change is temporary
Printable View
change is temporary
still a one way street..
...a cycle of bipolar satisfaction nevertheless.
one minute we aren't satisfied, so we toil and suffer through a trial of changes resulting in a minute of satisfaction, and the next minute we are watching ourselves roll down a hill like a car without brakes that won't shift out of neutral.
so far, that slope has ended gradually before leveling back out into a plane, but eventually it will be cliff. don't hold your breath for the optimism of mankind.
you can't win them all, just ask the new england patriots
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemehul
You're a fool then. Read your history, USA demolished loads of democracies to let loose dictators to roam freely. Also, USA supported Saddam Hussein, as a dictator, and gave him WMD to use upon his own ppl, and he killed hundreds of thousands.
Also, Obama will lower taxes for 90% of the population. Mccain would lower taxes for the rich only, and make the rich richer. Plus he had bimbo-palin, the smartest woman ever to live. (haha)
Also, most fanatics aren't fanatics until driven to it. Hamas for example, is a product of Israeli opression. Palestinians used to be very secular, but they are cornered and desperate ppl without education turn to religion.
Be nice to ppl, don't bomb them, and they won't bomb you.
Osama Bin Laden is a product of american idiocy. You messed up, and created Osama bin Laden.
Way to top a dead thread Stoffi.
Must be a Norway thing tho because anyone that actually thinks Obama or anyone else will lower taxes with 2 wars going on on top of the spending plan he wants to implement really hasnt a clue.Taxing the rich is actually the worst thing as they own all the companies,all that will do is make them lower production,close plants and ship even more jobs over seas. lowering taxes helps the economy not raising them .
For all of the who voted for who look at how the poorest states per capital voted not for Obama.the rich northeastern states ,and liberal California where most of the so called rich people ,old money families are from and Florida where most retired to voted for Obama because they know their taxes wont be raised.
To many my teacher said or i learned in school in this thread tho which is only as good as the teachers ideas themself.
Thanks Sully
If you look at the topline numbers, maybe. But that's not anywhere close to the whole story. Check out this link:Quote:
For all of the who voted for who look at how the poorest states per capital voted not for Obama.the rich northeastern states ,and liberal California where most of the so called rich people ,old money families are from and Florida where most retired to voted for Obama because they know their taxes wont be raised.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...c%20map&st=cse
I think that tells you what you need to know...
I think there are very few people still saying that right now...Quote:
lowering taxes helps the economy not raising them .
Look at the actual states. which state do you think has more poor or lower class people and who did those states vote for ?
Alabama or California
Arkansas or Connecticut
Georgia or Delaware
Louisiana or Maine
Oklahoma or Massachusetts
Tennesse or Pennsylvania
most of these states on the left are very poor states and if you have ever been to any of them its obvious they are also other than the major cities.
the states on the right if you have ever been there even the coutry side outside of the cities is no where near as poor as the other few states in thsi example.
the poorest states didnt vote for Obama for some reason while the upper east coast sure did.
Any person who thinks taxing bussinesses which means the top 5% of people who actually own most of the large companies aswell as their satalite companies that filter off of them will help the economy has no clue how bussiness works.its easy to say tax the wealthy but its the wealthy guy that buys the 500k car or boat or $50 mil.home that these saleman gets a % of that pays their bills also who in turn spend that money on a $40k car or send their kids to school .its a filter process that extends down when taxes are raised.If the rich guy has to spend 5 mil more on something than he did last year do you think he will not make that up whether by lay offs or over charging some other bussiness for something they need ? these people didnt get rich being stupid nor will most lose anything thruout it. middle class people lose money on the stock market trying to get rich. not the upper class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlymad
The rich companies got enough benefits and money as it is. In Norway, oil companies tax 76%, and they are still rich! And it's much cheaper to get oil in usa aswell, so the oil companies are extremely rich.
Anyways, without consumers, nothing gets sold. You need your consumers to have money, so they can buy stuff and thereby invest in american companies.
and yeah, way to bump a dead thread :)
And as i said tho. they pass those extra taxes down. they remain rich while the working class take it in the rear because prices go up.it all filters downward. So as you say comsumers need money to keep the economy going.raising taxes on the rich means they raise their prices forceing the working people to have even less to spend which defeats the purpose of the tax increase. A tax increase is always good for 1 thing only. higher government spending for thingsa they swear we have to have but never see the benefits of.
I take it you didn't even click on the link, did you...
Those states voting in larger percentages for Republicans has more to do with religion than the economy. You basically referenced the bible belt... This is an area that Republicans have targetted to get those one-issue 'moral' voters to flock to them by promising things like a constitutional gay marriage amendment which they had no intention of actually delivering on.
The Republican party itself is just a cobbed together union of separate factions. The fiscal conservatives (ie- most of the House delegation- the ones who shot down the original bailout plan) couldn't care less about the 'moral' issues that the social conservatives are obsessed with, nor do they want the expense associated with the neocons' imperialist dreams for America. The social conservatives are one-issue voters who only go to the polls to make sure their religious views make it into law- which is why ballot initiatives (like the gay marriage ban in California and abortion ban in South Dakota) succeed in getting more of them to the polls. The neocons don't really care who they have to court to get what they want done. They suffer from visions of grandeur and the end justifies the means for them- (see Bush the second and his crew...) Libertarians have become more visible as well, being outraged at the growth in government seen during Bush's reign- the exact opposite of what they want to see happen.
And why did all of these groups come together? Because none of them have anywhere near enough support to win an election on their own! Your ignorant voter assessment is just wrong and if that was passed down by a teacher, then our education system is in worse shape than I thought...
Now, on to your economic wanderings. What you're describing is the delusion of 'trickle down economics.' I think it's plain to see, however, that this is a farce. Historical tax rates have been much higher (well over 70% at times) for the top income bracket, compared to the current 35%, yet our economy has crashed anyway. Just take a look at your example to see why this theory doesn't work. You mention a rich guy buying a $50mil house. Well, if he's making, say 9 or 10 figures anually, I think he was going to buy the house whether his tax was 35% or 45%, what do you think? You betcha. And how about the car or boat? $0.5mil..? Chump change, of course. So lowering taxes on rich people doesn't cause them to buy more stuff, it just gives them more cash to dabble in the types of risky investments that have ACTUALLY crashed our economy. (And some to hide in off-shore bank accounts)
And people, for the purposes of discussing big business, income tax is different than corporate tax!! Raising income taxes does not mean a CEO will need to lay off employees. If the corporate tax and FICA are not changed, then the tax burden of companies is the same, all that changes is how much the executives and top earners in the company need to pay on their personal taxes in April. And if the CEO wants to lay off employees to give himself a bigger salary to cover his increased personal taxes, well then f*%^ him. :p
Amen.Quote:
Anyways, without consumers, nothing gets sold. You need your consumers to have money, so they can buy stuff and thereby invest in american companies.
yea i saw your link. also saw where it came from. may as well been CNN .Most of the states are also heavy in the Minority vote and they didnt even win the state.
yes taxes have been higher before, last time they were high President Clinton had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lower their standards and allow people who couldnt get loans to now be able to. 8 years later those banks had more defaulted loans and collapsed or helped collapse the economy
When you own a bussiness 10+ years you can explain to me how taxation actually works and no trickle down sure isnt a farce. Most small bussiness owners face it every day.We see first hand how taxation effects not only our bussinesses but also hiring,expanding and every aspect of it.the only farce is that people dont understand it because the media tells them it isnt so.
You must not have heard the Bush speech that said 'Everyone in America should be able to buy a home' then.
It's banks making bad loans, bad investments. How many credit card offers were sent to you when you turned 18?
No it does not work. It has been proven NOT to work. Look at 20+ years of trickle-down economics has done. The wealthy are doing just fine. No problem making sure the children are fed. It the working class that has gotten the shaft. Trickle down makes the wealthy more wealthy and the lower classes get what 'trickle down'.Quote:
When you own a bussiness 10+ years you can explain to me how taxation actually works and no trickle down sure isnt a farce.
Put the money directly into the hands of the working class and you will see more spending. More spending means more profit to make out there. When people are spending money and profits are up, jobs are created. What point is there in putting more money into the hands of the wealthy with tax cuts when the population doesn't have the money to spend to create profit? If the people are not spending money, your not making profits. Your sure as hell are not going to be creating more jobs...
What does the source have to do with it? It's merely comparing vote totals between 2008 and 2004.. Feel free to compare the raw numbers yourself, you'll come up with the same info. (And FYI- if I was going to pick one of the 24/7 news networks to put in the same boat as NYT, I'd pick MSNBC...)Quote:
yea i saw your link. also saw where it came from. may as well been CNN .Most of the states are also heavy in the Minority vote and they didnt even win the state.
Well, where do I start. Ok, first take a look at this. Suggesting that taxes were 'high' under Clinton is a joke.Quote:
yes taxes have been higher before, last time they were high President Clinton had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lower their standards and allow people who couldnt get loans to now be able to. 8 years later those banks had more defaulted loans and collapsed or helped collapse the economy
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/...175910,00.html
Open the spreadsheet and look at the top tax rates. Under Clinton it was 39.6%, Bush II lowered it to 35%. Go back just a little farther and see what 'high' really is! Post-WWII it was at 91%! Sure, Clinton's rates were a little higher than the end of Reagan through Bush I, but in no way can you call it 'high taxes.'
The other problem with that statement is that the subprime loans are what caused the economic meltdown. Sure, that had a part, but only because these loans were sold as soon as they were issued and became fodder for investment banks and hedge funds. Overall, subprime loans as of late last year made up less than 13% of all home loans. If these loans stayed with their original issuers, sure it would've hit some hard, but I don't think any banks would have gone under. There would have been a little wake up call, maybe a few mergers and we would have moved on already. But instead, these loans were sold, bundled, rebundled, bet on through swaps, etc, inflating their value and risk exponentially.
The real issue is the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that was put in place to specifically outlaw this kind of activity to prevent another Great Depression. While it did pass under Clinton, this was merely caving to decades of pressure by the financial industry, and with credit due in no small part to Phil Gramm, Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. The act that repealed Glass-Steagall was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and was inserted as a 262-page amendment to the final version of a $384 billion omnibus spending bill. (A side-note, yes this is the same Phil Gramm that was McCain's economic advisor!) This rolled back the rules separating commercial and investment banks, insurance companies and securities firms which has led to the insane investments we see today. The subprime loans aren't even the half of the problem though. The Act specifically kept regulation out of the swaps market, and that is where the problem is. Go do some reading, it will shock you. (And if reading about an unregulated house-of-cards market worth $62 trillion [yes, trillion] doesn't shock you, I don't really want to know what will...)
That may be more info than needed, but basically throwing the blame at Freddie, Fannie and Bill Clinton is oversimplifying and, frankly the type of thing that enables this greed and excess...
Now as a small business owner, you're not seeing the first-hand effects of trickle down economics. What you are actually seeing is the money trickling up. Giving tax breaks to those who don't even come close to spending the money they already have (which I assume is a boat that most small business owners do not fall into) won't encourage them to spend more. But money given to those whose needs meet or exceed their yearly salary is money that WILL be spent. Example: My wife and I have one car. We've had 2 in the past and need to again with kids, jobs, etc, but we can't afford it. Especially with winter in Vermont coming.. But if the economy was better with better wages, higher paying jobs available, food prices under control, and basically more money in our pockets, then hell yeah we'd have a second car. And if I had enough room in my pay, I'd actually be contributing to my 401k putting money into the markets. I think you get the point.. And most small businesses do well when people buy their stuff. The 'consumers' of our society are the poor and middle-class, so if they have cash to burn, they are buying the stuff that makes the economy go round. And this is why money trickles up, not down. I think the past few decades have shown us clearly that the top 1% just hoard any wealth they get and try as hard as they can to keep any from 'trickling' out of their grasp... (Also, what do politicians, even Republicans, do when they want to 'stimulate the economy?' I can remember receiving a check in the mail on two separate occasions, and I am far from the top 1%.. :p )
I would urge you to look a little deeper into these subjects. Even though you accuse me of listening to what the media tells me, your rhetoric is exactly what's been drilled into everyone's head by the media and what's enabled the corporate greed and fraud that has crashed our economy. The media pushes tax cuts for the rich as a means of saving the economy even though it has yet to, the media has scapegoated Freddie and Fannie, the media pushes the idea that Democrats can't compete nationwide. And worst of all lately, the media refuses to cover the issues that are actually killing our economy and instead gets away with blaming millions of poor people in this country for the state our economy is in, as if some bad home loans could ever cause a worldwide recession!
Actually... If you look up any reliable data, you'll find trickle down only helps the rich. And it doesn't help small business owners because they normally do not make enough to hit the top marginal tax rate. tax cuts for small businesses, is in fact a middle class tax break. Not a reagan corporate tax break. The problem is that there is tight money, and loose money. Cutting taxes isn't always the best route. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. When rich people have too much money they just save, but if they truly ARE overtaxed, then we still don't really lose many jobs, you just get inflation.
The problem in usa is that the large business owners have been made filthy rich by low taxation and because they pay their workers less than any underdeveloped country. When oil companies in Norway can pay 78% tax, so can oil companies in USA. It's much cheaper to pump up oil in USA, production costs are lower and wages are far from norwegian wages, oil workers in Norway make alot of money. I'd say an average oil worker makes 90000 dollars. Yeah, that's the guys on the floor.Quote:
Originally Posted by onlymad