Stimulus Package
-
Parker;258728 wrote:
you need to watch the fuckin news or read a paper....:icon_rr:agreed.
im 103% sure i miss understood every part of your post, and still fail to see if you are being sarcastic or not.
Oh well. Carry on.
-
I'm against the bill (actually more against the pork inside the bill) as it is written. If it is for infrastructure, energy grid, etc... then I am ok with it generally speaking. What I am not ok with is the crap that is getting tied into it...some by the dems for stupid shit, some as incentives to bring the republicans on board.
Things I like that have been proposed:
*Tax cuts/rebates for businesses.
*Energy Grid upgrades
*Roads/Bridges/Etc... repairs
*Stimulus checks....even for those who didn't necessarily pay in huge amounts or got everything they paid in to income tax back...remember, they still paid in to social security and various other taxes and they made enough to have to file in the first place. I don't think they should get the full amount that higher wage earners did, but I think they would be the ones most likely to spend it which is what we want.
*Anything that can create/save a job long term. I don't necessarily want more federal gov't employees (which I'll admit will likely happen) I'm hoping that a good share of these jobs will be in the private sector.I find it hard to believe that some people think it is patriotic to send billions and billions of dollars to Iraq every month to stabilize their country/economy/infrastructure, yet somehow think it is unpatriotic/socialist to invest that money at home. Maybe it is socialism, but I'd rather see Zach Brown/Parker Skolness/Chris Karpesh/Chuck Schwan/Dave Henry/Matt Faul/Bill Olander get some of their tax money back (either directly or through improvements in their communities) than see Abdul Jihad-Amakickurazi get another fucking penny. If we can do without government intervention, so can they. Pull out, let them deal with it the democratic way. If they can't, fuck 'em, let them stimulate their own economy.
Continuing with the rant...I've gone on record saying I think a flat tax (flat percentage) is fair. I still believe that. But what I'm having a hard time swallowing is the "Bush tax cut" for the wealthiest Americans and how it was supposed to create jobs. I just didn't see that happen. I saw tax cuts create wealthier people (this is a good thing), but not more jobs (this is a not so good thing). So I ask this...where did it go wrong? The tax rates were lower than they were during the Reagan years, so why didn't Reaganomics work this time? Please don't read this as me bashing Reagan/tax cuts, I'm asking a serious question that I'd appreciate a serious answer on (IOW, thrash...please respond).
-
Trafik Jamz;258742 wrote:
Continuing with the rant...I've gone on record saying I think a flat tax (flat percentage) is fair. I still believe that. But what I'm having a hard time swallowing is the "Bush tax cut" for the wealthiest Americans and how it was supposed to create jobs. I just didn't see that happen. I saw tax cuts create wealthier people (this is a good thing), but not more jobs (this is a not so good thing). So I ask this...where did it go wrong? The tax rates were lower than they were during the Reagan years, so why didn't Reaganomics work this time? Please don't read this as me bashing Reagan/tax cuts, I'm asking a serious question that I'd appreciate a serious answer on (IOW, thrash...please respond).There is the old saying, figures lie and liars figure. You can take any years job gain/loss numbers and make them look the way you want. The repubs will say that lots of jobs were created, the libs will say jobs were lost. Both will be looking at the same numbers.
So I have to go with what makes sense... if people keep more of their money they are probably going to spend it (a few might just put it in savings I spose) and spending it on products and services means there is a need for people to create those products and services.
The alternative is giving more to the Govt, and IMO they already spend waaaaay too much....
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Trafik Jamz;258742 wrote:
I'm against the bill (actually more against the pork inside the bill) as it is written. If it is for infrastructure, energy grid, etc... then I am ok with it generally speaking. What I am not ok with is the crap that is getting tied into it...some by the dems for stupid shit, some as incentives to bring the republicans on board.Things I like that have been proposed:
*Tax cuts/rebates for businesses.
*Energy Grid upgrades
*Roads/Bridges/Etc... repairs
*Stimulus checks....even for those who didn't necessarily pay in huge amounts or got everything they paid in to income tax back...remember, they still paid in to social security and various other taxes and they made enough to have to file in the first place. I don't think they should get the full amount that higher wage earners did, but I think they would be the ones most likely to spend it which is what we want.
*Anything that can create/save a job long term. I don't necessarily want more federal gov't employees (which I'll admit will likely happen) I'm hoping that a good share of these jobs will be in the private sector.I find it hard to believe that some people think it is patriotic to send billions and billions of dollars to Iraq every month to stabilize their country/economy/infrastructure, yet somehow think it is unpatriotic/socialist to invest that money at home. Maybe it is socialism, but I'd rather see Zach Brown/Parker Skolness/Chris Karpesh/Chuck Schwan/Dave Henry/Matt Faul/Bill Olander get some of their tax money back (either directly or through improvements in their communities) than see Abdul Jihad-Amakickurazi get another fucking penny. If we can do without government intervention, so can they. Pull out, let them deal with it the democratic way. If they can't, fuck 'em, let them stimulate their own economy.
Continuing with the rant...I've gone on record saying I think a flat tax (flat percentage) is fair. I still believe that. But what I'm having a hard time swallowing is the "Bush tax cut" for the wealthiest Americans and how it was supposed to create jobs. I just didn't see that happen. I saw tax cuts create wealthier people (this is a good thing), but not more jobs (this is a not so good thing). So I ask this...where did it go wrong? The tax rates were lower than they were during the Reagan years, so why didn't Reaganomics work this time? Please don't read this as me bashing Reagan/tax cuts, I'm asking a serious question that I'd appreciate a serious answer on (IOW, thrash...please respond).
Reganomics didn't work because this time around because the extra money saved on taxes by big business didn't go back into their businesses. They didn't use the money to expand and grow, they used it to pad their bank account, and then after that sent even more jobs overseas. Its going to be impossible for us to grow as an economic entity if we keep buying overseas and shipping the jobs from our country overseas to save money.
Id say, if Joe Blow CEO makes a couple million dollars less a year by not outsourcing some tech support jobs, well then thats more help than Joe making more money. Obviously my opinion is not shared by most companies and CEO's today.
The little man will either save, or not save this economy, and the government can throw as much money at the economy as they want, if we the people don't want to spend our money, or of we cannot make money to spend, then it will fall. -
I see things the way Heath does on this. The banks have proven this with the bailout they received. Did they create more loans? Did they invest in their communities? Did they refi adjustable rate loans? No! They stuck it in their pockets in the form of bonuses/ incentives. I say leave the tax cuts in place for the "rich" and lower taxes on the "poor" and "middle"... Then watch how that class puts the money back into the economy. I bet the "rich" make more money when the "poor" buy their products.
-
banks buying other banks with bailout money is bad.
how many banks merged/were aquired in 08? 7 banks bought 7 other banks. 7 more were bought out in 07.
jp morgan bought two. lets start talking about redistribution of wealth again so he tries to overthrow the govt once more... oh snap.
-
is JP Morgan still alive? Goddamn, he must be like what? 172 years old?
-
where's the post where DelSlow said that i said something wrong?
-
I think that he means you disproved Reaganomics w/ your argument which goes against fiscal conservatism.
Edit: I see that Del Slow deleted his post...dunno why.
-
Because i didn't want to argue about this kinda stuff anymore. Just seems like thread after thread about Obama/Democratic policies/bills/reforms/whatever and just gets old for me. (now thats just me, not saying dont make those threads and debate it and discuss it with others)
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login