Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 26 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,590,375 times
Reputation: 2576
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastwardBound
Sorry, I don't accept Salon.com articles as sources. I majored in history and understand the reality of the situation. I don't have the links at my disposal, as we are here discussing on a forum, not writing academic papers. You speak like a typical liberal, wishing others to do your research for you. Look it up and report back kid.
Quote:
I majored in history and understand the reality of the situation.
Did you now ... ?
The study of the 20s is a prerequisite by the Economic History Association is a prerequisite for what came next. (repeated link from previous post) an economy without social programs; its a good read.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 26 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,590,375 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
That car, does the poor person have to pay insurance every month, and inspection, every year or face a penalty for not doing either? If so, then they would be better off taking the bus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
yeah except an awful lot of poor people live in their car, it's real hard to live on a bus
This is true and that must be where they are putting the tv and washing machine ...
Those of use, who understand history - i.e. conservatives, understand that American history is dominated by boom and bust cycles. Those of you, who wish to remain ignorant are free to do so, but you aren't free of the consequences!
When a poor person spends any money any where, they pay a tax.
Not to the Fed Government, they don't. And that's who's giving them freebies paid for by money they've confiscated from other people.
Quote:
Now imagine if you will, an economy (that of the 30s) where none of the social programs exist.
Say you own a business. Some of the revenue the business generates comes from the social programs. Now, imagine that money is gone and is no longer a part of business cash flow. That business still has to pay their taxes in order to operate.
You're not getting it. Their taxes are lower because they're no longer having to pay to support the non-contributors. Therefore, instead of making a 5% profit (or whatever) on just the items they sell to those on public assistance, they get to keep another 5% of their total aggregate profit, and invest that either into expanding their business or expanding the economy (investments in equities and securities provide the capital for other businesses to expand). That's a MUCH more effective use of money if the goal is economic expansion and therefore raising everyone's standard of living.
Public assistance program spending and the tax revenue required to fund it are the least effective use of money in regards to enabling organic economic growth, which then results in more jobs, and better-paying jobs.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 26 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,590,375 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell View Post
When a poor person spends any money any where, they pay a tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Not to the Fed Government, they don't. And that's who's giving them freebies paid for by money they've confiscated from other people.
Fuel tax?
Say they buy a pair of socks. State tax is collected (tanf) at the check out. The money spent on the socks, goes to the business, who also pays a tax. Now say, they can not buy those socks. Enough of that the business goes bankrupt. btw, they're not buying gas either, because one, they no longer have a car or two, they have the car, but no money to put fuel in it. That makes that, money no longer in the economy.
Quote:
Posted by Ellis Bell Quote:
Now imagine if you will, an economy (that of the 30s) where none of the social programs exist.
Say you own a business. Some of the revenue the business generates comes from the social programs. Now, imagine that money is gone and is no longer a part of business cash flow. That business still has to pay their taxes in order to operate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
You're not getting it. Their taxes are lower because they're no longer having to pay to support the non-contributors. Therefore, instead of making a 5% profit (or whatever) on just the items they sell to those on public assistance, they get to keep another 5% of their total aggregate profit, and invest that either into expanding their business or expanding the economy (investments in equities and securities provide the capital for other businesses to expand). That's a MUCH more effective use of money if the goal is economic expansion and therefore raising everyone's standard of living.
Public assistance program spending and the tax revenue required to fund it are the least effective use of money in regards to enabling organic economic growth, which then results in more jobs, and better-paying jobs.
You're the one that is not getting it. The government can not have their cake and eat it too. Either the programs stay and they continue to collect the taxes. Or both the programs and the taxes go away ... the choice is clear.
Business can not expand if people can not afford to make purchases. Are businesses only going to sell their goods to the 1%? Doing that decreases the total aggregate profit, when 99% of potential buyers haven't the money to spend.
And we haven't even touched, supply and demand yet of economic growth.
Fuel tax?
Say they buy a pair of socks. State tax is collected (tanf) at the check out. The money spent on the socks, goes to the business, who also pays a tax. Now say, they can not buy those socks. Enough of that the business goes bankrupt. btw, they're not buying gas either, because one, they no longer have a car or two, they have the car, but no money to put fuel in it. That makes that, money no longer in the economy.
You're the one that is not getting it. The government can not have their cake and eat it too. Either the programs stay and they continue to collect the taxes. Or both the programs and the taxes go away ... the choice is clear.
Business can not expand if people can not afford to make purchases. Are businesses only going to sell their goods to the 1%? Doing that decreases the total aggregate profit, when 99% of potential buyers haven't the money to spend.
And we haven't even touched, supply and demand yet of economic growth.
May I ask, are you destitute? I assume now. if you are here. Why do you think other people are not capable? Why are you so bullish on others?
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 26 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,590,375 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastwardBound
Those of use, who understand history - i.e. conservatives, understand that American history is dominated by boom and bust cycles. Those of you, who wish to remain ignorant are free to do so, but you aren't free of the consequences!
I agree ... (and i placed in bold, just so we're clear)
Those who should be taken care of are the ones who are too old to work, those who worked all their lives who are retired now but had paid taxes during their careers, and those who cannot work for physical/mental disorders. One qualification should be those who were born in America.
Able bodied people should get a job if they want to have healthcare. Those who just arrive into the US shouldn't be on the top of the list to get government assistance.
There are American born residents in America who have worked all their lives and paid taxes but are kicked to the curb when it comes to government assistance. That is completely wrong and should be a law against that.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 26 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,590,375 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastwardBound
May I ask, are you destitute? I assume now. if you are here. Why do you think other people are not capable? Why are you so bullish on others?
No, I happen to know bad things happen to good people. I also know, let those programs disappear and the middle class republican will get a lesson, on just what needs are, when they don't get addressed.
There is no (class) distinction between any one who hasn't money.
No, I happen to know bad things happen to good people. I also know, let those programs disappear and the middle class republican will get a lesson, on just what needs are, when they don't get addressed.
There is no (class) distinction between any one who hasn't money.
So, you wish bad things on people like me?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
