President Bush - about bush

AltToWar · 2003-01-08 00:25:47

hehehe hayday in the 80's?

hehehehehe

Stock market crash. Recession. High unemployment. record deficit.
My father was disabled. The 80's were the year he saw his disability income halfed. Thats when my mother had to start working.

Our economy is based on consumers.

Poor and middle class are high consumers. They generally save little. Adding more money into the pockets of consumers adds more money into the economy.

The upper class are savers. they, generally speaking, purchase assets and hold them. This takes money out of circulation.

Consumer goods and services are the life lood of our economy. If you give tax breaks to the middle and lower classes, you will have more consumer goods and services purchased. If you give it to the top 2%, you essentially remove it from general circulation.

AltToWar · 2003-01-08 00:28:37

a neat little fact about W. Next time you watch him give a speech, watch for the smirk. You will notice that each time he dishes out a loaded good speak sound-bite-able line of propaganda, he makes this smirk.

AltToWar · 2003-01-08 02:00:37

Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam, 1983

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-08 12:59:58

nobody I know misses the 80's. i just remember my grandfather yelling at the very mention of reagan, who cost him his job because of his porking of the rich.
no, the wealthiest 1% doesnt control the economy. stock investments dont help the average joe. the real estate industry is fueled by the middle class, not the upper class.
You really should take an economics class.

Yes, our economy is mainly consumer-driven, but the wealthiest 1% own a LOT of the businesses that the average Joe works at. And I never said anything about stock investing. More and more Americans are getting 401k's in their benefits packages.

And perhaps its the region of the country I live in, but I know MANY people who miss the Regan days.

And my school doesn't offer an economics class, or else I'd take it. It's kind of sad because we have 4 Ag classes and 3 welding classes, but no economics. We're just poor country bumpkins, I guess.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-08 13:41:23

The only good thing Regan did was throw out his ludicrous, politically motivated, econimc plan (after it failed in the most miserable way possible). After that, the feds own planning kept things in check (the feds usually can handle things as long as the government isn't passing unrealistic tax cuts).

Regan was the most glorified President for things he didn't do. Regan's deficit spending caused the worst national debt ever, nearly half of our national budget goes into paying its interest alone. Half! And since neary all of the other half goes into military spending, it's no wonder we're so screwed. We don't know where our priorities are, and we don't know how to plan for the long term (because politics are short term).

But since you have no economics class, it's no wonder you live in an area which loves Regan...

clark · 2003-01-08 13:51:41

Zing!

soph · 2003-01-08 14:02:01

Cal: most of our economy is based on small businesses. 80% of companies in the country, approximately, are small businesses, and this is where the average joe works. giving the wealthy money so they can buy imported caviar and wine for their office parties isnt going to help bob the builder.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-08 14:50:57

The bottom 80% do 20% of the spending.

The top 20% do 80% of the spending.

And that defecit put the USSR out of business, which I think was a good investment indeed. We could have spent way more if the US was still in the Cold War today.

soph · 2003-01-08 14:53:49

No, the underlying problems with the Soviet system put them out of business. You have no clue about the Soviet economics.

What Reagan did was create a credit-based economy, leaving Bush Sr. to clean it up, who in turn left it to Clinton to clean it up. After Clinton cleaned it up, the new Bush has brought it back.

clark · 2003-01-08 15:00:37

Well, I guess we should all thank the rich.

soph · 2003-01-08 15:04:52

15%-19% of the top 20% are what we refer to as middle class. they do most of that useful spending, the spending which affects our economy.

the lower 80% doesnt make enough to put the money into the economy. we should cut out the income tax for people making less than $15k . Why do kids working a summer job, and who make more than $750 dollars have to give an income tax? we shouldnt be taking away from these people, we should be keeping the money in the hands of those who cant get by as it is.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-08 15:19:29

So why should we tax the wealthiest investors out of their money that they would use to create jobs for the other 80%? Keep in mind, buying a CD at Sam Goody keeps those Sam Goody people paid, even if you aren't a stockholder in the company.

soph · 2003-01-08 15:47:13

arent you listening?

the bush plans provide for the top 1%. the middle class gets very little. and those people dont give jobs. why are CEO's getting millions of dollars while their companies are going under?

clark · 2003-01-08 15:51:53

becuase the working class has not risen up to overthrow the yoke imposed by the burgouise.

Rise up my people, rise up! The final days of capitalism are upon us! Let us retake the means of production for ourselves and let the fat rich overpayed CEO's work among the common man!

Sound extreme? Sound silly?

A foil for our dear friend Cal.

soph · 2003-01-08 15:52:44

foils, heheh.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-08 21:13:01

Okay, clark. Just remember that the Soviet Union eventually collapsed, and that Marxism died a long time ago (I'm sure it's still alive and well in your mind, clark )

soph · 2003-01-08 21:22:38

he was providing a valid point. thats the opposite extreme of what youre saying. the point hes making is that youre saying something very silly, and hes saying something equally silly.

a foil is an opposite.

clark · 2003-01-09 09:31:27

And the great peoples of the Soviet Russia will join hands and throw off the excess of their western oppresors.

You bandy about like you know anything regarding the fall of the soviet empire. You throw out small factoids from the Harvard School of Business without understanding the full context. You make generalized assumptions regarding wealth distribution, wealth creation, and who is responsible for what.

Stop being such a dork.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-09 15:59:04

Sorry that you feel that way, clark

Cobra Commander · 2003-01-10 20:07:07

When you really get down to it, we aren't supposed to have any income tax in the US. That's right, read the Constitution. Then along comes the 16th amendment, a "law" to allow a damn illegal thing! It's intent was to punish robber barons, but now we all get screwed. Tax cuts aren't the problem, federal spending is. We should cut all income tax for every American. (Yes, even the "wealthiest 1 percent)"

Extreme? I don't think so.

soph · 2003-01-10 20:16:17

The problem is our economy is now based largely on that income tax. cutting that would destroy our government, and maybe our economy.

it would take 5 years to a decade to recover. unless you have an economic plan?

Cobra Commander · 2003-01-10 20:38:14

The problem is our economy is now based largely on that income tax. cutting that would destroy our government, and maybe our economy.
it would take 5 years to a decade to recover. unless you have an economic plan?

We should phase it out over a decade or so, cutting it every year. At the same time, multiple government agencies should be cut back or eliminated, the IRS being the most obvious example but the Department of Energy can be scaled back considerably and the Department of Education can be eliminated entirely as it doesn't actually do anything.
To replace some of the lost income needed to support vital government functions, a federal sales tax could be implemented. That way, everyone pays taxes in direct proportion to how much money they spend. Rich people pay more because they buy more expensive things, what's could be more fair than that? As a bonus, illegal immigrants also pay taxes.

This, of course is not so much an economic plan as a loose concept, but it's more equitable and more valid, Constitutionally speaking.

End of rant.

soph · 2003-01-10 22:47:46

Actually, its less fair than an income tax. the fairest tax is a flat rate income tax, not a sales tax.

a 10% income tax, with no sales tax, would be the most fair. you end up punishing people more in the end with a sales tax, and discourage spending, which from an economic standpoint, is bad.

id really like to know where the income tax is unconstitutional.

a flat tax is direct across the board, so everybody pays 10 cents on every dollar. Then someone can spend their money however they want without being penalized. a sales tax is like punishing somebody for spending money, which is the opposite of what you want. you want people to put their money into the economy.

Cobra Commander · 2003-01-11 00:30:15

id really like to know where the income tax is unconstitutional.

Under Article I, section nine:
"No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Direct income (or capitation) tax on individual citizens was prohibited. In 1913, the 16th amendment changed all that. It allowed Congress to tax "incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

In short, it reversed the prohibition on a federal income tax on individuals. Whether or not you consider this to be legal depends on how seriously you take the Constitution, as originally written, as "the law of the land." If an amendment repealing the writ of habeus corpus was passed most people would not find that acceptable, however we let the income tax thing go, due in large part to propaganda that it was never to be applied to average citizens but only the super-rich. The lesson: DON'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT! THEY LIE!

Actually, its less fair than an income tax. the fairest tax is a flat rate income tax, not a sales tax.

A flat income tax would be a vast improvement over the current system, but it still faces the Constitutional problem. To me, that's a major issue, but it's probably more likely than an outright abolition of income tax. I like consistency in the law, but you do have a valid point regarding sales taxes "punishing" people for spending money.

Actually following the Constitution seems to be damned unfashionable nowadays anyway. Income tax, the Patriot Act, Campaign Finance Reform and so on...

soph · 2003-01-11 08:19:50

I remember now. The income tax began in preparation for WW1. The government needed money, and it was intended to be temporary. It was, I believe, a 1% tax.

But the Constitution was not intended to be completely set in stone. Certain parts are taboo, yes, and they should be fixed as soon as Bush leaves office, but other parts can be changed. Amendments have been repealed by other amendments.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#426 2003-01-08 00:25:47

Re: President Bush - about bush

#427 2003-01-08 00:28:37

Re: President Bush - about bush

#428 2003-01-08 02:00:37

Re: President Bush - about bush

#429 2003-01-08 12:59:58

Re: President Bush - about bush

#430 2003-01-08 13:41:23

Re: President Bush - about bush

#431 2003-01-08 13:51:41

Re: President Bush - about bush

#432 2003-01-08 14:02:01

Re: President Bush - about bush

#433 2003-01-08 14:50:57

Re: President Bush - about bush

#434 2003-01-08 14:53:49

Re: President Bush - about bush

#435 2003-01-08 15:00:37

Re: President Bush - about bush

#436 2003-01-08 15:04:52

Re: President Bush - about bush

#437 2003-01-08 15:19:29

Re: President Bush - about bush

#438 2003-01-08 15:47:13

Re: President Bush - about bush

#439 2003-01-08 15:51:53

Re: President Bush - about bush

#440 2003-01-08 15:52:44

Re: President Bush - about bush

#441 2003-01-08 21:13:01

Re: President Bush - about bush

#442 2003-01-08 21:22:38

Re: President Bush - about bush

#443 2003-01-09 09:31:27

Re: President Bush - about bush

#444 2003-01-09 15:59:04

Re: President Bush - about bush

#445 2003-01-10 20:07:07

Re: President Bush - about bush

#446 2003-01-10 20:16:17

Re: President Bush - about bush

#447 2003-01-10 20:38:14

Re: President Bush - about bush

#448 2003-01-10 22:47:46

Re: President Bush - about bush

#449 2003-01-11 00:30:15

Re: President Bush - about bush

#450 2003-01-11 08:19:50

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer