President Obama plans to return five percent of his salary to Treasury.

[PLATO]

Don't confuse him with facts.

You are an idiot! Love ya, but you ARE an idiot.

[Sava]

The type of investment that I am talking about is more on the oreder of creating new companies and hiring workers for existing companies. Both of which many investors are still reluctant to do...thus the question of "Why?"

With private individuals sitting on estimates of $15 trillion in cash reserves (from what i've read... feel free to research yourself), our current problem is not with supply. It's with demand. You don't fix demand by giving rich guys money. They don't invest it in new companies because consumers don't have the disposable income to buy products and services from these phantom companies.

It's like waiting for eggs from other people's chickens when you own all the chickens and they are locked in a dungeon.

[PLATO]

I think you are confusing good stimulus policy with bad stimulus policy like cutting taxes for the rich and corporations.

I will say this. I am not fundamentally against tax increases for the rich. There certainly is a larger income disparity between the rich and the middle class than there has ever been. Something needs to be done. I am not sure that tax increases are the whole answer though. More can be done to stimulate growth in middle class incomes and it should be done.

As far as Corporate Taxes are concerned, I think they should be eliminated. Corporate taxes are regressive as they are passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices. This includes the poorest of people.

[Sava]

You are an idiot! Love ya, but you ARE an idiot.

By any objective measure of intelligence, I would test higher than you and everyone you know... have ever known... and will ever know. I'm by no means an expert in everything. Nor, will I deny I'm an idiot. But I'm smarter than you. If we ever had a "my dick's bigger" contest, I'd smoke you so bad... you'd probably commit suicide in shame.

But that's not what forums are about. We're all idiots here. I just enjoy falling on my sword in order to take you with me.

[Kidlicious]

Yes, but the estimate of .29 (I had actually read the estimate as being .27 back in 2008 when it was proposed) is based upon the assumption that most of the investment would have been made anyway. In a growing economy, I believe that is true. In a recession, I think that the estimate should be higher. Still, I do believe that you are correct in assuming that it would not even generate a dollar for dollar benefit.

The type of investment that I am talking about is more on the oreder of creating new companies and hiring workers for existing companies. Both of which many investors are still reluctant to do...thus the question of "Why?"

Accelerated depreciation IS incentive for starting new companies. And what you're saying really doesn't make sense. When the economy is expanding you have increased spending. Why would that make the multiplier lower?

[MrFun]

Oh, I see what you are saying. Okay, that is arguably true in that context.

FTFY

[Sava]

FTFY

This should mean "**** that **** you" because "Fixed" is about the same as "FTFY" and is only one more character

[PLATO]

With private individuals sitting on estimates of $15 trillion in cash reserves (from what i've read... feel free to research yourself), our current problem is not with supply. It's with demand. You don't fix demand by giving rich guys money. They don't invest it in new companies because consumers don't have the disposable income to buy products and services from these phantom companies.

It's like waiting for eggs from other people's chickens when you own all the chickens and they are locked in a dungeon.

"Giving rich guys money"? What I think you meant was "letting rich guys keep their money". Demand is an issue, but it is not the real issue. The real issue is "return on investment". The environment in this country is not condusve to business expansion. The growth you have seen is based on demand and not on innovation and investment in new business. Businesses simply do not see making the investments in people they need to because of regulatory issues and the associated costs, not demand issues.

[PLATO]

Accelerated depreciation IS incentive for starting new companies. And what you're saying really doesn't make sense. When the economy is expanding you have increased spending. Why would that make the multiplier lower?

Because of the premise that the investment would have occured without the stimulus. The benefit gained from the incentive is thus minimal in an expansion...not the overall multiplier.

[PLATO]

FTFY

Isn't that what I said the first time (minus the "but..." part)?

[PLATO]

By any objective measure of intelligence, I would test higher than you and everyone you know... have ever known... and will ever know.

I doubt it.

[Sava]

What I think you meant was "letting rich guys keep their money".

Money, on that scale, is whoevers we as a political entity says it is. If we're talking about the morality behind compensating individuals for labor, no single person could ever legitimately be rich. Money is power. Power comes from politics. Rich guys are powerful because hordes of people don't string them up in the public square. Modern capitalism is a shell game. The winners don't win because they put forth any legitimate effort into earning their money. Corporations are pyramid schemes. The system generally works because enough money would trickle down to those who could spend it. Now, that's not happening as much. People are beginning to take notice that in the last 30 years, they have a smaller piece of the pie.

My only goal is to make sure there isn't some sort of violent revolution because I'm upper middle class and can't afford my own private army. I don't want riots and looting. I have more than most. I don't want a mob to threaten that. I also would much rather rely on the public institutions like the military and police to preserve my status... rather than having to buy a bunch of guns and guard all my own **** myself.

Your retarded ideology is a threat to national security. When it's bumper stickers and rhetoric, it's mostly harmless. But when it becomes public policy, it endangers our entire civilization.

Demand is an issue, but it is not the real issue. The real issue is "return on investment". The environment in this country is not condusve to business expansion. The growth you have seen is based on demand and not on innovation and investment in new business. Businesses simply do not see making the investments in people they need to because of regulatory issues and the associated costs, not demand issues.

More bumper stickers. I wish there was an inkling of intelligence somewhere in there... but there's not.

You are an all right guy for the most part. So it's fun to engage in this pointless exercise with you as long as you don't get all butthurt about the things I say. You've got thick skin to go along with your thick skull... so I'm not worried about that.

[Kidlicious]

Because of the premise that the investment would have occured without the stimulus. The benefit gained from the incentive is thus minimal in an expansion...not the overall multiplier.

Yes. I think everyone agrees that the benefit would not be larger during an expansion. But the way the multiplier is measured would cause the number to be greater during an expansion. Do you have any source for your theory? I'm not aware that accelerated depreciation is commonly increased during an expansion, because it's generally a method of stimulus.

[Sava]

I doubt it.

Professionals have evaluated me. I have written documentation. During the most marijuana-filled periods of my life, my IQ tested into the 150's... with only short term memory hiccups dragging my score lower... which is understandable.

Personally, I'm not that proud of this... considering the testing was done in conjunction with treatment for mental illness.

The fact that I'm somewhat bragging about how I know how smart I am because I've struggled with emotional issues kind of makes me the loser in this contest... but the smarter loser, nevertheless.

I'm not sure if I would trade my brain for more of a victory in life. My situation doesn't diminish my value as a person. I have total control over how I spend by days without fear of a bank foreclosing on me... without fear of having to live on the streets. I don't need to spend my days working my ass off to pay bills.

So I'm not crazy. I'm eccentric. Poor people are crazy.

Dennis Hopper

[PLATO]

Yes. I think everyone agrees that the benefit would not be larger during an expansion. But the way the multiplier is measured would cause the number to be greater during an expansion. Do you have any source for your theory? I'm not aware that accelerated depreciation is commonly increased during an expansion, because it's generally a method of stimulus.

No, I am not saying that stimulus accelerated depreciation is used during an expansion, but rather addressing the whole idea of accelerated depreciation such as MACRS.