Situation in the usa

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I think Fluffy Bunny is possessed- or maybe I need to go outside.

[ralphwiggum 6]

it's not like the government has 100% control of the economy, all they can do is try and influence it. I'm definately no economist, but wasn't the economic growth a false one? Didn't people start investing all kinds of money into dot.com industries which created a sort of 'false rise' in the economy? Then didn't the bubble burst because people didn't actually use internet services? Isn't that how the tech. industry got screwed?

good point abou gov't and economy.

The economic growth of US in dot-com era was not all bubbles. advances in IT technology was appplied to many areas of bricks-and-mortar economy and did effect actual economic growth. for example, by utilizing internet, firms cut costs on their support system. Dell Computer is a good example. Also, internet can help with sales. I can buy quality holsters for my gun without leaving my room. furthermore, the holster could be the one that i needed, but in pre-internet era, i would not have been able to reach.

most people mistake stock market as an indicator of economy in US. nope. US runs on credit economy.(banking, loans, etc.)

[FSPilot 0]

and FSPilot, don't say it takes certain years to change effect. it maybe true under some very strict circumstances, but it will bite you back. Republicans seem to love idea of saying such things, and I can guarantee you that if economics gets better before next presidential election, it will bite back. you said it takes 4 years to see effect of gov't policies - if economy recovers before next presidential election, then you are saying Clinton's legacy is what kept Bush in office, and Clinton administration's "fault" was not his fault, but a lie from Republicans.

I'm just repeating what my Dad told me really. The only things I learned in economics class were that tax cuts = good, a bunch of formulas, and, if I set my mind to it, I can achieve anything (had a very inspiration professor).

[Renagade 0]

If iraq brings in a substantial amount of money when the US econimics is in a bit of a spin would that of been a legitimate reason to go to war.

i heard someone else pose a similar argument where the consequences of going to war were less than if the us econemy went poo poo.

[SpecOp9 0]

no no I'm sorry,

I'm very sorry, but all your answers are wrong..

The correct answer is who gives a s***

[Warin 0]

The only things I learned in economics class were that tax cuts = good, a bunch of formulas, and, if I set my mind to it, I can achieve anything (had a very inspiration professor).

Your prof sounds like a bit of a bufoon, actually.

Tax cuts are not always good. If they are not accompanied by resposible cuts in spending, all it will do is increase your deficeit. And like it or not, you cant always acheive everything you set your mind to.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I thought fiscal responsibility was a cornerstone of the Republican platform? I mean, yes, Democrats want to increase government spending, but at least they don't try to cut taxes at the same time. The administration just doesn't think the money will ever stop flowing, though. Huge tax cuts, plus wars, plus increased government spending, plus new government projects and programs- it's like Santa Claus is in the White House. The only problem is that Santa Claus ain't real, and the deficit is.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Yeah, the new Republicans are kind of strange in that aspect, Tex. They want to cut taxes but spend as much as the Democrats. How is that possible?

Either way, things would definately be better had 9/11 not occured.

I have a question for any economists/historians here. In Canada, the 'Income Tax' was introduced as a temporary (lol) measure in order to pay for WW1. What kind of taxes did the government collect before then? How did they make their money? And why are we still paying out our @$$es up here?

Tyler

[FSPilot 0]

Your prof sounds like a bit of a bufoon, actually.

Tax cuts are not always good.  If they are not accompanied by resposible cuts in spending, all it will do is increase your deficeit.  And like it or not, you cant always acheive everything you set your mind to.

I wasn't being serious. He wasn't the best teacher, but he was inspirational. He'd make us hold our hands in the air and say stuff like "we have the power". Sort of a goofball, and his class wasn't that great, but I got a B so I'm happy.

[FSPilot 0]

@ June 22 2003,02:20)]I thought fiscal responsibility was a cornerstone of the Republican platform? I mean, yes, Democrats want to increase government spending, but at least they don't try to cut taxes at the same time. The administration just doesn't think the money will ever stop flowing, though. Huge tax cuts, plus wars, plus increased government spending, plus new government projects and programs- it's like Santa Claus is in the White House. The only problem is that Santa Claus ain't real, and the deficit is.

Despite the popular belief, the tax cut isn't that huge. It will be for the average american, but wont have such a big impact on our coffers. I think I heard somewhere that it was a small fraction of our GDP. It's simply designed to stimulate the economy.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

@ June 22 2003,02:20)]I thought fiscal responsibility was a cornerstone of the Republican platform? I mean, yes, Democrats want to increase government spending, but at least they don't try to cut taxes at the same time. The administration just doesn't think the money will ever stop flowing, though. Huge tax cuts, plus wars, plus increased government spending, plus new government projects and programs- it's like Santa Claus is in the White House. The only problem is that Santa Claus ain't real, and the deficit is.

Despite the popular belief, the tax cut isn't that huge.  It will be for the average american, but wont have such a big impact on our coffers.  I think I heard somewhere that it was a small fraction of our GDP.  It's simply designed to stimulate the economy.

I'd love to see your proof on those claims. I know you've know doubt heard it a thousand times in the president's speeches and on Fox News, but you never really hear about the details, do you. Well here's one: Among other things, this tax cut eliminates taxes on stock dividends. Now, I'm not an expert, but who is going to benefit the most on this one? Joe Six Pack who can't even spell 'portfolio', or the CEO who owns 500 shares of Nike?

This is just one of the many things in the tax cut that absolutely stink of trickle-down economics, which failed miserably during the 1980s. The reasoning is that you give the rich tax cuts so that they'll have more money to invest in the economy and create jobs, but that just isn't how it works. In the past, industries has taken these tax cuts with a smile and a wink, and then proceed to consolidate and cut costs by merging and outsourcing for employment. This actually shrinks the job market, the opposite of the claimed effect. Happened last time, so why won't it happen again?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Look, we're living in the worst American job market in decades. And then you see rulings from the government like the latest FCC decision that relaxes the rules on media companies merging even further. By doing this the government is allowing large media conglomerates to consolidate the market to the point that it will be impossible for smaller competitors to succeed. The market will stagnate, and besides the information control issues of 6 corporations controlling every news outlet in America, we'll see an industry where a company has no reason to create jobs and increase revenue. Rather, companies can just cut payroll costs and consolidate further, that way profits will go up without them having to do anything but sack a couple hundred more workers. And it isn't just the information industry. Older industries like the automobile industry are attempting to do the same thing (although workers unions are slowing that process down- teamsters aren't into consolidation lol). The core point is that the government, by simultaneously handing companies large tax cuts and deregulating consolidation tactics like mergers, is slowly killing our dynamic, competitive economy in favor of a static economy controlled by less than 100 conglomerates (Kraft, Disney, et al). That way they all get a slice, and noone has to worry about competition, because everyone has their own turf. I mean hell, Microsoft even owns a large portion of Apple- this sort of corporate incest is what our economy is becoming increasingly reliant upon.

Competition is dying in America, and when it draws its last breath, all the supply side tax cuts in the world won't stimulate our stagnant economy.

[Warin 0]

@ June 21 2003,22:45)]In the past, industries has taken these tax cuts with a smile and a wink, and then proceed to consolidate and cut costs by merging and outsourcing for employment. This actually shrinks the job market, the opposite of the claimed effect. Happened last time, so why won't it happen again?

Because this is the Kinder Gentler Voodoo Economics. And there is NO way that Bush the Younger would actually LIE to people, is there?!

Sheah.

Welcome to the wonderful world of hope and pray economics. And all its going to do is sink the country deeper into an economic crisis. The rest of the world is having their own problems... so it's not rosy everywhere else, but right now the US economy is slower than most other countries. It's that whole 'degrees of shittiness' scale

[Tex -USMC- 0]

@ June 21 2003,22:45)]In the past, industries has taken these tax cuts with a smile and a wink, and then proceed to consolidate and cut costs by merging and outsourcing for employment. This actually shrinks the job market, the opposite of the claimed effect. Happened last time, so why won't it happen again?

Because this is the Kinder Gentler Voodoo Economics.  And there is NO way that Bush the Younger would actually LIE to people, is there?!

Sheah.

Welcome to the wonderful world of hope and pray economics.  And all its going to do is sink the country deeper into an economic crisis.  The rest of the world is having their own problems... so it's not rosy everywhere else, but right now the US economy is slower than most other countries.  It's that whole 'degrees of shittiness' scale

At least we aren't saddled with a welfare state nearing critical mass like Germany is. They're in trouble here in about 15 years. Actually, come to think of it, so are we because Social Security is all ready sputtering, and soon those damn baby boomers are going to start retiring. Uh-oh.

[FSPilot 0]

,June 22 2003,03:45]

Quote[/b] ]Well here's one: Among other things, this tax cut eliminates taxes on stock dividends. Now, I'm not an expert, but who is going to benefit the most on this one? Joe Six Pack who can't even spell 'portfolio', or the CEO who owns 500 shares of Nike?

The person who's going to put it back into the economy where it helps the most.

I understand that the top bracket of people are going to be getting the most from this tax cut, but look at the numbers.  Who pays the most taxes?  The top bracket.  So when you do a tax cut, who's going to be effected the most by this tax cut?  The top bracket.

This isn't Bush trying to line the pockets of the wealthy, this is a coincidence. It's like this: when you relax laws on speeding tickets, who's going to be effected most? Old people or young people with fast cars?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

@ June 22 2003,03:45)]

Quote[/b] ]Well here's one: Among other things, this tax cut eliminates taxes on stock dividends. Now, I'm not an expert, but who is going to benefit the most on this one? Joe Six Pack who can't even spell 'portfolio', or the CEO who owns 500 shares of Nike?

The person who's going to put it back into the economy where it helps the most.

I understand that the top bracket of people are going to be getting the most from this tax cut, but look at the numbers.  Who pays the most taxes?  The top bracket.  So when you do a tax cut, who's going to be effected the most by this tax cut?  The top bracket.

But you just said that the middle class would receive the most from this tax cut...

here it is:

Quote[/b] ] It will be for the average american

[FSPilot 0]

Are you going to argue with me or nitpick my typos?

Anyway, everyone will be effected by this, but the top bracket will be effected the most.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Are you going to argue with me or nitpick my typos?

Anyway, everyone will be effected by this, but the top bracket will be effected the most.

*sigh*

It isn't a typo, it's a clear contradiction in your argument that shows that your handle on the facts is not all it could be.

[madmedic 0]

Well...I dont normally talk politics on this forum, because it ALWAYS ends up with someone getting pissed off, or a "my country is better than yours" pissing match begins.

BUT to chime in...economically, No... it is NOT nearly that bad here in the USA.

People with a political agenda often make the misleading assertion that the dreaded "National Debt" has anything to do with how well Americans are, or are not doing financially.

First of all...It is not a "bill" that is due to be payed at the end of the month.

It has always been there, and always will be there.

It shrinks, and it grows...and it never makes me any richer, or poorer.

Second of all...If you DO intend to treat the "national debt" like an account that comes due at the end of the month...Then you must do the same with all of the debts owed to the U.S. by other countries...and then you can do the math.

In short...The National Debt is just a number. (Im not saying it means nothing...but its not anything to get your fruit-o-the looms all knotted up over)

Yes...there is poverty in the U.S. (trust me, my job takes me into some pretty blighted areas on a regular basis) but, it is not nearly as rampant as some would have you believe.

(Just as Bill Clinton is not NEARLY as responsible for the fairly good economy during his term as some would have you believe)

If I ask myself (or most people that I know): "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"...The answer would be a resounding "HELL YES!"

4 years ago I was making $30,000 per year...Today, I am making $42,000/yr...On Oct. 1st of this year, I will be making $46,000/yr.

[Warin 0]

,June 22 2003,03:45]

Quote[/b] ]Well here's one: Among other things, this tax cut eliminates taxes on stock dividends. Now, I'm not an expert, but who is going to benefit the most on this one? Joe Six Pack who can't even spell 'portfolio', or the CEO who owns 500 shares of Nike?

The person who's going to put it back into the economy where it helps the most.

I understand that the top bracket of people are going to be getting the most from this tax cut, but look at the numbers.  Who pays the most taxes?  The top bracket.  So when you do a tax cut, who's going to be effected the most by this tax cut?  The top bracket.

This isn't Bush trying to line the pockets of the wealthy, this is a coincidence.  It's like this: when you relax laws on speeding tickets, who's going to be effected most?  Old people or young people with fast cars?

Blah blah blah blah.

you really dont get it, do you?

Corporations and their top earners dont give a damn for the people who work for them. they care about profits and the bottom line. Do some reading and you'll discover that the wealthy people that get the most out of the tax cuts are the same ones that move factories to Mexico, Malaysia, or China to save money on labour. If you think that Nike or General Motors has a vested interest in employing Americnas (or Canadians) think again.

[Koolkid101 0]

Did you guys know that the richest 1% pays for 30% of the taxes?

[Warin 0]

Did you guys know that the richest 1% pays for 30% of the taxes?

And the richest 1 % hold 90% of the wealth. So shouldnt they pay commensurately more?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Oh well, I don't like talking about this. The more data I actually see, the greater the urge I have to break out the Little Red Book and start singing songs about the solidarity of the proletariat masses

[madmedic 0]

Did you guys know that the richest 1% pays for 30% of the taxes?

And the richest 1 % hold 90% of the wealth. So shouldnt they pay commensurately more?

Umm...they DO, thats the point.

and after the tax break...they still pay most of the taxes.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Poor old rich people