![]() |
Re: The Stimulus Package
Quote:
I dont know why anyone even bothers to read your posts anymore...:lol: People said I embarrased myself with my opinions...at at least when im confident in something I actually end up being right... |
Re: The Stimulus Package
sigh...
|
Re: The Stimulus Package
Quote:
As for the election, we've already hashed that out long ago with the conclusion you simply ignore the financial collapse in August as a game changer, and I believe it was a game changer (opinion I shared on the day of the collapse). Nothing further needs be discussed as we've said it all before. Call it a difference of opinion. But in the end, how does this topic have anything to do with the election? We're talking about economics, not politics. If you wish to disagree with my criticisms, all I ask is that you do so on a content basis, and not an emotional one. I don't like the idea that the stimulus will fail. I have a 401k that needs it succeed. But based in the bill' merits, I simply don't see how it will work. I may be wrong, but that is an inherent risk when you put yourself out in the realm of ideas and don't base every argument on anger and spite. What is it specifically about my concerns do you believe are unwarranted, and why? What is it about the stimulus do you believe will work, and why? You seem less convinced that this stimulus will work, than of the idea that I am wrong for the sake of my being wrong. A conversation is not running into a room an screaming "you're a big dummy" and then running out, relishing in your rapier wit. Its an exchange of ideas, and after all these years I'm still waiting for you to share one. |
Re: The Stimulus Package
Look, nobody is saying the stimulus package will make the DOW rise 4000 points in 3 days or anything like that. But the fact of the matter is they say it will create or save at least 3.5 million jobs, and to me, that is money well spent that will help in the long run, and nobody here nor their will change my mind on that.
|
Re: The Stimulus Package
Quote:
Jason, I've long given up on the idea that I can change your mind. If anyone is steadfast in their political philosophy, it would be you. I simply want to better understand your point of view, and I have to think that if you believe in progressive politics this strongly, I have to believe there must be convincing reasons beyond class warfare and contempt of wealth. So, I'm not trying to change your mind, I simply want to understand your reasoning: What is it specifically about my concerns do you believe are unwarranted, and why? What is it about the stimulus do you believe will work, and why? (aside from throwing money at the problem) |
Re: The Stimulus Package
I just believe the stimulus will do what they say it will do. For starters, the infrastructure spending is much needed. I also love the money being spent for renewable energy, far too long we have known our dependence on foriegn oil has been a problem yet we have done little to nothing about it. Of course the other things which I would rather not go into detail, are mostly good too. These things will create jobs hopefully soon. Will it be enough to quickly end the recession and see the DOW rise to what it was in 2007? Hardly, but hopefully it will save people's jobs. At the very least, it will do worlds better than just ignoring the problem and giving the rich more tax cuts, which is what John Mcain would have done. How can the Rupublicans get upset over this spending, when they themselves spent ungodly amounts on an unneeded and unnecessairy war. We need to spend a little to get out of this mess that THEY created!
I have a conservative professor who said as he watched the speech last night his wife was furious when Obama again mentioned the tax raise for the wealthy. She claimed that just because they worked hard, got an education and have been successful they shouldnt have to pay more taxes than everyone else. I honestly understand that opinion, but my thinking is that rich people wont suffer from paying more than poor people, and its for the good of the country. This professors wife was also born and raised in Germany. If she dosent like it, go back to Germany I say. |
Re: The Stimulus Package
First I'd like to thank you for your thorough and level headed response.
I understand why you would want the rich to pay a higher percentage than the poor, if in the end the result was higher revenue to the government. But according to the CBO charts Bond posted earlier in this thread, thats not the case. Revenue actually increased a percent when taxes were lowered on the wealthy. The leading explanation is that when taxes or lowered, more wealth enters the economy and in the end more revenue is created by taxing more wealth less. Lowering capital gain taxes has been proven to increase revenue to the government by more than that. So my question is this: If raising taxes lowers revenue in many cases (not all), then to what end do we raise those taxes? Is it fairness? If so, is the purpose of our tax system a means to exact social justice, or solely a means to create revenue to run the government? |
Re: The Stimulus Package
Im not sure I believe those charts and graphs, and the theory that increasing taxes lowers government revenue. The revenue was probably coming from somewhere else.
|
Re: The Stimulus Package
Quote:
But there's something more to it, take into consideration how the value of the american dollar has changed in the last 10 years, and the population. Is the slant of the GDP rising more steep then the one of the value of our money going down? Did higher tax cuts for the rich people really create more jobs in the last 6 years? |
Re: The Stimulus Package
Quote:
As for inflation, the numbers use a percentage of revenue compared to GD(N)P, which I believe makes inflation irrelevant in this context. If we were comparing hard numbers, then I would agree adjustments would need to be made to acount for inflation. Even if there are adjustments that need to be made, those numbers are still impossible to ignore, IMO. As for unemployment, for the majority of the last 6 years we enjoyed historically low unemloyment numbers which I think can be very much attributed to letting those that create jobs keep the revenue they need to generate them. As for the crash, that has more to do with unethical behavior and unrealistic home buying regulations than with the tax rate. When you start mixing taxes with ethics, you begin to use our tax system as a means to create your view of social justice, and they become a punishment rather than a means to generate funds. In the end it's common sense when it comes to unemployment: The poor and middle class do not create jobs, they benefit from the opportunity to have them. The wealthy provide the opportunity to have a job through their wealth, based on the idea that the job will give them the opportunity to create more wealth than they are spending to create the job. When the welthy are taxed, they simply adjust their spending and hiring and in the end we pay for their taxes through added fees and costs (remember how prices of goods increased along with gas, it works the same with taxes) and also with reduced opportunities for employment. When you take wealth from the wealthy, you reduce their capacity to invest in their own business and create more and better paying employment opportunities, and real unemployment rises (I do not consider work created by the government for the sake of providing jobs "real", but instead temporary replacements as they were proven to be during the Great Depression). This is shown in many European countries that view double digit unemployment as normal, such as Germany and France. If anyone can prove this to be incorrect using real numbers and resources, and not just opinion based on what they think should work, I would be willing to completely change my entire view of economics and politics. |
Re: The Stimulus Package
For the sake of argument, I assumed numbers from the Office of Budget and Management of the United States of America is a reliable source.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The Stimulus Package
http://consumerist.com/5157192/hot-c...simple-and-fun
Well this helped me understand how the whole problem came about. |
Re: The Stimulus Package
I like how even though Bond posted hard numbers they are still not being accepted.
|
Re: The Stimulus Package
Quote:
I won't accept that doing the same thing we have been doing is working, because its not. I'm not sure if total counties get credit scores, but I'm sure if they do, the united state's would be horrid. The thing that disturbs me about the bailout packages, in a system that's supposed to be capitalism, is that in order for it to work properly the companies need to have the countrie's best interest at heart and not just their own. Which I don't think they have, and the government is giving them little incentive to do so. Just like when Ford was asking for a bailout, when the CEOs realized they had to sacrifice their own pay in order to get the bail out, they decided its not worth it. Only because it hurt themselves financially, even if the money would have done some good for the company and created jobs. That gives me the impression that companies are willing to lie to get more money. (That's only one of many examples too.) But I'm off subject somewhat. The fact of the matter is the strategy we have been doing has not been working, and if we stick to it, we'll just get pulled futher and further into a deep pit of debt until we find that some circle of rich people pretty much own the contry. Something has to change, period. |
Re: The Stimulus Package
Quote:
The two main causes of the financial collapse were: excessive toxic loans (which destroy a bank's balance sheet) and over reliance on outdated risk management software. The main cause of our enormous debt is excessive spending. Quote:
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GameTavern