|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:13 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Czarjorge wrote: |
Have any of the Dems said they want to increase taxes, directly or otherwise? No, but they are all talking about a return to pre-GW tax levels. Is that a tax increase? I suppose it's an increase on the very rich.
When will the right admit that trickle down economics was labelled "voodoo" economics for a reason? |
No , cause they are not voodoo economic. I did not support the Bush tax cuts but there are a lot of very smart people who believe that cutting taxs improves productivity. |
You're absolutely correct, if the taxes that are cut result in increased levels of spending that can spur the economy. The problem with Bush's tax cuts is they favor the extremely rich, people who historically reinvest or bank the increased earnings. The amount of increased economic activity that comes as the result of reinvesting in the stock market is small when compared with the growth that accompanies direct spending. Low or middle income people immediately take the increased income and use it on things they need or desire.
The notion that giving money back to the rich makes more of an economic impact than giving money back to the middle or lower class is wrongheaded. That seems to have been proven wrong, yet it is still put into practice by economist on the right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| tax and spend liberals |
You haven't been paying very close attention for the last quarter century, have you? |
Actually I've been paying very close attention to Charlie Rangel's(D-NY), chairman of the House Way and Means committee, trillion dollar tax increase.
You can go here and see that it is Republicans trying to prevent tax increases and democrats are the ones who actually love to increase taxes. (Oh yeah, but some dems, such as the Kennedys, are above paying taxes.  ) |
Pluto, I agree with you on 90% of economic issues. . .
. . . but Democrats' tax and spend is still better than Republicans' borrow and spend. |
Republicans would love to cut taxes and spending but as I've stated creating bureaucracy is a lot easier than dismantling bureaucracy. Do you honestly think that the dems won't increase taxes and the price and size of government when given the reigns of Congress and the Executive?
| Czaejorge wrote: |
Have any of the Dems said they want to increase taxes, directly or otherwise? No, but they are all talking about a return to pre-GW tax levels. Is that a tax increase? I suppose it's an increase on the very rich.
|
Yes! The House Means and Ways Committee is where all tax bills must start. I've already documented that Charlie Rangel, the chairman, is propoing a 1.33 TRILLION DOLLAR increase in taxes. I am in agreement that I think the dems will hold on to the House, the Senate and gain the Executive. However, if you think this is the party of fiscal responsibilty and fiscal restraint, you're wrong; that is my arguement.
P.S. I think the perfect job for Ron Paul would be chairman of the House Was and Means Committee. If he is really as taxpayer friendly and as hostile to the IRS as Ontheway says he is, I'd reckon that's his perfect job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Republicans would love to cut taxes and spending |
Yes, we've had 30 years of them cutting taxes, but do you have any examples of them cutting spending? If so, how do you explain the 9-fold INCREASE in the federal debt?
Again, actions speak louder than words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
all I know is I have lost 5 million won in 2 weeks..
if it hits 10 million. I might have to jump and take the loss.
dont know if I can stomach anymore than that hahahaha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Czarjorge wrote: |
Have any of the Dems said they want to increase taxes, directly or otherwise? No, but they are all talking about a return to pre-GW tax levels. Is that a tax increase? I suppose it's an increase on the very rich.
When will the right admit that trickle down economics was labelled "voodoo" economics for a reason? |
No , cause they are not voodoo economic. I did not support the Bush tax cuts but there are a lot of very smart people who believe that cutting taxs improves productivity. |
You're absolutely correct, if the taxes that are cut result in increased levels of spending that can spur the economy. The problem with Bush's tax cuts is they favor the extremely rich, people who historically reinvest or bank the increased earnings. The amount of increased economic activity that comes as the result of reinvesting in the stock market is small when compared with the growth that accompanies direct spending. Low or middle income people immediately take the increased income and use it on things they need or desire.
The notion that giving money back to the rich makes more of an economic impact than giving money back to the middle or lower class is wrongheaded. That seems to have been proven wrong, yet it is still put into practice by economist on the right. |
Reinvestment or banking the money away is most certainly good for the economy.
Also less taxes means more incentive to work or invest.
At the same time budget deficits are not a good thing and the level of entitlements is toxic.
I don't think the Bush tax cuts were worth it, I think they did more harm than good. Then again I don't think they were particularly harmful.
Most of the economic problems the US faces now are because of big entitlements ( which both Bush and the Democrats would have funded) , high energy prices - not Bush's fault, and the business cycle - not Bush's fault.
Rather than investing in a stimulus the US govt ought to just invest in alternative energy and coal to oil petro chemical and nuclear power plants.
The govt ought to also buy out the pension funds of the car companies and in return the car companies ought to spend what they save on alternative energy vehicles.
Unlike a stimulus the results of such actions will not only help out the US economy in the short term but also in the long run. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Republicans would love to cut taxes and spending |
Yes, we've had 30 years of them cutting taxes, but do you have any examples of them cutting spending? If so, how do you explain the 9-fold INCREASE in the federal debt?
Again, actions speak louder than words. |
You are certainly correct. Republicans lost sight of what they stood for and only worked toward their own short term self interests. The Republicans had Congress and the Executive between 2002 - 2006. You'd think that Republicans would do their best to cut spending, but they filled a lot of the budget with their own pork forgetting that there were 535 Members of Congress doing the same thing.
Which leaves the President. You'd think being the President would make you a smart guy and all. However, sadly, the president had no clue how to use a veto pen. The veto pen was a tool the framers gave the President to hold the line on spending because it was thought every Member of Congress would have their own agenda. But, alas, the president signed everything into law and the budget ballooned.
This is why fiscal conservatives, the Republican Party's largest constituency, are so upset. The Republicans had four years to reign in spending and they blew it. In fact, I see many fiscal conservatives sitting out this election cycle which is precisely why the dems will take Congress and the Executive this year.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| A state has to firmly limit what a government can spend and what on. If you don't you will get the nonsense that we have in North America: Spending on everything and anything, regardless of ideological leanings. Buy votes and help the people who helped you be in a position to buy votes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joo, I'm surprised, your suggestions sound more than a bit socialist. I agree that the government should fund alternative energy research more than they are right now. A number of states are individually putting money into renewable resources, a focus on the national level would be useful.
But you're talking around the issue. Reinvestment is NOT AS GOOD as a tax rebate to the lower levels of the economic ladder. A jump in spending drives the economy immediately. Changing the energy economy is a good step, but not one with immediate results. Both need to be done.
Pluto wrote:
| Quote: |
| Yes! The House Means and Ways Committee is where all tax bills must start. I've already documented that Charlie Rangel, the chairman, is propoing a 1.33 TRILLION DOLLAR increase in taxes. I am in agreement that I think the dems will hold on to the House, the Senate and gain the Executive. However, if you think this is the party of fiscal responsibilty and fiscal restraint, you're wrong; that is my arguement. |
Neither party is the party of fiscal responsibility and restraint. People in power do what's best for themselves and to retain power.
But as I understand it the "increase" is merely a partial repeal of the Bush tax cuts. Is it a "tax increase" to eliminate a prior "tax cut," especially one as ridiculous and one sided as Bush's? All the Dem candidates have said they'll eliminate the Bush cuts, it's just a matter of waiting until they're in office. If anything where's the love for Obama, who will shift some of that tax break to the middle and lower class. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
Pluto wrote:
| Quote: |
| Yes! The House Means and Ways Committee is where all tax bills must start. I've already documented that Charlie Rangel, the chairman, is proposing a 1.33 TRILLION DOLLAR increase in taxes. I am in agreement that I think the dems will hold on to the House, the Senate and gain the Executive. However, if you think this is the party of fiscal responsibility and fiscal restraint, you're wrong; that is my argument. |
Neither party is the party of fiscal responsibility and restraint. People in power do what's best for themselves and to retain power.
But as I understand it the "increase" is merely a partial repeal of the Bush tax cuts. Is it a "tax increase" to eliminate a prior "tax cut," especially one as ridiculous and one sided as Bush's? All the Dem candidates have said they'll eliminate the Bush cuts, it's just a matter of waiting until they're in office. If anything where's the love for Obama, who will shift some of that tax break to the middle and lower class. |
Well, honestly, I'm going to take my chances with the Republican Party. In fact, there's one who I'm actively supporting by the name of Steve Sauerberg.
I would challenge you to take a look at Rangel's proposals. 1.33 Trillion Dollars is a lot of money taken out of the economy. I'm no where close to being a billionaire, let alone a millionaire, but I just don't think people should be punished for being successful. Also, I feel that free people are better at spending money than government.
I guess you can also think of it this way. Would you rather have government with all the money or corporations investing all the money? At least you don't have to give your money to businesses, companies or corporations if you don't want to. When it comes to government taxes, you've got a choice between paying taxes or going to jail; how fair is that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Czarjorge"]Joo, I'm surprised, your suggestions sound more than a bit socialist. I agree that the government should fund alternative energy research more than they are right now. A number of states are individually putting money into renewable resources, a focus on the national level would be useful.
| Quote: |
But you're talking around the issue. Reinvestment is NOT AS GOOD as a tax rebate to the lower levels of the economic ladder. A jump in spending drives the economy immediately. Changing the energy economy is a good step, but not one with immediate results. Both need to be done.
|
Over the short term yes
Over the long run? Probably not. I think the US would be better off dealing with both problems at once. The US needs such a infrastructure anyway.
But I would hope the government would think long term. They are not of course but why ought they not.
Anyway better be at the mercy of debt than the mideast. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's clearly no consensus to be reached here so I'll have to agree to disagree. I do believe short term growth spurs long term growth, and has the added advantage of making a positive impact immediately.
As for trusting the Republican's take on spending, I would rather not. They don't have a good track record, and if tax money is going to get pissed away I would rather it go for social programs than CIA debaucles and middle eastern quagmires. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Times, January 24, 2008
US recession will trigger global slump
A full-blown, prolonged recession in the United States is now inescapable, with the rest of the world set to be dragged into a severe slowdown despite this week's emergency cut in US interest rates, leading economists said in Davos yesterday.
Some of the world's most prominent economic pundits told an opening session that the Fed's surprise three-quarter-point cut in US interest rates was already �too little, too late� to stave off recession in America. They predicted that Britain, Europe and much of Asia also now face a sharp and unavoidable economic downturn, even if they escape recession.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/wef/article3241372.ece
However, I don't see how the old maxim "When America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold" holds true anymore. We have China and India now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps an entirely America-centered view is not quite as complete as it is assumed.
Did SocGen trades trigger market rout, Fed cut?
LONDON/PARIS (Reuters) - Societe Generale's shock disclosure of a fraud that lost it $7 billion has left investors wondering about a link between the fiasco and Monday's European stock market rout.
The sharp fall, which was followed by an emergency U.S. rate cut, came as SocGen tried to close out positions built up by one of its traders.
SocGen, France's second biggest bank, said on Thursday that it had been the victim of a massive and "exceptional" fraud by a junior trader resulting in losses of 4.9 billion euros, and announced a large capital increase.
SocGen said the trader, responsible for futures hedging on European equity market indexes, had taken massive fraudulent positions in 2007 and 2008 beyond his authority.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080124/ts_nm/socgen_markets_dc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| France doesn't have anything the equivalent of Sarbanes-Oxley, do they? Hmm, maybe that act isn't so bad after all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
