The "D" word.

[Serge Teulon]

Thanks for your thoughts Bob. I should state that I have absolutely no political affiliation. I do have a minor in economics and political science. It is tough to mention a president and then to find fault because right away an association is made between his party and him and one might think that the speaker must fall on the side of one of two paths. I do not. I blame many presidents form Regan, to Bush1, to Clinton for our problem. But I do give Clinton a special nod for the banking crisis as he did more than most recently to help banks give money to anyone that wanted it.

 

I'm terrible at the politics game and not that much better at economics....maths, my achilles heel!

I haven't found one politician in my life that has made me sit up and actually believe in them.

 

By what you are saying above, doesn't that constitute that a President does/can influence the economy of its country?

War for example, generates billions of £/$'s through arms sales....I've never been to the US but I have read in certain literature that there are certain towns in the US that rely heavily on the local arms factory for survival.

[Walter Graff]

I'm terrible at the politics game and not that much better at economics....maths, my achilles heel!

I haven't found one politician in my life that has made me sit up and actually believe in them.

 

By what you are saying above, doesn't that constitute that a President does/can influence the economy of its country?

War for example, generates billions of £/ s through arms sales....I've never been to the US but I have read in certain literature that there are certain towns in the US that rely heavily on the local arms factory for survival.

 

 

Here's the distinction, a president can effect the economy. A presidential candidate trying to tell you he'll make things better than the last president is talking out of his ass. A president can try to get congress to lower taxes, he can try to make it good for businesses by making policy that is good for them. That stimulates jobs. That stimulates the economy. Many economist equate what a president does to the economy while in office to a freight train putting on the brakes. It takes a mile or so for a freight train to stop. And that is the policy effect of the president on the economy. Basically it's me and you that affect the economy. If the president eliminated taxes for corporations, they would hire more people. That would make for more jobs. More jobs means me and you buy more. Buy more means we import more. What I'm saying is that it's all a chain. The president can be positive toward simulation but it's far more than him who affects it. He has limited ways of doing it. And right now so many things are making for the mother of storms that far more than one element has to come together.

 

As for the military, yes there are cities that rely a lot on the military just as some town rely on car manufacturing, and computer manufacturing. During WWII about 40% of the US GDP was from the war. That was huge. Today it's less than 10% so yes the military does have an effect on the US economy, but not like the old days. War can be good because it spurs new development and research. That is good for the economy so while war has some negative effects, it has good ones too. Nothing is ever all one side or another. And research shows that the longer war goes (or high defense spending) the worse. At the ten year mark this spending actually hurts the economy. Defense spending always takes from productive spending and after a while it has a negative effect.

 

It's all so complex and hence why it's too hard ever to find blame in simply one person, thing, company, anything. Think of Stanley Millgram who proved we are all connected by 6-7 people in the world (what some call six degrees of separation). That relationship holds true with everything else. Whatever one does affects some around them and that chain of events leads to good or bad for more and more.

[Guest]

I find the media reporting increasingly irresponsible and sensationalist.

-Michael

 

Yes, exactly.

 

R,

[Brian Rose]

Although, if it were a depression, then maybe we might see a resurgence of Busby Berkley style musicals Capresque "triumph of the little man" pics, and gangster pics.

[Nate Downes]

For once in his time as president Bush is right. Unemployment is 6.1% in the USA, interest rates are low, the commuter routes are still packed with drivers every day.

To clarify for those that don't understand that there are lies, dirty lies, and statistics, in 2000, our employed rate was 67.9%. As of August 2008, our employed rate is at 62.1%. (source, Bureau of Labor and Statistics)

 

You are pulling the "percept of people collecting unemployment benefits" number, not the direct unemployment number. Our employed number hasn't been this bad since the 1930's. (which dropped to 51.2% at its lowest point, same source)

 

The problem is, we gain an extra 150k potential employees every month. Kids turning 16, or people graduating colleges, roughly. Bush has added, on average, 100k new jobs per month during his tenure as president. 150k new employees, 80k new jobs == shortfall. And these new employees do not pull unemployment benefits due to working part time, low wage, contract, or just having never worked before due to lack of opportunity. So, reading the unemployment benefits number is misleading at this time in the marketplace, due to the unusual nature of the current employment field.

[Bob Hayes]

People sometimes feel war has positive effects on our economy. I couldn't dissagree more.

 

You talk about lowering taxes as good for the economy. What pays for this war spending is taxes that is it. TAXES, TAXES, TAXES. All of us are taxed to build these weapons. War is totally subsidized by tax payers. The US accounts for half of the spending on military in the world. We are drowning in a war time economy while healthcare, education, infrastructure, and financial strength are disappearing.

 

Sure some of the money building bombs goes back to middle class workers but much of the money goes to huge corporations. These companies profit when we are at war. When an American company makes a non-military product it is sold and generates more income and more commerce. It is used and reused creating more profits. The new developments immeadiately enter the private sector. In the military world they are kept secret for yeara. If we build a bridge it improves commerce and safety immeadiatly. It is that kind of investment that has made America a financial leader. If you build a bomb the only real money it generates is after it drops. Someone makes money repairing the damage. And in Iraq apparently it is the same people who make the bombs.

[Nate Downes]

I'm terrible at the politics game and not that much better at economics....maths, my achilles heel!

I haven't found one politician in my life that has made me sit up and actually believe in them.

 

By what you are saying above, doesn't that constitute that a President does/can influence the economy of its country?

War for example, generates billions of £/$'s through arms sales....I've never been to the US but I have read in certain literature that there are certain towns in the US that rely heavily on the local arms factory for survival.

The statement is also misleading, the banking crisis stems from the Gingrich era proposals for all forms of deregulation. I'd not put the fault squarely on Clinton, nor on the Congress, but consider it equal between the two of them. Congress proposed the changes, Clinton went along.

 

The current crisis, in the end, is caused by a quite old problem, called laissez faire. Assuming that capitalists shall watch over themselves is the height of niativity, yet that is exactly what has happened here.

 

Strange when I'm arguing for a Conservative core value, letting the government regulate key markets within the US.

[Nate Downes]

People sometimes feel war has positive effects on our economy. I couldn't dissagree more.

 

You talk about lowering taxes as good for the economy. What pays for this war spending is taxes that is it. TAXES, TAXES, TAXES. All of us are taxed to build these weapons. War is totally subsidized by tax payers. The US accounts for half of the spending on military in the world. We are drowning in a war time economy while healthcare, education, infrastructure, and financial strength are disappearing.

 

Sure some of the money building bombs goes back to middle class workers but much of the money goes to huge corporations. These companies profit when we are at war. When an American company makes a non-military product it is sold and generates more income and more commerce. It is used and reused creating more profits. The new developments immeadiately enter the private sector. In the military world they are kept secret for yeara. If we build a bridge it improves commerce and safety immeadiatly. It is that kind of investment that has made America a financial leader. If you build a bomb the only real money it generates is after it drops. Someone makes money repairing the damage. And in Iraq apparently it is the same people who make the bombs.

Hear hear. Want to grow our economy, build up the infastructure, and charge according to use. The reason why progressive tax rates make sence is because those with more assets have more to loose, hence need more to protect it with. They have more of a stake in maintaining the roads, firehouses, police, and military than a person with less means.

[Guest]

So, reading the unemployment benefits number is misleading at this time in the marketplace, due to the unusual nature of the current employment field.

 

Well yes if you want to get technical unemployment stats are voodoo inferential statistics at best. You're right there is no real way to tell what the unemployment rate is. I'm just going by what the feds put out, it's really all we have.

 

R,

[David Rakoczy]

Progressive Tax Nate? Give us a break. The wealthy (often) give less a poop about the 'infrastructure, police, fire, military, etc'... than the poor..!

 

How about a FAIR TAX? Buy something.. pay the Tax on it.. period. The more you spend.. the more Tax you'll pay. Certainly, there would be concessions for the truly 'poor'.. as there is now.. but other than that... a Tax on each purchase and be done. Progressive tax?... that is another 'take from the wealthy and give to the poor scheme'.. giving to the poor is a great thing if that is what [you] want to do [of your own free will]. And you should, however, the Gov't should NOT be making that mandatory.

 

Remember.. it those that have taken 'risks' (for the most part) that have more money and 'employ' people. Let them be...

[Nate Downes]

Progressive Tax Nate? Give us a break. The wealthy (often) give less a poop about the 'infrastructure, police, fire, military, etc'... than the poor..!

Oh, so the wealthy will not care if someone breaks into their house, rob them blind, then set it on fire?

How about a FAIR TAX? Buy something.. pay the Tax on it.. period. The more you spend.. the more Tax you'll pay. Certainly, there would be concessions for the truly 'poor'.. as there is now.. but other than that... a Tax on each purchase and be done. Progressive tax?... that is another 'take from the wealthy and give to the poor scheme'.. giving to the poor is a great thing if that is what [you] want to do [of your own free will]. And you should, however, the Gov't should NOT be making that mandatory.

 

Remember.. it those that have taken 'risks' (for the most part) that have more money and 'employ' people. Let them be...

Fair taxes make sense until you break things down. Ok, so let's do a Fair Tax on corn being put into a bottle of Coke. (98% of Coke's non-water ingrediants is corn-derived, so, bear with me)

 

Farmer sells corn to wholesaler - TAX

Wholesaler sells to canner - TAX

canner sells to Processor - TAX

Processor sells to Bottler - TAX

Bottler sells to Distributor - TAX

Distributor sells to retail - TAX

 

So now, let's say it's a 10% tax. We now have a single bottle of coke taking over a 100% price jump.

 

Now, the usual responce is, "Well, don't make companies pay those taxes" which is just having consumers now bearing the tax burdon, while currently they only bear 40% of the tax burdon (yet, in the 50's they beared only 10% of it, but I digress) *AND* all I need to do in order to legally live tax-free is file a DBA ($40 per year) and buy it for my Business.

 

The various hybreds of VATs that are being touted as Fair Tax just don't work. It is an option, but one which needs a lot more work to, well, work.

 

Now, I am 100% for giving people that make jobs an advantage... and that advantage is called "Capital Gains". The problem is that we redefined the tax rates that you get a better tax rate for breaking your company (15% for stock sale) over making your company work (20% for dividends). I would inverse this, and push it harder, making stock sale work as normal income tax but dividends getting a lower tax rate. Would then encourage companies to push for profitable, and long term stability, rather than short term gains which hurt the economy in the long term (eg Enron, Leimann Bros, Beher Sterns...).

 

If someone could make a sales based tax which would not gut the consumers, I'd be 100% for it. Perhaps by switching only personal Income Tax to such a system, but keeping the Capital Gainss taxes (inversed as described above) which would then discourage the kinds of schenanigans as I mentioned, as now you'd be double-whammyed for using business assets for personal use.

[David Rakoczy]

- Perhaps by switching only personal Income Tax to such a system, - Nate

 

That's the idea!.. and abolish the 'Death Tax'.. and a couple others...

 

btw, shouldn't this be moved to 'Off Topic'...

[Walter Graff]

Yes the US spending on military compared to all countries in the world ends up being half of all money spent world wide on military but the percentage of US spending on the military, budgetary wise last year was only 10%. Of course add the war and you have more. If you include the additional emergency funding for war was another and look at the government numbers more accurately including up to 150 billion, so still in the low double digit teens as a budget but quite a bit more in discretionary spending when you look beyond the governments numbers. Closer to 40%. Yes we spend a lot of money on the military. We are the current 'owner' of the kingdom in the world, so we 'have to' until we fall as a country which will happen in my sons lifetime.

 

Numbers can make things sound far worse than they really are, just depends on which numbers you use. Should we be at war? Depends on your agenda. Can more money be used for infrastructure, education, etc? Of course, but as a country we rely on our ability to always deal with debt down the road, and were we put money has more to do with interests and buddy-buddy. Hey, we don't live in a perfect world and we have a over inflated government that doesn't necessarily have our best interests in mind. Blame that on the fathers of the constitution that created a government that was created for the privileged, run by the privileged, that deals with the privileged first, and the rest of us second. Not much you can do about it.

[Ira Ratner]

Gee--I wonder how much more we're going to hear from Bush--and McCain--about privatizing Social Security NOW and having young people invest their SS payments in the STOCK MARKET!!!

 

Nothing for nothing, and it's too late NOT to get political in this thread, but Republican philosophies have pretty much proven to be no better than those philosophies that support communism:

 

They're both failed systems, failed philosophies that the wealth of the corporations...or work of the people alone...will create utopia for everyone. The answer is in the middle--a balance--and you can't label someone a "communist" or "socialist" or God forbid even worse--a "LIBERAL " just because they want to join a union.

 

All of the evidence clearly shows that Bush is the worst Chief Executive this nation, and the world, has ever witnessed--yet some have the gall to blame our current situation on CLINTON!? I'm dumbfounded.

 

For those on the fence here about the upcoming election, try to put any inherent racism and anti-Muslim attitudes aside (although he ain't one), and PLEASE vote for the one guy who has a shot at fixing this mess and mending our broken relations with so many other countries:

 

Obama.

 

And if you're STILL not convinced, I have two words for you:

 

Sarah Palin.

 

Or did I unfairly attack her as the "liberal" media outlets are complaining about 24/7? Hell--I WISH we had a liberal media, because we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

And when Fox says "Fair and Balanced," you can bet the farm that it ain't.

[Nate Downes]

- Perhaps by switching only personal Income Tax to such a system, - Nate

 

That's the idea!.. and abolish the 'Death Tax'.. and a couple others...

 

btw, shouldn't this be moved to 'Off Topic'...

Well, considering there has never been a "Death Tax" this is a moot point....

 

OH! You must be referring to the Probate taxes applied to those worth over $10 million! (Yes, those are the only "Death Taxes" that have been discussed) I don't know about you, but if I die with over $10 million in liquid assets, I think my son will understand if the government has a cut of it as income, just as if I had gifted it to him in my lifetime....

 

Incidentally, how do you feel about the new Bush Birth tax of $87,465 given to every person born into this country as of last monday?

Edited September 17, 2008 by Nate Downes

[David Rakoczy]

Can more money be used for infrastructure, education, etc? - Walter

 

With regard to Education, we have never spent more and gotten less.

 

I think my son will understand if the government has a cut of it as income, just as if I had gifted it to him in my lifetime.... - Nate

 

Why.. why should he.. you left that to HIM.. they have no right to STEAL any part of it.. you already paid tax on that... goodness!

 

I have a Capping Shutter I need to retro-fit.. I'm outa here.

Edited September 17, 2008 by David Rakoczy

[Walter Graff]

Gee--I wonder how much more we're going to hear from Bush--and McCain--about privatizing Social Security NOW and having young people invest their SS payments in the STOCK MARKET!!!

 

Nothing for nothing, and it's too late NOT to get political in this thread, but Republican philosophies have pretty much proven to be no better than those philosophies that support communism:

 

They're both failed systems, failed philosophies that the wealth of the corporations...or work of the people alone...will create utopia for everyone. The answer is in the middle--a balance--and you can't label someone a "communist" or "socialist" or God forbid even worse--a "LIBERAL " just because they want to join a union.

 

All of the evidence clearly shows that Bush is the worst Chief Executive this nation, and the world, has ever witnessed--yet some have the gall to blame our current situation on CLINTON!? I'm dumbfounded.

 

For those on the fence here about the upcoming election, try to put any inherent racism and anti-Muslim attitudes aside (although he ain't one), and PLEASE vote for the one guy who has a shot at fixing this mess and mending our broken relations with so many other countries:

 

Obama.

 

And if you're STILL not convinced, I have two words for you:

 

Sarah Palin.

 

Or did I unfairly attack her as the "liberal" media outlets are complaining about 24/7? Hell--I WISH we had a liberal media, because we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

And when Fox says "Fair and Balanced," you can bet the farm that it ain't.

 

Yea, this is the point when this thread needs to be closed. Then again, just read my last post and is it all over the place. I guess the five Millers I had might have something to do with it. It was a bad attempt at humor saying that you can look at all the numbers in the world and come up with some pretty different results. And that we have little control over what the folks who run this government do. But that is because our government was made by rich people for rich people. Do you think that the 25% of the US who fought against the British for our 'freedom' (yea the revolution was mostly not supported by the general population) where a bunch of poor farmers who herded cows?

 

End of this topic for me now that it's starting to get political and emotional.

[Ira Ratner]

The British are better at these kinds of discussions than Americans--because they INVITE the spirited and emotional debate. We walk away from it so as not to offend.

 

Heck, my favorite entertainment are the replays of the House of Commons on CSPAN on Sunday nights, although I haven't watched it lately. Now THOSE guys and gals know how to enjoy a political argument!!!

 

It might not be that entertaining for the British populace, but it sure is for us Yanks.

 

It's REFRESHING!!!

[Chris Keth]

Heck, my favorite entertainment are the replays of the House of Commons on CSPAN on Sunday nights, although I haven't watched it lately. Now THOSE guys and gals know how to enjoy a political argument!!!

 

It might not be that entertaining for the British populace, but it sure is for us Yanks.

 

It's REFRESHING!!!

 

The prime minister looks like the face of death when he finished answering their questions. Our president should have to face that kind of scrutiny. Or any scrutiny from close to him.

[David Rakoczy]

We walk away from it so as not to offend. - Ira

 

no.. we just know when stop and walk away as to not waste any more time... big difference.

Edited September 17, 2008 by David Rakoczy

[Nate Downes]

We walk away from it so as not to offend. - Ira

 

no.. we just know when stop and walk away as to not waste any more time... big difference.

But then the issues do not get addressed, do they?

[Nate Downes]

Can more money be used for infrastructure, education, etc? - Walter

 

With regard to Education, we have never spent more and gotten less.

 

I think my son will understand if the government has a cut of it as income, just as if I had gifted it to him in my lifetime.... - Nate

 

Why.. why should he.. you left that to HIM.. they have no right to STEAL any part of it.. you already paid tax on that... goodness!

 

I have a Capping Shutter I need to retro-fit.. I'm outa here.

No.... actually you haven't if you ever read the documents on Probate. The "Death Tax" is on assets which are pre-taxed, such as capital gains from stock sale upon death. nobody has paid taxes on those assets yet, hence, to propose eliminating the tax is to claim that those that make over $10 million should have everyone else pay for their share of the pie.

 

You've not done your homework there, and I can understand that. Too often in todays era we only get the sound bites, and fail to do our own research.

 

And nobody has even addressed the $87k+ Birth Tax. They're so worried "Oh no, the elites will have to pay taxes on their income" that they're ignoring that these same policies have given them a tax on merely being born in this country. You can't just ignore this debt, it has to be paid. Welcome to higher taxes, regardless of income rate, due to this meme of "death tax" and "tax breaks". Well, nobody is getting a tax break now, we have the largest tax in history in the room, and nobody else seems to be talking about it.

[David Rakoczy]

If you want to send them your money here is the address:

 

Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service

Atlanta, GA 39901-0115

 

 

But please don't vote to raise my Taxes! Whether I make $20k a year or $10 million. Please vote to cut Taxes and CUT the Size and Wasteful Spending of our out of control Gov't.

 

http://johnshadegg.house.gov/News/Document...ocumentID=13333

[Nate Downes]

If you want to send them your money here is the address:

 

Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service

Atlanta, GA 39901-0115

 

 

But please don't vote to raise my Taxes! Whether I make $20k a year or $10 million. Please vote to cut Taxes and CUT the Size and Wasteful Spending of our out of control Gov't.

 

http://johnshadegg.house.gov/News/Document...ocumentID=13333

You already voted to raise your taxes actually. Weither today or tomorrow, they will be raised due to the votes of the people. We've been running on the US's Credit Card since 2001, and the bills are coming due.

 

To say "Don'/t raise my taxes" after already voting to raise them by electing people who were fiscally irresponsible is the height of arrogance. We made this mess, we need to clean it up, period, the end. You owe $87k+, thanks to the wasteful spending of the past 7 years, they will take your payment now.

 

We owe, I'm not paying for your issues, you're not paying for mine. All of us owe. Every man, woman, child, and it must be paid. We cannot cut government spending because the government has already begun cutting bone. (eg Minneapolis Bridge Collapse) Like it or not, you will be paying higher taxes. The only alternative is even more horrid, Hyperinflation. Think $4 for a gallon of gas is bad? How about $40? $400? $4000?. That is the other option.

 

Now, these taxes may not be directly assessed to you, but through higher costs such as toll roads, property taxes, and state sales taxes. The money will be wrung from you one way or another. I would rather have it be honestly assessed directly, rather than through indirect and painful bleeding of the system. Face the pain, and it will hurt a lot less.

[Ira Ratner]

Here we go again with the Republican threat of Democrats raising your taxes.

 

And we're still cordial here, right? No one walking away? I THINK I'm being real cordial, so I'll continue on this path. And if possible, hang in there.

 

Largest institutional economic meltdown since the depression. Unbelievable unemployment. Stock market is a joke. And inflationary numbers out of this world that they've still been HIDING.

 

And government bailouts--which is the largest tax of ALL!!!

 

And now the Repubs are blaming this all on a Democratic Congress, and Bush had nothing to do with any of this.

 

What kind of alternate universe do Bush supporters live in?