Originally posted by Newshound:
George H.W. Bush is the holder of the biggest broken campaign pledge ever: "Read my lips: no new taxes." The reason he had to break it?

He broke his promise in an attempt to deal with a Congress that was solidly Democratic. He made a big mistake. The tax increase was the final straw that pushed us into a recession and the Democrats were given an issue on a silver platter to use against Bush.


[This message has been edited by gwrjr33 (edited 03-12-2001).]

[NewsHound]

Originally posted by gwrjr33:
The tax increase was the final straw that pushed us into a recession...

And all the initial straws were the economic ramifications of Reagan's ill-conceived, ineffective, for-the-rich trickle-down system.

-NewsHound

[maxelson]

Sorry, them servers lost the post I had put down in response to the Kennedy thing in which gwrjr33 said: "There's no connection between Kennedy's economic policies and a downturn that didn't happen until
he was dead 6 or 7 years.".
Not so. Economics is a heavy and slow boat. One administrations actions may not be felt for 5-8 years. I'm just poking around with basic economics, here, but that is one of the main tenets that I seem to remember. Clinton dealt with a good amount of fallout from Regan's policies, and GHWB was just as responsible for the upturn Clinton enjoyed in the middle of his first term. The war really helped boost things. Clinton took credit, but it had little to do with his admin. Kennedy's tax plan, which, as I have said, is touted as being a virtual twin to GW's, was in large part responsible for the nose dive we took long after his death. Again, I am getting this from a bit of basic economic study I've been doing over the last couple of months. If I can find the exact figures and stats, I'll be happy to post them (long and boring, though- fair warning).