What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Best Buy
Killer Gift For A Movie Buff view!
bestbuy.com - Insignia Blu-ray player instantly streams Netflix movies right to your TV & comes with a free disc.
151 Comments
- 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -19/+64I can't speak for all liberals but yes, I have. But since you seem to be an expert on these matters, will the record-setting deficit we now have also help the economy? More to the point, if FOX runs a banner that reads "Deficit Will Help Economy?" (note the use of the all important question mark in my hypothetical banner), will it then be true?
- knupso, on 10/12/2007, -7/+40The problem is not the tax cuts we need more of them, it's the spending that both parties in Washington are responsible for that is causing the problems.
Please, please vote for no incumbent this election. Both parties are selling us out to special interest. These career politician has lost touch with reality and has no clue what it's like to live in the real world. It's time for them to get a wake up call.
When you vote your 8 term senator back in and wonder why things don't change, don't come bitching an moaning back here. - PJOnori, on 10/12/2007, -20/+41We have a record deficit and trade deficit, we are in debt to our eyeballs to China and Saudi Arabia, jobs are being shipped overseas at a growing rate and the housing bubble is going to burst sooner than later.
It doesn't take a genius to figure these things out. - thebeaz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Good lord... liberals this, liberals that... there are many, many, MANY more people than just the "LIBERALS!!!" that are very upset with the government right now, ever stop to think that?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+31I still pay the same taxes as when Clinton was in office. Maybe it is because I am not rich.
- whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22you can say anything if you put it in the form of a question...
- sharpfork, on 10/12/2007, -16/+30Another Faux news assertion made less than a lie by sticking a question mark at the end?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX5-YUVDgcg - smitting, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18George W Bush is the first leader in history to cut taxes during a time of war. We can start off by not doing that.
How about not expanding the size of the federal govenment? Look at the numbers for job creation, along with the expansion of jobs offered by the federal government. Without these new federal jobs, job numbers would look bad.
Closing payroll tax loopholes for large corporations would generate a lot more revenue, and put them on a more fair footing with small business. Why is it that if I forget a payment I pay penalties, but if I could afford the accountants I could re-establish in the Carribean and pay no taxes?
How about putting small business on a better footing with corporations by offering tax credits (not writeoffs) to chapter-S corps and LLC for all health insurance premiums spent on employees?
How about requiring social security taxes on all income at an equal rate, rather than only taxing the first ~$95K of income? Having social security solvent would help our future expendatures, and would even generate surplus that could be used to pay down our debt, which is now almost 70% of our GDP.
I have more ideas, but these are the ones that came to the top of my head.
What am I? I'm nothing. I hate both wings of the Washington Party these days... in fact I would like to see prohibition of political parties so we can talk about ideas and form coalitions. This R vs D ***** is a load of bull.
I used to believe in trickle-down economics, until I saw my boss purchase a Gulfstream IV with his tax cut, while not allowing any salary increases over 3% for that year. I have only found counter-examples to trickle-down, I have never seen a single real-world example where cutting taxes on the rich benefitted the economy. As large corporations die in this brave new world, I doubt trickle-down will work at all.
I think Bush (et al) needs to stop seeing a post-9/11 world and should look at a post-globalization world. - satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20I wish economics were that simple. I am sure there were economists that were stating that the stock market would never crash before the crash in 1929. Economics is not an exact science. Just because you have a theory that certain things will happen, it doesn't mean that they will happen. And, just because common sense tells you something is true, it doesn't mean that your common sense is correct.
Predicting the behavior of people is hard beyond a very general statements like "everyone is gonna die". :) - satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -13/+23Don't cut taxes when expenditures are going up.
Don't cut taxes until the debt is paid.
Consider that if other countries will not go to war with us and share at least half the burden, maybe we should not be going to war.
Don't listen to neocons. :) - doubledangerbat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Just because CNN or another station agrees with your way of thinking (slated the other way than FOX), don't think they're always right either.
I'm not for one way or the other, but seriously, open your mind, someone is feeding you their opinion in almost any of the newscasts. You just don't call it out when they think the same way you do.
There's almost no truth to unbiased news. - ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11The exact same way EVERY other story gets there. The voting pattern satisfies the criteria as set out in the algorithm.
- Altotus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I am not sure that calling "Fox News" by its popular nickname "Faux News" is an insult anymore. They have a budget devoted to legal defense related to false reporting, and they don't waste nearly as much time pretending to be "fair and balanced" as they once did.
I think nowadays they're starting to get pretty tongue-in-cheek about it, actually. I don't see why some people get so riled up about them -- they're all about infotainment, not news. Look at Bill O'Reilly's show -- no news, just editorializing and cracking a bunch of tasteless jokes. Granted, not everyone's going to find it entertaining, but some do.
The point is that "Fox News" is all about getting people excited, stirring the pot, and entertaining folks. They don't take the news part seriously because they don't have to and the "Faux News" nickname is just part of the fun. Everyone should lighten up. If you want "news", read some newspapers. - dime, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10MY GOD YOU PEOPLE ARE INCREDIBLE.
I don't know who is worse... the socialist Democrat crybabies or the fascist Republican blowhards. For now, it's the Republicans since they're the ones pissing away my money. Hopefully the Democrats gain power so I have a new team to hate.
Seriously - anyone who actually thinks Bush's fiscal policies are good for our nation is such a partisan knuckledragger it's hard to comprehend how you get dressed in the morning.
You cannot drastically cut taxes and drastically increase spending and beurocracy. It's unsustainable. Believe it or not, our credit is only good for so long. When we start defaulting on loans, the world switches to the Euro, get ready for our way of life to crumble. - daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17What is the oppositions plan to reduce our debt?
- dognose, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8There have been a bunch of tax cuts, the dividend one being one of the smaller ones. The tax cuts together have been a huge success, if you define success as expanding the economy, providing jobs, increasing the tax base and putting more money in people's pockets. The whole national debt thing is because of increased spending on war and health care, not because of taxes.
- evilbob333, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@Highborn
Are you still making the same amount of money that you were when Clinton was in office? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8This "Progressive" website is doing the same thing it accuses Bush of doing--cherry picking its intelligence. How ironic! A search on Google Scholar will show that there are plenty of studies linking tax breaks with positive effects on the stock market.
- pdbq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Wow. You're all worked up aren't ya? 100% Tax everything? Who is saying that besides You? This isn't 1955. We won, communism is either over or on it's way out, things are even changing in China. Or do you really think that Cuba is going to take over America? The only people in America calling for communism are drunk art school flunkies at a hipster bar in Portland Oregon saying that ***** to be dramatic and avant gaurd.
Wanting tax reform has nothing to do with Communism. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10The problem is not the tax cuts we need more of them..
true, but we also need a simplfied tax code, it is stupid how much we pay to collect taxes and how much businesses have to pay just to figure out what they owe.
But yeah The pork makes government get more expensive every single year.. it is hard to believe not long ago, the federal government ran completely off tarifs and inport taxes.
The over looked fraud of administration friendly companies is horrible as well.
I am glad they are finally going to let us search our tax dollars online, but i think that is only because most of the sheep dont care.
Ted stevens will get elected again, despite of or maybe because of his bridge to no where. - jgo6d, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8The stock market is a complicated beast whose movements can't be controlled by any single policy. It acts more as a barometer of public confidence in specific companies and the economy as a whole.
Technology and innovation are the true drivers of the economy and stock market, even though politicians want to take credit for economic growth. The best politicians can hope to do is not screw things up by over or under taxing, over or under regulating. We need to support policies that foster innovation and competition and let American ingenuity do its thing. - artman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
-Thomas Jefferson
Despite warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote:
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
- Woodrow Wilson - Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@Altotus
You're absolutely right about all that. The thing that troubles me about it is that Fox is a national television network, now on par with NBC, CBS, ABC. If it was called "Fox Opinion," there wouldn't be a problem, but it's called "Fox News." Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of television news is sensationalist these days, the other networks aren't completely off the hook.
But I don't think it's okay for a national television media company to have abandoned journalistic integrity the was Fox has. It's also disappointing to see the other television news programs (CNN, MSNBC, to name two) following suit. - threemagic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6melindag: that theory works as long as the money is actually being spent here.
- CrappedCrusader, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14A success!
... at enlarging our debt even further! Thank you Mr. Bush, my children's children will gladly pay their taxes to fund a war that happened at the turn of the 21st century that went absolutely nowhere! - ivanuch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7How can we be #6 with the largest GDP in the world???
But, wait a second this is a "I hate Bush" thread, so no facts allowed.. carry on comrade.. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Predicting the behavior of people is hard..
yeah just ask the nobel prise winning inventers of the midas equation.
It seemed to remove all risk from the stock market, worse you could do is break even, as long as people behaved as expected.. well i bet you can guess the rest of the story.. - Shadowe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6LOL can you imagine what gas would cost if it were up to the libs. Do you have any Idea how much of what you pay at the pump is Taxes? My state takes about $0.50 a gal, I don't know how much the fed takes, but I bet its at least as much. Not to mention all the taxes paid by exxon before the gas gets to the station, that forces them to raise the price as well.
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Its better than reading Dilbert.
- axxiom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6What are you talking about? If Gore was President we'd have a 5 trillion dollar surplus by now. Old people would reverse aging to save social security. Michael Moore would have swept the Oscars. And Osama Bin Laden would have surrendered.
- xlocust, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Good lord... liberals this, liberals that... there are many, many, MANY more people than just the "LIBERALS!!!" that are very upset with the government right now, ever stop to think that?
Good God yes. I don't consider myself a liberal. I'm not into the environment, I don't go to antiwar rallies and dance around with hippies, I eat meat and support the 2nd amendment, etc etc. I consider myself an average working Joe but goddamn If Bush isn't the one of the worst presidents we have ever had. Anyone who pays any sort of attention to the news knows that Iraq is a complete mess and that that Bush is taking our country down the tubes. - YossarianDent, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I love how every political opinion story that makes it to the front page is automatically inaccurate.
- killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4problem is conservatives are no longer conservative on spending
spend, spend, spend
they are as bad as liberals in that... well not quite as bad... - ryalslawfirm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Presidents don't have that much control over the economy in the SR. Clinton didn't make the Dow go up/down, Bush didn't make the Dow go down/up. Additionally, since all economic conditions necessarily lag government policy when policy does have *some impact (please, please dispute the linear nature of the way we human beings experience time), Clinton would technically be responsible for the recession that started (i think) in the last fiscal quarter of his presidency... (economists vary slighly on their definitionn of recession and when it starts... so don't be nasty.). It's pretty apparent that the economic cycle would have screwed whomever followed Clinton. It is unfortunate that people don't understand a little about economics or their constitutional form of government, especially since most people get a basic introduction to both in their secondary or collegiate education.
In the LR out of control spending by the Congress (only Congress can legislate to tax and spend, under our constitution... if they cut the president off, eventually his branch runs out of money) un-vetoed by the President drives up the deficits and the debt and ultimately will cause high interest rates. If left unchecked, this will negatively impact the economy, which will increase the risk to foreign creditors which will cause the treasury to have to raise rates further and so on, and so on... A similar cycle results in the foreign currency market due to an imbalance of payments, especially if the United States Dollar loses its reserve currency status to the Eurodollar or the Chinese Yuan in the future... but no one is taking in lots of Yuan... yet.
I liked it better when we had a Republican Congress and a Democratic President or vice versa... keep those SOBs fighting each other instead of us. Republican or Democrat, the elites only help each other. It's just human nature. Republicans selectively deregulate and lower taxes to benefit only their industrialist friends. Democrats raise taxes and regulate in order to benefit their labor and bureaucratic constituencies. Why don't people seem to understand this?
http://www.ryalslawfirm.com - DrDigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The problems with the sales tax solution is that it overburdons those with less money, and it leads to less spending by people. Less spending actually hurts our economy - less items bought, less production, less jobs, etc.
- askldjd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I don't know whether this study is accurate or not. But I do have a degree in Economics.
Regardless of the study, I think tax cut is good for the economy. Taxes create something called "deadweight loss" burden on the economy, which magnifies the negative effects of taxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_weight_loss
The opposing argument is that our deficit is off the roof because of it, and I believe that this is a false argument. The deficit is high because the Republican party (historically more than Democrates ) spend their money on wasteful programs. And starting a war in Iraq made matters much worse.
Conclusion: Politics aside, tax cut is a good thing.
That's my two cents. - minorthreat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Our economy good?
lets take a look at the number
Reagan puts us 4 Trillion in debt to beef up our military, which ultimately made Russia collapse because they tried to keep up
Bush Sr. and Clinton get a handle on things and we actually start to pay it back.
Bush Jr. comes along and we are now 11 Trillion in debt. I dont know about you guys, but when I see that 20% of every dollar I pay in taxes goes toward paying just the interest on this 11 Trillion dollar loan, it sort of pisses me off.
To say our economy is doing good.. eh.. take it for what it is
I have a new car a new motorcycle, a new house...and Im so far in debt Ill never get out. Wouldn't the guy who has a beat up car, an older house and money in his bank account be better off? - agooga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The national debt seems to generally rise under Republican leadership because republicans tend to cut taxes (a good thing) but not cut spending-- deficit spending.
If republicans really were who they say they were-- they would cut both taxes and spending-- i.e. shrink the government.
The party that actually says this and will do this is the Libertarian party. - DcaptdVermnMeat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The whole point of taxation is for government to collect revenue to run the government. As a result of the tax cuts, the revenue (money collected by the gov't) went up, not down (at face value you would think the opposite would happen) - because there is less burden on commerce & more commerce leads to more taxes collected - high taxes tend to choke the market. In this respect I would say it is a success. The failure is the lack of spending cuts.
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Who is actually benifiting from Social Security? Even government officials aren't even relying on it for the future...
- DrDigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The problem with a flat tax system is that it puts an undo burdeon on those who make the least.
Plus it increases the price of all items by 30% (not the 23% that everyone claims). The tax rate would be 23%, but the increase in price would be 30%. - Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@Smitting:
Regarding "trickle-down economics" - I'm in favor of "trickle-up economics." How about we give poor people money, which they will then spend on things like food and rent and utilities and maybe have some left to get something nice for themselves, then the businesses that they buy from will reap the benefits of higher revenues, and those higher revenues will increase profits and stock values?
I like that idea. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"tax receipts are at an alltime high because there are less companies cooking the books."
IF that is the case, who do you think proposed the Sorban Oxley standards in 2002? - mrkmrk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3In other news, chocolate rations have been increased from 20 to 25 grams per week!
- Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -14/+17Not waste billions of dollars a day on pork barrel spending and the second biggest military failure in U.S. history.
I dont know if that will help. But it's a start... - Egoist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Actually, threemagic, you are incorrect. We are very much apart of a global economy now and spending in other countries helps us, albeit in the long run. Here's an example to explain my point:
Imagine that GM and Ford decide to open plants in Kazackalacastan where the economy has been depressed by years of civil war and strife. GM and Ford spend millions of dollars in these countries because they can hire the people for $1 a day. Of course, in Kazackalacastan, 1 US dollar a day keeps his family fed, clothed, and housed because the currency there is so devalued. GM and Ford get cheap labor and the employees get to support their families.
Now, over time, the economy of Kazackalacastan becomes stronger with businesses building upon businesses and increasing the wealth of nearly all of the citizens of the country. Wages go up, the country becomes stronger and more secure, and with their money, they're going to want to buy things from America. With their new wealth, they'll be able to buy those things they want, making our economy stronger.
Do we do it out of the goodness of our hearts? No. Do we do it out of greed and to exploit the cheap labor? Yes. But we also add millions of new people into our economy who now have buying power. Instead of 300 million potential buyers, we have 4 billion. Boosting the economies of other countries only stands to help us. It's the squalid ***** that will always give us problems. - Shadowe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3My neighbors more successful than me, he lives in a smaller house, and drives a smaller car, and makes less money than me, and he has less kids. But his kids get a bigger allowance, so he must be more successful.
Define success? please A companies success is not measured by it's payroll. It can be measured by it's profits, its number of locations, number of employees, there are many of measures for success. Wal-Mart employs a lot of people, and has shown to be good for every community they have been built in. They provide lower cost goods, so that normal guys like you and me can afford to buy things that we couldn't afford to get before.
You may even find that A lot of Macy's employees started at places like Wal-mart to get the experience needed for Macy's to even consider employing them. - riah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I suppose it's all relative. For example, US conservatives would be considered liberals in Russia.
- axxiom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I was watching Univision as they had the same headline. But it was printed a little differently.
"¿Proof Tax Cuts Work?" - smitting, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How about a national sales tax instead? It's a pretty hard system to corrupt without going black market (only the poor would bother) and food and clothing and necessities can be exempt from the sales tax (of course many debates will be needed to decided what is exempt)
-
Show 51 - 100 of 152 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is