OT: Rating the President

[rextorres]

O.K. Let's say the millionaires deserve a tax cut because they have been taken advantage of by the system.

W is claiming that EVERYONE is getting a tax cut. What he is doing, however, is giving the top 5% a tax cut and financing it with the money collected through the social security tax which is meant to be used for social security.

If your in the top 5% make over 128k I suppose you'd want this, but if your not then your being duped into thinking that your getting a tax cut and the money your putting into social security and supposed to get back is being spent.

As I mentioned Social Security amounts to 44% of revenue which people forget and it is NOT being put away for social security.

EDIT: If you don't care about Social Security fine just tell people that the money they're paying for Social Security isn't for Social Security and call it what it is: Income Tax.

[ February 06, 2003, 00:50: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Fian]

"O.K. Let's say the millionaires deserve a tax cut because they have been taken advantage of by the system."
OK, we agree here. (:

"W is claiming that EVERYONE is getting a tax cut. "
My understanding is if you pay income tax, OR have children, you are getting a tax cut. To be honest, if you aren't doing either, and are at a workable age, you are a drain on society, and certainly don't deserve to be getting even more money from the government.

"If your in the top 5% make over 128k "
I probably make just under 100k a year, so no, I am not in the top 5% by your numbers. I am not pushing this because it benefits me. I push it because it is the right thing to do. If I ever do make it to the top 5%, I would like to think I was treated fairly.

"but if your not then your being duped"
More of this class warfare argument. Rich versus poor. Well, in America the Rich are the ones persecuted, because they make a smaller voting block than the poor. I for one, would like it to stop, and start giving back to them some of the money that has been taken away.

"If you don't care about Social Security fine just tell people that the money they're paying for Social Security isn't for Social Security and call it what it is: Income Tax."

My understanding is that when you go into deficit spending (which we currently are), you do raid Social Security funds. For a while there when we had a surplus, we were not raiding Social Security funds. It therefore appears to me (and in case you haven't noticed yet, I am not an expert in federal budgets, but my guess is you aren't either (: ), that the 44% of the money that is SS, is not considered a part of the budget money. Only a small fraction is raided when you run into deficit spending. George Bush's plan is that this tax cut will spur the economy which will raise tax revenues, which will make borrowing from SS unnecessary. If we can actually manage to avoid deficit spending for some time, we might be able to better analyze whether the current SS taxes are too high based on the demand of the SS system. If we find, that we can meet the needs of SS with a lower tax rate on it, I am all for cutting it. However, at this point, there is more concern that SS will be inadequate and therefore the tax rate raised. If that occurs, cutting it right now for "everyone" would be sending the wrong message about Social Security.

[Dralasite]

Here something I don't understand. How is W's tax policy different from Bush seniors? I don't think they call it "trickle down" economics anymore (its "supply side" now, right?), but I can't tell how it is different, if it is.

[Fyron]

(sound familiar? lower taxes on the wealthy make people want to borrow by lowering interest rates)"

Maybe you need to read an economics text book too. Those 2 things are in no way directly related. Lowering interest rates does not _always_ cause problems. In fact, sometimes it is the best thing to do for the economy. It depends on the current issues at hand. And, the president has NO influence/control over interest rates.

The main cause of the depression was lack of regulation of the stock market and banking institutions.

No, that is not true. There were many things that caused the depression, not just 2. Overproduction as a result of WWI caused a lot more damage than lack of regulation. Regulation in no way equals prosperity. Too much regulation does more harm than not enough regulation (unless you want to support the huge corporations at the expense of small businesses, of course).

I guess trying to help these people doesn't fit into your philosophy, but a revolution probably would have been worse

Don't pretend to know my philosophies based on an occasional post or two.

the New Deal helped alleviate the tensions.

My argument was that FDR's actions did nothing to help the economy. The GDP continued to fall throughout most of the first and second New Deals. Only WWII saved us from the depression.

As far as the deficit goes - where did you get your info or did you just make that up?

Let's see... overspending + low tax revenue = deficit.

There was a spike during WWII - but based on how you feel about war that shouldn't bother you.

And how do I feel about war? I have made no Posts indicating how I feel about war. What do you base this on?

[Askan Nightbringer]

Originally posted by Fian:
Well, in America the Rich are the ones persecuted, because they make a smaller voting block than the poor.

Now thats funny. If they are persecuted why don't we get rich american boat people down here, instead of poor iraqi/afghani/pakistani ones?
They might be a small part of the voting block but I've got this suspicion they're somehow getting their own way, based on the facts that they own every fricken thing and continue to get richer and richer.

Askan

[Fyron]

People with no money can't buy things. How could the poor by a lot of things? Only the ones with money can make purchases. It only makes sense that the rich own more per-person than the poor. But, the rich do not own _everything_.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Maybe you need to read an economics text book too. Those 2 things are in no way directly related. Lowering interest rates does not _always_ cause problems. In fact, sometimes it is the best thing to do for the economy. It depends on the current issues at hand. And, the president has NO influence/control over interest rates.

The point I was making is that the situation now is analogous to the situation before the depression: Cut taxes on the wealthy, induce spending. And the President may not sit in the Fed meeting, but he certainly has influence over what the fed does.

No, that is not true. There were many things that caused the depression, not just 2. Overproduction as a result of WWI caused a lot more damage than lack of regulation. Regulation in no way equals prosperity. Too much regulation does more harm than not enough regulation (unless you want to support the huge corporations at the expense of small businesses, of course).

That's a matter of opinion: some people would argue that the reason we haven't had a depression again is because of regulation - overproduction might have been a factor, but if overproduction were the cause of a depression then there would have been a worse depression after WWII.

Don't pretend to know my philosophies based on an occasional post or two.

You're right I shouldn't draw any conclusions from your Posts.

My argument was that FDR's actions did nothing to help the economy. The GDP continued to fall throughout most of the first and second New Deals. Only WWII saved us from the depression.

You may be right - I am not going to look up the number, but the New Deal was instituted because there was a genuine fear that the government might collapse.

Let's see... overspending + low tax revenue = deficit.

You implied the deficit was a problem, during the depression it wasn't, it didn't become a problem until it ballooned in the 80's.

[Askan Nightbringer]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
People with no money can't buy things. How could the poor by a lot of things? Only the ones with money can make purchases. It only makes sense that the rich own more per-person than the poor. But, the rich do not own _everything_.

Ok, now your just being a bit too fastidious.
The rich own/control pretty much everything.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
People with no money can't buy things. How could the poor by a lot of things? Only the ones with money can make purchases. It only makes sense that the rich own more per-person than the poor. But, the rich do not own _everything_.

Ok, now your just being a bit too fastidious.
The rich own/control pretty much everything.

---

That is how it is everywhere. That is how it has always been. Why is the US so special in that regard?

The point I was making is that the situation now is analogous to the situation before the depression: Cut taxes on the wealthy, induce spending. And the President may not sit in the Fed meeting, but he certainly has influence over what the fed does.

Except that the economy is not so simplistic as it has to be for that to work.

That's a matter of opinion: some people would argue that the reason we haven't had a depression again is because of regulation - overproduction might have been a factor, but if overproduction were the cause of a depression then there would have been a worse depression after WWII.

There was less overproduction after WWII than there was after WWI. I did not say that overproduction was the only cause, only that it was more important than the 2 things you mentioned.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't pretend to know my philosophies based on an occasional post or two.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're right I shouldn't draw any conclusions from your Posts.

Don't take what I said out of context. That is worse than drawing conclusions about things I never mentioned.

You implied the deficit was a problem, during the depression it wasn't, it didn't become a problem until it ballooned in the 80's.

The deficit did not magically become a problem in the 80s. It was a problem long before then. The 80s are only when it became popular for people to complain about it.

[ February 06, 2003, 02:57: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[tesco samoa]

ohhh those poor rich lobby Groups...

Business does not want the tax removed from dividends...

Now every yahoo will want dividends...

But sorry this whole point that rich people are the minority thus they in the minority because of voting...

Ummm.... I do not see this to be a problem in the USA or Canada or any other country for that matter.

The majority of people do not want levies on cdr's... but still we get them...

Govn't is run by money , influenced by buisness and their lobby Groups.

The day where you and I made a difference in voting on country wide issues and policies are long gone. But still I vote as it is my right to vote.

where is this going... Bah I do not know...

But I do know that were we are in life is where we will remain. Once you realise that the carrot on the end of the stick was really just a stick and no carrot , or string...

The great wheel of beaurocracy controls all in Canada and USA.