OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes

A) I freely admit to knowing a bit less than nothing about economics


It seems to me that IF "getting money flowing" is a goal ... and everyone
seems to say that or something very similar ... and both reducing income and
increasing spending lead to "too bad kids, we ****ed up deficits" ... which
is my impression .... why would Republicans ( besides ideology and classic
campaign stump chanting ) think that only tax cuts can be effective to jump
start the economy?


If I go out and spend X dollars on something, ( taking care that it's
something worth the bucks in the long run, purchased for a fair price ) the
money IS flowing. If I let you keep money you used to give the
Government, you MIGHT spend it. One is a given, the other a gamble.

Now, clearly, tax cuts to some people are almost certain to quickly find
their way into the 'flow' and tax cuts to some businesses could ( assuming a
CEO or owner that gives a **** about people other than himself) be used to
keep people employed or, even, create new jobs. But there is a lot of
recent evidence that giving the rich more does NOT 'trickle down," or it's
one damn slow trickle, and that giving the CEO a big bonus FOR laying off
people is our business ( and I believe, cultural, norm ).

ASIDE: I used to have regular, but friendly, arguments with a very, very,
wealthy guy I know. His position was that rich people, by nature, did
good things for the whole economy with their money .... he honestly believed
they were somehow truly 'better humans,' I'm sure ... and created jobs and
such, whereas the poor people only spent their money.

One day on top of hill on ONE of his "it's mine for as far as you can see"
ranches, a ranch that existed solely as a tax break, I asked how many jobs
the millions and millions invested in the ranch had created ... answer, 4,
( all Hispanic of questionable legality ) I don't buy the more money for
rich people makes money start flowing thing END ASIDE


The word "trickle" in "trickle down" appears to defeat the things the
Republicans are saying about spending plans being "too slow" .... not to
even mention other social problems with the idea that as long as rich people
are doing OK the economy is doing OK

Anyway, those of you that understand all this, why would the Republicans (
besides ideology, and stumping ) insist that ONLY tax breaks really make
sense? especially tax cuts to the 'ain't hurtin' people on the top of the
heap?

On Jan 26, 1:10*pm, "Larry L" wrote:
A) I freely admit to knowing a bit less than nothing about economics

It seems to me that IF "getting money flowing" is a goal ... and everyone
seems to say that or something very similar ... and both reducing income and
increasing spending lead to "too bad kids, we ****ed up deficits" ... which
is my impression .... why would Republicans ( besides ideology and classic
campaign stump chanting ) think that only tax cuts can be effective to jump
start the economy?

If I go out and spend X dollars on something, ( taking care that it's
something worth the bucks in the long run, purchased for a fair price ) the
money IS flowing. * * If I let you keep money you used to give the
Government, you MIGHT spend it. * *One is a given, the other a gamble..

Now, clearly, tax cuts to some people are almost certain to quickly find
their way into the 'flow' and tax cuts to some businesses could ( assuming a
CEO or owner that gives a **** about people other than himself) be used to
keep people employed or, even, create new jobs. * * But there is a lot of
recent evidence that giving the rich more does NOT 'trickle down," or it's
one damn slow trickle, and that giving the CEO a big bonus FOR laying off
people is our business ( and I believe, cultural, norm ).

ASIDE: * I used to have regular, but friendly, arguments with a very, very,
wealthy guy I know. * *His position was that rich people, by nature, did
good things for the whole economy with their money .... he honestly believed
they were somehow truly 'better humans,' *I'm sure ... and created jobs and
such, whereas the poor people only spent their money.

One day on top of hill on ONE of his "it's mine for as far as you can see"
ranches, *a ranch that existed solely as a tax break, I asked how many jobs
the millions and millions invested in the ranch had created ... answer, 4,
( all Hispanic of questionable legality ) * * I don't buy the more money for
rich people makes money start flowing thing * * *END ASIDE

The word "trickle" in "trickle down" appears to defeat the things the
Republicans are saying about spending plans being "too slow" *.... not to
even mention other social problems with the idea that as long as rich people
are doing OK the economy is doing OK

Anyway, those of you that understand all this, why would the Republicans (
besides ideology, and stumping ) insist that ONLY tax breaks really make
sense? * especially tax cuts to the 'ain't hurtin' people on the top of the
heap?

The only politician I dislike more than a tax and spend guy, is a
spend and no tax guy. The Bush tax policy was obviously a failure, so
why do the Republicans still cling to it. There is nothing
conservative about cutting taxes unless spending is cut to match.
There is a "trickle down" that works, but it has a narrow and specific
target....small business. Many small manufacturing businesses in the
Northeast are looking for skilled help, while major corporations and
service industries are making major cuts. A little federal money for
training and low/no interest loans would have an immediate effect. I
bet the same is true of the upper Midwest. Reading about the **** that
went on with Lehman and BOA is enough to make me puke. After all that
has happened, those ****ers still don't get it. They should round up
all those who received a bonus as a "parting gift" along with their
ringleader, and send the whole lot to Gitmo......they've done more
damage to the country than most of the terrorists did.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:10:45 GMT, "Larry L" wrote:

A) I freely admit to knowing a bit less than nothing about economics


It seems to me that IF "getting money flowing" is a goal ... and everyone
seems to say that or something very similar ... and both reducing income and
increasing spending lead to "too bad kids, we ****ed up deficits" ... which
is my impression .... why would Republicans ( besides ideology and classic
campaign stump chanting ) think that only tax cuts can be effective to jump
start the economy?


If I go out and spend X dollars on something, ( taking care that it's
something worth the bucks in the long run, purchased for a fair price ) the
money IS flowing. If I let you keep money you used to give the
Government, you MIGHT spend it. One is a given, the other a gamble.

Now, clearly, tax cuts to some people are almost certain to quickly find
their way into the 'flow' and tax cuts to some businesses could ( assuming a
CEO or owner that gives a **** about people other than himself) be used to
keep people employed or, even, create new jobs. But there is a lot of
recent evidence that giving the rich more does NOT 'trickle down," or it's
one damn slow trickle, and that giving the CEO a big bonus FOR laying off
people is our business ( and I believe, cultural, norm ).

ASIDE: I used to have regular, but friendly, arguments with a very, very,
wealthy guy I know. His position was that rich people, by nature, did
good things for the whole economy with their money .... he honestly believed
they were somehow truly 'better humans,' I'm sure ... and created jobs and
such, whereas the poor people only spent their money.

One day on top of hill on ONE of his "it's mine for as far as you can see"
ranches, a ranch that existed solely as a tax break, I asked how many jobs
the millions and millions invested in the ranch had created ... answer, 4,
( all Hispanic of questionable legality ) I don't buy the more money for
rich people makes money start flowing thing END ASIDE

You are looking at things through the wrong lens. First, unless this ranch is
VERY unusual, the 4 jobs created directly _upon_ the ranch are nowhere near the
end of the overall economic impact created. Take even the most potentially
"self-centered" aspects of such a ranch: if there is some big fancy ranchhouse,
the construction, maintaining, and furnishing of it created work and income for
others. The vehicles used upon the ranch needed to be manufactured. The taxes
paid on it are used/abused by the tax entity to create work. And on and on...
And if it is a "working ranch" to any degree (IOW, a _real_ _working_ ranch or
just a "working" vanity ranch) it creates an entire chain of "off-ranch"
economic benefit to a whole host of people and entities.

And beyond the vast, as far as you can see borders of the ranch, I'd guess that
a "very, very wealthy guy" doesn't keep his wealth under his mattress. If it is
personally-earned wealth, his acquisition of it almost certainly created jobs,
regardless of anyone's opinion of the "right-ness" that acquisition. Heck, even
Madoff has created jobs and work. And even if it is inherited wealth and he
personally has never done so much as a lick of work, choosing to lead a life of
pure self-centered extravagance, his expenditures create work and jobs.

The word "trickle" in "trickle down" appears to defeat the things the
Republicans are saying about spending plans being "too slow" .... not to
even mention other social problems with the idea that as long as rich people
are doing OK the economy is doing OK

Anyway, those of you that understand all this, why would the Republicans (
besides ideology, and stumping ) insist that ONLY tax breaks really make
sense? especially tax cuts to the 'ain't hurtin' people on the top of the
heap?

You do realize that currently, a large portion of the potential pool of US
taxpayers are, well, taxpayers, and if Obama gets his way completely, even less
will be. Look at the actual numbers - the top of the pile pays the most, by far
and away, tax. They are going to use their money for something, even just
passive investments (which create work), so the more they have to use via less
taxation, the more work it will create.

TC,
R

wrote


You are looking at things through the wrong lens. First, unless this
ranch is
VERY unusual, the 4 jobs created directly _upon_ the ranch are nowhere
near the
end of the overall economic impact created.



I do understand that .... but it doesn't answer my poorly asked question.
Let me try again. Why do Republicans seem to think that, IN THE CURRENT
SITUATION, where either tax cuts or spending will increase the already
terrible and dangerous deficit, ... why do they think that Xdollars of tax
cuts are better than Xdollars of spending, especially tax cuts for the 'not
hurtin'. ALL of the spending starts flowing, some of the tax cuts will,
some will 'just' get saved or tucked away for investment in better times.

My friend is one of this area's biggest developers, and he has created many
many jobs, but right now is not a time I'd bet he's eager to spend more
money 'developing' so why give him money 'back' instead of building improved
levees to protect all of his past 'development,' RIGHT NOW as a recovery
plan.


{{ As for my 'lens,' my life's work and circumstances have brought me
into contact with a lot of very wealthy people ( multi-million, billions in
a couple cases ) and, on the whole, I'm not impressed with that group. I
admit to, at this point in my life, having a 'guilty until proven innocent'
attitude about the true 'moral' ( can't think of better word right now )
character and motives of extremely rich people, especially inherited rich.

But I wasn't born that way, my experiences on the fringes of their world
have made me that way, so it's not. exactly, prejudice.

NOTHING is this world irritates me more than the very common idea, in their
circles, that rich people are not only rich they are actually 'better
people' than others. Few things irritate me more than flagrant consumption
simply for the sake of comsumption and 'because I can,' and this is true
when I see it in all economic levels. I've acquired my own luxuries, for
sure, when compared to most of the world, but I find the trememdous excesses
of many wealthy people, revolting. Thus, I admit to being a bit bias
against 'big money' people but I'm not a 'commie' G I'd bet that this
makes it harder for me to see and accept advantges of tax cuts to the rich,
but I'm trying to do just that, and not just bicker }}




Um ... a typical Larry L stream of semi-consciousness, aside ..... Last
night, my wife and I were discussing something I haven't seen mentioned, as
a possible consequence of bad times. The current situation with huge
disparity in wealth and the accumlation of it in a relative few hands,
coupled with lots of the 'masses' actually suffering, is a historical proven
recipe for social turmoil. If I was rich, I'd be careful about suggesting
that the people with no bread, eat cake instead. And, imho, that is
exactly what we're seeing in some of the most ugly CEO cases being reported.






You do realize that currently, a large portion of the potential pool of US
taxpayers are, well, taxpayers, and if Obama gets his way completely, even
less
will be.



You lost me there, so I guess I don't realize.



, even just
passive investments (which create work), so the more they have to use via
less
taxation, the more work it will create.


Again, why is ( in practical terms, ) is that a better way to get Xdollars
out actually working proding the economy into motion than direct spending on
projects in the public good? Especially considering the fact that those
projects will benefit the wealthy, too, and not just as 'levees' but one of
my contacts owns a huge Catapiller dealership, he can sell some bulldozers
and buy himself a third private plane.


Larry L ( who lives in California where Arnold got elected by repealing the'
car tax' ( a very fair one, imho, and one the state needed for a dependable
source of income ) and is now fighting his own Republican 'brothers' with
their 'no new taxes,' as the 8th largest economy in the world goes straight
to the ****ter ...... I, for one, would be happy to pay some more taxes
instead of stealing money from furture education spending and such, and a
$thousand to me is more than a few $million to the rich guys I know, in
terms of real affect on my daily life )

On Jan 27, 1:09*pm, "Larry L" wrote:
Few things irritate me more than flagrant consumption
simply for the sake of comsumption and 'because I can,' * and this is true
when I see it in all economic levels. * I've acquired my own luxuries, for
sure, when compared to most of the world, but I find the trememdous excesses
of many wealthy people, revolting. * *

Examples of that aren't hard to find, but one that caught my attention
a while back was some reality show about exorbitant weddings. I just
caught a few minutes near the end as some of the luxurious purchases
and services were being mentioned. In the end, the guy had spent
upwards of $400,000 on his daughter's wedding.

I appreciate the pomp and pageantry of such an occasion; but when the
price tag for conspicuous consumption goes that high, I can't help
thinking how many people starved to death for want of a meal or
medical care that went unfulfilled in lieu of this asshole's
daughter's excesses. Something about that just ain't right.

Joe F.

"rb608" wrote

Something about that just ain't right.



Amen

Larry L ( who hasn't been in a church [ 'cept some trout streams] in years,
who knows that what's 'right' to me may not be to others, but who still
believes some truths are truly self evident and deserve an 'amen' )

In article 21a1a2e8-4f34-4a7e-9c87-05dc6164dbb2
@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com, says...
Examples of that aren't hard to find, but one that caught my attention
a while back was some reality show about exorbitant weddings. I just
caught a few minutes near the end as some of the luxurious purchases
and services were being mentioned. In the end, the guy had spent
upwards of $400,000 on his daughter's wedding.

I appreciate the pomp and pageantry of such an occasion; but when the
price tag for conspicuous consumption goes that high, I can't help
thinking how many people starved to death for want of a meal or
medical care that went unfulfilled in lieu of this asshole's
daughter's excesses. Something about that just ain't right.


I know how you feel, but here's a more positive way to look at it:
This dude clearly had at least $400,000 more than he needed, and he
just transferred all that wealth to a large group of caterers, chefs,
waiters, musicians, parking valets, photographers, seamstresses and
taylors, florists, bartenders, and probably a lot more that I can't
think of off the top of my head. Not to mention the farmers, ranchers,
fishermen, and brewers, vintners, and distillers that produced all of
the ingredients for the food and drink, and so on and on and on...
A lot of people probably had food and medicine _because_ he was
willing to blow all his dough.

OTOH, we watch those same shows, and we mock those people mercilessly.
On the plus side, it gives my wife and I the opportunity to tell our
two teenage daughters how when we got married, by keeping things small
and doing everything ourself, we managed to pull off a nice little
wedding for less than a thousand. We believe the message is getting
through... ;-)

Kevin

--
Kevin Vang
reply to kevin dot vang at minotstateu dot edu

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:21:23 -0600, Kevin Vang wrote:

In article 21a1a2e8-4f34-4a7e-9c87-05dc6164dbb2
, says...
Examples of that aren't hard to find, but one that caught my attention
a while back was some reality show about exorbitant weddings. I just
caught a few minutes near the end as some of the luxurious purchases
and services were being mentioned. In the end, the guy had spent
upwards of $400,000 on his daughter's wedding.

I appreciate the pomp and pageantry of such an occasion; but when the
price tag for conspicuous consumption goes that high, I can't help
thinking how many people starved to death for want of a meal or
medical care that went unfulfilled in lieu of this asshole's
daughter's excesses. Something about that just ain't right.


I know how you feel,

Um, well, explain it to me, please. How, if this guy hadn't spent/****ed away
S400K on a wedding (or anything else), would that have translated into someone
NOT starving to death or getting whatever medical care they needed? If the idea
is that he could have given that money to "worthy causes," there are a
coupla-few points/questions:

one, who is to say that the guy doesn't already give big to "worthy causes," and
two, why should Joe, you, me, or whoever get to tell this guy what to do with
_his_ money, be it what we each think of as "worthy" or simply not spend it on
whatever, and,
third, if, Joe, you think that "luxury" spending is wrong, is your own spending
in-line with that thinking - IOW, do you spend _anything_ on non-necessities of
life, including higher ed for kids, recreation, etc. (if so, it's then just a
matter of scale)?

but here's a more positive way to look at it:
This dude clearly had at least $400,000 more than he needed, and he
just transferred all that wealth to a large group of caterers, chefs,
waiters, musicians, parking valets, photographers, seamstresses and
taylors, florists, bartenders, and probably a lot more that I can't
think of off the top of my head. Not to mention the farmers, ranchers,
fishermen, and brewers, vintners, and distillers that produced all of
the ingredients for the food and drink, and so on and on and on...
A lot of people probably had food and medicine _because_ he was
willing to blow all his dough.

Pretty much exactly. And there's a good chance that anyone who has $400K to
spend on a wedding already pays more in total taxes than most of the above-named
people make, and a good chance very few of the above-named pay much if any
_income_ tax.

OTOH, we watch those same shows, and we mock those people mercilessly.
On the plus side, it gives my wife and I the opportunity to tell our
two teenage daughters how when we got married, by keeping things small
and doing everything ourself, we managed to pull off a nice little
wedding for less than a thousand. We believe the message is getting
through... ;-)

And the thousand you spent "trickled" just as surely as the $400K.

TC,
R

Kevin

On Jan 27, 11:21*pm, Kevin Vang wrote:
I know how you feel, but here's a more positive way to look at it:
This dude clearly had at least $400,000 more than he needed, and he
just transferred all that wealth to a large group of caterers, chefs,
waiters, musicians, parking valets, photographers, seamstresses and
taylors, florists, bartenders, and probably a lot more that I can't
think of off the top of my head. *Not to mention the farmers, ranchers,
fishermen, and brewers, vintners, and distillers that produced all of
the ingredients for the food and drink, and so on and on and on...
A lot of people probably had food and medicine _because_ he was
willing to blow all his dough.

The job creation based on the wedding industry is undeniably a
positive result from this sort of thing; but it's the excesses that
frost me. I didn't mean to imply that the entire price tag was
wasteful; but the cooks, wait staff, & bartenders are going to get
paid pretty much the same whether it's caviar or creamed chipped beef
on the menu. I'd bet the caterer ****canned more leftover food than
some sub-Saharan villages eat in a month*. Sure, farmers still get
paid to grow the stuff, but is that how we want to allocate our
resources? And if this guy wants to give a few people a free meal,
how about maybe a few thousand people who are actually hungry? JMHO,
of course.

Joe F.



*Yes, I know that there are some charitable enterprises who have
arrangements with caterers to collect and distribute leftover food to
the less fortunate, and that may or may not be the case here, but my
point stands.

On Jan 27, 9:21*pm, Kevin Vang wrote:

I know how you feel, but here's a more positive way to look at it:
This dude clearly had at least $400,000 more than he needed, and he
just transferred all that wealth to a large group of caterers, chefs,
waiters, musicians, parking valets, photographers, seamstresses and
taylors, florists, bartenders, and probably a lot more that I can't
think of off the top of my head. *Not to mention the farmers, ranchers,
fishermen, and brewers, vintners, and distillers that produced all of
the ingredients for the food and drink, and so on and on and on...
A lot of people probably had food and medicine _because_ he was
willing to blow all his dough.

This is objectionable not because the money was spent, but that it was
spent so conspiculously, on television no less! This crass display of
materialism is like the potlach ceremonies of the Native Americans in
the Pacific Northwest. They would actually destroy valuable goods to
show how rich and powerful they were.

As a counterexample, Warren Buffett is widely admired not because he
is wealthy and knows so well how to make more money, but because
despite that he lives unostentatiously.