 
     |
| Somebody call a doctor...I'm dying laughing! (Page 16/40) |
|
fierobear
|
JUL 10, 02:44 AM
|
|
| quote | | Originally posted by 88GTNeverfinished:
Still got that nose crammed way up there. Tell me, did Todd have corn for dinner last night?
|
|
That's over the top. Be that way, if you must.
|
|
|
|
Tugboat
|
JUL 10, 09:05 AM
|
|
| quote | | Originally posted by edhering:
No, your statement that the GDP was "artificially inflated" while the economy was in the toilet is what doesn't make any sense. It's completely impossible. If the economy is bad, the GDP doesn't grow; if the economy is good, the GDP grows. The GDP growth rate is a primary indicator of how the economy is doing; it's an indicator of value added activity--ie economic activity which generates wealth. You cannot have a growth in GDP when the economy is performing poorly; poor economic performance tends to stop growth, or even to shrink the GDP. And the economy is not doing well if there is no GDP growth, ie no generation of additional wealth. Conversely, when the GDP is growing, there is wealth being generated and the economy is expanding.
The GDP growth rate, as I posted above, is set to hit its highest level in 20 years. Unemployment is being reduced to the tune of over 110,000 jobs per month. It's hard to see how unemployment can "double", as you assert, while the US Bureau of Labor Statistics is reporting 110,000+ jobs being created every month. As for a market "crash", where is the Dow-Jones average today? Unless I missed something on the news this evening, it's hovering between 10,000 and 11,000. That does not exactly sound like a "market crash" to me. Ed |
|
So if people are investing in houses instead of stocks, that doesn't push up the GDP? Edit: Dang, I hit "enter" to start a new line and it posted on me! The unemployment #s I presented were for the first three years of W. There are more McJobs now, yes. Things are coming back now, but as I look around me, people were much better off four years ago. GL [This message has been edited by Tugboat (edited 07-10-2004).]
|
|
|
|
84Bill
|
JUL 10, 10:36 AM
|
|
| quote | | Originally posted by Tugboat: Things are coming back now, but as I look around me, people were much better off four years ago. GL |
|
Four years ago I was making 43k a year.. Now I'm looking at a long stint at 20k. Sir with all due respect, you are full of bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Toddster
|
JUL 10, 11:48 AM
|
|
| quote | | Originally posted by JazzMan:
No, it doesn't. Jobs are created based on need, so if Bill Gates gets an extra 600,000 tax break he doesn't go out and spend it hiring more people to do the same amount of work. Instead, he puts it in tax shelters like any smart person does and that money is gone from the economy. Want more jobs? Put more money into the bottom of the economy, that way more people can actually spend more money and that drives up demand, which in turn drives up production, which in turn drives up jobs as more people will be needed to meet increased production demands.
Give the wealthy tax breaks only makes them wealthier, it won't help the economy. And to head off the obvious, why would they invest in making more products when the existing products aren't selling because nobody can afford to buy them? JazzMan |
|
You obviously do not even know what the term "Tax Shelter" means. But I'll address that later. First off all, let's take your own example and ask ourselves what Bill Gates would do if he got to keep an extra $600,000 of the money he earned each year. Maybe he would buy a yacht! OK, how does that help the economy? Well, it employs sail makers, fiberglass hull manufacturers, carpenters, upholsterers, sonar and radar designers, deisel engine producers, etc. We are talking about the jobs of at least a few dozen people right there. But more than likely he would invest it in new business buy buying stock or making the cash available to the venture capital market to start new businesses. Since my own father is a venture capitalist I can tell you for a fact that most venture capital is lost! Millions of dollars each year go down the drain invested in companies that go no where. 1 in 10 results in mega wealth. But the risk is tremendous, hence the reward. Without people willing to invest in business, business can't grow or expand, and there goes your job market. By investing that $600,000 into a business that business can buy new equipment. New equipment has to be BUILT, jobs. New equipment has to be SHIPPED, jobs. New equipment has to be INSTALLED, jobs. New equipment has to be SERVICED, jobs. New equipment has to be OPERATED, jobs. And most important of all, new equipment produces more goods which need to be packaged, stored, shipped, advertised, and consumed; jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs! When you say "tax shelter" you seem to think that rich people just squirel their money away in matresses until they need to buy a new car. That is ridiculous on so many levels I won't even dignify it. I'll simply point out the fact that a "Tax Shelter" is a politicians word. It simply means "investment". But liberals figured-out long ago that if you call an investment a "Tax Shelter" then it sounds bad and must be stomped-out. More looking-glass logic because stomping out tax-shelters is the same as stomping out jobs. On the other hand, we can do as you suggest and just give that $600,000 to the lower income earners. There are 143,000,000 employed people in America. If we gave that $600 grand out to the lowest 10% of income earners they would get .04 cents each AND not one new job will have been created. Whoa hoo, 4 cents!  Let the party begin! Grandma can get that operation now.
|
|
|
|
Toddster
|
JUL 10, 11:56 AM
|
|
| quote | | Originally posted by Tugboat: So if people are investing in houses instead of stocks, that doesn't push up the GDP? |
|
We have an indicator for this, it is called "housing starts". It is a measure of new home construction and yes, it's up nationally. Although it is down here in California, which explains why houses are so damned expensive here, we can't keep up with demand in other words.
|
|
|
|
Tugboat
|
JUL 10, 12:04 PM
|
|
| quote | | Originally posted by 84Bill:
Four years ago I was making 43k a year.. Now I'm looking at a long stint at 20k.
Sir with all due respect, you are full of bullshit. |
|
Are you talking to me? You're agreeing with my assessment. GL
|
|
|
|
84Bill
|
JUL 10, 12:12 PM
|
|
| quote | | Originally posted by Tugboat:
Are you talking to me? You're agreeing with my assessment.
GL |
|
I did use your quote. Agreeing? well let me ask this.
Do you agree with me or do you think I'm the one full of "bull"?
|
|
|
|
JazzMan
|
JUL 10, 12:33 PM
|
|
|
. [This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-04-2008).]
|
|
|
|
JazzMan
|
JUL 10, 12:34 PM
|
|
|
. [This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-04-2008).]
|
|
|
84Bill
|
JUL 10, 12:37 PM
|
|
| quote | | Originally posted by JazzMan:
Bill, you misread his quote. He said that 4 years ago things were better, which is what you were saying. Go back and reread his quote before you go off half-cocked.
JazzMan |
|
Jesus... sorry.. LOL My brain farted and now I smell like bullshit.... time for a shower.. oh wait, I'm already all wet. Did I come clean? 
|
|
|
|