Economy of US

dawgball

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
10,652
39
48
50
The following is a copy and paste from an investment dsicussion board that I frequent. This is from one of the founders of the board. I think it is a very enlightening post. I have tried to remove all names of the other board.

This post was in response to someone calling Bush an idiot after his last speech for saying that the the US Treasuries in Social Security were practically worthless.

==========
I am not going to defend President Bush because he surely has failed to perform as I had hoped he would, But he is not an idiot either. What he said is true concerning the government's future bankruptcy. It is 100% guaranteed unless something changes. The question is, what will we change?

The problem we have today is that one party fights every change that will fix the problem in a way that makes sense. They have a vested interest in protecting the status quo which is exactly the thing that has created the potential for default. Raising taxes helps the problem in the short-run but kills the golden goose in the long-run. The golden goose is American business. That was exactly the point I was making in my earlier post on this subject.

If the spending on entitlements and discretionary keep going at the rates that have been established by our government through their over-zealous promises, we are doomed. Period!

The rich have to bail us out. The key is in the Capital Gains Tax and it is what created a surplus in 1999 and 2000 and it is reducing the present deficit as we speak. President Clinton begrudgingly signed the law that reduced the Cap Gain rate to 20% and the cash rolled in as expected.

Faced with a recession in 2001 and 2002, President Bush further reduced the rate to 15% and the cash is flowing again. The rich will pay their taxes if the rates are rational. If the governement raises their tax rate, they reduce their spending, stop selling equitiues and the revenues to Washington dry up. Meanwhile, the working stiffs of America still get up, go to work, and pay their taxes. But, that will not pay the government's bills.

The truth is, the lower 45% of taxpayers pay essentially no income taxes. Their entitlement taxes are merely recycled to someone else. The rich pay almost no S/S tax because they have little to no earned income. Meanwhile, the wealthiest 10% of us pay over 35% of all taxes. The top 50% pay close to 95% of the taxes. Thus, we have a stalemate in Congress. Half of the public want to tax the rich and vote for that idea while the other half pay all of the taxes. We have become experts at robbing Peter to pay Paul, but that has to change because Peter is in control. He is rich and he can decide to either pay his taxes or not. Peter is tax exempt...except for capital gains. That is the key to our future and it is why I continue to encourage all of us to gladly share our wealth by paying our Capital Gains Taxes. I think that a 15% tax rate is fair and I will pay it. I think more money could be generated if the rate was a little lower.

(At our last meeting), my argument went like this, "There is no middle class in America...we have just two classes. We have our rich and we have our poor and the dividing line is easy to spot. If you pay income taxes, you are rich and if you do not, you are poor...or you are a very smart rich person."

The data is irrefutable. We must operate our government to please business. We must raise the disposable income of the poor while keeping the wealth in the hands of the rich. As business grows over time, jobs will be produced, unemployment will remain low, interest rates will be low, inflation will be controlled, the rich will remain rich and the poor can improve their position in life and start paying taxes...which puts them among the rich. The government will receive growing revenues from business profits taxes and capital gains taxes.

What has actually happened since 2001 when President Bush came to office, is the trends have already been established. We have already turned the corner and the percent of revenues from earned income are going down, the percent paid from social security are going down and the capital gains and corporate tax payments are soaring at double digit rates.

So, you are free to call Bush an idiot, but I can prove beyond any doubt that he is not. He has managed the government in ways that are not visible to the average person. The worst thing that we can do today is to change the course that he has set concerning the economy. I just pray the Democrats can see what I see. It is obvious that the mainstream media is blind to it.

=================
 

Underbar

Registered
Forum Member
Jan 30, 2007
161
0
0
We've got an awesome economy.

There are many stores where you only need a dollar to buy things.

And if you don't have that dollar, there are other stores where you can get hundreds of dollars instantly at only 25% interest.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
One guys opinion. Soon I'm sure we should here about the other one. I Like what Forbes says. No name calling. But to say someone called Bush a idiot. Then defend that he's not will get some attention I would guess.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,913
138
63
17
L.A.
I have no complaints about the economy. My fiscal issue with Bush is the budget. I think people too often confuse or link the two as the same issue.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,505
188
63
Bowling Green Ky
Can we learn something here----

Land Seizures

And Zimbabwe is threatening to throw the country's remaining 400 white farmers in jail if they don't give up their farms. Zimbabwe is finishing up a policy started in 2000 to seize all land from the country's 4,500 white farmers ? in order to correct what are called colonial-era imbalances in ownership.

The program has transformed Zimbabwe from what was called the breadbasket of southern Africa into a country that the U.N. estimates has four million people in need of food. Zimbabwe now has to import what used to be its staple crop ? maize. The agricultural upheaval has led to shortages of hard currency, gasoline, medicines and essential imports. Critics say the new black farmers were given land on the basis of political patronage and lack the dedication and resources to be successful.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,505
188
63
Bowling Green Ky
I understand that after all the celebrating --might be some residual effects--so will spell it out.

Its results of penalizing productive for benefit of non productive (socialism)

Hmm in case hangover still to stout to comprehend
try this one.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul only makes Peter sore--
and you can't do business with a sore peter. :)
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
I understand that after all the celebrating --might be some residual effects--so will spell it out.

Its results of penalizing productive for benefit of non productive (socialism)

Hmm in case hangover still to stout to comprehend
try this one.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul only makes Peter sore--
and you can't do business with a sore peter. :)

You're always going out on a limb. I thought everybody advocated the government taking peoples farms? :shrug:

Zimbobwe? lol
 

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,913
138
63
17
L.A.
Wayne, where do farm subsidies rank on the solcialism/regulation scale?
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,221
1,465
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
The truth is, the lower 45% of taxpayers pay essentially no income taxes. Their entitlement taxes are merely recycled to someone else. The rich pay almost no S/S tax because they have little to no earned income. Meanwhile, the wealthiest 10% of us pay over 35% of all taxes. The top 50% pay close to 95% of the taxes. Thus, we have a stalemate in Congress. Half of the public want to tax the rich and vote for that idea while the other half pay all of the taxes. We have become experts at robbing Peter to pay Paul, but that has to change because Peter is in control. He is rich and he can decide to either pay his taxes or not. Peter is tax exempt...except for capital gains. That is the key to our future and it is why I continue to encourage all of us to gladly share our wealth by paying our Capital Gains Taxes. I think that a 15% tax rate is fair and I will pay it. I think more money could be generated if the rate was a little lower.

(At our last meeting), my argument went like this, "There is no middle class in America...we have just two classes. We have our rich and we have our poor and the dividing line is easy to spot. If you pay income taxes, you are rich and if you do not, you are poor...or you are a very smart rich person."

The data is irrefutable. We must operate our government to please business. We must raise the disposable income of the poor while keeping the wealth in the hands of the rich. As business grows over time, jobs will be produced, unemployment will remain low, interest rates will be low, inflation will be controlled, the rich will remain rich and the poor can improve their position in life and start paying taxes...which puts them among the rich. The government will receive growing revenues from business profits taxes and capital gains taxes.

I highlighted "The data is irrefutable." because I was wondering what the source of this data is. I think he's referring to the part about "the lower 45% ......" but I'm not 100% sure. I was messing around on IRS.gov and a couple of search engines, but I didn't come up with anything. If a credible source is there, I'll listen....but if we're just listening to Republican conjecture, this is a waste of time.
 

hammer1

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 17, 2002
7,791
127
63
Wisconsin and Dorado Puerto Rico
KOSAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

KOSAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

U Quoteth the "Hammer" should i be honored???
Had i been at the Super Bowl Party we could have discussed this re sleeving problem at length.
Have u per chance encountered a similar problem??
When i was just a young ball peen "Hammer" i was told "It's Not How Long U Make It" "It's How U Make It Long". Perhaps that has affected my technique. Any thoughts??
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,221
1,465
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/printer/542.html

Would cut and paste instead of link but you'd miss lots of graphs

Wait, how does this link back up the argument in the original post? This article tells us how many people in the US have zero/little tax liability. If the debate was over the number of people not filing and/or not paying income tax, this article would be fine. However, it doesn't support the argument made in the first post.

The guy in the original post claims that the "data is irrefutable" in showing how income tax cuts for the rich improve the economy. All I'm looking for is data that backs up that argument.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top