Dow drops below 7K but why not spend an add'l $410 Billion?

[Muenkel 0]

Hey, it's Monopoly money.

Yeah I know this originated back in September under GWB's watch and is an appropriations bill shared equally by the R's and D's, but it is loaded with close to 9000 earmarks.

Hey, Mr. President...you're against earmarks, remember????? Sir, you just spent over a trillion dollars in your first month of office. The economy is tanking and the DOW is not happy. Time to use your veto power!!!

_________________________________________
Chris

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

but it is loaded with close to 9000 earmarks.

As I wrote elsewhere, these are not earmarks.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

As I wrote elsewhere, these are not earmarks.

Bullshit? Is that a better description of it?

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[billvon 3,107]

>Sir, you just spent over a trillion dollars in your first month of office. The
>economy is tanking and the DOW is not happy. Time to use your veto power!!!

Do you think that if less money is spent in the economy, the economy will _recover?_ Well, heck, if that's the case, shut down the banks and freeze corporate assets. No one will spend anything and the economy will recover instantly!

[hwt 0]

O dont worry we can bail them out too...

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Sir, you just spent over a trillion dollars in your first month of office. The
>economy is tanking and the DOW is not happy. Time to use your veto power!!!

Do you think that if less money is spent in the economy, the economy will _recover?_ Well, heck, if that's the case, shut down the banks and freeze corporate assets. No one will spend anything and the economy will recover instantly!

Spoken as if this were the government's money to begin with...Bill, if you leave the money in the economy in the first place, not print unsecured notes and bills, and tax the shit out of everyone, the economy will recover.

These "bailouts" or "stimuli" have nothing to do with the economy. They are page one of the democrat book titled "Tax and Spend". It is about consolidating power through government programs, spending now on wealth yet-to-be-created, and creating unfunded mandates for decades to come.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

>Sir, you just spent over a trillion dollars in your first month of office. The
>economy is tanking and the DOW is not happy. Time to use your veto power!!!

Do you think that if less money is spent in the economy, the economy will _recover?_ Well, heck, if that's the case, shut down the banks and freeze corporate assets. No one will spend anything and the economy will recover instantly!

Spoken as if this were the government's money to begin with...Bill, if you leave the money in the economy in the first place, not print unsecured notes and bills, and tax the shit out of everyone, the economy will recover.

These "bailouts" or "stimuli" have nothing to do with the economy. They are page one of the democrat book titled "Tax and Spend". It is about consolidating power through government programs, spending now on wealth yet-to-be-created, and creating unfunded mandates for decades to come.

Quote

now you've done it, that last paragragh just locked their brains into an overload and it may take days to get the left thinking again.

[billvon 3,107]

>Spoken as if this were the government's money to begin with . . .

I'm not speaking as if it's _anyone's_ money. If you add money to a consumer-based economy (through purchasing things mainly) the economy improves. Doesn't matter if it's Exxon's, or the government's, or Aunt Jane's.

>Bill, if you leave the money in the economy in the first place, not print
>unsecured notes and bills, and tax the shit out of everyone, the economy will
>recover.

I agree. So making a tax cut part of the stimulus package would be appropriate. And what do you know? There IS a tax cut as part of the stimulus package.

[Rstanley0312 1]

Only 36% of the people support this "stimulus" package...... that is an average of Rasmussen and some of the other polls. Another case of the government saying "we are representing you b ut we will not listen to you because we know better". Bill if you cut taxes and save a person say $1000.00 a year but drive inflation and tax that same person so they are watching $2000.00 get flushed down the toilet..... is it really a tax cut? It's just smoke and mirrors...... a box of shit with guaranteed slapped on the side.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[billvon 3,107]

>Bill if you cut taxes and save a person say $1000.00 a year but drive
>inflation and tax that same person so they are watching $2000.00 get flushed
>down the toilet..... is it really a tax cut?

The conservatives seemed to think so for the past 8 years. They were quite happy to see just that happen - and indeed claimed that such a tax cut is what 'saved' the economy, even though it caused the deficit to balloon.

It is indeed ironic that they are now solidly against a tax cut because it will increase spending later, given that they now living with the consequences of that tax cut 8 years ago. I would like to think that they have learned something - but I strongly suspect that once a republican administration is back in power, "TAX CUT" is all you will hear from them.

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

>Spoken as if this were the government's money to begin with . . .

I'm not speaking as if it's _anyone's_ money. If you add money to a consumer-based economy (through purchasing things mainly) the economy improves. Doesn't matter if it's Exxon's, or the government's, or Aunt Jane's.

OR CHINA'S

lets not pretend.

Quote

>Bill, if you leave the money in the economy in the first place, not print
>unsecured notes and bills, and tax the shit out of everyone, the economy will
>recover.

I agree. So making a tax cut part of the stimulus package would be appropriate. And what do you know? There IS a tax cut as part of the stimulus package.

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

>Bill if you cut taxes and save a person say $1000.00 a year but drive
>inflation and tax that same person so they are watching $2000.00 get flushed
>down the toilet..... is it really a tax cut?

The conservatives seemed to think so for the past 8 years. They were quite happy to see just that happen - and indeed claimed that such a tax cut is what 'saved' the economy, even though it caused the deficit to balloon.

Those Republican tax cuts sure did a good job of saving the economy, didn't they.

What was it, over 600,000 lost their jobs in January alone?

[Rstanley0312 1]

bill that was not like you at all...... I never said tax cuts are bad I simply asked if that action is really a "tax cut"? I also never said that the GOP did it right I just asked a question.... I am not a Republican but am a conservative and as I have said many times..... neither side is doing it right but what I had hoped for even though I did not support Obama was that he would get it right and instead he is giving us more BS and hoping he can campaign his way through his presidency. The "stimulus" is crap and all of wall street knows it.... just look at the market. Before you start talking about greedy wall street blah, blah, blah I am refering to the common investor who trades on wall street which is a representation of the people and the economy.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[airdvr 210]

This from your glorius leader today...

"The stock market is story of like a tracking poll in politics. It bobs up and down day-to-day," Obama said. "And if you spend all your time worrying about that, then you're probably going to get the long-term strategy wrong."


Hehe...I must have missed the bobbing up part.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Rstanley0312 1]

The conservatives seemed to think so for the past 8 years. They were quite happy to see just that happen - and indeed claimed that such a tax cut is what 'saved' the economy, even though it caused the deficit to balloon.

[billvon 3,107]

>I never said tax cuts are bad I simply asked if that action is really a "tax cut"?

To answer the question literally - yes, people's taxes will go down, so it's a tax cut.

Now, the larger question is - are tax cuts a good idea when they come during a time of massive deficits, no matter who is in office?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Spoken as if this were the government's money to begin with . . .

I'm not speaking as if it's _anyone's_ money. If you add money to a consumer-based economy (through purchasing things mainly) the economy improves. Doesn't matter if it's Exxon's, or the government's, or Aunt Jane's.

THe problem is that the government is spending money without any buyers for the debt we incur in the process. That does not improve the economy. It sets the stage for disaster.

Quote

>Bill, if you leave the money in the economy in the first place, not print
>unsecured notes and bills, and tax the shit out of everyone, the economy will
>recover.

I agree. So making a tax cut part of the stimulus package would be appropriate. And what do you know? There IS a tax cut as part of the stimulus package.

Read the fine print, $500 per individual and $1000 per family does not improve discretionary spending of anyone.
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/2964166

So, increasing taxes on individuals making $200K+ per year has a super negative impact, reducing discretionary spending by tens of thousands per year...easy math.

Take the roughly 700,000 households in NY, CT, MA over $200K per year. Let's just say that their tax burden increases by an average of $14,000 per year average. That's purchasing power of $10B. $20B buys a lot of PCs, cars, boats, home improvements, property et al...(http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm)

Employment levels (per http://factfinder.census.gov) in these states add up to 21.6M persons in the labor force. ROund down to 21M for the high income, and remove 2M below poverty level (10% avg), and another 2M unemployed. Average out this "tax cut" of $750 per person of the remaining 18M, adds up to a purchasing power of $13.5B. However, individual purchasing power is lower. The result is increased debt to finance purchases of high-ticket items like cars, TVs, etc.

Since the banking sector isn't in the lending mood, which one will have a better practical affect on the economy?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

>I never said tax cuts are bad I simply asked if that action is really a "tax cut"?

To answer the question literally - yes, people's taxes will go down, so it's a tax cut.

Now, the larger question is - are tax cuts a good idea when they come during a time of massive deficits, no matter who is in office?

Sure it is an actual tax cut but if you are taking more money out of a persons pocket than is it really doing anything?

Of course tax cuts are good.... I support them fully now if we can just get rid of all the other waste and ways Washington takes our money we would be a lot better off.... again look at the market and how investors respond to Obama and what he is doing.... ZERO belief and no trust.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[billvon 3,107]

>THe problem is that the government is spending money without any buyers
>for the debt we incur in the process. That does not improve the economy. It sets
>the stage for disaster.

Exactly. And that is the same whether that debt we are incurring is due to tax cuts, infrastructure spending or bank support. The answer (once the economy improves) is to reduce spending and increase taxes until we no longer need to incur such levels of debt.

>Read the fine print, $500 per individual and $1000 per family does not
>improve discretionary spending of anyone.

In that case, increasing taxes will not reduce discretionary spending, so why not do it now?

>Since the banking sector isn't in the lending mood, which one will have a
>better practical affect on the economy?

Decreasing tax on lower income families always has a better practical effect than decreasing tax on higher income families, assuming the same $$ set aside for a tax cut.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>THe problem is that the government is spending money without any buyers
>for the debt we incur in the process. That does not improve the economy. It sets
>the stage for disaster.

Exactly. And that is the same whether that debt we are incurring is due to tax cuts, infrastructure spending or bank support. The answer (once the economy improves) is to reduce spending and increase taxes until we no longer need to incur such levels of debt.

Tax cuts do not incur debt. Spending does.

Quote

Decreasing tax on lower income families always has a better practical effect than decreasing tax on higher income families, assuming the same $$ set aside for a tax cut.

That's where you and I differ. I believe taxes should be cut for everyone. The bottom 40% doesn't pay taxes, so a tax cut doesn't matter to them one way or the other.

Big ticket purchases drive the economy as a whole. Don't believe me? Ask Terex, Caterpillar, Osh Kosh, Frieghtliner, CSX, Burlington Northern, Bechtel, Boeing, Cessna...et al. These are the companies that pump through the deep infrastructure that builds roads, buildings, water treatment, erosion control, etc that no one pays attention to.

A small business man, paying a 35% corporate tax rate on his business, and a 40% personal income tax rate, is inclined not to spend $300,000 on a new wheel loader. He'll lease one. The leasing company is inclined not to buy a new one for the same reason...now that business may just abandon that project and find something else not requiring a massive outlaw.

Investment is best spent via the private sector.

Having the government print money doesn't invest in anything.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,107]

>Tax cuts do not incur debt. Spending does.

Simple math. If spending > income, you incur debt. Decreasing income or increasing spending will do that.

>I believe taxes should be cut for everyone.

I don't, at least not as a mantra. I think taxes should be cut AFTER spending is cut. It comes from a lifetime of having to pay my own way, and having to not spend more than I owe. Money does not grow on trees, despite what many conservatives think.

>Big ticket purchases drive the economy as a whole.

Agreed. So do small purchases.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

I think taxes should be cut AFTER spending is cut.

When is that gonna happen?

Senate Votes to Keep Earmarks in Spending Bill
Sen. John McCain's attempt to strip out an estimated 8,500 earmarks failed on a vote of 63-32.

"How does anyone justify some of these earmarks: $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa; $2 million "for the promotion of astronomy" in Hawaii; $6.6 million for termite research in New Orleans; $2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York," he said.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Tax cuts do not incur debt. Spending does.

Simple math. If spending > income, you incur debt. Decreasing income or increasing spending will do that.

Decreasing income does not incur debt. Spending does.

Quote

>I believe taxes should be cut for everyone.

I don't, at least not as a mantra. I think taxes should be cut AFTER spending is cut. It comes from a lifetime of having to pay my own way, and having to not spend more than I owe. Money does not grow on trees, despite what many conservatives think.

Huh? Conservatives? Wouldn't it be the other side, the ones who champion government handouts funded by the wealthy, who think money should just fall from the sky? Bitch Bitch Bitch about Bush's spending and then drop 4 years' worth of deficit in the first year.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Decreasing income does not incur debt. Spending does.

If you dont have an overage in your income, decreasing your income without decreasing your expenses will most certainly increase your debt.

If you cannot grasp that basic math, then any discussion about financial matters really is pointless.

[hwt 0]

Now, the larger question is - are tax cuts a good idea when they come during a time of massive deficits, no matter who is in office?
_________________________________________________
Times were worse in the early 80s and it was Reagan's tax cuts that brought about the greatest recovery since WW2.
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm