Hopefully Some Good Economic News That Will Last

[JohnT]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Idi Amin wasn't a socialist or a communist.

Yeah, you're right. I was thinking of Robert Mugabe. My list is now dramatically improved.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Defiant
OK, Che, now I have to ask you what you are drinking.

Water, 8 8oz glasses a day.

Just yesterday didn't *his* federal judges just strip the Alabama Chief Justice because he wouldn't remove the 10 commandments from the court building.

IIRC, it was his fellow Alabama Supremems who stripped him. Federal coutrs would have no authority to do so.

Isn't he the first one to start pushing for laws against guys like Enron.

No, he did not, until it was clear that something was going to be passed. Then he got invloved so that it could be diluted. Bush actually does a lot of that. Sits on legislation, then takes all the credit when it gets passed later.

for the poor maybe he is trying to quit giving the handouts and trying to get jobs for them,

So why make it harder for them to get job training or get an education?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by JohnT
Yeah, you're right. I was thinking of Robert Mugabe. My list is now dramatically improved.

Hey, Mugabe's not a mass murderer, even if he is a murderer and thug. And he's certainly not cannibal.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Defiant

Just yesterday didn't *his* federal judges just strip the Alabama Chief Justice because he wouldn't remove the 10 commandments from the court building.

[q]IIRC, it was his fellow Alabama Supremems who stripped him. Federal coutrs would have no authority to do so.

You're right, I meant the Fed told him to take out the 10 commandments which led to his dismisal.

Isn't he the first one to start pushing for laws against guys like Enron.

[q]No, he did not, until it was clear that something was going to be passed. Then he got invloved so that it could be diluted. Bush actually does a lot of that. Sits on legislation, then takes all the credit when it gets passed later.

That's not the way I remember it, but we will leave it at that because without any proof, neither of us will convince the other.

for the poor maybe he is trying to quit giving the handouts and trying to get jobs for them,

So why make it harder for them to get job training or get an education?

How do you know it is harder, I live in a University town and have one daughter in class, she tells me about a lot of kids with assisstance from the feds and it ticks her off a little because we have to pay full boat.

[Defiant]

Sorry about that major screwup of the quoting system, che. Hope you can read it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Japher
And rich people are more likely to invest "additional" monies, than are middle class or poor people. The goal of the tax cut is to stimulate the economy by creating jobs and investing in buisnesses, not to give a blue collar worker a vacation, a new car, or the like.

Then again, it isn't to give a rich guy that new jet either.

You missed the part where it said that consumer spending is 70% of total spending. Consumer spending is what stimulates the economy not business spending which isn't sh1t comparably.

[Kidlicious]

Re: Hopefully Some Good Economic News That Will Last

Originally posted by Defiant
The Treasury Department estimates it will collect $100 billion less in taxes in the first half of 2004 than it would have without the tax cut. That reflects not only the higher refunds but also reduced tax payments by those who don't get refunds.

$100 billion is probably not significant, but maybe.

[Japher]

Welcome back Kid

Let me ask, where does the consumer get the money they are spending?

Also note, that in a latter post that I suggested alternatives to the tax cut that would encourage consumer spending. Thus, I am aware that consumer spending does stimulate the economy, but I also see that buisness spending increases the economy as well.

[JohnT]

Let me ask, where does the consumer get the money they are spending?

Wait, Kid - I know this one!
[nervous schoolboy]

The businesses are taking a 30% skim off the back of the consumers merely for their existence. If we got rid of the businesses, everybody would be both 30% richer and "equal."

How'd I do?

[/nervous schoolboy]

[Japher]

Nobody work, Everybody gets paid!!!

For what reason, I have no idea... Isn't communism grand?

[JohnT]

No, no! Everybody work, nobody gets paid, we just beg, borrow, and share. Simple is as simple does, right?

How'm I doin', Mr Kid?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Japher
Welcome back Kid

Let me ask, where does the consumer get the money they are spending?

Also note, that in a latter post that I suggested alternatives to the tax cut that would encourage consumer spending. Thus, I am aware that consumer spending does stimulate the economy, but I also see that buisness spending increases the economy as well.

The size of the component is what matters. Adding $100 billion to consumer spending is certainly possible. In fact, adding $1000 billion to consumer spending may be possibel. But since business spending is such a small component to total spending it isn't realistic to add $100 billion to it in the short run.

Look at your personal spending. What do you spend the most money on? What do you spend the least money on? If your total spending increases what do you think will contribute to that increase, the item that you spend the most on or the item that you spend the least on?

[Japher]

Buisness spending generates jobs, other sources of income, and an increase in GDP just the same as consumer spending does if not more.

Consumer Spending -> Buisness Earnings -> Buisness Spending -> Consumer Earnings -> Consumer Spending

No matter which way you look at it. Increase one you increase all. Why increase one over the other? Does it matter?

[Japher]

Look at your personal spending. What do you spend the most money on? What do you spend the least money on?

Consumer goods, which are made by a buisness.

If your total spending increases what do you think will contribute to that increase, the item that you spend the most on or the item that you spend the least on?

I don't understand the question. Spending doesn't contribute to an increase in spending... that makes no sense at all.

Total spending is increasing, so I guess Bush's tax cut worked to stimulate the economy. But, by the time we realize that another prez will have come a long (probably a democrat) and everyone will say that it was his/her doing, they'll F' things up, and another repub will have to come back in and clean up the mess... It's a sticky little cycle, each turn of it receives the same arguments...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Japher
Buisness spending generates jobs, other sources of income, and an increase in GDP just the same as consumer spending does if not more.

Consumer Spending -> Buisness Earnings -> Buisness Spending -> Consumer Earnings -> Consumer Spending

No matter which way you look at it. Increase one you increase all. Why increase one over the other? Does it matter?

The problem with your logic is that you assume that business will spend money regardless of how much consumers are spending. Businesses only increase their spending with optimistic expectations of consumer spending or after they see that consumers are spending more. The opposite is not true. Consumers spending decisions are not dependent on business spending decisions.