So, who's economic package do you like?

[Guest NoCalMike]

I will just say that I am suspicious of both of them, but I will save further opinions until I hear some of your thoughts.

[Guest Dopey]

I like Allen Keys. His economic package is best.

[Guest Mad Dog]

I don't trust anything that the Democrats bring to the table in this area. Last time all they wanted to do was give breaks to the people that put the least amount of money into the economy. They won't giv corporations cuts which is vital so that they can make more profits and hire more people.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

I don't trust anything that the Democrats bring to the table in this area. Last time all they wanted to do was give breaks to the people that put the least amount of money into the economy. They won't giv corporations cuts which is vital so that they can make more profits and hire more people.

Indeed. Rich people pay more taxes, that is why they should get more back. Any other way and you start to dabble in socialism.

 

--Rob

[Guest NoCalMike]

The problem with giving all the tax cuts to the rich is that the theory does not always support the follow-through. Most rich people being the business-savvy folks they are, turn around and and invest that extra money in themselves and their own self worth rather than make things better for the people lower on the ladder. I mean, it is silly to say that a CEO, refuses to give his workers a raise because he only nets 10 million a year, rather than 25 million a year. See trickle-down economics has already failed once, and we don't need to go down that road again. I am not sure how Reagan ever convinced american workers to settle for "scraps" in the first place.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Indeed. Rich people pay more taxes, that is why they should get more back. Any other way and you start to dabble in socialism.

 

--Rob

Ermm, yes in some cases, but corporations are also very smart in hiding a lot of taxable income. Or sometimes even writing off over half of their income as business expenses. You'd be suprised at the intelligence used by people to get out of paying taxes. Of course, to be fair, not only rick folks do this.

[Guest Mad Dog]

But Democrats want to give tax breaks to the lowest bracket which pays nothing as it is.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

I say use both -- what the hell.

 

However, it seems that a bunch of the Democrat's "tax-cut" plans don't revolve around tax cuts at all -- bailing out states, medicaid, unemployment. Sorry, but those aren't economic stimulus ideas...

[Guest RobJohnstone]

Indeed.  Rich people pay more taxes, that is why they should get more back.  Any other way and you start to dabble in socialism.  

 

--Rob

Ermm, yes in some cases, but corporations are also very smart in hiding a lot of taxable income. Or sometimes even writing off over half of their income as business expenses. You'd be suprised at the intelligence used by people to get out of paying taxes. Of course, to be fair, not only rick folks do this.

ther system is not perfect, and those people who cheat must be caught. If instead of giving the break to the ruch we give the break to the lowest bracket, who pays nothing, they get money for free. I would much rather have some rich people cheating that we can catch than socialsim.

 

--Rob

[Guest NoCalMike]

Indeed.  Rich people pay more taxes, that is why they should get more back.  Any other way and you start to dabble in socialism.  

 

--Rob

Ermm, yes in some cases, but corporations are also very smart in hiding a lot of taxable income. Or sometimes even writing off over half of their income as business expenses. You'd be suprised at the intelligence used by people to get out of paying taxes. Of course, to be fair, not only rick folks do this.

ther system is not perfect, and those people who cheat must be caught. If instead of giving the break to the ruch we give the break to the lowest bracket, who pays nothing, they get money for free. I would much rather have some rich people cheating that we can catch than socialsim.

 

--Rob

Well if the idea is to stimulate something, then what exactly are you stimulating when you are giving a wealthy person more wealth? I would take a guess and say it is the lowest income families that need that extra help to pay for health insurance and send their kids off to get a better education.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Someone want to actually say what both are? I'm not very up on domestic economic business.

[Guest Mad Dog]

I don't have specifics.

 

The Republican version will target the middle class and upper classes the most and give corporations a break.

 

The Democratic one will target mostly the lower class and lower middle class and give more unemployment benefits.

[Guest DrTom]

The Republican version will target the middle class and upper classes the most and give corporations a break.

 

The Democratic one will target mostly the lower class and lower middle class and give more unemployment benefits.

If you're trying to stimulate an economy, you need people to pump money into it. The people who do that are the middle class and above, corporations, and business owners. Corporations should have to earn their tax breaks, though. Tie them into low turnover, job creation, and hiring lower-income people, and you're onto something.

[Guest Dopey]

If you're trying to stimulate an economy, you need people to pump money into it. The people who do that are the middle class and above, corporations, and business owners. Corporations should have to earn their tax breaks, though. Tie them into low turnover, job creation, and hiring lower-income people, and you're onto something.

And only Allen Keys can make this happen.

[Guest DrTom]

And only Allen Keys can make this happen.

Alan Keyes, btw.

 

Considering he never amounts to anything in the presidential races, how's he going to make it happen? Sadly, I don't think a black man is electable as president right now, and a conservative black man doubly so. Look at all the controversy Clarence Thomas attracted when he was nominated to the Supreme Court: the Left tried to attack his record, they dragged Anita Hill out and had her lie a bunch of times, and his own people called him an "Uncle Tom" every chance they got. Keyes has a very sharp mind, but he'll never be a prominent elected official.

[Guest Mad Dog]

The Democrats are talking about trying to freeze the tax cut for the top 1%.

 

I don't understand why these people need to pay 40% of their income.

[Guest Dopey]

Considering he never amounts to anything in the presidential races, how's he going to make it happen? Sadly, I don't think a black man is electable as president right now, and a conservative black man doubly so. Look at all the controversy Clarence Thomas attracted when he was nominated to the Supreme Court: the Left tried to attack his record, they dragged Anita Hill out and had her lie a bunch of times, and his own people called him an "Uncle Tom" every chance they got. Keyes has a very sharp mind, but he'll never be a prominent elected official.

You are probably right. However, I will still vote for him if he runs again.

 

Allen Keyes RULES!!!

[Guest NoCalMike]

The Republican version will target the middle class and upper classes the most and give corporations a break.

 

The Democratic one will target mostly the lower class and lower middle class and give more unemployment benefits.

If you're trying to stimulate an economy, you need people to pump money into it. The people who do that are the middle class and above, corporations, and business owners. Corporations should have to earn their tax breaks, though. Tie them into low turnover, job creation, and hiring lower-income people, and you're onto something.

Well yes, in theory that would be a great idea. However in reality as soon as these corporations recieve the money, 9 times out of 10 it will go towards building factories and plants outside of the U.S. for some more cheap labor, or straight to a swiss bank account that ends up being tax free anyway. I'd rather give the tax relief to the people that NEED it. If you are making millions, why are you even asking for tax relief in the first place?

[Guest DrTom]

If you are making millions, why are you even asking for tax relief in the first place?

Because Uncle Sam's taking 41% off the top? Before Social Security, before state taxes, before health insurance, etc. Forty-one percent. It's outrageous. Hell, I'd want tax relief too, if I actually took home about 45% of my supposed salary.

 

However in reality as soon as these corporations recieve the money, 9 times out of 10 it will go towards building factories and plants outside of the U.S. for some more cheap labor, or straight to a swiss bank account that ends up being tax free anyway.

While you really can't tell anyone what to do with money that you're giving them, there have to be some disincentives factored in for things like that. We need to encourage investment in the American economy, not offshore bank accounts and certainly not sweatshop jobs overseas.

[Guest EricMM]

Could they implement some sort of Tariff-Like system, which adds costs to investing outside of the US? I know that there would be heat from both the major companies (which recognize cheap labor, lowered environmental standards and the rest as pure profit) and groups who actually want US companies providing jobs in other countries, but I think that overall it's a real shame that companies sell out America like that.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Could they implement some sort of Tariff-Like system, which adds costs to investing outside of the US? I know that there would be heat from both the major companies (which recognize cheap labor, lowered environmental standards and the rest as pure profit) and groups who actually want US companies providing jobs in other countries, but I think that overall it's a real shame that companies sell out America like that.

We should all be dissapointed that these corporations pride themselves on being "American built" corporations yet only a fraction of the labor and maufacturing takes place in the USA.......

[Guest NoCalMike]

If you are making millions, why are you even asking for tax relief in the first place?

Because Uncle Sam's taking 41% off the top? Before Social Security, before state taxes, before health insurance, etc. Forty-one percent. It's outrageous. Hell, I'd want tax relief too, if I actually took home about 45% of my supposed salary.

 

Ok if you net over a million dollars a year for yourself, where is there room to complain? I understand on principle why you want all the money you make to keep, however I just don't understand the "hardship" created on a wealthy individual for having 10 million dollars for his pocket rather than 25 million!?!

[Guest Dangerous A]

But then where is the incentive to work hard in the first place?

 

Yes, if you are a millionaire you aren't sweating whether or not your gonna make this month's smud bill, but why should I bust my ass and run my company efficiently if quite a bit of my money goes to others who don't want to work as hard? If you inherited your fortune, then you got lucky and won the life sweepstakes. Thanks for playing. If you aren't so lucky, then educate yourself and start working yourself into the system.

[Guest Dopey]

Nor-Cal Mike, forgive me for asking a question that may seem silly, but even though I've read most of this thread, I didn't see your position quite clearly.

 

Please bottom line it for this dopey poster, so I can follow along better.

 

Or another way to ask is, what is YOUR economic plan? From A-Z.

You don't have to go into too much detail, just a quick post.

[Guest NoCalMike]

But then where is the incentive to work hard in the first place?

 

Yes, if you are a millionaire you aren't sweating whether or not your gonna make this month's smud bill, but why should I bust my ass and run my company efficiently if quite a bit of my money goes to others who don't want to work as hard? If you inherited your fortune, then you got lucky and won the life sweepstakes. Thanks for playing. If you aren't so lucky, then educate yourself and start working yourself into the system.

Well first of all, who is working harder in the first place, the blue-collar warehouse worker or the CEO who sits in boardroom meetings pushing buttons all day? Working hard is a whole serperate issue, and to assume working hard always leads to being a millionaire is an idealistic way of thinking. I know plenty of people who work their asses off at the job they do, however the Highest 1% in the company has not deemed their position in the company "worthy" of more money. In reality, who makes the company run, the guy who is in charge or the workers breaking their backs?? Very few companies these days higher Management positions from within the company anymore or if they do, it is a token "supervisor" job that still leads to nothing in the big picture. That is why friendly and fun working enviornments are turning into more robotic, machine-like atmospheres. Turnover rations at jobs are going up because people are looked at as pieces of meat instead of hard working individuals.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Nor-Cal Mike, forgive me for asking a question that may seem silly, but even though I've read most of this thread, I didn't see your position quite clearly.

 

Please bottom line it for this dopey poster, so I can follow along better.

 

Or another way to ask is, what is YOUR economic plan? From A-Z.

You don't have to go into too much detail, just a quick post.

This is a loaded question that will take me longer than my lunch break to answer. I will most likely address your question over the weekend.....but for the basic philosphy, just check out Nader, Camejo or any other Green Party information website as they could likely present a better explanation than me.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

This is a loaded question that will take me longer than my lunch break to answer. I will most likely address your question over the weekend.....but for the basic philosphy, just check out Nader, Camejo or any other Green Party information website as they could likely present a better explanation than me.

Ah, Camejo the former card carrying Communist that Ronald Regan once described as "the most dangerous man in America." Might as well read the works of Karl Marx if you want an economic platform, same thing really.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Ah, Camejo the former card carrying Communist that Ronald Regan once described as "the most dangerous man in America." Might as well read the works of Karl Marx if you want an economic platform, same thing really.

Yep, there we go, more intelligence....liberal equals "communist" Please, go away. Oh and how suprising that Reagan said that as his mind was almost gone a couple of years into his second term.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Ah, Camejo the former card carrying Communist that Ronald Regan once described as "the most dangerous man in America."  Might as well read the works of Karl Marx if you want an economic platform, same thing really.

Yep, there we go, more intelligence....liberal equals "communist" Please, go away. Oh and how suprising that Reagan said that as his mind was almost gone a couple of years into his second term.

Uh, Peter Camejo was a real communist! He ran for president in 1976 as a socialist and only recently jumped on the Green party bandwagon.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Ah, Camejo the former card carrying Communist that Ronald Regan once described as "the most dangerous man in America."  Might as well read the works of Karl Marx if you want an economic platform, same thing really.

Yep, there we go, more intelligence....liberal equals "communist" Please, go away. Oh and how suprising that Reagan said that as his mind was almost gone a couple of years into his second term.

Uh, Peter Camejo was a real communist! He ran for president in 1976 as a socialist and only recently jumped on the Green party bandwagon.

There are differences between the two. "single most dangerous man in america" I would say is a bit ludicrous. I mine as well call Pat Buchanan a Facist then.