Originally posted by .montecarlo.
The supply of money available for investment increases, the interest rate decreases).
1/2 correct. The fed also controls the money supply. Interest rates can be effected much more by changes in the money supply induced by the fed. Remeber that the fed controls the bond market, in turn the money supply. Low interest rates are not the result of Bush tax cuts but poor montary policy.
quote:
Originally posted by .montecarlo.
I tend to believe that more economic activity would be stimulated by increased business investment than by increased burger sales at McDonalds. Wealthy people are relatively more productive with their money for at least two reasons: economies of scale, and likely a better understanding of financial management.
A tax cut to a millinare CEO isnt going to find its way back into productive investement. It only makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.
A strategic tax cut should have be adopted. Strategy is a word Mr.Bush is unfamilar with as we are well aware.
I beleive a tax cut to encourage use of hybrid cars would be smart.
I beleive tax cuts to encourage the use of energy efficent products would be smart.
I beleive a tax cut aimed at low -income to middle -class americans would be very smart.
Consumption breeds investement. Not the opposite. Look at your economics tect book again.
When I speak of investment I speak of capital investment. Companies can not or will not invest in capital if their is no demand for their good or services. For example, Mcdonalds isnt going to build a new resturaunt now that its CEO has some extra $$$ from a tax cut. It will only invest in capital when it can gain a rate of return from that capital investement. Thus cosumption is the key to provide that rate of return.
I beleive,like certain economists, that the defict can be treated like personal debt. Some forms are good and other forms are bad.
Let me explain:
Is it ok to go into debt to buy a home?
- Of course
Is it ok to go into debt to finance your education?
- Yes!
IS it ok to go into debt to buy those cool new clothes?
-No
Is it ok to go into debt to buy all new furniture for your home?
-No
My point is that the goverment has the responsibility to go into debt to create a better America. Education and well-being of American should be the priority of our spending.
Debt is not all bad. But the debt Bush has created is bad. Very bad.
Bush is not financing programs which will create a better America. It is only dividing America.
Is financing a large debt to enrich millionares good debt?
-No
Is financing a war which could have been prevented or shared with others good debt?
-No
Is funding education good debt?
-Yes
Is funding our military good debt ?
-Yes
Is giving tax cuts to low income americans good debt?
-Yes
Is building infrastructe in the USA good debt ?
-Yes.
As a Catholic I support some of Bush's ideas. However, I do not believe Bush really understands Christ. Mr. Bush , a person who proclaims his faith to Jesus, yet supports efforts of war,deception, and disregard to the poor,elderly, and sick in the USA is NOT the person who walks in accord with Christ. Mr. Bush is not the compassionate conservative America yearns for. Mr.Bush fails to realize that his once strong political tool,religion,has been weaken by his actions over the last 4 years.
Americans will be heard in todays election and brighter future will be upon us November 3rd. 2004. It is time for compassion and understadning to come forth from the White House. It is time for change.
John F. Kerry is our man to lead us all to that better future.
Man you're sold out...do you work for his campaign or something??? No one i've seen on TA posts about a candidate this much.
And i could spend pages and pages of forum space ripping apart Kerry and his record. But all you need to do is listen to NPR, Rush, or Neil Boortz to get all the juicy details.
___________________
What Da F? http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/1050
Nov-02-2004 13:54
Mike_B
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Oct 2002
Location: Montreal
VOTE FOR KERRY
Nov-02-2004 13:58
tribu
Guest
Registered: Not Yet
Location:
US President & Vice President - Ralph Nader & Peter Camejo
US Senator - George Voinovich
US House of Representitives (13th District of Ohio) - Sherrod Brown
Nov-02-2004 14:08
xKaoSx
I need more cow bell !!
Registered: Jul 2002
Location: San Diego, Ca.
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
What is a fair share? The Kerry's only paid something like 12% last year--is that a fair share? The wealthy in this country pay a higher amount and a higher percentage. Is the progressive tax system fair in that regard? I'm curious just what is fair? 25%? 50%? If we're being "Fair", shouldn't we all pitch in the same amount?
How is it a fair share when the "net tax paid" is not the same. Not everyone can exploit loopholes the same as some fat cat.
___________________
I've never felt alone... 'Till I met you
Nov-02-2004 16:14
Shakka
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Feb 2003
Location:
quote:
Originally posted by xKaoSx
How is it a fair share when the "net tax paid" is not the same. Not everyone can exploit loopholes the same as some fat cat.
So it's not about equality of opportunity, it's about equality of outcome, eh Socialist?
Nov-02-2004 16:44
Dave Piazza
The Elitist
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
So it's not about equality of opportunity, it's about equality of outcome, eh Socialist?
If your a religous person you shouldnt be afraid to help those in need.
We need capitalism. But we also need values. And we should value the poor, the elderly, the sick, and the young.
Originally posted by Dave Piazza
If your a religous person you shouldnt be afraid to help those in need.
We need capitalism. But we also need values. And we should value the poor, the elderly, the sick, and the young.
Who decides how you will define these things? income limits? age limits? health limits? How does one become a qualified expert to denote that someone is any of these. Can these experts give preferential treatment to others?
Changing the system without fixing the problems is a waste of time and generally pointless. Someone always has to be in charge, and that person will almost always use the situation to their advantage...sad to say
Nov-02-2004 16:48
Dave Piazza
The Elitist
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
quote:
Originally posted by tribu
Who decides how you will define these things? income limits? age limits? health limits? How does one become a qualified expert to denote that someone is any of these. Can these experts give preferential treatment to others?
Changing the system without fixing the problems is a waste of time and generally pointless. Someone always has to be in charge, and that person will almost always use the situation to their advantage...sad to say
I dont believe Kerry has the exact answer. But Bush has no answer.I give the benifit of the doubt to Kerry. Bush has had 4 years to do something and he hasnt done shit.
Not to be redundant, please read my posts why I choose Kerry over Bush. It came down to economic policy for me. As an economics major I understood that Bush was leading this country down the wrong path.
