Gas Prices

[Mtn.man]

http://www.officesignspro.com/images/funny-signs/business/gas_prices1.jpg

[Daniel_187]

go green, let use Whale oil

[spittoon]

go green, let use Whale oil
[ROFL2][ROFL2][ROFL2]

[patrick0685]

go green, let use Whale oil

[LOL][LOL][ROFL3]

[sniper7]

they are getting ridiculous again. just a year ago it was down to 1.35 roughly, now at 3.30. bullshit. nothing out there doubles in cost like that.

it is time to shut off food supplies being exported to these countries. we can live without oil. they can't live without food.

[Lex_Luthor]

Prices are rising, and all the while we will continue to pay through the teeth for it. The oil companies know this. We'll complain about it, but won't be able to actually do anything about it. Meanwhile they're raking in record-breaking profits. IMO, it has little to do with supply/demand. I think if every single American stayed home just ONE DAY and didn't drive or fill up at the gas station, the oil companies would feel it in their balance sheets.

[Hoosier]

we can live without oil.

!!! Maybe Mtn. Man can, the rest of us would be seriously f'd in days. No trucks to delivery food to the grocery stores. No fuel at the pump to fill your car. No fuel to move the coal trains.

We might be able to get by not taking oil from countries we don't like, but it won't stop them exporting it (it's an international commodity, if they don't sell it to us, they'll sell it to China, and what would have gone to China comes here) and won't stop them being able to import food.

http://imgs.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/parenting/2011/03/01/gas_punp_79240x342.JPG

It'd sure be nice to not be paying these people billions of dollars every year, and be nice to know that our country could survive should people decide to stop playing ball with us. Maybe if that crazy old coot of a president back in the late 70's, with his fancy Solar Panels had the support to really start the difficult process then, we wouldn't be in this situation.

Dear baby boomers: thanks for the shit we're in now. Your parents may have been "the greatest generation", but I think you chose immediate gratification over long term thinking, and everyone under 40 will be paying for your lifestyle for a long time.

H.

[sniper7]

Dear baby boomers: thanks for the shit we're in now. Your parents may have been "the greatest generation", but I think you chose immediate gratification over long term thinking, and everyone under 40 will be paying for your lifestyle for a long time.

H.


I agree with the rest of what you said, but this quote struck me a little bit.

what do you think our kids are going to be saying to us? our immediate gratification to elect the first black president, bail out private companies with tax dollars, get "immediate gratification" to save some jobs and brands and banks. they will be paying far more for our lifestyles IMO.

[CrufflerSteve]

Matt Taibbi has a good book that touches this, Griftopia. He was a campaign reporter in 98 when we had the last huge spike. He asked why and nobody could answer so he had a book in progress.

In short, the commodities markets used to be producers, consumers and some speculators but they were limited. The speculators were there to provide cash so either side could buy insurance against prices rising or falling. Gradually, in sneaky ways, the speculators turned loose so they could corner the market. It'll go up as long as they want. They'll probably stop the rise when it forces consumption way down.

Steve

[Elhuero]

doesn't more than half the pump price go to taxes?

[Mazin]

Ok just farted in my tank...Didn't do much though.

[StagLefty]

Ok just farted in my tank...Didn't do much though.

WRONG CONVERTER [ROFL1]

[patrick0685]

IMO, it has little to do with supply/demand. I think if every single American stayed home just ONE DAY and didn't drive or fill up at the gas station, the oil companies would feel it in their balance sheets.

sadly this wouldnt work, there income for that day "might" go down but the next day there income would explode because all those people would have to buy the next day.

[lebru]

diesel ftw. my jetta goes 500+ miles on 30 bucks of diesel.


i can also use bio-diesel if I get it cheap enough (or free)

[patrick0685]

diesel ftw. my jetta goes 500+ miles on 30 bucks of diesel.


i can also use bio-diesel if I get it cheap enough (or free)

iv have always wanted a jetta turbo diesel, are they fun to drive?

[lebru]

iv have always wanted a jetta turbo diesel, are they fun to drive?

its a blast, they have a break in period where you have to drive like a grandma. after that they are awesome. The torque is incredible, you don't expect a small little car like that to pull as hard as it does.

[patrick0685]

its a blast, they have a break in period where you have to drive like a grandma. after that they are awesome. The torque is incredible, you don't expect a small little car like that to pull as hard as it does.

nice...ill have to check one out[Driver]

[Mtn.man]

But they SUCK when pulling a gooseneck Trailer.

[lebru]

nice...ill have to check one out[Driver]

I will admit though, for the same price I paid for this little Jetta I could have bought a base model 2011 Mustang (the 300hp 3.7l v6 version).

[Hoosier]

what do you think our kids are going to be saying to us? our immediate gratification to elect the first black president, bail out private companies with tax dollars, get "immediate gratification" to save some jobs and brands and banks. they will be paying far more for our lifestyles IMO.

I hope not. Bailing out the banks and auto industry has a short term cost, most of that money will be/has been recouped. The bigger problem was the bailout was that these companies were deemed "too big too fail" and as a consequence of the bailouts and the many failures/acquisitions of smaller institutions they are now ever larger. We should probably require them to break apart into smaller institutions, and one of which could be allowed to fail. That's seen as government intervention and is frowned upon.

Obama's big bet, the recovery acts, totaled approx $1T, but half of that was in tax breaks -- which the GOP would have done in the same situation. In the end the recovery legislation probably did shorten the recession, but of course that will be debated ad nauseum. I think the GOP would have done similar things because politicians can't be seen as doing nothing if they want to be re-elected.

I don't know what gratification came from a black president, I don't believe Obama was elected because he is half black, I think the only telling factor is that he wasn't defeated because he's black, as would certainly have been the case less than 50 years ago. The real question, to my mind, is how long before we could elect an avowed Atheist president? I don't see that happening anytime soon.

I think that what our kids think in 50 years is really going to depend on how we continue behaving. If we keep waging trillion dollar wars, if we keep our tax rates low while debt skyrockets, if we continue to kick infrastructure down the road these things will come back to bite us in the ass.

The real problem is that Americans, and thus American leaders, haven't had to cohones to raise taxes and reduce spending to actually acheve a balanced budget, let along the surplus we must have to pay down the deficit. It's as if we've been left with the tab for the past thirty years of American Exceptionalism, and now we're faced with the question of: Do we pay it, or do we keep adding on to it for the future to deal with?

H.

[Beprepared]

Buy oil stock. Let them fill your tank.

[Mobat555]

The real problem is that Americans, and thus American leaders, haven't had to cohones to raise taxes and reduce spending to actually acheve a balanced budget, let along the surplus we must have to pay down the deficit. It's as if we've been left with the tab for the past thirty years of American Exceptionalism, and now we're faced with the question of: Do we pay it, or do we keep adding on to it for the future to deal with?

+1 [Beer]

[theGinsue]

it is time to shut off food supplies being exported to these countries. we can live without oil. they can't live without food.

BINGO! We have a winner!

[DOC]

Colorado has oil. We could drill for our own fuel and that's not all we don't need cheap oil from other country's we could use our own if the powers that be would grow a pair and drill for it.

[roberth]

Statistics from the Department of Energy, paid for with your tax dollars.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gaspump.html

[Irving]

IMO, it has little to do with supply/demand. I think if every single American stayed home just ONE DAY and didn't drive or fill up at the gas station, the oil companies would feel it in their balance sheets.


I laugh every time someone says this. Everyone would just buy the gas the next day and there would be zero effect what-so-ever.

[roberth]

Colorado has oil. We could drill for our own fuel and that's not all we don't need cheap oil from other country's we could use our own if the powers that be would grow a pair and drill for it.

I'm with you.

We need to go and get it.

[jerrymrc]

I laugh every time someone says this. Everyone would just buy the gas the next day and there would be zero effect what-so-ever.


I would agree. I think a more valid asking point would be "how close do you live to work".

I never did and still don't understand how people seem to give no thought to where they live VS where they work.

My last two Military bosses bought homes that are at the other end of town. they both said it was not a bad commute until they started doing it in the winter. :) My drive is 6.5 miles RT. No stress, no traffic, never late due to the conditions..... And I put $20 worth of gas in every two weeks.[Coffee]

[2ndChildhood]

+1

I hope not. Bailing out the banks and auto industry has a short term cost, most of that money will be/has been recouped. The bigger problem was the bailout was that these companies were deemed "too big too fail" and as a consequence of the bailouts and the many failures/acquisitions of smaller institutions they are now ever larger. We should probably require them to break apart into smaller institutions, and one of which could be allowed to fail. That's seen as government intervention and is frowned upon.

Obama's big bet, the recovery acts, totaled approx $1T, but half of that was in tax breaks -- which the GOP would have done in the same situation. In the end the recovery legislation probably did shorten the recession, but of course that will be debated ad nauseum. I think the GOP would have done similar things because politicians can't be seen as doing nothing if they want to be re-elected.

I don't know what gratification came from a black president, I don't believe Obama was elected because he is half black, I think the only telling factor is that he wasn't defeated because he's black, as would certainly have been the case less than 50 years ago. The real question, to my mind, is how long before we could elect an avowed Atheist president? I don't see that happening anytime soon.

I think that what our kids think in 50 years is really going to depend on how we continue behaving. If we keep waging trillion dollar wars, if we keep our tax rates low while debt skyrockets, if we continue to kick infrastructure down the road these things will come back to bite us in the ass.

The real problem is that Americans, and thus American leaders, haven't had to cohones to raise taxes and reduce spending to actually acheve a balanced budget, let along the surplus we must have to pay down the deficit. It's as if we've been left with the tab for the past thirty years of American Exceptionalism, and now we're faced with the question of: Do we pay it, or do we keep adding on to it for the future to deal with?

H.

[gnihcraes]

I would agree. I think a more valid asking point would be "how close do you live to work".

I never did and still don't understand how people seem to give no thought to where they live VS where they work.

My last two Military bosses bought homes that are at the other end of town. they both said it was not a bad commute until they started doing it in the winter. :) My drive is 6.5 miles RT. No stress, no traffic, never late due to the conditions..... And I put $20 worth of gas in every two weeks.[Coffee]

I would have bought 15 houses with all my job changes, doesn't look to be a win for saving money? I've tried to work as long as possible at each job, just hasn't worked out. Bought, Sold, Bankrupt etc.

Luckily I've lived fairly central and most jobs have been a reasonable distance.

I'm with you though: Current job location was selected due to proximity to home, 10 mile round trip, $20 every two or three weeks, but parking is a bitch. $125. Still waiting on the light rail to finish up, 3 blocks.

Debating now if I even want to apply for the hunting licenses, probably can't afford to drive the truck for $500 in gas for a weekend of hunting.

Save the cost of the license and the cost of gas, win win.

[Marlin]

I would agree. I think a more valid asking point would be "how close do you live to work".

I never did and still don't understand how people seem to give no thought to where they live VS where they work.

My last two Military bosses bought homes that are at the other end of town. they both said it was not a bad commute until they started doing it in the winter. :) My drive is 6.5 miles RT. No stress, no traffic, never late due to the conditions..... And I put $20 worth of gas in every two weeks.[Coffee]

Not so much at the moment,;), depends on what you do,Yeah, if your stationary, going one place everyday.

I've been as close as 3.5 mile rt, And as far as 100 mile rt. I much prefer the 3.5 one. [Tooth]

[Mtn.man]

My everyday is a Grueling 23 steps from the house. But maybe once every week or two make the 50+ miles to the city for steel, welding stuff, etc.

[DOC]

I laugh every time someone says this. Everyone would just buy the gas the next day and there would be zero effect what-so-ever.
Its not so far from the truth about what to do. Driving less is the only thing that is going to drive demand down and save money in the short term. I think all men should drive motorcycles on most days. Women should car pool and wear low cut shirts.
IMHO.

[DFBrews]

I drive 40 miles rt went from a 454 big block loud as hell and uber fun at 12 miles to the gallon to a beat up jimmy and getting 22+ no complaints spending 40 bucks a week is alot better than 80

[Irving]

Recently, I was putting 100 miles a day on my car. Now I'm down to probably 60ish. That doesn't include the days that I deliver either. I'd probably get a lot better mileage if I was only spending the 15-20 minutes each way it takes with no traffic, compared to the 45 min - 1< it DOES take with traffic.

[BushMasterBoy]

When my tank gets a 1/4 down, I fill it up with E85 ethanol fuel. Damn thing runs way better and the fuel is 80 cents cheaper. Then I run the tank all the way down, and fill with regular gas. I guess I need to build a still next...

[DOC]

A higher compression engine like 10:1 or something that requires Premium gas will work best with E85. You may only notice performance loss when you're at idle. But its less powerful as gas and will require you to use more fuel. e.g. less mileage. But in a pinch it will work. I used it in my motorcycle, mustang and blazer. The blazer stalled at idle I had to keep on the pedal a little at stops. But that's just my experience.

[patrick0685]

I think all men should drive motorcycles on most days. Women should car pool and wear low cut shirts.
IMHO.

im down...can the women also wear short skirts

[sniper7]

E85 gas is junk. unless your engine is specially designed to handle it, DO NOT put it in your tank as it will wear faster, and cause major engine problems down the line.

I used to run it in my 2008 silverado. I keep a record of every tank of gas I run, what mileage I get, how much I paid etc etc. I have a logbook in each vehicle I won to keep track of maintenance and gas usage etc.

Unless the price of E85 was less than a cost ratio of 77% compared to regular gas, it wasn't worth it just based off the MPG aspect.

With E85, you burn more, have a shorter range, put more wear on your engine due to having to run more gas or higher RPMs to get the same distance or power and it is a poor substitute.

Loss of power is also very noticeable in the mountains. My 2010 will never see a drop of that shit unless it is less than 50% of regular gas, and there really is no reason it should be as high priced as it is.

[Irving]

If you don't have a stand alone ECU, with a tune specifically for E-85 (or your car can run it from the factory), then don't bother. It is basically race gas that is cheaper than regular gas. So unless you have a large turbo and the tuning to accompany your needs, don't waste your money.

You CAN tune your ECU for economy, but most people just use it for race gas.

[FireMoth]

Every time this subject comes up, i remember bouncing at a bar, hearing people whining about the crippling gas prices, as they swilled Shit whiskey at $4.00 an ounce...

[sniper7]

I hope not. Bailing out the banks and auto industry has a short term cost, most of that money will be/has been recouped. The bigger problem was the bailout was that these companies were deemed "too big too fail" and as a consequence of the bailouts and the many failures/acquisitions of smaller institutions they are now ever larger. We should probably require them to break apart into smaller institutions, and one of which could be allowed to fail. That's seen as government intervention and is frowned upon.

Obama's big bet, the recovery acts, totaled approx $1T, but half of that was in tax breaks -- which the GOP would have done in the same situation. In the end the recovery legislation probably did shorten the recession, but of course that will be debated ad nauseum. I think the GOP would have done similar things because politicians can't be seen as doing nothing if they want to be re-elected.

I don't know what gratification came from a black president, I don't believe Obama was elected because he is half black, I think the only telling factor is that he wasn't defeated because he's black, as would certainly have been the case less than 50 years ago. The real question, to my mind, is how long before we could elect an avowed Atheist president? I don't see that happening anytime soon.

I think that what our kids think in 50 years is really going to depend on how we continue behaving. If we keep waging trillion dollar wars, if we keep our tax rates low while debt skyrockets, if we continue to kick infrastructure down the road these things will come back to bite us in the ass.

The real problem is that Americans, and thus American leaders, haven't had to cohones to raise taxes and reduce spending to actually acheve a balanced budget, let along the surplus we must have to pay down the deficit. It's as if we've been left with the tab for the past thirty years of American Exceptionalism, and now we're faced with the question of: Do we pay it, or do we keep adding on to it for the future to deal with?

H.


so the .gov having a hand in and ownership of privately owned companies is short term? aren't most .gov interventions supposed to be short term?

what about all the pork that was attached to those stimulus and bailout packages? we are still in a recession. 9.8% unemployment last I heard/checked. apparently it really hasn't worked as well as they hoped. now we just have to wait for the super-inflation to hit and sink back in again. I am already seeing some of the effects across the country such as higher gas prices, higher food costs, fees being added on to shipping, flights, transportation etc. yet all the while, jobs aren't being created or are barely being increased. I think 190,000 increase was the latest increase in the private sector. raises are on hold, especially for federal and state employees, but also for a lot of the private sector according to people I have talked with while traveling.

so you are telling me that 98% of the black population that voted, who voted for obama has nothing to do with obama being black?...please. the liberals, ACORN, democrats all bussed people in from low income areas to vote. the obama T-shirts were rampant down here in the southern US. why would we want an atheist president? Last time I looked we are one nation UNDER GOD. there isn't anything from the entire history of this country that says otherwise. our money, our founding documents, our country's songs etc etc. there is no way in hell that an atheist should ever be president.

the wars are not the problem. the money spent mostly comes back to the US. pay to the soldiers, building of fighters, tanks, vehicles almost all made is the US. ammo, weapons, clothing again all made in the US for the most part. that money is being circulated back into the US.

The problem is giving other countries aid, giving them help and getting nothing in return. we should have 20 cent a gallon gas after doing what we did for Iraq, and what is happening in Afghanistan.

you go ahead and pay more taxes. I will keep my hard earned money and spend it as I chose. not hand it away to illegals, to people sucking the tit of the system, extorting it by having children, faking problems, getting free housing, reduced heat etc etc.

Katrina is the greatest example. 4-5 years after Katrina I saw massive amounts of homes with blue tarps on the roofs yet newer vehicles with big spinner rims parked out front. they received money from FEMA to help cover the cost of a new roof, yet somehow a blue tarp seemed to be just fine and the new set of rims was a priority.

social security is on my list as well. there is no way I need to pay that much money into a system that allows illegals to come in who haven't paid a dime into the system to receive those benefits. the system was not designed for it, and I don't want it. I want to cut my losses and get rid of the whole damn system. I don't want to be forced to pay into it.

welfare, medicaid, medicare all need to be cut completely and rebuilt from the ground up. I am all for helping those people who are down and out, who have lost their job, but I don't want to see it become a way of life. It has got to that point, and there is no denying from either side.

raising taxes right now will do nothing more than continue the recession further or dig us deeper into the recession. even the dems recognized this enough to bite their lip and kept taxes down. people are struggling to hang on as it is. gas prices hit $4 and we are going to see another dip in the wrong direction. the .gov needs to cut spending. they can start with the TSA. I see twice as many TSA agents than are operationally necessary at almost every airport I go to in the US.

I'm too tired to keep writing, half falling asleep now or I would continue. maybe tomorrow.

[ChunkyMonkey]

The real problem is that Americans, and thus American leaders, haven't had to cohones to raise taxes and reduce spending to actually acheve a balanced budget, let along the surplus we must have to pay down the deficit. It's as if we've been left with the tab for the past thirty years of American Exceptionalism, and now we're faced with the question of: Do we pay it, or do we keep adding on to it for the future to deal with?

H.

-1

US Fed tax and misc income is roughly 15&#37; of GDP. Add in your State, County, City budgets, the combination is at 35% of GDP. 35% of GDP and the gov is still running thirteen digit deficit!! Meanwhile the highest bracket of income tax rate is already at 35% + Fed sales tax in addition to State sales and assessment tax+ County fees and property taxes and finally City fees and taxes.

The past 40 years, we know for the fact that raising federal taxes equal to bigger bloated govt. It's time to realize that deficit spending is a bad habit not a simple bad math aka raise tax+lower budget = solution. Cut back entitlement, protect US citizen rights, give power back to the State, and simplify our tax code are the highest impact action US can do.

And Obama's race has nothing to do with Obamacare, bailouts, and 2 trillion deficit in two years, does it?

[lebru]

s
the wars are not the problem. the money spent mostly comes back to the US. pay to the soldiers, building of fighters, tanks, vehicles almost all made is the US. ammo, weapons, clothing again all made in the US for the most part. that money is being circulated back into the US.


Right the majority of the 12.3 billion per month spent comes back to the US......if that were true there would be no budget crisis. Do you realize, the majority of what we spend is on logistics and fuel, and not logistics through our army. Only 10&#37; of the food supplies come from the US, the rest are from foreign countries and local sources that we have to pay out too. Do you realize how much ammo and fuel gets wasted just in the transport of troops to and from the middle east? That money goes no where but literally into thin air. As does all the ammo spent on training, every single bullet going down range is represented as cost that we will NEVER see as a return. Last I checked, which was recently, 10 billion of the 2.3 billion spent per month is deemed "wasted" as in, the US sees no return on it at all (includes ammo, fuel, destroyed vehicles, cost of logistics from local/foreign sources). Feel free to read all of these PDFs to prove me wrong http://www.brookings.edu/saban/iraq-index.aspx

20% of the US budget is spent on the DOD, and you think the majority of that comes back as a return? Get real. The majority of the 144 billion a year comes back to the US as wealth? Bullshit. Trickle down economics never has, and never will work.


What we really need to do , is get the fuck out of there, kick all the gang bangers off social security, say fuck the tax cuts (http://imgur.com/TArK2.jpg) especially since it only effects the top 2% and those are the people who can afford it, and start putting money into making our country better. Say like our education, reforming malpractice laws (since thats where a shit load of money is spent on health care), infrastructure, ect ect. All of which will actually provide a net-gain for the country. As apposed to the sinkhole abyss that is afghanistan and current laws for social programs.


Study economics, its not that hard to see how to fix the economy and staying involved in a costly expensive war is NOT the reason. We won't see any gains from it at all when it ends, except that we won't be spending billions.


Not saying the wars are the sole problem, but they are most certainly a leading factor. 20% spent on DOD, 20% on medicare, 15% social security. All of those need reforms.

[ChunkyMonkey]

Lebru,

You are wrong in my opinion. Most logistic and USAID are handled by US contractors including fuel, ammo, etc etc. The production may not be US based, but it is US contractors. As comparison, many were screaming the Chinese are taking over the market and we are losing jobs by millions while the simple fact is the Chinese manufacturers are selling say tshirts to US companies for 1/10 of US production cost. These same companies are now making much higher markup. As US service sector is growing larger than its manufacturing base, we are becoming strictly middle person. Whether you agree with this or not, the majority of the profit in the transaction still sits in the middle person' pocket.

I would love to see some sources of your claim btw.

[hollohas]

Unless the price of E85 was less than a cost ratio of 77% compared to regular gas, it wasn't worth it just based off the MPG aspect.



^This. The MPG my Flex Fuel Tundra gets on E85 is 75% of that on gas. I have yet to see any E85 that is 75% of the cost of gas. Costs more to run E85.

Anyone else think that it's a little funny that 5 years ago everyone said doing more drilling in the US wouldn't help gas prices becuase it would take 5-10 years to hit the market? Now we are 5 years later and US produced oil would be nice to have...oops.

[tonantius]

The oil prices right now are controlled by market speculation in the Oil Futures Market. Inventories of crude and refined gasoline are currently high. There is no good reason for oil prices to be high other than the futures market. It is tied into the Muslim unrest in Libya and Bahrain, especially Libya. Europe gets a lot of its oil from Libya, which has light sweet crude, the most expensive crude. It is almost like diesel fuel.

The U.S. gets most of its oil from itself, Canada and Mexico. Some from Venezuela, and the rest from other parts of the world.

[lebru]

Lebru,

You are wrong in my opinion. Most logistic and USAID are handled by US contractors including fuel, ammo, etc etc. The production may not be US based, but it is US contractors. As comparison, many were screaming the Chinese are taking over the market and we are losing jobs by millions while the simple fact is the Chinese manufacturers are selling say tshirts to US companies for 1/10 of US production cost. These same companies are now making much higher markup. As US service sector is growing larger than its manufacturing base, we are becoming strictly middle person. Whether you agree with this or not, the majority of the profit in the transaction still sits in the middle person' pocket.

I would love to see some sources of your claim btw.

I didn't say the Chinese were taking over the market or stealing our jobs. But the majority of the food is brought in from foreign sources. Only 10&#37; of the food supply is us based. This isn't a conventional war where we produce everything needed for our troops. And while a lot (not all) of the logistics are handled by US contractors, that doesn't mean all the money we pay them goes back into the US market. A lot of the food comes from India, Ukraine, and I think Lebanon used to be a large supplier of food (until they sent expired food goods), some company in Texas used to provide food until they got fined for misprinting expiration dates on the food. Just because they deliver the food stuffs, doesn't mean they create the food stuffs. Hell, we pay farmers NOT to grow crops.

Those contractors? They don't buy fuel from the US, which is where the majority of the expenditure comes from. It would cost 10x as much to bring food and fuel from the US to the middle east then it does getting it from local sources which is why they have moved a lot of it to local sources (also in hopes of growing the local economy)

Do you seriously believe all that money we are spending is ending up back in our economy? Because if you do, you are sadly mistaken. Those .pdfs break it down.


http://usdebtclock.org/

defense/war is the 3rd highest contributor. You want to talk about cutting spending, cut spending in the top 5 sectors to see any noticable increases. We can't just cut funding from schools or social infrastructure (roads, rails, ect) and expect to see any noticable reductions in the debt. Anyone with half a brain will realize the only way to do it is 1) cut spending (in the top 5 categories creating debt) 2) stop giving tax cuts to rich people (because a lot of our 'at risk' programs can be saved from that money, and its not like the rich need to be richer) 3) wait a few years 4) problem solved. Its high school level economics...

Its like if you have a really bad drug addiction, you know you have a drug addiction, you ran out of money, so what do you do? Suck someone elses dick for coke. Rather than cutting your bad habits and getting a job. America has an addiction to spending, first step is to cut the spending. Second step, get a job, in the governments case that comes from taxes(local and import tarifs) and exports.

BTW a lot of our gas has risen in price because we had to stop subsidizing it to help control the debt. Do your homework, fox news won't report it (especially since fox news higher ups are likely going to be indited for telling employees to purposely distort the truth and lie) but the BBC and CNN have reported on us cutting gas subsidies as part of controlling debt.

[DOC]

im down...can the women also wear short skirts
I don't see why not? Less weight in the car = better mileage. Are we the only ones that care about the environment?

[sniper7]

I didn't say the Chinese were taking over the market or stealing our jobs. But the majority of the food is brought in from foreign sources. Only 10% of the food supply is us based. This isn't a conventional war where we produce everything needed for our troops. And while a lot (not all) of the logistics are handled by US contractors, that doesn't mean all the money we pay them goes back into the US market. A lot of the food comes from India, Ukraine, and I think Lebanon used to be a large supplier of food (until they sent expired food goods), some company in Texas used to provide food until they got fined for misprinting expiration dates on the food. Just because they deliver the food stuffs, doesn't mean they create the food stuffs. Hell, we pay farmers NOT to grow crops.

Those contractors? They don't buy fuel from the US, which is where the majority of the expenditure comes from. It would cost 10x as much to bring food and fuel from the US to the middle east then it does getting it from local sources which is why they have moved a lot of it to local sources (also in hopes of growing the local economy)

Do you seriously believe all that money we are spending is ending up back in our economy? Because if you do, you are sadly mistaken. Those .pdfs break it down.


http://usdebtclock.org/

defense/war is the 3rd highest contributor. You want to talk about cutting spending, cut spending in the top 5 sectors to see any noticable increases. We can't just cut funding from schools or social infrastructure (roads, rails, ect) and expect to see any noticable reductions in the debt. Anyone with half a brain will realize the only way to do it is 1) cut spending (in the top 5 categories creating debt) 2) stop giving tax cuts to rich people (because a lot of our 'at risk' programs can be saved from that money, and its not like the rich need to be richer) 3) wait a few years 4) problem solved. Its high school level economics...

Its like if you have a really bad drug addiction, you know you have a drug addiction, you ran out of money, so what do you do? Suck someone elses dick for coke. Rather than cutting your bad habits and getting a job. America has an addiction to spending, first step is to cut the spending. Second step, get a job, in the governments case that comes from taxes(local and import tarifs) and exports.

BTW a lot of our gas has risen in price because we had to stop subsidizing it to help control the debt. Do your homework, fox news won't report it (especially since fox news higher ups are likely going to be indited for telling employees to purposely distort the truth and lie) but the BBC and CNN have reported on us cutting gas subsidies as part of controlling debt.

and what about the billions paid out for aircraft, ships, tanks, gear, guns, ammo, optics, clothing, etc etc.

or the money paid in direct salaries to the soldiers who have the money covering a home or providing for a family back home?

there is a cost to defending the country. yes, we would save a lot of money and cut the budget if we pulled out of afghanistan, but we also lose our presence in the middle east in a time when there is massive uprisings, Iran is on the verge of becoming a potential nuclear superpower, and we are still trying to clean up some of the messiest terrorist ridden places. hopefully that presence brings better views upon the US by the citizens of those countries. I personally don't think it will, but I am not out there in the front lines seeing what is happening. I can only judge and base my decision off what I hear and see, reading on here, the news, talking to soldiers which i do on a weekly basis thanks to my job.


what is the difference of the military buying gas from other countries in the middle east when most of our own gas that YOU fill up with isn't from the US? you think we refine it all too? dead wrong on that one.

just because someone posts a PDF doesn't make it fact. I can start a .org website and I will post opposite information and link that, then tell you that THOSE are the real numbers. I KNOW that DOD is a high expense, but there is also a cost to keeping a nation safe. I think of that as a high priority and it costs more. personally I would like to see half the troops at half the non-essential bases across the globe come home and get based on our southern borders, given orders to shoot anyone who tries to INVADE our country illegally.

and who are you to tell someone else they should pay more in taxes because they can afford it? that is one of the most liberal things to say. socializing the wealthy is not an end all answer. just ask the high paid liberals if they are okay paying 50% of their income to taxes when most people pay 15%. who cares if they have done better for themselves, worked to get somewhere. That is called the American dream. stripping that away takes away from the very ideas the country was founded on. Higher taxes are the reason we are a country in the first place and not some cross-ocean land of England. I would think very hard about that fact when you start talking about taxing more.

I want a fair tax system. gut the entire IRS and start over. no more personal income tax at a state or local level. just a strict sales tax. the new IRS will be responsible to collect only from places of business where goods are sold and taxes are collected. a federal tax will need to be placed on all purchases, interstate and intrastate alike. state tax like it is now, probably at a slightly higher rate.

the amount of tax income isn't going to change and the % will need to be researched and then implemented. very low income people could apply for a reduced sales tax rate and issued a card for such.

The last thing we need are more taxes. What we need is less taxes, less laws, less government, less handouts, less federal and state buildings, less ATF, CIA, DEA, and any other 3 letter organizations.

[sniper7]

I don't see why not? Less weight in the car = better mileage. Are we the only ones that care about the environment?


actually the clothing would make too much drag. freshly shaven naked females are the true answer. I'll take the drag and extra weight over having the dudes in the same condition.

[ChunkyMonkey]

I didn't say the Chinese were taking over the market or stealing our jobs. But the majority of the food is brought in from foreign sources. Only 10&#37; of the food supply is us based.

It was an analogy. The majority of everything is bought outside US but through US contractors - Most of the profit stays in US contractors hand.




Do you seriously believe all that money we are spending is ending up back in our economy? Because if you do, you are sadly mistaken. Those .pdfs break it down.

Yes, there has been numerous studies and congressional inquiries into spending. There are few charges against corruptions, but most contracts are granted to US contractors who makes 1000% mark up for all we know. At the end, the US contractors are the ones who walk away with most profit - we are after all the big fat capitalist.



http://usdebtclock.org/

defense/war is the 3rd highest contributor. You want to talk about cutting spending, cut spending in the top 5 sectors to see any noticable increases. We can't just cut funding from schools or social infrastructure (roads, rails, ect) and expect to see any noticable reductions in the debt. Anyone with half a brain will realize the only way to do it is 1) cut spending (in the top 5 categories creating debt) 2) stop giving tax cuts to rich people (because a lot of our 'at risk' programs can be saved from that money, and its not like the rich need to be richer) 3) wait a few years 4) problem solved. Its high school level economics...

The Federal govt is mandated with 2 things in this country - 1st. Defense and 2nd Diplomacy. The rest is added by entitlement greed through out the last hundred years. In any case, I still believe Flat tax would be fair - just because I work smarter than you, it doesnt mean I have to pay for your food stamp.




BTW a lot of our gas has risen in price because we had to stop subsidizing it to help control the debt. Do your homework, fox news won't report it (especially since fox news higher ups are likely going to be indited for telling employees to purposely distort the truth and lie) but the BBC and CNN have reported on us cutting gas subsidies as part of controlling debt.

Like anything else, there is no need to subsidize in true free market. What you called subsidy is actually tax break and tax credit for certain segment of the market. It is extremely naive to believe that gas price has risen dramatically due to subsidy cut. You would have to believe that we were subsidizing 20% of gas price? Simple math - the raise of gas price of 20% = 20% subsidy cut right? 21 million barrel a day being consumed in The US which equals to roughly $400 million of subsidy/day or 12 billion of subsidy a month or $144 billion of fuel subsidy a year eh?

I dont watch fox news let alone CNN or BBC. Do you own research before you spewing dumb stuffs like this and basing it on CNN or BBC. :)

[BigMat]

I'll throw my hat in on this one, more to the point, President Roosevelts, who I agree with on a lot.

Sorry for the bulk, but I felt such a great man didn't deserve to be demoted to...internet-ees. but I did highlight!

"Unfortunately, those dealing with the subject have tended to divide into two camps, each as unwise as the other. One camp has fixed its eyes only on the need of prosperity, loudly announcing that our attention must be confined to securing it in bulk, and that the division must be left to take care of itself. This is merely the plan, already tested and found wanting, of giving prosperity to the big men on top, and trusting to their mercy to let something leak through to the mass of their countrymen below–which, in effect, means that there shall be no attempt to regulate the ferocious scramble in which greed and cunning reap the largest rewards. The other set has fixed its eyes purely on the injustices of distribution, omitting all consideration of the need of having something to distribute, and advocates action which, it is true, would abolish most of the inequalities of the distribution of prosperity, but only by the unfortunately simple process of abolishing the prosperity itself. This means merely that conditions are to be evened, not up, but down, so that all shall stand on a common level, where nobody has any prosperity at all. The task of the wise radical must be to refuse to be misled by either set of false advisers; he must both favor and promote the agencies that make for prosperity, and at the same time see to it that these agencies are so used as to be primarily of service to the average man."
-1912

"We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community … The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and … a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."
-1910




For what little it is worth, I agree with both of you, sort of. I think "trickle-down" is a worthless theory, I submit the past 10 years as evidence, Bush tax cuts in place for a while now. Results- rich, rich as ever...poor, still poor, maybe even poorer. No need to find numbers, this is common knowledge, if not, very easy to find. The empirical evidence just doesn't match up. Beyond that, TR has my back.

As to hand out to the lazy-
I say lazy on purpose, I worked on an ambulance and drove lazy people around for most of my job. I have seen a LOT of lazy people. I think we could even add a 3 letter organization to the .gov for this one. hear me out. You want welfare, cool, you show up at the welfare office and you do a job (you can handle) for 8 hours, build a trail, fix a road, clean a park, whatever, then and only then, you get a check. You can't do that and you need disability, cool, you just got a transcription/envelope packing/filing job at home. You are in lecherous turd in prison, guess what you are a farmer now! Would these programs be inefficient, probably, but at least we get something and the desire to live on welfare would dry right up.

As to the hand outs to illegals-
secure the border, create a good work visa program. this is the only fix worth half a damn and until this is done all the other fixes are like trying to pump a bilge without bothering to patch the giant hole in the boat. Someday, you're gonna sink. Everything else is a waste of the paper its written on.


-for the OP, I ride a bike a lot, tons of trails in Denver and frankly, I prefer it. Worth note its 17.7 miles, each way, and I still prefer it. Traffic sucks and there is nothing like cruising on a nice bike at good speed on an empty trail listening to some really good music. My wife takes a scooter most days, 113 mpg and her work is 4 miles away, its a cool $5 a month gas bill for her.

[MuzzleFlash]

Prices are rising, and all the while we will continue to pay through the teeth for it. The oil companies know this. We'll complain about it, but won't be able to actually do anything about it. Meanwhile they're raking in record-breaking profits. IMO, it has little to do with supply/demand. I think if every single American stayed home just ONE DAY and didn't drive or fill up at the gas station, the oil companies would feel it in their balance sheets.Oil company profits average 4&#37; of share price. So just who is getting rich off of us again? "Big oil" is less profitable than other "greedy corporations" like Taco Bell.

Speaking of that little annoying dog, here's a comparison of the performance of big, bad,, greedy, evil, price gouging, Alaska polluting, Exxon Mobile against YUM Brands, owner of said burrito establishment:

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=YUM+Interactive#chart2:symbol=yum;range= 5y;compare=xom;indicator=volume;charttype=line;cro sshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefine d

I guess the inevitable conclusion is that the Chihuahua is really bonin' the little guy.

If an oil company's profitability goes from 1.5% of market cap to 3.0% then Keith Oberman and Obama can rail on how oil company profits are "up 100% while the middle class suffers". WTF? You could make better coin with your money in a freaking market index fund.

Oil companies are boogey men for useful idiots to have someone to blame other than politicians. The real culprit is the US congress for taking so much of our reserves off limits while we grow increasingly dependent on the loons in the middle east. Just try to get a nuclear power plant or a new refinery built in today's political climate.

[Marlin]

^This^

Oh, and both Roosevelts were socialists, Teddy just hid it a bit better.

[William]

This!!!!! I agree 100%, that and having hot women wear less clothes :)


What we need is less taxes, less laws, less government, less handouts, less federal and state buildings, less ATF, CIA, DEA, and any other 3 letter organizations.

Upping the tax on the rich only causes them to invest less in ventures that contribute to the creation of new jobs.

[BigMat]

Upping the tax on the rich only causes them to invest less in ventures that contribute to the creation of new jobs.


I understand the theory, as its very simple, however, I have yet to find a single example of this working on a Macro scale. Things just don't work this way in the real world. Educate me if you have something, I just can't find the realities of it. Please don't just say "your boss is rich." This is evidence of capitalism, not trickle down theory.

[Irving]

How about the very existence of the Swiss Bank Account? The rich started putting their money off shore very shortly after the government decided to start raising taxes on them. Money sitting in an off shore account sure doesn't do much here.

Not that I wouldn't like an off shore account myself.

[ChunkyMonkey]

I understand the theory, as its very simple, however, I have yet to find a single example of this working on a Macro scale. Things just don't work this way in the real world. Educate me if you have something, I just can't find the realities of it. Please don't just say "your boss is rich." This is evidence of capitalism, not trickle down theory.

Wow Matt, you gotta have 401k or stock at some point in your life. If not, try to sneak in to any stock holder meetings - any of them. Most of American giants are moving their production base off shore not only due to expensive worker comp. locally but mainly due to corporate tax and bloated bureaucrazy. To name a few on top of my head, GM, FORD, CHRYSLER have their production line outside the US so they can write off most of their cost w/ ease. Recently billionaire Steve Wynn moved his HQ to Macau for this reason - at least not officially.

Look up "Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act" when you have a chance and the history behind it.

Another Fact... whenever there is a tax increase, the govt revenue does not increase accordingly. There is a point when many of us will say fuck it, its not worth it. 3 years ago, I closed down my other business and had to let go three employees because between the market and tax, I would make very minimal profit. Trickle down works, although not as good as the theory, but the reverse of it is much worse!

[mx'r]

In my small construcion world, when I show a fairly large profit at the end of the year from doing well, I "invest" into new tools and equipment to have a "ballance" for the profits. Been working for me. Not sure if my purchases have affected the economy at all, but I've spent 1.2 in the last two years with local equipment dealers. When the tax man isnt knocking, I dont spend a dime. Guess I'm bass ackwards.

[BigMat]

I guess, without trying to get too into this I look at it as percentages, not dollars spent, as numerically, the poor vastly outnumber the rich.

Rich man- spends 20% of his income on hard goods, rest invested, some off shore.
poor man- Spends 100% of his income on hard goods, nothing invested.

For those of you who own businesses, a rich man can open a business true, but what must be done to make jobs and build a business is customers. this is the simple fact. To this end, many people who invest 100% of their incomes in hard goods are supporting many businesses which provide services and goods (i.e. small), while the rich man is investing most of his money, making himself, and a bank (i.e. big business, few jobs, relatively) money.


I don't want to come off as class-ist, or envious, I have worked very hard to try to make more money, and I begrudge no man his success, I just can find no evidence of "trickle down" working on a macro level. In fact, evidence says that it hurts, for example, last 10 years with Bush tax cuts. I know there is much more involved, but rich get richer does not equal poor get richer at all.

[mx'r]

I guess, without trying to get too into this I look at it as percentages, not dollars spent, as numerically, the poor vastly outnumber the rich.

Rich man- spends 20&#37; of his income on hard goods, rest invested, some off shore.
poor man- Spends 100% of his income on hard goods, nothing invested.

For those of you who own businesses, a rich man can open a business true, but what must be done to make jobs and build a business is customers. this is the simple fact. To this end, many people who invest 100% of their incomes in hard goods are supporting many businesses which provide services and goods (i.e. small), while the rich man is investing most of his money, making himself, and a bank (i.e. big business, few jobs, relatively) money.


I don't want to come off as class-ist, or envious, I have worked very hard to try to make more money, and I begrudge no man his success, I just can find no evidence of "trickle down" working on a macro level. In fact, evidence says that it hurts, for example, last 10 years with Bush tax cuts. I know there is much more involved, but rich get richer does not equal poor get richer at all.

I kind of agree, but your keeping out the biggest player-Middle Class, whom is neither rich or poor. Nothing trickles down to us. We go and get it. Most Americans work hard, and it's a shame that the IRS and politicians put their hands into our pockets as deep as they do. Until the point that companies (small business) are scared to show a profit.

[BigMat]

I kind of agree, but your keeping out the biggest player-Middle Class, whom is neither rich or poor. Nothing trickles down to us. We go and get it. Most Americans work hard, and it's a shame that the IRS and politicians put their hands into our pockets as deep as they do. Until the point that companies (small business) are scared to show a profit.


I agree with this. Seems the middle is too rich to get help but too poor to not need any, and yet the middle is most of America.

[hollohas]

I guess, without trying to get too into this I look at it as percentages, not dollars spent, as numerically, the poor vastly outnumber the rich.

Rich man- spends 20% of his income on hard goods, rest invested, some off shore.
poor man- Spends 100% of his income on hard goods, nothing invested.

For those of you who own businesses, a rich man can open a business true, but what must be done to make jobs and build a business is customers. this is the simple fact. To this end, many people who invest 100% of their incomes in hard goods are supporting many businesses which provide services and goods (i.e. small), while the rich man is investing most of his money, making himself, and a bank (i.e. big business, few jobs, relatively) money.


I don't want to come off as class-ist, or envious, I have worked very hard to try to make more money, and I begrudge no man his success, I just can find no evidence of "trickle down" working on a macro level. In fact, evidence says that it hurts, for example, last 10 years with Bush tax cuts.

For me it's not about if trickle down works or if the rich people make jobs...it's their fucking money and why should they have to do anything with it?

Why should they have to spend more than 20% on goods like you say (which is still more money than poor guy that spends 100% on goods), or open a business (which they most likely already did to get the money but I digress...)? What I don't understand is why people like you think rich people should have to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. Even if they pay the same percentage as everyone else, they are paying more $$$. Don't you get this?

Say we all pay 20% income tax. Low income $30k person pays $6,000. Rich $1M person pays $200k...seems like the rich guy is paying his fair share doesn't it? About 33 times more in fact. Not to mention sales tax. Rich guy buys expensive car, pays more tax $ than poor guy buying used car. Rich guy buys expensive house...more tax $$ than poor guy renting. Why should rich guy have to pay 40% income tax when his contribution is already much higher even at the same percentage rate?

It's not about where their money ends up, or if it helps other people in some way. It's their choice if they want to help or not. It's about the fact that the government shouldn't say "oh, well, you make more than you need so why don't you give us some of that."



I know there is much more involved, but rich get richer does not equal poor get richer at all.


Do you actually think the poor should get richer just because the rich get richer? Damn, I don't even know what to say to that...

PS - I'm not rich.

PPS - gas prices suck.

[Mtn.man]

Sadly due to increase in fuel costs I have to pass it on to my clients.

[DOC]

I've been poor long enough. I'm ready to try being rich for a while and see how I like it.

[hollohas]

I've been poor long enough. I'm ready to try being rich for a while and see how I like it.

No problem, that's easy. Just have the rich people give you their money. They have more than they need anyway.

[Elhuero]

lazy, stupid, confused, mad.... pick any cause, any reason... it doesn't matter.

there are people in this world who were born to be poor. you could hand them a gold brick and they'd complain it was too heavy.

when it comes to tax dollars, I'm all for bombs.

bombs, nukes, jets, aircraft carriers. build them all, and pay the people that run them handsomely.

let crack babies starve to death.

(gosh, did he just say that?)

[hollohas]

Let us decide to give our money to other people if we want to or not, don't do it for us with our tax dollars. I donate whenever I can to the causes I want to help. I wish I could donate more, but the .gov has decided they are better at giving my money away so I have less to give.

I'd rather give my money to Shriner's Hospitals for Children for example instead of giving it to the unemployed, poor, etc. etc. like the government does for me.

Dear poor people,

Sorry you don't have enough money but tough shit, I'd rather help someone else. Get a job or if you have one, get a better one.

Sincerely,
Hollohas

If some rich guy would rather keep his money all to himself than help someone else with it, that's his choice too.

PS - gas prices suck.

[ChunkyMonkey]

Sadly due to increase in fuel costs I have to pass it on to my clients.

+1 thats what i called reverse trickle down effect. My tax, cost increase, I could only pass it on the clients.

[BigMat]

What I don't understand is why people like you think rich people should have to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. Even if they pay the same percentage as everyone else, they are paying more $$$. Don't you get this?
...
Do you actually think the poor should get richer just because the rich get richer? Damn, I don't even know what to say to that...



I think I was talking quite clearly about trickle down economics, not tax brackets.

If you want to talk about tax brackets, sure, but please, respectfully and you are going to have to read what is written, not what you decide has been written.



As to tax brackets, fairness is unobtainable. I am fine with taxes, as they are needed, and if it was at all possible I would like to privatize as much as possible and have most of it be service based. -as a forward- I think the government is terribly wastefully in many regards, both left and right leaning politically.


Feelings on taxes
-"fair tax"- will destroy small American businesses (both stores and manufactures that have a low profit margin) and create a huge influx of illegal goods from Mexico/Canada/China sold out of the back of vans. There by further destroying profit for legal American businesses. As soem evidence, look at this sites EE. How many of us buy used to get out of taxes/shipping, now imagine if the tax part tripled, the used economy would explode, and we wouldn't head down to Gun Store X ever to buy anything! Tax on services just means unskilled people will learn to do it all themselves, no more handymen or mechanics or oil changes or plumbers.

-"Flat Tax"- the decision of a given percentage was chosen to be fair. everyone pays the same rate concept is most "fair." This is silly, it is not fair, fair would be a flat tax where everyone pays the same amount of dollars, think HOA fee. I get the same roads and the same protection from the military as a poor man, why should I have to pay more for it. Imagine walking into a store and the prices on goods changed based off of how much was in your wallet, this wouldn't last. Sadly, unless the .gov is cut to a less than a tenth of its current bulk, this will/can never happen. Why pick something to be fair, when its just an arbitrary figure as well. The percentage system only seems fair to those getting screwed by the graduated tax. I'm sure if the poor paid more as they use more gov't services by percentage than the rich, they would think it is the way to go, not Steve Forbes.

-graduated tax- current system - too easy to play with politically, one year rich get breaks, next year poor get breaks, every year, the .gov who decides how much you pay, seems to get more overall. That seems unethical. It was created when the gov't needed a ton of money (war time), and for whatever crazy reason, decided they couldn't live without a bunch of money to keep buying votes.


I think you can tell what I would like from this.

[Hoosier]

-graduated tax- current system - too easy to play with politically, one year rich get breaks, next year poor get breaks, every year, the .gov who decides how much you pay, seems to get more overall. That seems unethical. It was created when the gov't needed a ton of money (war time), and for whatever crazy reason, decided they couldn't live without a bunch of money to keep buying votes.

Technically, pure communism is when the graduated tax bracket is such that the increase in tax is 1:1 with your increase in earnings. And if you get here, or even close to it, people will "go Galt" and no longer have incentive to work harder. This is the core of the Ayn Rand / Tea Party argument, and I'd agree.

I just don't agree that from 36&#37; to 39% is going to trigger this. It's been much higher in the past, and is much higher in places like EU, and there you continue to see people striving to earn more. My guess is that somewhere in the 50% range incentive starts to drop, but I bet $10 this is something that is a) a factor of education/upbringing/social pressure on the subject and b) something that could be studied to determine the real values.

As for why I think graduated tax can be thought of as having a valid purpose, there are several reasons:

* Helps maintain the desired bell-curve of income distribution, with most people in the middle

* People who get rich rarely do it solely through their own effort or achievement. They thrive in an environment of security, enforced trade agreements, eliminated monopolies, and available services that was not "the sweat of their brow." In other words, Bill Gates wouldn't be the worlds second richest man if he had to figure out how to get electricity to every computer he sold an operating system for

So when the government is (and has been for decades) running a deficit, both spending cuts and tax increases are the obvious course of action. I know, Sniper7 will tell me I can pay my own tax increase, since I obviously want to pay more taxes. That's a straw man argument. I don't want to pay more taxes. I would, however, rather pay the piper now instead of 50 years from now, when we've accrued far more debt and interest on that debt. We can pretend that spending cuts alone will do it, but I don't think anybody here who cares to do the math can be honest about it working.

I don't live my life in debt (*mortgage excluded) and I expect my government to do the same. There are plenty of countries that manage to build a surplus, and then invest that surplus to reduce their citizens tax liabilities.

My two cents.

H.

[hollohas]

I think I was talking quite clearly about trickle down economics, not tax brackets.

If you want to talk about tax brackets, sure, but please, respectfully and you are going to have to read what is written, not what you decide has been written.



I can see how my post may have strayed from your discussion but all these things are related. You have repeatedly mentioned the Bush Tax Cuts...and that they hurt, but in what regard? Are you saying that if businesses didn't get the tax breaks they would have hired more people or increased wages? Or are you saying that they hurt because the government isn't getting as much money now? Or are you simply saying that business owners just put their extra money from tax breaks in their pockets? What did it hurt?

Maybe this will be a bit more on your topic. You argued that trickle down doesn't work because the rich man's money doesn't make it into the system because he invests most of it. I was arguing that it does, via his increased tax burden. I was also arguing that it does work because the rich man buys more expensive things. He buys a giant new house...he pays lots of tax on said house, people got paid to build said house, people got paid to manufacture materials for said house, etc, etc. The money he spent on the house worked it's way through the system...it trickled down.

Now to use your numbers, lets say somewhat rich man of $1M only spends 20% on hard goods as you say. That's $200,000 that the man who produced/sold the goods gets. Poor man who makes $30k spends 100% on hard goods, that's $30k the man who produced/sold the goods gets. Again, more money from the rich man finds it way into the system, and to other people, than money from the poor man does...some would say it trickled down.

Maybe the poor man is the one who produced the lumber for his house or who put the drywall up. Rich man's money made it's way into the poor man's wallet and the poor man will spend 100% of it again...continuing the trickle.

Money from rich wallets makes it's way into the system at a higher rate than anyone else, no matter how you shake a stick at it.

[BigMat]

deleted for the sake of space

Agreed, a man in a castle has spent much more than a man in a hovel. That said, do men in castle provide more to the economy (especially concerning jobs and small business) then men in hovels, simply put, probably not.

Americans who make more than $250,000 (not even $1 million) constitutes about 1&#37; of the US population. whereas the percentage of Americans who make less than $35,000 constitutes about 40% of the population. So running our random numbers-

Rich man, making $250,000 spends, lets say 75% of his income on goods and services, supporting small business and jobs, this comes to $187,500

Poor man making $35,000 spends 100% (paycheck to paycheck) on goods and sevices, supporting small business and jobs, this comes to $35,000.

man to man, the rich man gives more- however, for every rich man there are 40 poor men. meaning the poor men give $1,400,000.

This means that by demographics, the people making $35,000 or less are contributing ~7.5 times MORE to their local economies. There is a reason Walmart is the worlds largest retailer, not Nordstroms.


*the demographic numbers are pulled from the the US census bureau (http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/perinc/new01_001.htm)
**I made up the numbers about the percent spent on goods and services vs invested in a bank but I feel it was reasonable.

even if my math is fuzzy, 7.5 times the volume is very significant leaving a lot of room for flex.

A small business may be started by a rich man, but it exists because of its customers.




As to the Bush tax cuts part-
in general, the rich are paying lower taxes now than in the 90s. Now for simplicities sake, compare the pre-tax cut economy to today's, 10 odd years later. Seems to me America is doing vastly worse economically today than it was in the 90s. Is it just the tax cuts, of course not, but they don't seem to be a miracle pill that has pulled us out.

[hollohas]

Walmart is big because everyone likes cheap stuff, even rich people want the best deal.

I can see how I may have over simplified things when comparing 1:1 and how this changes as you consider the larger population. I'm not convinced it works out to 7.5 times if you were to consider people that make more than $250k but I see your point. Considering taxes though, we know that the top 10&#37; of earners share about 70% of the total income tax liability so it certainly doesn't apply there. (Edit to include source CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/53xx/doc5324/04-02-TaxRates.htm#table1B)) (Edit #2: just noticed the lowest quintile actually has a negative 2.3 tax liability...wow)

I think you have over simplified as well considering the tax cuts. Yes, the economy may seem worse now than before the cuts, but taxes have been much higher at times in the past with the economy much worse too. During the 20's the top tax bracket bounced around between 73% and about 30%(the bottom bracket being around 1-4%)...much of the 20's were a recession economy and you know what happened at the end of the 20's. During the 60's and 70's the top tax rate hovered around 70% and there was a big recession during the mid 70's and early 80's. Top and bottom tax rates started falling during the 80's and much of the rest of that decade was recession free.

The top tax bracket has only changed a few percentage points in the last 20 years and the lowest tax bracket has fallen more than the highest. I don't see how a few percentage points can effect the overall economy in such a large way.

Like you said, it's not just tax cuts. We agree on that. It's such a dynamic system that there is no one reason why things are bad now.

[BigMat]

Like you said, it's not just tax cuts. We agree on that. It's such a dynamic system that there is no one reason why things are bad now.


Exactly, That's why just tax cuts are not going to fix it either.

and of course I over simplified! I'll have you know that this is the INTERNET! Economic theory must be expressed in 200 words or less, with a lot of breaks and slang.


Also, rich people HATE Walmart- The People of Walmart are what their nightmares are made of.
There are more Whole Foods in Boulder than Safeways, King Soopers and Walmarts combined.

Rich people spend money on what they want to, not what they need too.

-I had to add the Safeway and King Soopers, as there are no Walmarts in Boulder. You won't find any in Highlands Ranch or Cherry Creek either-

This concludes our study on Walmart locations as it relates to your gas prices- Sorry about your thread.

[Geology Rocks]

did someone say girls in short skirts or naked in here?













my favorite is when people go out and trade in their paid off tahoe for a $35,000 prius because its going to save them so much in gas. really?

joe

[DOC]

There is a wally world in Highlands Ranch. e470 and University I think?
Girls should car pool so they can talk about how cool the bikes are. And while they are talking about how cool the guys are wouldn't it be nice if they all had low cut shirts so they can see each others cleavage and kiss? But that's just me.

[William]

I understand the theory, as its very simple, however, I have yet to find a single example of this working on a Macro scale. Things just don't work this way in the real world. Educate me if you have something, I just can't find the realities of it. Please don't just say "your boss is rich." This is evidence of capitalism, not trickle down theory.

My sister works for a small manufacturing company that was established around 20 years ago. The owners are so called rich people ie combined income over $200,000 a year (they were not rich before starting this company). Currently this company employs over 100 people. They want to start another venture but are concerned about regulatory conditions and corporate taxes under the current administration. This has kept them on the fence and they have not started the new venture.

[William]

-graduated tax- current system - too easy to play with politically, one year rich get breaks, next year poor get breaks, every year, the .gov who decides how much you pay, seems to get more overall. That seems unethical. It was created when the gov't needed a ton of money (war time), and for whatever crazy reason, decided they couldn't live without a bunch of money to keep buying votes.


Since 40% of all households pay no income taxes taxes, that seems the most unfair. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html

[Byte Stryke]

My sister works for a small manufacturing company that was established around 20 years ago. The owners are so called rich people ie combined income over $200,000 a year (they were not rich before starting this company). Currently this company employs over 100 people. They want to start another venture but are concerned about regulatory conditions and corporate taxes under the current administration. This has kept them on the fence and they have not started the new venture.

This isn't the first time I have heard this story lately.

[BigMat]

My sister works for a small manufacturing company that was established around 20 years ago. The owners are so called rich people ie combined income over $200,000 a year (they were not rich before starting this company). Currently this company employs over 100 people. They want to start another venture but are concerned about regulatory conditions and corporate taxes under the current administration. This has kept them on the fence and they have not started the new venture.


I have no doubt, but this doesn't prove trickle down. I think my previous posts covered my view as to why.

[ChunkyMonkey]

I have no doubt, but this doesn't prove trickle down. I think my previous posts covered my view as to why.

Hows it not? I guess until you became an employer, you won't have personal experience how much employment tax + income tax you have to pay per employee. Furthermore, how much tax break will effect your hiring and expansion decision.

As I mentioned before, go to a public company stock holder meeting... heck buy a $1 stock and get invited to one. Most of the discussion/presentation is around the cost in labor, taxes, tax incentive and soon to sustain growth and finally make profit.

You remind me of one of my best friends who has this romantic and noble idea of equality - until one year he opened his own muffler shop. Now, he appreciates why the hard workers should earn more. He is also a big small govt proponent now. I dont know how he voted the past few terms, but he is still a registered dem. :D

[BigMat]

Hows it not? I guess until you became an employer, you won't have personal experience how much employment tax + income tax you have to pay per employee. Furthermore, how much tax break will effect your hiring and expansion decision.

As I mentioned before, go to a public company stock holder meeting... heck buy a $1 stock and get invited to one. Most of the discussion/presentation is around the cost in labor, taxes, tax incentive and soon to sustain growth and finally make profit.

You remind me of one of my best friends who has this romantic and noble idea of equality - until one year he opened his own muffler shop. Now, he appreciates why the hard workers should earn more. He is also a big small govt proponent now. I dont know how he voted the past few terms, but he is still a registered dem. :D



I don't disagree with anything you have said, except for most of it. I have owned stock and come from and have participated in a long line of people who own businesses and employee many people, by the way. (my mistake, didn't think logic needed a resume and I thought it was no ones business but my own) I appreciate how you assume a person who disagrees with you must be ignorant, makes it a joy to try to express my opinion as logic and information will never mean anything to you as they don't align with what you believe. Don't mean to be a dick, but I get grumpy when disrespected. Patting a man on the head and calling them an ignorant dem. is a good way to get someone angry.

Just to express it differently, true, rich people employee poorer people, generally, depending on how the business is doing.

that said- the theory of trickle down is that by making the rich more wealthy the money will be handed down to the poor, there by making them rich too. I disagree with this. Money trickles, always, up and down. trickle down is a theory that has not been solidly supported by macro economic history.

To continue, a rich person can start a company and create many jobs, true! But ask ANY business owner why they succeeded and it is not that they had a ton of money when they started and they poured all of their money into their company, that is a perfect example of a failed venture and a now bankrupt business person! A company will succeed by drawing in customers who spend money at said business, at which time a business can spend said money as it needs to grow and pay out dividends to those invested.

The wages paid, bonuses given, tools bought, etc. pass through a boss, but it is just a redistribution of the money spent by the customers.

The key is who spends more of their income, who spends more as a customer, and as expressed in previous posts, it is not the rich man, the rich man puts his money in the bank or in some off shore account, the poor MEN spend all of their money here, at small businesses that rich men own, as they are too poor to not spend it.

I do not say what I have said because of any desire for equality, people will be poor, people will be rich, I have worked very hard to try to get into the later. As I have said. But to think that by making the rich, richer, everyone gets rich, just doesn't hold water, there is no evidence to support it, and the theory is too simplistic even when thought about seriously.


Saying that "I am a boss, and I pay people" means you forgot where the money came from. Hint: starts with C ends with -ustomers.

More examples, that will align with a right leaning thought process-

Q. Did Pres. Obama fix the economy?
A. I assume you will say no

Q. What was the largest measure to fix the economy?
A. Huge hand outs to Banks and GM

Q. Who runs and controls GM and the Banks?
A. Very very rich men

Q. Did Pres. Obama fix the economy with the hand outs?
A. Still no



Do I think being rich is evil. NO
I would have wasted a lot of time in school. I didn't have to work this hard.

I just don't like being feed a line by other men who want an edge by coming up with a shiny phrase to trick others.

It is just backward entitlement-
I am poor, I need your money (in handouts) so you feel better
vs.
I am rich, I need your money (in tax breaks) so you feel better
same thing- different dress


Bullshit, I want my money.

[ChunkyMonkey]

You failed to include couple things in your equation - Time/effort minus the 35% corporate tax. The money that I have earned is mostly from my OWN time. Most of business owners started as workers. We put in more time and effort to the point that we must delegate our work to our employees.

I hope you don't need explanation on the whole 35% of my effort are to be redistributed back to the lazy masses.

You over simplified the economy by saying that all of the money earned is from consumers. If that's the case every single start up would have succeeded and no one would be poor. It would be the perfect cycle.

Some of us work harder and/or smarter than the rest, and we share our success by hiring employees (per your definition). These next line of folks get equal opportunity to be successful too. By US chamber of commerce only 1 per 100 startup lasts into its 2nd year. Your definition of success is if these 100 employees are to be as successful as their employer - while mine is if I get to hire an extra guy or two thanks to some tax break, I have affected the next person in line - hence the money I saved from taxes have trickled down to my employee. Again, I have formed my opinion of you that since you have never been an employer, your 'theory' in trickle down effect is as good as my 40 year economic professor who have never once ran his own companies - he did however published a lot of books and paper.

A great example of successful trickle down tax break:
http://www.guidemesingapore.com/taxation/corporate-tax/singapore-corporate-tax-guide

Singapore has steadily reduced its coorporate and income tax from 26% to 17%. The first 3 years of newly formed corp won't have to pay tax on the 100k to encourage the rich to invest.

Result? I quote


On 14 February 2007, the Singapore government announced that economic growth for the whole year of 2006 was 7.9%, higher than the originally expected 7.7%. Singapore's unemployment rate is around 2.2% as of 20th Feb, 2009. As of August 8, 2010, Singapore is the fastest growing economy in the world, with a growth rate of 17.9% for the first half of 2010.

[BigMat]

You failed to include couple things in your equation - Time/effort minus the 35&#37; corporate tax. The money that I have earned is mostly from my OWN time. Most of business owners started as workers. We put in more time and effort to the point that we must delegate our work to our employees.
-Time and effort only produce money if you work at a mint-
the money came from somewhere-


I hope you don't need explanation on the whole 35% of my effort are to be redistributed back to the lazy masses.
-Nope, I agree

You over simplified the economy by saying that all of the money earned is from consumers. If that's the case every single start up would have succeeded and no one would be poor. It would be the perfect cycle.
-not true, only business that get customers would succeed. By your logic, all business started by rich men who put in a lot of time and effort will succeed, regardless of customers. Good luck with that.

Some of us work harder and/or smarter than the rest, and we share our success by hiring employees (per your definition). These next line of folks get equal opportunity to be successful too. By US chamber of commerce only 1 per 100 startup lasts into its 2nd year. Your definition of success is if these 100 employees are to be as successful as their employer - while mine is if I get to hire an extra guy or two thanks to some tax break, I have affected the next person in line - hence the money I saved from taxes have trickled down to my employee. Again, I have formed my opinion of you that since you have never been an employer, your 'theory' in trickle down effect is as good as my 40 year economic professor who have never once ran his own companies - he did however published a lot of books and paper.
-I appreciate your theory of me. not what I am talking about, and I don't care. Good to hear I've been promoted from an ignorant dem. to a college professor with 40 years under my belt, slightly less grumpy. To get back to the point- you can hire a billion people, unless you make, as in print, money, you need to pull it in someplace. that is a fact. Unless you are the .gov, you are pulling it in from people who spend it willingly on a product or service.
-side note, you sure know a lot about business, maybe there is a professor you should thank.[Tooth]

A great example of successful trickle down tax break:
http://www.guidemesingapore.com/taxation/corporate-tax/singapore-corporate-tax-guide

Singapore has steadily reduced its coorporate and income tax from 26% to 17%. The first 3 years of newly formed corp won't have to pay tax on the 100k to encourage the rich to invest.

-Info presented is of a successful economy with no mention as to income levels. Best case, we are now 1:1 in terms of examples, not enough to prove a theory is fact, enough to start thinking it is an irrelevant item in the discussion, as I have been trying to explain!


Result?
-waste of time, you think I am a dumb child, I think you listen to too much talk radio and have come to enjoy the wool over your eyes, and believe your companies money falls out of your butt.



I edited my previous post with more info after you posted this as well.

[BigMat]

wasted post- sorry, just said the same crap over again. Ah, the miracle of the written word!

[ChunkyMonkey]

-Time and effort only produce money if you work at a mint-
the money came from somewhere-

I guess you are asking to be treated like a juvenile. Money = payment for the value goods or service, hence your time and effort = money.



-not true, only business that get customers would succeed. By your logic, all business started by rich men who put in a lot of time and effort will succeed, regardless of customers. Good luck with that.

Genius! I did say you left out the value of time and effort while you are so focus on 'customers = money.'


-I appreciate your theory of me. not what I am talking about, and I don't care. Good to hear I've been promoted from an ignorant dem. to a college professor with 40 years under my belt, slightly less grumpy. To get back to the point- you can hire a billion people, unless you make, as in print, money, you need to pull it in someplace. that is a fact. Unless you are the .gov, you are pulling it in from people who spend it willingly on a product or service.
-side note, you sure know a lot about business, maybe there is a professor you should thank.

Its not a theory..its the way you have characterized yourself so far to me. The professor is years ahead of you, and yet he still cannot put his theory into action. BTW, within your definition, how do you explain expansion of economy? Also explain how there are more buying power dollars than the actual paper dollars. I am very curious.

As far as the Singaporean economy, a quick search in google with get your answer. 4.5 millions singaporeans w/ more billionaires ratio than most nations. Poverty line is thing of the past... http://wphr.org/2010/andrew-jensen/building-capabilities-the-singapore-success-story/

Want another example? Look into Chinese's copy of Reaganomic. Look up what the Chicom finance minister said about sending Chinese Economists to our top schools and applying reaganomics in the early 90s. You can certainly do your own research and learn what the communist chinese learnt from us.

I didn't want to mention Chinese previously obviously due to their minimum wage and working class treatment. Now, in the 21st century, the leadership are worried about the growing middle class. They are definitely curbing certain things lately.


-waste of time, you think I am a dumb child, I think you listen to too much talk radio and have come to enjoy the wool over your eyes, and believe your companies money falls out of your butt.

awww.. don't be so butt hurt. I wish I have more time watching or listening to news radio. I am always behind on the news, but I do know what I am doing as far as economy or business.

[BigMat]

I will try to explain my view as best as possible, I lost my temper last time but I am not interested in an internet pissing match, nor being insulted.



I guess you are asking to be treated like a juvenile. Money = payment for the value goods or service, hence your time and effort = money.

You agree with me, money comes from payment for goods and services.

-Time and effort are irrelavent, if I have a great product that takes no work I am just better than others at what I do. customers are universal.


Genius! I did say you left out the value of time and effort while you are so focus on 'customers = money.'

-stand by it, time and effort can be part of a business but don't have to, customers are universal.

Its not a theory..its the way you have characterized yourself so far to me. The professor is years ahead of you, and yet he still cannot put his theory into action. BTW, within your definition, how do you explain expansion of economy? Also explain how there are more buying power dollars than the actual paper dollars. I am very curious.

-avoiding insults.

-part II-
Expansion of economy - In my opinion I credit a working middle class with buying power. The ~70&#37; of Americans that fall between $250,000 and $35,000. This is the largest chunk of domestic spending.
-buying power vs. paper dollars doesn't need to be explained as this is not a test, if you are curious, go and read about it.


As far as the Singaporean economy, a quick search in google with get your answer. 4.5 millions singaporeans w/ more billionaires ratio than most nations. Poverty line is thing of the past... http://wphr.org/2010/andrew-jensen/building-capabilities-the-singapore-success-story/

Want another example? Look into Chinese's copy of Reaganomic. Look up what the Chicom finance minister said about sending Chinese Economists to our top schools and applying reaganomics in the early 90s. You can certainly do your own research and learn what the communist chinese learnt from us.

I didn't want to mention Chinese previously obviously due to their minimum wage and working class treatment. Now, in the 21st century, the leadership are worried about the growing middle class. They are definitely curbing certain things lately.

-we can both throw examples all day at each other, I do like how you try to not bring up China. What a great example for the American economy! Trickle down does make rich people more money, that's what it is for. I just don't want to pay for it as a middle class person. Now they are slowing reaganomics to support a middle class. As I have said, and as you have said.
-If you want some examples, look into most countries in the world. The world's richest man lives in Mexico, along with a lot of very rich people, hmm, didn't help. All of the middle east and Africa, are good examples. Or nearly any oil producing country. Now on the other side lets say the EU with a smaller Economic divide, where would you rather live?
The pile of examples (both ways) only serves to prove that economies are built on more than just not taxing rich people on the backs of less rich people.


awww.. don't be so butt hurt. I wish I have more time watching or listening to news radio. I am always behind on the news, but I do know what I am doing as far as economy or business.

-probably, but I'm not interested in being tricked into giving you my money.




Pulled from above-

Do I think being rich is evil. NO
I would have wasted a lot of time in school. I didn't have to work this hard.

I just don't like being feed a line by other men who want an edge by coming up with a shiny phrase to trick others.

It is just backward entitlement-
I am poor, I need your money (in handouts) so you feel better
vs.
I am rich, I need your money (in tax breaks) so you feel better
same thing- different dress



Money will trickle, both ways, and taxing one group more to help another, will not get anyone in an economy anywhere. Tax the rich more-fewer jobs, tax the poor more fewer customers. either way, we all fail.



What I support, so you can see an alternative-

A smaller government and by extension lower taxes for all of us. This fails as it is politically unpopular, as you can see right now as expressed by our Congress trying to cut the budget. Both sides trying to cut the hand that feeds the other side.

[ChunkyMonkey]

It is just backward entitlement-
I am poor, I need your money (in handouts) so you feel better
vs.
I am rich, I need your money (in tax breaks) so you feel better
same thing- different dress


We'll just have to disagree. While the top tier of US income earners are paying majority of the taxes, you cannot really argue for 'tax break' for the bottom half who doesn't even pay taxes. You have mentioned that the lower earners actually pay more taxes combined - that's not true. Fact is the top tier still pay much more taxes than the 95&#37; of the people. Walmart comparison is flaw too - All walk of life shopped at Walmart. I am a cheap bastard, I shop there along with TJMaxx, Ross etc so are many middle income folks.

I know this is an extreme view, but I truly believe that the bottom 30% of the population will stay on the bottom 30% w/ very few expections. We have seen this in so many different countries who put so much effort to lift the bottom. Austria, Swiss, India are the top three to put so much money into social safety net. Germany recently pretty much said 'fuck it.'

During the reagonomics, the anti-reagan claimed that trickle down never worked because the poverty rate was steady at 30% - However, while the rate did stay the same, the US economy grew 30% during his 8 years, US federal income increased, eventhough by percentage to the GDP it drops or in short Reagan was able to increase Federal income by cutting down Taxes. I have yet seen one statistic where the federal income increases accordingly to the tax rate increase. Most of all, the middle folks enjoyed $4000 increase in median income (low inflation too). Yet, the 'poorest' of us were still on entitlement programs. The same unemployed were still unemployed while the US businesses were having hard time with hiring labor. So much so that US passed the 1986 Amnesty to the illegals to enlarge its labor pool.

Btw thanks for being the adult - I know I was being an ass. Thats just me when I argue.

[jmg8550]

I'm all for a flat tax. I think all citizens should pay a percentage of their earnings. Let's say 10% across the board, none of this garbage about the bottom 40% not paying and the top 1% paying the majority, 10% for everyone. I'm also for drilling here in America. We in America have oil wells drilled and setup to pump right now. We can start there and expand. Oh, and that also creates jobs.

E85 is garbage, less fuel mileage, less power, and an engine has a hard time starting on it in the winter. Only fill up with it (if you choose to) if your vehicles says it can handle it. The reason being it is not compatible with the rubber seals and plastic in the fuel lines and engine components. It will destroy them.

[BigMat]

I think, after reading it and getting less pissed, we agree with each other-
I get the impression that you read what I wrote and got the impression I was a socialist. This couldn't be further from the truth. Try reading it thinking I am ultra-conservative.


I just don't want to fix the economy by only cutting taxes to the rich, that will not fix the deficit, nor bring the poor up. These are the tenets of the theory.

Laissez-faire with some rules, controlled government size and reduced tax burden for all will help much more. I do realize that you can't cut taxes on the very poor already.

I said the middle class pays more into the domestic spending, not taxes.

Try looking at the Walmart thing the other way, do you think there are a lot of people making $20,000 a year walking around Nordstrums, much less buying enough to support the business.

I agree regarding the poor too, poor people will always be poor, if they choose to, from my experience and people I have known, poverty is more of a result of a state of mind (or a couple of bad habits) than a state of being in all but a few rare instances. In the cases of the rare instance, I am fine with helping out. Single mom types.

[William]

I have no doubt, but this doesn't prove trickle down. I think my previous posts covered my view as to why.

What do you call job creation?

If they went ahead with there venture they need too ad a new building at there manufacturing facility. They already have the talent to architect it and oversee construction, but they would need to hire construction workers. THey would need specialized equipment to the tune of about $5 million. They would borrow the money, but to get the rate they want they have to put 30% down. To do this requires lots of paperwork and contract negotiation. Their finance department is already swamped, so they might make the decision to hire another financial manager. Once the equipment is in place they will bring over some experienced machinists and operators from the other line, but they need that running at full capacity, so they will hire some new operators. Granted that last part requires customers, but before that there was construction work and several full time positions without a customer's dime.

[BigMat]

What do you call job creation?

If they went ahead with there venture they need too ad a new building at there manufacturing facility. They already have the talent to architect it and oversee construction, but they would need to hire construction workers. THey would need specialized equipment to the tune of about $5 million. They would borrow the money, but to get the rate they want they have to put 30% down. To do this requires lots of paperwork and contract negotiation. Their finance department is already swamped, so they might make the decision to hire another financial manager. Once the equipment is in place they will bring over some experienced machinists and operators from the other line, but they need that running at full capacity, so they will hire some new operators. Granted that last part requires customers, but before that there was construction work and several full time positions without a customer's dime.


Sorry William, I've had this discussion 3 times, I'm done with it. My opinions are all out there in previous posts.

[Elhuero]

It is just backward entitlement-
I am poor, I need your money (in handouts) so you feel better
vs.
I am rich, I need your money (in tax breaks) so you feel better
same thing- different dress





hehe a rich man getting a tax break is the same as a poor man getting a hand out?

okie dokie.

when a rich man says "I need your money" just who is he talking to and what money is he talking about?

(above question is rhetorical)