Cody O'Connor

Ok. So. Let's think about this. It is good when rich people spend money. But the thing is that if more people in general have money, more of the population, in addition to the wealthy big spenders, will be putting their money into the economy. I have taken Economics--I'm not an econ buff or anything, but I'm pretty sure that if we pay taxes, we receive services and good school and roads, etc., because that's what our taxes pay for. To me that doesn't have to do with rich people spending money. They can go ahead and do that, but it's not going to make tuition lower or provide for garbage collection services in smaller municipalities. Welfare, well, is that an economic "strategy," per se? If it is, please correct me, but it seems that if the people currently on welfare weren't, they wouldn't have any means to provide for themselves or their families, and would not contribute to society at all. Even though you may think that doesn't matter, for humanitarian reasons, it certainly does.

We're battling about taxes here in WI as the elections approach, as I'm sure many other states are doing as well, so this is a hot button issue for me these days.
 

ROTFALMAO! Tell Allisoni to stuff it. Dang! And liberals accuse us of having no sense of humor! What a crock!

It's obvious to see that you were in a playful mood here, but also telling it like it is. Good going, Cody! Keep on ticking off the moonbats. They deserve it! It just proves you are doing your job. :)
 

allisoni balloni said...
"Ok. So. Let's think about this. It is good when rich people spend money. But the thing is that if more people in general have money, more of the population, in addition to the wealthy big spenders, will be putting their money into the economy."

And they will according to trickle down economics.

"I have taken Economics--I'm not an econ buff or anything,"

Me neither, but I got the basics.

"but I'm pretty sure that if we pay taxes, we receive services and good school and roads, etc., because that's what our taxes pay for. To me that doesn't have to do with rich people spending money. They can go ahead and do that, but it's not going to make tuition lower or provide for garbage collection services in smaller municipalities. Welfare, well, is that an economic "strategy," per se? If it is, please correct me, but it seems that if the people currently on welfare weren't, they wouldn't have any means to provide for themselves or their families, and would not contribute to society at all. Even though you may think that doesn't matter, for humanitarian reasons, it certainly does."

There's no denying the need for a tax, but if the government can choose carefully what it's paying money for, it can charge less. I'll admit Bush could be better here, but by the looks of things he's doing something right. Anyways, because of things like lower taxes, people have more money to voluntarily put into the economy which slowly trickles down to the lower class, and therefore helps everybody.

And again, of course there's a need of welfare for some people, but I would rather see jobs be able to prosper due to lower taxes. Then they will be able to give higher salaries, which motivates more people to get jobs.

Gayle said...
"ROTFALMAO! Tell Allisoni to stuff it. Dang! And liberals accuse us of having no sense of humor! What a crock!"

Haha, glad you liked my post, Gayle.
 

I'm not going to stuff it, Gayle. I'm pretty sure I'll be making decisions here long after you're gone, so I don't know why you think you're so special.

I know that your post was in good humor, Cody, and that's why I don't think my comment was rude or mean and I even asked you to correct me if I was wrong.

The issue with taxes here in WI is that tuition is going up, and one of the gubernatorial candidates is promising to cut taxes drastically and to lower tuition. The fact of the matter is that you can't do both--if you're going to have less money coming in to support public institutions such as education, the people using those institutions will be the ones paying up for them. People whine about paying taxes without realizing what they get in return. Certain the theory of trickle-down-economics is valid, but you can't just ignore the people at the bottom, even if it is for a short amount of time. There is still even speculation about how well that strategy worked, but we won't get into that.
 

"Capitalism works and Socialism doesn't!"

Ya think? :)
 

"if you're going to have less money coming in to support public institutions such as education, the people using those institutions will be the ones paying up for them. People whine about paying taxes without realizing what they get in return."

Here's the way I see it. If the taxes are high, then with the example of school, some of that money will go toward optional things like sports. Might I remind you that all taxpayers fund things like that, even the ones that don't play sports. So I would rather make the people who actually want to utilize optional services to be the one to pay for them, instead of charging everyone. You have to look at these things at both sides. Sure, tuitions are up, but with taxes down, people have more money to put toward it voluntarily which I prefer over force.
 

It should be everyone's responisibilty to make sure our children our educated. Even people, like Gayle, who think they should no longer pay taxes because their children are no longer in school, will one day be at the mercy of their doctors, for example, who are currently trying to afford a decent education to make them qualified to be good doctors. If education is mandatory in the United States, it is the responsibility of all citizens to make sure it is able to be carried out. Trust me, schools everywhere can no longer afford "sports that not everyone plays." Even with current taxes where there are, it is no where near enough.
 

Cody O. Said... And they will according to trickle down economics.

"Trickle down" economics is complete and total BS. It is a PROVEN failure. That you conservatives persist with these blatant lies really disgusts me. It is truly a shame that there are so many people stupid enough to believe this nonsense.

Cody O. Said... Me neither, but I got the basics.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

The Failure of Supply-Side Economics (excerpt) As we all know, the Bush administration has taken supply-side/trickle-down economics to heights unimagined by Reagan. This week, as Congress gets back into session, even with issues of disaster response facing them, the Senate Republicans have made ending the estate tax their number one priority.

Rising corporate profits and dividend payments clearly haven't trickled down into gains for people who don't own companies or stock, says Dean Baker, co-director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington. "The wage gains", Mr. Baker said, "are concentrated in the upper-income level, just as they were in the 1980's". (9/3/2005. Scott Shields, Direct Democracy)

Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work (excerpt) We've all heard the claims that cutting tax rates for the richest Americans will improve the standard of living for the working class. Supposedly, top-bracket tax breaks will result in more jobs being created, higher wages for the average worker, and an overall upturn in our economy. It's at the heart of the infamous trickle-down theory.

(1) Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic growth. It is true that growth increased drastically after the 1982 tax cut, reaching as high as 7.3% in 1984. However, as the Reagan-Bush, Sr. administrations went on and taxes for the rich were slashed even further, growth fell to negative levels during 1991, at the heart of the last recession.

[Other points covered in the article:]

(2) Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.
(3) Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.
(4) Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.

[Conclusion:] Data from the past 50 years strongly refutes any arguments that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will improve the economic standing of the lower and middle classes or the nation as a whole. ...any attempt to stimulate economic growth by cutting taxes for the rich will do nothing -- it hasn't worked over the past 50 years, so why would it work in the future? To put it simply and bluntly, Bush's top-bracket tax cut is an ineffective attempt at stimulus that will not cause any growth -- unless, of course, if you're talking about the size of the deficit. (6/17/2003. Mehrun Etebari, United and Fair Economy)

Cody O. Said... Sure, tuitions are up, but with taxes down, people have more money to put toward it voluntarily which I prefer over force.

But for ordinary people, taxes are NOT down, they're UP.

The Bush Tax Increase (excerpt) President Bush said on 2/12/04 that "we cut taxes, which basically meant people had more money in their pocket". However, for the majority of Americans, the tax cuts meant very little. By next year, for instance, 88% of all Americans will receive $100 or less from the Administration's latest tax cuts. But even above and beyond this, the tax cuts and the deficits they have created have forced the Administration to raise fees and cut services for most Americans –- which is an effective tax increase on average Americans. In many ways, the Administration's fiscal/budget policies are actually taking more money out of people's pockets. (2/20/2004. Center for American Progress)

The REAL reason bush OK'd raising interest rates on student loans? (1) More profit for the banking industry (2) Students who can't afford college are more likely to consider joining the military to pay for college. In other words, this move is an attempt to force more young people to sign up to become cannon fodder for bush's illegal war in Iraq. Sickening.
 

W-Dervish said...
"You don't have any idea what you're talking about."

I don't think that matters. The Dow is still at 12,000 frickin' points.

"2) Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.
(3) Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.
(4) Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation."

No, no, of course not. We should raise taxes and have more corporate handouts.

But seriously, the stocks are up because rich people are investing money. Investing money in companies to help them become successful and therefore be able to open new jobs and pay higher salaries. The people in these companies at first are probably at a higher class, but when they make more money, in turn they will spend more money. Money on smaller and smaller companies and it goes down and down to the lower class. So as long as people have jobs, they will be fine. And if they don't have jobs, too frickin' bad for them.

"But for ordinary people, taxes are NOT down, they're UP."

I would like to have tax cuts for everybody, but with trickle down economics they lower class will still have more money regardless.

"Bush's top-bracket tax cut is an ineffective attempt at stimulus that will not cause any growth"

Oh definetly right, because the Dow was at 12 million before Bush came in...

allisoni said...
"It should be everyone's responisibilty to make sure our children our educated.

I will give it to you on education as long as it's fiscally Conservative on the spending side, but there are plenty of things that we don't need to be spending money on. And by the way I don't think Bush is fiscally Conservative enough on spending, if he was, the economy would be even better.

Dervish said...
"The REAL reason bush OK'd raising interest rates on student loans? (1) More profit for the banking industry (2) Students who can't afford college are more likely to consider joining the military to pay for college. In other words, this move is an attempt to force more young people to sign up to become cannon fodder for bush's illegal war in Iraq. Sickening."

Too funny.
 

I really don't think that's very funny. Someone has a bizarre sense of humor.
 

I don't get it. How come when we have Republicans cutting taxes and the economy goes up the liberals still don't admit it works? And everything turns into a damned conspericy when they don't have a real argument. Grow up Democrats!
 

I'm pretty sure I'll be making decisions here long after you're gone, so I don't know why you think you're so special.

But I will be there countering you every step of the way, even if others aren't. I'm about your age you know, so I don't know why you think you're so special college brat. Picking on people because of thier age isn't terribly "open-minded" y'know?

Boy the party of politeness gets nasty when they're wrong...
 

Robert M. said... I don't get it. How come when we have Republicans cutting taxes and the economy goes up the liberals still don't admit it works? And everything turns into a damned conspericy when they don't have a real argument. Grow up Democrats!

I'll admit it. bush's economic policies have worked exactly as intended -- economic prosperity for the extremely wealthy at the expense of just about everyone else. Democrats simply disagree with bush's goals. We believe that a better measure of how the nation is doing would be if there were prosperity for all. Which clearly isn't the case.

The Bush Record: More Poverty, More Uninsured (excerpt) President Bush says "the foundation of our economy is solid, and it's strong". That's true, for some: corporate profits have now climbed to their highest share of GDP since the 1960's. But new Census Bureau data show the real state of the current economy. The Bush record on combating poverty and insuring more Americans is an undisputed failure. (8/29/2006, Think Progress).

Robert M, why don't you grow up and stop pretending that falsely declaring that the other party doesn't have an argument is a vaild argument?
 

What is this bull about more poverty? The unemployment rate is down to 4 percent. Which mainly consists of people my age. Everyone is doing well under this economy.
 

Well I guess it can't be true. Cody says it's bull. Who are you going to believe, The Census Bureau... or Cody?
 

Robert M, why don't you grow up and stop pretending that falsely declaring that the other party doesn't have an argument is a vaild argument?


Dow. At. Nearly. 12,000. Under. Bush. What's left to argue here? How can you refute that? I don't get it.
 

This is the funniest debate I've had in years. I bet the libs are squirming in their seats; sweating, and red in the face trying to remind themselves that they're somehow right.

Frickin' hilarious.
 

Robert M. Said... Dow. At. Nearly. 12,000. Under. Bush. What's left to argue here? How can you refute that? I don't get it.

I'm not refuting that the Dow is at 12000, I'm refuting your inference that this is a good thing for ALL Americans and that bush is responsible.

Bush's tax cuts don't have anything to do with the strength of the Dow. Here are the facts: A 2005 study by four Federal Reserve Board economists "fail[ed] to find much, if any, imprint of the dividend tax cut news on the value of the aggregate stock market". According to a Wall Street Journal article, the study concluded that Bush's tax cuts were "a dud when it came to boosting the stock market". (12/12/2005. Aviva Aron-Dine, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)

Cody O. Said... I bet the libs are squirming in their seats; sweating, and red in the face...

Nope. I'm not doing either.

Cody O. Said... trying to remind themselves that they're somehow right.

I'm not "somehow" right. I am right. "Trickle down" economics failed under Reagan, and is failing under bush (which is why the poverty rate is INCREASING). The only purpose of this economic policy is to make the rich richer -- something the Republican party strongly believes in. It is of little benefit to ordinary Americans. You can continue deluding yourself, but that's the way it is, as the articles I previously linked to prove.