djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 19, 2017 23:44:43 GMT -5
this is actually the perfect time to cut spending and balance the budget. the GOP has the votes to do it.
that is what Trump SHOULD be talking about.
instead, he is intent on giving the bank away to his rich friends, and compounding the deficit.
#sad
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 19, 2017 23:51:36 GMT -5
this is actually the perfect time to cut spending and balance the budget. the GOP has the votes to do it. that is what Trump SHOULD be talking about. instead, he is intent on giving the bank away to his rich friends, and compounding the deficit. #sad That is what you would do IF you were a statesman GOP President elect. You would recognize an opportunity that may not come your way again in your lifetime, and use it.
I think most of us know, Trump is in it for himself. To the extent he can, without hurting his own interests natch, he will try to do things for his base or appear to. HENCE, the real things that are near and dear to his heart - stacking things to benefit him now or in the projected future which means tax cuts for the rich, and businesses.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,458
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Nov 20, 2017 0:00:53 GMT -5
I found this little gem:
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 20, 2017 0:07:11 GMT -5
Busy, I think it needs to be video, at least since Trump is officially 46. Somewhere between the middle bottom panel and bottom left, Trump drinks the glass, the wine stops pouring and then the waiter/congress starts pouring again and the upright RW Christians (not to be confused with Trump's "The Swamp" TM) start guzzling the wine.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,458
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Nov 20, 2017 8:57:40 GMT -5
Busy, I think it needs to be video, at least since Trump is officially 46. Somewhere between the middle bottom panel and bottom left, Trump drinks the glass, the wine stops pouring and then the waiter/congress starts pouring again and the upright RW Christians (not to be confused with Trump's "The Swamp" TM) start guzzling the wine. I agree that somewhere during the "pouring", the richest 1% grab that top glass, and drink, without any of it reaching the glasses beneath that top glass. All the rich (and frankly, a lot of corporations right now) are doing is pocketing that money. They're not spending it, or sharing it with those "beneath" them. None of that money trickles down. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,612
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 20, 2017 10:04:58 GMT -5
I found this little gem: A fourth lower panel would have shown the now greatly engorged glass up top having crushed all the lower glasses.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 20, 2017 11:32:17 GMT -5
Other here have said if they were to receive more money from a tax break that would save it. My position is My little Co. generates net profit of last year, 24%, I did more business, the year before was 30% net profit with a little less business. So I am going to in vest in My Co. before I do something else. Two years ago, My income tax had a note in it, saying that my business was 116% more profitable that other business of my type and size! After all I am in the top 99%.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 20, 2017 11:35:30 GMT -5
this is actually the perfect time to cut spending and balance the budget. the GOP has the votes to do it. that is what Trump SHOULD be talking about. instead, he is intent on giving the bank away to his rich friends, and compounding the deficit. #sad That is what you would do IF you were a statesman GOP President elect. You would recognize an opportunity that may not come your way again in your lifetime, and use it.
I think most of us know, Trump is in it for himself. To the extent he can, without hurting his own interests natch, he will try to do things for his base or appear to. HENCE, the real things that are near and dear to his heart - stacking things to benefit him now or in the projected future which means tax cuts for the rich, and businesses.
Trump is not alone. Reagan and Bush did it, too. giving the bank away when they should be balancing the budget has been a cause celeb for the GOP for over 35 years, now. it is going to ruin us.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 20, 2017 11:37:10 GMT -5
Other here have said if they were to receive more money from a tax break that would save it. My position is My little Co. generates net profit of last year, 24%, I did more business, the year before was 30% net profit with a little less business. So I am going to invest in My Co. before I do something else. unless you are selling to other businesses in a similar circumstance, it will be hard to get a ROI for that investment in the US. perhaps you should offshore it to China, like others in OUR situation do. edit: oh and btw, if you feel compelled to spend your $ here, you should invest in your business PRE-TAX. you can write off a huge amount of investment under section 179. it is way more tax efficient than post-tax, and then you don't have to concern yourself with what your tax rate is.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 20, 2017 11:38:50 GMT -5
Two years ago, My income tax had a note in it, saying that my business was 116% more profitable that other business of my type and size! After all I am in the top 99%. yeah, that is a terrific margin. congratulations. my margins are about half that, and i am in the top 10%. oh, and almost everyone is in the top 99%, bra.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Nov 20, 2017 11:50:15 GMT -5
But is this about economic growth right now? Of course not!! These tax cuts are for Trump. And his buddies and his biddies. And something Republicans are hell bent on because they have talked about it for years (without delving deeper into the logistics), because they want to stick to those promises they have been making to their base for years (again without thinking deeper about it ) and, most importantly, because they want a win so bad they will settle for any darn thing. It's for the GOP donors - the wealthy ones.
GOP donors are pissed right now. They want Congress to start passing legislation that they like and are threatening to withhold their donations if Congress can't push anything through.
So the GOP congress people are scurrying about trying to ensure that happens.
They're wrapping it in the 'trickle down' theory, I guess hoping no one remembers what happened when we tried that before.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Nov 20, 2017 12:06:53 GMT -5
I think the trickle down theory works. I’m getting an unexpected gift. I’m using it to pay for landscaping. This enables quite a few workers to have a job before the holidays in a time when most people don’t do landscaping. In January which is their totally dead time, they’ll do the backyard at a discount just to stay busy. I’m taking the family to NYC. This keeps airline industry and hotel, restaurants, Uber drivers, stores in business as well. If I didn’t get it, I couldn’t spend it aka share the wealth. Am I spending everything? Certainly not. I have taxes due which also supports a lot of people. Actually, you're proof that the trickle down theory does NOT work.
I'm assuming you aren't in the 1%. You got an unexpected gift and turned around and spent most of it.
If someone in the 1% gets extra cash, they don't run out and hire more people or start a new business. They save most of it. Which means, while your little gift is trickling down, the money the 1% just goes to fatten their wallet.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 20, 2017 12:15:59 GMT -5
That is what you would do IF you were a statesman GOP President elect. You would recognize an opportunity that may not come your way again in your lifetime, and use it.
I think most of us know, Trump is in it for himself. To the extent he can, without hurting his own interests natch, he will try to do things for his base or appear to. HENCE, the real things that are near and dear to his heart - stacking things to benefit him now or in the projected future which means tax cuts for the rich, and businesses.
Trump is not alone. Reagan and Bush did it, too. giving the bank away when they should be balancing the budget has been a cause celeb for the GOP for over 35 years, now. it is going to ruin us. Yes it is. Reagan started it. Reason enough to call his presidency second only to the Viet Nam War the greatest American disaster of the last half-century. Bush doubled down on it exactly when we conceivably had a chance to dig ourselves out from under. Instead he pretty much sealed our fate as NEVER being able to escape the debt. Combined with everything else he is easily the worst president in at least three generations. Trickle-down theory is demonstrably untrue. It just doesn't work. Lawmakers who continue to propagate it and base policy on it either truly believe the theory (in which case they are too stupid to remain in Congress) or are flat-out lying to protect their own interests (in which case they are too corrupt to remain in Congress.)
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 20, 2017 12:19:17 GMT -5
I think the trickle down theory works. I’m getting an unexpected gift. I’m using it to pay for landscaping. This enables quite a few workers to have a job before the holidays in a time when most people don’t do landscaping. In January which is their totally dead time, they’ll do the backyard at a discount just to stay busy. I’m taking the family to NYC. This keeps airline industry and hotel, restaurants, Uber drivers, stores in business as well. If I didn’t get it, I couldn’t spend it aka share the wealth. Am I spending everything? Certainly not. I have taxes due which also supports a lot of people. Actually, you're proof that the trickle down theory does NOT work.
I'm assuming you aren't in the 1%. You got an unexpected gift and turned around and spent most of it.
If someone in the 1% gets extra cash, they don't run out and hire more people or start a new business. They save most of it. Which means, while your little gift is trickling down, the money the 1% just goes to fatten their wallet.
Exactly. And that is why we have said all along: If you want a tax cut to be in any way stimulative, it has to go to people who will SPEND THE MONEY.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 20, 2017 12:58:26 GMT -5
Busy, I think it needs to be video, at least since Trump is officially 46. Somewhere between the middle bottom panel and bottom left, Trump drinks the glass, the wine stops pouring and then the waiter/congress starts pouring again and the upright RW Christians (not to be confused with Trump's "The Swamp" TM) start guzzling the wine. I agree that somewhere during the "pouring", the richest 1% grab that top glass, and drink, without any of it reaching the glasses beneath that top glass. All the rich (and frankly, a lot of corporations right now) are doing is pocketing that money. They're not spending it, or sharing it with those "beneath" them. None of that money trickles down. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Totally aware. I remember one year when the CEO of Pfizer was awarded the entire tax relief from the state or federal govt. It was at least 300 to 400K. Its not much in the scheme of things from a percent standpoint. But if the board and those who forget what its like could remember, that could have saved 2 to 4 people with benefits for one year. A much more important use of that award IMO than rewarding the CEO for grace under pressure.
MO.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 20, 2017 13:04:34 GMT -5
Actually, you're proof that the trickle down theory does NOT work.
I'm assuming you aren't in the 1%. You got an unexpected gift and turned around and spent most of it.
If someone in the 1% gets extra cash, they don't run out and hire more people or start a new business. They save most of it. Which means, while your little gift is trickling down, the money the 1% just goes to fatten their wallet.
Exactly. And that is why we have said all along: If you want a tax cut to be in any way stimulative, it has to go to people who will SPEND THE MONEY. Its counter-intuitive to the GOPers, RWers and believers of the lazy poor people myth(general not specific). If you really really want the tax cut to be stimulative, give relief to the working poor. If I were President now, I would use this opportunity to come up with a normalization scheme for federal benefits. IMO it is not fair to use the same poverty level for someone who lives in NYC and someone who lives in small town Indiana. If federal dollars were allocated based on that perhaps the poor in the South wouldn't be living off the poor on the coasts as just one of many examples of inequity.
(Note: my anger is making me clear at this moment, but I am still very sick, hoping for sinus drainage, sleep, and thankful for my small supply of antibiotics.)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 14:00:13 GMT -5
I don't know that the poor will have the resources to rise up enmasse and cause problems. I see more of a possibility of the blue states taking some kind of action at being soaked too much by the red states. Seems like the new tax plan will redistribute even more money out of the blue states to the red, and at some point they are going to try to do something to put a stop to it. all the poor have to do is strike en masse, and stop doing the laundry, housecleaning, and food service of the rich. it is easier said than done, in that the rich really have them by the balls. but it could be done, and would grind the country to a halt in a week. Yeah, the country will grind to a halt if this happens (bolded). Now that I'm up off the floor and got my breath back... You do understand what it means when approx. seventy percent of our economy is service related and the rich only compromise about 1 percent of the population.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 20, 2017 16:41:02 GMT -5
all the poor have to do is strike en masse, and stop doing the laundry, housecleaning, and food service of the rich. it is easier said than done, in that the rich really have them by the balls. but it could be done, and would grind the country to a halt in a week. Yeah, the country will grind to a halt if this happens (bolded). Now that I'm up off the floor and got my breath back... You do understand what it means when approx. seventy percent of our economy is service related and the rich only compromise about 1 percent of the population. you misunderstood me. i did not mean, nor did i intend to reply that laundry, housecleaning and foodservice were the same as a general strike of the bottom 20%, which would pretty much affect EVERYONE. the point that i was making is that their EMPLOYERS (the owners, CEO's, etc) of these enterprises are, by and large, rich. i apologize for the lack of clarity, but hopefully, this response remedied that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 20, 2017 16:45:53 GMT -5
Trump is not alone. Reagan and Bush did it, too. giving the bank away when they should be balancing the budget has been a cause celeb for the GOP for over 35 years, now. it is going to ruin us. Yes it is. Reagan started it. Reason enough to call his presidency second only to the Viet Nam War the greatest American disaster of the last half-century. Bush doubled down on it exactly when we conceivably had a chance to dig ourselves out from under. Instead he pretty much sealed our fate as NEVER being able to escape the debt. Combined with everything else he is easily the worst president in at least three generations. Trickle-down theory is demonstrably untrue. It just doesn't work. Lawmakers who continue to propagate it and base policy on it either truly believe the theory (in which case they are too stupid to remain in Congress) or are flat-out lying to protect their own interests (in which case they are too corrupt to remain in Congress.) the baseless claim originally seemed at least plausible. but study after study has shown that it is utter bullshit. it has no basis in fact, or reality. it is simply part of a propaganda effort to paint a smiley face on the end game for US capitalists: to offshore capital to places that have not already been exploited, and to use US consumers to expedite the process (to their own demise). it would be hilarious to watch, if it were not so profoundly evil.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 22:06:02 GMT -5
I don't know which is worse...
The Republican idea of "Keep the government basically the same size, just rearranging how many people and what stuff is where... PLUS cut taxes for the rich"
or
The Democrat idea of "Explode government largess but don't create a way to pay for it"
Personally I'd rather get rid of BOTH parties... but as I've said elsewhere, Voters (generally speaking) aren't smart enough to do that.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 20, 2017 22:26:17 GMT -5
But is this about economic growth right now? Of course not!! These tax cuts are for Trump. And his buddies and his biddies. And something Republicans are hell bent on because they have talked about it for years (without delving deeper into the logistics), because they want to stick to those promises they have been making to their base for years (again without thinking deeper about it ) and, most importantly, because they want a win so bad they will settle for any darn thing. It's for the GOP donors - the wealthy ones.
GOP donors are pissed right now. They want Congress to start passing legislation that they like and are threatening to withhold their donations if Congress can't push anything through.
So the GOP congress people are scurrying about trying to ensure that happens.
They're wrapping it in the 'trickle down' theory, I guess hoping no one remembers what happened when we tried that before.
Of course, all the rich liberals will reject the tax cut continue on pay high taxes. Right? yaa,,,, they can pay mine too!!
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 20, 2017 22:47:31 GMT -5
I think the trickle down theory works. I’m getting an unexpected gift. I’m using it to pay for landscaping. This enables quite a few workers to have a job before the holidays in a time when most people don’t do landscaping. In January which is their totally dead time, they’ll do the backyard at a discount just to stay busy. I’m taking the family to NYC. This keeps airline industry and hotel, restaurants, Uber drivers, stores in business as well. If I didn’t get it, I couldn’t spend it aka share the wealth. Am I spending everything? Certainly not. I have taxes due which also supports a lot of people. Actually, you're proof that the trickle down theory does NOT work.
I'm assuming you aren't in the 1%. You got an unexpected gift and turned around and spent most of it.
If someone in the 1% gets extra cash, they don't run out and hire more people or start a new business. They save most of it. Which means, while your little gift is trickling down, the money the 1% just goes to fatten their wallet.
I never said I spent most of it. As a matter of fact, I put more than half in savings.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 20, 2017 23:14:57 GMT -5
Actually, you're proof that the trickle down theory does NOT work.
I'm assuming you aren't in the 1%. You got an unexpected gift and turned around and spent most of it.
If someone in the 1% gets extra cash, they don't run out and hire more people or start a new business. They save most of it. Which means, while your little gift is trickling down, the money the 1% just goes to fatten their wallet.
I never said I spent most of it. As a matter of fact, I put more than half in savings. If that is the case it proves even more that trickle-down doesn't work. How does putting more than half in savings do anything to help the economy? You are actually hurting the economy by taking money out of it. Tax cuts for the wealthy do the same thing on a huge scale.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 21, 2017 1:35:14 GMT -5
I don't know which is worse... The Republican idea of "Keep the government basically the same size, just rearranging how many people and what stuff is where... PLUS cut taxes for the rich" or The Democrat idea of "Explode government largess but don't create a way to pay for it" Personally I'd rather get rid of BOTH parties... but as I've said elsewhere, Voters (generally speaking) aren't smart enough to do that. I think part of the problem is you and others believe this is actually how the parties work now, and in specific they work at a state and local level. I think I've shared over the years as to how the Republican led dynasty of county government has spent like some would believe only Democrats would do.
And lastly you would need to create a movement where enough Independents or brand new party candidates ran for office. You can't vote out all R's and D's *unless* you have alternatives to vote for.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 1:55:36 GMT -5
I don't know which is worse... The Republican idea of "Keep the government basically the same size, just rearranging how many people and what stuff is where... PLUS cut taxes for the rich" or The Democrat idea of "Explode government largess but don't create a way to pay for it" Personally I'd rather get rid of BOTH parties... but as I've said elsewhere, Voters (generally speaking) aren't smart enough to do that. I think part of the problem is you and others believe this is actually how the parties work now, and in specific they work at a state and local level. I think I've shared over the years as to how the Republican led dynasty of county government has spent like some would believe only Democrats would do.
And lastly you would need to create a movement where enough Independents or brand new party candidates ran for office. You can't vote out all R's and D's *unless* you have alternatives to vote for.
The problem isn't "how the parties work" though, that's the disconnect you have from what I said in the last sentence... The problem is the voters that vote for irrelevant/stupid reasons. Until voters wise up, nothing will really change. But... for the record, it IS how the parties work now... at least on the Federal Level, which was the only "level" that I was talking about. If people would clamor for other than "R's and D's", trust me... some other than "R's and D's" would appear. We need a few elections where "None of the Above" wins ("Brewster's Millions"... anyone? Anyone?).
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 21, 2017 6:38:45 GMT -5
I think part of the problem is you and others believe this is actually how the parties work now, and in specific they work at a state and local level. I think I've shared over the years as to how the Republican led dynasty of county government has spent like some would believe only Democrats would do.
And lastly you would need to create a movement where enough Independents or brand new party candidates ran for office. You can't vote out all R's and D's *unless* you have alternatives to vote for.
The problem isn't "how the parties work" though, that's the disconnect you have from what I said in the last sentence... The problem is the voters that vote for irrelevant/stupid reasons. Until voters wise up, nothing will really change.But... for the record, it IS how the parties work now... at least on the Federal Level, which was the only "level" that I was talking about.If people would clamor for other than "R's and D's", trust me... some other than "R's and D's" would appear. We need a few elections where "None of the Above" wins ("Brewster's Millions"... anyone? Anyone?). Richard, we don't agree and I am beginning to understand this at a level you aren't even close to. Voters can only vote for candidates who run. That's a really important thing to be clear about. All the political parties in the US are organizations that run for their own reasons, visions. Some effectively do little but tilt at windmills in federal and sometimes other elections. The Green Party would be an example of this.
Voters getting smarter helps, but does not fix the problem unless more than a few of these voters start running for office themselves. NJ 101.5 IMO explained beautifully the dilemma of running for certain offices and some thoughts on candidates, parties, and primaries. Parties do put forth candidates for races often at local and state levels so the other party does not win unopposed. But there are costs associated with that. Not just financial, not just pr & image. Political parties do not have infinite resources so sometimes choosing *NOT* to put up a sacrificial lamb as a candidate is the best course of action.
Yes, perhaps something would change if "None of the Above" won, but highly unlikely it would be the change you wanted. I do not find much value in change for change's sake. That kind of attitude is the reason we have Trump.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 21, 2017 11:57:26 GMT -5
I never said I spent most of it. As a matter of fact, I put more than half in savings. If that is the case it proves even more that trickle-down doesn't work. How does putting more than half in savings do anything to help the economy? You are actually hurting the economy by taking money out of it. Tax cuts for the wealthy do the same thing on a huge scale. Well, gee wiz. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Of course if nothing fits in with your mantra, it's got to be wrong.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 21, 2017 14:41:47 GMT -5
If that is the case it proves even more that trickle-down doesn't work. How does putting more than half in savings do anything to help the economy? You are actually hurting the economy by taking money out of it. Tax cuts for the wealthy do the same thing on a huge scale. Well, gee wiz. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Of course if nothing fits in with your mantra, it's got to be wrong. It is a pretty simple concept. The economy depends on spending. If more money is spent, the economy does better and more jobs are created. If money is saved instead, the amount of spending goes down and the economy is harmed. Poor people have to spend all the money they get, so tax cuts for them make good economic sense. The economy is helped by them spending whatever they get. Middle-class people will save some and spend some. Tax cuts for them are less beneficial but can still help if they spend enough of it. Tax cuts for the wealthy mostly get saved instead of spent. That harms the economy by taking money out of spending. Even worse, the money gets taken from people who would have spent it instead. That is consequently a double hit to the economy. Even George W. Bush, both after 9/11 and again with the economic downturn of 2007-2009, encouraged people to do what? Go out shopping. I think he even stated once that the most patriotic thing people could do was go shopping. Within the limited context of helping the economy, that advice was correct. If people facing economic hardship choose to react by saving money instead of spending, that is reasonable. If people who are able to spend also choose not to do that, it worsens the spiral. It goes like this: Business is bad because people are not spending enough. That causes people to become afraid so they spend less. That decreases demand and worsens business, which in turn causes more fear and another drop in spending which then compounds again. That is, by the way, one of the only two times that deficit spending is an appropriate option for government. When consumers either cannot or will not do the spending necessary to maintain the economy. It is appropriate for government to increase spending in that instance to get consumer sentiment back to where they will again support and sustain the economy. The other time that deficit spending is appropriate is during war. The current GOP plan, which provides massive tax cuts to the wealthy, paid for by deficits, during a time of peace and economic expansion, is ridiculously misguided. It violates every fundamental economic principle on the matter.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,086
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Nov 21, 2017 17:29:53 GMT -5
I found this little gem: classic example of a picture paints a thousand words
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,458
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Nov 21, 2017 20:00:38 GMT -5
Nice explanation, tallguy . (Did you study econ in college, too? I did. Remember having to make those "supply & demand" graphs? That was the easy part...)
|
|