Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd hate Republicans more than America's enemies.  They're playing politics w/this mortgage thing.

There was no agreement as they said before the meeting.  And when the GOP didn't sign on in the meeting, they went screaming to the drive-by media's microphones that McCain nixed the deal and that McCain should get out of town.

And they tried to set it up so Obama could take credit for everything in this meeting so they had him speak for the dems  AND HE BLEW IT!!!  Your man blew it!

The GOP plan is best and the only one that should be considered. WE MUST CUT CAPITAL GAINS TAXES TO ZERO AND REDUCE CORPORATE TAXES TO 15%.  The economy would take off like a rocket!

-- Modified on 9/27/2008 12:39:02 AM

Enough already with the trickle down economics.  How the fuck would cutting capital gains and reducing corporate taxes make the economy take off.  Jobs will still leave the country because labor is much more expensive than taxes.  

Who benefits from cutting capital gains taxes?  Those with capital.  Most Americans don't pay capital gains taxes so the only way that could help them is with some sorry ass same old trickle down economics.  It's garbage and that's why NOBODY in the republican party would dare say the words trickle down in public.  I'm sure they still say it in private when they are laughing at the regular folk.

And companies cannot charge whatever they want because their competition would under-price them and get all their customers--so all companies have to be competitive price-wise.

Taxes are an expense and the cost of taxes has to be added on to the cost of production/cost of goods sold.  Therefore, cutting taxes would lower the cost of goods sold resulting lower retail prices. And sometimes, that results in more stuff being sold.

As far as capital gains goes, THE MAJORITY OF WORKING US PEOPLE ARE EFFECTED BY CAPITAL GAINS.

-- Modified on 9/27/2008 1:03:17 AM

Think about John Kerry, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Fuck U Schumer oh sorry Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy---I know that all of them with the possible exception of Schumer are multi multi millionaires.  THEY HAVE CONTEMPT FOR YOU.  THEY'RE PLAYING YOU FOR THE FOOL!!!  Don't be the fool.  Vote GOP.

You ask how cutting taxes - capital gains and or corportat - can make the economy take off.

JFK was one of the first people to urge cutting taxes as a means of stimulating the economy.

If a corporation or individual makes a profit, there are 4 things that can be done with the money.  1) Hire new people to do more work for the company, 2)invest it in something else, thereby increasing profits in the future, 3) spend it on yourself, 4) put it under the mattress.  

The only thing bad for the economy is putting under the mattress, which is rarely done.  

Obviously, hiring new people is good for the economy.  

Any investment is equally good.  Even just putting it in a bank to make a profit is good for the economy, since banks don't keep it in the vault and make more money only by lending it out to people who will either buy something or use it for business reasons.

Finally, just spending it on yourself selfishly is good. You buy an expensive dinner at a restaurant, giving the owner more business, leaving a tip for the waiter. You buy fancy clothes, hiring the people at that store. You buy you third car, hiring car salesmen.  You buy you sixth house, paying the commission to the broker, hiring the locksmith and painter.

Every bit of selfish spending is good for the economy as well.

All three of these of these generate profits, which pay taxes, albiet at a lower rate, but more of them - like McDonalds.  1000 people paying taxes at 5% is better then 10 people paying taxes at 10%

In short, what ever is done with the money stimulates the economy.

Even sending the job over seas isn't all bad.

First, goods are cheaper in the U.S.  An American teacher who has $X can buy two shirts instead of one, or he can buy one and take his kids to a movie.  (The places selling the extra shirt or movie makes money.)

The jobs going over seas usually suck.  Mindless factory jobs of the sort that used the be derided.  But they are replaced by the jobs created when the goods come back to the U.S. or the American citizen has more money to buy one shirt and see the movie.

The more money that is made in the 3rd world, the richer they are.  Richer countries pollute less and are less aggressive. They will be less likely to crowd the US illegally with low skilled worders.

Building a factory in El Salvador - which will happen if you ship a job there - to do a low level job is probably the best foreign aid possible

The question is if there is $100 in profits, what will be best for the ecomony.  Giving most of it to the government or to business to re-use.

I admit this is a theory, but all of economics is theory.  It seems to be a possibly logical theory, which is why is should not just be dismissed.




-- Modified on 9/27/2008 5:59:18 AM

scum of the worst kind. But this: "The GOP plan is best and the only one that should be considered. WE MUST CUT CAPITAL GAINS TAXES TO ZERO AND REDUCE CORPORATE TAXES TO 15%.  The economy would take off like a rocket!", Would require that I trust the running dog capitalists to invest the tax savings in ways that would benefit the middle class. Fat chance GG. LOL  

What's disgusts me is "Still" so many American Adults are buying this song and dance story,,,Again!!  It is right in front of our eyes {{{Evidence}}} of what they've done to so many American's Finances!

Both of them last night showed the American people that it's Them FIRST......period.

The thing that bothers me fiercely is that our ForFathers went through so much for each and every American to live with the Hope of a "Chance" to live an "American" way of life and that is just not the case and it's because of the Republicans and Dem's.

I just can't believe how Pelosi behaved this week. I just shake my head whenever I hear the Pelosi name. What a reject she turned out to be.

She played the fact that she was a grandmother coming to the Hill.

or didn't you get the memo about the existence of nonprofit corporations?

The only corporations which have to make a profit to survive are those which have chosen that model. It's not some magic spell, though.

2000 census figures for stock ownership by all families. . .

32% of all familes in 1989
49% of all familes in 1998

It steadily increased an average of 5% per year. A projection into today would put it at close to 80%. I really doubt it's that high today (given the recessions of 1999-2000 and 9/11), but there's no doubt that is clearly much greater than 50%. So yes, MOST families DO own stock.


-- Modified on 9/27/2008 12:29:07 PM

Even Charles Gibson says so. All the way to Zero? Well that's a different dynamic of course.

Treasury aside, you and BHO are looking primarily at the social engineering aspects of it all.

Non-profits are corporations that are not intended to make a profit but exist for the other good they do for society.  Schools, museums, and other charities.  They are not models for the rest of corporations.  Historically, the use the shell of corporations just to house their activities.

There are 2 huge differences between profit and non profit.  First, non-profit only survives because they get donations because people like the work they do. People like art, so they support a museum.  

This is not a model for business.  No one will say, "I like clothing, so I will donate an extra $100 of my money to Macy's."  Macy's needs a profit.

Yes, the gift store at the Met sells a few things, but that doesn't keep the Met going.

Finally, and here is the big difference, people will own, work at, and support non-profits because they like the activity.  People like art, so they will donate their time as a docent. There are no people donating their time to keep a non-profit afloat.  

People only own private businesses because they make a profit.  If my practice isn't profitable, I will quit.  I don't do it for fun. If a grocery store doesn't make money - i.e. make a profit, the owner will shut it down and do something else.  If a shoe store doesn't make a profit, no one will open one.

Why do you think people start businesses if not to make profit.

Of course, they are different. They've chosen a different business model and one that is very successful for some.

All I said is that nonprofits don't exist to make a profit. I didn't argue that all corporations should be nonprofit or suggest that nonprofits are superior. Merely pointed out a error in fact in someone's statement.

Factual info is important in dialog, right?

And, thanks for the lecture although it wasn't necessary. I taught econ for 30 years.

Revenue, which you are confusing with profit, can be used to expand P&E or hire new labor but, if it's spent on costs it will not be classified as profit. That's the argument against the double taxation of dividends.

If businesses don't want to pay taxes on profits, then the best way to avoid that is to reinvest the revenue in P&E or labor.

As for your statement that whatever is done with the money except hoarding it is good, that's the argument that supply siders have beeen making for years and it's clearly been shown to be wrong. When the rich get richer and the gap between them and everyone else grows, that is not good for the economy.

They may be called corporations, but they are not a business model.

Not everything that has a corporate shell is a business.  

Non-profits do not need profit to survive.  They do not function for that purpose.  Business do.  I find it amazing that you teach economy and think of non-profits as an sort of "business" model.  

Businesses need profits.  

When I was young I went to the USSR for 8 weeks.  It was so funny to see "non-profit" businesses.  A factory would be told to make 100,000 shirts.  They would make 110,000 instead, exceeding their quota by 10%.  Everyone would get a bonus.

The problem was that they found they could make that many shirts if they made them all in the small size, since that took less cloth.  Of course, they couldn't sell them, but hey, they sure made a lot of them.

I went to GUM, what was called the world's largest store.  It was. Huge. Ooops. They forget the goods to sell.  Clothing stores would have a dozen pants that no one wanted. That is why people would pay a prince's ransom for pants from tourists.  

I once wandered around Leningrad (hint as to my age) looking for a snack.  I went into delis that had so little food, it was a joke.  

And gues what! None of these stores needed to make a profit to survive.

that you don't know what a business is.

3 a: a usually commercial or mercantile activity engaged in as a means of livelihood : trade , in the restaurant business b: a commercial or sometimes an industrial enterprise ; also : such enterprises the business district c: dealings or transactions especially of an economic nature :

From Merriam/Webster

Now, which of those definitions are not met by nonprofits?

All businesses DON'T need profits, only businesses which select that particular model. It's a model which has proven to be extremely useful but it's by no means the only business model.

"In case you also don't know what a business model is-
A business model is a term used for a broad range of informal and formal descriptions that are used by enterprises to represent various aspects of its business, including its purpose, offerings, strategies, infrastructure, organizational structures, trading practices, and operational processes and policies." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_model

Hmmm. Sounds like nonprofits actually DO have a business model.

Care to play again and stun us some more with your ignorance?