The 'stimulus' isn't going to work, and why.

[HeavyStick]

I am good with all of that as long as Ish does not refer to me as junior.

At least your nickname isn't feminine.

 

[Saint Peter]

How do you feel about, "sparky?"

Call me an electrician again and I will hit you with my Kleins.

 

[off2bed]

This is odd. I had you pegged as a trickle-down proponent. Ya know, give the wealthy more money and they'll create jobs with it.

Yet, you seem to be saying that when times are tough, the wealthy actually horde their money and place it into safe "vehicles".

Interesting. I guess I had you all wrong.

If the rich don't look out for themselves, there won't be anyone to create jobs when the government gives up this charade of trying to help.

Besides, when you keep money in a bank, what do you think they do with it? They use their assets to loan money. To whom? People starting businesses, for one.

 

[jhuson]

If the rich don't look out for themselves, there won't be anyone to create jobs when the government gives up this charade of trying to help.

Besides, when you keep money in a bank, what do you think they do with it? They use their assets to loan money. To whom? People starting businesses, for one.

Then why isn't it working? Bush's tax cuts should have the economy humming along, according to you. The rich had more wealth than during previous administrations, yet they aren't creating jobs with it -- which is what I always hear from supply siders.

I've always argued that giving the rich tax cuts when the economy is tepid doesn't automatically stimulate growth and job creation because the wealthy are notorious horders and savers. They are not going to expand or create businesses through investment unless DEMAND calls for it.

Do you know any people that are wealthy? By this, I'm saying people with a net worth of at least $20M. Have you ever talked to them or conducted business with them?

 

[off2bed]

The Bush tax cuts were too small. I wasn't on Lit when they happened, hence my lack of outrage at the time.

The rich are wealthy because they know how to keep their money. Duh. That's why they're rich. Sometimes it's about cash flow, sometimes it's about cash stashing. And many of the rich are mortgaged to their eyeballs, too.

There is no one, single, prototype of "the rich" that you can use as your scapegoat for whatever ills you think society is suffering.

I can't say that I do know anyone with a net worth of >$20m. Who does?

 

[Saint Peter]

I can't say that I do know anyone with a net worth of >$20m. Who does?

Any republican worth a fuck has to be worth over 20 million. It is a big part of being in The Club.

 

[jhuson]

The Bush tax cuts were too small. I wasn't on Lit when they happened, hence my lack of outrage at the time.

The rich are wealthy because they know how to keep their money. Duh. That's why they're rich. Sometimes it's about cash flow, sometimes it's about cash stashing. And many of the rich are mortgaged to their eyeballs, too.

There is no one, single, prototype of "the rich" that you can use as your scapegoat for whatever ills you think society is suffering.

I can't say that I do know anyone with a net worth of >$20m. Who does?

Thank you for proving my point.

I don't begrudge the rich at all or am looking for a scapegoat. My point has always been that "tax cuts" aren't an automatic cure-all for a slow economy. As you said, the wealthy are wealthy because they are SMART with their money. And that means sometimes stashing it during slow economic times.

I know several people with a net worth of $20M +. One of them is my boss (though I suspect that his "net worth" is going to come crashing down soon due to some stupid decisions.). This is for another thread but I will say that "my boss" is not one of the smart wealthy people.

Another is a associate/friend who built up an website/e-commerce business during the 90s and was smart enough to cash in and walk away with a small fortune. Now he spends his time volunteering, raising his kids, running marathons, etc. Lucky bastard. But he really deserves it. Great guy.

Because of the line of work I am in, I come into contact with these people on a regular basis and like anything in life, there are both good and bad (those are the two examples I cited above).

 

[Lavared]

I can't say that I do know anyone with a net worth of >$20m. Who does?

I can't say as I know them personally but a goodly chunk of the members of the U.S. Senate fit the bill.

 

[off2bed]

I can't say as I know them personally but a goodly chunk of the members of the U.S. Senate fit the bill.

LMAO! Democrat millionaires.

 

[jomar]

Ahhhhhh, the big 'bogey man.' LMAO

First of all, for all the fear mongering they haven't intruded on anyones essential freedoms. And the second point is they haven't demanded that the government support them.

They really are just an apparition used to scare children into obedience.

Ishmael

So you missed the point...

 

[KingOrfeo]

LMAO! Democrat millionaires.

So? There have always been millionaire Democrats. What do you expect? Both parties are owned by the ruling class; the difference is that the Dems are not wholly owned.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

fact is most of the millionaires in the U.S. Senate are Democrats, have been for a long time . . .

Cite?

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[off2bed]

I'd be surprised if any of the $enate or Repre$entative millionaires have ever run a business, either.

 

[hogjack]

The rich are wealthy because they know how to keep their money.

There is no one, single, prototype of "the rich"

Which is it, miles? You describe how the rich get wealthy and then you say there is no one, single prototype of "the rich".

Being hypocritical and stupid is a bad combination.

 

[off2bed]

Which is it, miles? You describe how the rich get wealthy and then you say there is no one, single prototype of "the rich".

Being hypocritical and stupid is a bad combination.

Sir Teddy Kennedy inherited his.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Being hypocritical and stupid is a bad combination.

Actually it is a very fortuitous combination.

 

[TurdFergeson]

This is odd. I had you pegged as a trickle-down proponent. Ya know, give the wealthy more money and they'll create jobs with it.

Yet, you seem to be saying that when times are tough, the wealthy actually horde their money and place it into safe "vehicles".

Interesting. I guess I had you all wrong.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

 

[Ishmael]

Then why isn't it working? Bush's tax cuts should have the economy humming along, according to you. The rich had more wealth than during previous administrations, yet they aren't creating jobs with it -- which is what I always hear from supply siders.

I've always argued that giving the rich tax cuts when the economy is tepid doesn't automatically stimulate growth and job creation because the wealthy are notorious horders and savers. They are not going to expand or create businesses through investment unless DEMAND calls for it.

Do you know any people that are wealthy? By this, I'm saying people with a net worth of at least $20M. Have you ever talked to them or conducted business with them?

They did. You can go into as much denial as you want but ony the NYT and WAPO were pissing and moaning about the economy. (Which is what they do everytime a repub is in the white house no matter what the reality of the economy is.)

You keep referning to the 'tax cuts on the rich' and then profess that you have no envy whatsoever. I say you're a liar. The Bush cuts applied equally to everyone across the board. The rich got no more, nor no less a cut, than anyone else. By focusing on 'the rich' (whatever in the hell that means) you show yourself to be just another envy merchant that has bought into the whole economic class warfare mantra that the democrats kept chanting.

You then compound the err of your ways by implying that it's the rich that were making the economy hum along and that by their pulling out (hordeing) the economy is tanking. Those rich you are talking about are John and Mary Lunchbucket. They are teachers, cops, factory workers, sales people, the entire spectrum of the population. They had a net worth of around a million bucks. This was in the form of their home and their retirement funds. What they lacked in raw wealth individually they more than made up for in numbers. There are millions of them and their cumulative net worth was in the trillions of dollars. Those are the people that made the economy go and those are the people that aren't going to be playing the game anymore.

You can play the wealth envy game all you want. Increase the taxes on the most wealthy, most of whom happen to be small biz, and you still will never be able to make up for those trillions of dollars that are coming out of the economy and staying out of the economy. If you can't get those people back in the game, your fucked.

Ishmael

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

juhson, I'll bet MY 401K has lost more in this quarter than you earn in a year, but you (and zippy, the Pinhead) keep right on defending the guy who thinks a PE ratio is Profits to Earnings...

 

[miles]

Oliar will convince people it's working with his usual lies, smoke, and mirrors.

He's the new Sloganmeister.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

He'll give them the Compton Crump Change!!!






... and they'll love him for it!!!