Is the democratic party stupid, blind, clueless or is it based on ideology?

[MrDank007]

well you know $50 trillion only buys 1/97 th of what it did 97 years ago.

The money supply only reflects the currency needed on hand to balance the system out. The bank does not need to create a $100 bill just because you grew $100 worth of wheat. Check out fractional reserve banking and the creation of money and you will figure it out, you seem like an intelligent person.

Dude, I'm a banker...the reality is that neither of us can pin down the exact amount of a lot these figures or networths. I still don't think it's remotely feasible. Regardless, I was arguing with a liberal before I got sidetracked

 

[NoDrama]

Oh , umm I guess for those that don't understand what MrDank and I are discussing here is the fact that with a total us Currency supply of 6 trillion, how is it possible to have any more than that. well its simple really, each and every dollar gets spent hundreds of times perr year, so that 6 trillion actually makes 600 trillion worth of business move around the globe.

You give the Store clerk a $10 bill for your milk and eggs, he gives you back a bit of change, later on he gives that same $10 bill you gave him to someone else as change, and this gets repeated over and over. Since interest rates are so very very low it causes a huge vacuum to appear in the economy sucking up all the money and spitting it all back out again. people do not save money when the rate of inflation is higher than what you can receive in interest. most people understand this. When inflation is high it begins a negative feedback loop, the faster the velocity of money ( How fast each dollar moves through multiple transactions) the more incentive there is to spend it even faster in the great chase to beat inflation. So that's how a measly $6 trillion can actually be multiple times more than it is.

 

[NoDrama]

Dude, I'm a banker...the reality is that neither of us can pin down the exact amount of a lot these figures or networths. I still don't think it's remotely feasible. Regardless, I was arguing with a liberal before I got sidetracked

Hmm well I would expect a banker to know how the system of money creation and the extension of credit works then.

 

[MrDank007]

Hmm well I would expect a banker to know how the system of money creation and the extension of credit works then.

Yes, the understand deposit money creation cycle (basically a bank can lend 10x it's deposits and this happens 9 times) and i understand leveraging contracts and lots 100x over. But...still. I think you are focusing on the M3 because I used it as an unatainable example for one person or family.

 

[NoDrama]

Yes, the understand deposit money creation cycle (basically a bank can lend 10x it's deposits and this happens 9 times) and i understand leveraging contracts and lots 100x over. But...still

Well fuckin A dude, your way further than 80% of the population is. Now if the banks can create something that doesn't exist, why can't a 250 year old dynasty have enough wealth to be the equivalent of around $400 trillion? Its not my estimate. Look at the family lineage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family look at all the people who are in charge of SOOO many HUGE corporations, their buddies are the royals and the world leaders. These are the people who borrow countries 10 trillion to fight a war, 7 trillion to their favored one, and 3 trillion to the opposition. Of course in the end both countries are decimated and the Family has earned 100% profit and is now in control of 2 more countries. Its what they do. This Family is like a giant Octopus with tentacles into everything and influencing global events at a whim.

 

[IOWNEVERY1]

And you want to make that problem worse by giving more money to billionaires?

Don't ask for tax cuts that are paid for out of deficit spending and then complain about the deficit. It makes your viewpoint seem inconsistent and poorly thought out.

Dan, extending the tax cuts isn't just giving more money to the wealthy, It is letting them keep the money they deserve and made with hard work. How do you think it is right to make people who worked harder and smarter to pay more money in taxes to pay for the people who didn't? I see this as a huge problem with the youth in America. They see the rich and wealthy paying more taxes when most of them worked harder in school and the people who slacked and didn't care get the break. What do you think this teaches our kids? Work less and get rewarded, work harder an pay the government.......

 

[NLXSK1]

I know it sounds insane but you should reward productivity. So, actually the rich should be paying less and the lower income people should be paying something into the system too.

 

[doc111]

I know it sounds insane but you should reward productivity. So, actually the rich should be paying less and the lower income people should be paying something into the system too.

Look, I'm not a money guy. I earn it, I spend it, end of story. Other than an IRA and a few stocks I don't really get into investing and all of that. What I don't understand is how anybody can justify taxing someone who makes $250,000+ per year at a higher rate. Let's say he pays 10% of his earnings per year in taxes, that's $25,000 per year in taxes. Then we have a guy making $25,000 per year and he pays 10% in. That would mean he would pay about $2,500 per year in taxes. He pays less, the guy making more pays in a LOT more but both pay an equal share at 10%. How is it fair to tax the guy making $250,000, let's say, 20%? Everyone should pay the same percentage of their earnings in taxes, period! This bullshit about taxing a person more because they make more is absolutely insane! That said, I think that we should overhaul the tax system, everybody pays the same percentage of their income, and NO LOOPHOLES!!!!!!!!

 

[NoDrama]

You 'll never get a tax code that doesn't have loopholes. Loopholes are what save the big corporations who have billions in profit and pay ZERO taxes.

 

[doc111]

You 'll never get a tax code that doesn't have loopholes. Loopholes are what save the big corporations who have billions in profit and pay ZERO taxes.

It just seems to make sense to have everyone pay the same percentage in taxes doesn't it? Loopholes are bullshit and so is this idea of making someone pay more in taxes simply because they make more money. Have everybody pay the same percentage. Obviously, if you are below poverty level you should maybe pay less or nothing, since these folks will more than likely be getting assistance anyways. What is wrong with this sort of tax structure?

 

[NoDrama]

It just seems to make sense to have everyone pay the same percentage in taxes doesn't it? Loopholes are bullshit and so is this idea of making someone pay more in taxes simply because they make more money. Have everybody pay the same percentage. Obviously, if you are below poverty level you should maybe pay less or nothing, since these folks will more than likely be getting assistance anyways. What is wrong with this sort of tax structure?

I completely agree that it should be equal, Im not so sure we really need an income tax though. The income tax is directly responsible for the huge growth of government it might be better to just do away with the income tax all together and tax people directly. You would c3ertainly have a lot more people paying attention to what the govt was doing if they had to directly support it out of their own pocket.

 

[bajafox]

A flat tax straight across the board so everyone will stop bitching and whining

 

[doc111]

I completely agree that it should be equal, Im not so sure we really need an income tax though. The income tax is directly responsible for the huge growth of government it might be better to just do away with the income tax all together and tax people directly. You would c3ertainly have a lot more people paying attention to what the govt was doing if they had to directly support it out of their own pocket.

Could you clarify "taxing directly"? I'm seriously not money minded at all. I should be but sadly I'm not.

 

[MrDank007]

Actually, a lot of these people don't pay taxes at all. The guy making $25,000 pays 10% or $2,500. The guy making $250,000 pays 33% in the last income bracket...I'm not going to the bracket math all the way up. Obama wants this to jump an extra 3% in a recession. Now which guy do you think pumps more money into the economy? Who is getting representation? We seemed to break away from Brittain with the slogan no taxation without representation. The tax brackets are 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%. If the Bush cuts expire, they go to 15%, 28%, 31%, 36%, and 39.6%. Obama is claiming he only wants the last 2 brackets to change. The top rate for long-term capital gains (investment) will be rising from 15% to 20%, and the 0% rate for those in the lowest tax brackets will be replaced by a 10% long-term capital gains rate. Now someone please explain how this gets things moving in the right direction.

 

[doc111]

Actually, a lot of these people don't pay taxes at all. The guy making $25,000 pays 10% or $2,500. The guy making $250,000 pays 33% in the last income bracket...I'm not going to the bracket math all the way up. Obama wants this to jump an extra 3% in a recession. Now which guy do you think pumps more money into the economy? Who is getting representation? We seemed to break away from Brittain with the slogan no taxation without representation. The tax brackets are 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%. If the Bush cuts expire, they go to 15%, 28%, 31%, 36%, and 39.6%. Obama is claiming he only wants the last 2 brackets to change. The top rate for long-term capital gains (investment) will be rising from 15% to 20%, and the 0% rate for those in the lowest tax brackets will be replaced by a 10% long-term capital gains rate. Now someone please explain how this gets things moving in the right direction.

I'm not sure if you were referring to my figures but they were just hypotheticals. I somewhat agree with not raising taxes on anyone right now, but my question remains; why do we have all of these confusing "tax brackets" anyways? Why not just make it the same percentage across the board. We could eliminate a lot of government waste and stuff if we could just eliminate the confusion in the tax codes, would you agree?

 

[redivider]

Actually, a lot of these people don't pay taxes at all. The guy making $25,000 pays 10% or $2,500. The guy making $250,000 pays 33% in the last income bracket...I'm not going to the bracket math all the way up. Obama wants this to jump an extra 3% in a recession. Now which guy do you think pumps more money into the economy? Who is getting representation? We seemed to break away from Brittain with the slogan no taxation without representation. The tax brackets are 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%. If the Bush cuts expire, they go to 15%, 28%, 31%, 36%, and 39.6%. Obama is claiming he only wants the last 2 brackets to change. The top rate for long-term capital gains (investment) will be rising from 15% to 20%, and the 0% rate for those in the lowest tax brackets will be replaced by a 10% long-term capital gains rate. Now someone please explain how this gets things moving in the right direction.

how does getting 98% of the population 2,000 dollars in debt so that the 2% of people that are already doing exceptionally well do better help the economy??

this is about fiscal responsibility.

giving that top two percent of earners that tax cut will tack on 70 billion dollars per year to the deficit.

that sounds like a great idea doesn't it???

 

[six8]

the government unlike business is not sticking with its business plan. There are instances whee you have to adjust due to the markets, but you don't make extreme moves to do so. The government is narcissistic, power hungry, and egotistical. Furthermore they've forgotten what there boundaries are suppose to be.

 

[jrems]

If this were 1840 we would raise a mob with pitchforks and torches and have a chat with the fat cats in city hall...

 

[Dan Kone]

If this were 1840 we would raise a mob with pitchforks and torches and have a chat with the fat cats in city hall...

Actually it seems like we'd be raising a mob in support of the fat cats. Most people here seem to think that we should hand over all our country's wealth over to the top #1 (the real fat cats) and hope they don't totally screw us over.

 

[Dan Kone]

What positive effect will this have?

It separates the upper middle class from the ultra wealthy so we can tax accordingly.

Smaller goverment is more effiecient. India's goverment is run by engineers..

Interesting you use India as an example of what government should be. They are socialists. Pretty extreme leftist socialists in many respects.

.ours by lawyers and politicians that have never produced shit, but problems to ensure job security.

People who want to school to study law are writing our laws? Wow. Crazy stuff.

No uncertainty. What do you do for a living? The stock market is a pinball machine.

What I meant by that is certainly risky, there is nothing confusing about that. People aren't investing right now. Giving billionaires a tax break doesn't make investing any less risky, so that dynamic doesn't change. It's not creating jobs to give billionaires tax breaks.

Small buisness are worried about tax hikes and obama care so they aren't hiring,

Then maybe we really do need to bring back the top tax bracket then. That way we could tax millionaires and billionaires without taxing small business owners.

the dollar is falling, unemployment is stalling, lenders aren't lending...economies around the world are blowing up. Is it any wonder people aren't making investments? Not to mention, that unless you qualify for SBA it's going to be 100% equity investment.

Ok. How does giving Bill Gates and co a 3% tax break fix this problem better than giving the money to the people who actually purchase things in our economy?

You just contridicted yourself. So if the $250kers+ have less to spend then there will be even less spending right?

People in the top tax bracket are less likely to purchase goods and services than lower and middle class people. If the point of giving tax cuts is to stimulate the economy, then why not focus that money in the places where it will have the greatest impact rather that putting a large portion of the money in a place that has very little impact?

How do you put money in the hands of someone? Tax break?

Sure, middle class tax cuts, unemployment insurance, infrastructure spending all have a greater stimulating impact on the economy than tax cuts for billionaires.