What would you do?

[justinevans]

What are your solutions. All people do in here (except for a few) is just bicker and bicker and bicker about the politician they don't want in office, no matter the party. No one, not even our politicians, is willing to offer any solutions. For some of the main issues out there, what LOGICAL solutions can you come up with?

-War in Iraq
-Same-sex marriage
-Stem-cell research
-Health care
-Trade
-Education
-The "misfortuned"
-Censorship
-Protection of intellectual property
-Energy
-Minimum wage
-Social Security
-Foreign Policy

Anything else? What are your solutions and please have them be logical ones.

[we are cured]

Here we go...

Iraq: Steady withdrawl of ground and policing troops. Instead focus spending on more special forces and training units, so we can have a more effective Iraqi National military.
Same-sex marriage: Obv give couples rights, but it's not going to be called marriage.

Stem-cell: Let it go! Lives can be saved and diseases can be cured because of this. Anyone who thinks we're 'playing god' is misinformed; the advances in medicine of the past 100 years have been remarkable, so remarkable that diseases will get smarter. We have to stay ahead of the game.

Health-care: A system where everyone can get free healthcare is optimal for the people, but not optimal for the economy (right now). The cost of medical malpractice suits has to go down, and I'm not sure the government couldn't play a role in that by helping alleviate costs on doctors and hospitals.

Trade: Keep exercising comparative advantages with India and China, as well as smaller developing markets to enhance our status in the global economy as a market builder. Unfortunately some small markets will be neglected and collapse because of this policy, but in the economy there are winners and losers.

The "misfortuned": Our misfortuned or their misfortuned? The one thing that nobody should stand for is poverty. It's funny how the government takes money from the rich, but just recycles it into the government. I'd like to see a more direct transition, like for instance: In the highest tax bracket, take 2% of these taxes and allocate them to welfare and poverty reform. Maybe more. I'm not sure how we handle this currently, but nothing bothers me more than 10 year old kids hanging out in the street at 12 am because they have no place to go.

Censorship: You know, as we get more and more advanced, the government feels that it needs to protect people from curses in music, gore in video games, and online poker. Are you fucking kidding me? Let the people do as they please - if you don't want your kids to see titties in a movie or hear the word fuck in a song, be a fucking good parent and prevent this. It is not the government's job to dictate morality standards.

Intellectual property: Harness the internet, and you have your problem solved. Oh wait...that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Energy: Ethanol is a temporary solution, but I worry that too many resources will be committed to this alternate source and detract from a more immediate impact of hydrogen power when it becomes available. Invest in hydrogen, it's going to change our lives..maybe not as quickly as we'd like, but it's going to happen.

Min Wage: Not really sure where I stand here...if you raise it, you're taking money away from businesses that could be committed in other endeavors, thus weakening their potential for profits. Lower it, that 340 pound bitch that works the 10pm-7am at McDonalds is going to lose some weight. Maybe.

Social Security: Tough to fix this. Privatization is certainly a risk, but it's one that I would take considering I'll probably never see a SS check under the current status quo.

Foreign Policy: Saving the best for last....this is a tough thing to fix. We overcommitted ourselves to two different rebuilding projects, both which would have required more money than we had to commit to even one. It's pretty clear that the Arab world hates us and our 'imperialist' ways, but you can't leave a terrorist breeding ground when you're in a 'war on terror'; there are just too many avenues of communication open to intelligence that can score us some big points against these terrorists. Keep it simple and slowly withdraw from both places, but concentrate more forces in Afghanistan. It's arguable that our chance at effectiveness is much higher over there, with a decent commitment of troops, than Iraq. Further our relationship with China, to keep NK and Russia in check.

That's about it. I probably misrepresented myself on a couple of points but feel free to comment.

[justinevans]

Here we go...

Iraq: Steady withdrawl of ground and policing troops. Instead focus spending on more special forces and training units, so we can have a more effective Iraqi National military.
Same-sex marriage: Obv give couples rights, but it's not going to be called marriage.

Stem-cell: Let it go! Lives can be saved and diseases can be cured because of this. Anyone who thinks we're 'playing god' is misinformed; the advances in medicine of the past 100 years have been remarkable, so remarkable that diseases will get smarter. We have to stay ahead of the game.

Health-care: A system where everyone can get free healthcare is optimal for the people, but not optimal for the economy (right now). The cost of medical malpractice suits has to go down, and I'm not sure the government couldn't play a role in that by helping alleviate costs on doctors and hospitals.

Trade: Keep exercising comparative advantages with India and China, as well as smaller developing markets to enhance our status in the global economy as a market builder. Unfortunately some small markets will be neglected and collapse because of this policy, but in the economy there are winners and losers.

The "misfortuned": Our misfortuned or their misfortuned? The one thing that nobody should stand for is poverty. It's funny how the government takes money from the rich, but just recycles it into the government. I'd like to see a more direct transition, like for instance: In the highest tax bracket, take 2% of these taxes and allocate them to welfare and poverty reform. Maybe more. I'm not sure how we handle this currently, but nothing bothers me more than 10 year old kids hanging out in the street at 12 am because they have no place to go.

Censorship: You know, as we get more and more advanced, the government feels that it needs to protect people from curses in music, gore in video games, and online poker. Are you fucking kidding me? Let the people do as they please - if you don't want your kids to see titties in a movie or hear the word fuck in a song, be a fucking good parent and prevent this. It is not the government's job to dictate morality standards.

Intellectual property: Harness the internet, and you have your problem solved. Oh wait...that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Energy: Ethanol is a temporary solution, but I worry that too many resources will be committed to this alternate source and detract from a more immediate impact of hydrogen power when it becomes available. Invest in hydrogen, it's going to change our lives..maybe not as quickly as we'd like, but it's going to happen.

Min Wage: Not really sure where I stand here...if you raise it, you're taking money away from businesses that could be committed in other endeavors, thus weakening their potential for profits. Lower it, that 340 pound bitch that works the 10pm-7am at McDonalds is going to lose some weight. Maybe.

Social Security: Tough to fix this. Privatization is certainly a risk, but it's one that I would take considering I'll probably never see a SS check under the current status quo.

Foreign Policy: Saving the best for last....this is a tough thing to fix. We overcommitted ourselves to two different rebuilding projects, both which would have required more money than we had to commit to even one. It's pretty clear that the Arab world hates us and our 'imperialist' ways, but you can't leave a terrorist breeding ground when you're in a 'war on terror'; there are just too many avenues of communication open to intelligence that can score us some big points against these terrorists. Keep it simple and slowly withdraw from both places, but concentrate more forces in Afghanistan. It's arguable that our chance at effectiveness is much higher over there, with a decent commitment of troops, than Iraq. Further our relationship with China, to keep NK and Russia in check.

That's about it. I probably misrepresented myself on a couple of points but feel free to comment.

I didn't get to read this yet and I probably won't until tomorrow, cause I am studying for the Series 7 exam. Thanks for taking the time.

I did read about Ethanol, and ethanol is not a temporary source because our ethanol sucks compared to countries with sugar cane. Also, Ethanol is almost as expensive, most of the time more expensive, as oil, but less powerful. Sorry I went to an automotive school partially (well a school with alot of auto courses and dealer's sons and daughters) so I had to do a project on this.

It is another source we'll have to import for it to be worth it. 100% of our corn-based ethanol will only supply 20% of the driving population. Anyway, I'll let you know how I feel with a majority of your other ideas tomorrow. I'm sure we'll agree on most of them.

[jsteil]

I second what was said above, except for ethanol, if brazil can do it, so can we.

[selftitled85]

What are your solutions. All people do in here (except for a few) is just bicker and bicker and bicker about the politician they don't want in office, no matter the party. No one, not even our politicians, is willing to offer any solutions. For some of the main issues out there, what LOGICAL solutions can you come up with?

-War in Iraq
-Same-sex marriage
-Stem-cell research
-Health care
-Trade
-Education
-The "misfortuned"
-Censorship
-Protection of intellectual property
-Energy
-Minimum wage
-Social Security
-Foreign Policy

Anything else? What are your solutions and please have them be logical ones.


-War in Iraq: Send more troops, give them more armor, allow for more time of leave to let their morale return. hold open forums around the country to see how everyone feels Open up contracts to foreign countries to entice them to get involved.
-Same-sex marriage: People should be able to marry who they want
-Stem-cell research: We need it. If abortion is legal...then dammit this should too.
-Health care: Honestly i dont know enough on this to make a correct statement
-Trade: Work on our alternative resources to help us get off of oil. We have a huge deficit, we need to start exporting more. Unfortunately the only way to do that would be to devalue our currency to make our exports a lot cheaper.
-Education: I would see if we could find ways to bring some of the best private school teachers to areas that need help. Maybe they would do better. Also, the government should be willing to shell out more cash for fixing up schools, paying salaries, etc.
-The "misfortuned": i have no clue
-Censorship: Well honestly there is no problem with censorship now. we can bitch and moan all we want but its not like we are getting in trouble for it.
-Protection of intellectual property: i dont knw
-Energy: we need alt. resources. we also need to work to get the us off a grid system. right now we are on a system in which if you cut off the main source then pretty much half the country loses power...ie: the east coast power failure a couple years ago. it is susceptible to terrorism and if it is attacked we would pretty much be brought back to the stone age.
-Minimum wage: raise
-Social Security: dont know enough about
-Foreign Policy: people think we need to take a less international approach. they are wrong. that is why we were attacked. america needs to stay involved in the world...we just need to know when to act and when to just try and lend a hand. we need to stop acting like we own the world and work for more peace and international cooperation. i read an article about how the key to international cooperation is trust. right now, no one trusts the us...so they act in their own best interest. we need to gain the trust back and maybe then we will all live peacefully. or at least more peaceful.

[justinevans]

I second what was said above, except for ethanol, if brazil can do it, so can we.

brazil has sugar cane and we don't have a real huge supply.

their driving population is also far less.

[FScott]

sounds like someone is a little jeaaaaaaaalous

[thejetstolehome]

What are your solutions. All people do in here (except for a few) is just bicker and bicker and bicker about the politician they don't want in office, no matter the party. No one, not even our politicians, is willing to offer any solutions. For some of the main issues out there, what LOGICAL solutions can you come up with?

-War in Iraq
-Same-sex marriage
-Stem-cell research
-Health care
-Trade
-Education
-The "misfortuned"
-Censorship
-Protection of intellectual property
-Energy
-Minimum wage
-Social Security
-Foreign Policy

Anything else? What are your solutions and please have them be logical ones.

the war: try and set some kind of date for the iraquis to take over and EVENTUALLY reduce troop numbers. though our presence there does create some sense of stability, i think the longer we stay, the longer it's going to take for the country to stabalize itself once we do drastically cut back our presence.

same sex marriage: push for some re-definition of marriage to allow gays to get married and hold the same civil rights as anyone else.

stem cell research: legalize it and fund it.

health-care: freedom of choice is important here in america so i would keep the choice there. i don't know how realistic any of this is but i'd try to set up something that says "if you're below this line and can't pay for healthcare, we'll provide it for you and if you're above that line, you find your own private healthecare."


that's what i've got so far. i'll think of more later.

[justinevans]

the war: try and set some kind of date for the iraquis to take over and EVENTUALLY reduce troop numbers. though our presence there does create some sense of stability, i think the longer we stay, the longer it's going to take for the country to stabalize itself once we do drastically cut back our presence.

same sex marriage: push for some re-definition of marriage to allow gays to get married and hold the same civil rights as anyone else.

stem cell research: legalize it and fund it.

health-care: freedom of choice is important here in america so i would keep the choice there. i don't know how realistic any of this is but i'd try to set up something that says "if you're below this line and can't pay for healthcare, we'll provide it for you and if you're above that line, you find your own private healthecare."


that's what i've got so far. i'll think of more later.

it's called medicaid?

[justinevans]

sounds like someone is a little jeaaaaaaaalous

jealous of what?

[thejetstolehome]

it's called medicaid?

i'm saying to mandate it as well. make health insurance like car insurance--everyone HAS to have it.

[justinevans]

i'm saying to mandate it as well. make health insurance like car insurance--everyone HAS to have it.

yeah, but not everyone has auto insurance?

However, the point is that there is options out there, but people only go for things put right in their face or show a real money valuation.

[cal1082]

-War in Iraq------ Keep training Iraqis, keep working on the infrastructure

-Same-sex marriage------ Allow states to decide

-Stem-cell research-------- Keep government funding out of it then reconsider once more headway is made

-Health care------- Better record keeping, put a cap on lawsuits, make generic brands and Canadian drugs more easily obtainable

-Trade------- The more free trade the better

-Education-------- Bring it down more on a state and local level

-Energy------- more nuclear power

-Minimum wage--------leave it alone and dont raise it

-Social Security--------no particular plan, but someone fix it where it's not pointless

[Love As Arson]

-War in Iraq : Immediate withdrawal

-Same-sex marriage: Make it legal in all states

-Stem-cell research: Devote more funding.

-Health care: Nationalise it.

-Trade: Fair trade, that is, trade which materially benefits the working class.

-Education: Eradicate No Child Left Behind and distribute the collection of property tax dollars equally throughout all schools.

-The "misfortuned": More socialistic programs.

-Censorship: Let people do and see whatever it is that they desire.

-Energy: First, end entanglements with oil corporations. I also agree with Cal about nuclear energy.

-Minimum wage: Raise it

-Social Security: It will resolve itself. The crisis is largely a myth.

-Foreign Policy: Treat others as you would like to be treated.

[Justin_stacy]

.

-War in Iraq.........Reorganize the 200,000 troops stationed abroad. Pull ninety percent of the 80,000 soldiers in Germany out, they have no purpose there. Pull all but a few thousand of the 30,000 troops in Korea out and guaranty Korea nuclear support in case of an attack, 50 years is long enough for them to protect themselves.

Take this 100,000 or so fresh career troops and place them in Iraq and Afghanistan, and cycle out anyone whose been on the ground for more then a year. From there split the nation of Iraq in three, the hope for a Yugoslavia type nation in the Middle East isn't going to happen with out brutal force (saddum/baathes).

Leave the north where the Kurds are alone, they don’t need our help and can form a democracy on their own. For the other two territories, split the American and National troops in two and give them six months to crush the insurgence with less restricted force. After that, a new election has to be set up, the old puppet regime in Baghdad is never going to get the support of the people. With the new election give the people a choice of a unified nation, two independent nations, a democracy, a theocracy or an oligarchy political system, and a vote on whether they want American support for up to but not exceeding one more year.

No matter what we do were not getting out within two years, its just no possible way with all we’ve invested. So we should do what we can to win. We have too many troops stationed abroad doing nothing and to many part time soldiers in Iraq, reversing this and giving them an end creating approach which could pull us over the hump in Iraq.

simplicity from here on......

-Same-sex marriage....this is already lost. At one time a compromise could have been reached, but that period has long since pasted.

-Health care.......an independent minded nation will never take to a universal health care system, but we need an optional safety net for children under 18 and individual in educational institutions under 25 years of age. A nation has a responsibility to protect its vulnerable and those attempting to be productive citizens. Adult health care has to be left to the marketplace and employers, Washington can’t handle both, and at a certain stage people have to be expected to fend, with in reason, for themselves.

-Trade.......end NAFTA!!!! And impose high import taxes and quotas in comparison to what Japan, China and the EU puts on our products, equality in trade is the only way to create a balanced trade.

-Education.....take it out the hands of Washington and put control back in the hands of local and state governments. People close to home understand better what their children need to learn and there is no universal how to manual for education.

- The "misfortuned".......the dilemma here is to make working, even at its lowest form, more appealing then being on the publics dime, without cutting the essential support.

The focus therefore has to be on accountable support. Drug testing, time limits, itemized receipting, annual audits, substance over dollars, and work related training and community service. There has to be a trade off for the support, society has to know that the money is being put to work in a way that will do more then just sustain an individual at their current impoverished level, but help allow them to better themselves and bring themselves out of poverty.

-Energy.....Nuclear, Nuclear, Nuclear, and more home land drilling. All the research in the world won’t do shit to help us for at least 25 years and we have to get off foreign oil now. That means ANWAR has to be opened, there’s no rational reason for it not to be, the gulf coast drilling has to be expanded, and the coast of California has to be developed.

- Social Security ......were fucked, were fucked. There is no way to save it. The young don’t understand it won’t last in its current form and the old vote in to big of blocks to put forth any kind of reform. The only thing we can do is handle our funds in such a way that we won’t need government hand outs in our retirement.

-Foreign Policy....Stop being the worlds 9-1-1. Our military being where it is (in over 170 different nations) is what’s causing the resentment. We have enough problems at home to worry about and our own borders to protect.

[cal1082]

-War in Iraq : Immediate withdrawal

-Same-sex marriage: Make it legal in all states

-Stem-cell research: Devote more funding.

-Health care: Nationalise it.

-Trade: Fair trade, that is, trade which materially benefits the working class.

-Education: Eradicate No Child Left Behind and distribute the collection of property tax dollars equally throughout all schools.

-The "misfortuned": More socialistic programs.

-Censorship: Let people do and see whatever it is that they desire.

-Energy: First, end entanglements with oil corporations. I also agree with Cal about nuclear energy.

-Minimum wage: Raise it

-Social Security: It will resolve itself. The crisis is largely a myth.

-Foreign Policy: Treat others as you would like to be treated.

For as much as we complain about the national debt and Bush's spending many liberals really do wish to put more power and responsiblity in the hands of national politicians.

I assume your argument would be to raise the taxes on the wealthy but we could not practicaly raise it enough to pay for your governmental desires. Also, assuming you realisticaly could raise it that much it would completely handicap the wealthy that provide jobs for the rest.

[MotionIsntMeaning]

For as much as we complain about the national debt and Bush's spending many liberals really do wish to put more power and responsiblity in the hands of national politicians.

I assume your argument would be to raise the taxes on the wealthy but we could not practicaly raise it enough to pay for your governmental desires. Also, assuming you realisticaly could raise it that much it would completely handicap the wealthy that provide jobs for the rest.

What has more benefit to the country, giving a $630 billion tax cut to the richest 1% of the country or providing national services to people who actually need them? Add to that $340 billion cost of the Iraq war and you have almost a trillion dollars that could have been used to help out the country. Granted, that will not pay for everything but it is a pretty good start. The American public seems to have finally realized that the Bush administration has done nothing positive for the vast majority of the population.

[Love As Arson]

For as much as we complain about the national debt and Bush's spending many liberals really do wish to put more power and responsiblity in the hands of national politicians.
These are merely reforms. I actually desire to see the power of government given to the people.


I assume your argument would be to raise the taxes on the wealthy but we could not practicaly raise it enough to pay for your governmental desires. Also, assuming you realisticaly could raise it that much it would completely handicap the wealthy that provide jobs for the rest.
Rescind all of the Bush tax cuts, increase taxes on corporations, close tax loopholes, tax US-based companies that outsource, end imperialistic endeavors and cease supporting Israel. That is a great place to start. Nations that have a lower GDP than ourselves are able to do it, I doubt that America would be unable to proceed as well.

[justinevans]

-War in Iraq------ Keep training Iraqis, keep working on the infrastructure

-Same-sex marriage------ Allow states to decide

-Stem-cell research-------- Keep government funding out of it then reconsider once more headway is made

-Health care------- Better record keeping, put a cap on lawsuits, make generic brands and Canadian drugs more easily obtainable

-Trade------- The more free trade the better

-Education-------- Bring it down more on a state and local level

-Energy------- more nuclear power

-Minimum wage--------leave it alone and dont raise it

-Social Security--------no particular plan, but someone fix it where it's not pointless

Canadian drugs are American drugs minus all the R&D
Canada hasn't really made a drug since the 40's

[justinevans]

I'll touch on everything later. Celebrating today.

[cal1082]

What has more benefit to the country, giving a $630 billion tax cut to the richest 1% of the country or providing national services to people who actually need them?

You can argue either way. Both would end up helping those that actually need the help. Also from a fair perspective if there is a tax cut it should go to those that pay the most.

I'm of the mindset that government hand outs do more harm than good.

I'm simply saying for as much as people complain about a powerful government many of really wish to give them more money and more power.

[cal1082]

These are merely reforms. I actually desire to see the power of government given to the people.


Rescind all of the Bush tax cuts, increase taxes on corporations, close tax loopholes, tax US-based companies that outsource, end imperialistic endeavors and cease supporting Israel. That is a great place to start. Nations that have a lower GDP than ourselves are able to do it, I doubt that America would be unable to proceed as well.

Yes, tax the corporations more, tax the rich more and make them pay for an even larger percentage than they do now and see who you hurt the worst........rich or the middle class and poor!
(I can promise you it won't be the rich........they'll still be rich)

[Love As Arson]

Yes, tax the corporations more, tax the rich more and make them pay for an even larger percentage than they do now and see who you hurt the worst........rich or the middle class and poor!
(I can promise you it won't be the rich........they'll still be rich)
The rich have been granted protection under this administration and workers have not faired well. As has been said, keep the taxes high on the rich and provide tax cuts to the poor and middle class, who will actually use it.

[Brett9]

I think I'll add my two cents in a little while, but as for this:
The rich have been granted protection under this administration and workers have not faired well. As has been said, keep the taxes high on the rich and provide tax cuts to the poor and middle class, who will actually use it.

Believe me, I am the furthest thing from "rich", but I really do hate this argument, for a number of reasons:
1) Is it really a smart thing to TAX success? (Read: punish success). If you succeed in anything in life, would it be right to take away some of your success to give it to those who have not succeeded? What are the incentives to succeed if you know you'll be punished for it (and have to pay higher taxes)?

2) The rich did not become rich because they are stupid. Most of them are brilliant businessmen and women. If you raise taxes on the rich, they will automatically shelter their money from the taxes. It doesn't matter what "loopholes" you close - the rich will always be able to "invest" their money wherever they can to shelter it from taxes as much as possible. That's how they've become rich.

3) The middle class owes their very existence to the rich. If it weren't for the big shot corporations, where would people work? It's up to you how you want to live your life - if you don't want to start your own business, you need to work for someone else. If the rich didn't exist, the middle class (and poor) would be in huge trouble. It is the individual's decision to remain in the middle class, or to take risks to make serious money on his or her own.

4) When taxes are low on wealth, the wealth is invested into the economy. This grows the economy. This adds jobs. This helps the middle class and poor. Just look at the economy we have today - which is one of the greatest economies in recent history...just look at all the stats.

5) When you tax something, you get less of it. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. With the Bush tax cuts, TAX REVENUES have been at their highest levels in history (relative). From a New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09econ.html?ei=5088&en=ec2d242da8699725&ex=1310097600&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1163103508-kiCewN5K1xYYQfdjjAoE5Q): "Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year. The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses."

Overall, that's why I disagree with "taxing the rich". Sure, they can afford it. But you need to look at the actual implications of doing it. You're actually going to get less revenue, fewer jobs, lower stock prices, and higher unemployment. Don't just take "common sense" for what it's worth..."tax the rich" sounds good in theory, but fails miserably in the real world.

[we are cured]

3) The middle class owes their very existence to the rich. If it weren't for the big shot corporations, where would people work? It's up to you how you want to live your life - if you don't want to start your own business, you need to work for someone else. If the rich didn't exist, the middle class (and poor) would be in huge trouble. It is the individual's decision to remain in the middle class, or to take risks to make serious money on his or her own.

4) When taxes are low on wealth, the wealth is invested into the economy. This grows the economy. This adds jobs. This helps the middle class and poor. Just look at the economy we have today - which is one of the greatest economies in recent history...just look at all the stats.

I typed up an entire response to this...but this will suffice:

You are a fucking moron.

[cal1082]

The rich have been granted protection under this administration and workers have not faired well. As has been said, keep the taxes high on the rich and provide tax cuts to the poor and middle class, who will actually use it.

What are you talking about? Actually use it!

First, let me just say I'm for tax relief for all, but simply giving it to the poor and middle class does not help the economy at all. You want to give it to those that will filter it back into the economy to expand the economy. You might see some of that with the middle class but not with the lower classes. The richest one % are the ones that expand jobs to the rest of us.

Also how can you possibly say the workers have not faired well. Jobs are about at an all time low and average hourly earnings for production workers have risen consistently since the end of '03.

http://stats.bls.gov/

[cal1082]

I typed up an entire response to this...but this will suffice:

You are a fucking moron.

I believe the moron would be the one who doesnt understand how taxes work.

The basic goal of a good tax system is to tax the most amount of people at the lowest rate possible. Most of the taxes in our society is payed by a small, small percentage of people. These are also the same people that look to get more money by building more stores, expanding merchandise, building more distrubtion center, or simply investing it back into the economy.

You can give all the money you want to the lower class and middle class but you won't see the expansion in our economy. For the most part they won't by large consumer products, and the money will simply end up back in circulation.

I would love to hear the man calling someone else a moron explain how taking more money from those that are already paying the bulk of taxes, then transfering that to the lower classes will improve the economy?

[Love As Arson]

1) Is it really a smart thing to TAX success? (Read: punish success). If you succeed in anything in life, would it be right to take away some of your success to give it to those who have not succeeded? What are the incentives to succeed if you know you'll be punished for it (and have to pay higher taxes)?
If you accumulate wealth based upon exploitation and the way in which the system is constructed, you must pay more.


2) The rich did not become rich because they are stupid. Most of them are brilliant businessmen and women. If you raise taxes on the rich, they will automatically shelter their money from the taxes. It doesn't matter what "loopholes" you close - the rich will always be able to "invest" their money wherever they can to shelter it from taxes as much as possible. That's how they've become rich.[/B]
Actually, the majority of wealth is inherited.


3) The middle class owes their very existence to the rich. If it weren't for the big shot corporations, where would people work? It's up to you how you want to live your life - if you don't want to start your own business, you need to work for someone else. If the rich didn't exist, the middle class (and poor) would be in huge trouble. It is the individual's decision to remain in the middle class, or to take risks to make serious money on his or her own.[/B]
If the rich didn't exist, the poor would be fine, as they have the skills with which they are able to survive. On the other hand, if the rich did not have the workers, they would be unable to produce wealth.



4) When taxes are low on wealth, the wealth is invested into the economy. This grows the economy. This adds jobs. This helps the middle class and poor. Just look at the economy we have today - which is one of the greatest economies in recent history...just look at all the stats.[/B]
The rich do not reinvest their money, they tend to conserve it. The poor and middle class actually buy things. True, the economy is doing well, but only for those that are already in the top one percent.


5) When you tax something, you get less of it. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. With the Bush tax cuts, TAX REVENUES have been at their highest levels in history (relative). From a New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09econ.html?ei=5088&en=ec2d242da8699725&ex=1310097600&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1163103508-kiCewN5K1xYYQfdjjAoE5Q): "Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year. The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses."
The result of a tax cut, which was not collected until recently. It will also have to go entirely towards the deficit Bush created.

[Love As Arson]

What are you talking about? Actually use it!

First, let me just say I'm for tax relief for all, but simply giving it to the poor and middle class does not help the economy at all. You want to give it to those that will filter it back into the economy to expand the economy. You might see some of that with the middle class but not with the lower classes. The richest one % are the ones that expand jobs to the rest of us.
The rich spend their time sheltering their money, not investing it.


Also how can you possibly say the workers have not faired well. Jobs are about at an all time low and average hourly earnings for production workers have risen consistently since the end of '03.
If you're net worth is a mere $999 million, forget it. A billion means a thousand million, and that's the Forbes 400 minimum -- up from $900 million in 2005.

Donald Trump and two of his kids grace the Forbes 400 cover, but ranked No. 94 with $2.9 billion, Trump's a long way from No. 1 Bill Gates with $53 billion.

The combined wealth of the 400 richest Americans is a record-breaking $1.25 trillion. That's about the same amount of combined wealth held by the 57 million households who make up half the U.S. population.

The economy is booming for billionaires. It's a bust for many other Americans.

A record 400 Americans are billionaires -- and a record 47 million Americans have no health insurance.

America has 400 billionaires -- and 37 million people below the official poverty line.

The official poverty line for one person was just $9,973 in 2005 (latest data). That wouldn't cover the custom-made men's shoes ($4,128) and Hermes purse ($6,250) on the Forbes Cost of Living Extremely Well Index. The official poverty line of $15,577 for a three-person family is lower than the cost of the Patek Philippe men's gold watch ($17,600).

The Forbes 400 minimum is up $100 million since 2005, but the federal minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an hour -- just $10,712 a year -- since 1997. GOP leaders in Congress have been holding a raise for minimum wage workers hostage to more giant tax cuts for wealthy inheritors.

Wealth isn't trickling down. It's flooding up -- from workers to bosses, small investors to big, poorer to richer.

The heirs to Wal-Mart founders Sam and Bud Walton have a combined $82.5 billion -- while the children of Wal-Mart workers swell the ranks of state health insurance programs for the neediest.

In today's corporate America, workers see gutted paychecks and pensions despite rising worker productivity, while CEOs get golden pay, perks, pensions and parachutes. The pay gap between average workers and CEOs has grown nine times wider since the 1970s.

The number of billionaires is a record high, but the share of national income going to wages and salaries is at a record low.

U.S. corporate profits increased 21 percent in the past year, Market Watch reported in March. "Profits have been so high because almost all of the benefits from productivity improvements are flowing to the owners of capital rather than to the workers," said Market Watch.

The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans (minimum net worth $6 million) owned 62 percent of the nation's business assets, 51 percent of stocks and 70 percent of bonds as of 2004, according to the latest data from the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances -- which excludes the Forbes 400. That's way up from 1989, when the wealthiest 1 percent owned 54 percent of business assets, 41 percent of stocks and 52 percent of bonds.

Our growing economy is not producing a growing middle class, but a richer aristocracy.

The high point for median household income -- the income of the household in the middle -- was $47,671 in 1999, adjusted for inflation. In 2005, median household income was $1,345 less at $46,326. In the same period, the Forbes 400 gained more than 100 billionaires.

Government policies are fueling rising inequality. Taxpayers with incomes above $1 million will see their after-tax income grow by about 6 percent this year thanks to tax cuts the nation can't afford.

In an economy where money is flowing up to the very top, even college-educated workers are going backward. Inflation-adjusted median household income was lower in 2005 than 1999 even when the householder had a bachelor's degree, master's degree, professional degree or doctorate.

The problem is much bigger than the rich getting richer, while the poor get poorer. The really rich are getting richer at the expense of most everyone else.

Solutions include restoring the link between rising worker productivity and pay, raising the miserly minimum wage, narrowing the obscene pay gap between workers and CEOs, rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy -- and stop taxing income from work more than income from capital gains.

[we are cured]

I would love to hear the man calling someone else a moron explain how taking more money from those that are already paying the bulk of taxes, then transfering that to the lower classes will improve the economy?

First of all, I called him a moron because he said that the middle class owes their very existence to the rich. In capitalism, it is actually the other way around; if it was up to the rich, they would suck all the money out of the middle class until it didn't exist! Free market capitalistic systems depend on the exploitation of the middle class; the rich derive their money from this class (in the form of competitive capitalism and interest), and in a natural system without government interference - this capital would eventually be transferred to the richest segment of the population. The poor will obviously always exist, and the rich will always exist, but the middle class owes their existence to organized government and more specifically, the income tax.

I'm not saying 'more money' should be taken from the upper classes...but the idea that giving money back to the rich so that they can invest it in society is flawed, because of the ability to make money WITHOUT injecting it back into the economy (i.e. interest). The government needs to be involved to keep the middle class afloat and allow for people to make the jump from middle class to the upper class (and I'm talking about economics here, not social status). 70% taxes? No, keep them the way they are, but cut domestic spending and focus it on poverty reduction. I don't know if you're rich, broke, or whatever, but you can't deny that starving children are undeserving of their status quo.

[we are cured]

The basic goal of a good tax system is to tax the most amount of people at the lowest rate possible. Most of the taxes in our society is payed by a small, small percentage of people. These are also the same people that look to get more money by building more stores, expanding merchandise, building more distrubtion center, or simply investing it back into the economy.

You can give all the money you want to the lower class and middle class but you won't see the expansion in our economy. For the most part they won't by large consumer products, and the money will simply end up back in circulation.

Trickle-down economics doesn't work, even in a boom. In theory it was a great idea, until it was applied.

I don't believe the rich should be getting taxed at ridiculous rates like 77%, but 40% is certainly fine when the other 60% of their income can generate enough wealth to let them sit on their asses every day for the rest of their lives.

[Brett9]

I typed up an entire response to this...but this will suffice:

You are a fucking moron.
It's nice to see such sophisticated responses to arguments. You know, they say that people result to insults when they have no other answer. Thanks for proving the point. ;-)

EDIT: I found this response after I made the post: 70% taxes? No, keep them the way they are, but cut domestic spending and focus it on poverty reduction. I don't know if you're rich, broke, or whatever, but you can't deny that starving children are undeserving of their status quo.
In keeping with the theme of this thread, what would you do to "focus more money on poverty reduction"? Sounds great to me...but how would you address the problem?

I believe the moron would be the one who doesnt understand how taxes work.
:headbang:

If you accumulate wealth based upon exploitation and the way in which the system is constructed, you must pay more. First of all, what exploitation are you talking about? Do you like your car? If you weren't "exploited" for your need to have a car, then you wouldn't have a car...companies respond to the NEEDS of people and fill those needs in order to make a profit. That is called capitalism. It's why America is the strongest economy in the world, and always will be.

Actually, the majority of wealth is inherited. I notice there's no proof to your claim. According to the book "The Millionaire Next Door (http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/dp/0671015206/sr=8-1/qid=1163176610/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5260500-4712607?ie=UTF8&s=books)", research has uncovered that:

* Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.

* Fewer than 20 percent of millionaires inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.

* More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.

* Fewer than 25 percent ever received "an act of kindness" of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.

* Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.

* Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives.

* Fewer than 10 percent believe they will ever receive an inheritance in the future.


If the rich didn't exist, the poor would be fine, as they have the skills with which they are able to survive. On the other hand, if the rich did not have the workers, they would be unable to produce wealth. I do agree with you on the bold part of that argument...everybody has a place in this society, and it is your choice whether to be at the bottom, the middle, or the top (though most people would find this idea offensive, that somehow you control your own destiny). I, personally, am right now on the bottom/middle. But I know that in this country, I can make it to the top if I really want to, and plan on getting there one day. However, the idea that the "poor would be fine" without the rich is ridiculous. I know what you mean, that they have "survival" skills...but what good would they do if there was no place to live, no food to eat, no clothes to wear, no church to seek refuge in, etc. The rich are the people who build the place to live, grow the food to eat, make the clothes to wear...you get the point. So you need a part of the society to be the upper class - to produce the goods for the lower class. It is the responsibility of the private sector (not government) to take care of the less fortunate among us (meaning churches, organizations, and individuals).


The rich do not reinvest their money, they tend to conserve it. The poor and middle class actually buy things. True, the economy is doing well, but only for those that are already in the top one percent. You're absolutely right - the rich do tend to conserve their money. But in order to do that, they invest it SOMEHOW. They obviously don't go and hoard the money under their mattress - they invest in stock, mutual funds, real estate (especially), gold, international funds, business ventures, etc. It's not all put into a bank account to collect dust. The rich ARE rich because their money is CONSTANTLY GROWING. These investments create jobs, boost the economy, and therefore create more jobs (among many other benefits).


The result of a tax cut, which was not collected until recently. It will also have to go entirely towards the deficit Bush created.Agreed, the deficit is ridiculous. As a conservative, I hate it. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the tax revenues were collected. If the tax cuts weren't working, wouldn't we expect to see a LOWER tax revenue in the end? We obviously have one of the highest amounts of tax revenue in history...something must be working.

[justinevans]

America's economy could be so much stronger if we cared more about the long-term than quarterly.

We do not have the strongest economy either.

[we are cured]

It's nice to see such sophisticated responses to arguments. You know, they say that people result to insults when they have no other answer. Thanks for proving the point. ;-)Nice smiley there buddy. Anyway i insulted you because I was in a rush to head out of work, and I found your comment that 'the middle class needs the rich to survive' a little ridiculous. You have a conservative viewpoint, so you will always be able to support that claim in one way or another (i.e. do you like your honda, do your like your house, etc.), but I do not believe that statement is not as strong as 'the rich need the middle class to thrive.' The rich will always exist, and the poor will always exist, but the middle class is a paradox associated with (generally, i'm including social democracies too) free market capitalism and a free society. The middle class do not need the rich, but are supported by a society in which the concentration of money enables technological advancements and societal improvement at rapid rates, and their attraction to the goods created out of these processes. Obviously without certain corporations, we wouldn't have any of the technology we use on a regular basis today. However, their existences are merely a natural occurrence in this type of society; the middle class exists because of the ability to independently accumulate money, and in these types of societies the 'poor' and the 'middle class' are separated by this very function -as opposed to the feudal era, when birth status determined your role in the world.

EDIT: I found this response after I made the post:
In keeping with the theme of this thread, what would you do to "focus more money on poverty reduction"? Sounds great to me...but how would you address the problem? Instead of putting people on welfare and keeping them there, build more shelters and food banks in impoverished areas with access to social counselors and counseling centers with the main job of getting these people into society. Feed people with the taxes.


First of all, what exploitation are you talking about? Do you like your car? If you weren't "exploited" for your need to have a car, then you wouldn't have a car...companies respond to the NEEDS of people and fill those needs in order to make a profit.Exploitation is the equivalence of time spend working to money. You're paying somebody a $x for x hours, that means their time can be quantified. When humans working for a business produce something, they're producing a good that can also be quantified. The problem is the return on the good is never rewarded to the worker. The worker is paid per hour, and generates an income far inferior to the income generated from the good he or she produces. But the relationship of dollars to time and dollars to good is skewed heavily in favor of the corporation, which is the theoretical reason for exploitation.

It works because people generally do not have the desire to specialize in a field and run their own enterprise, and they do not have the ability to enter a market that has been restricted by the existence of large corporations.

That is why America is the strongest economy in the world, and always will be. ^^^^^^paraphrased this because I x'd out of it.

America is the strongest economy in the world because it was the first to harness the early stages of globalization. America will not always be the strongest economy in the world, because a.) every domestic economy system has its rise and fall, and b.) the global economy is still in its early stages. Other countries' domestic economies will gradually grow enough to harness their own comparative advantages and not depend on the United States to facilitate trade. Eventually you will have major players all over the globe, not just the United States and China. They will not be major by today's standards, but the field will level out some way or another.

[I notice there's no proof to your claim. According to the book "The Millionaire Next Door (http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/dp/0671015206/sr=8-1/qid=1163176610/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5260500-4712607?ie=UTF8&s=books)", research has uncovered that:

* Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.

* Fewer than 20 percent of millionaires inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.

* More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.

* Fewer than 25 percent ever received "an act of kindness" of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.

* Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.

* Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives.

* Fewer than 10 percent believe they will ever receive an inheritance in the future.85% of all statistics are wrong. Probably including that one..lol. Seriously, just because someone doesn't receive inheritence from their parents, doesn't mean that they won't benefit from their rich parents
status in society. You know how they say you're born into a certain job?

I do agree with you on the bold part of that argument...everybody has a place in this society, and it is your choice whether to be at the bottom, the middle, or the top (though most people would find this idea offensive, that somehow you control your own destiny). I, personally, am right now on the bottom/middle. But I know that in this country, I can make it to the top if I really want to, and plan on getting there one day. However, the idea that the "poor would be fine" without the rich is ridiculous. I know what you mean, that they have "survival" skills...but what good would they do if there was no place to live, no food to eat, no clothes to wear, no church to seek refuge in, etc. The rich are the people who build the place to live, grow the food to eat, make the clothes to wear...you get the point. So you need a part of the society to be the upper class - to produce the goods for the lower class. It is the responsibility of the private sector (not government) to take care of the less fortunate among us (meaning churches, organizations, and individuals). The rich make the clothes to wear...for those that can buy them. They grow the food to eat...for those that can buy it. Do you notice a trend here? Sure there are some great charitable organizations out there, but most of what the rich is doing is for the sole purpose of profiting off the spending middle class. Which brings me back to my point..the middle class do not need the rich to survive in this society, the rich need the middle class - which are actually the 'poor' people in society, relative to the rich, that can actually make some money and pay a few bills.

You're absolutely right - the rich do tend to conserve their money. But in order to do that, they invest it SOMEHOW. They obviously don't go and hoard the money under their mattress - they invest in stock, mutual funds, real estate (especially), gold, international funds, business ventures, etc. It's not all put into a bank account to collect dust. The rich ARE rich because their money is CONSTANTLY GROWING. These investments create jobs, boost the economy, and therefore create more jobs (among many other benefits).

Agreed, the deficit is ridiculous. As a conservative, I hate it. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the tax revenues were collected. If the tax cuts weren't working, wouldn't we expect to see a LOWER tax revenue in the end? We obviously have one of the highest amounts of tax revenue in history...something must be working.I think we're actually getting somewhere here. You accumulate money in order to have it accumulate more and more over time, while the lower classes struggle to accumulate at .001% of the pace (generalized stat). I actually believe that it isn't survival that the rich gain off the middle class, it is more wealth. The rich use the middle class to accumulate more wealth to themselves, while the middle class continually pads the rich persons' pockets with more and more return on goods.

How you feel about this very fact determines your position on the subject.

[justinevans]

Iraq: Steady withdrawl of ground and policing troops. Instead focus spending on more special forces and training units, so we can have a more effective Iraqi National military.
Same-sex marriage: Obv give couples rights, but it's not going to be called marriage.

I agree, but it will not happen if things arise with Iran. We will use Iraq as our main base.

Stem-cell: Let it go! Lives can be saved and diseases can be cured because of this. Anyone who thinks we're 'playing god' is misinformed; the advances in medicine of the past 100 years have been remarkable, so remarkable that diseases will get smarter. We have to stay ahead of the game.

Well, lives may be saved. Right now, that is the idea. They don't want to put federal funding into something which may not work. Right now, there is a lot of funding in certain states and by private donors. If they can find it able to work, you'll see far more federal funding. It is also a fear of the unknown. Look at when Penicillin first hit the market. There was a strong opposition to that at first. There reason for bans or federal funding should have nothing to do with religion. However if this is federal funding, there must be strong security on the findings.

Health-care: A system where everyone can get free healthcare is optimal for the people, but not optimal for the economy (right now). The cost of medical malpractice suits has to go down, and I'm not sure the government couldn't play a role in that by helping alleviate costs on doctors and hospitals.

The problem that exists in America is that pharmaceuticals make such products for a profit. When they make their products, they encompass such high R&D costs. Now, when we sell our drugs oversees, they costs of certain drugs are far cheaper.

Lawsuits and everything are what really need to go down. And no one can even saw that if government set a ceiling, that people would still pay. So many people do not even make a partial payment of their bills. Something needs to be done however. We need to reform medicaid, which is an insurance for people that can't afford any other. People also need to be educated on how to achieve such an insurance.

However, I still think people should be able to choose their insurance to.

That is the value of our country. The freedom to choose. If you look at most of the places that have a National Healthcare plan, the number of people that they have to insure is normally far less. And I know it is on a per capita basis, but we will all have to pay higher taxes. Are you going to raise the wealthy tax rates over 50%? There will be very little incentive to work as hard anymore.

Trade: Keep exercising comparative advantages with India and China, as well as smaller developing markets to enhance our status in the global economy as a market builder. Unfortunately some small markets will be neglected and collapse because of this policy, but in the economy there are winners and losers.

Protectionism isn't a very good system for developed nations.

The "misfortuned": Our misfortuned or their misfortuned? The one thing that nobody should stand for is poverty. It's funny how the government takes money from the rich, but just recycles it into the government. I'd like to see a more direct transition, like for instance: In the highest tax bracket, take 2% of these taxes and allocate them to welfare and poverty reform. Maybe more. I'm not sure how we handle this currently, but nothing bothers me more than 10 year old kids hanging out in the street at 12 am because they have no place to go.

What do you mean they have no place to go? I agree, we should see a more direct transition, but we should also have limitations. I mean I think we all remember seeing Ol' Dirty Bastard collection his welfare check. There has to be more accountability at both ends.

Censorship: You know, as we get more and more advanced, the government feels that it needs to protect people from curses in music, gore in video games, and online poker. Are you fucking kidding me? Let the people do as they please - if you don't want your kids to see titties in a movie or hear the word fuck in a song, be a fucking good parent and prevent this. It is not the government's job to dictate morality standards.

Online poker, the thing with online poker is that casinos have to pay a shit load to have a license to run a casino. A lot of these online poker companies fly under the radar. However, I do agree their needs to be better problems. The problem in our country is that criminals try to use some of this shit for an excuse of their crime. Another accountability problem when it comes to our citizens.

Intellectual property: Harness the internet, and you have your problem solved. Oh wait...that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Yeah, you pretty much have to wish people can balance their morals.

Energy: Ethanol is a temporary solution, but I worry that too many resources will be committed to this alternate source and detract from a more immediate impact of hydrogen power when it becomes available. Invest in hydrogen, it's going to change our lives..maybe not as quickly as we'd like, but it's going to happen.


Corn-based ethanol is not that good of a solution. Like I mentioned earlier, it is less powerful. There would be no monetary incentive to use ethanol right now. Well, you know besides breathing cleaner air. 100% of the ethanol will only provide for 20% of the country. I think they are working on repealing a ban on importing ethanol, but to make it temporary and limited, for instance only to the northeast ships.

Also,

Distribution and cost are the main obstacles

Corn-based ethanol, blended with gasoline, poses difficulties when shipped outside the corn belt.
It must be moved by tank truck or rail cars because small amounts of water that exist in pipelines can cause it to become unblended. There have been a lot of problems with people that have boats using the new fuel since we have gone to 85/15.

Min Wage: Not really sure where I stand here...if you raise it, you're taking money away from businesses that could be committed in other endeavors, thus weakening their potential for profits. Lower it, that 340 pound bitch that works the 10pm-7am at McDonalds is going to lose some weight. Maybe.

I've posted the arguments against a minimum wage everywhere. There should be no need for a minimum wage in a developed nation. Minimum wage mainly effects teenagers. Most jobs pay over minimum wage and normally would. It is all about supply and demand.

Social Security: Tough to fix this. Privatization is certainly a risk, but it's one that I would take considering I'll probably never see a SS check under the current status quo.

For the less risk takers, we should have a government run plan. For risk takers, they should have their option. Whatever you put in should be yours rightfully. The problem is that the first beneficiaries never put anything in and when everything was adjusted for inflation more and more people are losing out.

Foreign Policy: Saving the best for last....this is a tough thing to fix. We overcommitted ourselves to two different rebuilding projects, both which would have required more money than we had to commit to even one. It's pretty clear that the Arab world hates us and our 'imperialist' ways, but you can't leave a terrorist breeding ground when you're in a 'war on terror'; there are just too many avenues of communication open to intelligence that can score us some big points against these terrorists. Keep it simple and slowly withdraw from both places, but concentrate more forces in Afghanistan. It's arguable that our chance at effectiveness is much higher over there, with a decent commitment of troops, than Iraq. Further our relationship with China, to keep NK and Russia in check.

I think we need to do a better job with working with other nations in a logical way. However, I think the fucking UN is a joke.

[justinevans]

[QUOTE=thejetstolehome;4754101]the war: try and set some kind of date for the iraquis to take over and EVENTUALLY reduce troop numbers. though our presence there does create some sense of stability, i think the longer we stay, the longer it's going to take for the country to stabalize itself once we do drastically cut back our presence.


yeah, we all definitely need a real exit fan.

same sex marriage: push for some re-definition of marriage to allow gays to get married and hold the same civil rights as anyone else.

If they want to appease both the religious right and the liberal left, they technically call same-sex arrangements civil unions. However, every right should be available. Pretty much what NJ did.

stem cell research: legalize it and fund it.

I think we need more of a success story before we really can dump a lot of money into it. State governments and private donors provide a lot of money now. And there really isn't a ban on it per say.

health-care: freedom of choice is important here in america so i would keep the choice there. i don't know how realistic any of this is but i'd try to set up something that says "if you're below this line and can't pay for healthcare, we'll provide it for you and if you're above that line, you find your own private healthecare."

Like I said we need to improve Medicaid and Medicare for these individuals.

[justinevans]

-War in Iraq: Send more troops, give them more armor, allow for more time of leave to let their morale return. hold open forums around the country to see how everyone feels Open up contracts to foreign countries to entice them to get involved.

Sending more troops won't bode well. It will just draw more opposition even if it would make sense. Armor will not do much when most of the soldiers die from an on the ground kamikaze.


-Same-sex marriage: People should be able to marry who they want

yeah


-Stem-cell research: We need it. If abortion is legal...then dammit this should too.

The problem is their is a ban on federal funding on new lines, but not old lines and there is Federal funding for these lines. However, there is a large amount of private and state funding. It is not like this Administration administered the ban on the new lines. It was Congress in 1995.

-Trade: Work on our alternative resources to help us get off of oil. We have a huge deficit, we need to start exporting more. Unfortunately the only way to do that would be to devalue our currency to make our exports a lot cheaper.

Yes, which was tough considering that to build an economy, China pegged themselves to our dollar. The problem that exists has to do with such higher costs here because of often greedy unions, a minimum wage, etc.

Say you're paying 5 guys 11$ an hour. Instead you can pay 6 guys $9 an hour and increase supply and have less costs.


-Education: I would see if we could find ways to bring some of the best private school teachers to areas that need help. Maybe they would do better. Also, the government should be willing to shell out more cash for fixing up schools, paying salaries, etc.

Though the federal government should help, under our system, these are state problems and it is the states not footing the bill.


-Censorship: Well honestly there is no problem with censorship now. we can bitch and moan all we want but its not like we are getting in trouble for it.

We're not no, but it does add to the costs of people being censored.

-Energy: we need alt. resources. we also need to work to get the us off a grid system. right now we are on a system in which if you cut off the main source then pretty much half the country loses power...ie: the east coast power failure a couple years ago. it is susceptible to terrorism and if it is attacked we would pretty much be brought back to the stone age.

we definitely need more Nuclear power and alternative sources.

-Minimum wage: raise

not a wise idea, look at other example.

-Foreign Policy: people think we need to take a less international approach. they are wrong. that is why we were attacked. america needs to stay involved in the world...we just need to know when to act and when to just try and lend a hand. we need to stop acting like we own the world and work for more peace and international cooperation. i read an article about how the key to international cooperation is trust. right now, no one trusts the us...so they act in their own best interest. we need to gain the trust back and maybe then we will all live peacefully. or at least more peaceful.

Countries never help other countries without an incentive. No one does trust us that is true. But we also, don't trust anyone else.

[justinevans]

alright I am done for now, I will read other responses later.

[cal1082]

Trickle-down economics doesn't work, even in a boom. In theory it was a great idea, until it was applied.

I don't believe the rich should be getting taxed at ridiculous rates like 77%, but 40% is certainly fine when the other 60% of their income can generate enough wealth to let them sit on their asses every day for the rest of their lives.

It'd be hard to argue it didnt work during Reagans run at Presidency?

[justinevans]

It'd be hard to argue it didnt work during Reagans run at Presidency?

trickle down can work and it has worked for awhile.

grass roots theories are having the same problems.

[we are cured]

It'd be hard to argue it didnt work during Reagans run at Presidency?

I wouldn't be so quick to give a President credit for the general economic status evident during his term.

When I slam bush on his economic policies it is because I believe his spending has been out of control, but I acknowledge that we probably haven't seen the full effects of his policies.

Trickle-down is a theory that you either accept, or don't. I personally don't, because I don't believe there is enough incentive to spend money if you're making a shitload of money. You're already spending and saving a shitload of money.

[cal1082]

I wouldn't be so quick to give a President credit for the general economic status evident during his term.

When I slam bush on his economic policies it is because I believe his spending has been out of control, but I acknowledge that we probably haven't seen the full effects of his policies.

Trickle-down is a theory that you either accept, or don't. I personally don't, because I don't believe there is enough incentive to spend money if you're making a shitload of money. You're already spending and saving a shitload of money.

But how can you say, "Trickle-down economics doesn't work, even in a boom. In theory it was a great idea, until it was applied."

Because when it was applied, you did see dramatic growth. Now you can perhaps argue that Reagans spending and cuts had nothing to do with it but I dont think it's fair to dismiss is for the fact that when applied you saw dramatic growth.

[justinevans]

I wouldn't be so quick to give a President credit for the general economic status evident during his term.

When I slam bush on his economic policies it is because I believe his spending has been out of control, but I acknowledge that we probably haven't seen the full effects of his policies.

Trickle-down is a theory that you either accept, or don't. I personally don't, because I don't believe there is enough incentive to spend money if you're making a shitload of money. You're already spending and saving a shitload of money.

actually, they don't save it as much as you'd like to think. They lock it up investments so they become richer. They invest in municipal bonds which are federal tax-free to help out cities and towns.

Also if they do save it, this allows people to do loans and it keeps the banks running.

[Love As Arson]

First of all, what exploitation are you talking about?
The exploitation that occurs between the owners and the producers.


I notice there's no proof to your claim. According to the book "The Millionaire Next Door (http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/dp/0671015206/sr=8-1/qid=1163176610/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5260500-4712607?ie=UTF8&s=books)", research has uncovered that:

* Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.

* Fewer than 20 percent of millionaires inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.

* More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.

* Fewer than 25 percent ever received "an act of kindness" of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.

* Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.

* Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives.

* Fewer than 10 percent believe they will ever receive an inheritance in the future.
It only references a particular sort of millionaire, and is not representative of them on a whole.


But I know that in this country, I can make it to the top if I really want to, and plan on getting there one day.
The statistics on social mobility prove otherwise. If only a handful transcend class, then either a great majority are bums or there is something flawed about the system.

but what good would they do if there was no place to live, no food to eat, no clothes to wear, no church to seek refuge in, etc. The rich are the people who build the place to live, grow the food to eat, make the clothes to wear...you get the point. So you need a part of the society to be the upper class - to produce the goods for the lower class. It is the responsibility of the private sector (not government) to take care of the less fortunate among us (meaning churches, organizations, and individuals).
The rich build nothing. Who would build those churches and make those clothes if all workers refused to do so? Moreover, what do you think workers would be able to achieve if they banded together in order to survive?



You're absolutely right - the rich do tend to conserve their money. But in order to do that, they invest it SOMEHOW. They obviously don't go and hoard the money under their mattress - they invest in stock, mutual funds, real estate (especially), gold, international funds, business ventures, etc. It's not all put into a bank account to collect dust. The rich ARE rich because their money is CONSTANTLY GROWING. These investments create jobs, boost the economy, and therefore create more jobs (among many other benefits).
Usually, the money is placed in offshore accounts. The sort of jobs their investments create, which is necessarily due to a suppression of workers, are not very good.


But that doesn't take away from the fact that the tax revenues were collected. If the tax cuts weren't working, wouldn't we expect to see a LOWER tax revenue in the end? We obviously have one of the highest amounts of tax revenue in history...something must be working.
Before reviewing the statistics revealing the relationship between tax cuts and tax collections, we should review a few important concepts.

First, the economy grows in the long run, as both our population expands and productive technology improves. Our tax base, of course, grows along with the economy, so if the tax rate remains the same -- say, 18 percent -- then absolute tax collections grow as the economy grows.

Second, when comparing tax collections across the years, it is important to distinguish between current and constant dollars. Comparing tax collections in current dollars is deceptive, because inflation gives a false picture of tax growth. Economists use constant dollars instead, which account for inflation.

Third, tax collections generally fall during a recession, and rise during a recovery. That is because during a recession, there are more unemployed people who do not pay taxes. During a recovery, tax collections increase as more people go to work. Since World War II, we've had only seven years in which the economy shrank, so growth is the norm for both our economy and our tax base.

However, there is an opposite effect at work here also. During a recession, the government spends more because of the greater need for unemployment and welfare benefits, as well as counter-cyclical Keynesian spending. During a recovery, the government doesn't need to spend as much on these things, and as a result it can afford to lower its tax rates.

With these things in mind, we can now review the historical evidence.

Tax cuts in recent history

Since World War II, federal tax receipts have fluctuated within a few points of 18 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. Because they have been so stable, tax collections have regularly grown with the economy. Almost always, the only drops in tax collections have been during recession years; otherwise, tax collections have expanded in the years that the rest of the economy expanded.

There are a few notable exceptions to the above rule: those periods following large tax cuts. After Reagan's income tax cuts took effect in 1982, real income tax collections took a long fall, despite the fact our economy continued to grow. For the moment, let's ignore the fact that tax collections could have been expected to grow after 1981. Let's simply use 1981 as a baseline, multiplying it 8 times, and compare that to what was really collected over the next 8 years.

Individual Income Tax Collections (millions) (1)

Year Current Constant (87 dollars)
-------------------------------------------
1981 $285,917 $367,692

1982 297,744 356,366
1983 288,938 332,033
1984 298,415 328,470
1985 334,531 354,677
1986 348,959 359,307
1987 392,557 392,557
1988 401,181 387,128
1989 445,690 411,533
-----------------------------
82-89 total: 2,922,691
1981 (times 8) -2,941,536
-----------------------------
Net 8-year loss -18,845


Corporate Income Taxes (millions)

Year Current Constant (87 dollars)
-------------------------------------------
1981 $61,137 $78,623

1982 49,207 58,991
1983 37,022 42,544
1984 56,893 62,623
1985 61,331 65,024
1986 63,143 65,015
1987 83,926 83,926
1988 94,508 91,224
1989 103,291 98,092
------------------------------
82-89 total: 567,439
1981 (times 8) -628,984
------------------------------
Net 8-year loss -69,545
Combined individual and corporate income tax loss: $88 billion.

Keep in mind that this does not count the lost revenues that could be expected from a growing economy.

Also remember that, because the economy grows in the long run, tax collections will inevitably start rising again sooner or later as the tax base continues to grow. Therefore, supply-siders do not have the argument that there was a delay in increased tax collections, or that we can't expect tax policy to have immediate effects. The simple fact is that there was a 5 year drop in tax collections, which was extremely uncharacteristic of a growing economy. And during that time we incurred a trillion and a half dollars in debt, so the alleged value of such a tax policy is refuted outright.

The above figures are for income tax collections. However, general tax revenues also took a drop in the 80s:

Total Federal Tax Collections (billions) (2)

Year Nominal Constant (87 dollars)
---------------------------------------
1980 $517.1 $728.1
1981 599.3 766.6 < tax cut passed
1982 617.8 738.2 < drop
1983 600.6 684.3 < drop
1984 666.6 730.4
1985 734.1 776.6 < 81 level recovered
1986 769.1 790.0
1987 854.1 854.1
1988 909.0 877.3
1989 990.7 916.2
1990 1031.3 914.1
1991 1054.3 894.7
1992 1090.5 895.1
The Kennedy tax cuts are another favorite supply-side myth; many claim that once the tax cuts went into effect in 1964, income tax collections grew. But as you can see from the chart below, growth in income tax collections sharply dropped off:

Federal Income Tax Collections (Constant dollars, CPI-U) (3)

Year Receipts Percent change from previous year
--------------------------------------------------
1961 $138,069 ---
1962 150,567 + 9.0%
1963 155,375 + 3.2
1964 156,804 + 0.9 < tax cut takes effect
1965 154,475 - 1.5
In 1965, the economy was in the fifth year of a nine-year expansion, and for income tax collections to see negative growth was, again, most uncharacteristic. Income tax collections did rise in 1966, but by this time President Johnson was accelerating the economy with Keynesian deficit spending on the Vietnam War. (These deficits he hid by unifying the federal budget with Social Security.) The greater economic activity resulted in more tax collections, and to disentangle any alleged supply-side benefits from the Keynesian benefits is all but impossible.

Another era of tax cuts was the Roaring Twenties. At first glance, supply-side theory seems to have worked here: taxes were cut, and revenues climbed. But that's because only the very richest Americans paid taxes in the 1920s, a decade which saw their incomes skyrocket. The vast majority of Americans saw their incomes decline -- but because they paid no taxes, this did not hurt tax collections. Of course, ordinary Americans had no reason to celebrate increased revenues under these deteriorating conditions. Indeed, they had every reason to oppose a tax policy that worsened income inequality.

Specifically, between 1920 and 1925, the top rate was reduced from 73 to 25 percent. But even during the high taxes of World War I, 95 percent of all Americans paid no income taxes. (4) By the end of the 1920s, about 80 percent of all Americans were still off the tax rolls. (5) Only the wealthiest were taxed, but their numbers grew as inequality grew over the decade. In fact, their ranks grew at a phenomenal pace only once equaled this century (the Reagan years). The following chart shows by how much:

Growth in ranks of rich, 1920-1928 (6)

Number, Number,
Income 1920 1928 Percent growth
---------------------------------------------------------
Over $1 million 33 511 1,448%
$100,000 - 1 million 3,616 15,466 328
To put this in perspective, the number of people making over $100,000 in 1928 still represented only 0.01 percent of the American population. Their expanding numbers hardly helped out the middle class. But between 1923 and 1929, the lower 93 percent of the nonfarm population actually experienced a 4 percent drop in real disposable per capita income. (7) Farmers suffered an even worse decline. In one year alone -- 1927 -- the number of Americans making a middle class income (between $2,000 and $5,000) declined from 2.17 million to 2.09 million -- almost all of the loss to the lower class. (8)

Against this backdrop, you can understand why a rich-only tax saw increasing tax collections, and why the rich paid a higher share of those taxes. Between 1921 and 1928, total tax collections grew from $719 million to $1,160 million, in a period of virtually no inflation. The share of the total tax burden paid by the rich (those making over $50,000) rose from 44.2 percent to 78.4 percent.

But what would have happened if the poor had been paying taxes as well? Obviously, with declining incomes, they would have paid less than before. Because the middle class is larger than the rich, this probably would have resulted in an overall drop in tax collections. And indeed, this is precisely what we saw happen during the Reagan years.

Tax Hikes

By contrast, almost all tax hikes have seen dramatic and indisputable growth in tax collections. During World War I, only the richest 5 percent of the income earners paid taxes, and the top tax rate was hiked from 15 to 73 percent. Increases in revenues were so extraordinary that they funded an entire war. (The war did incur a debt, but this was paid off by continuing high taxes for a few years after the war.)

After the massive tax cuts of the 1920s, President Roosevelt raised taxes on the rich from 25 percent to 91 percent. Even the bottom rate climbed from 4 to 19 percent by the end of his presidency. (9) And tax collections under Roosevelt shot up 121 percent a year, the most of any president in U.S. history. By contrast, all subsequent presidents have seen tax collections rise in the single digits. (10)

The one exception to this correlation is George Bush's 1990 tax hikes, whose potential revenue increases were lost in the following recession. For those who would like to think a cause-and-effect relationship exists here, they should know that the recession of 1990 began in July, 1990, four months before Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge. Bush signed his tax increases into law the following November. Many will recall that this recession was also labeled the "lingering recession" or the "jobless recovery" because it took so long for the unemployment rate to start falling afterwards. That's because businesses were automating instead of rehiring laid-off workers -- causing productivity to jump but tax collections to remain flat for 1992 as well.

However, Clinton's tax increases in 1993 occurred after the recession had passed, and the increase in tax collections is clearly visible:

Individual Income Taxes (millions) (11)

Year Current Constant (87 dollars)
-------------------------------------------
1990 $466,884 $413,355
1991 467,827 397,677 < recession year
1992 475,964 392,969
1993 509,680 411,032 < Clinton tax passes
1994 543,055 429,496 < takes effect
1995 590,244 458,300

Corporate Income Taxes (millions)

Year Current Constant (87 dollars)
--------------------------------------------
1990 $93,507 $82,786
1991 98,086 83,378 < recession year
1992 100,270 82,786
1993 117,520 94,774 < Clinton tax passes
1994 140,385 111,029 < takes effect
1995 157,004 121,907
This is in marked contrast to the Reagan tax cuts, which saw tax collections fall, despite also occurring in a similar position in the business cycle, namely, the start of a recovery.

In sum, supply-siders have no obvious success stories to point to. Indeed, almost all the historical evidence runs against them.

www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htm

[we are cured]

But how can you say, "Trickle-down economics doesn't work, even in a boom. In theory it was a great idea, until it was applied."

Because when it was applied, you did see dramatic growth. Now you can perhaps argue that Reagans spending and cuts had nothing to do with it but I dont think it's fair to dismiss is for the fact that when applied you saw dramatic growth.

I only studied a little bit of economics in college, so I'm not an expert on this subject. However, I'm fairly certain that it takes years before one can see the full effects of executive economic policy on a domestic economy.

Additionally, much of the economic stimulation that occurred during Reagan's presidency was a direct result of falling oil prices.

[we are cured]

actually, they don't save it as much as you'd like to think. They lock it up investments so they become richer. They invest in municipal bonds which are federal tax-free to help out cities and towns.

Also if they do save it, this allows people to do loans and it keeps the banks running.

Err...again correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the amount of loans taken out depend on interest rates? i.e. lower rates=more loans, yet less incentive to save, injects money into the economy..

So if most rich people are saving, they're doing so because the rates allow them to make a considerable amount off interest alone - not a sign that bank lending is widespread.

I'd like to see some stats on this. I'll search at work, but I'm not an economist so I don't really know what I'm looking for.

[justinevans]

Err...again correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the amount of loans taken out depend on interest rates? i.e. lower rates=more loans, yet less incentive to save, injects money into the economy..

So if most rich people are saving, they're doing so because the rates allow them to make a considerable amount off interest alone - not a sign that bank lending is widespread.

I'd like to see some stats on this. I'll search at work, but I'm not an economist so I don't really know what I'm looking for.

Loans depend on interest rates, reserve requirements, and the amount of money people deposit in individual banks that that individual banks is able to lend out. It is called dissemination I believe when money market securities have higher rates than putting money into a bank.

Trust me, rich people can make far more money off other securities than putting it into a bank.

They only put some in the bank so they have liquidity.

However, what I was trying to say is that the wealthier will invest the extra money into companies where the fundamental theory is that it would help the supply side of the economy. If not donate it.

Sorry, right now I am confusing myself and I just passed my Series 7 exam the other day so my mind is burn out right now.

I guess I should say, lower rates will provide a demand for more loans, but when money becomes too easy the FED will raise requirements, sell securities to the banks, and raise the discount rate.

Put it this way, Sweden a country that relies very heavily on the grass roots theory is in trouble, because a lot of companies are leaving. They are not getting enough investments and there is no incentive for them to stay there because of the extremely high taxes.

Which is why I say tax credits work far, far better. Companies and people should have to work for their reward.

[justinevans]

I only studied a little bit of economics in college, so I'm not an expert on this subject. However, I'm fairly certain that it takes years before one can see the full effects of executive economic policy on a domestic economy.

Additionally, much of the economic stimulation that occurred during Reagan's presidency was a direct result of falling oil prices.

It is called fiscal policy. And that is true considering that we came out of the recession before Clinton entered office and re-entered one right before Bush did.

[Fedaykin]

I don't know if this has been said yet or not, but when I saw the name of this thread it made me think of the old game show on Nickelodeon called What Would You Do? with host Mark Sommers

[ResideInMyMind]

What are your solutions. All people do in here (except for a few) is just bicker and bicker and bicker about the politician they don't want in office, no matter the party. No one, not even our politicians, is willing to offer any solutions. For some of the main issues out there, what LOGICAL solutions can you come up with?

-War in Iraq
-Same-sex marriage
-Stem-cell research
-Health care
-Trade
-Education
-The "misfortuned"
-Censorship
-Protection of intellectual property
-Energy
-Minimum wage
-Social Security
-Foreign Policy

Anything else? What are your solutions and please have them be logical ones.

I would vote Barack Obama for president in 2008. Read The Audacity of Hope, he's got intellectual solutions (that make sense) to nearly all of those problems.

No mo' drama, vote Obama!

[DaveHallow]

Unfortunately for the US you have a lot of inherent problems in every area you try to fix and it usually comes down to money.

It is disadvantageous for you to move away from oil as a fuel resource due to the high amount you hold in reserves (waiting for the world to run out so you can sell it at a huge profit).

You need to stop being assholes about trade. You have quite possibly the most heavily subsidised farmers in the world and that is due to their lack of efficiency/productivity. If you want free trade make sure it is real fee trade with no bullshit clause about except for this, this and this. Less developed countries rely heavily on primary resources and primary production, if they are more efficient they should be selling their wares and not getting pushed away because someone pays their producers to do it less efficiently.

Hopefully you guys can sort your shit out cos you have a lot of problems.

[ResideInMyMind]

Unfortunately for the US you have a lot of inherent problems in every area you try to fix and it usually comes down to money.

It is disadvantageous for you to move away from oil as a fuel resource due to the high amount you hold in reserves (waiting for the world to run out so you can sell it at a huge profit).

You need to stop being assholes about trade. You have quite possibly the most heavily subsidised farmers in the world and that is due to their lack of efficiency/productivity. If you want free trade make sure it is real fee trade with no bullshit clause about except for this, this and this. Less developed countries rely heavily on primary resources and primary production, if they are more efficient they should be selling their wares and not getting pushed away because someone pays their producers to do it less efficiently.

Hopefully you guys can sort your shit out cos you have a lot of problems.

i don't think that is what we are doing. considering the amount of oil we consume each day, that would cost us much more. americans would not be able to afford gas and get to work/school/the store/etc. our economy would crumble if it came to that.

[justinevans]

I don't know if this has been said yet or not, but when I saw the name of this thread it made me think of the old game show on Nickelodeon called What Would You Do? with host Mark Sommers

=)

[open mind]

What are your solutions. All people do in here (except for a few) is just bicker and bicker and bicker about the politician they don't want in office, no matter the party. No one, not even our politicians, is willing to offer any solutions. For some of the main issues out there, what LOGICAL solutions can you come up with?

-War in Iraq
-Same-sex marriage
-Stem-cell research
-Health care
-Trade
-Education
-The "misfortuned"
-Censorship
-Protection of intellectual property
-Energy
-Minimum wage
-Social Security
-Foreign Policy

Anything else? What are your solutions and please have them be logical ones.

iraq-withdraw troops, let every iraqi who wants to immigrate to america do so.
same sex marriage-what goes on in your bedroom is your buisness, legalize it
stem cell research-fund it under the condition that they use those cloned not able to develop cells (can't remember what they call them right now)
health care-start with alowing access to cheaper medicine, eventually get to universal health care
trade-change or sign new agreements that don't allow for the exploitation of millions of people
education-fund it enough that class sizes are around 15 students per class, larger classes devolve into teachers pretty much being day care providers
the poor-put an emphasis on education not incarceration
censorship-cut that shit out
energy-go all out on all sorts of renewable energy research and implementation
minimum wage-raise it and set it up so it always keeps up with inflation so it no longer needs to be an issue
social security-keep benefits as they are now
foreign policy-ramp up the propaganda machine, increase intelligence to unheard of levels, make agreements with allies to share military and intelligence resources, quit acting like we're the only country with a valid opinion.

[justinevans]

iraq-withdraw troops, let every iraqi who wants to immigrate to america do so.
same sex marriage-what goes on in your bedroom is your buisness, legalize it
stem cell research-fund it under the condition that they use those cloned not able to develop cells (can't remember what they call them right now)
health care-start with alowing access to cheaper medicine, eventually get to universal health care
trade-change or sign new agreements that don't allow for the exploitation of millions of people
education-fund it enough that class sizes are around 15 students per class, larger classes devolve into teachers pretty much being day care providers
the poor-put an emphasis on education not incarceration
censorship-cut that shit out
energy-go all out on all sorts of renewable energy research and implementation
minimum wage-raise it and set it up so it always keeps up with inflation so it no longer needs to be an issue
social security-keep benefits as they are now
foreign policy-ramp up the propaganda machine, increase intelligence to unheard of levels, make agreements with allies to share military and intelligence resources, quit acting like we're the only country with a valid opinion.

you do know raising minimum wage increases inflation, right?

[open mind]

you do know raising minimum wage increases inflation, right?

it'll contributes to it, but it certainly ain't the end all and be all otherwise we wouldn't have had any inflation since the last wage hike.

[justinevans]

it'll contributes to it, but it certainly ain't the end all and be all otherwise we wouldn't have had any inflation since the last wage hike.

yeah, but if you continually doing something that adds to inflation to meet inflation how does that ever solve the problem?

The problem already is our products are too expensive.

[captainhampton]

I don't know if this has been said yet or not, but when I saw the name of this thread it made me think of the old game show on Nickelodeon called What Would You Do? with host Mark Sommers

yeah they had this pie roller coaster. that whole show was just lots of pies.

[open mind]

yeah, but if you continually doing something that adds to inflation to meet inflation how does that ever solve the problem?

The problem already is our products are too expensive.

i'd take a higher inflation rate if it meant those at the bottom of the economic scale get to live better lives, since that's the problem i'm really concerned with.

[justinevans]

i'd take a higher inflation rate if it meant those at the bottom of the economic scale get to live better lives, since that's the problem i'm really concerned with.

yes, but if there money is worth less, if they are moved into a new tax bracket, how does that help?

Especially when prices of products increase.

[open mind]

yes, but if there money is worth less, if they are moved into a new tax bracket, how does that help?

Especially when prices of products increase.

their money is always becoming worth less, and increasing the minimum wage doesn't have the kind of impact on inflation you seem to believe.
the minimum wage has never kept up with inflation meaning those at the bottom effectively get less and less for their work, but having the minimum wage keep up with inflation means they get a pay raise that will never be worth less in auctual buying power.

[justinevans]

their money is always becoming worth less, and increasing the minimum wage doesn't have the kind of impact on inflation you seem to believe.
the minimum wage has never kept up with inflation meaning those at the bottom effectively get less and less for their work, but having the minimum wage keep up with inflation means they get a pay raise that will never be worth less in auctual buying power.

yes, but the only jobs that really pay @ minimum wage our jobs mostly done by students.

It's a proven study.

[open mind]

yes, but the only jobs that really pay @ minimum wage our jobs mostly done by students.

It's a proven study.

what's your point?

[justinevans]

what's your point?

that minimum wage doesn't affect the poor as much as you think. But it raises the cost of products and inflation.

[open mind]

that minimum wage doesn't affect the poor as much as you think. But it raises the cost of products and inflation.

so what, you don't believe that there are poor students? students are working thier asses off at school then going to work while racking up student loan debts, at least in the world i live in.

[justinevans]

so what, you don't believe that there are poor students? students are working thier asses off at school then going to work while racking up student loan debts, at least in the world i live in.

yeah, but I was mainly talking about high school students.

[open mind]

way to just overlook a huge amount of students then.:thumbup:

[Plodbax]

Here we go...

Energy: Ethanol is a temporary solution, but I worry that too many resources will be committed to this alternate source and detract from a more immediate impact of hydrogen power when it becomes available. Invest in hydrogen, it's going to change our lives..maybe not as quickly as we'd like, but it's going to happen.





Most of the stuff you got there is great, but i hate to have to burst your bubblr bout the hydrogen, Hydrogen power is not going to work out, the amount of energy expended in gaining pure hydrogen is much larger than the resultant energy gained from the hydrogen, so until we can find a much easier way of acessing hydrogen with much smaller energy expenditure we will have to find another way.

[justinevans]

way to just overlook a huge amount of students then.:thumbup:

I didn't do the study.

A minimum wage is not good for the economy. It doesn't help stimulate the less fortuned.

[Fedaykin]

I didn't do the study.

A minimum wage is not good for the economy. It doesn't help stimulate the less fortuned.
this is just assanine
what do countries that don't have minimum wage standards have?
sweat shops
what did the US have before child labor laws and minimum wage standards?
9 year olds and women working 16 hours a day for a fuckin nickel
the minimum wage protects the minorities, women and the underpriveleged from corporations and their bottom line only interest