Farenheit/Michael Moore links/Lies

[saint]

Er... without weighing in on either side...

Anyway, since when did we want to encourage savings?  Doesn't the economy go into recession when people save, rather than spend?

Ack, bad economics!

Savings = money in the banks = money for the banks to loan = people/companies getting loans to build/expand = re-investment in the economy.

(That's about the only thing I remember from my Econ classes)

--- saint

[shmokes]

Phew...when I saw that Saint had posted I thought we might be in trouble again

That's not entirely true.  For one thing, banks do reinvest money, but a large portion of deposites has to stay on-hand so withdrawals can be met, and so on.  So that money is completely removed from the economy.  Also, a bank cannot perform its proper role in an atmosphere where everyone is saving.  We need to have a proportionate amount of people wanting to take out loans as people wanting to save money.  If people are encouraged to save and not spend the economy will tank, and people will then have even less money to save (or spend).

Drew, your tax policy seems to be rooted in fantasy land.  You claim, arbitrarily, that the poor person would be paying the same, or less than he was before.  Clearly the rich person, who has an enormous capacity to save, not only gets a corresponding enormous tax cut, but also takes a huge chunk of money out of the  economy in the process.   Government costs money.  If you quit getting money from one place you have to get it from another place, or quit spending money.  

 It is also an unrealistic fantasy to believe that this would somehow eradicate the IRS.  It just wouldn't.  As long as there are taxes we'll have an executive office to make sure they're getting paid.

Another myth is that when rich people get a tax break they create jobs, but when poor people get a tax break they....I don't know, burn the money?  Whether one rich guy gets $100,000 back or 100 poor people get $1,000 back, that $100,000  gets spent.  Any time money gets spent it creates jobs.  In fact, the rich person is much more likely than the poor person to spend that money in another country, creating jobs there rather than in the U.S., so, arguably, tax cuts to the poor create more jobs than tax cuts to the rich.

[DrewKaree]

...there are many people who can't afford to send their kids to college, but don't qualify for grants either.

still a terrible example, but only to me and others who believe as I do.  If you wish to go to college, you can, somewhere.  HOW it's paid for is where we differ.  You say "...people who can't afford to send their kids to college", when the reality is that it's not the job of a parent to send their kid.  It's the kids responsibility to find a way.  The parents WANT to help, and normal parents TRY to help, but ultimately, they don't HAVE to.  It's called teaching your kid the cruel realities of the world.  

Oh, and you would be hard-pressed to show me the person who "can't afford it" and "don't qualify for grants".  I say to those who don't qualify for a grant, it's for a reason.  They can't get it because of some of those luxuries (food) I talked about.  You also skipped over any scholarships available, and didn't even address *GASP* getting a school loan to pay for the higher education to make more money.  I have three kids who will be heading off to college in 2, 3, and 4 years.  I've looked into this.  If you can't get into college nowadays, you just aren't willing to sacrifice to get the education some jobs require to make more money.  If someone's not willing to make that sacrifice, it's my opinion (and here's where the phrase "cruel" and "evil" and "heartless" conservatives comes in) that it's tough nuts when you end up where you are in life.  Oh, and there are examples of those who never went to college and "made something" of themselves, as well as those who dropped out of high/elementary school as well, so I'm not saying it's a requirement that you go to college.  Your life, and the money/standard of living you earn are choices made by you somewhere, sometime in your life.  It's not MY job to ensure that someone who doesn't want to make the sacrifices I made to get the benefits I have, and since it's not MY job, I don't think it's anyone ELSE'S job, rich or poor, to do so either.  

Our tax system is set up to assist those who CAN'T, it isn't there to assist those who WON'T, and unless it's reformed, it will continue to be misused, abused, exploited, and wasted by those who won't disguised as those who can't.  

 

[shmokes]

No, a person isn't entitled, yet, to send their kids to college.  I never actually made that claim.  I said that a person's ability to send their kids to college is more important, not just from an ethical standpoint, but from a societal standpoint, than another person's ability to buy a nicer yaght.

My little sister is an example.  She does not qualify for grants because she's not old enough yet for my parent's income to quit mattering.  My parents can't afford, or at the very least would have to sell a car or move into a smaller house or something, to send her to school and "aren't willing to make that sacrifice."  So she can take out loans, but is understandably reluctant to do so.  

You know, come to think of it, you never addressed *GASP* getting a loan if you want a nicer yaght, but can't afford it with your tax burden.

Anyway, shouldn't you be against grants?  Why should rich people have to pay to send poor people to college?  One way we could lower taxes would be to get rid of grants altogether.  

And this is all a red herring.  My argument never hinged on a poor person's ability to pay for college.  That was just one example.  If you don't think they should go to college feel free to substitute it with any of a million other more legitimate expenses.  Substitute it with a poor person's ability to pay for medical expenses for their kids.  Or their ability to buy nutritious food, or a decent car.  Or their ability to go to the movies.  Whatever...it's more imporant than the nicer yaght.

[DrewKaree]

Phew...when I saw that Saint had posted I thought we might be in trouble again

me too!  Then he went and got all political on us and stuff

Drew, your tax policy seems to be rooted in fantasy land.

that's fine that you would think that.  I'm all for giving it a try.  I currently do try it on  my own small personal scale...so far, other than being taxed on my savings, it seems to be working pretty well.  I save for larger and more important things, like a house, cabinet, and retirement, and yet still manage to spend on a daily basis to keep the economy going.  I'm willing to take a shot at my "fantasy land" idea because the current program is more clouded in fantasy than my idea.  How much are you getting back or paying this year?  I can guarantee you what my idea would give for an answer - a known quantity.   That's my problem with the current system.  My claim is that when someone KNOWS what they have to pay, they can then plan and do something about it, regardless of their "ability to pay a high price accountant".

I guess what I'm missing in your argument is why you think money is a static thing...why encouraging someone who doesn't make much to save is a bad thing, while encouraging someone who makes a bunch to save as they currently do while giving them some incentive to produce more money by making it less punitive to do so.  What I am reading, and maybe I'm reading into it, help me out, is that you think that if a wealthy person is given a tax break, you think they'll be KEEPING this money all to themselves and won't put any of it back into the economy.

Government costs money.  If you quit getting money from one place you have to get it from another place, or quit spending money.

I seem to remember you saying somewhere that liberals are also for smaller government...correct me if I'm wrong about that...so if it's true that government costs money, then please tell me how much.  That's all I'm wanting to get to.  I want government to be held to the same standard you and I are.  If we don't have the friggen money in the bank, we can't spend it, yet our government and it's current state of taxation spends it based on probability of what will come in.  Our current "budget" (and the word has no meaning when it comes to government) is based on a statistical probability that they will collect "x" amount of dollars.  What has the government done if they didn't get enough money to pay for those things?  We've slowly been selling off America to help pay the bills, or done things contrary to the interest of our nation for the goal of getting money to pay for things we didn't need.  What's going to happen when all these countries start cashing in their markers?  

It is also an unrealistic fantasy to believe that this would somehow eradicate the IRS.

that is my fantasy, but even I realize that it won't happen, and never said it would.  The major goal of this would be to reduce the institution that is our IRS.  Unless taxes were eliminated altogether, the IRS will be a constant.

Another myth is that when rich people get a tax break they create jobs

no, that's not a myth, it just happens to be the major thing they do...see, creating a business (thereby creating jobs) gives them the opportunity to make MORE money...they don't all create jobs, though.  That just happens to be one of the better things they do with their money.  They also help keep businesses that are already in business, busy.  Tell us, do you think they just spread the money out on their bed and roll around on it?  Patrick Ewing said it best when he said "We may make a lot of money, but we spend a lot of money too".

but when poor people get a tax break they....I don't know, burn the money?

It hasn't been said that they don't contribute to creating jobs, but as you are fond of saying, the rich person has more money to do so, therefore there will be a larger impact when doing it.  And I'm sure there are rich people burning their money too

In fact, the rich person is much more likely than the poor person to spend that money in another country, creating jobs there rather than in the U.S., so, arguably, tax cuts to the poor create more jobs than tax cuts to the rich.

And yet somehow we have managed to still have the lowest unemployment rate since Clinton.  Did all those middle class folks who got their "tax cut" under him turn around and build restaurants that offer all those low paying burger flipping jobs that we are now relegated to performing in this "poor economy"?  You continue to say that the rich are more able to improve our economy by paying a larger share of taxes; how then would the far lesser impact of tax cuts to the poor be creating more jobs?  

No, a person isn't entitled, yet, to send their kids to college.  I never actually made that claim.

Nor have I, and haven't said that you did say such a thing.  HEY!  Something we both agree on!  YAAYAYYAYAYAYAY!    Sooner or later, we will always come upon something that we agree on, one of these days, it may even be on something that is pertinent, hey?!

I said that a person's ability to send their kids to college is more important, not just from an ethical standpoint, but from a societal standpoint, than another person's ability to buy a nicer yaght.

you continue to give me the impression that you don't believe that someone rich isn't inclined to do something good with that money and in looking to further their own life will step all over the poor to reach their goal.  I also get the impression that you think even if they DO do something nice with that money, you're better suited to parcel out their money for them because you know best where to put it.  Remember those scholarships I spoke of?  I'm still waiting to see the fund set up by John and Sally Muckenfutch.  

My little sister is an example...she can take out loans, but is understandably reluctant to do so.

I retract my statement that you would be hard-pressed to show me such a thing.  However, I still stand by my feeling that if your sister wishes to further her education in an effort to better her standard of living, then it is her responsibility and no one else's!  To take that to extremes, if your sister DOES take out a loan, succeeds WILDLY, thereby becoming "rich", why does it then become her responsibilty to pay for someone who doesn't want to go through the hard work she had to in order to better herself?

You know, come to think of it, you never addressed *GASP* getting a loan if you want a nicer yaght, but can't afford it with your tax burden.

I am now addressing it.  Get a loan, all you rich suckers out there, or if you don't want to do that, stop giving money to charities, scholarships, employees, etc.  

Anyway, shouldn't you be against grants?  Why should rich people have to pay to send poor people to college?  One way we could lower taxes would be to get rid of grants altogether.  

ANOTHER thing we agree on! I AM against grants...I think if we stopped giving them out, people would be more interested in what they are getting for their money they spend on higher education, the money the schools waste, the continuing salaries of teachers not worth a plug nickel, etc.  

And this is all a red herring.  My argument never hinged on a poor person's ability to pay for college.  That was just one example.  If you don't think they should go to college feel free to substitute it with any of a million other more legitimate expenses.  Substitute it with a poor person's ability to pay for medical expenses for their kids.  Or their ability to buy nutritious food, or a decent car.  Or their ability to go to the movies.  Whatever...it's more imporant than the nicer yaght.

I don't think any of these instances are any different.  They're smaller expenditures, and each of them relate.  If people are allowed to be in control of the money they pay (or don't pay) as a tax burden, they are better able to make decisions based on what's best for them and their family, period.  If they wish to make poor decisions and run their life into the ground..well...there's where I agree with Darwin.  I also object to your bringing up nutritious food.  If people are buying such nutritious food already, how come there are so many open burger flipping jobs in this lousy economy  

[shmokes]

Ugghh....This is turning into a quagmire.  Drew, I insist you be more economical with your posts.    I don't want to go through and respond point-by-point to all that.  If we want to keep an audience we've got to limit ourselves.

Another myth is that when rich people get a tax break they create jobs

no, that's not a myth, it just happens to be the major thing they do

Okay Ann Coult....er, I mean Drew.  You can't just cut my sentence in half and respond to it as though the other half didn't exist, LOL.  That's commonly known as taking something out of context.  When you add the second half of my sentence on there it is clear that I did not say that rich people don't create jobs with their money.  But if you give $100,000 to a rich guy he'll spend it.  If you split up $100,000 between a bunch of poor people, they'll spend it.  The jobs get created either way.

And yet somehow we have managed to still have the lowest unemployment rate since Clinton.

LOL....er, Drew, we could have the HIGHEST unemployment rate in the history of America and it would be the lowest unemployment rate since Clinton.  George W. Bush is actually the only president we've had since Clinton.

Don't get me wrong, Drew, I do think it's helpful to know how much you're going to pay in taxes.  It's just more helpful to pay less.  By your rationale, giving a person a raise doesn't help them afford the necessities of life.  It doesn't matter how much a person is paid, as long as they know before-hand how much it's going to be so they can plan accordingly.  

I don't understand why you want rich people to get tax breaks so badly.  Why don't we just tell them up front how big a bite we're going to take outa them so they can plan accordingly?  That seems like it would be just as desireable, doesn't it?  No?  Well, maybe that's because how much you have to pay, in the end, is far more important than how difficult it was to figure it out.

And the reason my sister should turn around and help other people when she takes the initiative and gets rich and all that jazz, is that she belongs to a society (a society that has been very generous to her, no less) and she wants that society to be as good as possible.  She dislikes ghettos and she dislikes aristocracies.  She believes that power corrupts and that it's dangerous for too much wealth and power to accumulate in the hands of fewer and fewer people.  She believes that the more educated people there are in her society, the better the economy is going to be, and the better her society is going to be overall.  She likes to help pay for people to go to college for the same reason she likes her taxes to pay for people to go to elementary, secondary and high school -- because it makes the place she lives better.  Because she has to live with all these yahoos, one way or another.

I am worried about when our debts come due.  China is going to own our asses.  That's another reason it makes no sense for Bush to make huge tax cuts right after Clinton finally sorted out the mess that Reagan got us into.

How's that for a liberal cheap shot?

[DrewKaree]

How's that for a liberal cheap shot?

you're killin' me smallz!

Ugghh....This is turning into a quagmire.  Drew, I insist you be more economical with your posts.    I don't want to go through and respond point-by-point to all that.  If we want to keep an audience we've got to limit ourselves.

as long as we don't accuse each other of skipping over some point "conveniently leaving that out of the argument".  Deal?

Okay Ann Coult....er, I mean Drew.  You can't just cut my sentence in half and respond to it as though the other half didn't exist, LOL.  That's commonly known as taking something out of context.  When you add the second half of my sentence on there it is clear that I did not say that rich people don't create jobs with their money.

but adding on your second point doesn't make a difference in how we look at the issue.  I look at giving the dude his fat chunk of change to spend.  He's going to create those jobs quicker, thereby getting more Joe Taxpayers paying their small chunk, thereby getting more revenue faster.

You're right about Bush/Clinton and the fact that there has been no other between them, color me stupid.  Our unemployment rate is the same as when Clinton was in office.  

I agree that it's helpful to pay less.  That's the goal behind giving someone a choice as to what they would pay.  I have no qualms about putting a limit on how much the wealthier among us could save (shelter), while allowing the less wealthy/broke among us to pay none.  I want the people who want to pay no taxes, though, to have to DO something  to effect that result, something that would be to their benefit.  It would eventually lead to their raising their standard of living, but not at the sole expense of those who "can afford it more".

You shade your words saying giving someone a raise doesn't help them afford the "necessities of life".  There aren't hundreds of thousands of people starving in this country because they don't have the money, not with all the programs available to people out there.  You'll never convince me of that, because I've seen and lived on those programs during my life.  We DO take care of those less fortunate in this country, but it's not unreasonable to expect them to, at some time in the future, work to better thier lives and stop living off of others.

You've missed completely that I AM suggesting we tell them up front how big of a bite we're gonna take.  I just don't see the solution to this as taking more from them to give to others.  It has yet to work anywhere in the world it's been tried.  I'm not dealing from a zero-sum standpoint.  As long as there are Americans with a will to better themselves, they will find a way to create more opportunity.  The more they make of that opportunity, the more they will be willing to share that chance.  The more they are penalized for making the most of that opportunity, the more they will be working to save that which they worked so hard to earn and achieve.  It's the MAIN reason your solution has yet to work anywhere in the world that it's been tried.  Human nature will always work to keep that which you feel is being threatened, hence the distaste for this current election on both sides.

It's noble that you (and sister) want all that stuff, and it's noble that you believe you should give people money to change that situation, but that which is not earned through hard work and struggle does not satisfy.  The question will become "If they can afford to give me THIS, what else can I get".  I long for your utopia as well, but that, IMO, is where the real fantasy land is based.


Is that more economical? I've got so much other stuff I feel obligated to respond to that I feel the need to get it out whenever I can.  I had to take so much Pepto-Dismal during that last administration, I think I'm immune to it now, and have diarrhea of the mouth  

[Floyd10]

Exit Stage Left