quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

quote:

ORIGINAL: letusreason

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: letusreason
Who said this? Or are you making this up as you go? man i get irritated by off topic story tellers.

The premise of the bail out was that if they don't lend the money, these companies will go out of business putting many people out of jobs and that it will ruin the economy. They are basically saying, "we're so big that you can't live without us, hence, we need to be bailed out" or rather, "we're so big that you can't live without us, hence, you need to bail us out"

Your opinionated embelishments are certainly entertaining though they are not based on any facts. Of course it's your prerogative in choosing to spread make believe if you want.

I'd disagree with the ideas that the bailout was about the employees of those financial firms, but that's not his main point. His main point is that these institutions were "too big to fail" and thus, the stability of the markets were dependent upon these institutions being saved.

If that wasn't the purpose of the bail out, what was the purpose?

-Dan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhippie

quote:

ORIGINAL: 47.samuel

quote:

ORIGINAL: sylvan

I just love Trickle Down Economics. Corporate and personal taxes on the wealthy have been at an all time low under GWB. The executives have made sooooo much money - with awesome severance packages! How awesome is that!!!!! A million is good, but 100 million is REAL GOOD. It's just like the late 80's - huge profits for the rich - on the backs of the sorry middle class. It works great! The economy crumbles, unemployment rises, etc., etc. - and then, the middle class American wealth "Trickles Up"....it's awesome. I loved trickling up money in the last bailout under Bush 1. I LOVE CORPORATE SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S AWESOME.

TO HECK WITH THE POOR, THE RICH NEED MORE MONEY!

*************************************************************

quote:

Before President Bush signed the 2003 tax cuts, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) released a statement signed by ten Nobel prize laureates entitled "Economists' Statement Opposing the Bush Tax Cuts," which states that:

“Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Is their any truth to the rumor that Sarah Palin has replaced Phil Gramm as John McCain's chief adviser in "voodoo" economics?

Nice piece of rumor mongering there dude! Any other slams you want to take at Sarah Palin feel free to start a rumor thread

quote:

ORIGINAL: letusreason

quote:

ORIGINAL: 47.samuel

quote:

ORIGINAL: sylvan

I just love Trickle Down Economics. Corporate and personal taxes on the wealthy have been at an all time low under GWB. The executives have made sooooo much money - with awesome severance packages! How awesome is that!!!!! A million is good, but 100 million is REAL GOOD. It's just like the late 80's - huge profits for the rich - on the backs of the sorry middle class. It works great! The economy crumbles, unemployment rises, etc., etc. - and then, the middle class American wealth "Trickles Up"....it's awesome. I loved trickling up money in the last bailout under Bush 1. I LOVE CORPORATE SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S AWESOME.

TO HECK WITH THE POOR, THE RICH NEED MORE MONEY!

*************************************************************

quote:

Before President Bush signed the 2003 tax cuts, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) released a statement signed by ten Nobel prize laureates entitled "Economists' Statement Opposing the Bush Tax Cuts," which states that:

“Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Is their any truth to the rumor that Sarah Palin has replaced Phil Gramm as John McCain's chief adviser in "voodoo" economics?

Ok , so let's see, you have a liberal source of wikipedia which clumsily explains with bias Supply Side Economics thusly:

"The typical policy recommendation of supply-side economics is to achieve the proper level of marginal tax rates, which, by virtue of the high rate of taxes in general, equates with cutting of taxes.[2] Maximum benefits are achieved by optimizing the marginal tax rates of those with high-incomes and capital who are deemed as most likely to increase supply and thus spur growth.[3] Mainstream Keynesian macroeconomics, by contrast, contends that tax cuts should be used to increase demand, not supply, and thus should be targeted at cash-strapped, lower-income households, who are more likely to spend additional income."

And then there is the other "pedia" explanation of supply side economics:

Supply-side theory is based on Say's law, which, paraphrased, states that supply creates its own demand. A simplified version of these ideas were taken up as a popular political movement during the 1980 election campaign, with Ronald Reagan proposing a modified policy of supply-side economics (although liberals disparagingly[Citation Needed] used the term "trickle-down" economics). [1] The decreased regulation begun in the late 1970s, together with lower marginal tax rates would provide enough savings and investment to pool new capital and drive economic growth. Manufacturers for example, would hire more people, produce more, and create more demand and economic activity. The idea gained wide popular support, and became known as "Reaganomics".

It's no wonder you included a non-sensical Palin attack, if you read liberal junk from liberal sources, you think ,,,,like a liberal which is wrong.

Then there's the whole matter of the Bush Tax Cuts which wikipedia laughinly points to the EPI's biased report using "wage stagnation" as their rediculous benchmark where as the "Income, Poverty and Health Insurance in the United States 2006" shows a much different story, that income increased under Bush Tax Cuts and mostly for lower income families.

http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/CensusIncomeQuintilesEtc2003to2006.jpg

quote:

ORIGINAL: 47.samuel

quote:

ORIGINAL: letusreason

quote:

ORIGINAL: 47.samuel

quote:

ORIGINAL: sylvan

I just love Trickle Down Economics. Corporate and personal taxes on the wealthy have been at an all time low under GWB. The executives have made sooooo much money - with awesome severance packages! How awesome is that!!!!! A million is good, but 100 million is REAL GOOD. It's just like the late 80's - huge profits for the rich - on the backs of the sorry middle class. It works great! The economy crumbles, unemployment rises, etc., etc. - and then, the middle class American wealth "Trickles Up"....it's awesome. I loved trickling up money in the last bailout under Bush 1. I LOVE CORPORATE SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S AWESOME.

TO HECK WITH THE POOR, THE RICH NEED MORE MONEY!

*************************************************************

quote:

Before President Bush signed the 2003 tax cuts, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) released a statement signed by ten Nobel prize laureates entitled "Economists' Statement Opposing the Bush Tax Cuts," which states that:

“Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Is their any truth to the rumor that Sarah Palin has replaced Phil Gramm as John McCain's chief adviser in "voodoo" economics?

Ok , so let's see, you have a liberal source of wikipedia which clumsily explains with bias Supply Side Economics thusly:

"The typical policy recommendation of supply-side economics is to achieve the proper level of marginal tax rates, which, by virtue of the high rate of taxes in general, equates with cutting of taxes.[2] Maximum benefits are achieved by optimizing the marginal tax rates of those with high-incomes and capital who are deemed as most likely to increase supply and thus spur growth.[3] Mainstream Keynesian macroeconomics, by contrast, contends that tax cuts should be used to increase demand, not supply, and thus should be targeted at cash-strapped, lower-income households, who are more likely to spend additional income."

And then there is the other "pedia" explanation of supply side economics:

Supply-side theory is based on Say's law, which, paraphrased, states that supply creates its own demand. A simplified version of these ideas were taken up as a popular political movement during the 1980 election campaign, with Ronald Reagan proposing a modified policy of supply-side economics (although liberals disparagingly[Citation Needed] used the term "trickle-down" economics). [1] The decreased regulation begun in the late 1970s, together with lower marginal tax rates would provide enough savings and investment to pool new capital and drive economic growth. Manufacturers for example, would hire more people, produce more, and create more demand and economic activity. The idea gained wide popular support, and became known as "Reaganomics".

It's no wonder you included a non-sensical Palin attack, if you read liberal junk from liberal sources, you think ,,,,like a liberal which is wrong.

Then there's the whole matter of the Bush Tax Cuts which wikipedia laughinly points to the EPI's biased report using "wage stagnation" as their rediculous benchmark where as the "Income, Poverty and Health Insurance in the United States 2006" shows a much different story, that income increased under Bush Tax Cuts and mostly for lower income families.

http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/CensusIncomeQuintilesEtc2003to2006.jpg

Perhaps some knowledgeable conservative can enlighten we "clumsy, "biased," "nonsensical" liberals, as to the last time a Republican president employed "supply side economics" to produce a budget surplus.

quote:

Only when you can get some knowledgeable liberal to enlighten us poor, ignorant, conservatives about the last time the Democratic controlled Congress actually cut spending instead of increasing it to match the additional revenues from supply side tax cuts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rlj

quote:

Only when you can get some knowledgeable liberal to enlighten us poor, ignorant, conservatives about the last time the Democratic controlled Congress actually cut spending instead of increasing it to match the additional revenues from supply side tax cuts.

Where were you from 2001-2006 Rich? That sounds exactly just like what Republicans do and did in those years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: letusreason

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

quote:

ORIGINAL: letusreason

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: letusreason
Who said this? Or are you making this up as you go? man i get irritated by off topic story tellers.

The premise of the bail out was that if they don't lend the money, these companies will go out of business putting many people out of jobs and that it will ruin the economy. They are basically saying, "we're so big that you can't live without us, hence, we need to be bailed out" or rather, "we're so big that you can't live without us, hence, you need to bail us out"

Your opinionated embelishments are certainly entertaining though they are not based on any facts. Of course it's your prerogative in choosing to spread make believe if you want.

I'd disagree with the ideas that the bailout was about the employees of those financial firms, but that's not his main point. His main point is that these institutions were "too big to fail" and thus, the stability of the markets were dependent upon these institutions being saved.

If that wasn't the purpose of the bail out, what was the purpose?

-Dan.

Why not get the quotes of those that voted for it , what did they say was the purpose of it?
Then agree or disagree with it.

Can we at least have a conversation of the facts instead of what we think other people think?

quote:

"rhippie" - Only when you can get some knowledgeable liberal to enlighten us poor, ignorant, conservatives about the last time the Democratic controlled Congress actually cut spending instead of increasing it to match the additional revenues from supply side tax cuts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 47.samuel

quote:

"rhippie" - Only when you can get some knowledgeable liberal to enlighten us poor, ignorant, conservatives about the last time the Democratic controlled Congress actually cut spending instead of increasing it to match the additional revenues from supply side tax cuts.

It would appear that "rhippe" is in denial when it comes to admitting that the Clinton Administration actually balanced budgets and left office in 2001 with a $559 billion surplus and a 65% voter approval rating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

quote:

ORIGINAL: csl7037
Trickle Down, Trickle up - you dislike economics in general?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 47.samuel

I'm referring to the financial surplus under the Clinton Administration as an historical fact, you're citicizing Congress using political generalizations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: csl7037
Trickle Down, Trickle up - you dislike economics in general?

Trickle up economics? How is that supposed to work? You give those with less money tax cuts, they use it to go to a restaurant, the waitress uses it to buy widgets, the retailer uses it to purchase more inventory, the distributors use it to buy goods from manufacturers, and it eventually makes its way up to the rich. So, if you give the less wealthy tax cuts, it actually makes the rich richer. Sounds about as sound as the notion that trickle down economics will bring wealth to the less wealthy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: letusreason

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13
Social security is the largest entitlement bill that the government faces. In 2017, that program will start paying out more money than it is taking in. More revenue needs to be generated by the government in order to service that debt. Where will that come from? Manna from heaven?

You are a little off there, it's 2041, where are you getting that 2017? I notice you are not big on sources, so let's assume you heard some liberal distortion on cnn until you provide something concreate, k? And what do you see as the solution. If you only whine and complain without offering a solution and say Bush is bad , people will view you as a do-nothing (except complain) democrat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: letusreason

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

How will a federal bankruptcy affect the economy! Bush has been "cutting" taxes and giving us tax rebates and look how robust the economy is! Cut your income and the revenues go up? Ludicrous and it has never been proven but everyone likes to have their taxes cut! It's good politics even if it doesn't make a whit of economic sense!

Wrong-O there, again, unless you have some sources to prove that higher tax rates such as the ones Obama has suggested will result in economic growth they will not and will force the wealthy to tie up their wealth in tax shelters instead exposing it to taxation and force layoffs and jobs to shift over seas to where cheaper tax rates exist. And the U.S. is already one of the highest in the world! Did you hear Obama say most small businesses make less than 250k?? What a joke. Those making more than that, which are many, will get raped by his tax increases.

Until then, read the documented proof of the economic sense....

"Furthermore, according to a study published by the National Bureau for Economic Research,[2] the Clinton tax hike is failing to collect over 40 percent of the projected revenue increases. "

"individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989. "

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhippie

.....Nice piece of rumor mongering there dude! Any other slams you want to take at Sarah Palin feel free to start a rumor thread .....

quote:

ORIGINAL: letusreason

..... It's no wonder you included a non-sensical Palin attack, if you read liberal junk from liberal sources, you think ,,,,like a liberal which is wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willfs
Why shouldn't everyone pay the same rate? I can see why maybe those at poverty level should get some ease but why not as flat a tax rate as we can get. The rich can afford to pay a higher rate but it's their money. I make near poverty level but I do not have the right to take more from someone else so I can pay less. The goverment doesn't own us, we own the govermment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

quote:

ORIGINAL: willfs
Why shouldn't everyone pay the same rate? I can see why maybe those at poverty level should get some ease but why not as flat a tax rate as we can get. The rich can afford to pay a higher rate but it's their money. I make near poverty level but I do not have the right to take more from someone else so I can pay less. The goverment doesn't own us, we own the govermment.

Because the rich benefit more from a variety of government services than do the middle class and the poor. You and I may have more faith in our 401K's because of SEC oversight, but that's nothing compared to what Warren Buffet makes off of their efforts. You and I may have access to more gadgets thanks to the FCC's latest decision on white space usage, but the heads at Google and Microsoft are out shopping for yachts. The Patent & Trademark Office can help my boss defend his small company's logo against trademark infringement, but those same laws are worth WAY more to the likes of Ralph Lauren and Pepsi. New roads, bridges, and railroads can help you and me get to work and go shopping, but they can also facilitate faster, higher-volume commercial traffic. Even some military action, while (hopefully) improving security, provides a wealth of business opportunities for certain segments of the economy (the guys at Lockheed are not hurting right now).

While we all benefit in some way from these services, they generally provide far more financial benefit to the wealthy than they do to the poor and middle class. That's one justification for a progressive tax.

-Dan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhippie
That is so much hogwash!!!

quote:

Your rationale is nothing more than a feeble attempt to rationalize the attempt of the government to steal money from people that are more well off than others. Scripture calls this covetousness and envy

quote:

ORIGINAL: willfs
The reason those things help the rich more is simply because the rich own more.

quote:

It can stiffle productivity. If a person sees that they can work hard and build up a good business, only to give a huge percentage to the goverment, it will be less of an incentive for them to do so.

quote:


The best idea I have heard is a federal sales tax. Food items and clothing items (perhaps only those that are not near luxery level prices) could be tax free. This would definetly be the fairest and simplest way to collect taxes. It would also seem to take a lot of paper work out of the process, atleast for the average american. I am sure there are negatives but it is an idea that I like, from what I have seen of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhippie
That is so much hogwash!!!

How so?

quote:

Your rationale is nothing more than a feeble attempt to rationalize the attempt of the government to steal money from people that are more well off than others. Scripture calls this covetousness and envy

I am not covetous or envious of rich people, nor do I harbor any ill will towards them (I'd like to join the club some day; we'll see if I ever get there). I'm not even saying that rich people haven't earned what they've got. I expect that just as many rich people earned their status as poor people have earned theirs - there's probably a healthy mix in both populations of people who got there through their own deeds, those who had situations (good or bad) handed to them, and those who had some combination of the two.

I'm just stating that due to various business and investment market conditions, rich people (individually, not necessarily as a whole) stand to benefit significantly more from a variety of government policies than do poor and middle income people. I'm not even making a moral judgment of that fact - honestly, I doubt that there's any way around it. But given that, I don't see why it's a problem to charge more to someone who's benefiting from the services more.

-Dan.