The real party of NO, the GOP, steps it up

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

None of these 'rich' people you speak of hides their money under the matress. They invest in new business ventures, speculate and start businesses. The rest usually goes into stocks, REIT's (yea real estate) and T-bills and bonds mostly to save in tax liabilities.

Just because Pelosi speaks doesn't make it so.

I'm not listening to Pelosi in the least. I'm listening to every economist in the world. You might try not politicizing things that have nothing to do with politics, and learn something.

Guess what, Dell? Putting money into stocks, REIT's, T-bills and bonds - to save in tax liabilities - is exactly why giving money to rich people does NOT go back into the economy, and decreases government income. All those things you listed above takes money OUT of the economy. You just proved my point. Thanks

Consider this: Bush initiated massive tax benefits to the wealthy in 2001 and 2003. Since that time we've lost 800,000 jobs. Gee - doesn't seem to work the way the GOP says it does, does it?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Riot

Consider this: Bush initiated massive tax benefits to the wealthy in 2001 and 2003. Since that time we've lost 800,000 jobs. Gee - doesn't seem to work the way the GOP says it does, does it?

Are you actually saying that they didn't decide to add many more workers with the money they saved? Oh, they got to have something that says different. Just you wait.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Are you actually saying that they didn't decide to add many more workers with the money they saved? Oh, they got to have something that says different. Just you wait.

Yes they just hoard it, no business are created by people who make more than $250k a year. Only govt spending creates jobs.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Guess what, Dell? Putting money into stocks, REIT's, T-bills and bonds - to save in tax liabilities - is exactly why giving money to rich people does NOT go back into the economy, and decreases government income. All those things you listed above takes money OUT of the economy. You just proved my point. Thanks ?

so commercial real estate (REITS) treasury bills (America) and bonds (everything from road projects to bridges) yes muni bonds are where the tax beni's lie are taking money out of the economy?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

so commercial real estate (REITS) treasury bills (America) and bonds (everything from road projects to bridges) yes muni bonds are where the tax beni's lie are taking money out of the economy?

Yes, Dell. When you save money, it is not circulating in the economy. It is not liquid and circulating.

An unemployed person gets 300 a week (average). That - every penny - goes right back into the economy immediately, directly to food, gasoline, rent/mortgage, heat, electricity, etc. Multiply that by millions as we have now.

Louisville and Lexington have about 700,000 people in the metro areas roughly. We have 100,000 on unemployment in KY (that will be off by end of Dec if not extended). Figuring only 25,000 of those live in the metro areas, that is $7,500,000 a week out of the Lexington and Louisville economies if unemployment doesn't get extended by end of December. Already this week thousands are off it in this state. People can't buy groceries, gasoline and electricity, those companies lay off employees, quickly. We go into a depression really quickly.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, Dell. When you save money, it is not circulating in the economy. It is not liquid and circulating.

An unemployed person gets 300 a week (average). That - every penny - goes right back into the economy immediately, directly to food, gasoline, rent/mortgage, heat, electricity, etc. Multiply that by millions as we have now..

what if by chance a rich person owns the apartment building, bank note and is invested in utilities? And a terrorist Muslim owns the grocery store.

Explain how that $300 comes back as more than it went out w/o a color quality copy machine?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

what if by chance a rich person owns the apartment building, bank note and is invested in utilities? And a terrorist Muslim owns the grocery store.

Explain how that $300 comes back as more than it went out w/o a color quality copy machine?

That $300 goes immediately out into the economy as cash. It isn't saved.

Pretend $50 goes to the grocery store. The grocery then gives $20 out in salaries (which goes out again to groceries, rent, etc a second time), puts $5 into inventory (grows business) and he puts $10 out in car purchase (expands who gets part of that $300) and $5 out into his groceries, rent, etc.

Pretend $250 goes to rent. Repeat the above with the owner paying off the mortage, then buying groceries, etc.

That $300 goes out and circulates throughout the economy multiple times before it ends up "taken out" (into long-term capital investments, savings, etc) Each time it circulates, it requires a business to be open and have inventory, it supports salaries: grocery, truck line, grower of food, gas station owner, clerk, gasoline tanker driver, etc.

Bonds, etc. only make money that goes into the economy the first time they are sold. Trading stocks, etc. in the markets does NOT circulate money into the economy that causes growth.

[Riot]

Today the House passed a bill giving tax cut continuation only to 98% of Americans (not to the wealthy for their income above $250K)

The rumor [edit: not a rumor, it's true] is that the Senate has now abandoned the idea of having 4 straw poll type of votes tomorrow.

Harry Reid is apparently listening to the massive pressure from the left on this tax cut issue (ad from MoveOn.org, innundation of White House and Senate with e-mails, telephone calls from constituents, etc) and [correction Saturday] the Senate will hold TWO REAL VOTES, one on tax cuts to the middle class, then another on tax cuts to the wealthy.

Edit: The first vote will be to extend tax cuts for the middle class (up to $250K) The second vote will be to raise that ceiling from $250K to 1 million dollars. The second is an overt compromise to the GOP. The Dems will vote against the second.

Reid will dare the GOP to not vote for the middle class tax cut. If the GOP does not vote yes, nothing will get passed - and all the tax cuts expire at the end of the year. And the GOP can take it up again in the new Congress on their own.

So Harry Reid has taken a stand, and it's up to the GOP now.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Today the House passed a bill giving tax cut continuation only to 98% of Americans (not to the wealthy for their income above $250K)

The rumor [edit: not a rumor, it's true] is that the Senate has now abandoned the idea of having 4 straw poll type of votes tomorrow.

Harry Reid is apparently listening to the massive pressure from the left on this tax cut issue (ad from MoveOn.org, innundation of White House and Senate with e-mails, telephone calls from constituents, etc) and [correction Saturday] the Senate will hold TWO REAL VOTES, one on tax cuts to the middle class, then another on tax cuts to the wealthy.

Edit: The first vote will be to extend tax cuts for the middle class (up to $250K) The second vote will be to raise that ceiling from $250K to 1 million dollars. The second is an overt compromise to the GOP. The Dems will vote against the second.

Reid will dare the GOP to not vote for the middle class tax cut. If the GOP does not vote yes, nothing will get passed - and all the tax cuts expire at the end of the year. And the GOP can take it up again in the new Congress on their own.

So Harry Reid has taken a stand, and it's up to the GOP now.

Yes the Democrats as usual have put their agenda ahead of the American people. Too bad they didnt see fit to temporarily extend all of the cuts so we could avoid all the issues that will be created and let the newly elected Congress tackle the issue.

Of course the GOP will reject this foolish plan and then simply bring back the legislation right after the 1st of the year and force the Democrats to kill it.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

That $300 goes immediately out into the economy as cash. It isn't saved.

Pretend $50 goes to the grocery store. The grocery then gives $20 out in salaries (which goes out again to groceries, rent, etc a second time), puts $5 into inventory (grows business) and he puts $10 out in car purchase (expands who gets part of that $300) and $5 out into his groceries, rent, etc.

Pretend $250 goes to rent. Repeat the above with the owner paying off the mortage, then buying groceries, etc.

That $300 goes out and circulates throughout the economy multiple times before it ends up "taken out" (into long-term capital investments, savings, etc) Each time it circulates, it requires a business to be open and have inventory, it supports salaries: grocery, truck line, grower of food, gas station owner, clerk, gasoline tanker driver, etc.

Bonds, etc. only make money that goes into the economy the first time they are sold. Trading stocks, etc. in the markets does NOT circulate money into the economy that causes growth.

The problem with your theory is that all the jobs you believe are saved are all govt subsidized or in no danger anyway. The food production business is already massively subsidized by the govt, public utilities as well. The oil industry is hardly hurting (gas stations).

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The problem with your theory is that all the jobs you believe are saved are all govt subsidized or in no danger anyway. The food production business is already massively subsidized by the govt, public utilities as well. The oil industry is hardly hurting (gas stations).

It's no theory. You might read your WSJ a little more thoroughly for the explaination if you can't understand how dollars infused immediately into the economy help keep the economy stable.

My "theory" (which is not my theory, but the common knowledge of economists) is not saying anything at all about jobs saved, government subsidized, etc. If you can't understand what the conversation is about, probably best not for you to jump in and start talking about something else entirely, as you usually do.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

That $300 goes immediately out into the economy as cash. It isn't saved.

Pretend $50 goes to the grocery store. The grocery then gives $20 out in salaries (which goes out again to groceries, rent, etc a second time), puts $5 into inventory (grows business) and he puts $10 out in car purchase (expands who gets part of that $300) and $5 out into his groceries, rent, etc.

Pretend $250 goes to rent. Repeat the above with the owner paying off the mortage, then buying groceries, etc.

That $300 goes out and circulates throughout the economy multiple times before it ends up "taken out" (into long-term capital investments, savings, etc) Each time it circulates, it requires a business to be open and have inventory, it supports salaries: grocery, truck line, grower of food, gas station owner, clerk, gasoline tanker driver, etc.

Bonds, etc. only make money that goes into the economy the first time they are sold. Trading stocks, etc. in the markets does NOT circulate money into the economy that causes growth.

Let's pretend the Govt has it's own money too, while we're at it. You seem to be saying that if the Govt. takes $100 of my hard earned money away from me, that I was going to spend to spur the economy, and gives it to someone else to spur the economy, that some how there was a net gain? Let's also pretend that there is still $100 of the money ( that I worked hard for ), that the Govt. took, left, when the Govt. gives it to someone whom they deem better able to spend it. That's a whole lot of pretending. You must have seen what happened when Bush sent checks out to most everyone to spur the economy. Did it work then? Nope. Redistribution of wealth is what this Administration is all about. If you think that you don't pay enough taxes, I've got a good idea for you and other rich liberals. Instead of waiting for the Govt.(which was never intended to be a CHARITY) to take more of the citizens money. Just send it here.

http://fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

There won't be any reason to raise anyone's taxes. The rich liberals will take care of everyone! LET'S PRETEND!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Let's pretend the Govt has it's own money too, while we're at it. You seem to be saying that if the Govt. takes $100 of my hard earned money away from me, !

No, not at all what I am saying. That's just some weird thing you made up.

People who get unemployment spend the money immediately, infusing it all right back into the economy. These are people that have no discretionary spending options. Do you realize that "the government" doesn't pay the overwhelming majority of unemployment funds, right?

Redistribution of wealth is what this Administration is all about.

No. That is what actually happened under George Bush II. Today an increasingly tiny portion of the American population now owns the vast majority of the money in the United States. That (concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands) worsened, accelerated markedly under Bush II. It has not under the current administration.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, Dell. When you save money, it is not circulating in the economy. It is not liquid and circulating.

An unemployed person gets 300 a week (average). That - every penny - goes right back into the economy immediately, directly to food, gasoline, rent/mortgage, heat, electricity, etc. Multiply that by millions as we have now.

Louisville and Lexington have about 700,000 people in the metro areas roughly. We have 100,000 on unemployment in KY (that will be off by end of Dec if not extended). Figuring only 25,000 of those live in the metro areas, that is $7,500,000 a week out of the Lexington and Louisville economies if unemployment doesn't get extended by end of December. Already this week thousands are off it in this state. People can't buy groceries, gasoline and electricity, those companies lay off employees, quickly. We go into a depression really quickly.

What?

There is a looming depression because unemployed people arent getting $300 a week?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

I'm not listening to Pelosi in the least. I'm listening to every economist in the world. You might try not politicizing things that have nothing to do with politics, and learn something.

Guess what, Dell? Putting money into stocks, REIT's, T-bills and bonds - to save in tax liabilities - is exactly why giving money to rich people does NOT go back into the economy, and decreases government income. All those things you listed above takes money OUT of the economy. You just proved my point. Thanks

Consider this: Bush initiated massive tax benefits to the wealthy in 2001 and 2003. Since that time we've lost 800,000 jobs. Gee - doesn't seem to work the way the GOP says it does, does it?

You say these things as they were factual.

Cutting taxes on the wealthy increases gov't income.

Tax payments by millionaire households more than doubled to $273 billion in 2007 from $132 billion after the tax rates were cut in 2003. The number of tax returns with $1 million or more in annual reported income doubled over that period thanks to the strong economic rebound.

You seem to fail to grasp the fact the a stronger economy is a far greater generator of govt revenues than raising tax rates. That is a fact.

[Riot]

Cannon Shell You say these things as they were factual.

They are factual. Apparently beyond your ken, however.

You seem to fail to grasp the fact the a stronger economy is a far greater generator of govt revenues than raising tax rates. That is a fact.

Another of Chucks' whacky sidetrack straw men. You change the subject then insult other posters. I wasn't talking about how to generate government dollars. Duh. You fail to grasp the subject you jumped into.

The discussion was about the immediate benefit of unemployment dollars on the economy - and thus why it's so necessary to extend benefits for the unemployed when joblessness is so high and the recession is so slow.

Of course I think a stronger economy is better generator of government revenues that raising tax rates. Duh. We have to get to the stronger economy. Cutting off unemployment checks to millions is the opposite of that.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

They are factual. Apparently beyond your ken, however.



Another of Chucks' whacky sidetrack straw men. You change the subject then insult other posters. I wasn't talking about how to generate government dollars. Duh. You fail to grasp the subject you jumped into.

The discussion was about the immediate benefit of unemployment dollars on the economy - and thus why it's so necessary to extend benefits for the unemployed when joblessness is so high and the recession is so slow.

Of course I think a stronger economy is better generator of government revenues that raising tax rates. Duh. We have to get to the stronger economy. Cutting off unemployment checks to millions is the opposite of that.

The strawman thing is getting tired. You are not able to grasp that these factors are all interrelated which explains your lack of understanding of basic economic fundementals.

Raising taxes is hardly the path to a stronger economy yet you continue to advocate that.

You seem to think that the govt should extend unemployment benefits endlessly, now not because of moral reasons but because of its economic benefits? This is similar to your argument that food stamps are a fine source of economic stimulus as well.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The strawman thing is getting tired. You are not able to grasp that these factors are all interrelated which explains your lack of understanding of basic economic fundementals.

And your debate style of insulting other posters while not providing any evidence whatsoever to back your own positions is laughable.

A guy who doesn't think unemployment dollars immediately helps the economy probably not ought to be lecturing others on "understanding basic economic fundamentals"

Why don't you find one that supports that rare position? Look in the WSJ.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

And your debate style of insulting other posters while not providing any evidence whatsoever to back your own positions is laughable.

A guy who doesn't think unemployment dollars immediately helps the economy probably not ought to be lecturing others on "understanding basic economic fundamentals"

Why don't you find one that supports that rare position? Look in the WSJ.

I'm not sure where I insulted anyone. Pointing out things that you are unwilling to accept despite the obvious nature of them isnt an insult, is it?

I would think that on economic matters there would be few places that break thngs down more effectively than the WSJ.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I'm not sure where I insulted anyone. Pointing out things that you are unwilling to accept despite the obvious nature of them isnt an insult, is it?

I would think that on economic matters there would be few places that break thngs down more effectively than the WSJ.

i didn't see any from you either. i saw where the suggestion was made where something was 'beyond your ken', but you didn't post that. i'll have to go back and see who made that post....