We The People

[rgraham666]

If I may ask?

How many people under thirty won't just blow it as well? Or over thirty for that matter?

I'm also confused as to how this will help the U.S. economy. Yes, it will increase demand for products, most of which are now manufactured outside the U.S. So how does all that money leaving the U.S. help the U.S. economy?

Also, how will this help the banks ease up credit? Only part of this money will be saved, that is deposited in banks. Will it be enough to ease credit?

Just a few questions.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

If I may ask?

How many people under thirty won't just blow it as well? Or over thirty for that matter?

I'm also confused as to how this will help the U.S. economy. Yes, it will increase demand for products, most of which are now manufactured outside the U.S. So how does all that money leaving the U.S. help the U.S. economy?

Also, how will this help the banks ease up credit? Only part of this money will be saved, that is deposited in banks. Will it be enough to ease credit?

Just a few questions.

First...You're right about people blowing the 10grand. Damn! But, wait! Didn't Regan do something like this? Tax cuts were involved though. The people now brought home more so the spent more. I believe he called it trickle down economics. It worked too.

Second...How many people live today with out credit? I have been living for the past two years without using credit.

Third...it may be true that most product is made outside the US but, it is US retailers selling that product. Economics 101 you buy something the retailer takes a cut and makes a profit. If the profit is big enough he hires more people to help out because demand just increased ten fold. With more people working they now have some extra cash to spend. The cycle continues.

 

[Belegon]

First...You're right about people blowing the 10grand. Damn! But, wait! Didn't Regan do something like this? Tax cuts were involved though. The people now brought home more so the spent more. I believe he called it trickle down economics. It worked too.

Second...How many people live today with out credit? I have been living for the past two years without using credit.

Third...it may be true that most product is made outside the US but, it is US retailers selling that product. Economics 101 you buy something the retailer takes a cut and makes a profit. If the profit is big enough he hires more people to help out because demand just increased ten fold. With more people working they now have some extra cash to spend. The cycle continues.

First: The concept of trickle-down economics (which I would define as the delusional idea that giving people primarily motivated by the acquisition of more money a tax-break so that they will then allow the new money they have to go to other people rather than into their own bank accounts) is only tangentially related to the idea of giving everyone an economic stimulus payout.

Second: You are the exception, not the rule. Besides, it is not individuals or small family units who are most affected by the drying up of short-term credit options. It is small to medium sized businesses.

Third: The retail end of the spectrum has the smallest margins and results in the least profitable available jobs. Using this to blunt the idea that the majority of benefit could flow offshore is as foolish of a statement as the recent trend of counting "job growth" by saying that a company that fires one salaried employee making 80k plus benefits and replaces that person with 3 part time employees making 25K and no benefits has added 2 new jobs to the economy.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

First: The concept of trickle-down economics (which I would define as the delusional idea that giving people primarily motivated by the acquisition of more money a tax-break so that they will then allow the new money they have to go to other people rather than into their own bank accounts) is only tangentially related to the idea of giving everyone an economic stimulus payout.

Second: You are the exception, not the rule. Besides, it is not individuals or small family units who are most affected by the drying up of short-term credit options. It is small to medium sized businesses.

Third: The retail end of the spectrum has the smallest margins and results in the least profitable available jobs. Using this to blunt the idea that the majority of benefit could flow offshore is as foolish of a statement as the recent trend of counting "job growth" by saying that a company that fires one salaried employee making 80k plus benefits and replaces that person with 3 part time employees making 25K and no benefits has added 2 new jobs to the economy.

First: It worked.

Second: This is probably true but, should be the rule.

Third: That's two more jobs than were out there before the give away. And don't forget about all those middlemen that take a cut and make a profit and hire three part-timers to help out. So that's four jobs that weren't out there before. So you really can't say it wouldn't work?

 

[rgraham666]

Two jobs making less money that the original 80K job. They aren't going to spend nearly as much as the person who had 80K in funds. At 25K each they're mostly going to be buying housing and food. Which doesn't do much for demand.

I fail to see how this 'works'.

 

[Belegon]

First: It worked.

Second: This is probably true but, should be the rule.

Third: That's two more jobs than were out there before the give away. And don't forget about all those middlemen that take a cut and make a profit and hire three part-timers to help out. So that's four jobs that weren't out there before. So you really can't say it wouldn't work?

First: Whether or not it worked is dependent on who you ask. Opinions differ. Obviously, mine differs from yours, for example.

Second: The first was not the important sentence in that answer, although since the second and third sentences were not about you, I can see why you didn't notice that.

Third: The three jobs combine to earn 5K less than their predecessor in pure spending power and do nothing to support the subsidiary industries who serve by providing benefits. In addition, IMHO as a bank and retail manager and based purely and subjectively on those experiences, three people "just doing a job" do not produce nearly the equivalent of one person pursuing a career.

And that is from the businesses POV. From the other side, how many of us feel that we can support even ourselves on 25K and no benefits? Forget family... I am talking just yourself.

I can do it. I won't call it a comfortable living, though. Those are survival wages and that is all.

 

[DesertPirate]

How does what's happening in Washington help?

If you increase production, your utillity bills go up and you are paying 40% more than last year before production was increased (if cap & trade passes).

The way the Waxman bill is written you will have to have your house pass California energy codes before you can sell it. Anyone noticed the price of housing in California? Do you really want a Federal inspector having any say in selling a house?

If you make a larger profit it will just get taken away and given to those not working.

Where is the incentive in this socialist takeover to do anything productive?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Two jobs making less money that the original 80K job. They aren't going to spend nearly as much as the person who had 80K in funds. At 25K each they're mostly going to be buying housing and food. Which doesn't do much for demand.

I fail to see how this 'works'.

First: Whether or not it worked is dependent on who you ask. Opinions differ. Obviously, mine differs from yours, for example.

Second: The first was not the important sentence in that answer, although since the second and third sentences were not about you, I can see why you didn't notice that.

Third: The three jobs combine to earn 5K less than their predecessor in pure spending power and do nothing to support the subsidiary industries who serve by providing benefits. In addition, IMHO as a bank and retail manager and based purely and subjectively on those experiences, three people "just doing a job" do not produce nearly the equivalent of one person pursuing a career.

And that is from the businesses POV. From the other side, how many of us feel that we can support even ourselves on 25K and no benefits? Forget family... I am talking just yourself.

I can do it. I won't call it a comfortable living, though. Those are survival wages and that is all.

Well having a job that pays me 25K is a lot better than unemployment that only pays me 15k. That's 10k more than what I was getting while unemployed, right? And I never said some could support their families on 25K in most situations. But if both spouses had 25K jobs, that 50K would go a long way.

And while we're on the subject of wild fantasy, as you guys would put it, the biggest boost to the economy would be the passage of HR25 and the repeal of the 16th amendment. Then that 25K would not be eaten up by payroll taxes. True someone making 25k pays no income tax but they do have to pay SSI and Medicare tax.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Well having a job that pays me 25K is a lot better than unemployment that only pays me 15k. That's 10k more than what I was getting while unemployed, right? And I never said some could support their families on 25K in most situations. But if both spouses had 25K jobs, that 50K would go a long way.

And while we're on the subject of wild fantasy, as you guys would put it, the biggest boost to the economy would be the passage of HR25 and the repeal of the 16th amendment. Then that 25K would not be eaten up by payroll taxes. True someone making 25k pays no income tax but they do have to pay SSI and Medicare tax.

Oh Christ, you're not actually advocating getting rid of Social Security and Medicare?! And taking away the authority of government to levy income tax? I'm sorry, but you have no reason to expect anyone to take your arguments seriously. You may as well be talking about Never Never Land. Any civility you receive in discussing such ridiculous proposals is out of kindness and basic respect for human dignity, not for your opinion. "Wild fantasy" isn't just how "[us] guys would put it", it's a realistic appraisal of your ideas.
What a loon.

 

[Boxlicker101]

If I may ask?

How many people under thirty won't just blow it as well? Or over thirty for that matter?

I'm also confused as to how this will help the U.S. economy. Yes, it will increase demand for products, most of which are now manufactured outside the U.S. So how does all that money leaving the U.S. help the U.S. economy?

Also, how will this help the banks ease up credit? Only part of this money will be saved, that is deposited in banks. Will it be enough to ease credit?

Just a few questions.

I believe most people, if they had a $10,000 windfall, would use it to pay off debts, such as a car loan or credit cards or student loans or whatever else they had that could be paid off. Those repayments wouldn't help the economy at all, but it would free up more of the income of the people who rerceived it and they would be able to buy things they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford.

Of course, some people would use the money to buy new appliances or a car or other major purchase. This is what Washington is hoping everybody will do.

 

[amicus]

Oh Christ, you're not actually advocating getting rid of Social Security and Medicare?! And taking away the authority of government to levy income tax? I'm sorry, but you have no reason to expect anyone to take your arguments seriously. You may as well be talking about Never Never Land. Any civility you receive in discussing such ridiculous proposals is out of kindness and basic respect for human dignity, not for your opinion. "Wild fantasy" isn't just how "[us] guys would put it", it's a realistic appraisal of your ideas.
What a loon.

~~~

It may appear a 'fantasy' to you Huckleman, but the Income Tax Amendment, Social Security and Medicare were all challenged in the Supreme Court as being Unconstitutional. In the early 20th Century, the Progressive Democrats set America on a path of change from individual responsibility to one of government control and regulation, precursors to the present 'Nanny State' mentality that has set about equalization by the use of force, women, blacks and other minorities by penalizing the general population.

All of that is about to come to a crashing stop; you just don't see it.

You will.

Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

HUCKLEBERRY

As of right this minute guvmint confiscates 50% of your income in taxes. Above the 50% mark people stop working. NOT EVERYONE. But the number tapers off till Obama and the Democrats take 100%, and then aint nobody going to work.

The healthcare deal is a bald sugar-coated ploy to get another chunk of your money. Your gonna have guvmint healthcare in the same way you have guvmint military and guvmint space programs and guvmint foreigh aid. That is, somebody gonna get it but that somebody aint you. I'm betting that the money will go to some company the guvmint contracts with, and they gonna say HUCKLEBERRY! YOU AINT SPROSHERED UP ENOUGH, COME BACK WHEN YOU IS.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckleman2000
Oh Christ, you're not actually advocating getting rid of Social Security and Medicare?! And taking away the authority of government to levy income tax? I'm sorry, but you have no reason to expect anyone to take your arguments seriously. You may as well be talking about Never Never Land. Any civility you receive in discussing such ridiculous proposals is out of kindness and basic respect for human dignity, not for your opinion. "Wild fantasy" isn't just how "[us] guys would put it", it's a realistic appraisal of your ideas.
What a loon.

~~~

It may appear a 'fantasy' to you Huckleman, but the Income Tax Amendment, Social Security and Medicare were all challenged in the Supreme Court as being Unconstitutional. In the early 20th Century, the Progressive Democrats set America on a path of change from individual responsibility to one of government control and regulation, precursors to the present 'Nanny State' mentality that has set about equalization by the use of force, women, blacks and other minorities by penalizing the general population.

All of that is about to come to a crashing stop; you just don't see it.

You will.

Amicus

Income tax was passed into law but declared unconstitutional; I don't know why. Congress then made it an amendment, so it would be constitutional. I believe SS was passed into law during the FDR administration during the Great Depression. Medicare goes back to the Sixties, unless you are thinking of something else.

In other words, none of these things have been around all that long. I doubt if any of them will come to a crashing stop in the foreseeable future, but that remains to be seen.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Oh Christ, you're not actually advocating getting rid of Social Security and Medicare?! And taking away the authority of government to levy income tax? I'm sorry, but you have no reason to expect anyone to take your arguments seriously. You may as well be talking about Never Never Land. Any civility you receive in discussing such ridiculous proposals is out of kindness and basic respect for human dignity, not for your opinion. "Wild fantasy" isn't just how "[us] guys would put it", it's a realistic appraisal of your ideas.
What a loon.

Another person who hasn't read HR25! Most likely didn't read the Cap & Trade bill either. Or the biggest spending bull...I mean bill ever passed in the US Congress.

Where in my statement did I say anything about getting rid of social insecurity? Or medinoncare? Show me where I have written, typed or said any such thing?

ETA: And you call me a loon? At least I know what I said. You sure don't.

 

[Isid]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Happy Independence Day to all...

 

[DesertPirate]

This day should be set aside for all members of Government to read the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution.

Of course the group we have now isn't capable of understanding what they read, but it's worth a try!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

This day should be set aside for all members of Government to read the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution.

Of course the group we have now isn't capable of understanding what they read, but it's worth a try!

They wont GET it any quicker than they GET Greek.

 

[rgraham666]

A society based on a fundamental interpretation of The Constitution will be no different than one based on a fundamental interpretation of The Bible.

The Constitution is not a statement of Truth. It was meant as a practical guide to help lead the U.S. through the future.

Anyway, any society that regards the people it elects to represent them, and all other civil servants, as an enemy isn't a society likely to last long.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

A society based on a fundamental interpretation of The Constitution will be no different than one based on a fundamental interpretation of The Bible.

The Constitution is not a statement of Truth. It was meant as a practical guide to help lead the U.S. through the future.

Anyway, any society that regards the people it elects to represent them, and all other civil servants, as an enemy isn't a society likely to last long.

Yes, but a government that ignores the basic fundamentals set by that document and it's interpretations by the people of those fundamentals is not a government of the people. It's usually called a dictatorship.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

A society based on a fundamental interpretation of The Constitution will be no different than one based on a fundamental interpretation of The Bible.

The Constitution is not a statement of Truth. It was meant as a practical guide to help lead the U.S. through the future.

Anyway, any society that regards the people it elects to represent them, and all other civil servants, as an enemy isn't a society likely to last long.

THIS EARNS MY SILLY-BILLY OF THE WEEK AWARD.

ROB, of course, ignores the functions of political and moral philosophy. But can anyone imagine ROB out in the world coping with anarchists who feel free to cut his throat for his purse? ROB would shit his pants if he were told the Constitution is taking a new direction and he aint going with it.

 

[amicus]

The Canadian malcontent hasn't a clue to the meaning of 'unalienable rights', that are not malleable and not part of a 'living' document.

amicus...

 

[Boxlicker101]

A society based on a fundamental interpretation of The Constitution will be no different than one based on a fundamental interpretation of The Bible.

The Constitution is not a statement of Truth. It was meant as a practical guide to help lead the U.S. through the future.

Anyway, any society that regards the people it elects to represent them, and all other civil servants, as an enemy isn't a society likely to last long.

In some ways, this is a pretty silly statement. For one thing, the Bible says something like: "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me!" The Constitution says you can have as many gods as you damn well please, or none at all if you prefer.

It's more than a guide, but it was never intended to be unchanging. In fact, it was been changed a score of times since its passing.

Elected officials and civil servants are not usually regarded as enemies. They are collectively regarded as a necessary evil and mistrusted and watched closely to see that they don't try to pull any shit or, at least, not too much shit.

 

[DesertPirate]

A society based on a fundamental interpretation of The Constitution will be no different than one based on a fundamental interpretation of The Bible.

The Constitution is not a statement of Truth. It was meant as a practical guide to help lead the U.S. through the future.

Anyway, any society that regards the people it elects to represent them, and all other civil servants, as an enemy isn't a society likely to last long.

It was written to strictly limit the intrusion of Federal Government into affairs better handled at the State and local levels. Something the Thundering Herd of Dumbass can't seem to grasp.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by rgraham666
A society based on a fundamental interpretation of The Constitution will be no different than one based on a fundamental interpretation of The Bible.

The Constitution is not a statement of Truth. It was meant as a practical guide to help lead the U.S. through the future.

Anyway, any society that regards the people it elects to represent them, and all other civil servants, as an enemy isn't a society likely to last long.

It was written to strictly limit the intrusion of Federal Government into affairs better handled at the State and local levels. Something the Thundering Herd of Dumbass can't seem to grasp.

That and to guarantee certain rights to the citizens. Back then, there was a long way to go. There still is a way to go, but we are a lot closer.

 

[Xelebes]

For what it's worth, had it been up to me, there would have been no war, no TARP bank bailout, and no phoney pork-laden "stimulus" sham.

And I would have used that money instead to send a $20,000 check to every one of 110,000,000 American households.

Something that actually would have stimulated the economy.

Just someone taking economics responding - no, that would not necessarily stimulate the economy. For the most part, much of that money in a perilous time would be socked away in either savings accounts, which I will grant be used as investment by the banks, or stuffed underneath the mattress where it gets no mileage. But because the banks too are scaling back their leverage, they wouldn't be lending as much as you'd think they would.