Where will we level off after the economy has been vandalized

[The Man]

FORTUNE -- It's well-known that government spending has grown rapidly in the three-and-a-half years since Barack Obama succeeded George W. Bush as president. It's also clear that since GDP hit bottom in early 2009, economic growth has proven exceedingly weak compared with the rapid ascent from past downturns.

Now, a debate is raging over whether the big jump in outlays filled a hole that saved economy from a cataclysm, as everyone from columnist-economist Paul Krugman and Obama himself argue, or merely stunted the "recovery" by diverting job-creating, growth-enhancing capital from America's businesses.

Although it's impossible to settle the issue definitively, it is enlightening to examine where all that new spending is going. In crunching the numbers, I was amazed that most of the increase isn't flowing into goods and services the government provides, and nor is it fulfilling the fabled priority for building and upgrading our roads, tunnels and bridges.



So where are the new trillions in spending really going? To find out, let's start with the total increase in outlays. Since the fourth quarter of 2008, total government spending -- federal, state and local -- has risen by 17.8%, to $6.3 trillion. That's 12.6% adjusted for inflation. In those 11 quarters, outlays have swelled from 37.9% to 40.3% of GDP, the highest number since the mid-1940s.

The official GDP accounts, assembled by the government's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), show how much of that almost $1 trillion increase actually flowed into government services and investments. It's important to recognize that the government spending included in GDP is not total spending, but the expenditures on two categories. The first is called "government consumption," consisting of payments that provide such products and services as education and national defense, and encompassing everything from salaries for teachers, to pay for soldiers to costs for running state DMVs.

The second category is "government investment," mainly comprising outlays on construction and maintenance of America's infrastructure from federal, state and county highways to school facilities to dams. From late 2008 until today, spending on government goods and services rose just .1% annually, adjusted for inflation. The real shocker is investment: It dropped 3.71% a year in real terms. So the almost 18% rise in spending failed to provide substantially more government services, and furnished a lot less money for the highly touted necessity of rebuilding America's infrastructure.

The big question is whether all the new spending on transfer payments made the economy grow faster than if that spending had been far more modest. Two leading economists are highly skeptical, John Cochrane of the University of Chicago, and John Taylor of Stanford. "The Keynesians will tell you that except for the 'multiplier magic' of all the spending, the private economy would have been even worse," says Cochrane. He counters that the money for those transfer payments had to come from somewhere else, specifically by shrinking the savings available for private companies. "To do all that spending, the government has to borrow the money, and the people who bought government bonds would otherwise have provided companies with more capital for expansion by purchasing their bonds or stocks."

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/27/wheres-all-that-government-spending-really-going/


How to spend with the least benefit for the economy?

 

[Stone]

Just pointing out that economic conditions in financial discussions are compared and issues identified......... through their relationship to GDP.


Also......
The CBO has had many interesting comments since Obama first took office, on the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of polarized Democrat/Republican plans, at one time calling for an eventual economic failure resulting from either polarized position.


There are no short term solutions.
http://www.cbo.gov/
some interesting reading here:
http://www.cbo.gov/topics/economy

And particularly....
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/06-05-Long-Term_Budget_Outlook_2.pdf


of note:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43707
Excerpts>

Specifically, CBO estimates that about two-thirds of the difference between the growth in real GDP in the current recovery and the average for other recoveries can be attributed to sluggish growth in potential GDP. That sluggish growth reflects weaker performance than occurred on average following other recessions by all three of the major determinants of potential GDP: potential employment (the number of employed workers, adjusted for variations over the business cycle); potential total -factor productivity (average real output per unit of combined labor and capital services, adjusted for variations over the business cycle); and the productive services available from the capital stock in the economy. Although some of the sluggishness of potential GDP since the end of the last recession can be traced to unusual factors in the current business cycle, much of it is the result of long-term trends unrelated to the cycle, including the nation’s changing demographics.

And the consumer issues relating to supply and demand pressures I presented earlier:

The remaining one-third of the unusual slowness in the growth of real GDP can be explained by the slow pace of growth in the ratio of real GDP to potential GDP—which in CBO’s assessment, is attributable to a shortfall in the overall demand for goods and services in the economy.

ie. Job creation related which is why, TM, your argument for socialist government intervention in creating unneeded jobs fails. Not enough consumer demand in the short run to support your past arguments and creates further debt loads that are already unfavorable in relation to GDP growth.


It seems apparent, scenarios of debt outpacing GDP growth are the concern.

 

[The Man]

Just pointing out that economic conditions in financial discussions are compared and issues identified......... through their relationship to GDP.


Also......
The CBO has had many interesting comments since Obama first took office, on the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of polarized Democrat/Republican plans, at one time calling for an eventual economic failure resulting from either polarized position.


There are no short term solutions.
http://www.cbo.gov/
some interesting reading here:
http://www.cbo.gov/topics/economy

And particularly....
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/06-05-Long-Term_Budget_Outlook_2.pdf


of note:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43707
Excerpts>


And the consumer issues relating to supply and demand pressures I presented earlier:



ie. Job creation related which is why, TM, your argument for socialist government intervention in creating unneeded jobs fails. Not enough consumer demand in the short run to support your past arguments and creates further debt loads that are already unfavorable in relation to GDP growth.


It seems apparent, scenarios of debt outpacing GDP growth are the concern.

Just pointing out that economic conditions in financial discussions are compared and issues identified......... through their relationship to GDP.

Yes and Govt spending is at it highest percentage of GDP since the 40s.
But we appear to be gaining little benefit from it....and they want to spend more.

Also......
The CBO has had many interesting comments since Obama first took office, on the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of polarized Democrat/Republican plans, at one time calling for an eventual economic failure resulting from either polarized position.

The democrats pretty much run the show during most of the show...Professional advisers were obviously disregarded.

And the consumer issues relating to supply and demand pressures I presented earlier

Which can often be achieved through tax cuts...thing is Bush already had em rock bottom and failed to ease em back up while there was growth.
Thus why you never let the lower man be free of income tax..Obama inherited a nightmare in that regard...but he could have reduced payroll tax to increase growth..the loss could have been gained back in growth.

ie. Job creation related which is why, TM, your argument for socialist government intervention in creating unneeded jobs fails.

I have no socialist plan.

Not enough consumer demand in the short run to support your past arguments and creates further debt loads that are already unfavorable in relation to GDP growth.

Demand has always been created by relief or easing the burden{tax}..its nothing new}
Remember the relief doesnt have to be permanent..just enough to cause growth {jumpstart}
As a result new workers are spending money causing more growth.
It really doesnt take much to come out of a recession...not does it take much to put us in one.

When unemployment begins..this causes less spending..putting other people out of work and so on.....When unemployment lowers spending increases causing more jobs.

The govts job is to provide relief through tax relief/ or spending {preferably that which causes construction}..to artificially kick the economy.

 

[The Man]

Since you like the cbo reports.

In fact, the CBO found that the fourth method is the most cost effective way to create jobs. If a payroll tax cut is given only for new hires, then every $1 billion creates 18,000 new jobs.(Source: CBO, "The Economic Outlook and Fiscal Policy Choices," September 28, 2010)


http://useconomy.about.com/od/Employment/tp/Job-Creation.htm

Which means instead of pissing away the trillions we did...a half trillion in payroll tax relief would have created 9 million jobs..IMO 9 million isnt needed for the Jump start...more like 4 to 5 million ..so considerably less than a half trillion would have done it.
Socialism...perhaps buts its nothing new.

 

[Francis]

Yawn...

 

[The Man]

Also from that same link look at the fail

President Obama - Created 3.958 million jobs from the lowest point in February 2010 to August 2012. However, since jobs continued to be lost after he was elected, the total tally from his nearly four years in office is a loss of 263,000 jobs from January 2009 - August 2012.
President Bush - Lost 3.6 million jobs from the peak in January 2008 to the end of his term in December 2008. However, 2.1 million jobs were added during his eight-year term, from January 2001-December 2008.
President Clinton - Added 22.7 million jobs during his eight-year term (January 1993-December 2000).
President G.H.W. Bush - Added 2.28 million jobs during his four-year term (January 1989-December 1992).
President Reagan - Added 15.84 million jobs between January 1981 - December 1988. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)


Considering what her spent its a big fail compared to the others

 

[Stone]

Yes and Govt spending is at it highest percentage of GDP since the 40s.
But we appear to be gaining little benefit from it....and they want to spend more.

The democrats pretty much run the show during most of the show...Professional advisers were obviously disregarded.




Which can often be achieved through tax cuts...thing is Bush already had em rock bottom and failed to ease em back up while there was growth.
Thus why you never let the lower man be free of income tax..Obama inherited a nightmare in that regard...but he could have reduced payroll tax to increase growth..the loss could have been gained back in growth.


I have no socialist plan.


Demand has always been created by relief or easing the burden{tax}..its nothing new}
Remember the relief doesnt have to be permanent..just enough to cause growth {jumpstart}
As a result new workers are spending money causing more growth.
It really doesnt take much to come out of a recession...not does it take much to put us in one.

When unemployment begins..this causes less spending..putting other people out of work and so on.....When unemployment lowers spending increases causing more jobs.

The govts job is to provide relief through tax relief/ or spending {preferably that which causes construction}..to artificially kick the economy.

Yes and Govt spending is at it highest percentage of GDP since the 40s.
But we appear to be gaining little benefit from it.

Very true......this is what happens when one administration ( Bush ) ignores banking regulations allowing a near economic catastrophe and begins instituting massive unfunded spending followed by 4 years of more unfunded increased spending by Obama , all the while experiencing 5 years of revenue decline since 2008 . Bush fucked this country and Obama continues it.....so what is it that you are trying to tell the forum they don't already know?

The democrats pretty much run the show during most of the show

Are you blaming only the Democrats for the 2008 economic decline?

Professional advisers were obviously disregarded.

Neither Bush nor Obama advisers had the best interests of our society at heart, imo.

Which can often be achieved through tax cuts...thing is Bush already had em rock bottom and failed to ease em back up while there was growth.

As you post....too late now to achieve the same results prior to 2008. It's a different economic dynamic and cutting taxes on the wealthy at this time makes no sense.

Thus why you never let the lower man be free of income tax.

Lower man?
What is a 'lower man'?

Obama inherited a nightmare in that regard...but he could have reduced payroll tax to increase growth..the loss could have been gained back in growth.

Most definitely.......I've been suggesting lower taxation on the consumer base ( middle class) as a stimulus to economic growth.
You haven't.

I have no socialist plan.

I pointed it out in your 'fair tax' thread.
You argued that the government should create unneeded jobs that would somehow generate economic growth. That is an element of socialism.

Demand has always been created by relief or easing the burden{tax}..its nothing new}

Not always.........the Bush cuts have obviously not had a beneficial influence since 2008.

Remember the relief doesnt have to be permanent

Indeed...so?

As a result new workers are spending money causing more growth.

That's a pat answer .
Perhaps you missed the concept of supply and demand being essential in a capitalist economic model.
There has to be need or at least short term projected need for increased production to justify new jobs.
That has been weak as noted by the CBO.
So, in terms of present economic conditions, your statement has little impact.
Business seeks efficiency, not dead wood employment practices.
The government not so much.

It really doesnt take much to come out of a recession

Small ones, sure......the recent big one that is often called the 'Great Recession' that almost became a depression and may still go into economic failure.....obviously not.

When unemployment begins..this causes less spending..putting other people out of work and so on.....When unemployment lowers spending increases causing more jobs.

You need to proof read before you post......that made no sense.

The govts job is to provide relief through tax relief/ or spending {preferably that which causes construction}..to artificially kick the economy.

Tax less or spend more....interesting alternatives

 

[Stone]

Since you like the cbo reports.

In fact, the CBO found that the fourth method is the most cost effective way to create jobs. If a payroll tax cut is given only for new hires, then every $1 billion creates 18,000 new jobs.(Source: CBO, "The Economic Outlook and Fiscal Policy Choices," September 28, 2010)


http://useconomy.about.com/od/Employment/tp/Job-Creation.htm

Which means instead of pissing away the trillions we did...a half trillion in payroll tax relief would have created 9 million jobs..IMO 9 million isnt needed for the Jump start...more like 4 to 5 million ..so considerably less than a half trillion would have done it.
Socialism...perhaps buts its nothing new.

Did you bother to read the very first line of that link?

Let me point it out:

Healthy economic growth naturally creates jobs.

If you haven't noticed, our economy hasn't been very healthy since 2008.

In fact, the CBO found that the fourth method is the most cost effective way to create jobs.

Indeed......but as the CBO noted:

Specifically, CBO estimates that about two-thirds of the difference between the growth in real GDP in the current recovery and the average for other recoveries can be attributed to sluggish growth in potential GDP .


The remaining one-third of the unusual slowness in the growth of real GDP can be explained by the slow pace of growth in the ratio of real GDP to potential GDP—which in CBO’s assessment, is attributable to a shortfall in the overall demand for goods and services in the economy.

At the present, you are arguing to create unneeded jobs.......the present economy is only supporting slow growth even with all the stimulus monies pumped in it.

Which means instead of pissing away the trillions we did...a half trillion in payroll tax relief would have created 9 million jobs

Let me quote you......"fuck the middle class"
My argument has been to lower taxes on the middle class ( the consumer base), yours has been to fuck them over with a regressive tax.
Again...you debate out of convenience.
Your argument on tax reduction in the past, with me, has been for the wealthy, not the middle class.

Socialism...perhaps

Well.....your past arguments in that tax thread for the government funding unneeded job creation....was socialism.

 

[Stone]

Yawn...

I'm Jack Stone and I approve of that post

 

[The Man]

Very true......this is what happens when one administration ( Bush ) ignores banking regulations allowing a near economic catastrophe and begins instituting massive unfunded spending followed by 4 years of more unfunded increased spending by Obama , all the while experiencing 5 years of revenue decline since 2008 . Bush fucked this country and Obama continues it.....so what is it that you are trying to tell the forum they don't already know?



Are you blaming only the Democrats for the 2008 economic decline?



Neither Bush nor Obama advisers had the best interests of our society at heart, imo.



As you post....too late now to achieve the same results prior to 2008. It's a different economic dynamic and cutting taxes on the wealthy at this time makes no sense.



Lower man?
What is a 'lower man'?


Most definitely.......I've been suggesting lower taxation on the consumer base ( middle class) as a stimulus to economic growth.
You haven't.



I pointed it out in your 'fair tax' thread.
You argued that the government should create unneeded jobs that would somehow generate economic growth. That is an element of socialism.



Not always.........the Bush cuts have obviously not had a beneficial influence since 2008.



Indeed...so?


That's a pat answer .
Perhaps you missed the concept of supply and demand being essential in a capitalist economic model.
There has to be need or at least short term projected need for increased production to justify new jobs.
That has been weak as noted by the CBO.
So, in terms of present economic conditions, your statement has little impact.
Business seeks efficiency, not dead wood employment practices.
The government not so much.



Small ones, sure......the recent big one that is often called the 'Great Recession' that almost became a depression and may still go into economic failure.....obviously not.



You need to proof read before you post......that made no sense.



Tax less or spend more....interesting alternatives

Are you blaming only the Democrats for the 2008 economic decline?

I stated the democrats pretty much run the show once Obama was in office.

As you post....too late now to achieve the same results prior to 2008. It's a different economic dynamic and cutting taxes on the wealthy at this time makes no sense.

Perhaps...but tax increases will not help the economy.

Lower man?
What is a 'lower man'?

Inflammatory response ...as you acknowledged above in regard to the wealthy.

Most definitely.......I've been suggesting lower taxation on the consumer base ( middle class) as a stimulus to economic growth.
You haven't.

I want taxes reduced for all in general...that includes the middle class.

I pointed it out in your 'fair tax' thread.
You argued that the government should create unneeded jobs that would somehow generate economic growth. That is an element of socialism.

Tax incentives for job creations are nothing new and have already existed.
As far as a socialistic economy we already live it through the tax system...I am not arguing for for an socialistic economy but rather use the tools that are already there {tax incentives for new employees} to aid in coming out of the recession.

Not always.........the Bush cuts have obviously not had a beneficial influence since 2008.

Thats because they were already in place..his cuts boomed the economy..the cuts should have not been permanent as I have stated before..taxes should have been eased back in like I have stated before.

That's a pat answer .
Perhaps you missed the concept of supply and demand being essential in a capitalist economic model.
There has to be need or at least short term projected need for increased production to justify new jobs.
That has been weak as noted by the CBO.
So, in terms of present economic conditions, your statement has little impact.
Business seeks efficiency, not dead wood employment practices.
The government not so much.

Demand is created during relief...it has always worked throughout history.
Thus why relief is given to stimulate the economy...its pretty simple..the more money you have the more stuff you will buy...thus creating jobs.
As far as the producer...tax incentives lower costs as well as increase opportunity for investments.

Small ones, sure......the recent big one that is often called the 'Great Recession' that almost became a depression and may still go into economic failure.....obviously not.

Same principal applies.

You need to proof read before you post......that made no sense.

It makes perfect sense ..thus why you choose to not address it.

Very true......this is what happens when one administration ( Bush ) ignores banking regulations allowing a near economic catastrophe and begins instituting massive unfunded spending followed by 4 years of more unfunded increased spending by Obama , all the while experiencing 5 years of revenue decline since 2008 . Bush fucked this country and Obama continues it.....so what is it that you are trying to tell the forum they don't already know?

Bush Bush Bush...little late to blame bush for current govt spending.
Fact remains Obama has the highest ratio of spending to the GDP.
There have been arguments to increase tax whilst we have more spending per GDP since the 40s

 

[The Man]

Did you bother to read the very first line of that link?

Let me point it out:


If you haven't noticed, our economy hasn't been very healthy since 2008.



Indeed......but as the CBO noted:



At the present, you are arguing to create unneeded jobs.......the present economy is only supporting slow growth even with all the stimulus monies pumped in it.



Let me quote you......"fuck the middle class"
My argument has been to lower taxes on the middle class ( the consumer base), yours has been to fuck them over with a regressive tax.
Again...you debate out of convenience.
Your argument on tax reduction in the past, with me, has been for the wealthy, not the middle class.



Well.....your past arguments in that tax thread for the government funding unneeded job creation....was socialism.

If you haven't noticed, our economy hasn't been very healthy since 2008.

And a healthy economy doesn't need intervention.
If you want to take that position...then you are saying nothing can be done and the govt not be involved.

At the present, you are arguing to create unneeded jobs.......the present economy is only supporting slow growth even with all the stimulus monies pumped in it.

You have to understand what happens during a recession to understand how to get out of one.
When unemployment goes up{job loss}..people have less money to spend...when they have less money to spend..that puts someone else out of work..now he has less money to spend..people start to get worried...the ones that do have jobs spend less as they are scared..this reduces more jobs.

People will buy the same stuff stone they always did...you just have to jump start the economy back through tax reliefs...its been done for decades..
When some go back to work this causes more spending ...this creates more jobs..and so on.
Its pretty simple.

Let me quote you......"fuck the middle class"
My argument has been to lower taxes on the middle class ( the consumer base), yours has been to fuck them over with a regressive tax.
Again...you debate out of convenience.
Your argument on tax reduction in the past, with me, has been for the wealthy, not the middle class.

Let me quote you......"fuck the middle class"

Thats pretty lame Stone and taken out of context....My argument was concern for the poor..fuck the middle class at the moment...they are eating.

My argument has been to lower taxes on the middle class ( the consumer base), yours has been to fuck them over with a regressive tax.

And there you go again...I have never tried to fuck em.
Stick to the topic please which is

Where will we level off after the economy has been vandalized

Which you already agreed as happened due to the actions of bush and Obama
Feel free to make your projections.

Well.....your past arguments in that tax thread for the government funding unneeded job creation....was socialism.

Through tax breaks by business....if you dont think we need job creation at the moment you may want to look at current unemployment its rather high.

 

[Stone]

I stated the democrats pretty much run the show once Obama was in office.


Perhaps...but tax increases will not help the economy.


Inflammatory response ...as you acknowledged above in regard to the wealthy.


I want taxes reduced for all in general...that includes the middle class.


Tax incentives for job creations are nothing new and have already existed.
As far as a socialistic economy we already live it through the tax system...I am not arguing for for an socialistic economy but rather use the tools that are already there {tax incentives for new employees} to aid in coming out of the recession.



Thats because they were already in place..his cuts boomed the economy..the cuts should have not been permanent as I have stated before..taxes should have been eased back in like I have stated before.


Demand is created during relief...it has always worked throughout history.
Thus why relief is given to stimulate the economy...its pretty simple..the more money you have the more stuff you will buy...thus creating jobs.
As far as the producer...tax incentives lower costs as well as increase opportunity for investments.


Same principal applies.

It makes perfect sense ..thus why you choose to not address it.



Bush Bush Bush...little late to blame bush for current govt spending.
Fact remains Obama has the highest ratio of spending to the GDP.
There have been arguments to increase tax whilst we have more spending per GDP since the 40s

The democrats pretty much run the show during most of the show

I stated the democrats pretty much run the show once Obama was in office.

I'm not a mind reader, state what you mean the first time .

Perhaps...but tax increases will not help the economy.

The current economy is sluggish because of weak consumer demand.......the same people you have argued to tax more heavily with a regressive sales tax plan.
The wealthy have expanded their wealth largely on low capital gains taxation and yet startup investments lag......so your argument doesn't hold up there, either.

(TM)Thus why you never let the lower man be free of income tax.

Lower man?
What is a 'lower man'?

(TM)Inflammatory response

You used the term....so, what is a 'lower man" or do you mean it's your derogatory term for the middle class?

I want taxes reduced for all in general...that includes the middle class.

No...you don't. You wrote a whole thread on how to fuck the middle class with higher taxation:
http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?86829-Fair-tax

You argued that the government should create unneeded jobs that would somehow generate economic growth. That is an element of socialism.

Tax incentives for job creations are nothing new and have already existed.

Non sequitur......in your tax thread, you qualified job creation by the government.

As far as a socialistic economy we already live it through the tax system

Yes, we do. But in your tax thread, you argued for government created jobs. That's not the same as a tax incentive.

Thats because they were already in place..his cuts boomed the economy..the cuts should have not been permanent as I have stated before..taxes should have been eased back in like I have stated before.

You make a lot of contradictory statements.....obviously out of convenience.

Demand is created during relief

It can be in a healthy economy......but as seen since 2008, that hasn't happened to the degree you keep arguing.

it has always worked throughout history.

No...it hasn't....the Great Depression and the Great Recession being exceptions.

Thus why relief is given to stimulate the economy...its pretty simple..the more money you have the more stuff you will buy...thus creating jobs.

However, the wages of a shrinking middle class, have been shrinking for the last decade.
The wealth of the middle class has been declining all the while the Bush tax cuts were in place.

And I do remember your quote: "fuck the middle class".
http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread...they-Pretend&p=2270136&viewfull=1#post2270136

People are charged for a good or service by what they will pay...not by what they make...the stronger {more} the middle class the more they will charge for a product or service as more can afford it...this makes the rich get richer ...and the poor are poorer as the price is out of their range.
Fuck the middle class they are snobs anyway.

Interesting theory. Bizarre......Doesn't sound like a supply and demand scenario, though.

When unemployment lowers spending increases causing more jobs.

It makes perfect sense ..thus why you choose to not address it.

Where would you like to put the commas?
The issue is supply and demand in a free market scenario.

Bush Bush Bush...little late to blame bush for current govt spending.

He's responsible for his contributions to the mess he left Obama just as Obama is responsible for his own bad decisions.

Fact remains Obama has the highest ratio of spending to the GDP.

Indeed. I'm not here to support Obama. I'm here to debate you.
So?

There have been arguments to increase tax whilst we have more spending per GDP since the 40s

Yes, there have. So?

 

[The Man]

I'm not a mind reader, state what you mean the first time .


The current economy is sluggish because of weak consumer demand.......the same people you have argued to tax more heavily with a regressive sales tax plan.
The wealthy have expanded their wealth largely on low capital gains taxation and yet startup investments lag......so your argument doesn't hold up there, either.



You used the term....so, what is a 'lower man" or do you mean it's your derogatory term for the middle class?



No...you don't. You wrote a whole thread on how to fuck the middle class with higher taxation:
http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?86829-Fair-tax


Non sequitur......in your tax thread, you qualified job creation by the government.


Yes, we do. But in your tax thread, you argued for government created jobs. That's not the same as a tax incentive.



You make a lot of contradictory statements.....obviously out of convenience.



It can be in a healthy economy......but as seen since 2008, that hasn't happened to the degree you keep arguing.



No...it hasn't....the Great Depression and the Great Recession being exceptions.



However, the wages of a shrinking middle class, have been shrinking for the last decade.
The wealth of the middle class has been declining all the while the Bush tax cuts were in place.

And I do remember your quote: "fuck the middle class".
http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread...they-Pretend&p=2270136&viewfull=1#post2270136


Interesting theory. Bizarre......Doesn't sound like a supply and demand scenario, though.



Where would you like to put the commas?
The issue is supply and demand in a free market scenario.




He's responsible for his contributions to the mess he left Obama just as Obama is responsible for his own bad decisions.


Indeed. I'm not here to support Obama. I'm here to debate you.
So?



Yes, there have. So?

I'm not a mind reader, state what you mean the first time .

I did it was a direct response to your post.

Below

The CBO has had many interesting comments since Obama first took office, on the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of polarized Democrat/Republican plans, at one time calling for an eventual economic failure resulting from either polarized position.

The current economy is sluggish because of weak consumer demand.......the same people you have argued to tax more heavily with a regressive sales tax plan.
The wealthy have expanded their wealth largely on low capital gains taxation and yet startup investments lag......so your argument doesn't hold up there, either.

And I repeat.
And again I am for less spending and less tax..not for increasing taxes.

You used the term....so, what is a 'lower man" or do you mean it's your derogatory term for the middle class?

I dont have a derogatory term for the middle class...the lower man is obviously those in struggle...It is those I want to prosper ...and again fuck the middle class for the moment lets look at the actual poor.

No...you don't. You wrote a whole thread on how to fuck the middle class with higher taxation:
http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?86829-Fair-tax

I never proposed higher taxation on the middle class....you.

Non sequitur......in your tax thread, you qualified job creation by the government.

Its nothing new..tax breaks for expanding by bussiness..it already occurs,, I only proposed expanding it.

Yes, we do. But in your tax thread, you argued for government created jobs. That's not the same as a tax incentive.

Such as?

You make a lot of contradictory statements.....obviously out of convenience.

You make a lot of contradictory statements.....obviously out of convenience.

Not at all you may want to research the practice has been going on for decades.

It can be in a healthy economy......but as seen since 2008, that hasn't happened to the degree you keep arguing.

The entire point of my thread...if you would concentrate on the topic rather than me you would see this.

No...it hasn't....the Great Depression and the Great Recession being exceptions.

It has worked on all of them..thus we are no longer in them.

However, the wages of a shrinking middle class, have been shrinking for the last decade.
The wealth of the middle class has been declining all the while the Bush tax cuts were in place.

Incorrect you recently argued a graph of mine showing a strength in middle class.

And I do remember your quote: "fuck the middle class".
http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread...they-Pretend&p=2270136&viewfull=1#post2270136

Thats right fuck em for the moment,,lets concentrate on the poor..the middle class are meeting their needs...you feel for who you wish I will feel for who I wish.

Interesting theory. Bizarre......Doesn't sound like a supply and demand scenario, though.

That was a follow up post..and taken out of context...also I would appreciate it if you would stop trying pick this thread up from the closed thread..this thread is another topic and I would appreciate it if you would follow it.

He's responsible for his contributions to the mess he left Obama just as Obama is responsible for his own bad decisions.

The spending under Obama is now all Obama..you may have had an arguemt two years ago.

Indeed. I'm not here to support Obama. I'm here to debate you.
So?

I havent seen anything to suggest you disagreed with his current position.

Yes, there have. So?

And you agree?

 

[Stone]

And a healthy economy doesn't need intervention.
If you want to take that position...then you are saying nothing can be done and the govt not be involved.



You have to understand what happens during a recession to understand how to get out of one.
When unemployment goes up{job loss}..people have less money to spend...when they have less money to spend..that puts someone else out of work..now he has less money to spend..people start to get worried...the ones that do have jobs spend less as they are scared..this reduces more jobs.

People will buy the same stuff stone they always did...you just have to jump start the economy back through tax reliefs...its been done for decades..
When some go back to work this causes more spending ...this creates more jobs..and so on.
Its pretty simple.




Thats pretty lame Stone and taken out of context....My argument was concern for the poor..fuck the middle class at the moment...they are eating.



And there you go again...I have never tried to fuck em.
Stick to the topic please which is

Where will we level off after the economy has been vandalized

Which you already agreed as happened due to the actions of bush and Obama
Feel free to make your projections.


Through tax breaks by business....if you dont think we need job creation at the moment you may want to look at current unemployment its rather high.

And a healthy economy doesn't need intervention.

Indeed.....but you have been claiming that the same intervention that worked for Bush will work for Obama.......but those tax incentives has been inplace and not working as expected.
To make things worse, Obama's plans created even more debt that you keep refusing to address.

If you want to take that position...then you are saying nothing can be done and the govt not be involved.

No...I'm obviously saying your approach is biased toward wealth creation of those already successful at it while punishing the consumer base ( middle class) with the debt liability.

You have to understand what happens during a recession to understand how to get out of one.

Yes, you do. But you keep arguing to lower already low taxation on the successful wealthy while shifting the debt liabilities off on the middle class.

When unemployment goes up{job loss}..people have less money to spend...when they have less money to spend..that puts someone else out of work..now he has less money to spend..people start to get worried...the ones that do have jobs spend less as they are scared..this reduces more jobs.

You're just posting pat answers that are convenient.
That is an argument to lower middle class taxation.....a position I supported long ago.
Your support has come from the convenience of debate......you argued in your Fair Tax thread to lower taxation on the wealthy, but push the tax burden onto the middle class.

I know you'll keep denying it......but you did argue for a regressive tax plan.

People will buy the same stuff stone they always did

Not on lower wages they won't .
Nor on your previous arguments to raise their tax load.

you just have to jump start the economy back through tax reliefs

And your argument has been to "fuck the middle class" ( the consumer base) and give more tax relief to those that have been increasing their wealth at record rates.

When some go back to work this causes more spending ...this creates more jobs..and so on.
Its pretty simple.

It is simple.......supply and demand factors have not been great enough to support the expected increase in job creation.......a concept you simply do not seem to understand.
You keep relating supply and demand to labor .....when consumer demand and industrial output are the key.
Unnecessary jobs are not going to be created that hurt the business profit model.

Thats pretty lame Stone and taken out of context....My argument was concern for the poor..fuck the middle class at the moment...they are eating.

Lame?
Look how your analogy started out:

For demonstration...{ i know how much you hate em} if we raised minimum wage to 100 bucks an hour for instance

Seriously, you think that is an intellectual exercise?
It's stupid.

The poor are richer /and the richer are poorer....the rich can no longer grow and we all become poor ...pepsi is now 9 bucks a bottle
You are to worried about a strong middle class...forget Romney forget Obama and the coined terms.
People are charged for a good or service by what they will pay...not by what they make...the stronger {more} the middle class the more they will charge for a product or service as more can afford it...this makes the rich get richer ...and the poor are poorer as the price is out of their range.
Fuck the middle class they are snobs anyway

You posted that garbage along with your crazy ass "Fair Tax" plan in it's own thread

.I am interested in the poor man not suffering

Really?

And there you go again...I have never tried to fuck em.

Indeed you have when you argued a recessive tax plan.

Where will we level off after the economy has been vandalized

According to the best minds, it will not level off in the next decade or two........if at all.
Read up on it at CBO if you like.

Feel free to make your projections.

Have you noticed there isn't much activity in this thread other than myself......you ought to be grateful

Through tax breaks by business

This post of yours doesn't look like and argument for tax breaks at all
Here's the link:
http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?86829-Fair-tax&p=2272449&viewfull=1#post2272449

excerpt>

Whatever you say stone...let me have 5 million FREE dollars to set up a furniture factory...you bet.
...........

Free money

 

[Stone]

I did it was a direct response to your post.

Below


And I repeat.
And again I am for less spending and less tax..not for increasing taxes.



I dont have a derogatory term for the middle class...the lower man is obviously those in struggle...It is those I want to prosper ...and again fuck the middle class for the moment lets look at the actual poor.



I never proposed higher taxation on the middle class....you.


Its nothing new..tax breaks for expanding by bussiness..it already occurs,, I only proposed expanding it.



Such as?





Not at all you may want to research the practice has been going on for decades.


The entire point of my thread...if you would concentrate on the topic rather than me you would see this.




It has worked on all of them..thus we are no longer in them.



Incorrect you recently argued a graph of mine showing a strength in middle class.



Thats right fuck em for the moment,,lets concentrate on the poor..the middle class are meeting their needs...you feel for who you wish I will feel for who I wish.



That was a follow up post..and taken out of context...also I would appreciate it if you would stop trying pick this thread up from the closed thread..this thread is another topic and I would appreciate it if you would follow it.


The spending under Obama is now all Obama..you may have had an arguemt two years ago.

I havent seen anything to suggest you disagreed with his current position.


And you agree?

I did it was a direct response to your post.

So?....it was still garbled.

And again I am for less spending and less tax..not for increasing taxes.

TM....you did argue for a regressive tax plan that increases the tax load on the middle class and lowers it on the wealthy.....'fuck the middle class'

I dont have a derogatory term for the middle class...the lower man is obviously those in struggle...It is those I want to prosper ...and again fuck the middle class for the moment lets look at the actual poor.

This is what you originally posted:

Which can often be achieved through tax cuts...thing is Bush already had em rock bottom and failed to ease em back up while there was growth.
Thus why you never let the lower man be free of income tax

I think you are confused.
None of your explanation makes sense....the more you post, the more confused it reads.

You speak of the 'Lower man' and yet you call the middle class snobs....:cool

I never proposed higher taxation on the middle class

Yes, you did. In this thread:
http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?86829-Fair-tax

Its nothing new..tax breaks for expanding by bussiness..it already occurs,, I only proposed expanding it.

You post that in this thread......in another thread, you argued for government funded job creation even giving the example of 5 million free dollars for a start up business.
Yo continue to debate out of convenience of the situation.

Such as?

Such as the 5 million Free dollar startup argument you posted.
I remember other comments you made on that tax thread.....where I replied it was socialism....I remember you agreeing in one case.
Tax relief is not socialism.

The entire point of my thread...if you would concentrate on the topic rather than me you would see this.

Then don't start arguments that go sideways.



http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread...n-vandalized&p=2275261&viewfull=1#post2275261
I finished the discussion in my second post leading up to this statement:

It seems apparent, scenarios of debt outpacing GDP growth are the concern.

And you took it sideways into partisan politics and tax cuts. I personally don't mind.
But I did stay to topic till you detoured.

It has worked on all of them..thus we are no longer in them.

No...it took a war to get out of the Great depression and the Bush cuts have not worked well since 2008

Incorrect you recently argued a graph of mine showing a strength in middle class.

You are confused.
http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?86955-Fiscal-Cliff&p=2275110&viewfull=1#post2275110

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...e-middle-class


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_1...ncome-shrinks/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle-class_squeeze


http://www.examiner.com/article/midd...he-last-decade


http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/09/the-middle-class/

Thats right fuck em for the moment,,lets concentrate on the poor..the middle class are meeting their needs...you feel for who you wish I will feel for who I wish.

I thought you were the lone OTZ member arguing to cut entitlements?
TM the neo liberal

That was a follow up post..and taken out of context...also

I gave linkage to that post.

I would appreciate it if you would stop trying pick this thread up from the closed thread..this thread is another topic and I would appreciate it if you would follow it.

Go back and read post #3 where you went off topic. Not my fault.

The spending under Obama is now all Obama..you may have had an arguemt two years ago.

But it is derived from the conditions Bush left behind as he exited office. I'm not saying Obama is doing a good job, but as you did post, Bush left a mess for Obama to deal with.....so why deny it now?

I havent seen anything to suggest you disagreed with his current position.

His excessive spending for one and his original idea he could eradicate debt on the backs of the wealthy for another.
I think budget cuts and small tax increases on the wealthy do less damage than your scheme to cut taxes on the wealthy, increase taxes on the middle class and cut deeply into all but military spending and expand military aggression through out the globe.

There have been arguments to increase tax whilst we have more spending per GDP since the 40s

Yes, there have. So?

And you agree?

It is happening.
And it's likely to continue as the CBO projects.
So far, there have been no realistic economic plans by either party that the CBO is enthusiastic about.
You really ought to read up on their forecasts, with an open mind of course and with out the intent to quote mine, but to understand just how serious the situation is involving debt management versus economic growth......it's not the simple shit you post.

 

[The Man]

Indeed.....but you have been claiming that the same intervention that worked for Bush will work for Obama.......but those tax incentives has been inplace and not working as expected.
To make things worse, Obama's plans created even more debt that you keep refusing to address.



No...I'm obviously saying your approach is biased toward wealth creation of those already successful at it while punishing the consumer base ( middle class) with the debt liability.



Yes, you do. But you keep arguing to lower already low taxation on the successful wealthy while shifting the debt liabilities off on the middle class.



You're just posting pat answers that are convenient.
That is an argument to lower middle class taxation.....a position I supported long ago.
Your support has come from the convenience of debate......you argued in your Fair Tax thread to lower taxation on the wealthy, but push the tax burden onto the middle class.

I know you'll keep denying it......but you did argue for a regressive tax plan.



Not on lower wages they won't .
Nor on your previous arguments to raise their tax load.


And your argument has been to "fuck the middle class" ( the consumer base) and give more tax relief to those that have been increasing their wealth at record rates.


It is simple.......supply and demand factors have not been great enough to support the expected increase in job creation.......a concept you simply do not seem to understand.
You keep relating supply and demand to labor .....when consumer demand and industrial output are the key.
Unnecessary jobs are not going to be created that hurt the business profit model.



Lame?
Look how your analogy started out:

Seriously, you think that is an intellectual exercise?
It's stupid.



You posted that garbage along with your crazy ass "Fair Tax" plan in it's own thread



Really?



Indeed you have when you argued a recessive tax plan.



According to the best minds, it will not level off in the next decade or two........if at all.
Read up on it at CBO if you like.




Have you noticed there isn't much activity in this thread other than myself......you ought to be grateful



This post of yours doesn't look like and argument for tax breaks at all
Here's the link:
http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?86829-Fair-tax&p=2272449&viewfull=1#post2272449

excerpt>



Free money

Indeed.....but you have been claiming that the same intervention that worked for Bush will work for Obama.......but those tax incentives has been inplace and not working as expected.

Incorrect..I have stated that Bush by lowering taxes to much on the lower class and leaving em there left Obama with a mess as he cant lower em anymore.
I have explained this before..I stated taxes should have been eased back in by bush during the boom.

When you lower taxes lower class you cause a boom....people have buying power.
If you leave them there to long the acceleration of boom disappears as wage and product price level off{people can work for less}..businesses can charge more....this is why tax cuts are meant to be temporarily stone.
Bush was at fault and left Obama no room for the lower earner.
So now we have to either cut payroll taxes{these are not income taxes} these are taxes your employer pays}
Or further reductions for business expense in way of tax.
Or tax breaks for the wealthy...there just isnt any tax breaks to be had at the lower end....follow?
The lower end pays a negative tax {gets money back}...If they werent then we could lower taxes on them.

No...I'm obviously saying your approach is biased toward wealth creation of those already successful at it while punishing the consumer base ( middle class) with the debt liability.

How are tax reductions on small business punishing the consumer base?
We want small business to grow..giving the consumer base jobs.

Your support has come from the convenience of debate......you argued in your Fair Tax thread to lower taxation on the wealthy, but push the tax burden onto the middle class.

I presented a tax reduction for all..and pushed for nothing the purpose of the thread was how much money should the govt take from us as a whole.
And again...if you want to continue the fair tax thread...go start one.
This thread is not a continuation of that thread which is closed BTW.

And your argument has been to "fuck the middle class" ( the consumer base) and give more tax relief to those that have been increasing their wealth at record rates.

And here we go again..every post of your contains this and is taken out of context..I stated I was interested in helping the poor...you even responded to such and stated I was only interested in helping the poor..now you say I am trying to help the rich.

It is simple.......supply and demand factors have not been great enough to support the expected increase in job creation.......a concept you simply do not seem to understand.
You keep relating supply and demand to labor .....when consumer demand and industrial output are the key.
Unnecessary jobs are not going to be created that hurt the business profit model.

And again..thats because there is no jumpstart...people still want to buy the same things..but there is no "relief"
Consumer buying is down as we have lack of jobs stone...if you provide relief and put people to work..it will spiral back up...you simply do not understand what happens in a recession I have explained it repeatably over and over again.

Lame?
Look how your analogy started out:

Seriously, you think that is an intellectual exercise?
It's stupid.

You still dont get it do you...you can not paint a middle class..if we were all middle class that would be the new minimum...if everyone has money to burn the prices go up to match it.
I have said it a hundred times..people will charge what one is willing to pay.

You posted that garbage along with your crazy ass "Fair Tax" plan in it's own thread

And again if you follow prior posts before that you can see I am out to help the poor...you intentionally missed the sarcasm in the post you keep repeating.

And I will say it again..this is not a continuation of that thread...if you want to pick up where that thread left off go create one...that thread was closed by staff.
Asking again.
Stick to the topic of this thread please

 

[The Man]

So?....it was still garbled.


TM....you did argue for a regressive tax plan that increases the tax load on the middle class and lowers it on the wealthy.....'fuck the middle class'


This is what you originally posted:

I think you are confused.
None of your explanation makes sense....the more you post, the more confused it reads.

You speak of the 'Lower man' and yet you call the middle class snobs....:cool


Yes, you did. In this thread:
http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?86829-Fair-tax



You post that in this thread......in another thread, you argued for government funded job creation even giving the example of 5 million free dollars for a start up business.
Yo continue to debate out of convenience of the situation.


Such as the 5 million Free dollar startup argument you posted.
I remember other comments you made on that tax thread.....where I replied it was socialism....I remember you agreeing in one case.
Tax relief is not socialism.


Then don't start arguments that go sideways.



http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread...n-vandalized&p=2275261&viewfull=1#post2275261
I finished the discussion in my second post leading up to this statement:




And you took it sideways into partisan politics and tax cuts. I personally don't mind.
But I did stay to topic till you detoured.



No...it took a war to get out of the Great depression and the Bush cuts have not worked well since 2008



You are confused.
http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?86955-Fiscal-Cliff&p=2275110&viewfull=1#post2275110













I thought you were the lone OTZ member arguing to cut entitlements?
TM the neo liberal


I gave linkage to that post.



Go back and read post #3 where you went off topic. Not my fault.



But it is derived from the conditions Bush left behind as he exited office. I'm not saying Obama is doing a good job, but as you did post, Bush left a mess for Obama to deal with.....so why deny it now?


His excessive spending for one and his original idea he could eradicate debt on the backs of the wealthy for another.
I think budget cuts and small tax increases on the wealthy do less damage than your scheme to cut taxes on the wealthy, increase taxes on the middle class and cut deeply into all but military spending and expand military aggression through out the globe.


It is happening.
And it's likely to continue as the CBO projects.
So far, there have been no realistic economic plans by either party that the CBO is enthusiastic about.
You really ought to read up on their forecasts, with an open mind of course and with out the intent to quote mine, but to understand just how serious the situation is involving debt management versus economic growth......it's not the simple shit you post.

One more time..this thread is not a continuation of the fair tax thread...Go create your own thread on the topic if you wish.
The thread you keep referencing is closed ...Many forums have rules against quoting from close threads..I do not know the policy here..but I suspect it may be the same.
I am asking you again to stop bringing that thread here as it is not related to this thread topic....and it is closed.

 

[Stone]

Incorrect..I have stated that Bush.......................

(edited for brevity)
Stick to the topic of this thread please

Incorrect..I have stated that Bush by lowering taxes to much on the lower class and leaving em there left Obama with a mess as he cant lower em anymore.

wait a minute, those living in poverty don't pay any income taxes and never have. Those living near the poverty line seldom have to pay any income taxes.

I have explained this before..I stated taxes should have been eased back in by bush during the boom.

you have just recently stated that. But I've said that long ago. And you have been arguing all along that the Bush tax cuts were successful. But, what boom are you talking about during the Bush administration? It certainly didn't include the middle-class as I've shown. It appears only the very wealthy prospered. But let's look closer at this

if the wealthy are now more successful than ever in both profiteering and wealth creation, why shouldn't taxes be slowly increased on them?
This looks like another instance of you arguing out of convenience.

When you lower taxes lower class you cause a boom

but it's not currently working for the middle-class. As I've shown in the graphs, the middle-class has not been experiencing a boom.
Only the very wealthy have been experiencing a boom.
And this contradicts your above quote.
And it does give meaning to your quote fuck the middle-class.

people have buying power.

obviously, they don't have enough.

If you leave them there to long the acceleration of boom disappears as wage and product price level off{people can work for less}

admit it, you're making another catywhompass analogy.

businesses can charge more

are you in some strange way trying to present supply and demand concepts?

Bush was at fault and left Obama no room for the lower earner.

to do what? Low-wage errors have never paid much income tax. Not only are their rates low to nothing, their contribution to the revenue stream has always been insignificant.

The problem with the Bush tax cuts is that those that have made the largest incomes got too large of a tax-cut while the financial condition of the middle-class suffered.

Since 2008, the wealthy have prospered more and the middle-class suffered more.
So when you argue for a regressive tax, you are truly arguing to fuck the middle-class some more.

Or tax breaks for the wealthy...there just isnt any tax breaks to be had at the lower end....follow?

but the main focus of your arguments have been not to increase taxation on the wealthy during their times of extreme successful wealth generation.
Go back and look at what you've been posting. It's merely a means to pump more money into a class of people that have already grown more wealthy because of Bush tax cuts. You even argue for more tax cuts on the wealthy.
Same old shit. You argue out of the convenience of the moment.

The lower end pays a negative tax {gets money back}...If they werent then we could lower taxes on them.

let's look at that again. If those living near poverty with low wages.... and pay little to no income tax while receiving tax credits ....were to have those tax credits withheld, you would then argue to reduce income tax on them.
How does this help them to spend more in your bizarre economic model?
How would it help them live better?
You have claimed that you are concerned about people living under these poor conditions.
It looks more like you're concerned about not letting them out of poverty.

How are tax reductions on small business punishing the consumer base?

that's an interesting question. But I haven't been advancing that scenario.
You've been arguing to give the wealthy that have been successful under Bush tax cuts, more tax cuts even though their success at wealth generation has been increasing at record rates since 2008. While at the same time advancing an argument of regressive taxation to tax the middle class even more.
I think you're just trying to confuse the issue.

We want small business to grow..giving the consumer base jobs.

in case you haven't noticed, 1% ers are not small businessmen.
Small-business owners are generally upper-middle-class, .......you know..... the ones you want to fuck over with your insane regressive sales tax plan.

I presented a tax reduction for all

No, you didn't. You argued for a regressive tax plan that focuses taxation on the middle-class. That thread is closed now and there is no way for you to go back and re-state your argument other than denying you started that thread.

And again...if you want to continue the fair tax thread...go start one.

me? I don't need to. You did start that thread and you did present a regressive tax plan. You even posted a link to Wikipedia that described your plan as being regressive and favoring the very wealthy while increasing the tax load on the middle-class.
You debate out of the convenience of the moment and deny what you've said on the subject in the past.

And again..thats because there is no jumpstart

if the Bush tax cuts failed in jump starting the economy after 2008, and any further tax cuts only help a wealthy class that is already successful in record-breaking profits and wealth generation....... how can you claim further tax cuts on the wealthy would help a middle-class that's struggling under the Bush tax cuts?
Your arguments are illogical and presented out of convenience of the moment.

people still want to buy the same things..but there is no "relief"

but your argument to tax the middle class more through a regressive tax plan reduces the ability of the middle-class to spend more. This is a simple relationship. They would have less to spend.

Consumer buying is down as we have lack of jobs stone

creating unneeded jobs is not the solution, as you keep arguing.
Removing consumer purchasing power through your regressive sales tax plan is not a solution.

if you provide relief and put people to work..it will spiral back up...you simply do not understand what happens in a recession I have explained it repeatably over and over again.

Trickle up?------->

you don't seem to understand why recessions occur. People spend less money.

Taxing the middle class ( the consumer base) more, and taxing the wealthiest of the wealthiest that are already achieving record-breaking profits along with record-breaking wealth creation... less, is not logical.

You still dont get it do you...you can not paint a middle class.

but you can fuck them over. And that's exactly what you've been arguing for.

if we were all middle class that would be the new minimum

the 'new minimum' what?

.if everyone has money to burn the prices go up to match it.

I have said it a hundred times..people will charge what one is willing to pay.

I strongly and seriously suggest you read up on the concept of supply and demand in a free market scenario.
Start here with your education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
you haven't a clue of what you've been talking about.

And again if you follow prior posts before that you can see I am out to help the poor

no, I only see you out to help the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

Stick to the topic of this thread please

as long as you keep deviating from the topic of this thread, I choose to answer to your tangents whenever I feel the need.
I suggest you not make such controversial statements that are off-topic in the future.

 

[Stone]

One more time..this thread is not a continuation of the fair tax thread...Go create your own thread on the topic if you wish.
The thread you keep referencing is closed ...Many forums have rules against quoting from close threads..I do not know the policy here..but I suspect it may be the same.
I am asking you again to stop bringing that thread here as it is not related to this thread topic....and it is closed.

Then stop initiating off topic baseless comments.
You started immediately after my very first post in this thread.

Go back and read your posts again, the thread is still at a low post count.

You went off your topic here:
post #3

First response to me:

Yes and Govt spending is at it highest percentage of GDP since the 40s.

second response:

The democrats pretty much run the show during most of the show

Which can often be achieved through tax cuts

You started parsing my comments, taking the topic further and further away from the thread topic.....I only followed you in responding to your off topic claims.

Don't want me posting about your tax plans, stop advancing a discussion on them and I won't have anything to respond to.

 

[Stone]

There was obviously a third response there, but for reasons you are aware of, I am unable to edit my posts for a few more days.