jcd11235 0 #26 February 20, 2009 QuoteWhat additional long term spending do you feel comfortable doing with an extra $416 a year? The spending need not be long term to stimulate the economy. To stimulate the economy, the money only needs to be spent. If a tax cut is to provide maximum benefit to the economy, it needs to be given to those who can't afford to (or just won't) save it. $13 per week is a substantial amount of money for that purpose, when one takes into account how many people will be spending an extra $13 per week. Trickle down economics doesn't work. Money flows toward wealth, not away from it. If the economy is going to be successfully rejuvenated via tax cut stimulus, that stimulus has to target the people at the bottom first and foremost. If that group spends more, businesses make more money, resulting in more profits and employees working more (or new jobs being created), which in turn leads to more spending in the economy, creating a positive feedback loop.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,413 #27 February 20, 2009 >Selective tax cuts - however well meaning - disrupt the free market system . . . So your answer is no - you do not support the tax cuts in the stimulus package. Pretty much what I said above. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,413 #28 February 20, 2009 It is fun watching all the conservatives rail against a tax cut because it's coming from a democrat, I must say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #29 February 20, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhat additional long term spending do you feel comfortable doing with an extra $416 a year? The spending need not be long term to stimulate the economy. To stimulate the economy, the money only needs to be spent. Ah, so that's why Bush's stimulus checks worked. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #30 February 20, 2009 QuoteIt is fun watching all the conservatives rail against a tax cut because it's coming from a democrat, I must say. Your arguments have really gone downhill. The tax cut in this bill is rediculous. $8 a week. Really? The small business tax cuts were dropped from $64B to $4B. On the plus side, Amtrak will be set for a while. Let's say you break your arm (God forbid) and someone puts a Hello Kitty band-aid on it. You get pissed. Then someone says, "Why are you suddenly against medical care?" See where I'm going with that? It has nothing to do with who's porking it away. The tax cut is shit and not even close to something that may work. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #31 February 20, 2009 QuoteQuoteIt is fun watching all the conservatives rail against a tax cut because it's coming from a democrat, I must say. Your arguments have really gone downhill. The tax cut in this bill is rediculous. $8 a week. Really? The small business tax cuts were dropped from $64B to $4B. On the plus side, Amtrak will be set for a while. Bush did rebates of $300 and $600 in 2001 and 2008. This one is 416 or 676. Difference? Aside from being done as we go, rather than spending dollars per person to mail out checks, it came from a Democrat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Misternatural 0 #32 February 20, 2009 Since the OP was discussing the Dow I thought it useful for people to take a look at some of the companies that are represented. http://money.cnn.com/data/dow30/ Most investors these days look instead to the S&P because it is clear that the Dow is comprised of some corporations which are mired in the philosophy of the old school technologies and ways of doing business. Some of them are dinosaurs of the 70's that need to evolve or go bankrupt. You will notice that companies like GM and Bank Of America, Boeing, and Dupont are among them. From what I know of the stimulus package, which I have not read extensively because it is so lengthy, some of these companies have to do some major restructuring to survive so yes the stimulus package may in fact bring the Dow down further. Not necessarily a bad thing Lately I have switched my focus to the Nasdaq and S&P who's companies are better suited to a changing infrastructure and way of life. Free market capitalism is all about adaptation.Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires. D S #3.1415 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #33 February 20, 2009 Quote>Selective tax cuts - however well meaning - disrupt the free market system . . . So your answer is no - you do not support the tax cuts in the stimulus package. Pretty much what I said above. Actually you didn't say I didn't support the cuts in the stimuloot package, you asked me if I did. I just provided an explanation with my answer.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #34 February 21, 2009 Quote The last time it was this low was around 1997 Wow, what worthless Republican was President in 1997? Those bastardsYou are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #35 February 21, 2009 QuoteAh, so that's why Bush's stimulus checks worked. Had they worked, then why is there still need for more stimulus? If the current tax cuts prove to be helpful, it will likely be due to the fact that the money is spent continually instead of in a single shot.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #36 February 21, 2009 QuoteQuoteAh, so that's why Bush's stimulus checks worked. Had they worked, then why is there still need for more stimulus? If the current tax cuts prove to be helpful, it will likely be due to the fact that the money is spent continually instead of in a single shot. It used to work better the other way around - in 2001, it was believed everyone would go out and blow their $300. Last year, the same was expected, but didn't seem to happen. People were fearful enough of the unknown that many just saved the money. We do know that people won't save $10 per week. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #37 February 21, 2009 QuoteQuote>Permanent tax cuts across the board for businesses and individuals >would do just that. Until a democrat proposes one, that is. Then you will scream about how horrible it is that they're bankrupting the government. Bill - the forum doesn't need the attitude, and you really don't give people that don't share your view - me in this case - any credit at all. Not sure why your first instinct is to polarize, but it's not necessary. I think we will get more out of it by discussing the issue rather than discussing the people discussing the issue. Back on point, I don't care who proposes tax cuts. Tax cuts work. That's all I need to know. There's so much more going on with this whole stimulus stuff than meets the eye that it's sickening. The government - both sides - have been and are sticking up our asses, and the current administration is no different. Mr. Obama is just doing it on steroids and disguised as a stimulus package. This plan will bury this country. Hell, even Vladimir Putin has come out warning Obama to steer another direction or risk repeating the history of the Soviet Union post WWII. Think about that. China has issued a similar statement. Think about that. Cut taxes and get out of the way of hard working Americans and American businesses. That is the most sure-fire way to put the economy back on track. That will get my support no matter who gets it done. Simply add to that a decrease or illumination in spending to the illegal aliens and get the country back to a mind set that you have to WORK to make a living and the problems with deficit and budget dwindle considerably.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #38 February 21, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote>Permanent tax cuts across the board for businesses and individuals >would do just that. Until a democrat proposes one, that is. Then you will scream about how horrible it is that they're bankrupting the government. Bill - the forum doesn't need the attitude, and you really don't give people that don't share your view - me in this case - any credit at all. Not sure why your first instinct is to polarize, but it's not necessary. I think we will get more out of it by discussing the issue rather than discussing the people discussing the issue. Back on point, I don't care who proposes tax cuts. Tax cuts work. That's all I need to know. There's so much more going on with this whole stimulus stuff than meets the eye that it's sickening. The government - both sides - have been and are sticking up our asses, and the current administration is no different. Mr. Obama is just doing it on steroids and disguised as a stimulus package. This plan will bury this country. Hell, even Vladimir Putin has come out warning Obama to steer another direction or risk repeating the history of the Soviet Union post WWII. Think about that. China has issued a similar statement. Think about that. Cut taxes and get out of the way of hard working Americans and American businesses. That is the most sure-fire way to put the economy back on track. That will get my support no matter who gets it done. Simply add to that a decrease or illumination in spending to the illegal aliens and get the country back to a mind set that you have to WORK to make a living and the problems with deficit and budget dwindle considerably. And pulling some of the insane amounts of cash we send to other countries (much of which gets intercepted by the very leaders that starve the people we seek to help) could sure help out in or situation. Turtle my man, the world is upside down.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #39 February 21, 2009 QuoteQuoteAh, so that's why Bush's stimulus checks worked. Had they worked, then why is there still need for more stimulus? If the current tax cuts prove to be helpful, it will likely be due to the fact that the money is spent continually instead of in a single shot. They didn't work. I was being sarcastic. The second part is basically true. An upturn in the economy will be due to sustained increased spending, not a spike in income due to a stimulus check. The tax cuts in this bill won't provide longterm increased spending. It's $32 a month. That won't entice anyone to make longterm spending commitments. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #40 February 21, 2009 Quote And pulling some of the insane amounts of cash we send to other countries (much of which gets intercepted by the very leaders that starve the people we seek to help) could sure help out in or situation. Which countries do you think are 5 top recipients of US direct foreign aid (not even counting Iraq)? See p.18 for top foreign aid recipients 1995 & 2005. Do you want to pull back aid from the largest recipient? Are you asserting that the leadership of the single largest recipient of US foreign aid is starving its own people? In what form does that vast majority of that foreign aid take? (I.e., whose stuff are they buying with that foreign aid?) What percentage of the US’s GDP do you think goes to foreign aid? Here’s a intellectually provocative Op-Ed, originally published in The Washington Times, which argues: “if you look at which nation benefits most from foreign subsidies, the U.S. would come out on top by a very wide margin.” I disagree with some of Rahn's underlying thesis, but he does provide something about which to think, regarding net benefit of ‘foreign aid.’ ---- -- ---- Americans in general (80%, think it’s more than 3% GDP, which is wrong; it’s 0.3-0.7% of federal budget) have over-estimated *by orders of magnitude* (e.g., 100x or 1000x) the amount of foreign aid we give, the form in which it takes, and are generally poorly informed w/r/t who are recipient states and who aren’t of the largest amount. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #41 February 21, 2009 Quote Quote And pulling some of the insane amounts of cash we send to other countries (much of which gets intercepted by the very leaders that starve the people we seek to help) could sure help out in or situation. Which countries do you think are 5 top recipients of US direct foreign aid (not even counting Iraq)? See p.18 for top foreign aid recipients 1995 & 2005. Do you want to pull back aid from the largest recipient? Are you asserting that the leadership of the single largest recipient of US foreign aid is starving its own people? In what form does that vast majority of that foreign aid take? (I.e., whose stuff are they buying with that foreign aid?) What percentage of the US’s GDP do you think goes to foreign aid? Here’s a intellectually provocative Op-Ed, originally published in The Washington Times, which argues: “if you look at which nation benefits most from foreign subsidies, the U.S. would come out on top by a very wide margin.” I disagree with some of Rahn's underlying thesis, but he does provide something about which to think, regarding net benefit of ‘foreign aid.’ ---- -- ---- Americans in general (80%, think it’s more than 3% GDP, which is wrong; it’s 0.3-0.7% of federal budget) have over-estimated *by orders of magnitude* (e.g., 100x or 1000x) the amount of foreign aid we give, the form in which it takes, and are generally poorly informed w/r/t who are recipient states and who aren’t of the largest amount. /Marg I'm beginning to understand your screen name. Where do you jump? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #42 February 21, 2009 Quote Quote Quote And pulling some of the insane amounts of cash we send to other countries (much of which gets intercepted by the very leaders that starve the people we seek to help) could sure help out in or situation. Which countries do you think are 5 top recipients of US direct foreign aid (not even counting Iraq)? See p.18 for top foreign aid recipients 1995 & 2005. Do you want to pull back aid from the largest recipient? Are you asserting that the leadership of the single largest recipient of US foreign aid is starving its own people? In what form does that vast majority of that foreign aid take? (I.e., whose stuff are they buying with that foreign aid?) What percentage of the US’s GDP do you think goes to foreign aid? Here’s a intellectually provocative Op-Ed, originally published in The Washington Times, which argues: “if you look at which nation benefits most from foreign subsidies, the U.S. would come out on top by a very wide margin.” I disagree with some of Rahn's underlying thesis, but he does provide something about which to think, regarding net benefit of ‘foreign aid.’ ---- -- ---- Americans in general (80%, think it’s more than 3% GDP, which is wrong; it’s 0.3-0.7% of federal budget) have over-estimated *by orders of magnitude* (e.g., 100x or 1000x) the amount of foreign aid we give, the form in which it takes, and are generally poorly informed w/r/t who are recipient states and who aren’t of the largest amount. I'm beginning to understand your screen name. Where do you jump? Do you have a relevent response ... or do you just want to flirt with me? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #43 February 21, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote And pulling some of the insane amounts of cash we send to other countries (much of which gets intercepted by the very leaders that starve the people we seek to help) could sure help out in or situation. Which countries do you think are 5 top recipients of US direct foreign aid (not even counting Iraq)? See p.18 for top foreign aid recipients 1995 & 2005. Do you want to pull back aid from the largest recipient? Are you asserting that the leadership of the single largest recipient of US foreign aid is starving its own people? In what form does that vast majority of that foreign aid take? (I.e., whose stuff are they buying with that foreign aid?) What percentage of the US’s GDP do you think goes to foreign aid? Here’s a intellectually provocative Op-Ed, originally published in The Washington Times, which argues: “if you look at which nation benefits most from foreign subsidies, the U.S. would come out on top by a very wide margin.” I disagree with some of Rahn's underlying thesis, but he does provide something about which to think, regarding net benefit of ‘foreign aid.’ ---- -- ---- Americans in general (80%, think it’s more than 3% GDP, which is wrong; it’s 0.3-0.7% of federal budget) have over-estimated *by orders of magnitude* (e.g., 100x or 1000x) the amount of foreign aid we give, the form in which it takes, and are generally poorly informed w/r/t who are recipient states and who aren’t of the largest amount. I'm beginning to understand your screen name. Where do you jump? Do you have a relevent response ... or do you just want to flirt with me? /Marg No relevant response needed. I already made my point and don't really care what you think. As for flirting with you? No thanks.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #44 February 21, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote And pulling some of the insane amounts of cash we send to other countries (much of which gets intercepted by the very leaders that starve the people we seek to help) could sure help out in or situation. Which countries do you think are 5 top recipients of US direct foreign aid (not even counting Iraq)? See p.18 for top foreign aid recipients 1995 & 2005. Do you want to pull back aid from the largest recipient? Are you asserting that the leadership of the single largest recipient of US foreign aid is starving its own people? In what form does that vast majority of that foreign aid take? (I.e., whose stuff are they buying with that foreign aid?) What percentage of the US’s GDP do you think goes to foreign aid? Here’s a intellectually provocative Op-Ed, originally published in The Washington Times, which argues: “if you look at which nation benefits most from foreign subsidies, the U.S. would come out on top by a very wide margin.” I disagree with some of Rahn's underlying thesis, but he does provide something about which to think, regarding net benefit of ‘foreign aid.’ ---- -- ---- Americans in general (80%, think it’s more than 3% GDP, which is wrong; it’s 0.3-0.7% of federal budget) have over-estimated *by orders of magnitude* (e.g., 100x or 1000x) the amount of foreign aid we give, the form in which it takes, and are generally poorly informed w/r/t who are recipient states and who aren’t of the largest amount. I'm beginning to understand your screen name. Where do you jump? Do you have a relevent response ... or do you just want to flirt with me? No relevant response needed. I already made my point and don't really care what you think. What point? Confident assertions that are inaccurate? That's making a point? It's not about what I think or don't think. You are the only one trying to make it personal or about me (hence inquiry w/r/t flirting). It's about the inaccuracy of your assertions. Which countries receive foreign aid? What is the form that foreign aid takes? How much foreign aid do we actually budget? That's pretty basic. Technology enables an amazing amount of information. Technology has made accessing that information fabulously easy. At some point, it either becomes an issue of personal responsibility or stubborness in wanting to believe false concepts when folks won't even take advantage of something made as simple for them to access to find out the information, especially as easy as I did above. Quote As for flirting with you? No thanks. Okay, you keep shifting away from topical discussion & avoiding responding topically, so one had to start wondering. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #45 February 21, 2009 Quote [chuckakers] As for flirting with you? No thanks. Well in that case.... Nerdgirl.... How you doin?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #46 February 21, 2009 Your problem is you let facts stand in the way of a good right-wing rant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #47 February 21, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote And pulling some of the insane amounts of cash we send to other countries (much of which gets intercepted by the very leaders that starve the people we seek to help) could sure help out in or situation. Which countries do you think are 5 top recipients of US direct foreign aid (not even counting Iraq)? See p.18 for top foreign aid recipients 1995 & 2005. Do you want to pull back aid from the largest recipient? Are you asserting that the leadership of the single largest recipient of US foreign aid is starving its own people? In what form does that vast majority of that foreign aid take? (I.e., whose stuff are they buying with that foreign aid?) What percentage of the US’s GDP do you think goes to foreign aid? Here’s a intellectually provocative Op-Ed, originally published in The Washington Times, which argues: “if you look at which nation benefits most from foreign subsidies, the U.S. would come out on top by a very wide margin.” I disagree with some of Rahn's underlying thesis, but he does provide something about which to think, regarding net benefit of ‘foreign aid.’ ---- -- ---- Americans in general (80%, think it’s more than 3% GDP, which is wrong; it’s 0.3-0.7% of federal budget) have over-estimated *by orders of magnitude* (e.g., 100x or 1000x) the amount of foreign aid we give, the form in which it takes, and are generally poorly informed w/r/t who are recipient states and who aren’t of the largest amount. I'm beginning to understand your screen name. Where do you jump? Do you have a relevent response ... or do you just want to flirt with me? No relevant response needed. I already made my point and don't really care what you think. What point? Confident assertions that are inaccurate? That's making a point? It's not about what I think or don't think. You are the only one trying to make it personal or about me (hence inquiry w/r/t flirting). It's about the inaccuracy of your assertions. Which countries receive foreign aid? What is the form that foreign aid takes? How much foreign aid do we actually budget? That's pretty basic. Technology enables an amazing amount of information. Technology has made accessing that information fabulously easy. At some point, it either becomes an issue of personal responsibility or stubborness in wanting to believe false concepts when folks won't even take advantage of something made as simple for them to access to find out the information, especially as easy as I did above. Quote As for flirting with you? No thanks. Okay, you keep shifting away from topical discussion & avoiding responding topically, so one had to start wondering. /Marg OK, so have you not noticed yet that I'm not really reading your replies? I do still wonder where you jump, though.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #48 February 21, 2009 Quote OK, so have you not noticed yet that I'm not really reading your replies? I do still wonder where you jump, though. So not enough mutual respect to read and respond to her posts, but enough that where she jumps is important? Just say, "I was talking out of my ass", and get on with it. .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #49 February 21, 2009 Quote It's $32 a month. That won't entice anyone to make longterm spending commitments. It's not supposed to entice long term spending. The biggest chance it has of working is due to it being too small to be noticed, thus not changing spending habit from ~100% of income. The less likely that the extra money be noticed, the more likely it is to be spent immediately. The higher proportion that it is spent immediately, the more bang for the buck in terms of economic growth. The increased duration, as opposed to a single check, increases the chances of the growth being a trend instead of a short term spike.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #50 February 21, 2009 Quote Quote OK, so have you not noticed yet that I'm not really reading your replies? I do still wonder where you jump, though. So not enough mutual respect to read and respond to her posts, but enough that where she jumps is important? Just say, "I was talking out of my ass", and get on with it. .jim I don't need "mutual respect" to be curious where someone jumps. But thanks for chiming in unnecessarily.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
