Now I'll admit politics to me isn't any deeper than common sense. I have no formal education in the subject. But I will say i was watching Crossfire on CNBC last night and the Democrat guy was saying how someone in middle class would save 18 cents per hour with the new tax cuts and someone making a million + a year would save something like 45 dollars per hour. He made this sound like a crime. He then ventured to say that if they gave low income families more relief they would surely spend it (gee, ya think that's how they got poor to begin with) but I don't see how somebody with less buying power would in turn create a boost in the market? I also don't understand why it's so unfair for the rich who pay a greater percentage of the taxes already don't deserve the same percentage cut. Because they make more money, they deserve to lose more? Hey, we shouldn't resent them because they are rich, perhaps we don't have to like them but we shouldn't feel they owe the world more than we do. It would seem to me that would stimulate the economy more anyway (giving the rich a break) because they'll be more willing to invest. You don't stay rich by being foolhardy with your money people. Just because they have it doesn't mean they spend it. But if they feel they'll break even at a bare minimum (by using only the surplus they recieve from the tax cuts) they'll in my opinion be far more likely to invest that money. Oh yeah .18 cents at 40 hours = 7 bucks. That'll put a quarter tank of gas in your truck, that's nothing to scough at. I understand it's nothing dramatic but at 30 bucks a month that's one full tank free. You can spend that on CD's etc. to stimulate the market. Multiply that 30 bucks by 200 million (rough estimate of middle-class americans in the country) that's 6 billion per month in extra revenue not considering the upper and lower class cut. That has to make a difference. It sounds to me like the democrats need to stop whining and downing the republicans because they are bitter, and work together to devise a plan that "they see fit". Although it seems they only want the poorer to get poorer by encouraging them to spend. It would seem to me you would encourage them to save.

The one thing i see is so many putting down his plan, but no one has a better one, they just dodge the question.

 

Good job, Truckfreak 69!

Very well put Beginning to end!

Chuck

 

>>>You're not sure if someone else has come up with something
>>>better, or you're not sure if it's "better"?
>>
>>Both!
>
>That's an answer? No elaboration? That won't cut it if
>you're running for President in 2004! LOL

Well, what more can I say? Luckily I'm not running for pres, I can see nobody here would vote for me, lol. But really, I follow politics about as well as the next guy I suppose; yet, I only know of 2 or 3 plans. This is all largely unexplored territory. When in history have we been confronted with what we are today? Even the roaring 20's can't really be compared because they were mostly unregulated times. Most of our regulations and tax laws came from that era. Since then, its been nothing but bull runs. Like the trickle down arguement I gave, how do you know if it worked? How do you know clinton's tax hikes didn't? (don't start, I never voted for clinton). Its all speculation is the point. Nobody can say for sure what is best for today. You can't point to history and say, "hey, that worked before, let's do that." I know a lot of people are ready to disagree with me here, but I still stand by my guns on giving the money to the ones that spend it. All the Ditto-Heads will condemn me for it, but its true. Its the only piece of the puzzle that is missing. We have plenty of capacity, we have plenty of machines, we have plenty of resources, we have plenty of stuff to buy, but no buyers. Like I said 100 times, I will not take another computer if it was free. I hate that I can't go to radioshack w/o being hounded about cell-phones. I go to best buy and get bored cause I got all that stuff. So, what's new? Nothing. So here come the Ditto-Heads again, "Well, we need to cut taxes on rich guys cause they the ones that pay the most taxes. And they will invest it into R&D and equipment and etc." But I say to them, "where did computers come from?" Then I get the deer-in-the-headlights looks. I say, "a guy in a garage in california." Then I ask, so where did cars come from? (By now they're catching on a bit). "Charles and Frank Duryea, a couple guys in a garage somewhere. Then Ford pick up on it." There's no R&D involved, all the parts and labor was paid for by the guy with the idea. People don't stop having ideas because they have no money. You can pour millions into R&D and maybe only get out a pen that writes upside-down or something. Oh yeah, that'll change the world. No, I say, if you want to stimulate THIS economy, you gotta get the consumer out consuming. That will put some profits in the hands of corporations and that will fund R&D and so on. But the way it stands now, consumers have everything and are afraid to spend anymore money (if they had any). So, what taxcut would you recommend? Is this enough elaboration?

>>>Wouldn't that be what the tax cuts are for? That would put
>>>more money weekly (use it now!) into the hands of those who
>>>do the most spending. I see it as across the board cuts that
>>>would benefit every level, not just one particular group.
>>>(democratic plan)
>>
>>Well, you may have a point there, I'm just saying the ones
>>that do the spending should be included in ANY taxcut.
>
>Which ones aren't included?

I don't know, we don't know for sure if Bush's whole plan will be approved. So, who knows who will get screwed.

>>Whether the other people get the cut is not relevant to the
>>good of the economy (can't wait till you ask about this one,
>>lol).
>
>Ok, I'll bite. You're going to tell me the usual liberal
>(not saying you are one) mantra about how only the rich are
>benefitting from Bush's tax breaks, blah, blah, blah...

Actually, I'm getting pretty tired as well, but here goes. Fact: nobody locks money in a vault. No matter where money is, it is in the economy (hopefully not china's - cause it don't come back here - kinda like the roach motel). Whether you stick your money in a bank, fund, stock, house, car, whatever; its in the economy. Now comes the part you'll hate. If you pay taxes, the money is still in the economy and can still be treated as an investment. Not in your future, but economically speaking. Lets trace some of that money. They say the gov wastes a lot, true enough, but what do they waste it on? Toilet seats? Yeah, but more than just supporting the toilet seat industry. The gov employs how many people, buys how many vehicles, buys computers, food, utilities, etc. You say investments are good for business, well the gov does it. How? Well, what do congressmen do with their pay? Stick it in the bank, funds, stocks, who knows. There is this big disconnect with people when they think of taxes. Like somehow when the gov gets the money, its gone, in a 'lockbox' somewhere doing no good whatsoever. Far from it. You have defense spending, which is a big industry supporting many subcontractors. Even the IRS employs so many people that a simplification of the tax code would eliminate too many jobs. I could go on and on, but I hope you are getting the picture. So, you see, the taxes are very much like any other investment as far as the economy is concerned. The only thing that is different is the consumer. They don't invest, don't have large bank accounts, no large portfolios with idle cash sittin. No, they support small business by buying stuff. And that is how it was all started in the beginning of time with simple trade. Somebody wants something first, then somebody got the idea to sell it to him. An economy was born by meeting the needs/wants of other people. Thats the best I can do for now, I'm super tired here.

> However, some say (not necessarily me) across the
>>board cuts take away from needed gov programs.
>
>I'm too tired to fight on this one, but I will say that I
>believe the more the government stays out of the affairs of
>it's people, the better off those people will be.

I'm not gonna fight with that idea either. I support individual rights whole-heartedly. Live free or die, that's what I say. Too bad every state couldn't have that motto.

>>> Oh, sometimes I side with the
>>>>underDawg, just to bring balance to an arguement, doesn't
>>>>mean I subscribe to the thought.
>>>
>>>Why would anyone do that other than for the sake of being
>>>argumentative? Why would you want to side with other than
>>>your convictions?
>>
>>Well, I guess I should clarify that. Of course I will not
>>take a side with what I vehemently disagree with; but,
>>either to stimulate my own thinking, or the thinking of
>>someone ******* someone else's beliefs w/o using logical
>>thought or reason, I will produce some challenging thoughts
>>from an opposing side. Maybe you call it arguementative,
>>devil's advocate, or whatnot. I see it a lot on this forum.
>> That's when people really get going, it brings out the best
>>and worst of them.
>
>This I just do not understand. I, also, see it sometimes on
>this forum, but personally, I don't like conflict and
>argument.I like to subscribe to the "peace at ALMOST any
>price mindset." As for giving that type of thought a name,it
>doesn't matter what you call it,why would anyone WANT to
>bring out the worst in/of someone?

What do you think you are doing to me now? The only difference is, you supposedly support everything you're saying, I may or may not, depending. I never lie, don't get me wrong. But may ask a question from the opposing view. Maybe I'll change my mind, 2 or 3 times, before I get through a thread. I don't know, go read the cloning thread, I did some posting in there like that. Maybe I support cloning, maybe I don't. Maybe I haven't decided yet, but when I got there, everybody was ******* it, so hopped on the oppossing side to give balance and challenge everybody's beliefs.

>>> With congress and the
>>>>pres. both being repubs, I think we need balance.
>>>
>>>This is a classic democrat argument. When one side is equal
>>>to the other, there is no progress (or regression for that
>>>matter). Nothing gets done for fear of making the "other"
>>>side look good. I don't agree with this. I see it as "lead,
>>>follow, or get out of the way" -type politics. If you have a
>>>plan and it's good for the MAJORITY of Americans,and it
>>>doesn't infringe upon "cetain inalienable rights", then go
>>>with it. No government is perfect, but everyone has the
>>>responsibility to vote (barring legal restrictions, of
>>>course). I am a believer in "make yourself heard" otherwise
>>>you LOSE.
>>
>>Boy, you sure know a lot about the democratic side of
>>thinking, I'm guessing your a somewhat recent convert, maybe
>>a Ditto-Head? Anyway, shying away from labeling,
>
>"Recent convert?" , <a mild chuckle> Hardly. Ignoring the
>fact that it's too late to shy away from your labeling,I
>prefer to think for myself rather than being led down the
>path of "victim" economics by one side and the "What's best
>for big business is best for the country" economics on the
>other, among other subjects.

I guess I forgot the "lol" up there, sorry. But really, you do know too much about the oppossing side to have been one-sided all your life.

> I think
>>deadlock, many times, is the best thing. My father used to
>>say, "Deadlock is good, you don't want them to change
>>anything, more times than not, they'll just screw it up".
>
>Good gosh.

Ok what? No elaboration? I hate the fact that one party rules the world. Yeah, we'll get some good things, but get some crap that I don't agree with too (like all the pork squeezed into the HS bill cause they knew it would pass). If we have oppossing parties ruling, only what everybody agrees with can be passed. Usually this means they raise their salaries and thats about it, but sometimes thats the best I can hope for. This party seems a bit power hungry to me. Not much on civil rights and such. But thats a different topic.

>>Yep, no secret my fur only rubs one way.
>>There is a high intrinsic value to a public forum, the
>>public can view it. Sometimes I take it upon myself to
>>issue warnings about impending doom, lol.

>For that I commend you. I, too, share that sentiment. A
>purdy stubbern feller says most. Good post RD.

Yeah, good post.

 

>The one thing i see is so many putting down his plan, but no
>one has a better one, they just dodge the question.

Why can't they just tell the truth? No plan is going to make a difference. They just getting votes is all. You can ask me all day long and I'll say the same thing, there's no magic buttons in the white house to make the economy all better. No levers to pull. And no plan either. After 911 Bush said go spend. Why? Because he knew, and still does, the only thing that has any hope of saving this economy is spending. <--period! But he has to make himself look good for the next election and come up with some kind of "plan" to help the economy. When he and I both know nothing can be done except consumer spending and taxcuts that benefit the spenders. But he can't look like a democrat either, so he can't go down that road again like 911. He tried putting money back in people's hands with those rebate checks, but that was resounding failure. It costs so much to print those checks and send them out, we'll be paying all that money back and then some. I guess I could have posted something about how stupid this democrat Bush copy-cat plan is, but I thought that went w/o saying. And you must agree, that thread would not be nearly this long and thought provoking.

 

>>That's my point, I still get ten cents per share no matter
>>what the stock price is.
>
>Yeah, that's my point as well, but if your share price went
>up, the ten cents is a lower percentage of the money you
>have invested.
>

Ok, not sure what part you don't understand here, when the share price goes up, the amount I have invested doesn't change. I have still invested ten dollars no matter what the share price is. And no mater what the share price is, ten cents will always be, no matter who is doing the math, 1 percent of ten dollars. Take 1% times 4 quarters and you get 4% for the year. No matter what the share price does I will still get 4% dividend for the year. If some one else pays $20 a share they will get 2 percent, but a change in share price has no effect on what I paid for it.

Say you buy a tool at Home Depot for $10. Next week they raise the price to $20. The fact that the price changed, doesn't change the fact that you still only have ten dollars invested in it. Your investment is the price you paid, not what it costs today.

 

>share price goes up, the amount I have invested doesn't
>change.

Yes it does, you buy 1 share at 10, it goes to 20, your 1 share is worth 20; therefore you have 20 invested. At anytime you can sell and have the 20, or any part of the 20.

>Say you buy a tool at Home Depot for $10. Next week they
>raise the price to $20. The fact that the price changed,
>doesn't change the fact that you still only have ten dollars
>invested in it.

Yeah, but the tool is worth 20, at which time you could sell it for 20, even though you have only 10 in it. Kinda a bad example because we are not used to being able to sell things we buy at the store to strangers for full prices, but it is possible.

>Your investment is the price you paid, not
>what it costs today.

Your investment is what it is worth now, at anytime you could sell and realize that money. Therefore, whatever it is worth, is what you have invested unless you sell part or all of it.

 

You are using the word "investment" where you should be using the word "asset"

By investment, I am talking about the actual money spent to acquire the asset.

 

Well thanks a lot Chuck, I was actually hoping someone would argue with me lol but it seems no one did. Gosh, maybe I should run for Pres. then? Lol everyone agrees with my opinion, I'm hired lol.

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-12-03 AT 03:16&nbsp;AM (EST)]>I know a lot of people
>are ready to disagree with me here, but I still stand by my
>guns on giving the money to the ones that spend it.

Why not just give money back to the ones who earned it? To me, this seems to be fair.

>All the Ditto-Heads will condemn me for it, but its true. Its the
>only piece of the puzzle that is missing.

Naw! Not going to condem anybody just because their views may be different than someone else's. Besides you gotta admire someone who "sticks to their guns", even if they are only half cocked.

EDIT: Truckfreak69, I like your post too. Perhaps you, Chuck and I should run for congress?

 

The other day I went to 7-11 and found out that they raised the price of slurpies. There goes all my money

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-14-03 AT 04:49&nbsp;PM (EST)]Works for me, if nothing else I'm young enough I could take advantage of the fact so many women want to be with a man in power right? lol....jk. I bet I could even afford my new truck on their payroll..... ya' think?

And I hear ya about the slurpy thing man, although I drink diet pepsi I probably spend nearly 25 bucks a week on it alone stopping at the gas station at 1.21 a pop. Then 50 on gas..... and another 30 or so on food.