Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
*Sniff...Sniff*
Ewww, somethinig smells......smells like a Mooncrack.
<< Bushes tax plan.......blah, blah, (typical liberal name calling) blah......is just more commie pinko in your face government. It's just more useless big gov waste. The voters want better education, throw money at the education problem, seniors need medicine, throw the powerful senior vote block a bone, protect socialist security, test schools, and on and on. >>
Ok, I guess my greatest confusion regarding this particilar whiny liberal's gibberish pertains to his statement that Bush's "tax plan" throws money at education, social security, and so forth. Hmmm, I thought that those issues were part of his budget proposal, not his tax plan, silly me I guess, after all, Moonbeam has already proclaimed himself a "know nothing wise man" in a different thread so maybe I'm just mistaken---eh, I don't think so..
Ya see Moonbeam, the difference between Bush's commie plan and the statis quo you real commies dig is that while he's gonna throw some money at the "problems", he expects a return on that investment. So instead of failing the public school students as the liberals have done, schools can kiss their gravy train good-bye if they continue to show students such as yourself out the door without ensuring they are equipped with the skills necessary to become productive citizens. While the great liberal experiment of outcome based education has allowed you to believe the illusion that you are wise because you've accepted the fact you don't know anything, that's not gonna help you in a job interview or on a college application. Bush's plan would ultimately shut down a school that continues to eject a new class of poverty bound citizens. What ultimately benefits our children more: Feeling good about themselves while standing in the welfare line or feeling good about themselves because they can provide for their family as they have the skills necessary to compete for decent employment?
Even though Bush is "throwing money" at a problem, at least there is a string attached--and all I can say is "It's about friggin' time!!!!".
Ewww, somethinig smells......smells like a Mooncrack.
<< Bushes tax plan.......blah, blah, (typical liberal name calling) blah......is just more commie pinko in your face government. It's just more useless big gov waste. The voters want better education, throw money at the education problem, seniors need medicine, throw the powerful senior vote block a bone, protect socialist security, test schools, and on and on. >>
Ok, I guess my greatest confusion regarding this particilar whiny liberal's gibberish pertains to his statement that Bush's "tax plan" throws money at education, social security, and so forth. Hmmm, I thought that those issues were part of his budget proposal, not his tax plan, silly me I guess, after all, Moonbeam has already proclaimed himself a "know nothing wise man" in a different thread so maybe I'm just mistaken---eh, I don't think so..
Ya see Moonbeam, the difference between Bush's commie plan and the statis quo you real commies dig is that while he's gonna throw some money at the "problems", he expects a return on that investment. So instead of failing the public school students as the liberals have done, schools can kiss their gravy train good-bye if they continue to show students such as yourself out the door without ensuring they are equipped with the skills necessary to become productive citizens. While the great liberal experiment of outcome based education has allowed you to believe the illusion that you are wise because you've accepted the fact you don't know anything, that's not gonna help you in a job interview or on a college application. Bush's plan would ultimately shut down a school that continues to eject a new class of poverty bound citizens. What ultimately benefits our children more: Feeling good about themselves while standing in the welfare line or feeling good about themselves because they can provide for their family as they have the skills necessary to compete for decent employment?
Even though Bush is "throwing money" at a problem, at least there is a string attached--and all I can say is "It's about friggin' time!!!!".
My dear Corn, the fact that you can conceive that he who stands in a welfare line has come there with good feelings about himself is, of course reflective of the fact that you haven't any idea at all what it means to feel good about yourself. I have watched your posts for some time. What you do a lot of is put people down. Many have the aptitude, not all the inclination. It comes, of course,, that need to put down, from feelings of inferiority. Here's a mirror for you:
The ultimate responsibility in regards to spending falls with the President. They can always veto if they don't approve of it.
Ronald Reagan allowed deficits to soar. Clinton also approved the Republican's ever soaring expenditures over the last three years.
Bush's tax cut plan is dangerous and benefits mostly the rich. Even the little bit the average Joe would get doesn't amount to anything till towards the end of the 10-years.
Enough with anti-American worker Presidents.....I can't wait till 2004.
Ronald Reagan allowed deficits to soar. Clinton also approved the Republican's ever soaring expenditures over the last three years.
Bush's tax cut plan is dangerous and benefits mostly the rich. Even the little bit the average Joe would get doesn't amount to anything till towards the end of the 10-years.
Enough with anti-American worker Presidents.....I can't wait till 2004.
"Repaying the debt faster than that would probably cause inflation rates to increase dramatically."
What a complete misunderstanding of economics! Paying off the debt (reducing the supply of bonds)will REDUCE interest rates. Period. Look it up in any basic Economic text.
What a complete misunderstanding of economics! Paying off the debt (reducing the supply of bonds)will REDUCE interest rates. Period. Look it up in any basic Economic text.
"Even the little bit the average Joe would get doesn't amount to anything till towards the end of the 10-years."
What a fvcking ass! Link that statement to something that even remotely supports it! :|
Do your parents know you're screwing with a computer on-line? Maybe you should put it away before you hurt yourself.
What a fvcking ass! Link that statement to something that even remotely supports it! :|
Do your parents know you're screwing with a computer on-line? Maybe you should put it away before you hurt yourself.
Ornery - The reduction in the lowest brackets is phased in over a 10-year period. GWB has proposed making the first year retroactive to 1/1/2001, but he has not proposed any shortening of the 10-year phase-in period.
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
<< My dear Corn, the fact that you can conceive that he who stands in a welfare line has come there with good feelings about himself is, of course reflective of the fact that you haven't any idea at all what it means to feel good about yourself. >>
"Dear"? Pretty presumptious don't ya think Mooney? But alas, I can understand that I was teasing you with irony and you didn't pick up on it--so how about instead of sleight of word, I guess from this point on I must use plain language and, obviously, as many single syllable words as possible when addressing your posts.
What ultimately benefits our children more: Feeling good about themselves while learning nothing at school which ultimately leads to standing in the welfare line or feeling good about themselves because they can provide for their family as they have the skills necessary to compete for decent employment?
Is that a little more clear now?
<< I have watched your posts for some time. >>
I don't know wether to be flattered or frightened.
<< What you do a lot of is put people down. >>
Awww, now I'm labeled as a meanie. Cry me a river Mooney, the people I put down are liars, commies, and hypocrites. If that makes me a "bad man" well then I was born to be bad. Those who distort the truth should be made to feel embarrassed. The stench from the dying carcass of the liberal socialist movement here in the USA is finally becoming intolerable to the very people it has enslaved in it's chains of dependence by virtue of continuing illiteracy.
I'm sure you are frightened, you need to say whatever you can, lie whenever possible, to somehow ebb the growing number of people that are fleeing the bonds which your kind have used to enslave them. I almost pity your movement, I really do--just not enough to be silent.
I'll let this site do the talking. (It pays to have a link.) See whether Bush's tax cut will "amount to anything" for you or not...
<< What a complete misunderstanding of economics! Paying off the debt (reducing the supply of bonds)will REDUCE interest rates. Period. Look it up in any basic Economic text. >>
The law of supply and demand is still part of economics isn't it? Without a doubt paying off the debt before it comes due will create inflation. Whether or not interest rates are low is irrelevant.
KingHam
Nice try at avoiding the phase-in point, Ornery. The calculator flatly states that it is showing you what you would likely save after GWB's plan is fully phased in. That's ten years from now. There will be incremental benefits each year, but the first year savings are very small by comparison.
King - You are embarrassing yourself. Go read an economics text before you post again.
Treasury rates reflect expectations of future inflation, plus an additional risk premium for time value. The US government is considered credit risk-free, so there is no credit risk premium in Treasury rates (as there is in corporate bond rates).
Interest rates move in the opposite direction of bond prices. As prices rise, rates decline. Simple math. As the supply of bonds declines, the same set of buyers is bidding on a dwindling supply. The price is bid up, and the yield falls. That is precisely what has been happening the past few years as the supply of Treasuries has declined.
The other major factor reducing rates has been the expectation that low inflation will continue. Greater productivity gains have been the major force behind the low inflation expectation.
There is no scenario where a dwindling supply of Treasuries by itself leads to higher inflation. Zero.
Treasury rates reflect expectations of future inflation, plus an additional risk premium for time value. The US government is considered credit risk-free, so there is no credit risk premium in Treasury rates (as there is in corporate bond rates).
Interest rates move in the opposite direction of bond prices. As prices rise, rates decline. Simple math. As the supply of bonds declines, the same set of buyers is bidding on a dwindling supply. The price is bid up, and the yield falls. That is precisely what has been happening the past few years as the supply of Treasuries has declined.
The other major factor reducing rates has been the expectation that low inflation will continue. Greater productivity gains have been the major force behind the low inflation expectation.
There is no scenario where a dwindling supply of Treasuries by itself leads to higher inflation. Zero.
Ornery,
The tax cut is factored in over a 5-10 year period I believe. That means it will be so gradual, that you probably won't notice it anyways. Also, the tax cut is based on "speculation", and therefore could do more harm than good if the country does not perform as well as speculated.
My own opinion is direct every red nickle to paying off the debt while keeping government small. After the debt is paid off, give people a *real* tax cut. Like halving taxes.
But, that point of view won't get a politician elected, and that's all that those bastards care about.
Ornery - You're just yanking people's chains, right? I mean, you knew it was a gradual phase-in, didn't you? During the campaign, GWB even said he was willing to tie each year's phase-in to actual realization of a surplus that year.
Deeko
Lifer
- Jun 16, 2000
- 30,213
- 12
- 81
What I meant was, it's not taken out initially, and it my income isn't taxed at all, being that I'm under 18 and my income doesn't pass the mark that says you don't keep it. I didn't mean that being paid under the table is taxless.
<< Glad to know that I'm paying for your freeloading ass >>
I'm 16 idiot. Therefore, my income isn't taxed. Way to read.
<< Glad to know that I'm paying for your freeloading ass >>
I'm 16 idiot. Therefore, my income isn't taxed. Way to read.
Deeko - You're 16, so you deserve a break. Assuming you earn a few thousand, you have the option of having your parents report the income on their tax return (usually a bad idea) or you reporting it on your own return (usually a much better idea). If your parents report it, they will almost certainly have to pay tax on it. If you report it separately, at least some will escape taxes, and the rest would likely get taxed at a rate not greater than 15%. However, you might also have to pay other taxes as well.
All you guys have to do is link to a quote that the tax cut "doesn't amount to anything" even the first few years. Use a hypothetical family of 4 with 2 dependents making $50,000 per year. Just show the exact amount that family will save, each year if you want, to prove it's "very small". Can't wait to see what your definition of "doesn't amount to anything" and very small is...
Edit: "That means it will be so gradual, that you probably won't notice it anyways."
And therefore, what? Don't bother! Fvck that! Pay off the damn debt by reducing programs if the budget happens to come up short. That is an option. If the money is left there, and it comes up short, we'll NEVER see taxes reduced, let alone halved! :|
Edit: "That means it will be so gradual, that you probably won't notice it anyways."
And therefore, what? Don't bother! Fvck that! Pay off the damn debt by reducing programs if the budget happens to come up short. That is an option. If the money is left there, and it comes up short, we'll NEVER see taxes reduced, let alone halved! :|
The funny thing about the Bush tax plan is that even though you get money back, overall your money will be worth less.
1.) Rich people get the bulk of the 1.7 trillion
2.) All this money increases the overall pie
3.) So average folk will have a lower % of the overall pie
Taadaaa! Even though you have more $$$, it's worth less than it was before.
In fact its entirely possible that the Bush tax plan will lower your overall purchasing power even though you have more $$$.
This isn't doubletalk folks, its basic Economic theory.
1.) Rich people get the bulk of the 1.7 trillion
2.) All this money increases the overall pie
3.) So average folk will have a lower % of the overall pie
Taadaaa! Even though you have more $$$, it's worth less than it was before.
In fact its entirely possible that the Bush tax plan will lower your overall purchasing power even though you have more $$$.
This isn't doubletalk folks, its basic Economic theory.
<< Even though you have more $$$, it's worth less than it was before. >>
I don't understand. Are u saying the Bush tax plan will lead to inflation? Or are you saying it will increase the gap between the wealthy and the rest of America? There seems to be too many variables to make this analysis at this point.
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
<< This isn't doubletalk folks, its basic Economic theory. >>
LOL, that has got to be the biggest knee slapper I've seen today!!!
Inflation causes your money to be worth less, not your overall percentage vs. the rest of the pie. Inflation is caused by rising retail prices. Using your own argument against you, Reagan significantly reduced inflation during his tenure in which he returned a significant amount of wealth back to the "rich".
Your "theory" is basic alright, basically stupid.
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
I just realized that the end of my last post wasn't very nice. Moonbeam might call me a meanie again, and well, we just can't have that now can we? So I'm sorry Orbius, your theory isn't "stupid", it just faces a larger challenge than a "real" theory does.....
"All this money increases the overall pie"
Why don't you go over the specifics of how this happens? You'll simultaneously answer the reason that tax cut is a good idea in the first place! Ooh, that will sure suck hard!
Why don't you go over the specifics of how this happens? You'll simultaneously answer the reason that tax cut is a good idea in the first place! Ooh, that will sure suck hard!
<< Reagan significantly reduced inflation during his tenure in which he returned a significant amount of wealth back to the "rich". >>
The situation in the 1980's was a very different set of circumstances than today, the US was shifting a lot of production from the Military Industrial Complex to Consumer Goods. And don't forget a lot of the 'prosperity' of the 1980's was fueled by increases in Government debt. You simply cannot compare 1980s era tax cuts to the effects tax cuts would have today.
Corn you call me whatever you want ok. You have my permission. So then I won't feel bad calling you a smary a-hole.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter