VeeshanVault

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... &printer=1

wow, a trillion dollars in the hole by 2005, and he's still going ahead with 600billion a year in tax cuts for the super wealthy.

Not even Reagen was that bad.

I read that earlier and all I can do is nod my head with frustration. Unfucking believable.

peanut butter jelly time?

budget for War on Iraq not included in that number by the way. That would come in as a seperately funded item later.

"the rich" could also be called "the people who create your jobs"

Although I'm not thrilled about deficit spending and haven't looked heavily into the details of this plan, I do know that anything that keeps businesses going in a time like this is a good thing. Tax the business builders and they'll pack up the plant and move it to Mexico.

There are no independently wealthy people with 'jobs' ;p

ouch. That's all I can fucking spit out right now.

I guess the Republican motto these days goes: "If trickle-down economics don't succeed the first time, try, try again!"

My patience with Bush is wearing very thin. It's been impossible for me to find a new job the last four months, all because the major studios and production companies have "hiring freezes." Hell, even the jobs for which I am over-qualified are all dried up. I can't tell you how many interviews I've walked out of and heard the words, "We'd hire you in a second, but we're not hiring people until May." Such crap. Call Clinton what you will, but bullshit like this didn't happen back when he was in office.

I think it's amusing that Republicans claim to be all about economics -- and yet have a history of fucking the economy over in ways previously thought unimaginable.

I'm starting to believe that Dan Quayle could do a better job.

well i certainly think that tax breaks for small businesses are a good thing.

small business is what creates jobs. I obviously haven't read the budget, but i haven't heard of anything about dramatic breaks for small business owners.

giving tax breaks to wealthy individuals who own small business on the personal side of their ledger does not in my mind necessarily translate into increased revenue on the business side of the ledger, and without that, jobs will not be created.

Well...that looks mighty familiar. Same old cuts, same old extra spending. This proposed budget reeks of past performances. I only hope that through all this extra spending, a few jobs are able to open up, and somehow investing will come back into play.

GW's intentions are solid, as are most presidents, but it is fairly obvious that he put increases where he personally feels they are needed. In times like these, programs like NASA and others need to buck up and take a hit to their budgeted spending. I have a feeling once the comitee is done going through everything, we will see a more balanced budget come out of this.

Millie wrote:I guess the Republican motto these days goes: "If trickle-down economics don't succeed the first time, try, try again!"
.

You don't think it worked the first time??? How the fuck do you think we had such a boom in 90's?

You can't link a president or his policies to his term. You have to see what happened later as a result of his policies.

Reagan/Bush Sr. - Trickle down economics = a BOOM in the late 80's thru late 90's

Clinton - no real policies at all = Enron, etc.


/pishaw

It failed because the trickle down economy never trickled down. People were left jobless and the poorer got poorer. Reaganomics was a fucking bust. And I also fail to see where Enron et al. is any of Clinton's fault.

The growth went unchecked during his presidency, thats why. He sat back and reeped all the praise, but did nothing to protect the growth and try to sustain it.

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:You don't think it worked the first time??? How the fuck do you think we had such a boom in 90's?

no shit. I mean, everyone knows that everything bad that happened during the Clinton and Bush jr. administrations was Clinton's fault, and everything good that happened during the Clinton administration because of the brilliance of the Reagan and Bush sr. presidency. Sheesh, I mean it's so obvious. Also, I am a stupid fucking moron completely unable to think for myself so I mindlessly spew whatever asinine bullshit gets fed into my withered little brain.

I have no official party affiliation. If someone is a fuck up, I'll call them out on it. Blaming Clinton for Bush's shitty economic record is just sheer stupidity. It's been 2 years. How long until you point the finger at Bush? At what point does his administration start claiming some responsibility for America's poor economic health and stop passing the buck?

Just as important, is when the next official fixes this fucked up economy, will you give him and his administration the credit they deserve, or will GWB get your accolades because he is cleverly crafted the economic turn-around years prior? (yeah right)

Zamtuk, what retarded fucking school of economics did you graduate from? Ronny turned this county out of the biggest recession that we'd seen since the Great Depression, all the while goading the USSR into waging a Cold War they could not win.

OTOH, Clinton was content to ride the economic coattails of his prdecessors, while doing nothing to control the ballooning of the "new" economy.

kyoukan type-R wrote:

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:You don't think it worked the first time??? How the fuck do you think we had such a boom in 90's?

no shit. I mean, everyone knows that everything bad that happened during the Clinton and Bush jr. administrations was Clinton's fault, and everything good that happened during the Clinton administration because of the brilliance of the Reagan and Bush sr. presidency. Sheesh, I mean it's so obvious. Also, I am a stupid fucking moron completely unable to think for myself so I mindlessly spew whatever asinine bullshit gets fed into my withered little brain.

Just because you don't understand a very simple idea, we get the above, hehe. So Amusing.

people always want to act like the economy belongs to the President.

The budgets have to go through both houses of Congress and are amended greatly. Under Bush/Reagan the Congress was Democratic. Under CLinton it was Republican.

To ascribe all the credit/blame of an econmic cycle to a president (or in this case even one party) is inaccurate the way i see it.

Fairweather Pure wrote:It's been 2 years. How long until you point the finger at Bush? At what point does his administration start claiming some responsibility for America's poor economic health and stop passing the buck?

I disagree that our current economic state is a result of G Dub's administration. The stock market peaked in the last year of Clinton's presidency and fell pretty steady for some time. The burst of the Internet bubble and Sept. 11 didn't help one bit, but I don't think you can point the finger at any one administration (or party).

Likewise, I don't think that either party can really take credit for where the economy went in the 90s. Both Reagan/Bush and Clinton influenced it, but they were also helped along with the onset of the "Information Age".

The main difference is that Ronny had a cooperative Congress, while Bill was such an obvious fuckstain that he got nada.

Voronwë wrote:people always want to act like the economy belongs to the President.

The budgets have to go through both houses of Congress and are amended greatly. Under Bush/Reagan the Congress was Democratic. Under CLinton it was Republican.

To ascribe all the credit/blame of an econmic cycle to a president (or in this case even one party) is inaccurate the way i see it.

Thank you. That is about the most intelligent post this thread is going to see.

The wealthiest 1%'s share of national wealth skyrocketed with trickle down economics.

Why do people assume that giving the super wealthy more money will create jobs as opposed to creating even larger bank accounts. The top 1% already has more than enough money to create more jobs if they were so inclined. You think giving Bill Gates a tax cut will create more jobs?

Tax cuts for small businesses (the business not the owner) and investments in small businesses, tax holidays for startups are things I would push for.

Voronwe:

It may not be the exact spending plan the President lays out, but after the changes, the basic increases and decreases are still the Presidents.

------
I am also non-partisen, and will always vote for what appears to be the lesser of the two evils. But I refuse to believe come election time that presidents can take blame/credit for economic upturns and downturns. I blame it on the government as a whole at time.

It is obvious that a couple companies like Verizon, Intel, etc. are the reason that the economy went through the roof. It is no ones fault but their own when it comes to places like Enron. The economic downturn we saw before 9/11 was not Clinton's fault. The market grew to fast because uneducated investors started flinging money into the market, to make an "easy dollar". The market had to even out eventually.

And trickle down does work, always has. It may not work 100% the way you want it to, but in the end, trickle down equals a lower unemployment rate, and higher spending, which in turn equals more taxes for the government.

Whatever, I'm babbleling on...sorry.

Forthe wrote: Why do people assume that giving the super wealthy more money will create jobs as opposed to creating even larger bank accounts. .

Unreal how you can repeat the rhetoric you hear on TV.

Joe Blow making 25,000/year gets a tax cut = enough to replace the lawn mower and fix the water heater that hasn't worked right in 3 months.

Joe Suck making 650,000/year, running a company that employees 35 people gets a tax cut = enough to add another building and hire 3 more people.

Use your fucking head before you post such fucking nonsense.

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Joe Suck making 650,000/year, running a company that employees 35 people gets a tax cut = enough to add another building and hire 3 more people.

Yes, but only ~if~ that's where that money goes. If it goes into a retirement fund or something it would not have the desired effect.

Bill Gates making 100 gazillion dollars a year: Enough to create a ton of jobs and buildlings.

Bill Gates making 100 gazillion dollars a year with fewer taxes: Enough to create a ton of jobs and buildings.

If he doesn't do it with 100 gazillion dollars, why would he do it with 110? That's the issue that people are bringing up here- just because you can create jobs does not mean that you will.

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Unreal how you can repeat the rhetoric you hear on TV.

Joe Blow making 25,000/year gets a tax cut = enough to replace the lawn mower and fix the water heater that hasn't worked right in 3 months.

Joe Suck making 650,000/year, running a company that employees 35 people gets a tax cut = enough to add another building and hire 3 more people.

Use your fucking head before you post such fucking nonsense.

except for the fucking blatantly obvious fact that businesses don't expand often in times of economic downturns which makes the rich business owners turn the tax cuts into profits they would normally be making if the economy wasn't in such a GOP produced shit hole. Not to mention the owners of huge amounts of stock in billion dollar corporations are the main beneficiary of the new cuts and generally resist expanding the workforce of their companies even at the best economic times.

The middle class is overwhelmingly the largest market of consumers in north america. Giving them a tax cut would likely make them spend more on luxury items and things like cars and education (or future education trust accounts) for their children. More spending by consumers = more jobs.

Of course, giving no tax cut would not put your country's deficit into a trillion dollar shithole, and I guess the poor million and billionaires would just have to suffer paying their fair share in taxes. There are better ways of stimulating an economy than giving the super wealthy elite opportunities to get out of paying more money.

I'm sure that grade 10 economics course you will get into next year will explain it in a bit more detail than I could.

to create jobs you give tax breaks to the business entities themselves.

it is their books that need to show room for job creation, not the personal bank accounts of major shareholders in those businesses for reliable job growth to be produced.

if i own a company and employee 5 people. if i get 40,000 more dollars back from my personal taxes this year, that doesnt mean i'm gonna put all 40k back into the business that is *one* of my avenues of investment. i may use it to buy real estate, especially since mortgage rates are at a 30 year low, and it is a major buyers market on resales.

it is possible that i may create 1 job with that money, but not guaranteed.

if the tax break on the other hand were to the business, and not my personal money, then i'd have fewer possible alternatives to use the money besides creating a job. sure i could buy/repair equipment (which incidentally helps the economy somewhat), or give the people who already work for me raises. If i had a tax incentive to create the job, i'd even be more likely to use the 40k for that purpose.

people act in their own self interest with their money. and that is fine, but you can't give 'rich' people money and then count on their altruism to invest in job creation as real effective job growth stimulus, in my opinion.

i'm not saying the benefits for small business aren't in this budget. they may very well be.

my point is, that it is flawed logic to say that:

business owners getting a personal tax break necessitates job creation, which is the way some people are trying to spin the tax cut.

Well, $25K/year Joe sure as hell ain't gonna create any new jobs. Small businesses need a boost.

Having said that, I've read a bit more of Dubya's plan, and it's utter crap. The way the federal gov't is bloating really pisses me off. Wasn't smaller, smarter (lol) gov't part fo the Republican platform in 2000?

smaller government and less government involvment (and generally more personal freedom) is a pretty standard convservative platform in all cases. when you have a republican president in the white house that much is expected. I don't think dubster ran on that specifically though.

of course what you got was larger government, more government interference and less personal freedoms, as well as a lot of new 'what would jesus do?' type laws from the christian right which the president panders to so shamelessly.

kyoukan type-R wrote:smaller government and less government involvment (and generally more personal freedom) is a pretty standard convservative platform in all cases. when you have a republican president in the white house that much is expected. I don't think dubster ran on that specifically though.

of course what you got was larger government, more government interference and less personal freedoms, as well as a lot of new 'what would jesus do?' type laws from the christian right which the president panders to so shamelessly.

The Jesus shit bugs the hell out of me.

Smaller government is part of the conservative platform indeed, but the 9-11 incident kind of hindered that. In a time of peace they could have focused on things like that. There are more important matters at hand right now. As usual, important things get pushed to the back while the urgent matters get taken care of.

In my mind all citizens should pay equal amount of tax.

We are all born equals, treat us like it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Why the fuck do we pay different taxes to the government that treats ua all as equals?

Why can 18 yr olds not drink and 21 yr olds drink? I mean since they can die for our country I think it's safe to say we consider them citizens of it.

I don't even try to understand this politcal bullshit anymore....noone in politcs has an IQ higher then 85...so there is no point in trying to logically analyze the decisions that come out of thier meetings.

Pilsburry wrote: Why can 18 yr olds not drink and 21 yr olds drink? I mean since they can die for our country I think it's safe to say we consider them citizens of it.

Because you aren't required to make your own decisions as an 18 year old in the military. You are told what to do and you do it. The personal responsibility you have to undertake for drinking has been shown to be too much for 18 year olds to handle.

It was 18, it didn't work. People from Jersey used to go into nyc because jersey used to be 19 while nyc was 18. It was all unsafe. They couldn't handle it. We're all better off for it now as a result.

Edit: This hijacking was sponsored the morons of financial world ie. Midnyte.
Multiple choice genius:
Which congressional party supported and invested in the debacle known as Enron, you know, the company you seem to feel was all Bill's fault?
a. Republicans such as our fine president
b. Democrats such as everyone that wasn't a fucking republican pushing Enron through the roof

Both A and B.

Any more questions?

Enron was supported early by Bush Sr.


Billy bob dumbass continued the trend.


Bush Jr. was there for the fall and was smart enough not to answer the phone.


Need to take a look at the tax plan yet. Small buisness tax cuts would be a god thing. National Sales tax would be even better, but that ain't gonna happen.

Fallanthas wrote:Bush Jr. was there for the fall and was smart enough not to answer the phone.

Perhaps you weren't there for the whole part where Bush Jr. came out and admitted to the fact that he was practically best buds with Kenneth Lay. Enron helped get Dubya elected, and Dubya did all he could to support the floundering company.

By the way, Bush Sr. armed and trained Osama bin Laden. That's a nice little factoid for some of you folks to chew on.

Small buisness tax cuts would be a god thing. National Sales tax would be even better, but that ain't gonna happen.

Taxes are how the government makes its money. Cutting taxes, therefore, causes the government to lose income. When the government is $1 trillion in debt, why would cutting ANY taxes be a good thing? Especially given the billions Bush plans to spend on a half-assed war with Iraq. Make no mistake: when all that money is spent, and the government is hundreds of trillions of dollars in the red, businesses will tank. Small, large, medium -- you name it; it'll tank.

Sure, all those tax cuts for the wealthy will really help stimulate the economy. Just like they have...Oh, wait! That's right. They never have.

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:

Millie wrote:I guess the Republican motto these days goes: "If trickle-down economics don't succeed the first time, try, try again!"
.

You don't think it worked the first time??? How the fuck do you think we had such a boom in 90's?

You can't link a president or his policies to his term. You have to see what happened later as a result of his policies.

Reagan/Bush Sr. - Trickle down economics = a BOOM in the late 80's thru late 90's

Clinton - no real policies at all = Enron, etc.


/pishaw

Ummm so you say the late 80's was a boom... it was the closest we have come to a depression since the great depression, the economy started to turn around in 90... and 91 showed the first progress. But is it the Reagans fault the late 80's crash, no it was the tax and spend policies forced down his throat by the democrats in the early 80's that caused the record deficit spending that led to the near depression. The question is... if you look at this budget... when did the republican party become the tax and spend party that advocates deficit spending... when did the democrats stop that and the republicans take it over. I don't care who gets a tax cut... but you can't spend money that doesn't exist and expect the economy to grow.
Just FYI, I think both parties suck butt, neither one speaks for the working man, they just speak for those that line their pockets. And the rich line BOTH pockets.

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Both A and B.

Any more questions?

Yes, do you ever read a newspaper?

So many posting who have no clue on what paying high taxes is all about. Let me ask you this, how many of you have ever made a million dollars in one year before? Well regardless, I have done it more then one time and I can tell you right up front paying 600,000 to the feds and 200,000 to the state in income taxes is fucking ridiculous.

You all scream about tax cuts for the upper income is retarded but until you have been there you are just spouting off shit you know nothing about. Why should 1 percent of the wealthy pick up the tab for the other 99 percent of the taxpayers in any country. Where does that leave motivation to make more money. Why make it if you are gonna see little gain because you move to a higher tax bracket. If you remove the motivation to excel you will wind up with a socialistic state depending on government to get by, and this is dangerously close to communism.

Also remember this economy has been sinking for the last three years, since the clock struck the year 2000 to be exact. Don't blame Bush for an economy that was going down due to prior administrations. There is no way possible that a president elect for 2 years could crash an economy. That takes time, we will feel the efects of Bush's admin in the year 2005 and beyond.

One last comment on this, go to a straight 20 percent national sales tax across the board and end the IRS and income taxes and this country's defeicit would be wiped out in short order. Imagine the money saved by doing away with the IRS alone. I hate this time of year.

Chidoro wrote:

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Both A and B.

Any more questions?

Yes, do you ever read a newspaper?

Nope.

Looking at a more indepth report on dubya's plan, I'm gonna retract a bit and say it looks decently balanced. As in, I don't think Dubya overlooked anything too greatly. I do think he over-exerted himself on a few things though.

- Corporate Acountability - Tough shit people, the stock market is not there for you to make "easy money". Welcome to the world of risk vs. reward. I think EQ players best understand this concept. This budget should not be proposed to double.

- Defense budget - This got such a large increase because old Billy cut the defense budget so much in his tenure. He of course could not foresee us needing to beef up so quickly, so I don't blame him for anything. It just helps me accept this proposed increase.

- Homeland Security division is the only thing in his budget that guarantees more jobs.

- Education - Not to sound overly cruel, but, we have been spending so much on our kids. If they seriously don't want to learn, then fuck them, let them pump gas and bag groceries. Sooner or later, they will catch on. The proposed increase is way high and uncalled for. It hasn't worked in the past, more money is not gonna help now.

- Aids budget - seriously, just buy those countries some rubbers...would be a lot cheaper.

- Medicare - seriously, just give those people placibos so they will shut up...and let this buget proposal be lowered.

- Fusion research - One of the few that doesn't have an amount next to it. Amazing that a focil fuel president doesnt want us to know that he didn't give to our future.

That's my only complaints really. Not too bad like I said overall.

You all scream about tax cuts for the upper income is retarded but until you have been there you are just spouting off shit you know nothing about

Why? Do the laws of mathematics change once you pass a certain income?

Why? Do the laws of mathematics change once you pass a certain income?

But Ninan is a multi-millionaire dammit! Your are nothing but a begging insect. Your opinion is less-than-nothing. BEGONE!!!

Millie,


I know Bush Jr. was in tight with Enron. My phone reference was aimed at the only thing that was done right in the situation, i.e. Bush Jr. refusing to accept calls from Enron execs in the last week before the fall. Too bad both he and his father didn't start rejecting those calls about 12 years earlier.

both parties are to blame for Enron. Enron spent millions on both Republican and Democratic campaign funds. They spent a bit more on Republican contributions, but in the end, both parties are to blame.

Voronwë wrote:both parties are to blame for Enron. Enron spent millions on both Republican and Democratic campaign funds. They spent a bit more on Republican contributions, but in the end, both parties are to blame.

Exactly.

masteen wrote:Zamtuk, what retarded fucking school of economics did you graduate from? Ronny turned this county out of the biggest recession that we'd seen since the Great Depression, all the while goading the USSR into waging a Cold War they could not win.

OTOH, Clinton was content to ride the economic coattails of his prdecessors, while doing nothing to control the ballooning of the "new" economy.

I'm not saying shit about the overview of what he did to the economy. I am just saying that the trickle down plan DID NOT trickle down. Talk to any body who was old enough (READ: out of school) and didn't have a lot of money in the 80's. The rich got richer and the poor got nothing. The economy was doing great, hell, in 1984 the stock market boasted its highest increase in history. But how many of the poor gave a flying fuck?

Zamtuk wrote:
I'm not saying shit about the overview of what he did to the economy. I am just saying that the trickle down plan DID NOT trickle down. Talk to any body who was old enough (READ: out of school) and didn't have a lot of money in the 80's. The rich got richer and the poor got nothing. The economy was doing great, hell, in 1984 the stock market boasted its highest increase in history. But how many of the poor gave a flying fuck?

Bu it did so something. It spurred entrepenuership and was the beginning of the information/technology age. The leaps and bounds we took in the late 80's to late 90's was sick. You have to see that.

Bullshit Zamtuk.

Yes, I was there. Labor jobs fell, information and management jobs went through the roof. The 80's were the beginning of the U.S. switch to a more information-based economy.

And it didn't have a damned thing to do with the president, other than the fact that more money was available for start-ups.

Voronwë wrote:both parties are to blame for Enron. Enron spent millions on both Republican and Democratic campaign funds. They spent a bit more on Republican contributions, but in the end, both parties are to blame.

It wasn't even close Voron. Not-even-close and I'm speaking on behalf of my wife who was the Dow Jones energy reporter during the time of the collapse (she's a sr writer for consumer products now). It just makes quotes like "Clinton - no real policies at all = Enron, etc." all the more asinine. It's nearly as stupid as this gem "Reagan/Bush Sr. - Trickle down economics = a BOOM in the late 80's thru late 90's "