Republican/Democrat/Other...

[ikendu]

I_rv_too said: Urge your congressman to vote for the tax relief package.

Darell said: ...same effect can be achieved by simply locating your child's piggy bank


Wow! Do I ever agree with that!

Borrowing money (from the next generation)...so the wealthy people (who get most of it) of this generation can just have larger bank accounts? Most of the money that the weathly collect won't even GO into the economy.

 

[tsg68]

No it allows you to have a bit more money to recirculate into a failing economy. Nobody seems to realize exactly how many people lost jobs in the last year and a half and have not been able to return to work. You have to prime a pump in order to get it to recirculate don't you?

The Dems just want more money to pump into redundant social programs that are more interested in numbers, nepotism, and favors than actually helping us out. I know the Republicans love to spend on defense and if it wasn't for them, the troops wouldn't have had the materiel to handle our two recent military actions or our homeland security as the Clinton admin had completely depleted our arsenals and never appropriated the funding for new materiel.

The Dems complain that we need the taxes to fund the new Dept. of Homeland Defarce. Another redundant agency that just shouldn't exist. We have multiple Govt. agencies (CIA, FBI, ATF, DIA) charged with those tasks already and with a little reform and the addition of a small organization tasked with liason of the existing ones we would be fine. The dept. was another Democratic brainchild of useless beaurocracy meant to buoy the morale of the weak kneed liberals (who just seem to want govt. parenting and deal in ideology instead of truth) I am genuinely suprised that the Republicans fell for it. Hmmm threat level announcements and tracking down wayward politicians has just made me feel so much more secure. I don't want or need that kind of security,
Life profers no guarrantee and if you think the politicians can provide one you're a bigger sucker than PT Barnum could have hoped for. Kind of like believing that Police can protect you from violent crime after the fact.

Dems call the tax cut a "gimmick" I think the whole Dem platform is a gimmick to keep them and their friends in govt. paychecks for the rest of their lives. People seem to buy this idea that the Democrats are somehow more humanitarian in their approach to govt. and it is a ruse. What they really seem to cherish is personal wealth and security for the entire clan and fleecing it all with your tax dollars, trust me I see the way they live as I have worked in the homes of the wealthy Dems of New York and they can't see human struggle as it happens under their very noses, but those noses perk up to the smell of new funding and they flock to it like buzzards to a dead opossum and pick the bones clean.

Later,
TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[treek13]

Yes, everyone knows the best way to correct a huge deficit is to take in less money. If you find yourself not able to keep up with your bills, try taking a pay cut. It will fix the problem every time.

Pat

Just to keep a bit on topic, let me add that I don't think this is a Republican or Democrat thing, I think it's a politician thing. They tend to have no concept about fiscal responsibility and if they do (and admit it), they won't get elected.

 

[tsg68]

Try trimming the fat off a bloated and top heavy govt. to reduce the deficit instead of squeezing the working class for continuation and addition of beaurocratic redundancy and mismanaged tentacles.

And for your info I have taken increasing hits to my income over the past few years finally resulting in being layed off for the past 3 months and I don't collect any unemployment due to the fact that I can survive without it and I don't need to feed the deficit myself. So I guess taxing unemployment is helping the deficit? Maybe the Dems need to tighten the extremely large belt themselves. I don't see a one of them concerned about anthing but losing money themselves.

Later,
TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[ikendu]

tsg68 said: ...bit more money to recirculate into a failing economy. ...many people lost jobs in the last year and a half and have not been able to return to work. You have to prime a pump in order to get it to recirculate don't you?

Well... I guess I see two points here.

1. The best way to pump money into an economy

One way is to use Gov't spending (still goes into the economy...yes?).

And the other way is to not tax it in the first place (tax cuts). Cutting taxes for the wealthy makes the assumption that they will take the extra money and spend it on something...boats? new cars? new houses? One theory I have is that once you have a certain amount of money (let's say you make more than $250k/yr), if the Gov't doesn't take an extra chunk of taxes, that extra won't necessary just get spent. I mean, are people who make $250k+ holding back on their spending now? Doesn't seem likely to me. If they want a new car...they're already buying it. If a tax cut goes to low income people...it seems to me that THEY ARE likely to spend it. So...that's one issue as to where to put the tax cut to do the most stimulus to the economy.

The other way is that Gov't spending way. Let's say you hire people to screen luggage at airports or cargo coming from container ships or extra park rangers at Yellowstone or extra police on the streets. You know that the Gov't spending will find its way into the economy. Seems like a far more sure way to stimulate the economy than tax cuts to the wealthy. At least in the short term...maybe longer term too.

2. The second point...the power of confidence on the economy

This might be the most important aspect. What gets and keeps an economy really humming? IHMO...confidence. When people are confident, they spend. When they are worried, they hold back. Holding back really hurts a vibrant economy.

So...what makes people confident?

People might travel more on the airlines if they were confident of their economic future and the safety from terrorism. Have our recent military actions in the Gulf eliminated the threat of terrorism? Doesn't seem that way to me. Al Queda apparently just bombed a housing unit in Saudi Arabia (killing 8 Americans). Apparently invading Iraq didn't stop Al Queda from planning and executing that.

Hmmm. Are we confident that our leaders are doing everything they can to create a safe and prosporous environment? Well...people are holding back on spending quite a lot, so...I guess not. The tax cut doesn't seem to have boosted confidence. Maybe because we have to borrow money in order to give the cut to the wealthy? THAT erodes my confidence in our future.

I don't have all the answers. But I see how things have gone. When Clinton raised taxes in '93, not one Republican voted for it. They all predicated how it would suffocate and destroy our economy. Instead, we had the largest and longest sustained period of growth in our country's history. We already had a huge tax cut under Bush. Did it work? I don't think so. We've just continued to loose more jobs and sink the economy lower and make the deficiet even larger. I don't see how larger and larger deficits are going to increase confidence in the economy. Spending way more than you take in is not going to increase confidence...people will just hold back all the more.

Now...if you want to focus on really cutting spending so we can then lower the tax burden, fine. Start looking for all that waste and cut away. Politicians don't like to do that much though.

 

[DieselDave]

[ QUOTE ]
ikendu said:
I_rv_too said: Urge your congressman to vote for the tax relief package.

Darell said: ...same effect can be achieved by simply locating your child's piggy bank


Wow! Do I ever agree with that!

Borrowing money (from the next generation)...so the wealthy people (who get most of it) of this generation can just have larger bank accounts? Most of the money that the weathly collect won't even GO into the economy.


[/ QUOTE ]

Darell and Ikendu this is exactly why Democrats are so wrong. Darell thinks it and you agree with it because Democrats think taxes are THEIR money and not the taxpayers money.

Somehow a democrat thinks if there is a tax break they should get the same $4,000 back just like the rich guy even though they only paid in $3,000 and the rich guy paid in $300,000. I guess that is viewed as fair somehow?

 

[tkl]

[ QUOTE ]
DieselDave said:[ QUOTE ]



Somehow a democrat thinks if there is a tax break they should get the same $4,000 back just like the rich guy even though they only paid in $3,000 and the rich guy paid in $300,000. I guess that is viewed as fair somehow?


[/ QUOTE ] dave, you just summed up the democrats tax plan, every year the same thing. they don't care what's fair, they just want to give their "constituents" money. aka buying votes.

 

[tsg68]

The growth under Clinton was false growth obviously, overspending by corporations injected with overconficence, not to mention criminal behavior by corporate executives most of whom were buddies with guess which President? Hey speaking of which didn't the Clinton Admin sign off on a single transaction from the taxpayer supported Export Import Bank subsidising Enron to the tune of $600 million, a single transaction!? This is why we are in the state we are in now. These companies didn't have the assets they claimed they did and now they are forced to either downsize or go bankrupt, and the perps walked.

People on the lower rung are spending but it is in the retail and the Real Estate markets (nest feathering) due to the fact that they have no freakin money to invest in the things that the Rich truly participate in (mainly speculative markets), period. The Rich aren't investing due to the fact that the small fish that make their speculative investments valuable have stopped investing. I find it ludicrous that in order for the wealthy to feel comfortable spending their bread, they need us to first. So despite how small it is, we need it and the wealthy need that extra incentive to kick start their unpatriotic asses into gear and into the markets again! It's a catch 22 they won't invest cause without us their returns will be small and we won't invest till they show some of that precious confidence you speak of.

As Far as Terrorists on the run are concerned. Where are the bombs and actions here I don't hear much about terrorists in the states except about their apprehension and our elevated state of alert. The Saudi incident was likely caused by Fundamental Saudi nationals and the security for the compound bombed was Saudi Military who are also now under suspicion for black market sales of the weapons the terrorists used to the organisations who commit the attacks. I believe we make it extremely difficult for Al Quaeda to gain funding and find safe harbour and it's getting tougher and tougher on them too. You talk like starting a war with terrorist organizations should garner the fastest results. I know when you corner a fleeing animal things get fierce. We have always experience difficulties abroad due to the fact that some of our supposed allies may actually be harbouring terrorists themselves but I think we are doing fine.

Personally I don't want the kind of security the Dems are offering, I would rather have my freedom and risk dying in continued pursuit of it, than have a bunch of glorified school crossing guards watching my every move. But the Dems need that Big Government mentality to fuel their Big Brother Aspirations. Don't get me wrong here I am not happy with all the Republicans Do. But I won't be voting Democratic in the next election either and unlike most theoretical Democratic supporters that I have known and heard in my age group, I have and will continue to to actually vote. And it will be in opposition to the Democrats.


Later,
TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[ikendu]

DieselDave said: ...Democrats think taxes are THEIR money and not the taxpayers money.

Actually Dave (by the way...haven't seen you post for a while...glad you are still out there! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ), if you read my earlier post, you'll see that I believe that if you over-collect taxes (have a surplus), and you want to pay it back...it should be paid back to the people you over-collected it from...in the same proportion it was collected.

As far as the "taxpayer's money" (or as President Bush calls it "the people's money"), I also think that our Gov't debt is the "people's debt". So...that's where I have an issue of borrowing more money so we can give money to wealthy people. If we had cut Gov't waste or programs or whatever and we had a surplus...fine, give it back as over-collected. Let's just not borrow money to "give it back".

After all, it's also the "People's" army, navy, air force, roads, harbors, space program, agencies, Congress, courts, CIA, food inspectors, etc. So...shouldn't the people pay for all of that? If we are spending now...shouldn't we be collecting taxes now to pay for it? I sure think so.

 

[ikendu]

tsg68 said: The growth under Clinton was false growth obviously...

So...under Clinton we had really low un-employment. What would you call what we have now?

tsg68 said: ...Saudi incident was likely caused by Fundamental Saudi nationals

Yes...I believe that since 15 of the 19 9-11 hi-jackers were Saudis that it is due to the same groups and same causes. So...what have we done to stop any of that? Apparently either the wrong things...or not enough.

 

[tsg68]

Yeah Ikendu during the early to middle '90's we had a boom in employment as internet startups recieved an influx in investors money through public offerings and then ran themselves into the red utilizing terrible business models and feeding off of hype and speculation that was completely empty of promise. I still have friends trying to recover from the backlash that followed.

And the Saudi thing, well it speaks volumes to me that the assholes have to attack us on their native soil in order to have much effect. It means that we are becoming more effective at tracking and chasing them to thier home territories and now we can pressure their leaders to help us irradicate them that is, if they still like US greenbacks.

Ikendu, you remind me of my former clients most of whom were fairly well off, you don't understand the act of process before progress, you want it now, now, now as I used to say "more and faster" is what you seem to understand.

The funny thing is when I first moved to NYC I delivered caterings to investment bankers in downtown Manhattan and one day I got on the elevator with a banker in his 90's over on Water St. An he was this really pleasant old guy so as I stood there I said to him jokingly "So Mr. So and So you got any hot tips." and he said to me smiling shrewdly "after 72 years in the business the hottest tip I can give you is that the Market always recovers, sure you have some tough years but always ride it out." I told him I think I'd rather stay the hell away from speculation and he laughed, but it got me to thinking this old guy had been through alot and he knew his Sh*t and is probably right, it's the panicky so and so's and the thieves that put the economy in jeopardy. I still stay away from trading though and it suits me fine.

Later,
TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[DieselDave]

Ikendu,
Are you saying if we are in debt we shouldn't have a tax incentive to stimulate the economy but you would endorse a tax break if we had a surplus. Hmmmm... If I remember correctly when we had the big surplus the democrats fought giving a tax cut. They used the class warfare argument as the basis for opposing cuts.

I think the democrat tax policy goes something like this:

If we are in debt there should be no tax incentives but we will endorse a tax incentive when we have a surplus. If we have a surplus ignore the first policy because we are against a tax cut because the people that pay more taxes get more money back and that's not fair to people that pay little or no taxes.

No one is asking for or expects equal cost to every American but with a 39% tax bracket I think those at the top deserve a tax break and I think you and I deserve one too.

Can you imagine 39% right off the top??? What if we all paid 39%? Make $50,000 take home $29,000. Now take away, social security taxes, state and local taxes, sales taxes, property taxes and what would you have left?

We ALL pay the tax bill. Some pay more than others and the ones that get more back will have more to spend. Spending is what fuels the economy. We all reap the benefit of tax money being spent. Security, streets, defense, social programs and the like but the fact Joe Blow who's fair share of the tax burden happens to be $300,000 doesn't reap anymore and likely less benefit that Joey Blow paying $10 in taxes.

What if a grocery store opened up and worked like our tax system? As you stood in line to check out you watched the two guys in front of you and you all have the same items. The first guy gets charged $15 for his bag of groceries. The second guy is charged nothing and is actually handed $5. Your total comes to $90 because the total cost of all the groceries is $100 and someone has to make it up. As you are about to walk out the door the checker hollers to all of you to wait, there has been a special put on and all the groceries are now 20% off. The checker hands you back $15.50, the first guy gets $4.50 and the third guy gets nothing, immediately the other two guys start crying foul. You don't dare mention you should have gotten back $18 instead of $15.50 because you don't want to throw more fuel on the fire. It really doesn't matter though because all the guy that paid nothing can remember is you got $15.50 handed to you and he only got $5.

How about we reduce the budget? Both sides of the aisle are guilty of wanting to spend every dime they can get their greedy little hands on and it's OUR money they waste so much of. Neither the Republicans nor the dems. want to cut anything and it's me and you that get to keep paying and paying.
I think about 90% of Republicans are not conservative and about 90% of Democrats are not liberals. Most all the politicians are so middle of the road it's hard to tell them apart. If not for a few screaming liberals like Daschle, Pelosi, Rangal and Hillary plus the "I need a headline" democrat Presidential candidates we would barely know the party was still alive.

I have purposely avoided posting in controversial threads the last few months but I have been here every day.

 

[treek13]

Dave, we never had a surplus. We had a 'projected surplus'.

Politicians, in their infinite wisdom, decided we should get a tax break now based on the projection that later we would have extra. Some politicians (mainly Democrats) said, "Hey, why don't we wait until we actually have this surplus to decide what to do with it?" Unfortunately, most politicians just argued about what to do with the extra money our government didn't actually have yet. Dems mainly wanted to spend it, and give some back. Repubs mainly wanted to give it back, and spend some. Both hated the sensible in their midst, who questioned the wisdom of spending the extra money that did not yet exist.

Then the economy slumped and the surplus never arrived and has been replaced by the largest peacetime deficit in our country's history, helping W. to exceed President Reagan in one area at least.

Pat

*Edit - By the way, it's good to see you posting again Dave. I didn't realize you hadn't been around much lately, until I saw you were back. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif Funny how that works.

 

[MichiganMan]

BTW Ikendu, regarding the ineffectiveness of the first round of Bush tax cuts its my understanding, from multiple sources both before and after they were signed, that the large majority of them haven't even took effect yet. They were backloaded into Bush's second term(or as I'm sure the Dems thought then, Their Guy's first term)

As for tax cuts in general, Taxing the Rich is really Taxing Employers. It doesn't make sense that a dollar would do more good for employment if it was taken from employers and processed through the federal bureaucracy first.

Plus taxing the rich is really taxing their employees since those with the economic wherewithal to do so will always make sure they get their cut. Think about it, if Daddy Warbucks is used to having a net income of $250k a year and a tax increase lowers it to $230k, he's going to find a way to make sure his paycheck doesn't get lowered. IOW he's going to eliminate some employee's $20k a year job, and/or cut his companies' medical plan by $20k, and/or raise his prices on you and me.

Your point about the rich not increasing consuming with extra income probably has some merit, but it is a virtual guarantee that they are going to find an investment to squirrel it away into so as to ... make more money. The investment they make will be into a company that hires people, buys products that employed people make, etc. So the money still gets put into increased consumption.

 

[Darell]

[ QUOTE ]
DieselDave said:
Darell and Ikendu this is exactly why Democrats are so wrong. Darell thinks it and you agree with it because Democrats think taxes are THEIR money and not the taxpayers money.

Somehow a democrat thinks if there is a tax break they should get the same $4,000 back just like the rich guy even though they only paid in $3,000 and the rich guy paid in $300,000. I guess that is viewed as fair somehow?


[/ QUOTE ]
(Well heck, I guess if you can come out of hiding on controversial threads, then so can I... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif)

Whoa Dave! How did you get from what I said to HERE? Did I even mention anything about tax rebate equity, or who "owned" the tax money? Sure didn't mean to.

My point and why you think Dems are "so wrong" have nothing to do with each other, as far as I can tell. My point was a very simple one: We have a huge deficit. Somebody has to pay that bill. It can come from us (taxpayers) now, it can come from cutting the spending now, or it can come from our children later, with gobs of interest tacked on. While it seems like a great idea to stimulate the economy by handing money back to those of us who paid it in the first place - I don't see that process being effective very often. And what about all the frictional losses of first collecting all those taxes, and then turning around and redistributing it? That part REALLY burns me. It means my tax money is even doing less since some of it has just made an inefficient round trip through the IRS coffers. Either let me keep it in the first place, or use it as best you can. Let's not play hot-potato with my hard-earned money.

While I'm on a roll...I find it a bit comical to consistently hear how anything that appeared good under a democrat president was somehow "false" or "accidental." Would it have been better, or more "real" to have a poor economy and high unemployment under Clinton for example? Seems like a pretty serious case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. When is it OK for an administration to take credit for anything good that happens? No administration wants to take responsibility for the crappy things that happen while their party is in office, and at the same time no opposing party wants to give credit for the good stuff. Each administration flows into the next and they're all intertwined. Where does it start and where does it end?

And in closing... why is so much time and effort spent on hating the "other" party? If there is a policy you don't like, hate the policy, and do something to get it changed. Figure out a way to come up with a better policy. If it is a Democrat who has proposed the policy, you can STILL just hate the policy. Republicans don't all think the same, and neither do Democrats. They're the two parties we're stuck with, and we have to make the best of it. If we put the "hating the other party" energy into coming up with solutions and compromises, we could probably achieve great things. Chances of this happening: Goose egg. Show my why the party you believe in is so great - don't waste time harping on reasons why the other guy's party sucks. I pretty much just tune out all the "Here's what's wrong with party X... yadda yadda." Give me "Here's what's RIGHT with party Y" and I'm all ears.

I know I should have just sat by and watched the fun, but tonight I just feel a bit spunky. Feel free to tell me where I'm wrong, because I'm almost certain that I am.

 

[ikendu]

DieselDave said: Ikendu...you would endorse a tax break if we had a surplus[?]

Yes. ...and it should be given back in the proportion it was collected.


Dave, some of your comments get to the difference between a regressive tax and a progressive tax.

Regressive: like sales taxes...every body pays the same %
Progressive: the higher your income...the larger % you pay

Sooner or later various people suggest replacing the income tax system with either straight sales taxes...or a "flat tax".

This has been a subject of discussion in America for a looong time. BTW...we actually had to amend the constitution to even permit our Gov't to collect income taxes (16th).

Which is better? Which is more fair?

This IS a tough one. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Over the years I asked myself why a progressive tax like the income tax is fair. Here is what I've decided:

When our taxes go for the national defense...does any segment of society benefit more than another? I've decided that the wealthy benefit the most. Let's look at the polar ends of this... If you are in poverty and have nothing, if a foreign power conquered us then at least you have no worldly goods to lose. If you are wealthy, with property, this new Gov't might be a gov't like communism that doesn't even recognize private ownership. So...those with wealth have a lot to lose. And...the more wealth, the more to lose.

How about taxes spent on social programs?

Well..."social programs" have two effects on the wealthy. One...programs like college loans, public schooling, etc. tend to improve economic conditions in the U.S. by providing a pool of well educated workers (like draftsmen using CAD or accountants or engineers, etc.). This very much benefits wealthy capitalists.

Two...social unrest. Let's say you are at one of these polar ends of society, poverty, and you lose your job. Today, you have Gov't programs for unemployment insurance. So...you are less likely to be desparate and create social unrest. At the polar ends of our examples, who benefits the most from social stability (lack of riots, etc.)? Seems like the wealthy benefit a lot from this.

I could go on...but I think these two examples show where my thinking has finally settled on the progressive/regressive issue. I've decided that the progressive income tax is...fair.

And...just as a matter of practicality... if we didn't have a progressive tax rate on incomes... we'd ALL have to pay a LOT more in taxes (except the wealthy /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ).

 

[DieselDave]

I agree with the progressive tax. it should go in both directions and I never suggested otherwise. I liked your last line, "if we didn't have a progressive tax rate on incomes... we'd ALL have to pay a LOT more in taxes (except the wealthy )". And why would the wealthy pay less taxes? It's because the top 10% pay most of my and your bill now. Make no mistake, very few people REALLY pay there fair share except for the wealthy. I was just pointing out the top brackets are getting screwed and when they get a chance to get a little back some people scream it's not fair.

Ikendu, I wish the tax money were spent in the Utopian manner you suggest for social programs but unfortunately many of the programs are riddled with abuse and waste. I don't blame the dems. for the problem, it's the size of the programs that have made them unmanageable. I can't count how many times I have been behind someone at the grocery store while they were buying prime rib and lobster and paying with food stamps and I was buying hamburger and paying cash. We have a single Mom at work that's quitting soon to go back to school because the government is giving her a big pay raise to quit working and go to school. Our prison systems and public schools are for the most part an expensive joke. Most of the "GS" employees I've worked with through the years were lazy and surly because they knew they couldn't be fired. The real answer to the budget problem is to clean up the current mess we have created, cut spending and then give an even bigger tax break to you and I. Opinions differ, I think the tax break stimulates the economy and you think it's taking money from our kids, only time will tell. I do agree with Darell in one regard, they shouldn't be giving it back, they should have never taken so much to begin with.

To answer Darell's question, what is it about my party that I like? It's several things they do and several things they don't do that makes me lean to the right.

1. The Republicans are more fiscally responsible (but still horrible) about using our money than the dems.
2. They are not after my guns.
3. Stronger defense
4. The don't try to make everyone a victim
5. The promote tort reform
6. They are the "smaller government" party
7. They are stronger on crime and personal responsibility
8. They believe in a hand-up not a hand-out
9. They are pro business
10. They are pro family values
11. They are not anti-religion
12. The lawyers groups hate them, which is a compliment
13. The Unions hate them which is another compliment
14. They don't think a baby whale is more important than an unborn child.
15. The ACLU hates them which is another compliment
16. Many are for getting out of the UN
17. They don't think it takes a village to raise a child. It takes a Mom and Dad.

That's just a few reasons why I am a Republican. Much of what the Republicans do makes me sick but overall they are the better choice for my family and me. I have no money but I work 60 hours a week at a job where I get paid and would like to keep a little more of MY money.

 

[ikendu]

DieselDave said: ...I work ...hours a week at a job where I get paid and would like to keep a little more of MY money.

I too would like to keep more of my money.

Although...unless we cut the spending, how can we cut the taxes? For those that want to use their money elsewhere, I say...don't spend so much!

So, by all means, let's cut out wasteful Gov't spending. Let's change the personnel policies so that if Gov't employees don't perform...they lose their jobs. Why keep on non-productive, non-responsive employees?

But...until you do that... Balance the budget!

Don't borrow from the future to pay for today's excesses.

Just MHO. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Willmore]

I'm really vague on this divide between who should get tax breaks vs how it will effect the economy.

The only way that this money won't 'get back into the economy' is if people stuff it in a bag and hide it under the mattress. Who's more likely to do that? (this is obviously silly)

If we can be stereotypical for a minute, the rich will invest it (gets lent to someone to do something with it--build a business, etc.) or the 'poor' will spend it--stimulating production and investment by the company. Either way it's back in the economy, right?

Are we really worried that poor people will squirel it away under the mattress?

If you even cash the check and put it in your checking account, it gets loaned by the bank to someone who will do something with it. To 'take it out of the economy', you really have to take it in *cash* and hide it. Hiding gold or other valuable items does not have the same effect.

 

[DieselDave]

WOW, ikendu we nearly agree!

It's sad but funny the balanced budget is a Republican policy from the early 90's and now it's the Democrats battle cry. The line is blurred.