State of the Union!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-


I'm not part of that group; I just believe that tax cuts should impact the lower class more.

1DE: I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure he said $300 per child, but that may be something else.

You have to pay taxes for a refund to impact you.

The child tax credit is $1000 per child now. It was raised from $600, so middle class Americans got another $400 per kid in relief.

[Zygote]

There has never been any evidence in the US that trickledown economics works. It didn't work for Reagan or Bush Sr. and it won't work for Bush Jr.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by greg
.. 1DE .....hes grown mature... how could he not have? It isnt like bush could have gotten any worse.

As a speaker!

As a teen he has to hide behind his dad and not go to war when hes drafted so he can stay and do drugs, then he gets into office and goes on a pointless rampage. That man is a sick idiot pervert.

Innuendo and rumor. He did serve in the Texas Air National Guard. He flew jets. Proof please?

A country tells him teh truth we ahve no weapons of mass destruction, Bush replies they are lying even though they arnt and send our money down the drain and kill many innocent Us soldiers and cuases pointless hell for the people of foreign countries ( Iraq etc.).

Yes, we put the Iraqis through hell. :Rolleyes: How many mass graves did we dig for our victims in Iraq? How many thousands of Kurds did we gas? How many people did our secret police take away and murder in the night?

That man is a disgrace and im movin to Canada if he gets elected again. He goes striaght from signing for the death penalty to mentally ill people in Texas to starting a war so that he can use it to convince the american people he needs to stay in office to finish his work. The last thing we need is him there. We need someone without his head up his *** to fix the problems that ignoranus has caused.

Okay, bye! By the way, juries sentence people to death, Govenors simply carry out the sentence.

Im done with my rant.... now all those idiotic bush supporters can fill this with there load of **** tryin to make that fool look like he has done anything decent.

greg

No, you did a great job making yourself look like one though!

[cphilip]

Originally posted by Zygote
There has never been any evidence in the US that trickledown economics works. It didn't work for Reagan or Bush Sr. and it won't work for Bush Jr.

Actualy it did work for both of them. Among other things as well. They were in office when the economy turned around from the Carter years. It took most of Regans term to show it. But it was evident it was fully turned around. Thats what helped Bush Sr get elected. But then again you were probably not around to remember that? In fact that turn around continued and was left untouched by Clinton. All left in place. Clinton actualy ran on that economic policy of not mucking with it his first term.

[deathstalker]

Originally posted by Miscue
I figure it this way.

Who do the lower income people work for? The people getting these tax breaks. They end up having more money to distribute to those who work for them. When companies have more money, everyone benefits. It trickles down to everyone...

I personally would rather companies to have more money, because then they can afford to produce more and hire more people. You can't do that if you're giving out hand outs to everyone.

Others have already commented on the trickle-down portion of your post, so I'd like to address the rest.

It's been my experience (read: opinion) that what you have written only occurs in an ideal world. In private companies, increased revenue results in more money in the owners' pockets. They are reluctant to hire more employees simply because revenue is up. There must be a quantifiable business need and it's more difficult than you would think to justify increased head count, because you can make the argument that the money for it is literally coming out of the owner's pockets.

In public companies, increased revenue also does not translate into more new hires, nor does it mean an equitable re-distribution of wealth. Many public companies won't hire more people because that would hurt their margins. High margins look good to Wall Street and results in increased earnings per share (EPS), which is usually what gets people to buy stock in a company, which increases the price per share. Increased EPS is usually most beneficial to those who have the most stock in a company, also known as the chief officers.

Everything a public company does is for the benefit of shareholders. It's not about customers, it's not about employees, it's all about the shareholders. It can be disheartening, but that's the reality.

As stated first, this has been my experience from working in small, private companies to large, global ones. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I'm willing to bet my informal analysis is applicable to the vast majority of business.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by deathstalker

Others have already commented on the trickle-down portion of your post, so I'd like to address the rest.

It's been my experience (read: opinion) that what you have written only occurs in an ideal world. In private companies, increased revenue results in more money in the owners' pockets. They are reluctant to hire more employees simply because revenue is up. There must be a quantifiable business need and it's more difficult than you would think to justify increased head count, because you can make the argument that the money for it is literally coming out of the owner's pockets.

In public companies, increased revenue also does not translate into more new hires, nor does it mean an equitable re-distribution of wealth. Many public companies won't hire more people because that would hurt their margins. High margins look good to Wall Street and results in increased earnings per share (EPS), which is usually what gets people to buy stock in a company, which increases the price per share. Increased EPS is usually most beneficial to those who have the most stock in a company, also known as the chief officers.

Everything a public company does is for the benefit of shareholders. It's not about customers, it's not about employees, it's all about the shareholders. It can be disheartening, but that's the reality.

As stated first, this has been my experience from working in small, private companies to large, global ones. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I'm willing to bet my informal analysis is applicable to the vast majority of business.

'xactly...the trickledown theory, in THEORY would work. that is, if the heads of companies gave a crap. they are REALLY reluctant to hire new workers; instead, they force current workers to work OT to produce more. new jobs aren't being created, yet production is increasing. that is the state of the union. but of course, myself, economists, and this guy who seems to know what he's talking about are probably completely off.

the trickleup theory, if you will, works much better. because if you pump money into the lower classes, they aren't going to stash it away in swiss bank accounts to gather interest and therefore not feed the economy (as happens when you pump the upper classes). the lower classes can't afford to save this kind of money, they have to spend it. whether to pay off a mortgage, pay for food, etc, they basically have no choice but to buy more. by buying more, the businesses have to produce more, meaning more jobs (maybe), and definitely more production. now..only if companies would stop being so greedy and stop outshipping jobs (i.e. sending jobs to india to pay people 1/3 of what the equivalent american worker would make), THEN our economy might start growing back to the clinton era. but until then, unemployment will continue to be a problem, as will many other bad things.

again, in an IDEAL world, the trickledown theory works. in this one, however, it does not.

[Miscue]

This concept is very simple.

10 businesses have X dollars. The government gives them a tax cut. Now they have X + Y dollars.

What do they do with the extra money? Do they keep it? No! They don't pilfer it like the lower brackets would do. Since their goal is to make money, they use that money to produce more. What do you need in order to produce more? More employees. Good jobs are more valuable than any tax cut or program provided to the lower brackets.

When parents make more money, that means more gifts under the tree for the kids. Very simple concept. If the parents make less money and start giving all their kids an allowance... everyone loses and has less than what you would have had... although the kids don't realize this and think they're getting a good deal.

Everything that the lower brackets enjoy from the government, is not from their taxes... it's from the wealthy. The poor may have paid for the stop sign, but the wealthy paid for the road and bridge. Don't steal from them, they are your best help but you don't realize it! Without them, you would have comparatively NOTHING!

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Restola

Just ignore everything he typed, and say some sarcastic comment. That will make you look intelligent

just like making blanket statements with no intelligence behind them makes him look intelligent

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Miscue
What do they do with the extra money? Do they keep it? No! They don't pilfer it like the lower brackets would do. Since their goal is to make money, they use that money to produce more. What do you need in order to produce more? More employees. Good jobs are more valuable than any tax cut or program provided to the lower brackets.

except...they DO keep it...in bank accounts..to gather money...and they create new jobs as a VERY last resort (i.e. when the employees start becoming seriously disgruntled about working OT every day to meet the production needs of the company). the flaw in your logic is that you need more employees to produce more. you don't. you just need more hours from each employee, which is what companies use to fulfill their needs.

[Miscue]

You make the assumption that they are greedy. Let's assume that.

For them to make the most amount of money, they CANNOT keep it. They have to use that money to generate MORE money. You're idea that increased productivity does not necessitate more jobs is totally ridiculous.


Answer this question:

In what condition do you need more employees then? Just because? In what condition can you afford more employees?

When do people get laid off? When the company is LOSING money!

[Jack_Dubious]

Well I just hope that when a company has more money to expand its operations and hire more workers, that they hire workers in *this* country.

JDub

[Zygote]

Actualy it did work for both of them. Among other things as well. They were in office when the economy turned around from the Carter years. It took most of Regans term to show it. But it was evident it was fully turned around. Thats what helped Bush Sr get elected. But then again you were probably not around to remember that? In fact that turn around continued and was left untouched by Clinton. All left in place. Clinton actualy ran on that economic policy of not mucking with it his first term.

I think you're drawing a cause-effect relationhip where none exists. It seems more like the economy recovered despite Reagan's policies, not because of them.

New jobs may be created but its increasingly likely that the new jobs will be in India or Mexico and not in the US. Rather than institute new corporate welfare laws, we should require them to pay the taxes that they're so adept at sleazing their way out of.

[cphilip]

Originally posted by Zygote


I think you're drawing a cause-effect relationhip where none exists. It seems more like the economy recovered despite Reagan's policies, not because of them.

New jobs may be created but its increasingly likely that the new jobs will be in India or Mexico and not in the US. Rather than institute new corporate welfare laws, we should require them to pay the taxes that they're so adept at sleazing their way out of.

Oh well then we can say it continued in spite of Clinton instead of because of him then.... Okey Dokey... It's your theory there not mine.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Miscue
You make the assumption that they are greedy. Let's assume that.

For them to make the most amount of money, they CANNOT keep it. They have to use that money to generate MORE money. You're idea that increased productivity does not necessitate more jobs is totally ridiculous.


Answer this question:

In what condition do you need more employees then? Just because? In what condition can you afford more employees?

When do people get laid off? When the company is LOSING money!

it's all about cost-benefit analysis. if the company can profit more by squeezing the blue collar workers rather than hiring new workers, they'll do that. the proof that it isn't ridiculous is the GDP is going up while there aren't new jobs being created. economists see this and go hey wait a minute, why is this going on? because companies are either sending jobs to other countries (laying off the equivalent american workers), or squeezing the american workers for OT. so far this has been a pretty good discussion with little to no personal attacks, can we try to keep it that way? things get accomplished much better this way.

also, miscue, think the greed of americans. our economy RELIES on our greed, and dissatisfaction with our material items, regardless of what social class you fall into. without greed, the higher-ups in companies would have no reason to produce more (because they wouldn't desire more money/power/influence). the lower/middle class citizens, without greed, would only buy what is needed and what they want, rather than constantly seeking more. without this greed, our economy would be stagnant. that's why advertisements have become unwieldy, and companies have continued to shove their products down our throats, in hopes of us buying them.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by cphilip


Oh well then we can say it continued in spite of Clinton instead of because of him then.... Okey Dokey... It's your theory there not mine.

if you analyze the economic trends of the country, it goes in pretty regular intervals. usually, the wrong people get credit for economic prosperity and economic dearth. that is, unless drastic things happen like the dot com bubble burst, the enron scandal, and bush's propsals for tax cuts, yet increased spending across the board.