thank god george bush is getting rid of that tax on stock dividends!!!

[minxnim]

all those poor people on welfare were like, TOTALLY FREAKING OUT, that their stock dividend tax was going to totally put them below poverty level for ANOTHER WHOLE YEAR!!!!

 

[deadair]

if the marrage tax goes... i'll be slightly happier.

 

[minxnim]

gay people won't be!

 

[FrostGiant]

Once I'm declared tax exempt, I'll be happy.

 

[avi]

I saw that in the paper this morning and was like WHAT THE FUCK? at least one senator is calling him on his shit and saying this act (if it happens) is (pretty much) class warfare.

I pay my taxes. It's my civic duty, as I see it.

 

[minxnim]

id' be willing to pay even more taxes if they actually HELPED people with the money, you know? instead of blowing things up and buying the president more jerk off materials. sad sad sad.

 

[FuSoYa]

Bush was quoted as saying:

"Some people want to turn this into class warfare. That.. that.. that's just not the way I think."

 

[avi]

I'm right there with you prep. I totally wouldn't mind paying a lot more taxes if I got something back, like public healthcare or something.

 

[xfer]

I'm withholding judgment until someone explains to me exactly how this is supposed to help the economy.

 

[minxnim]

xfer, it's basically the same as reaganomics. the trickle down theory! like, if you give the rich a break, they'll spend more and give more money to the economy and then they'll have more money and somehow this means that they'll pay poor people more and like, give them more jobs and stuff. there's an article on cnn.com about it that's pretty accurate.

 

[xfer]

i'll check that article out. it doesnt sound like a bad theory if it came wrapped in laws to force the rich to spend more on jobs and stuff, but because it's GOP i'm sure they're all small-govt no-laws and there's NOT.

ok, bright side: if this goes through, and the economy DOESN'T increase, then Bush can't say "I HAD A PLAN AND YOU WOULDN'T LET ME IMPLEMENT IT BLAH BLAH", so he'll deserve even more blame for the econocrash and maybe he'll be shuffled OUT THA DOOR in TWO-OH-FOUR.

 

[avi]

I'd hate to let something like that pass just to prove the point yet again that that theory just plain does not work. never has, never will.

 

[minxnim]

it just makes me sad because reagan and bush already did this before and it ruined the economy and stuff. and now people are gonna get fucked again. but i guess this is to be expected and all....
sigh.

 

[xfer]

well, i think theory does work...or rather can...but not this particular theory.

i just feel like a schlub whenever i get in economic discussions. i think you really need to be incredibly informed before you can make an intelligent statement on the economy...like, you need more education and knowledge than for most other political stuff. so who knows. what "improves the economy", anyway? consumer confidence and nothing else?

 

[minxnim]

maybe my degree in womens studies and political economy can help?

touche!
but anyway, yea... i have really tried to understand the republican rationalization for this economic plan and i can't find it. i mean, other countries have tried it too. even the world bank, the assholes of the economic world, have said 'this shit doesn't work!'... but yea. i guess they're just short terming their gains for the people that give them $ for campaigns? i can't tell. either way, it didn't work before because you can't stop people from being greedy. let's face it, the goverment, democrat/republican, isn't very humanitarian, and hasn't proved otherwise for a long long time.

 

[avi]

I think you have to look back at what kind of things brought the US out of the depression after WWII - WPA, public works projects, and so on - it's my opinion that the govn't needs to spend money and inject more funds into the economy themselves. Relying on big business to do that is ludicrous b/c it's usually not favorable to their bottom line to increase costs through new hires, raises, etc.

Not that I'm an econ wiz or anything though - I'm sure some nerd on here could school me or go into more substantial detail.

 

[xfer]

Well, my unschooled opinion is simply that the economy drops because there's less money cycling through it...people tend to hoard and cut back on spending (in the old days it was "saving your pennies" as a justification, and nowadays people make themselves feel good about hoarding by saying "i'm being anti-consumerist"), which kills the economy more, so on and so forth...so the solution would be to forcibly inject money into the economy, take it away from people with taxes and spend it on stuff they should (but aren't) voluntarily spending it on...

obviously, i am no small-gummint conservative.

 

[minxnim]

i mean, in general, that's a decent idea. after all, i dont think anyone has ever solved the 'bad economy' problem, since well... every time i happens it's for a myriad of different and complex reasons that cannot be compared to those which may be occurred before....
a good economy starts, in my opinion, with one that is functional and mostly self reliant, because then it functions long term within itself (that is to mean, no major out of economy investments). this is often where we go wrong. this is also what people seem to think will HELP (globalization) but that is just my opinion. that if we spent our money where we got it, then it'd well,,,, stay the fuck put.