A few things many do not know about the economy

[For-Life]

Short term tax........THAT is what personal income taxes were called when implemented in Canada! It is rare that a tax is ever given up once a goverment implements it.

With all the civic, municipal, provincial, and federal (excise, environmental) taxes the taxpayer is "taxed" to the max. Our good old GST has morphed into HST in some provinces swallowing up an ever increasing number of items and services. A whale of a tax that was only meant to replace the manufacturing tax.

Uncut, while true, there is a lot of misconceptions there. Was the income tax brought in as a short term tax? Yes. But you have to question yourself where the government got its revenue from. Before, nations had tariffs of up to 40% on goods and services. These tariffs hindered trade and economic growth. So one tax was implemented and the other was removed.

Even, you talk about the HST, but if you look at Canada and the Province of Ontario, we are paying less personal income taxes today than we were 10 years ago. Even with the HST, since the PST was not a value added tax, we were already paying it two or three times by the time we pick it off the shelves. Whereas, the HST we will only pay once.

[For-Life]

Mark your calendar, November 2, 2010. TAKE OUT THE TRASH.

and replace it with what? Trash?

What policies are the opposition offering other than just yelling loud and saying No to everything?

[FVCCHRIS]

Why do you hate the Constitution so much?

I hate the politicians who have ignored it for so long noone really knows what's really in it anymore. I despise polititians who vote laws that we all have to live by and then EXEMPT themselves from those same laws! I don't think anyone quarrelled much when the government suspended certain areas of the Constitution during wartime in the interests of national security(and survival). Is there anyone out there who doesn't believe we are in a battle for our very existence? Our government has burdened us with several generations of economic stagnation and deflation due to their inability to live within a reasonable budget. Yet, I have no doubt these same government employees, our elected polititians, are faring way way better during these hard times than you and I are. Suspend the Constitution-maybe. Suspend the Congress(House and Senate)? HELL YES! They accomplish nothing, they point fingers at each other and cry-it's all their fault!!! I am sick of it to the point of wishing Oregon would secede.

[FVCCHRIS]

and replace it with what? Trash?

What policies are the opposition offering other than just yelling loud and saying No to everything?

Military

[DragonLensmanWV]

I hate the politicians who have ignored it for so long noone really knows what's really in it anymore. I despise polititians who vote laws that we all have to live by and then EXEMPT themselves from those same laws! I don't think anyone quarrelled much when the government suspended certain areas of the Constitution during wartime in the interests of national security(and survival). Is there anyone out there who doesn't believe we are in a battle for our very existence? Our government has burdened us with several generations of economic stagnation and deflation due to their inability to live within a reasonable budget. Yet, I have no doubt these same government employees, our elected polititians, are faring way way better during these hard times than you and I are. Suspend the Constitution-maybe. Suspend the Congress(House and Senate)? HELL YES! They accomplish nothing, they point fingers at each other and cry-it's all their fault!!! I am sick of it to the point of wishing Oregon would secede.

Sounds like an email I got from a right-wing nutjob very dear old friend. Yeah, we don't agree politically, but he's my oldest friend.
It was about a proposed new amendment and he was griping about the same stuff as you are here. Nevermind we were already be going to pay for the uneeded war in Iraq for generations thanks to President Bush.
But here it is - as usual some of the arguments hold no water. Pay attention to the part about congressmen near the end.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medic...hamendment.asp

[35oldguy]

Great ideas! It will not ever happen in our life time!

[35oldguy]

Maybe

[35oldguy]

All 50 states should issue an ultimatum to the Federal Government. We will government without you? We will become 50 individual countrie and you "Big Boy" can go to thunder! See how fast the fed's then bring the troops home!

[DragonLensmanWV]

Seriously? You think that would actually work? There would be civil war all over again.
All this anti-government talk sounds subversive and anti-patriotic.

[PhotonicGuy]

Interesting and serious topic.. And one which has created controversy :). More taxes, people that are so hungry because of the government, and so on... I'm still thinking about all of these.

[FVCCHRIS]

Seriously? You think that would actually work? There would be civil war all over again.
All this anti-government talk sounds subversive and anti-patriotic.

Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin- You know, subversive anti-patriots? Our federal government has failed us for so long. Polititians these days are being viewed exactly the way England's government of the colonies were back in the 1700's. Excessive taxation-against our wishes. Paying for and fighting wars the public don't see as needed- just like housing British troops in colonial homes(unwanted military burdens). Elitism- voting to spend our social security savings on other things it wasn't intended for and then EXEMPTING themselves from even being a part of the system(seperate retirement and medical care for Congress"people") Some Dragon ought to kick down the doors in the capital and flame some butts!

[DragonLensmanWV]

Ok, got it now - standard Tea Party rhetoric.

Throw in something about how our enemies get gleeful when they see division like this.
And what part of "United We Stand, Divided We Fall" doesn't ring true?

And drop the separate retirement and medical care BS 'cause it's not true.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/hea...s-of-congress/

[eyeguy21]

I have so much to say about this topic. Where to start? First we can with drawl all deployed troops and shut the bases down. We have roughly 700 bases around the world. second a cut in Government spending and getting rid of certain departments. Like the department of education and homeland security.third legalize marijuana . It is taxable and would also cut back the cost of enforcing laws.

Your messing with us right? If not and we actually did close all military bases around the world we'd have to create a new government agency called HCD (Homeland Cleanup Department). It'd be necessary to cleanup all the rubble from terrorist attacks. I definitely agree that we need to cut government spending and eliminate most of the new departments and Czars that were brought on board in the last 20 months or so. Not the Department of education and homeland secury though. Legalize Marijuana? Why not. You can tax it like crazy and you can't O.D. on it.

[Spexvet]

George W. Bush and his republican majority senate and house has bankrupt this country completely. It should be temporarily disbanded. Let the States set a goal of 7 years to show they can operate in the black. When the "New United States" is reconstituted deficit spending should be outlawed completely. From an economic standpoint wouldn't that make our nation well respected and stronger? The former USSR was Comunist, we are capitalists. Look at where China is today economically- loaning us money on purpose for the past 40 years because eventually we'd be in this UNSOLVABLE situation.

Fixed that for you

George W. Bush and his republican majority senate and house has burdened us with several generations of economic stagnation and deflation due to their inability to live within a reasonable budget. Yet, I have no doubt these same government employees, our elected polititians, are faring way way better during these hard times than you and I are. Suspend the Constitution-maybe. Suspend the Congress(House and Senate)? HELL YES! They accomplish nothing, they point fingers at each other and cry-it's all their fault!!! I am sick of it to the point of wishing Oregon would secede.

Fixed that for you

Military

Because the military is so good at keeping their costs down? I think not.

Excessive taxation-against our wishes.

Taxes were higher during the Clinton administration, and our economy and standard of living were better. IT'S PRIVATE ENTERPRISE THAT'S THE PROBLEM, NOT TAXES.

Paying for and fighting wars the public don't see as needed

Bush

Elitism- voting to spend our social security savings on other things it wasn't intended for

Reagan

Glad to see you'll be voting out the republicans. I appreciate that.

I definitely agree that we need to cut government spending and eliminate most of the new departments and Czars that were brought on board in the last 20 months or so.

What have the Czars and departments done that have not been a satisfactory return on our inveastment? Someone needs to watch over Wall Street, banks, and big business so that the Great Recession doesn't happen again.

Not the Department of education and homeland secury though. Legalize Marijuana? Why not. You can tax it like crazy and you can't O.D. on it.

It sounds like you're not so much against more taxes and higher spending as you just want to be the one who decides where the money is spent. We have a system for that. It's called a Federal Constitutional Republic.

[eyeguy21]

I don't need the government taking care of me thank you. This country was founded on capitalism not socialism which seems to be what you're screaming from your belltower. For every argument you've made there is a counter argument. I could point out the questionable character of quite a few of the whitehouse Czars. I could make the case that Reaganomics brought us out of the economic downturn that the Carter administration brought on. I could argue that the economy was better during the Clinton years despite the higher taxes because of the Reagan administrations strong economic policies and the fact that we were not at war, principlely due to the actions of the first Bush administration. I could also argue the current war could have been avoided if action was taken in the 90's. I could make a lot of assumptions but a smarter person than me once said "you can't solve the problems created in this country with the level of thinking that got us here in the first place." We all have different opinion but really most of us don't have the necessary experience to fix anything and I think we are now getting a big spoonful of inexperience in the government and that the whitehouse is no place for 'on-hands training.'

[For-Life]

Reagan gave the economy a boost, because he cut the taxes of the wealthiest by half. It was a major stimulant, but you can only do that so many times. How much more can you cut taxes to, until it is nothing and you no longer have a stimulus?

In addition, the tax cuts were not fiscally responsible as they significantly cut the revenues fo the US and did not change the expenses. Thus, the US went into major deficit and increased the debt at a tremendous rate.

This is the equivilant to an athlete taking steroids. Gets the short term effect, with dire long term consequences.

The US did well in the 90s, and that is one part of it. But the other part is it was done responsibly. Bills were paid, budgets were balanced. If the US continued down that route, the 2000s would have been a lot more rosy.

As for the War on Iraq. To blame that on Clinton not acting is laughable. Why did the War on Iraq happen? That is a question that still has yet to be answered. Clinton did not cause it, Bush did. It was his decision and there was nothing pressing to make him go in there.



But nonetheless, the thing that bothers me the most about all of this are the people who do not want to talk about sound economic prinicples, but instead touchy, feeling party politics. If I see a horse, I should be able to admit it is a horse, even if my political party is telling me it is a sheep.

[Spexvet]

I don't need the government taking care of me thank you.

Until you're out of work, or your stock portfolio reaches zero. Then we'll see how you react.

This country was founded on capitalism not socialism which seems to be what you're screaming from your belltower.

Not me. There's a limit to the benefits of greed.

For every argument you've made there is a counter argument. I could point out the questionable character of quite a few of the whitehouse Czars. I could make the case that Reaganomics brought us out of the economic downturn that the Carter administration brought on. I could argue that the economy was better during the Clinton years despite the higher taxes because of the Reagan administrations strong economic policies and the fact that we were not at war, principlely due to the actions of the first Bush administration. I could also argue the current war could have been avoided if action was taken in the 90's. I could make a lot of assumptions but a smarter person than me once said "you can't solve the problems created in this country with the level of thinking that got us here in the first place." We all have different opinion but really most of us don't have the necessary experience to fix anything and I think we are now getting a big spoonful of inexperience in the government and that the whitehouse is no place for 'on-hands training.'

You could point out, make the case, argue ... but you'd be wrong.
How is it that you blame Carter for the economic downturn in the 70s, and not Nixon, whose policies caused the downturn, and then you blame Clinton, and not Reagan/Bush? Hmm?

[eyeguy21]

Reagan gave the economy a boost, because he cut the taxes of the wealthiest by half. It was a major stimulant, but you can only do that so many times. How much more can you cut taxes to, until it is nothing and you no longer have a stimulus?

In addition, the tax cuts were not fiscally responsible as they significantly cut the revenues fo the US and did not change the expenses. Thus, the US went into major deficit and increased the debt at a tremendous rate.

This is the equivilant to an athlete taking steroids. Gets the short term effect, with dire long term consequences.

The US did well in the 90s, and that is one part of it. But the other part is it was done responsibly. Bills were paid, budgets were balanced. If the US continued down that route, the 2000s would have been a lot more rosy.

As for the War on Iraq. To blame that on Clinton not acting is laughable. Why did the War on Iraq happen? That is a question that still has yet to be answered. Clinton did not cause it, Bush did. It was his decision and there was nothing pressing to make him go in there.



But nonetheless, the thing that bothers me the most about all of this are the people who do not want to talk about sound economic prinicples, but instead touchy, feeling party politics. If I see a horse, I should be able to admit it is a horse, even if my political party is telling me it is a sheep.

Don't you ever get tired of these circular arguments. This is where I say "Reagan cut the taxes of the wealthiest but that's who employs others." There's are a lot of taxes that pop up when liberal thinking takes over the whitehouse. That's what big governement does. It takes our hard earned money and disperses it to those who aren't so hard working.

It's reasonable to assume that war in the middle east could have been averted for at least a while if Clinton would have taken custody of Bin Laden when they had the chance but is often the case with soft presidents the administration declined. Had he been in the custody of the US it may well have prevented a lot of things that came to pass. The mockery Clinton made of the presidency is what's laughable. By the way how long are Obama supporters going to allow him to blame everything on Bush. You all have had the office for a year and a half or more. It's time to get over it and except some responsiblilty.

I don't like having to maintain a presense in the middle east any more than you do but the fact is that it's necessary or Obama would have been able to pull us out by now. And don't try and sell me on the whole august 31st pullout thing. We are still there in a position to help the Iraqis if and when they need us and believe me they will. Call it what you want, but we're still there. I wonder what your take is on Iran? Not out of spite I'm just curious.

Spexvet, the only thing I can say to you is that I HAVE been out of work in my 25 years in the work force and I've never had to ask the government for one thing, but hey that's just me. I've been a tax paying citizen most of my adult life and never needed it. I pay my taxes and pay into the system because all of those programs cost money.

Isn't this an optical site? I can't believe I've let you all drag me into this. I'm pretty much done with this thread now because I already know what you're going to say next and if you think about it you probably know what I'm going to respond to that with. Blah, blah blah...in the spirit of good politics good luck in November.

[Uncle Fester]

Reagan gave the economy a boost, because he cut the taxes of the wealthiest by half...remember who called it (correctly) Voodoo Economics? It was a major stimulant, but you can only do that so many times. How much more can you cut taxes to, until it is nothing and you no longer have a stimulus? Read my lips! Costing George H W Bush a second term because he did have to raise taxes. But that was when Republicans did act fiscally responsibly.

In addition, the tax cuts were not fiscally responsible as they significantly cut the revenues for the US and did not change the expenses. Thus, the US went into major deficit and increased the debt at a tremendous rate.

This is the equivalent to an athlete taking steroids. Gets the short term effect, with dire long term consequences.

The US did well in the 90s, and that is one part of it. But the other part is it was done responsibly. Bills were paid, budgets were balanced. If the US continued down that route, the 2000s would have been a lot more rosy.

As for the War on Iraq. To blame that on Clinton not acting is laughable. Why did the War on Iraq happen? That is a question that still has yet to be answered. Clinton did not cause it, Bush did. It was his decision and there was nothing pressing to make him go in there. http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/middle_east_oil_gas_products_pipelines_map.html#map



But nonetheless, the thing that bothers me the most about all of this are the people who do not want to talk about sound economic principles, but instead touchy, feeling party politics. If I see a horse, I should be able to admit it is a horse, even if my political party is telling me it is a sheep. Simple solutions too complex problems.

So let's keep cutting taxes by borrowing the money from China thereby increasing the deficit on the borrowed money now with interest paid overseas!!!:hammer:

[eyeguy21]

Lol. Good stuff Fester. "simple solutions to complex problems?" We'll see about that. As usual I'm on the other side of the fence but I appreciate the point of view. Good point by the way about Bush Sr losing the 2nd term because of the read my lips statement. but here's what I mean when I say there's another side to everything. Some would say that he lost because of Ross Perot, as for having to raise taxes, again that's the sort of thing that happens when you go to war. As to whether any of these wars are necessary you're going to get mixed opinions depending on who you are.

I respect your opinions (which from what I can tell is all they really are) because in this country we all have that privelege. I'd expect that same courtesy from anyone. Just because my opinions don't align with yours doesn't make them wrong.

[Uncle Fester]

As usual I'm on the other side of the fence but I appreciate the point of view. Good point by the way about Bush Sr losing the 2nd term because of the read my lips statement. but here's what I mean when I say there's another side to everything. Some would say that he lost because of Ross Perot,...

;) From Wiki--- A detailed analysis of voting demographics revealed that Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates. Economically, however, the majority of Perot voters (57%) were middle class, earning between $15,000 and $49,000 annually, with the bulk of the remainder drawing from the upper middle class (29% earning more than $50,000 annually).[28] Exit polls also showed that Ross Perot drew 38% of his vote from Bush, and 38% of his vote from Clinton, while the rest of his voters would have stayed home had he not been on the ballot.[29]

[For-Life]

Don't you ever get tired of these circular arguments. This is where I say "Reagan cut the taxes of the wealthiest but that's who employs others." There's are a lot of taxes that pop up when liberal thinking takes over the whitehouse. That's what big governement does. It takes our hard earned money and disperses it to those who aren't so hard working.

It's reasonable to assume that war in the middle east could have been averted for at least a while if Clinton would have taken custody of Bin Laden when they had the chance but is often the case with soft presidents the administration declined. Had he been in the custody of the US it may well have prevented a lot of things that came to pass. The mockery Clinton made of the presidency is what's laughable. By the way how long are Obama supporters going to allow him to blame everything on Bush. You all have had the office for a year and a half or more. It's time to get over it and except some responsiblilty.

I don't like having to maintain a presense in the middle east any more than you do but the fact is that it's necessary or Obama would have been able to pull us out by now. And don't try and sell me on the whole august 31st pullout thing. We are still there in a position to help the Iraqis if and when they need us and believe me they will. Call it what you want, but we're still there. I wonder what your take is on Iran? Not out of spite I'm just curious.

Spexvet, the only thing I can say to you is that I HAVE been out of work in my 25 years in the work force and I've never had to ask the government for one thing, but hey that's just me. I've been a tax paying citizen most of my adult life and never needed it. I pay my taxes and pay into the system because all of those programs cost money.

Isn't this an optical site? I can't believe I've let you all drag me into this. I'm pretty much done with this thread now because I already know what you're going to say next and if you think about it you probably know what I'm going to respond to that with. Blah, blah blah...in the spirit of good politics good luck in November.

1. I already addressed the tax cuts to the wealthy and countered that point. The effect happened because he cut the taxes in half to the wealthy that had a short term effect. Remember? I called it the steroid effect. It got a short term stimulus and created huge long term debt.

2. You are absolutely correct that cutting taxes to the wealthy will put more money in the hands of the wealthy and thus could stimulate the economy. The problem is that it is a very weak approach. It has been proven that cutting the taxes of the lowest income has a much more profound effect. Why? Because the lowest income spend their money. They not only spend their money, but all of their money. They not only spend all of their money, but they spend it domestically. The wealthy do not. Hence, why they are called wealthy.

So the lowest income people now go to the stores with the additional money, which increases the demand and cashflow to businesses. Which means they need more employees and have the money to hire employees (with the trickle down effect, you only have the money, not necessarily the demand) and thus more people get hired.

3. You think Paris Hilton works harder than a 30 year old accountant who works 70 hours a week for $35k a year? Wealth does not always mean you work harder. Success does not always mean you work harder. Hard work can lead to success, but the whole work = money formula is poor. Otherwise, you would be telling all of the opticians on this site that they are lazy.

4. Al-Quada is far more than Bin Laden. That is like saying the United States is Obama. Islamic terrorism is around not because of one mad man, but for many reasons. There are many mad men that will take Bin Ladin's place at any moment.

5. Yes, you cannot just abandon the middle east overnight. But that still does not explain why the War on Iraq started.

6. While we are at it, you did not indicate that you believe Bin Ladin was tied to Iraq, but since Bin Ladin was brought up and Iraq was not, I want to make it very clear that Bin Ladin had nothing to do with Iraq. Saddam and Bin Ladin were enemies.

7. You do pay your taxes and I assume you are a hard working optician, so you deserve to have your hard work respected by the tax man, versus someone like Paris Hilton or some millionaire who hires lawyers to cut his taxes in half.

[Mizikal]

All 50 states should issue an ultimatum to the Federal Government. We will government without you? We will become 50 individual countrie and you "Big Boy" can go to thunder! See how fast the fed's then bring the troops home!

That is what is was supposed to be like in the beginning. We are the United States. Each state was like its own country and the Federal Government had a lot less power. The the Civil War came and a lot of states rights were lost. We need to give states back there right and power. The Federal Government was never supposed to be as big as it is now.

[For-Life]

One other thing out there. While I believe that balancing the budget will need the government to cut spending on top of increasing taxes (because it has to come from both sides), remember what you are all asking for when you ask to cut spending. Salaries are a huge expenditure for the government. That means you will be cutting jobs, which will have a negative effect on the economy. Now, that can be said about raising taxes to (partially, depending on how much needs to be raised. A small percent may not have the effect that is exaggerated), but that point is not ignored, whereas people seem to ignore the negatives of cutting spending.

[eyeguy21]

;) From Wiki--- A detailed analysis of voting demographics revealed that Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates. Economically, however, the majority of Perot voters (57%) were middle class, earning between $15,000 and $49,000 annually, with the bulk of the remainder drawing from the upper middle class (29% earning more than $50,000 annually).[28] Exit polls also showed that Ross Perot drew 38% of his vote from Bush, and 38% of his vote from Clinton, while the rest of his voters would have stayed home had he not been on the ballot.[29]

Google at work again. I can't attatch any links to this conversation because my employer doesn't allow us to view non-optical related websites from our network server but I googled it from my blackberry -- most likely the same thing you did-- and got back responses 156,000 responses in .27 secs. Do you honestly think I can't scour the internet and find something that would counter your information?

Don't you ever get bored with this. You are no more going to sway me to your side than I am to yours. And here we are again with you on one side of the fence and me on the other. I get tired of these conversations when it regresses from original thought to people just regurgitating something they heard on TV, the radio or the internet.

You two are wearing me out with this whole thing. "For Life," I just got a email update to my blackberry so I'm chewing on that. As you can guess I don't buy your whole steroid analogy. I guess your approach is similar to the song that says "tax the rich until there ain't no rich no more." The lower class may very well spend all of their money but in the end the lower class needs a JOB to have money to spend. I'm not advocating the rich not paying a heafty tax but they already paid the majority of the tax burden anyways. It's not like we're all paying a fixed even percentage across the board. That's what capitalism is.

Funny how I have a friend in the garage door business, a friend in the hazardous material disposal business, a friend in the rental property business and I don't hear any of them complaining that their not taxed enough. What they are saying is that they can't afford to keep the employees they currently have, etc. etc. And none of them are rich.

I don't think Paris Hilton works harder than the accountant but the fact of the matter is I don't know her schedule and you most likely don't either. She may be booked into working 16 hr days for all I know and frankly I don't care. What I can tell you from a personal experience is that I have a 24 yr old step-son that I've disowned because he went from being a 40+ hr a week employee that went to school with aspirations of following his Jr ROTC training into the military to being a bum that hasn't had a job in two years because some floosie he hooked up with (his wife now) showed him how he can milk the government out of my hard earned taxes, so he can sit on his lazy A$$ all day and sleep until 3pm. He and his loser wife get or have gotten benefits from section 8, welfare, unemployement and wic to name a few. The last time I spoke to him was 6 mos ago when I gave him information on how to work with me as a baseball umpire until he got back on his feet and what he told me was that he couldn't because if he worked more than so many hours in a week or made "X" amount he'd have to move. I agree with helping those in need I just want someone to ask me first.

Bin Ladin absolutely had something to do with the war in Iraq, that whole war came about as part of a proactive attempt to prevent further loss of life on American soil after the attacks from the organization he heads up. We went in there partly in search of WMD's but also as part of the mandate to contain countries that sponser terrorism. With links to Iran and afganistan to name a few as well as an uncooperative evil dictator I'd call Iraq a start. I don't know what I would have done but I don't have all of the facts and neither do you.

Again we're just going to have to agree to disagree and with that I leave this argument until November. It's back to work for me now. Thanks for the friendly convo guys.