The Crystal Ball: Courtesy Of History

[Sihouette]

if we CONSISTANTLY had more money in our pay checks we could buy more products.

This would mean more people would have to be hired to make more products, those people would also get pay checks and then you have more people having more pay checks and they would be able to spend more money



If people have less money they spend less, this means companys lay off workers. That means even less people have less money and are able to spend less, causing more lay offs.

why is this so hard to understand?

Hey, you're stealing my stuff!!

Let me modify "your" good idea a bit. "Stupid stuff" is a matter of some debate. You take a lot of things for granted that you would piss and whine without if it weren't for "stupid stuff" being funded.. This country runs like any business. And every business has its mundane and seeming-unrelated expenses like toilet paper for the bathrooms. Fire alarms for the company kitchen. Environmental costs for disposing of toxic wastes, bonuses and entertainment to keep the workers happy and productive. Health care premiums to keep the workers healthy.

The US should be run like any business, with the idea of making and keeping it profitable. We don't just fire workers and outsource to cheaper labor that doesn't whine about harsh conditions. That's slavery and we fought a war to abolish it. When the masses get so beaten down, laid off, unemployed and not valued or cared for properly by the business managers, the business suffers and so does productivity.

The US today is like a business tha has done many things wrong at the expense of its good workers. So the workers are on strike. (not buying anything) and the company has ground to a halt. The thing is that is different is that this strike the workers don't even have to picket. They just have to sit on their wallets until the managers sit down and give them their terms: more money in their pockets to spend again.

More appreciation for decades of good service with diminishing incentives from upper management.

The way to accomplish this isn't to cut the budget for toilet paper or health care. It is to give the employees long-term incentive to buy. My plan suggests bailing out the banks through mortgage consumers...relieve them monthly of their interest burdens for a period of time. Most people's mortgage payments are mostly interest. Freeing up money monthly in such a significant amount would greatly spur the economy. In exactly the way I said and pandora reflected with a GOP twist.

Always "tax cuts".. The business doesn't run on air. Taxes that people pay are a pittance compared to what they get in return. They get roads to drive on, police protection, miliatry protection, vaccination programs keeping people from inadvertently killing them by infection, power grids, clean lakes, rivers and ponds to play in and drink from, clean air to breath, food coming to the table at affordable prices, levees keeping flood waters at bay, bridges to drive over, protection from pest infestation, forests to harvest in a sustainable way, fish to catch in rivers, wildlife to appreciate or hunt, railways to haul goods and keep prices at the checkout down...

And so on..

Do you know what a sihthole this place would be without these "stupid programs"? I do. I used to live by Tiajuana MX as a kid. You don't want to "go there", trust me..

 

[Pandora]

It sounds good, and isn't hard to understand at all.

It is the reason why the tax cuts passed during the last administration were so popular. It is the reason why about a third of the "stimulus" plan is actually tax cuts, not spending proposals as so many seem to think.

It is the reason why trickle down economics was propounded during the Reagan administration.

The problem is, cutting taxes while increasing spending will produce a deficit.

That, too, should be easy to understand.

I agree

The first line in my post said

"Originally Posted by Pandora
If the government would cut back on the stupid programs we could pay less taxes"

Really its cut OUT stupid programs and cut back on other programs

I agree you can not have tax cuts unless you have spending cuts with it. One big issue I had with President Bush

 

[Hobo1]

It sounds good, and isn't hard to understand at all.

It is the reason why the tax cuts passed during the last administration were so popular. It is the reason why about a third of the "stimulus" plan is actually tax cuts, not spending proposals as so many seem to think.

It is the reason why trickle down economics was propounded during the Reagan administration.

The problem is, cutting taxes while increasing spending will produce a deficit.

That, too, should be easy to understand.

I would say "cutting taxes while increasing spending" is a fatal flaw of the so-called stimulus plan. One-third might be for tax cuts but the other two-thirds for spending is for projects that US business wouldn't touch! We sure don't see public corporations jumping onto the alternative energy bandwagon - unless they see free federal money flowing their way. With oil less than $40 per barrel, spending money on alternative energy is not a stimulus plan, it is a hope and a dream. This is simply make work projects just like the failed WPA program from the Roosevelt "New Deal" in the 1930's.

Then there is the high speed rail system from Los Angeles to Los Vegas, and a bunch of other Democratic pork.

If this stimulus money were dedicated to making reduce the cost of doing business - by lowering the withholding taxes paid by workers and business, then we would see companies making profit and hiring more workers.

Anyway you look at it, this Obama/Pelosi Stimulus Plan is just like the horse designed by a committee... it turns out to be a camel. This plan does all things for all people - which means it lacks any logical economic strategy. It program is doomed to failure and the debt will only prolong any recovery.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Isn't it about time to update the Republicard? Maybe put Obama's picture on it and rename it a Democard, or something?

Not if Comrade Graham has anything to say, about it!

​

"Unfortunately, their attempt to distance the Grand Old Party -- an organization nurtured into being in the 1850s by New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley, who employed Karl Marx as a foreign correspondent -- from the forward march of socialism was dealt a serious setback Sunday by South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham.

Appearing on ABC News' "This Week," the Republican senator leapt left of the Obama administration to talk up nationalizing banks.

Discussing the prospect of having the government take over private banks, Graham told host George Stephanopoulos, "I would not take off (the table) the idea of nationalizing the banks..."

"This idea of nationalizing banks is not comfortable, but I think we have gotten so many toxic assets spread throughout the banking and financial community throughout the world that we're going to have to do something that no one ever envisioned a year ago, no one likes," explained Graham, who may not have gotten the memo that told Republicans not to discuss practical solutions to the economic meltdown. "But, to me, banking and housing are the root cause of this problem. And I'm very much afraid that any program to salvage the bank is going to require the government.."

 

[Cookie Parker]

Keep fighting away GOP...keep up the hate, the malice the divisiveness. All the while our enemies are watching, waiting, drooling over these great prairies and national riches from sea to shining sea. You are the traitors that are abetting our enemies; whether wilfull or not the result will be the same.

Not quite...they ARE our enemies.

 

[Cookie Parker]

I would say "cutting taxes while increasing spending" is a fatal flaw of the so-called stimulus plan. One-third might be for tax cuts but the other two-thirds for spending is for projects that US business wouldn't touch! We sure don't see public corporations jumping onto the alternative energy bandwagon - unless they see free federal money flowing their way. With oil less than $40 per barrel, spending money on alternative energy is not a stimulus plan, it is a hope and a dream. This is simply make work projects just like the failed WPA program from the Roosevelt "New Deal" in the 1930's.

And 30 years of tax cuts for the rich and job deletions for Americans from the republicans worked out so well....how?

 

[Hobo1]

And 30 years of tax cuts for the rich and job deletions for Americans from the republicans worked out so well....how?

Disregarding your factual errors about "30 years of tax cuts for the rich" and "job deletions for Americans", America has enjoyed unprecedented prosperity over the last 27 years or so. On average, unemployment has been low and national growth has been high.

"Tax cuts for the rich, outsourcing of American jobs - the root of all evils". Common complaints by the uninformed, but not supported by the facts.

 

[Dr.Who]

....But....due to the pre-War tax-cuts....it was necessary for BUSHCO to finance our goverment with borrowed-bucks (from the Bank O' Bejing), right?

​

If you have a problem with our government borrowing money then you should have a problem with it no matter who is doing the borrowing.

Do you have a problem with the money that P. Obama is borrowing right now?

 

[Dr.Who]

I am really tired of hearing, "the Stimulus Plan maybe not be perfect, but it is better than doing nothing". I hear this from Republicans and Democrats alike - as if it was axiomatic. Then I hear economists say large government spend never "stimulated" the economy - all it did was to create a bigger debt for the taxpayers.

I agree. If there are parts of it that are not good then take them out.

We hear that most of the money will not be spent in 2009, and the full impact will not occur until after 2010. If I had stopped breathing, I hope someone could come up with a stimulus plan that worked faster than that!

Agreed again. The money spent in 2010 or after is either not a stimulus or P. Obama expects the downturn to need "stimulation" in 2010. Either way that is a big problem.

I think it is time Washington admits they do not know how to stop and correct this economic downturn. Tens of trillions of dollars of wealth have been taken out of the money supply by the fall in house prices and the fall of the stock market. Only time and sound fiscal policies are going to correct that problem.

If anybody in Washington (or in any other country in history) knew how to stop a recession once it had begun they would obviously know how to stop one when it was much smaller and had not yet begun. We would have no recessions!

It is time to think like a family that has gone into massive debt and now the bank and credit companies are banging at the door. We've all got to start working harder, spending less and tighten our belts. This nation needs a diet of rice and beans for a year to save money and get our nation back on the road to to prosperity.

100% right! As soon as Americans pay down their personal debt they will begin spending like crazy and the economy will rebound.

 

[Dr.Who]

It is the reason why the tax cuts passed during the last administration were so popular. It is the reason why about a third of the "stimulus" plan is actually tax cuts, not spending proposals as so many seem to think.
.

Not to be argumentative here but could you list a few of the tax cuts? I would be intersted in knowing that any of them are 1) significant and 2) actually cuts.

 

[Dr.Who]

Hey, you're stealing my stuff!!

Let me modify "your" good idea a bit. "Stupid stuff" is a matter of some debate. You take a lot of things for granted that you would piss and whine without if it weren't for "stupid stuff" being funded.. This country runs like any business. And every business has its mundane and seeming-unrelated expenses like toilet paper for the bathrooms. Fire alarms for the company kitchen. Environmental costs for disposing of toxic wastes, bonuses and entertainment to keep the workers happy and productive. Health care premiums to keep the workers healthy.

The US should be run like any business, with the idea of making and keeping it profitable. We don't just fire workers and outsource to cheaper labor that doesn't whine about harsh conditions. That's slavery and we fought a war to abolish it. When the masses get so beaten down, laid off, unemployed and not valued or cared for properly by the business managers, the business suffers and so does productivity.

The US today is like a business tha has done many things wrong at the expense of its good workers. So the workers are on strike. (not buying anything) and the company has ground to a halt. The thing is that is different is that this strike the workers don't even have to picket. They just have to sit on their wallets until the managers sit down and give them their terms: more money in their pockets to spend again.

More appreciation for decades of good service with diminishing incentives from upper management.

The way to accomplish this isn't to cut the budget for toilet paper or health care. It is to give the employees long-term incentive to buy. My plan suggests bailing out the banks through mortgage consumers...relieve them monthly of their interest burdens for a period of time. Most people's mortgage payments are mostly interest. Freeing up money monthly in such a significant amount would greatly spur the economy. In exactly the way I said and pandora reflected with a GOP twist.

Always "tax cuts".. The business doesn't run on air. Taxes that people pay are a pittance compared to what they get in return. They get roads to drive on, police protection, miliatry protection, vaccination programs keeping people from inadvertently killing them by infection, power grids, clean lakes, rivers and ponds to play in and drink from, clean air to breath, food coming to the table at affordable prices, levees keeping flood waters at bay, bridges to drive over, protection from pest infestation, forests to harvest in a sustainable way, fish to catch in rivers, wildlife to appreciate or hunt, railways to haul goods and keep prices at the checkout down...

And so on..

Do you know what a sihthole this place would be without these "stupid programs"? I do. I used to live by Tiajuana MX as a kid. You don't want to "go there", trust me..

I am sure you should have no problem naming something that the others call stupid but are really very worthwhile and necessary parts of running a country.

 

[Dr.Who]

I agree

The first line in my post said

"Originally Posted by Pandora
If the government would cut back on the stupid programs we could pay less taxes"

Really its cut OUT stupid programs and cut back on other programs

I agree you can not have tax cuts unless you have spending cuts with it. One big issue I had with President Bush

Right.

Just like in my personal budget - first I cut stupid stuff. But sometimes my cutting does not stop there. Sometimes I need to cut stuff that I find really important but they are just not needs - they are just wants. And occasionally I am forced to cut things that are needs but they are just not as important as other stuff that has a higher priority.

 

[PLC1]

Not to be argumentative here but could you list a few of the tax cuts? I would be intersted in knowing that any of them are 1) significant and 2) actually cuts.

I haven't seen the whole thousand plus page bill, but I understand that there are significant tax cuts included:

Obama has been aggressively seeking Republican backing for the stimulus legislation by personally supporting the inclusion of about $275 billion in tax cuts. He took the unusual step this week of going to Capitol Hill to personally lobby senior Republican lawmakers. On Wednesday evening, he hosted a dozen GOP leaders for cocktails at the White House.

I could be wrong, of course, but it seems to me that $275 billion in tax cuts would have to be significant, at least more than the $13 per month that has been reported.

Of course, the bid to get Republicans to support the bill resulted in:

 

[Dr.Who]

I haven't seen the whole thousand plus page bill, but I understand that there are significant tax cuts included:




I could be wrong, of course, but it seems to me that $275 billion in tax cuts would have to be significant, at least more than the $13 per month that has been reported.

Thank you. I simply did not know the details of any of the tax cuts.

Now that I do I would have to say that $275 billion is significant and that it is real. (after all we saw in the campaign that he often called spending a tax cut)

According to your source half of the tax cut goes to people as a payroll credit. Which means that people who pay taxes might pay up to 6% less.

Another half goes to employers.

Now is the time for the democrats to start yelling that he is cutting taxes on the rich! Why? Because by giving all workers an equal tax cut of 6% those who earn more get more of a cut. This is EXACTLY what Bush did -give a tax cut based on an equal percentage so that those who paid more got more back. I just call that fair.