Flyguy

Economic policies: In the toilet. What exactly has he done in the last 3 and a half years as president except run up record deficits, lose millions of jobs and reward companies who outsource in the name of economic prosperity?

Environmental policy: Non-existent. Plus, we can't dig for oil forever, which is Bush's answer to everything.

Education: No child left behind my ass.

International relations: Need I say more?

Energy: Again, we can't dig for oil forever so what are we going to do? Is Bush searching for the next source of energy or is he making sure that Dick gets to keep lining his pockets?

Health Care: If stem cell research has even a possibility to cure some of the worst diseases, the WHY THE HELL HAVEN'T WE TAKEN ADVANTAGE?????? Because of some right-winger's belief that god doesn't believe in it? Who the hell are Bush and his lackeys to say that they know what's good for the rest of us based on his backwards ass beliefs, which at least half of the country doesn't believe in?!?!

And finally, basically lying to the country about this fucked up war. I'm all for kicking terrorist ass, but TELL THE FUCKING TRUTH ABOUT IT!


And just to be non-partisan, there's not a damn thing I like about Kerry either. But, he still has my vote. His speech last night was nothing more that a speech that somebody else wrote. Its just words.

Disclaimer: No pop-up ads have influenced my decision in any way.

Seaver

Lower taxes give people back money which they spend, increasing the economy. The recession started before he even took office, and hit hard with the post-9/11 fears, and economies arent something you can turn around in a weeks time, it takes years.

I dont see Kerry being able or willing to change the way our economy works, it'll still be driven by oil.

He tried to do the same thing he did in Texas. It worked very well here (though Californian liberals claim otherwise). It didnt work on a National level, why? because education falls under states rights.

God you people act like he's still working for them. He retired from his position a long time ago.

1) I dont like people telling me that my religion is "backwards ass".

2) Show where half the country supports Stem Cell research.

Once again I'll state this. The US inquiry, the British, the UN, and even the Russian intelligence services ALL stated that WMDs were there and being built. Hell I remember Clinton stating about the stockpiles (something easily forgotten apparently). He didnt lie, what happened was a mistake became a truth because so many people believed it. Bush thought we were in danger, Congress agreed (even your boy Kerry), he acted on it. Now we realize there wasnt any there, but you have to be a man and stand up for what you did (read: Bush), not give petty excuses and hide behind the anti-war wave (read: Kerry).

seretogis

Well, that's all that I needed to read in order to dismiss this thread. Good day.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

MSD

shakran

OK. So when Reagan and Bush the First had 12 years to make this concept work, why couldn't they?

The trickle down theory works great on paper, but unfortunately, it assumes that people will always do what's best for the economy. That's a false assumption - people will do what they percieve as best for them.

i.e. if you give me $5,000, I could buy stock with it which would help generate jobs etc etc, or I could buy a nice TV, or I could stuff it under my mattress for a rainy day. Most people are gonna take the 2nd or 3rd option.

Trickle-down enriches the already wealthy while the underpriviledged have to wait at the feet of the rich hoping for a few small squeezings. It not only is a flawed economic policy, it's a damned heartless one as well.

Seaver

You act like the tax cuts only hit the rich. It was a % cut that affected everyone.

Yes the rich got a bigger sum back, but the same percent.

Which increases demand/output/profit in the TV industry, the middle-men selling it, and a whole lot of positive things to get the economy going again. They in turn spend the money on a new car/food/cloths/etc and gee wiz look we have a growing economy.

Only retards would stuff it anywhere. If nothing else they put it in a bank, which uses it to hand out loans which lead to investment which leads to growth.

If Bush's tax cuts were the same as Reagan that may be so, but they didnt give them anymore of a cut than anyone else in America.

KMA-628

Gov't spending wasn't kept in check. Reagan's plan actually significantly increased gov't revenue, but outlays grew too much. Then, Sr. raised the taxes thinking that would help--it didn't, never has.

Also, compare the numbers of the 70's with the numbers of the 80's, there was a dramatic difference. I remember the inflation rates under Carter--I also remember looking for gas stations that had a green flag in front (red flag = no gas). Those days were not fun.

That is incorrectly protraying "trickle-down" theory. It never says that people will do what's best for the economy. People will do what is best for themselves--Basic Economic Theory, taught the first week in Economics class. Claiming that "trickle-down" economics "assumes that people will always do what's best for the economy" - Is a False Assumption



Actually, the 3rd option is the worst thing anyone can do, regardless of the political persuasion - Cash never increases in value, it always decreases. That thinking applies to the pre-FDIC days when nobody trusted banks and their money wasn't safe in a bank.

Either Option 1 or Option 2 stimulate the economy, in a way (without having to argue the "broken windshield" theory).

To your last point, the "under-privileged" pay little or no taxes. There is no point giving a tax break to someone who has no burden. Giving a tax break to someone who pays almost nothing (I have prepared several of their returns, so I see the numbers) does absolutely nothing for the economy. Their ratio is already imbalanced (what they get versus what they pay).

I really cannot think of any economic theory involving the "under priviledged" which leads to economic growth.

Trickle Down/Supply-Side/Whatever has never had the chance to work. It and any other economic stimulus package has always been offset by spending.

Further Info:

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

hammer4all

Use some freakin' common sense people. Give $1000 to a poor person who can barely get by and give $1000 to a millionaire. Who do you think is more likely to spend it and thus stimulate the economy? There is a reason why the rich and well-to-do are pushing this "trickle down" idea and it's not because they think it will help the poor...

KMA-628

That would be nice if the numbers were more accurate.

It doesn't equate the same. If the tax break to a "rich" person is $1000.00 then the same tax break to a "poor" or "under priviledged" person is a tiny, tiny fraction of that.

If it were $1,000.00 it wouldn't be a tax break it would be a gift.

Supply-side/Trickle-Down is not about gifts it is about reducing marginal rates.

I am all for you giving a "poor" person a gift of a $1,000.00

We just need to add a line to the 1040 that states "I want to give XXX dollars to the poor in addition to the taxes I am paying".

That gives me my tax break and it gives you the chance to give gifts. We both will feel better then.

/how many people would voluntarily increase their tax rate come April?

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

Seaver

It's not a gift if you take half of what a farmer produces, and give him back a bread of loaf.

KMA-628

Seaver,

I'm afraid I didn't understand your post. Are you referring to crops or to taxes?

Does somebody take half of a farmers crops?

I can, however, understand if this is analogy to the farmers taxes. In that case a marginal tax break would help him/her (don't forget, the recent tax "breaks" were heavier in regards to increasing deductions then they were to decreasing marginal rates)

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

boatin

as far as stem cell research, i would respect the conservative view more if it were consistent. the problem is that that genenic material can't be used for research because it kills a future life, right?

what about the same material being used in the myriad ways we artificially inseminate? lots of byproduct that gets flushed in those processes...

if the end justified the means, then stem cell research should be ok also. genetic goo is either to valuable to use for any purpose, or it's valuable if the end result is valuable. either way, picking on only stem cell research is hypocritical.

it's not just a political football, is it?

Seaver

It was using an analogy for taxes. People may not work the land but they sure devote the same amount of time for what they make.

My point was the same, it's not a "gift" if they first take it away from you and then give it back, it's taking less.

Mojo_PeiPei

Poor person would spend the money no doubt, but the only way they would further benefit the economy is by their cigarette addiction or booze. By saying that I am in no way asserting all "poor people" are black death smoking cancer heads or booze hounds, I'm just saying that food to my knowledge is not taxed, what else are they going to spend it on that will generate revenue?

When a rich person invests do they not get taxed on their returns? Or at the very least they'll piss it away on a flat screen for their bathroom. Who knows maybe they will put the money towards at extra upgrade at the Mercedes dealership, bottomline is they will be redistributing money right back into the economy.

Also for all you "yeah but" anti-Bush economists who constantly bitch about job lose. On top of the good market and job growth from Nov 2002 Until just recently when it slowed up, the unemployment rate was below the Ten year average for the last 30 years (70-80, 80-90, 90-00).

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Kadath

Argh, you make me crazy. Reagan submitted HUGE budgets to Congress. They gave him less than he wanted. He's the one who didn't keep it in check. Also, part of the reason government revenue went up was the richest people in the country more than doubled their income over his term, so it didn't matter that Reagan cut their taxes 15%. It's not like the man was some kind of economic visionary! Stop it.

__________________
it's quiet in here

KMA-628

Kadath,

With defense out of the budget (no one is going to argue that Reagan spent a ton on defense) please back up your assertion.

I ask because I have heard the reverse of what you state.

Seaver,

Read my post again.

It is a GIFT because you would be giving these "poor" and "under priviledged" souls back more than they paid. We are not talking farmers here. "Poor" and "Under priviledged" usually equates to being below the poverty line, destitute.

A lot of these people are actually making money when it comes to taxes. And, when you only pay $500.00 in taxes and you get a break of $1000.00 it is a GIFT because you never paid the money in the first place.

We went round and round because you didn't understand my post.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

cthulu23

You seem to be confusing generating tax revenue with contributing to the economy. Food, utilities, shelter, gas, entertainment and every other thing that a citizen buys in our society contributes to the economy. Consumer spending, commonly cited as the primary driver of the economy, does not just mean luxury items.

It seems to be conventional wisdom that more money for the richest citizens means more economic investment. Following that line of thinking, does it not also stand to reason that increased spending by the lower echelons of society would drive up profits, thereby providing the invesment sector with more capitol?

cthulu23

Most poor citizens pay much more in payroll taxes than income taxes. The earned income tax credit is a way of alleviating that tax burden, as well.

KMA-628

cthulu23,

I have seen some of their tax returns and that just doesn't hold true.

One example I am thinking of the person got back more than they paid in taxes in total (including non-income taxes). And this isn't the only case.

At or below a certain level, which could be described as poor, what the person receives is far more than they pay (including social programs as well). I just really don't see this as a burden. The burden is the amount of money they earn, not how much they are taxed.

Giving the poor free money is not considered a tax break and it is has nothing to do with lowering marginal rates. It is a totally different argument.

Plus, we are leaving out the multiplier effect in regards to lowering marginal rates versus giving away free money. The effect that the tax breaks have is compounded whereas the free money aspect into the economy isn't.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

james t kirk

Well, this may be simplistic, but in terms of the economy, does it really matter who spends the money? The government, or Joe Schmo. It all goes to the bottom line.

In a perversely simple world.

cthulu23

What doesn't hold true? The EITC was intended to offset payroll taxes. The fact that the refund amount often surpasses the total amount of taxes paid is indicative of another facet of the program, which was to encourage the lowest income earners to work rather than to live on welfare.

The EITC was created in 1975 and expanded in 1986, 1990, 1993 and 2001. As the years seem to indicate, it has been suppported by both parties and has not always been a controversial subject. In fact, some consider it quite successful.

KMA-628

I am not arguing the EITC at all.

I am saying that any program that reduces taxes will not really benefit people who don't pay taxes or pay very little.

Long run, yes. Short term, in their paychecks, no.


James,

It is a debatable point, but yes it does matter who spends the money (IMO). I use the multiplier effect as my back-up on this.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

Seaver

Heh KMA we both didnt understand each other.

I was talking about middle-upper class and taxes while you were talking about the lower class. Yes giving money to the lower class would be a gift. What I was talking about is the tax cuts for the middle-upper not being a gift but taking less away.

KMA-628

Don't you hate it when that happens?

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

Kadath

KMA
Upon research, I stand corrected. Congress upped Reagan's budget a total of 0.6%. They spent an extra 47 billion over the years 82-89 -- a period where the debt went up 1.042 trillion. So I guess you can blame them.

__________________
it's quiet in here

KMA-628

yeah, no kidding.

Regardless of the president or his party, congress just spends and spends...

I have mentioned this before, but we need an amendment that closely regulates gov't spending, increases, etc.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

Kadath

Serves me right, trying to be sarcastic with plain text.

I agree that government spending is wasteful -- I make much of my living off of it.

__________________
it's quiet in here