can someone explain this to me??? - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 25th, 2008, 03:17 PM   #1
ttms91xj
nothing original here
 
ttms91xj's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-12-05
Location: lewisville, tx
Posts: 342
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to ttms91xj
Default can someone explain this to me???

let me start out by saying i'm young (23), and follow politics more closely than many my age. while i think tax cuts are a good idea, i don't exactly agree with what the new tax rebate plan the house has put out.

now that the senate is working on their proposal, let me ask this: why is it that senate and select economist say that extending unemployment and food stamps will more directly inject the economy with money faster than these tax rebates??? am i the only person that thinks this is ass backwards???
ttms91xj is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old January 25th, 2008, 03:42 PM   #2
kerryann
German cars are hot
 
kerryann's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Bloomfield
Posts: 11,425
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

I don't agree with the fact that only people making less than 75k get the rebate. I also don't agree that people who make less than 3k a year and don't pay taxes should get a rebate. What kind of socialist hell hole is the U.S. becoming?
Moving to Canada is starting to sound better. I mean they are more socialist now but they off set that not having any Kwames and having exported Jenny.
kerryann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2008, 03:47 PM   #3
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

IF I understand correctly, this is really only an advance on your tax return, just like the last so-called 'rebate'.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2008, 03:53 PM   #4
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,784
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryann View Post
I don't agree with the fact that only people making less than 75k get the rebate. I also don't agree that people who make less than 3k a year and don't pay taxes should get a rebate. What kind of socialist hell hole is the U.S. becoming?
Moving to Canada is starting to sound better. I mean they are more socialist now but they off set that not having any Kwames and having exported Jenny.
i think the whole idea is retarded. when have you ever seen a nation get tax cuts during war time?
mikesova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2008, 04:00 PM   #5
ttms91xj
nothing original here
 
ttms91xj's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-12-05
Location: lewisville, tx
Posts: 342
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to ttms91xj
Default

i just don't get it, reading the paper this morning, and seeing the statement, "senate , along with some economists, believe extending unemployment and food stamp benefits will have both a quicker, and more direct impact on the economy than the tax rebates".

i really don't think the tax rebates were the right idea, but then giving them to those that don't pay taxes, and excluding higher incomes??? i don't get it, and never will

i guess if socialism is the "ideal" way to govern, we're all screwed
ttms91xj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2008, 04:02 PM   #6
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Anyone here a member of a labor union? If so, isn't THAT a socialist institution?
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2008, 09:43 PM   #7
JustHere4parts
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Default

Stupid Stupid Stupid but what else do you expect from the government?
  Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2008, 08:18 AM   #8
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,111
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ttms91xj View Post
let me start out by saying i'm young (23), and follow politics more closely than many my age. while i think tax cuts are a good idea, i don't exactly agree with what the new tax rebate plan the house has put out.

now that the senate is working on their proposal, let me ask this: why is it that senate and select economist say that extending unemployment and food stamps will more directly inject the economy with money faster than these tax rebates??? am i the only person that thinks this is ass backwards???
My guess is that it's because by the time the funding is approved and the checks are sent out it will be June. At least from the estimate I read. The dem's want to send money to the "poor" and do it now. That way it can help them to win votes from people who are to stupid to realize that they are being bought and controled by their own government.

It makes no difference, the checks won't help the economy anyway. People only use the money to pay down debt, they don't go out and start businesses with it. It's been tried several times already, didn't work then and it won't work now.

It's a political move in an election year. They appear to be doing something to help, but in reality they are doing nothing. The best way to stimulate the economy is to lower taxes. That helps business grow, creates jobs, and allows us to keep the money we earn working.

The rebate is taking money from us in the future and giving it to us now. It's like using your credit card to make your house payment. Stupid.

Giving out more food stamps and extending unemployment is a typical move for a democratically controled senate.

Vote buying, that's all. It's unfortunate that it works, helping to prove my theory that most americans aren't qualified to vote.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2008, 08:26 AM   #9
xj97sport
atv rider
 
xj97sport's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-08-08
Location: south west
Posts: 6,557
iTrader: (20)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

im so fed up with the damn goverment and its all becuase of that canadian cunt granholm ... i used to think only she was the courrpt pice of shit ... then this happed ...WHAT THE fukc PEOPLE all i know is if that cunt hillary or the ****** obama get in office im movin to mexico ... i take that bak im movin to canada as long as granholm doesnt have that country in a head lock
xj97sport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2008, 08:35 AM   #10
jeepnxj96
Senior Member
 
jeepnxj96's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-16-07
Location: Allegan,Mi
Posts: 2,978
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

the whole idea behind the rebate check is that the government know that most people can't wait to spend the money which in turns floods the economy with more money floatin around and changin hands. you want to screw the government and have this idea backfire in their face?, throw that money you get in that rebate into some sort of savings and let it collect interest that the government is also paying. no influx of money for them then. any way the government doesn't have 150 billion to give anyway, did they forget about the national deficit?
jeepnxj96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2008, 09:23 AM   #11
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,784
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jthorrocks View Post
im so fed up with the damn goverment and its all becuase of that canadian cunt granholm ... i used to think only she was the courrpt pice of shit ... then this happed ...WHAT THE fukc PEOPLE all i know is if that cunt hillary or the ****** obama get in office im movin to mexico ... i take that bak im movin to canada as long as granholm doesnt have that country in a head lock
this has nothing to do with Jennifer Granholm.
mikesova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2008, 09:29 AM   #12
ttms91xj
nothing original here
 
ttms91xj's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-12-05
Location: lewisville, tx
Posts: 342
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to ttms91xj
Default

it just amazes me that the gov't took such a backwards approach to this whole idea. i realize that the dems don't want to benefit the "rich". but as i see it, there is no reason to exclude the people that put the most money into the economy. as i see it, why wouldn't you want them to have the power to buy up stocks that will gain tons of value in both the short and long term, instead of people that can barely afford to go out to eat at applebee's?
ttms91xj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2008, 09:41 AM   #13
JustHere4parts
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jthorrocks View Post
im so fed up with the damn goverment and its all becuase of that canadian cunt granholm ... i used to think only she was the courrpt pice of shit ... then this happed ...WHAT THE fukc PEOPLE all i know is if that cunt hillary or the ****** obama get in office im movin to mexico ... i take that bak im movin to canada as long as granholm doesnt have that country in a head lock

Now I actually have a reason to vote for the . . . one less idiot on the US if they win

Grannholm ruining the US Is this guy serious?

Edit: I remember a few years ago when all the rednecks saying "if you don't like america then GET OUT" if you disagreed with the current administration and now that is seriously that stance they are taking when looking at the possible future administration

and just so you're not confused even though I might vote for Hillary just to run guys like the quoted above out of USA, I'm voting for Mitt if he gets the nod . . . if not I guess I'll once again pick the lesser of two evils

Last edited by JustHere4parts; January 26th, 2008 at 11:16 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2008, 03:10 PM   #14
K&J's Dad
Senior Member
 
K&J's Dad's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-11-07
Location: Roseville, Michigan
Posts: 227
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ttms91xj View Post
it just amazes me that the gov't took such a backwards approach to this whole idea. i realize that the dems don't want to benefit the "rich". but as i see it, there is no reason to exclude the people that put the most money into the economy. as i see it, why wouldn't you want them to have the power to buy up stocks that will gain tons of value in both the short and long term, instead of people that can barely afford to go out to eat at applebee's?
The people making the most don't put the most into the economy. You are incorrect here. They are the ones that save and invest. As a country, our savings rate is actually negative. When people get their refund checks they mostly splurge on items they normally wouldn't buy. Even if it's just eating out a few extra days a month. This is what boosts the economy. It is short term but it is proven to work. Most people do not use all of their refund money to pay down debt. This is a misconception. They may use some but not all. They still splurge a little.

The wealth don't buy up stocks intimes like this. If people aren't spending and stock price's drop, investors move into bonds and other ventures. When the economy starts to pick up and stocks start to move back, this is when they jump back into buying stocks.

It is all simple economics but if you don't understand it, then you think the government is out to get you. This has all been done before and has worked pretty well in the past. It is never perfect. The timing is difficult to get right and not everyone agrees, which makes it even more difficult. A recession is nothing compared to a depression. We are only at the beginning of a recession. This isn't that bad. You want to hear about bad; talk to someone that lived through the Great Depression.

Most people bitch about the economy and how they don't have any money but they still pay for cable (digital plus HD & throw in HBO, Showtime, and Cinexax), their cell phones, their internet service, buy lots of toys, etc. Get rid of the extras and you can live quite well on a lower income. Stop keeping up with the Jones'.
K&J's Dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2008, 04:00 PM   #15
84Scrambler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: Lansing
Posts: 5,942
iTrader: (8)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to 84Scrambler
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustHere4parts View Post
Now I actually have a reason to vote for the . . . one less idiot on the US if they win

Grannholm ruining the US Is this guy serious?

Edit: I remember a few years ago when all the rednecks saying "if you don't like america then GET OUT" if you disagreed with the current administration and now that is seriously that stance they are taking when looking at the possible future administration

and just so you're not confused even though I might vote for Hillary just to run guys like the quoted above out of USA, I'm voting for Mitt if he gets the nod . . . if not I guess I'll once again pick the lesser of two evils
You just can't stay banned can you Drew...
84Scrambler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2008, 04:26 PM   #16
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by K&J's Dad View Post
The people making the most don't put the most into the economy. You are incorrect here. They are the ones that save and invest.

The wealth don't buy up stocks intimes like this. If people aren't spending and stock price's drop, investors move into bonds and other ventures. When the economy starts to pick up and stocks start to move back, this is when they jump back into buying stocks.

It is all simple economics Most people bitch about the economy and how they don't have any money but they still pay for cable (digital plus HD & throw in HBO, Showtime, and Cinexax), their cell phones, their internet service, buy lots of toys, etc. Get rid of the extras and you can live quite well on a lower income. Stop keeping up with the Jones'.

First of all, the wealthiest people put very little in to our economy, but they are the largest load on our infrastructure. Corporations are 'legal persons' and they use more of our infrastructure than the entire citizenry combined. They are the ones that should pay the most, but Reagan got rid of the 90% taxation rule that this country prospered under for decades, and that's when the middle class started getting squeezed. Until we roll back the Reagan tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and 'legal persons' we will continue down this path.

"Buy low - sell high" is the mantra of succesful stock investors. When the stocks are down it's time to buy. When they are up, it's time to sell. Variations on the theme such as long term holdings, etc. will differ from this basic strategy, but that is what the wealthy do. I watch it all the time. Of course, it helps them if everyone believes what you said because then stocks become more plentiful and therefore lower in price (simple economics).

I couldn't agree with you more on your last point. Way too many people have been spoiled for way too long while the rest of the world got our scraps, and the piper is coming for payment. A massive equalization (redistribution of wealth) is headed our way. There will remain the same amount of wealth worldwide as before, but now we will be losing more and more of it to the poor in outher countries, and they will grow accordingly. It's already happeneing, and people like Geo. Herbert Walker Bush touted their New World Order long ago, and now it's being carried out quite efficiently.

I've met too many unskilled workers in Michigan that make as much as I do and I'm a corporate officer. These people live very high, buying new boats every couple of years, new cars, huge televisions with all the trimmings and systems, and all kinds of other toys. Now many of them can't pay for them and they are blaming the Chinese........ They should have saved their money and invested it like I did, because I'm doing fine. Don't own a bunch of toys, but doing well. Toys don't feed the family or pay for your retirement.

It's not governments job to save us from the mess we made of our own country. After all, most of you want lower taxes (which will result in leaner government and less government support), so how can you (in the same breath) say you aren't satisfied what the government is doing? Besides, "we the people" ARE the government. It's time to quite sniveling, get off your asses, throw the tea in the harbor and take our government back.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2008, 05:02 PM   #17
Stan
I got a gold chain
 
Stan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-04-05
Location: Shelby Twp.
Posts: 15,686
iTrader: (8)
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
First of all, the wealthiest people put very little in to our economy, but they are the largest load on our infrastructure. Corporations are 'legal persons' and they use more of our infrastructure than the entire citizenry combined. They are the ones that should pay the most, but Reagan got rid of the 90% taxation rule that this country prospered under for decades, and that's when the middle class started getting squeezed. Until we roll back the Reagan tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and 'legal persons' we will continue down this path.

"Buy low - sell high" is the mantra of succesful stock investors. When the stocks are down it's time to buy. When they are up, it's time to sell. Variations on the theme such as long term holdings, etc. will differ from this basic strategy, but that is what the wealthy do. I watch it all the time. Of course, it helps them if everyone believes what you said because then stocks become more plentiful and therefore lower in price (simple economics).

I couldn't agree with you more on your last point. Way too many people have been spoiled for way too long while the rest of the world got our scraps, and the piper is coming for payment. A massive equalization (redistribution of wealth) is headed our way. There will remain the same amount of wealth worldwide as before, but now we will be losing more and more of it to the poor in outher countries, and they will grow accordingly. It's already happeneing, and people like Geo. Herbert Walker Bush touted their New World Order long ago, and now it's being carried out quite efficiently.

I've met too many unskilled workers in Michigan that make as much as I do and I'm a corporate officer. These people live very high, buying new boats every couple of years, new cars, huge televisions with all the trimmings and systems, and all kinds of other toys. Now many of them can't pay for them and they are blaming the Chinese........ They should have saved their money and invested it like I did, because I'm doing fine. Don't own a bunch of toys, but doing well. Toys don't feed the family or pay for your retirement.

It's not governments job to save us from the mess we made of our own country. After all, most of you want lower taxes (which will result in leaner government and less government support), so how can you (in the same breath) say you aren't satisfied what the government is doing? Besides, "we the people" ARE the government. It's time to quite sniveling, get off your asses, throw the tea in the harbor and take our government back.

Sounds like a complete contradiction to me.
Stan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2008, 05:54 PM   #18
smasheromalley
Senior Member
 
smasheromalley's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,038
iTrader: (15)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan View Post
Sounds like a complete contradiction to me.
Thats what I was thinking, wtf
smasheromalley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2008, 06:08 PM   #19
Just a Spouse
Motrcytman's spouse
 
Just a Spouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Lake View, AL
Posts: 7,142
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ttms91xj View Post
let me start out by saying i'm young (23), and follow politics more closely than many my age. while i think tax cuts are a good idea, i don't exactly agree with what the new tax rebate plan the house has put out.

now that the senate is working on their proposal, let me ask this: why is it that senate and select economist say that extending unemployment and food stamps will more directly inject the economy with money faster than these tax rebates??? am i the only person that thinks this is ass backwards???
Because people that don't have a lot of money spend what they have.

If you give an unemployed person extra cash, the person typically spends it all. (note the word TypicallY). Albeit on rent and groceries, but spends it anyway. When the economy is in a decline, the govt. historically extends unemployment payments. I would assume the same is true with food stamps.
Just a Spouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2008, 12:14 PM   #20
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,111
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
First of all, the wealthiest people put very little in to our economy, but they are the largest load on our infrastructure. Corporations are 'legal persons' and they use more of our infrastructure than the entire citizenry combined. They are the ones that should pay the most, but Reagan got rid of the 90% taxation rule that this country prospered under for decades, and that's when the middle class started getting squeezed. Until we roll back the Reagan tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and 'legal persons' we will continue down this path.
This is the biggest line of bull I've seen in a long time.

1. The wealthiest people in the country are the ones who start new businesses that the "middle" class work for and make money. The more businesses that are available for them to work for, the higher the demand for workers and the higher the wages become.

2. The top 10% of wage earners pay 90% of the taxes in this country. Do you think they should pay the other 10% too? Talk about wealth redistirbution, hey why not make them pay all my bills too, I can't possibly be paying my fair share, that would make too much sense.

3. The middle class hasn't been getting squeezed. The middle class is shrinking because they are becoming rich (the upper class). That's right the middle class is shrinking the lower class is about the same and the upper class is growing.

I can only conclude that you're drinking the Kool-Aid.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:30 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.47415 seconds with 81 queries