Bush '04

[quasi-modo]

Bush is a bullshit artist. Not to mention Kerry as well. which is why Raulph Nator is the man to vote for.

I am deeply moved that YaYYo supports Nader so strongly that he cannot even spell Nader's name correctly.  This can only be because YaYYo was trembling in awe of his chosen political candidate.

I didn't even catch the spelling error 

[Hazard]

The problem with Nader is that he is by no means a realist and has nothing to offer.

[quasi-modo]

Well a vote for nader is twice as good as a vote for kerry and half as good as a vote for Bush.

[Adron]

Just because a business gets a tax break doesn't mean their up the wages of everyone, they'll probably invest it in better things (e.g. expansion).

it means they can increase production and hire more people though.

There's a small problem with this: Increasing production won't help if there aren't people around with money to buy what they produce. If you cut taxes to companies, they'll have to lower the prices of what they sell for it to increase flow in economy. When was the last time you saw that happen?

It's much easier to increase flow by feeding in more money at the bottom, to the people who buy stuff. When they buy stuff, the companies get the money and can increase production and hire more people.

[Hazard]

Well a vote for nader is twice as good as a vote for kerry and half as good as a vote for Bush.

The only purpose he serves is to detract votes from the liberal/Democratic candidate.

[quasi-modo]

Just because a business gets a tax break doesn't mean their up the wages of everyone, they'll probably invest it in better things (e.g. expansion).

it means they can increase production and hire more people though.

There's a small problem with this: Increasing production won't help if there aren't people around with money to buy what they produce. If you cut taxes to companies, they'll have to lower the prices of what they sell for it to increase flow in economy. When was the last time you saw that happen?

any time the company wants to make more money and the company is not a monoply and there is still demand for the product. If they make more and charge a little less, the equilibrium will still be higher then it was before.

It's much easier to increase flow by feeding in more money at the bottom, to the people who buy stuff. When they buy stuff, the companies get the money and can increase production and hire more people.

Yes that is why reaganomics was a complete failure... because it was trickle down. Humm.

The problem is when you feed to the bottom you are feeding to a very large number of people so no one gets very much so you cannot invest that money in anything worth while. Nothing that will appreciate in value atleast.

[dxoigmn]

any time the company wants to make more money and the company is not a monoply and there is still demand for the product. If they make more and charge a little less, the equilibrium will still be higher then it was before.

If people don't have money and the companies do, then there will be no demand from the masses.  You don't seem to understand this.

Yes that is why reaganomics was a complete failure... because it was trickle down. Humm.

The problem is when you feed to the bottom you are feeding to a very large number of people so no one gets very much so you cannot invest that money in anything worth while. Nothing that will appreciate in value atleast.

Didn't you just argue me that trickle down economics works?   And now you're saying it's a failure?  Fact is: it was a failure and will still fail.  Even if people get some money back, that money will be spent and hence circulated.  Just because they get a smaller amount doesn't mean anything.  As a whole, they will usually spend that money, thus amounting to a large sum.

[quasi-modo]

any time the company wants to make more money and the company is not a monoply and there is still demand for the product. If they make more and charge a little less, the equilibrium will still be higher then it was before.

If people don't have money and the companies do, then there will be no demand from the masses.  You don't seem to understand this.

But people have to work for the companies and companies pay thee workers. Companies do not run themselves you know. If people have no moeny, then they are on welfare. You either have a job, you are a bum, or you are on welfare, those are the three options. You seem to thing that companies are holding people down.

Yes that is why reaganomics was a complete failure... because it was trickle down. Humm.

The problem is when you feed to the bottom you are feeding to a very large number of people so no one gets very much so you cannot invest that money in anything worth while. Nothing that will appreciate in value atleast.

Didn't you just argue me that trickle down economics works?   And now you're saying it's a failure?  Fact is: it was a failure and will still fail.  Even if people get some money back, that money will be spent and hence circulated.  Just because they get a smaller amount doesn't mean anything.  As a whole, they will usually spend that money, thus amounting to a large sum.

That was sarcasm. I was being sarcastic, it does work. Trickle down economics was a massive success dude. Liek I have been saying all along, giving the money to the poor would leave you giving a very small sum to every poor person and it would lead to a purchase/investment that does not improve the life of that porr person. It would be much more effective in the hands of someone who can do something and will do something better with the money. Also if you are giving money to a poor person it is not coming back to the governmnet and time soon because the poor person is not going to invest it into something that gains value over time, like a stock, or real estate, because it would not be enough money two. Once again this is a tax cut btw, not welfare. It was based on what you paid in.

[dxoigmn]

But people have to work for the companies and companies pay thee workers. Companies do not run themselves you know. If people have no moeny, then they are on welfare. You either have a job, you are a bum, or you are on welfare, those are the three options. You seem to thing that companies are holding people down.

People have to pay for basic necessities like rent, utilities, and food.  A large portion of their money (or all in some cases) goes towards that monthly.  A tax break gives them money they can spend on luxaries.

That was sarcasm. I was being sarcastic, it does work. Trickle down economics was a massive success dude. Liek I have been saying all along, giving the money to the poor would leave you giving a very small sum to every poor person and it would lead to a purchase/investment that does not improve the life of that porr person. It would be much more effective in the hands of someone who can do something and will do something better with the money. Also if you are giving money to a poor person it is not coming back to the governmnet and time soon because the poor person is not going to invest it into something that gains value over time, like a stock, or real estate, because it would not be enough money two. Once again this is a tax cut btw, not welfare. It was based on what you paid in.

Here is a analysis of trickle down economics: http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html  All fact.  But here again you're assuming things.  You can't tell me every poor person is buying stupid stuff.  It's almost as if you're saying poor people are stupid and rich people are smart becuase they make smarter decisions about their finances.  And you just told me that money not in the hands of the government is better, yet you tell me here that it's bad that the money is not going to be in the hands of the government any time soon?  Which is it?  Stop bring up the welfare argument.  It's has no bearing, and no one is arguing you against it.  People who don't make a lot money (e.g. < $200,000) should not have to pay more or the same as people who make a lot of money.

[quasi-modo]

But people have to work for the companies and companies pay thee workers. Companies do not run themselves you know. If people have no moeny, then they are on welfare. You either have a job, you are a bum, or you are on welfare, those are the three options. You seem to thing that companies are holding people down.

People have to pay for basic necessities like rent, utilities, and food.  A large portion of their money (or all in some cases) goes towards that monthly.  A tax break gives them money they can spend on luxaries.

if they cannot afford their housing they need to move down a notch, at some point the government subsidizes it. But if you give money to people who are not paying taxes then it is welfare. I ave said that numerous times, but you are not acknowlegeing it. Basically do you think we should just more welfare? Because  if the tax cut were engineered to give all the money to the bottom that is what it would be.

That was sarcasm. I was being sarcastic, it does work. Trickle down economics was a massive success dude. Liek I have been saying all along, giving the money to the poor would leave you giving a very small sum to every poor person and it would lead to a purchase/investment that does not improve the life of that porr person. It would be much more effective in the hands of someone who can do something and will do something better with the money. Also if you are giving money to a poor person it is not coming back to the governmnet and time soon because the poor person is not going to invest it into something that gains value over time, like a stock, or real estate, because it would not be enough money two. Once again this is a tax cut btw, not welfare. It was based on what you paid in.

Here is a analysis of trickle down economics: http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html  All fact.  But here again you're assuming things.  You can't tell me every poor person is buying stupid stuff.  It's almost as if you're saying poor people are stupid and rich people are smart becuase they make smarter decisions about their finances.  And you just told me that money not in the hands of the government is better, yet you tell me here that it's bad that the money is not going to be in the hands of the government any time soon?  Which is it?  Stop bring up the welfare argument.  It's has no bearing, and no one is arguing you against it.  People who don't make a lot money (e.g. < $200,000) should not have to pay more or the same as people who make a lot of money.

That site you linked is not fact because reaganomics did infact work. It worked marvelously. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html
I am telling you a poor person with the money back can only buy stupid stuff. Name one thing you can buy with the ammount of money they will get back that will appreciate in value at any substantial rate (by that I mean they could put the money in the bank or buy a govt bond, but those will not pay off for a long long long time)? Money out of the hands of the government is better. But money has to circulate. The money has to get its money back in order to spend it again. I keep bringing up the welfare argument because if you do not have it based on the tax bracket and you are giving those at the bottom more then they payed in then that is exactly what it is. People who do not make a lot of moeny do not pay more or the same as people who make a lot of money. People who make a lot of money pay a staggering ammount more. That is why they get the most back (in % of the total money given back to everyone), because their group payed the most in.

[Stealth]

People who don't make a lot money (e.g. < $200,000) should not have to pay more or the same as people who make a lot of money.

That is simply not happening. Percentagewise, actual dollar amount, it doesn't matter how you cut it, people in the top tax brackets always pay substantially more than those in the middle or bottom tax brackets.

Another oft-neglected impact of the Bush tax cuts were that an estimated 7.8 million of the poorest people paying taxes were dropped off the bottom end of the tax brackets such that they no longer pay federal income taxes. Many of the same families benefitted greatly from the per-child tax credit and other features of the Bush plan.

To support the Kerry plan over the Bush plan is simply to promote class warfare. Everyone who pays taxes deserves money back. Besides the top income brackets, the Kerry plan is the same as the Bush plan. Bush is across the board, Kerry drops the top earners. It seems quite fair that those who overwhelmingly pay the most in taxes should receive more money, in sheer dollars, back, even if percentagewise their refund is equal in size or smaller than that received by the lower and middle brackets.

[MyndFyre]

To support the Kerry plan over the Bush plan is simply to promote class warfare.

Of course it does.  How could Kerry encourage the proletariat to rise up and revolt if it didn't encourage class warfare?

[Adron]

it would lead to a purchase/investment that does not improve the life of that porr person. It would be much more effective in the hands of someone who can do something and will do something better with the money.

You're saying that rich people do better things with money than poor people? It seems to be the reverse to me: Rich people waste a lot of money on luxuries, drinking, cars, that kind of minorly life-improving things. Poor people spend it on food, their houses, basic stuff that does improve quality of life. For the amount of money a rich person spends on a Lamborghini, you could repair a lot of leaking roofs.

Also if you are giving money to a poor person it is not coming back to the governmnet and time soon because the poor person is not going to invest it into something that gains value over time, like a stock, or real estate, because it would not be enough money two.

I thought the republican idea was to minimize the amount of money "going to waste" in the government? And besides: Investing in something that gains value over time isn't any better than spending the money as quickly as possible. Actually, when a lot of people start saving money instead of consuming, it's bad for the economy. So I think you've just explained why it's better to give money to the poor?

[quasi-modo]

it would lead to a purchase/investment that does not improve the life of that porr person. It would be much more effective in the hands of someone who can do something and will do something better with the money.

You're saying that rich people do better things with money than poor people? It seems to be the reverse to me: Rich people waste a lot of money on luxuries, drinking, cars, that kind of minorly life-improving things. Poor people spend it on food, their houses, basic stuff that does improve quality of life. For the amount of money a rich person spends on a Lamborghini, you could repair a lot of leaking roofs.

the wages of the lower class can repair the roofs too. But the money that a poor person would get back witht he tax cuts if all the money was divided among the poor would not fix a roof.

Also if you are giving money to a poor person it is not coming back to the governmnet and time soon because the poor person is not going to invest it into something that gains value over time, like a stock, or real estate, because it would not be enough money two.

I thought the republican idea was to minimize the amount of money "going to waste" in the government? And besides: Investing in something that gains value over time isn't any better than spending the money as quickly as possible. Actually, when a lot of people start saving money instead of consuming, it's bad for the economy. So I think you've just explained why it's better to give money to the poor?

When you invest your money in a stock the money is not sitting idle. Plus putting loney int he hands of the government to spend does not mean it is sitting in the hands of the government... it was under clinton with the surplus, but it is not under bush now. When the government spends money it is good for the economy.

[dxoigmn]

People who don't make a lot money (e.g. < $200,000) should not have to pay more or the same as people who make a lot of money.

That is simply not happening. Percentagewise, actual dollar amount, it doesn't matter how you cut it, people in the top tax brackets always pay substantially more than those in the middle or bottom tax brackets.

Another oft-neglected impact of the Bush tax cuts were that an estimated 7.8 million of the poorest people paying taxes were dropped off the bottom end of the tax brackets such that they no longer pay federal income taxes. Many of the same families benefitted greatly from the per-child tax credit and other features of the Bush plan.

To support the Kerry plan over the Bush plan is simply to promote class warfare. Everyone who pays taxes deserves money back. Besides the top income brackets, the Kerry plan is the same as the Bush plan. Bush is across the board, Kerry drops the top earners. It seems quite fair that those who overwhelmingly pay the most in taxes should receive more money, in sheer dollars, back, even if percentagewise their refund is equal in size or smaller than that received by the lower and middle brackets.

Yes I understand.  What I meant to say is the more income earn the more you should pay, and it should be substantially more than those who don't make as much.  Poor people need the money to pay for necessities while rich people can afford to give money to the government.