I have never seen someone put that so eqloquently. :shock: Very well done posts Osse, much better than I could hope to do on the subject of Economics.
George and his tax cuts
- Thread starter Trippyhippy
- Start date
Osse said:
No sorrys needed dude. You believe in what you say and I respect that, but don't expect me not to be me just because your so "nice".
Lets just bury this right now. There is no set of data I can show you that would give you an idea of how the economy is doing, espcially within the confines of this forum, or the time I have involved. There is simply too many things involved that determines that, and it would all depend on your current "stance" and how you look at things being good or bad. Meaning just "who" its good for and "how" it affecting them. Of course if your some rich greedy bloke the economy is probably just fine for you right now.
This is why economists never can seem to agree. Me I tend to go in favor of the world where everybody is doing well and no one group of people have too much power. Some call that a "communist attitude" I'd like to think of it as a "fair world", or as close to it as possible.
Ok I was under the impression that we were comparing the Clinton Era to Bush's. Ok ya, Unemployment low, not the lowest but low. Now lemme pull one of your jackass republican low down tricks on you now. The only reason unemployment is low now is NOT because of Bush but because Baby boomers are retiring and we now have to fill the gap.
Job growth is nice now but overall still pretty low when you compare it to the Clinton era. Inflation? Ya I know all you people here are gonna jump on me for bringing up that with your "excuses". Fuel, Oil etc.... Whos family is in the oil industry?
Low inflation and low unemployment can be done if the person in charge wants it, and who has done it? This would be a simple mission to actually look it up for yourself since its posted all over the WWW with people trying to discredit it. But wait I know you want me to post some of my "propaganda" sources now so you can argue to hell against it right? :roll:
No no no dude. Its YOU who said you didn't understand what I was writing. Its nice how almost everyone who supports Bush likes to put a "spin" on things but thats just not how it works when you openly admit when you don't understand something. Let me explain now.
What good? More money going to your government vs. some other country is not good? Let me ask you this, if your rich today, would you be more inclined to invest in America or one of those other countries with booming economies?
You explained 1 situation where a bussiness man keeps all his money under the protection of his bussiness. Not everyone in America does this, true there are other ways around this. But if so, why call it unfair? Why take it away? 99% of estates do not pay the estate tax today. But when you consider the 1% to 2 % that does pay the tax will contribute to 290 billion(and thats considered the low) though 2015, I'd say thats a hell of alot of nothing.
The estate tax will be repealed though 2010, its says it will be reinstated in 2011. I say fat chance of that seeing the idiotic response all over the news, talking to friends, and reading stupid stuff like this online.
Stupidity spreads like wildfire unfortunately. I would have thought you KNEW this being a Bush monger.
It was this extreme example that led to that response. Fix what? nothing is broken? You just stated a problem, you like the world where the rich get richer? The rich will always get richer, taking that money back in the form of taxation merely brings the money back to Americans, and ensures it does not collect all up top where power, money, and influence would collect also. You see it in todays world where the lobbyists rule the politicians. Clinton enacted "executive order 12834" just for things like that, did Bush do anything like that? No.
I think its pretty clear I'm not in too much favor of this president vs. his predecessor.
"It's very important to be aware that this repeal is temporary; the entire law "sunsets" (expires) after December 31, 2010. This means that the provisions of this 2001 Tax Act will no longer be effective on January 1, 2011 and the tax structure as it existed in 2001 will take effect again (in 2011, Federal estate tax will be assessed on property in excess of $1 million with a maximum tax rate of 55%.)"
You can read more on it here. As you can see, it's not going anywhere. Most tax laws have a time limit at which they must be renewed, this is how our government commonly works.
I am curious what source you are citing for that $290bill which the tax is supposedly bringing in so we know you are not pulling numbers out of thin air.
Who says we have to credit Bush for it? You seem to be the one trying to credit Clinton for the 90's internet boom which was going to happen regardless of whoever was in office.
A quick perusal of your latest post tells me it is time to leave this topic, Dante. I respect that you have a point of view, I don't expect you to just roll over and die. However, I expect a minimal level of knowledge and intellectual honesty when conversing on a subject like economics, and I haven't found those here. You still insist on dodging issues and changing subjects or just giving trite generalizations. You quote me, then don't even address the issue qoted. You even misrepresent what I say: I point out that you have a non-sensical paragraph and also that you make statements without having a point, and you claim this as an admission that I don't understand you. You may think you address the points, if so I'm very saddened that someone scrambled up your thought processes in the past. You even have a convoluted argument as to why facts don't mean anything. Aside from being humorous, that's disturbing and impossible/pointless to argue against. Afterall, if facts don't matter, how can anything be proven? I won't quote or argue against any of the points you made in the last post, because there were none.
But since you love the Clinton economy so much, I'll leave with a few pointers on why Clinton was a sham of a President. I know you won't believe it because facts don't matter, but what the hell. Someone might actually read it and pay attention.
1. Bush Sr. made a huge mistake as President, he didn't veto a Tax increase passed by the Democratic congress. In fact, it was part of a deal he made with the Democrats to get some of the things he wanted. Of course, the Dems didn't keep their end of the bargin. The tax increase slowed the economy down. This is about the only thing a President can do that will actually effect the economy, push to raise or lower taxes.
2. Bush Sr. gets more support in congress near the end of his term, partly because of popularity form the seemingly successful Gulf War. (It wasn't successful, seeing as we end up fighting it again, but that's a different topic.) He manages to get a tax cut through, and the economy picks up again... just not in time to get him re-elected. No big deal, he was mediocre overall. ( And if you think I'm just another Republican, you really haven't been paying attention.)
3. Clinton comes into office with an economy already on the rise. We do have a period of incredible economic growth. Things are wonderful... but unsustainable. Here's the reason for the boom:
A. Huge Tech market bubble. The dot-coms and related computer industries are growing enormously fast, but faster than demand or need for them. As you well know, in a few years they start to drop like flies. Their stocks reach the same value as toilet paper. The NASDQ and Dow-Jones and S&P 500 soon drop to mirror this.
B. More women in the work place. This is great, I'm all for equality and freedom, it's what America is about... but only if they want to be there. After the Clintion tax increase (see below), one member of the household working is not enough to support the family anymore, as it was just a few years earlier. This ties in with the point below.
C. Consumer debt. This is the biggest driving force in the Clinton economy, and the most unstable. Greenspan determines, correctly, that interest rates can be lowered without increaseing inflation. With lower interest rates and higher taxes (less money in pocket) consumers borrow money. More and more money. More than they can afford. Consumer debt reaches an all time high. All the borrowing spurs on comsumption and fuels the economy, but you can only borrow so much. Debt consolidation companies prosper. This type of growth is totally unhealthy and totally unsustainable. Clinton is not really involved with changes to the rate (as far as we know), so he's really not to blame for this. But he doesn't deserve any credit either.
D. Government budget surplus. Yep, this actually happened, and it's a rare thing. In fact, I think Clinton's administration may be the only one in history to run a surplus, but I admit I'm not positive on that. But what is a surplus, and why did it happen?
1) Surplus means that the government takes in more taxes than it spends. Clinton asked for, and received from the Democratic controlled congress, the largest tax increase in history. That's were most of the money came from.
2) Clinton cut Defense budget spending and Intelligence gathering spending. The biggest millitary base closings in history take place during his administration. This is where the rest of this money came from.
3) But Clinton had plans for this money, it wasn't supposed to be a surplus. You can't forget such plans as the Nationalized Healthcare plan. Why wasn't it spent? Because after 2 years in office, Clinton lost his democrtaic majority in both houses. After that he was pretty well shut down on spending. He becomes a Veto President, meaning that his only influence is the veto or threatening to veto legislation. This happened right after the Civil War too, and the effect is the same. The Federal government doesn't pass much new legislation and spending levels off.
So there you go... unstable and unsustainable growth. It's not really anything to cheer about. By the end of the Clinton era, we are in a recession, and Clinton is already blaming George W.-- even before W. takes office. LMFAO. Clinton doesnt really have anything to do with the growth, but he does contribute to it's demise with a tax increase.
My views on tax code are opinion, and original to me, but the above lecture isn't opinion--it's history. If you want to resond, Dante, I'll politely read it. But I'm done posting here. You have strayed far from the original subject (tax cuts), but that happens alot on these boards. I've stated my opinion, and nothing posted here overturns it, or even addresses it.
But since you love the Clinton economy so much, I'll leave with a few pointers on why Clinton was a sham of a President. I know you won't believe it because facts don't matter, but what the hell. Someone might actually read it and pay attention.
1. Bush Sr. made a huge mistake as President, he didn't veto a Tax increase passed by the Democratic congress. In fact, it was part of a deal he made with the Democrats to get some of the things he wanted. Of course, the Dems didn't keep their end of the bargin. The tax increase slowed the economy down. This is about the only thing a President can do that will actually effect the economy, push to raise or lower taxes.
2. Bush Sr. gets more support in congress near the end of his term, partly because of popularity form the seemingly successful Gulf War. (It wasn't successful, seeing as we end up fighting it again, but that's a different topic.) He manages to get a tax cut through, and the economy picks up again... just not in time to get him re-elected. No big deal, he was mediocre overall. ( And if you think I'm just another Republican, you really haven't been paying attention.)
3. Clinton comes into office with an economy already on the rise. We do have a period of incredible economic growth. Things are wonderful... but unsustainable. Here's the reason for the boom:
A. Huge Tech market bubble. The dot-coms and related computer industries are growing enormously fast, but faster than demand or need for them. As you well know, in a few years they start to drop like flies. Their stocks reach the same value as toilet paper. The NASDQ and Dow-Jones and S&P 500 soon drop to mirror this.
B. More women in the work place. This is great, I'm all for equality and freedom, it's what America is about... but only if they want to be there. After the Clintion tax increase (see below), one member of the household working is not enough to support the family anymore, as it was just a few years earlier. This ties in with the point below.
C. Consumer debt. This is the biggest driving force in the Clinton economy, and the most unstable. Greenspan determines, correctly, that interest rates can be lowered without increaseing inflation. With lower interest rates and higher taxes (less money in pocket) consumers borrow money. More and more money. More than they can afford. Consumer debt reaches an all time high. All the borrowing spurs on comsumption and fuels the economy, but you can only borrow so much. Debt consolidation companies prosper. This type of growth is totally unhealthy and totally unsustainable. Clinton is not really involved with changes to the rate (as far as we know), so he's really not to blame for this. But he doesn't deserve any credit either.
D. Government budget surplus. Yep, this actually happened, and it's a rare thing. In fact, I think Clinton's administration may be the only one in history to run a surplus, but I admit I'm not positive on that. But what is a surplus, and why did it happen?
1) Surplus means that the government takes in more taxes than it spends. Clinton asked for, and received from the Democratic controlled congress, the largest tax increase in history. That's were most of the money came from.
2) Clinton cut Defense budget spending and Intelligence gathering spending. The biggest millitary base closings in history take place during his administration. This is where the rest of this money came from.
3) But Clinton had plans for this money, it wasn't supposed to be a surplus. You can't forget such plans as the Nationalized Healthcare plan. Why wasn't it spent? Because after 2 years in office, Clinton lost his democrtaic majority in both houses. After that he was pretty well shut down on spending. He becomes a Veto President, meaning that his only influence is the veto or threatening to veto legislation. This happened right after the Civil War too, and the effect is the same. The Federal government doesn't pass much new legislation and spending levels off.
So there you go... unstable and unsustainable growth. It's not really anything to cheer about. By the end of the Clinton era, we are in a recession, and Clinton is already blaming George W.-- even before W. takes office. LMFAO. Clinton doesnt really have anything to do with the growth, but he does contribute to it's demise with a tax increase.
My views on tax code are opinion, and original to me, but the above lecture isn't opinion--it's history. If you want to resond, Dante, I'll politely read it. But I'm done posting here. You have strayed far from the original subject (tax cuts), but that happens alot on these boards. I've stated my opinion, and nothing posted here overturns it, or even addresses it.
You have to remember Rones the reason the law was repealed in the first place. It was so that lawmakers who support the repeal could extend it at 2011. This is why you see people lobbying for the repeal of this tax, and why you see discussion all over about it. If the intention was as you say "not going anywhere" I dont think there would be so much of a stink about it, since its already in effect people would just swallow it till it was reinstated. But it wont be, and its not intended to be, it's intended by lawmakers responsible for the original repeal to be extended.
Heres some stuff you can argue me to death about.
http://www.cbpp.org/5-25-00tax.htm
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2002/04/29/newscolumn3.html
Its from a congressional budget outlook. It has changed as it always does and its WAY OFF considering they projected us to have a SURPLUS at this time. :lol:
But anyway it is being projected as such.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3277&sequence=2
Osse did. Thats why I said it.
But running along the lines of both of your logic I guess we have Clinton to thank for all of that.
Oh ok I get it I missed one paragraph so now your pissed. Ok lemme do you this favor. :roll:
You reccomended doing NOTHING. Sure lets level the playing field on taxes when your competition has millions more than you to pump into R&D, political think tanks, and to lobby to make laws that benefit them.
Sure Osse I'm really glad monopolistic companies who's major existance rests on the United States Government, a government that ALL Americans pay for can now rest assured that they can continue thier reign on the backs of the poor people of America. Why shouldn't all taxpayers benefit from monopolistic companies, that break laws and use their inherent power for thier own benefit?
The bottom line Osse is that companies like that use ALOT more of government sponsored resources than your average American and therefore should pay a LARGER share back to the government.
So your gonna dodge your way out of this by accusing me of running from your points? Ok Osse, Ok.
Ok wait a minute. First you guys say it takes couple years or so for things that happen during a Presidents term to take effect. Now you say since he didn't veto a tax cut the economy slowed during his term.
How is this so?
Shouldn't this say since Daddy Bush messed up with his veto the American economy "boomed" ahead during the Clinton years. Thank good-ness Bush messed up.
U guys are confusing. :lol:
Actually I liked President Bush, voted for him. And I also voted for young buck Bush, I hate Gore. I like the Bush's stance on foriegn policy in general, but there is so much not to like about them. Namely I do not trust them at all, and they suck at domestic policy.
Ok here you go again gonna change it to "it takes time for things a President does to take into effect". I guess this only happens when its your "unfavored" guy in office. :lol:
Ok time to let you in on a little secret. His name is Al "ugh" Gore. Who is responsible for the legislation that preceeded the creation of the WWW?
Its no secret that someone like this involved in a Presidential Administration knows his way around and how to build up the WWW. Not to mention having an economic "Ace" governer of Arkansas Bill Clinton. :lol: Ok flame me for that.
Ya I guess the TAX CUTS fixed that right up huh? Do we see less women working now? WHats your point? You think woman should stay home and cook your food? Be your slave? Whats your point?
It happened during his time. He's as much to blame for it as to take credit for. True consumer debt is an WAS at an all time high, but bussiness NEED to borrow money to grow. That is ALSO how the economy works, and you can't have one without the other. The economy does not grow on consumer debt alone. There is always a COST for success, but if the costs is not worth the gain, you don't call it a "boom". The biggest economic "boom" in 30 years. It is something that America needed at the time, what we do not need is another jackass coming here and digging us another hole at this time.
And now you just stated exactly what the country needed to bring us out of the cesspool reccision that we were in. We were out of it, scott free with alot of new things financed by the "new" economy. Now what does this sucker in office do? He puts us right back in the "hole".
When your trillions of Dollars in debt, what does your country need? Growth! It does not take a mathimatician to figure that one out for yourself.
You reccomended doing NOTHING. Sure lets level the playing field on taxes when your competition has millions more than you to pump into R&D, political think tanks, and to lobby to make laws that benefit them.
Sure Osse I'm really glad monopolistic companies who's major existance rests on the United States Government, a government that ALL Americans pay for can now rest assured that they can continue thier reign on the backs of the poor people of America. Why shouldn't all taxpayers benefit from monopolistic companies, that break laws and use their inherent power for thier own benefit?
The bottom line Osse is that companies like that use ALOT more of government sponsored resources than your average American and therefore should pay a LARGER share back to the government.
So your gonna dodge your way out of this by accusing me of running from your points? Ok Osse, Ok.
Ok wait a minute. First you guys say it takes couple years or so for things that happen during a Presidents term to take effect. Now you say since he didn't veto a tax cut the economy slowed during his term.
How is this so?
Shouldn't this say since Daddy Bush messed up with his veto the American economy "boomed" ahead during the Clinton years. Thank good-ness Bush messed up.
U guys are confusing. :lol:
Actually I liked President Bush, voted for him. And I also voted for young buck Bush, I hate Gore. I like the Bush's stance on foriegn policy in general, but there is so much not to like about them. Namely I do not trust them at all, and they suck at domestic policy.
Ok here you go again gonna change it to "it takes time for things a President does to take into effect". I guess this only happens when its your "unfavored" guy in office. :lol:
Ok time to let you in on a little secret. His name is Al "ugh" Gore. Who is responsible for the legislation that preceeded the creation of the WWW?
Its no secret that someone like this involved in a Presidential Administration knows his way around and how to build up the WWW. Not to mention having an economic "Ace" governer of Arkansas Bill Clinton. :lol: Ok flame me for that.
Ya I guess the TAX CUTS fixed that right up huh? Do we see less women working now? WHats your point? You think woman should stay home and cook your food? Be your slave? Whats your point?
It happened during his time. He's as much to blame for it as to take credit for. True consumer debt is an WAS at an all time high, but bussiness NEED to borrow money to grow. That is ALSO how the economy works, and you can't have one without the other. The economy does not grow on consumer debt alone. There is always a COST for success, but if the costs is not worth the gain, you don't call it a "boom". The biggest economic "boom" in 30 years. It is something that America needed at the time, what we do not need is another jackass coming here and digging us another hole at this time.
And now you just stated exactly what the country needed to bring us out of the cesspool reccision that we were in. We were out of it, scott free with alot of new things financed by the "new" economy. Now what does this sucker in office do? He puts us right back in the "hole".
When your trillions of Dollars in debt, what does your country need? Growth! It does not take a mathimatician to figure that one out for yourself.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,518
- Linkshell
- ArcaneGarden
I'm going to focus on this, because a lot of the other stuff is rambling off on related tangents from the original topic, the tax cut. Now, the president in office, as Osse stated, has very few choices to make that have any effect on the economy. They all boil down to:
1. Raise the taxes
2. Keep taxes at what they are
3. Lower the taxes
Out of those three choices, which seems to be the best for encouraging the growth of the American economy? My answer would be 3, lower the taxes. Having more expendable income (even just a slight amount) encourages people to spend more. I can't even count the number of people who've told me something like "I can't wait for my refund, there's this new TV I want and it's on sale at best buy". How many people say "Gee, I really wish I wasn't getting such a big refund, I think that my money would be better spent on whatever pork-barrel projects my congress decides to allocate it to."
And what about those wealthy people, who probably have all the TVs and other luxury items they need? What will they do with their tax refund? I'll give you a hint: they don't lock it into a vault so they can swim around in it like Scrooge McDuck. My assumption is that if they have extra money laying around, they'll invest it. Most likely in stock. And the most reliable stocks are American-based companies.
***************
A completely off topic aside:
Your implication that Osse is a chauvanist who wants women to stay home and cook for him made me laugh. He actually squirms when I joke with him about how much time I spend pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen- because he's worried people may misconstrue things. (I'm happy in my 2nd pregnancy, gourmet cooking is my hobby, and I've gone barefoot everywhere I could since I was 5). I choose to stay home and raise our kids myself, until they're old enough to go to school. At that time, I'll probably go for my doctorate. Thankfully even a single mediocre salary has been enough that we could afford to have me to stay home for the past 3 years.
I pity those women who have to leave their 2-month old baby in the hands of daycare because they're in debt to their eyebrows and need 2 salaries. And perhaps my outlook has colored Osse's view, which led him to make the statement "I'm all for equality and freedom . . . but only if they want to be there." Fact is, if I wanted to work and could support the entire family with my salary, he'd be just as happy to stay home. But, I just wanted to mention that as a totally off-subject matter. No discussion on this is necessary.
We are not making too many new jobs, interest is higher, inflation, R&D is down, stocks are down, we are in an on going war, catastropie with a huge deficiet, reccesion.
And yes rich people invest their money to make it grow. Pretty soon what you end up with is a bunch of people who do not work, live off stocks, and simply pay the poor to do the work for them, and use thier gargantuan wealth to influence the economy to thier benefit. YOu want an aristocracy again?
So if lowering taxes stimulates the economy, where are all the benefits? You mean to tell me the only benefit you see is buying groceries one more time a year? ?????
And I'm sorry if I made your friend look bad and you felt you had to come here and defend him by any means possible, but he choose to enter the fray. He's the one after all the actually brought up the woman arguement, don't get mad at me. :?
And yes rich people invest their money to make it grow. Pretty soon what you end up with is a bunch of people who do not work, live off stocks, and simply pay the poor to do the work for them, and use thier gargantuan wealth to influence the economy to thier benefit. YOu want an aristocracy again?
So if lowering taxes stimulates the economy, where are all the benefits? You mean to tell me the only benefit you see is buying groceries one more time a year? ?????
And I'm sorry if I made your friend look bad and you felt you had to come here and defend him by any means possible, but he choose to enter the fray. He's the one after all the actually brought up the woman arguement, don't get mad at me. :?
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,518
- Linkshell
- ArcaneGarden
Unemployment is a fact of life- you're never going to have a 100% employment rate. Also, numbers I've seen seemed to indicate that it was fairly low.
Interest rates are slightly higher than the all-time record lows of a few years ago, but still low.
Inflation is a natural part of any economy- that's why a loaf of bread isn't a nickel anymore. As long as living wages increase at the same rate as inflation, it's not a problem.
I'm not sure which industry you're referring to when you say R&D is down, because in medicine and pharmaceuticals (the only field I'm familiar with) it's booming.
Some stocks may be down, which lowers the overall numbers- but again, that's natural. Stocks go up and down dramatically on the short term, but when you stretch the chart out to long term it's always been a gradual upward slope.
I'm not sure what you feel the war has to do with the economy, other than fueling growth in a different area of industries.
Our nation has had a deficit far, far more often than a surplus. Our economy is accustomed to working around a deficit.
"Recession" seems to me to be a word that people like to throw around when they want to scare people towards their cause. I've lived through several "recessions" and saw very little long-term impact on people's lives because of them. Until "recession" turns into "depression" it seems to me to be just a naturul flux in the economy, which like stocks, go up and down short term but long term has a general upward trend.
Let me give you some names: Rockefeller. Vanderbilt. They did just what you say, living off their vast fortunes, creating huge lobbies in Washington to swing things their way during their heyday. Where are they now? What has happened to the children of that economic aristocracy? I'm sure the families are still around, probably living large in a Park Avenue penthouse off their old money, but the majority of their power and influence in our society is gone. I have no doubt that the same thing will happen to Bill Gates IV or whatever. And another thing, what's wrong with the rich paying the poor to work for them? Isn't that a good thing? :?
I simply stated that of the very, very limited array of choices the President in office has to attempt to stimulate economic growth, lowering taxes looks the best to me. I'd like to hear your ideas for how raising taxes can make the economy better. Otherwise, I'm going to follow Osse out of this thread.
The funny thing about you and Osse is that your arguements keep making my case. Can't you see you just made a case for the estate tax?
Also the very names you used. David Rokefeller Sr. and Bill Gates support the estate tax. Its the reason dynasties do not currently exist, you remove that, and you get exactly what you say can never happen.
Whats wrong with the rich paying to poor to work for them? Well be prepared, because if you keep preeching what you are here, you and your siblings will be slaves. :lol:
I simply stated that of the very, very limited array of choices the President in office has to attempt to stimulate economic growth, lowering taxes looks the best to me. I'd like to hear your ideas for how raising taxes can make the economy better. Otherwise, I'm going to follow Osse out of this thread.
Limited options? Is that what you call the most powerful single person on the face of the earth?
Ok lets try this, unfortunately I'd think most of the things concerning the economy would simply sail right over your head since economic stimulus simply means to you, how much you get back in taxes.
Lets say Technological R&D for instance. I'm sure you as a person who uses the internet can appreciate how much the intenet has done for the economy right?
Ok how does all of this get started? Do private companies subsidize all the research and development going into the creation of the WWW? Who does?
Ok I hope you said the FED GOV. Now. How does the federal government get the money to subsidize all this R&D that will one day stimulate the economy and create the new "internet revolution" ?
Did you just say taxes? When you cut taxes, government agencies tend to cut unneeded services first. Experiemental stuff unfortunately falls into this catagory until its proven. How does it get to the proven standpoint? By more money, that means more taxes.
Many things are made just like this, money subsidized by the FED GOV.
I must say that cutting taxes is not all bad, but when you do it like George Bush did, for purely politcal and selfish reasons, you fuck shit up.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,518
- Linkshell
- ArcaneGarden
Sure, government subsidies of R&D is one thing that taxes are spent on that's actually a good thing. But, who determines who gets money for R&D? The congressmen, who are influenced greatly by the big corporate lobbies you were railing against just a couple posts ago. So theoretically, wouldn't that continue to create the "unlevel playing field" you seemed to be so adamant against?
What it basically comes down to, is who you think will do a better job of handling MY money. (and I stress mine, as it's wages that I have earned fairly by working, but the government wants to take a chunk of). I think that money would be better put back into my hands, where I can then spend it or invest it as I see fit. As opposed to Congressman X, who wants to tack a 10 million dollar grant funding a study into the viscosity of ketchup onto that bill for hurricane relief.
But regardless, I'm done with this thread. This whole thing is reminding me of the Argument Agency in Monty Python now, where you're trying to win just by getting in the last word.
What it basically comes down to, is who you think will do a better job of handling MY money. (and I stress mine, as it's wages that I have earned fairly by working, but the government wants to take a chunk of). I think that money would be better put back into my hands, where I can then spend it or invest it as I see fit. As opposed to Congressman X, who wants to tack a 10 million dollar grant funding a study into the viscosity of ketchup onto that bill for hurricane relief.
But regardless, I'm done with this thread. This whole thing is reminding me of the Argument Agency in Monty Python now, where you're trying to win just by getting in the last word.
Think small, win small.
I am a reilgious.
Think small, win big actually. This is the key idea behind Adam Smith's invisible hand. Doing what is best for the individual, creates a better situation for all. I wouldn't pass on the chance to discuss philosophy if you care to move beyond the immidiate economics discussion which has reached its limit I believe.
I knew you get that one. :lol: You of all people Rones. :wink:
Btw: that is..... More like merely an idea for success, its not something to live by. Its more like a tool you can use, than an idea you'd want to aspire to.
Because if you think about it, if you thought small you'd get rid of taxes entirely. And thats not gonna get you anywhere.
I guess now we are gonna get into how small should we be thinking?
They way I used it was a sarcastic comment to show that felina was merely thinking the world revolved around felina. Its like that one sided thinking of a boss who gives himself a 50,000 bonus when the business is in the red.
People can misinterpret that one-liner way to much for it be be of much use. Thats how people end up thinking about themselves so much when they are in a group.
Btw: that is..... More like merely an idea for success, its not something to live by. Its more like a tool you can use, than an idea you'd want to aspire to.
Because if you think about it, if you thought small you'd get rid of taxes entirely. And thats not gonna get you anywhere.
I guess now we are gonna get into how small should we be thinking?
They way I used it was a sarcastic comment to show that felina was merely thinking the world revolved around felina. Its like that one sided thinking of a boss who gives himself a 50,000 bonus when the business is in the red.
People can misinterpret that one-liner way to much for it be be of much use. Thats how people end up thinking about themselves so much when they are in a group.