Do Tax Cuts Stimulate the Economy?

[editec]

Econ 101

1. I work and pay taxes.
a. Out of what's left of my paycheck I
1. Pay bills.
2. Spend money on clothing, food, entertainment.
3. Hopefully save for a rainy day.
4. Invest for retirement, college for kids etc.

2. If the government takes more of my money for taxes.

A. I have trouble paying my bills.
B. Have to cut back on food, clothing and entertainment.
C. Can't save a dime.
D. Can't invest a dime.

3. What happens to local business's when I pay more taxes.

A. They lose money.
B. They can't spend, save or invest.
C. They lay off employee's.
D. They fail and shut their doors.

SMALL BUSINESS EMPLOYS WELL OVER 80% OF AMERICANS AND THERE WAS NOT ONE RED CENT IN THIS SO-CALLED STIMULUS PACKAGE IN THE FORM OF TAX BREAKS FOR THEM AND I AS A MIDDLE CLASS AMERICAN MIGHT SEE ALL OF $12.00 PER WEEK.

Now I want your answer to this and you tell me how government by taking more of my money will stimulate this economy and make things better for everyone, not just government employees.

You know I have ABOLUTELY no problem with anything you wrote above?

It is spot on accurate EXCEPT this

you tell me how government by taking more of my money will stimulate this economy and make things better for everyone, not just government employees

This government is NOT taking more of you money.

It is, in fact, borrowing money (or printing it) to spend and giving trillions to the banks at the same time, and spending about a trillion it doesn't have spreading that around to the STATES and earmark projects.

Now understand at THIS TIME, I object to ANY increase in taxes. (except tariffs)

It is my understanding that Obama is planning on increasing taxes on people who make more than $250,000 a year and I even object to THAT.

Normally, before this economic meltdown, I supported those tax increases on the very affluent, but NOW, because the situation has changed, I DO NOT.

Clear?

You see this so called liberal is NOT on board with everything that Obama is doing.

I'm sorry I cannot live down to your caracature of what liberalism is, but there it is.

 

[Care4all]

Econ 101

1. I work and pay taxes.
a. Out of what's left of my paycheck I
1. Pay bills.
2. Spend money on clothing, food, entertainment.
3. Hopefully save for a rainy day.
4. Invest for retirement, college for kids etc.

2. If the government takes more of my money for taxes.

A. I have trouble paying my bills.
B. Have to cut back on food, clothing and entertainment.
C. Can't save a dime.
D. Can't invest a dime.

3. What happens to local business's when I pay more taxes.

A. They lose money.
B. They can't spend, save or invest.
C. They lay off employee's.
D. They fail and shut their doors.

SMALL BUSINESS EMPLOYS WELL OVER 80% OF AMERICANS AND THERE WAS NOT ONE RED CENT IN THIS SO-CALLED STIMULUS PACKAGE IN THE FORM OF TAX BREAKS FOR THEM AND I AS A MIDDLE CLASS AMERICAN MIGHT SEE ALL OF $12.00 PER WEEK.

Now I want your answer to this and you tell me how government by taking more of my money will stimulate this economy and make things better for everyone, not just government employees.

You know I have ABOLUTELY no problem with anything you wrote above?

It is spot on accurate EXCEPT this

you tell me how government by taking more of my money will stimulate this economy and make things better for everyone, not just government employees

This government is NOT taking more of you money.

It is, in fact, borrowing money (or printing it) to spend and giving trillions to the banks at the same time, and spending about a trillion it doesn't have.

Now understand at THIS TIME, I object to ANY increase in taxes. (except tariffs)

It is my understanding that Obama is planning on increasing taxes on people who make more than $250,000 a year and I even object to THAT.

Normally, before this economic meltdown, I supported those tax increases on the very affluent, but NOW, because the situation has changed, I DO NOT.

Clear?

You see this so called liberal is NOT on board with everything that Obama is doing.

I'm sorry I cannot live down to your caracature of what liberalism is, but there it is.

the tax cut expires on those making over $250k in 2010 i believe and higher taxes would start in 2011....

I don't know if we will be out of this crisis yet or the recession yet, but i agree it would not be good during this recession to raise taxes....not even on the cigarette smokers, the regressive sin taxes should not be raised right now imo....

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Econ 101

1. I work and pay taxes.
a. Out of what's left of my paycheck I
1. Pay bills.
2. Spend money on clothing, food, entertainment.
3. Hopefully save for a rainy day.
4. Invest for retirement, college for kids etc.

2. If the government takes more of my money for taxes.

A. I have trouble paying my bills.
B. Have to cut back on food, clothing and entertainment.
C. Can't save a dime.
D. Can't invest a dime.

3. What happens to local business's when I pay more taxes.

A. They lose money.
B. They can't spend, save or invest.
C. They lay off employee's.
D. They fail and shut their doors.

SMALL BUSINESS EMPLOYS WELL OVER 80% OF AMERICANS AND THERE WAS NOT ONE RED CENT IN THIS SO-CALLED STIMULUS PACKAGE IN THE FORM OF TAX BREAKS FOR THEM AND I AS A MIDDLE CLASS AMERICAN MIGHT SEE ALL OF $12.00 PER WEEK.

Now I want your answer to this and you tell me how government by taking more of my money will stimulate this economy and make things better for everyone, not just government employees.

You know I have ABOLUTELY no problem with anything you wrote above?

It is spot on accurate EXCEPT this

you tell me how government by taking more of my money will stimulate this economy and make things better for everyone, not just government employees

This government is NOT taking more of you money.

It is, in fact, borrowing money (or printing it) to spend and giving trillions to the banks at the same time, and spending about a trillion it doesn't have.

Now understand at THIS TIME, I object to ANY increase in taxes. (except tariffs)

It is my understanding that Obama is planning on increasing taxes on people who make more than $250,000 a year and I even object to THAT.

Normally, before this economic meltdown, I supported those tax increases on the very affluent, but NOW, because the situation has changed, I DO NOT.

Clear?

You see this so called liberal is NOT on board with everything that Obama is doing.

I'm sorry I cannot live down to your caracature of what liberalism is, but there it is.

Well inflation is a tax in and of itself, and borrowing money constitutes a future tax so I don't agree with you that they're not taking our money. Printing money isn't taking money directly from the taxpayer, but it is stealing their wealth from them. For every dollar printed, every other dollar in circulation loses value. As to borrowing money, eventually we have to pay it back.

 

[Care4all]

yes, you are right Kevin, and most people did NOT note this the past 8 years where we added $6 TRILLION to the national debt, from borrowing....this too reduced the value of our dollar, no?

Let alone what is being added to that debt since then!!!

Care

 

[editec]

Econ 101

1. I work and pay taxes.
a. Out of what's left of my paycheck I
1. Pay bills.
2. Spend money on clothing, food, entertainment.
3. Hopefully save for a rainy day.
4. Invest for retirement, college for kids etc.

2. If the government takes more of my money for taxes.

A. I have trouble paying my bills.
B. Have to cut back on food, clothing and entertainment.
C. Can't save a dime.
D. Can't invest a dime.

3. What happens to local business's when I pay more taxes.

A. They lose money.
B. They can't spend, save or invest.
C. They lay off employee's.
D. They fail and shut their doors.

SMALL BUSINESS EMPLOYS WELL OVER 80% OF AMERICANS AND THERE WAS NOT ONE RED CENT IN THIS SO-CALLED STIMULUS PACKAGE IN THE FORM OF TAX BREAKS FOR THEM AND I AS A MIDDLE CLASS AMERICAN MIGHT SEE ALL OF $12.00 PER WEEK.

Now I want your answer to this and you tell me how government by taking more of my money will stimulate this economy and make things better for everyone, not just government employees.

You know I have ABOLUTELY no problem with anything you wrote above?

It is spot on accurate EXCEPT this

you tell me how government by taking more of my money will stimulate this economy and make things better for everyone, not just government employees

This government is NOT taking more of you money.

It is, in fact, borrowing money (or printing it) to spend and giving trillions to the banks at the same time, and spending about a trillion it doesn't have.

Now understand at THIS TIME, I object to ANY increase in taxes. (except tariffs)

It is my understanding that Obama is planning on increasing taxes on people who make more than $250,000 a year and I even object to THAT.

Normally, before this economic meltdown, I supported those tax increases on the very affluent, but NOW, because the situation has changed, I DO NOT.

Clear?

You see this so called liberal is NOT on board with everything that Obama is doing.

I'm sorry I cannot live down to your caracature of what liberalism is, but there it is.

Well inflation is a tax in and of itself, and borrowing money constitutes a future tax so I don't agree with you that they're not taking our money.

Well I agree with that, but we WERE talking about actual INCREASES in taxes, not the HIDDEN TAX that is inflation.

Printing money isn't taking money directly from the taxpayer, but it is stealing their wealth from them. For every dollar printed, every other dollar in circulation loses value. As to borrowing money, eventually we have to pay it back.

Yup.

And who will get even richer as we pay it back?

The same member s of the banking class that we're bailing out right now to the tune of $9 tillion.



The banking system is BROKE, so the American taxpayer is "borrowing" money to give back to the banks, so our economy can get going again, so we can pay back the BANKERS who we gave the money to?

FROM WHOM are we borrowing this freaking money if the banks worldwide are all BROKE?!

 

[Care4all]

China Ed, and Saudi Arabia, who were not hurt by this initially...

China is going to be hurt, because they will not be collecting as much in taxes because their manufacturing is being cut due to our reduction in consumer purchases.

Saudi Arabia will be and is, the winner in the end.

PLUS: The every day joe there, did not overspend or borrow on their home to spend.

 

[editec]

Great then let China BUY AIG.

Well see if their executive get those bonuses when the COMMUNISTS (who it turns out are smarter capitalists than we are) take over.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

It is a challenge in these times, but being a foot soldier for ideology is a worse idea now than it ever was. Our emotive buttons are constantly being pushed by the media, politicians and others, basically trying to tap into our natural instincts to do good. The Obama administration is no different.

On every issue we should be trying to think for ourselves and not water the lawn when the house is on fire. There is an entry on my blog to this effect: "What is Really Best for the Economy?" http//:indianaoracle.wordpress.com

Not trying to be pompous, it is just that I see so much of this in the public square these days.

 

[Care4all]

Great then let China BUY AIG.

Well see if their executive get those bonuses when the COMMUNISTS (who it turns out are smarter capitalists than we are) take over.

what's funny is AIG actually BEGAN in china ed! Check this info i just found!!

History
The American International Building in lower Manhattan

AIG's history dates back to 1919, when Cornelius Vander Starr established an insurance agency in Shanghai, China. Starr was the first Westerner in Shanghai to sell insurance to the Chinese. Right after the Chinese Civil War which put Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party in power, AIG moved out of China and into New York City. After his business became successful in Asia, he expanded to other markets, including Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East.[citation needed] In 1962, Starr gave management of the company's less than successful U.S. holdings to Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg, who shifted the company's U.S. focus from personal insurance to high-margin corporate coverage. Greenberg focused on selling insurance through independent brokers rather than agents to avoid selling insurance at prices which occasionally became too low (to cover the future payouts) given marketplace competition. A company with agents must pay their salaries even while selling little to no insurance. Instead, with brokers, AIG could price insurance properly even if it suffered decreased sales of certain products for great lengths of time with very little extra expense. In 1968, Starr named Greenberg his successor. The company went public in 1969.[citation needed]

In the mid-2000s AIG became embroiled in a series of fraud investigations conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission, U.S. Justice Department, and New York State Attorney General's Office. Greenberg was ousted amid an accounting scandal in February 2005. The New York Attorney General's investigation led to a $1.6 billion fine for AIG and criminal charges for some of its executives. Greenberg was succeeded as CEO by Martin J. Sullivan, who had begun his career at AIG as a clerk in its London office in 1970.[3]

On June 15, 2008, under intense pressure due to financial losses and a falling stock price, Sullivan resigned from the CEO position. He was replaced by Robert B. Willumstad, who had served as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company since 2006. Willumstad was forced to step down and was replaced by Edward M. Liddy on September 17, 2008

 

[editec]

Great then let China BUY AIG.

Well see if their executive get those bonuses when the COMMUNISTS (who it turns out are smarter capitalists than we are) take over.

what's funny is AIG actually BEGAN in china ed! Check this info i just found!!

History
The American International Building in lower Manhattan

AIG's history dates back to 1919, when Cornelius Vander Starr established an insurance agency in Shanghai, China. Starr was the first Westerner in Shanghai to sell insurance to the Chinese. Right after the Chinese Civil War which put Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party in power, AIG moved out of China and into New York City. After his business became successful in Asia, he expanded to other markets, including Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East.[citation needed] In 1962, Starr gave management of the company's less than successful U.S. holdings to Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg, who shifted the company's U.S. focus from personal insurance to high-margin corporate coverage. Greenberg focused on selling insurance through independent brokers rather than agents to avoid selling insurance at prices which occasionally became too low (to cover the future payouts) given marketplace competition. A company with agents must pay their salaries even while selling little to no insurance. Instead, with brokers, AIG could price insurance properly even if it suffered decreased sales of certain products for great lengths of time with very little extra expense. In 1968, Starr named Greenberg his successor. The company went public in 1969.[citation needed]

In the mid-2000s AIG became embroiled in a series of fraud investigations conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission, U.S. Justice Department, and New York State Attorney General's Office. Greenberg was ousted amid an accounting scandal in February 2005. The New York Attorney General's investigation led to a $1.6 billion fine for AIG and criminal charges for some of its executives. Greenberg was succeeded as CEO by Martin J. Sullivan, who had begun his career at AIG as a clerk in its London office in 1970.[3]

On June 15, 2008, under intense pressure due to financial losses and a falling stock price, Sullivan resigned from the CEO position. He was replaced by Robert B. Willumstad, who had served as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company since 2006. Willumstad was forced to step down and was replaced by Edward M. Liddy on September 17, 2008

Amazing!

Talk about turning full circle!