|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Trickle Down Economics - 10/6/2008 1:29:14 PM
|
|
|
backrowbaptist
Posts: 380
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
quote:
I just love bigger Government. Corporate and personal taxes on the wealthy will be at an all time high under BHO and the Dems. The congressmen have wasted sooooo much money - with awesome lack of accountability! How awesome is that!!!!! A million is good, but 700 billion is REAL GOOD. It's just like the late 70's - huge profits for the government - on the backs of the sorry achievers. It works great! Personal freedoms crumble, inflation rises, etc., etc. - and then, the middle class American spirit "Dries Up"....it's awesome. I loved paying high taxes in the mailaise under Carter. I LOVE BIG GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S AWESOME.
TO HECK WITH YOUR MONEY, THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS IT MORE!
So how do we pay for that $700,000,000,000 Foghorn? With tax cuts? If taxes are so bad just eliminate them entirely then the federal government will be loaded with cash. :D
I don't think we should pay for the $700 B. But it's been proven time and time again that when taxes are cut, revenues go UP. I say let's go to a flat tax.
_____________________________
Any of this gettin' through to you, son?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Trickle Down Economics - 10/6/2008 4:06:13 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2144
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
I don't think we should pay for the $700 B. But it's been proven time and time again that when taxes are cut, revenues go UP. I say let's go to a flat tax.
It's also a proven that deficits go up. We've had record deficits since Dubya has been in office. A flat tax would amount to a huge increase for a ton of people.
Now if the federal government only did what it was actually supposed to do then yes I would be for it. For example it isn't the job of the feds to build all these roads, pay for all these schools, etc. etc. Picture the federal tax rate if they only did what they were supposed to. ; /
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Trickle Down Economics - 10/6/2008 10:05:08 PM
|
|
|
Peter_Gunn
Posts: 706
Joined: 6/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist
Allow me to turn over the coin on your OP. sylvan
I just love bigger Government. Corporate and personal taxes on the wealthy will be at an all time high under BHO and the Dems. The congressmen have wasted sooooo much money - with awesome lack of accountability! How awesome is that!!!!! A million is good, but 700 billion is REAL GOOD. It's just like the late 70's - huge profits for the government - on the backs of the sorry achievers. It works great! Personal freedoms crumble, inflation rises, etc., etc. - and then, the middle class American spirit "Dries Up"....it's awesome. I loved paying high taxes in the mailaise under Carter. I LOVE BIG GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S AWESOME.
TO HECK WITH YOUR MONEY, THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS IT MORE!
Just tell me which line to get in, Big Daddy Government, and I'll be happy! Be sure to send me my monthly redistribution check and I'll be your slave forever!
Puh-leeze!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From one back-rower to another:
"Ah say, yah too short son...the high ones keepa going right ovah yah hayd!" (Love that Foghorn!) "Ah don't need yer love to keep me wahm...Ah've got...Ah say, Ah've got my BANDAGES to keep me wahm!"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Trickle Down Economics - 10/6/2008 10:35:11 PM
|
|
|
filhodedeus
Posts: 67
Joined: 8/16/2005
From: Australia
Status: offline
|
I think the finger-pointing only serves to vent the frustration of the problem and not solve the problem.
The only benefit in knowing who the responsible parties are would be to help create some kind of accountability structure for the future to prevent a repeat. It shouldn't be a lynching, but a learning process. I think the guilty parties are well aware of their mistakes and they sleep each night with this in their heads.
As I posted in another thread in Current Events, the US dollar not being backed by precious metals and the US economy being debt based is the real nemesis. It became an elephant on a tricycle. It was bound to fall over sooner or later. It had to happen on someone's watch.
I think the basic structure of the US economy needs to be rethought. I think there should be greater accountability and regulation on lending parameters, the printing of money and bailing out banks. If you know you have a way out, how concerned would you be about making wise decisions? Banks lend to countries that can't pay them back and Congress (who operates in the red) says "There, there...we'll look after your stupid lending choices".
Just some venting of my own....thanks for tuning in.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 29:11. Praise God that my righteousness is credited throught faith!!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Trickle Down Economics - 10/6/2008 11:17:48 PM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 665
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
quote:
I don't think we should pay for the $700 B. But it's been proven time and time again that when taxes are cut, revenues go UP. I say let's go to a flat tax.
It's also a proven that deficits go up. We've had record deficits since Dubya has been in office. A flat tax would amount to a huge increase for a ton of people.
Now if the federal government only did what it was actually supposed to do then yes I would be for it. For example it isn't the job of the feds to build all these roads, pay for all these schools, etc. etc. Picture the federal tax rate if they only did what they were supposed to. ; /
But the only thing the deficits prove is that Congress is incapable of living within any type of fiscal restraint. Every time there is a tax cut revenues from taxes go up and Congress promptly spends the extra money and then spends some more.
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Trickle Down Economics - 10/7/2008 12:00:43 AM
|
|
|
tracydolls
Posts: 1839
Joined: 3/30/2008
Status: offline
|
http://cbs3.com/topstories/lehman.brothers.crisis.2.833553.html
"""That suggestion came from Lehman's money management subsidiary, Neuberger Berman. Waxman quoted George H. Walker, President Bush's cousin and a Lehman executive who oversaw some Neuberger Berman employees, as responding with a dismissive tone to the idea of going without bonuses."""
""Waxman read excerpts from Lehman documents in which a recommendation that top management should forgo bonuses was apparently brushed aside. He also cited a Sept. 11 request to Lehman's compensation board that three executives leaving the company be given $20 million in "special payments."
"In other words, even as Mr. Fuld was pleading with Secretary Paulson for a federal rescue, Lehman continued to squander millions on executive compensation," Waxman said before Fuld appeared as a witness.""'
_____________________________
Rev 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Trickle Down Economics - 10/7/2008 8:35:58 AM
|
|
|
47.samuel
Posts: 44
Joined: 9/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sylvan
I just love Trickle Down Economics. Corporate and personal taxes on the wealthy have been at an all time low under GWB. The executives have made sooooo much money - with awesome severance packages! How awesome is that!!!!! A million is good, but 100 million is REAL GOOD. It's just like the late 80's - huge profits for the rich - on the backs of the sorry middle class. It works great! The economy crumbles, unemployment rises, etc., etc. - and then, the middle class American wealth "Trickles Up"....it's awesome. I loved trickling up money in the last bailout under Bush 1. I LOVE CORPORATE SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S AWESOME.
TO HECK WITH THE POOR, THE RICH NEED MORE MONEY!
*************************************************************
quote:
Before President Bush signed the 2003 tax cuts, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) released a statement signed by ten Nobel prize laureates entitled "Economists' Statement Opposing the Bush Tax Cuts," which states that:
“Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics
Is their any truth to the rumor that Sarah Palin has replaced Phil Gramm as John McCain's chief adviser in "voodoo" economics?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Trickle Down Economics - 10/7/2008 3:04:17 PM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 665
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 47.samuel
quote:
ORIGINAL: sylvan
I just love Trickle Down Economics. Corporate and personal taxes on the wealthy have been at an all time low under GWB. The executives have made sooooo much money - with awesome severance packages! How awesome is that!!!!! A million is good, but 100 million is REAL GOOD. It's just like the late 80's - huge profits for the rich - on the backs of the sorry middle class. It works great! The economy crumbles, unemployment rises, etc., etc. - and then, the middle class American wealth "Trickles Up"....it's awesome. I loved trickling up money in the last bailout under Bush 1. I LOVE CORPORATE SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S AWESOME.
TO HECK WITH THE POOR, THE RICH NEED MORE MONEY!
*************************************************************
quote:
Before President Bush signed the 2003 tax cuts, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) released a statement signed by ten Nobel prize laureates entitled "Economists' Statement Opposing the Bush Tax Cuts," which states that:
“Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics
Is their any truth to the rumor that Sarah Palin has replaced Phil Gramm as John McCain's chief adviser in "voodoo" economics?
Nice piece of rumor mongering there dude! Any other slams you want to take at Sarah Palin feel free to start a rumor thread
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Trickle Down Economics - 10/8/2008 10:57:59 AM
|
|
|
letusreason
Posts: 809
Joined: 8/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 47.samuel
quote:
ORIGINAL: sylvan
I just love Trickle Down Economics. Corporate and personal taxes on the wealthy have been at an all time low under GWB. The executives have made sooooo much money - with awesome severance packages! How awesome is that!!!!! A million is good, but 100 million is REAL GOOD. It's just like the late 80's - huge profits for the rich - on the backs of the sorry middle class. It works great! The economy crumbles, unemployment rises, etc., etc. - and then, the middle class American wealth "Trickles Up"....it's awesome. I loved trickling up money in the last bailout under Bush 1. I LOVE CORPORATE SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S AWESOME.
TO HECK WITH THE POOR, THE RICH NEED MORE MONEY!
*************************************************************
quote:
Before President Bush signed the 2003 tax cuts, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) released a statement signed by ten Nobel prize laureates entitled "Economists' Statement Opposing the Bush Tax Cuts," which states that:
“Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics
Is their any truth to the rumor that Sarah Palin has replaced Phil Gramm as John McCain's chief adviser in "voodoo" economics?
Ok , so let's see, you have a liberal source of wikipedia which clumsily explains with bias Supply Side Economics thusly:
"The typical policy recommendation of supply-side economics is to achieve the proper level of marginal tax rates, which, by virtue of the high rate of taxes in general, equates with cutting of taxes.[2] Maximum benefits are achieved by optimizing the marginal tax rates of those with high-incomes and capital who are deemed as most likely to increase supply and thus spur growth.[3] Mainstream Keynesian macroeconomics, by contrast, contends that tax cuts should be used to increase demand, not supply, and thus should be targeted at cash-strapped, lower-income households, who are more likely to spend additional income."
And then there is the other "pedia" explanation of supply side economics:
Supply-side theory is based on Say's law, which, paraphrased, states that supply creates its own demand. A simplified version of these ideas were taken up as a popular political movement during the 1980 election campaign, with Ronald Reagan proposing a modified policy of supply-side economics (although liberals disparagingly[Citation Needed] used the term "trickle-down" economics). [1] The decreased regulation begun in the late 1970s, together with lower marginal tax rates would provide enough savings and investment to pool new capital and drive economic growth. Manufacturers for example, would hire more people, produce more, and create more demand and economic activity. The idea gained wide popular support, and became known as "Reaganomics".
It's no wonder you included a non-sensical Palin attack, if you read liberal junk from liberal sources, you think ,,,,like a liberal which is wrong.
Then there's the whole matter of the Bush Tax Cuts which wikipedia laughinly points to the EPI's biased report using "wage stagnation" as their rediculous benchmark where as the "Income, Poverty and Health Insurance in the United States 2006" shows a much different story, that income increased under Bush Tax Cuts and mostly for lower income families.
http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/CensusIncomeQuintilesEtc2003to2006.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Trickle Down Economics - 10/8/2008 11:31:40 AM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2498
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist
Allow me to turn over the coin on your OP. sylvan
I just love bigger Government. Corporate and personal taxes on the wealthy will be at an all time high under BHO and the Dems. The congressmen have wasted sooooo much money - with awesome lack of accountability! How awesome is that!!!!! A million is good, but 700 billion is REAL GOOD. It's just like the late 70's - huge profits for the government - on the backs of the sorry achievers. It works great! Personal freedoms crumble, inflation rises, etc., etc. - and then, the middle class American spirit "Dries Up"....it's awesome. I loved paying high taxes in the mailaise under Carter. I LOVE BIG GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S AWESOME.
TO HECK WITH YOUR MONEY, THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS IT MORE!
You do understand that we DO have to pay down the national debt or is it Christian to borrow money and not pay it back?
Being that the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the taxes, if the government needs more money ($10 trillion) to pay for debt and GWOT (and that's not counting the $53 trillion that will be necessary in 2048) they need to tax the rich more to have more of an effect on the national bottom line. As the old saying states, "You can't squeeze blood from a turnip!"
_____________________________
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility."-David Walker, fmr comptroller general of the US
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Trickle Down Economics - 10/8/2008 12:31:58 PM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1033
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
quote:
ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist
Allow me to turn over the coin on your OP. sylvan
I just love bigger Government. Corporate and personal taxes on the wealthy will be at an all time high under BHO and the Dems. The congressmen have wasted sooooo much money - with awesome lack of accountability! How awesome is that!!!!! A million is good, but 700 billion is REAL GOOD. It's just like the late 70's - huge profits for the government - on the backs of the sorry achievers. It works great! Personal freedoms crumble, inflation rises, etc., etc. - and then, the middle class American spirit "Dries Up"....it's awesome. I loved paying high taxes in the mailaise under Carter. I LOVE BIG GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S AWESOME.
TO HECK WITH YOUR MONEY, THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS IT MORE!
You do understand that we DO have to pay down the national debt or is it Christian to borrow money and not pay it back?
Being that the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the taxes, if the government needs more money ($10 trillion) to pay for debt and GWOT (and that's not counting the $53 trillion that will be necessary in 2048) they need to tax the rich more to have more of an effect on the national bottom line. As the old saying states, "You can't squeeze blood from a turnip!"
First of all the US Government has never and will never default on its debt. This is why US government backed securities are considered the safest investment in the world.
Secondly, it seems that the spending is completely ignored in these discussions. While the GWOT is ceretainly a large and sudden jump in spending, so are entitlements. Something must be done in this area and it will most likely be something which will be widely disliked.
If an increase in taxes impacts the economy negatively the net result will be reduced revenue. The tax policy must be tuned such that the economy can continue to grow and revenues increase. Any other plan (such as "sticking it to the rich") is simply class warfare which benefits no one.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Trickle Down Economics - 10/8/2008 2:01:27 PM
|
|
|
letusreason
Posts: 809
Joined: 8/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
quote:
ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist
Allow me to turn over the coin on your OP. sylvan
I just love bigger Government. Corporate and personal taxes on the wealthy will be at an all time high under BHO and the Dems. The congressmen have wasted sooooo much money - with awesome lack of accountability! How awesome is that!!!!! A million is good, but 700 billion is REAL GOOD. It's just like the late 70's - huge profits for the government - on the backs of the sorry achievers. It works great! Personal freedoms crumble, inflation rises, etc., etc. - and then, the middle class American spirit "Dries Up"....it's awesome. I loved paying high taxes in the mailaise under Carter. I LOVE BIG GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S AWESOME.
TO HECK WITH YOUR MONEY, THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS IT MORE!
You do understand that we DO have to pay down the national debt or is it Christian to borrow money and not pay it back?
Being that the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the taxes, if the government needs more money ($10 trillion) to pay for debt and GWOT (and that's not counting the $53 trillion that will be necessary in 2048) they need to tax the rich more to have more of an effect on the national bottom line. As the old saying states, "You can't squeeze blood from a turnip!"
wow drinking that crazy liberal class warefare kool aid aren't we there? It's hard to argue with a "turnip" analogy to represent the U.S. Economy but let me try...
Palin has already demonstrated the Reaganomics principle in Alaska by lowering property taxes and business taxes to watch state revenues increase and see businesses grow. She didn't make 80% approval ratings on her looks.
Let me guess, you didn't know that? Of course not because the press is asking her about Bush doctrines, newspapers, and legal court cases.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Trickle Down Economics - 10/8/2008 3:23:05 PM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 548
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
First of all the US Government has never and will never default on its debt. This is why US government backed securities are considered the safest investment in the world.
Of course, I could borrow money and never default if I had the right to print the money used to pay off my debt.
quote:
Secondly, it seems that the spending is completely ignored in these discussions. While the GWOT is ceretainly a large and sudden jump in spending, so are entitlements. Something must be done in this area and it will most likely be something which will be widely disliked.
The fact that nothing has been done about spending means that our politicians are nothing but panderers.
quote:
If an increase in taxes impacts the economy negatively the net result will be reduced revenue. The tax policy must be tuned such that the economy can continue to grow and revenues increase. Any other plan (such as "sticking it to the rich") is simply class warfare which benefits no one.
Not necessarily. President Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and tax revenue went up. It depends on the magnitude of both the change in behavior due to the tax change and the change in the tax rate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Trickle Down Economics - 10/8/2008 6:05:00 PM
|
|
|
backrowbaptist
Posts: 380
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
quote:
ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist
Allow me to turn over the coin on your OP. sylvan
I just love bigger Government. Corporate and personal taxes on the wealthy will be at an all time high under BHO and the Dems. The congressmen have wasted sooooo much money - with awesome lack of accountability! How awesome is that!!!!! A million is good, but 700 billion is REAL GOOD. It's just like the late 70's - huge profits for the government - on the backs of the sorry achievers. It works great! Personal freedoms crumble, inflation rises, etc., etc. - and then, the middle class American spirit "Dries Up"....it's awesome. I loved paying high taxes in the mailaise under Carter. I LOVE BIG GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S AWESOME.
TO HECK WITH YOUR MONEY, THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS IT MORE!
You do understand that we DO have to pay down the national debt or is it Christian to borrow money and not pay it back?
Being that the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the taxes, if the government needs more money ($10 trillion) to pay for debt and GWOT (and that's not counting the $53 trillion that will be necessary in 2048) they need to tax the rich more to have more of an effect on the national bottom line. As the old saying states, "You can't squeeze blood from a turnip!"
quote:
First of all the US Government has never and will never default on its debt. This is why US government backed securities are considered the safest investment in the world.
We don't need to pay down the national debt through taxation. I've been hearing this my whole life. No one ever explains the federal government balance sheet. the government has far more assets than debt. Selling of fedral lands to private concerns would probably take care of the national debt. The SIZE of government is the problem, and it's reach into our lives.
_____________________________
Any of this gettin' through to you, son?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Trickle Down Economics - 10/9/2008 8:18:59 AM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2498
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
First of all the US Government has never and will never default on its debt. This is why US government backed securities are considered the safest investment in the world.
Our debt service was standing at 64% of GDP in February 2007. What happens when it is over 100%? You start accruing credit card payments that exceed your yearly income and see how many years you can pull that off!
"Safest" investments no longer. In the last weeks the federal and state governments are finding it increasingly difficult to sell their bonds to finance their day-to-day operations. Other countries are starting to forgo buying American debt because of the weakness of the dollar and its impact on the value of those bonds - they are becoming worth-less.
quote:
Secondly, it seems that the spending is completely ignored in these discussions. While the GWOT is ceretainly a large and sudden jump in spending, so are entitlements. Something must be done in this area and it will most likely be something which will be widely disliked.
Social security is the largest entitlement bill that the government faces. In 2017, that program will start paying out more money than it is taking in. More revenue needs to be generated by the government in order to service that debt. Where will that come from? Manna from heaven?
quote:
If an increase in taxes impacts the economy negatively the net result will be reduced revenue. The tax policy must be tuned such that the economy can continue to grow and revenues increase. Any other plan (such as "sticking it to the rich") is simply class warfare which benefits no one.
How will a federal bankruptcy affect the economy! Bush has been "cutting" taxes and giving us tax rebates and look how robust the economy is! Cut your income and the revenues go up? Ludicrous and it has never been proven but everyone likes to have their taxes cut! It's good politics even if it doesn't make a whit of economic sense!
_____________________________
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility."-David Walker, fmr comptroller general of the US
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Trickle Down Economics - 10/9/2008 11:25:04 AM
|
|
|
letusreason
Posts: 809
Joined: 8/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
quote:
Secondly, it seems that the spending is completely ignored in these discussions. While the GWOT is ceretainly a large and sudden jump in spending, so are entitlements. Something must be done in this area and it will most likely be something which will be widely disliked.
Social security is the largest entitlement bill that the government faces. In 2017, that program will start paying out more money than it is taking in. More revenue needs to be generated by the government in order to service that debt. Where will that come from? Manna from heaven?
You are a little off there, it's 2041, where are you getting that 2017? I notice you are not big on sources, so let's assume you heard some liberal distortion on cnn until you provide something concreate, k? And what do you see as the solution. If you only whine and complain without offering a solution and say Bush is bad , people will view you as a do-nothing (except complain) democrat.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
quote:
If an increase in taxes impacts the economy negatively the net result will be reduced revenue. The tax policy must be tuned such that the economy can continue to grow and revenues increase. Any other plan (such as "sticking it to the rich") is simply class warfare which benefits no one.
How will a federal bankruptcy affect the economy! Bush has been "cutting" taxes and giving us tax rebates and look how robust the economy is! Cut your income and the revenues go up? Ludicrous and it has never been proven but everyone likes to have their taxes cut! It's good politics even if it doesn't make a whit of economic sense!
Wrong-O there, again, unless you have some sources to prove that higher tax rates such as the ones Obama has suggested will result in economic growth they will not and will force the wealthy to tie up their wealth in tax shelters instead exposing it to taxation and force layoffs and jobs to shift over seas to where cheaper tax rates exist. And the U.S. is already one of the highest in the world! Did you hear Obama say most small businesses make less than 250k?? What a joke. Those making more than that, which are many, will get raped by his tax increases.
Until then, read the documented proof of the economic sense....
"Furthermore, according to a study published by the National Bureau for Economic Research,[2] the Clinton tax hike is failing to collect over 40 percent of the projected revenue increases. "
"individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989. "
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Trickle Down Economics - 10/9/2008 12:38:03 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1362
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JustaChristian
Now, there was an ideology that allowed back in the crooks through new "instruments" without regulation, and through removing time tried regulations. And that was done, primarily, by those with an (R) beginning with Reagan.
I myself tend to lean toward the republican position of deregulation but you know what kinda bothers me is that it seems most republicans are for deregulation when it comes to regulation that is intended to help the consumer but then I hardly ever see them try to argue against patents, copyrights, and intellectual property. Intellectual property itself is a form of government regulation but it seems that most republicans are only in favor of deregulation when it favors rich corporations, but when regulation is in favor of huge corporations, they seem quiet about trying to remove it. It's this apparent double standard that kinda makes me question their position.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Trickle Down Economics - 10/9/2008 12:51:40 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1362
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
I myself have spent considerable effort arguing against the current patent system, I think that the current length that intellectual property lasts is insanely long (I think that no piece of intellectual property should last more than 7 years, it being patents, copyrights, etc... except trademarks and trade dress) and I think that the current intellectual property system is in favor of huge corporations and that we need to deregulate by considerably shortening the period of intellectual property.
quote:
ORIGINAL: filhodedeus
I think there should be greater accountability and regulation on lending parameters, the printing of money and bailing out banks.
I think that any company that can say, "we're so big that you can't live without us, hence, we need to be bailed out" is pretty much breaking antitrust laws. The government should never have to bail anyone out (including GM), that's a form of government regulation. Let the company liquidate so that new companies can have a chance to emerge (without the already existing corporations acting as huge barriers to entry ie: because they already own much of the relevant capital) to create goods and services that are more relevant to what the consumer wants. If a company has to go bankrupt, it's because they were doing something wrong (ie: they weren't producing products that consumers want, they were too inefficient, etc...), let them go bankrupt and let new companies have a chance to compete (without having to deal with the barriers that current huge companies that are unfairly receiving government help are putting on them. The fact that they receive such government help and not new entrants is unfair to those new entrants and will prevent those entrants that can better produce what the consumer wants from entering the market) so that the companies that can best produce what the consumers want will have a better chance to grow. If GM, for instance, liquidates (and if they do so it will be because of mismanagement, inefficiencies, not producing what the consumer wants), new companies will start to compete with one another. Some will not do so well, other will do better (that's the nature of competition). Those that produce what the consumer wants most efficiently and effectively will grow and improve aggregate output, those that don't will eventually have their resources allocated to something that those resources can produce most efficiently/effectively (and a free market is the fastest way to do this since it does so automatically).
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 10/9/2008 1:17:44 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Trickle Down Economics - 10/9/2008 1:12:46 PM
|
|
|
letusreason
Posts: 809
Joined: 8/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
but when regulation is in favor of huge corporations, they seem quiet about trying to remove it. It's this apparent double standard that kinda makes me question their position.
Does it make you question their wanting to regulate by having lenders verify social sec numbers and income before granting a home loan and abolishing the practice of predatory lenders?
How does that favor the rich??
What does the patent system even have to do with this OP?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
I think that any company that can say, "we're so big that you can't live without us, hence, we need to be bailed out" is pretty much breaking antitrust laws.
Who said this? Or are you making this up as you go? man i get irritated by off topic story tellers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Trickle Down Economics - 10/9/2008 1:24:58 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1362
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: letusreason
Who said this? Or are you making this up as you go? man i get irritated by off topic story tellers.
The premise of the bail out was that if they don't lend the money, these companies will go out of business putting many people out of jobs and that it will ruin the economy. They are basically saying, "we're so big that you can't live without us, hence, we need to be bailed out" or rather, "we're so big that you can't live without us, hence, you need to bail us out"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Trickle Down Economics - 10/9/2008 1:31:47 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1362
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: letusreason
Does it make you question their wanting to regulate by having lenders verify social sec numbers and income before granting a home loan and abolishing the practice of predatory lenders?
How does that favor the rich??
I never said that everything about their position favors the rich.
quote:
What does the patent system even have to do with this OP?
I was responding to a statement about regulation and the point that I want to make is that we shouldn't only focus on the quantity of regulation, but we should also focus on the quality.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Trickle Down Economics - 10/9/2008 1:55:53 PM
|
|
|
letusreason
Posts: 809
Joined: 8/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: letusreason
Who said this? Or are you making this up as you go? man i get irritated by off topic story tellers.
The premise of the bail out was that if they don't lend the money, these companies will go out of business putting many people out of jobs and that it will ruin the economy. They are basically saying, "we're so big that you can't live without us, hence, we need to be bailed out" or rather, "we're so big that you can't live without us, hence, you need to bail us out"
Your opinionated embelishments are certainly entertaining though they are not based on any facts. Of course it's your prerogative in choosing to spread make believe if you want.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Trickle Down Economics - 10/9/2008 10:46:45 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1939
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: JustaChristian
Now, there was an ideology that allowed back in the crooks through new "instruments" without regulation, and through removing time tried regulations. And that was done, primarily, by those with an (R) beginning with Reagan.
I myself tend to lean toward the republican position of deregulation but you know what kinda bothers me is that it seems most republicans are for deregulation when it comes to regulation that is intended to help the consumer but then I hardly ever see them try to argue against patents, copyrights, and intellectual property. Intellectual property itself is a form of government regulation but it seems that most republicans are only in favor of deregulation when it favors rich corporations, but when regulation is in favor of huge corporations, they seem quiet about trying to remove it. It's this apparent double standard that kinda makes me question their position.
Wow, I actually agree with Betta on something! 
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
Hohohohoho 
Hehehehehe 
