Which do you prefer and why? I'm wondering which plan has more support nationwide, because all I'm hearing about is what Washington thinks.

I think it's funny that bush is all like pro-education...every kid will get a great one. However, his economic plan LEAVES NO MONEY for education. I don't know about the rest of you, but at least in my state, the schools are surviving by a shoestring, and it's only gonna get worse. So, say what you want about the Democratic plan, but I'm completely in support of it!!!!!! sometimes, a little tax-raising here and there is the only way to go.......

Hey Brooke35,

Sorry about that.

Best Wishes,

Josh M.

um, right Futurepres, I wasn't talking to you...I was writing in reference to the Ayn Rand stuff posted earlier. What you're talking about is totally opposite from what I'm talking about. It's clear you're a liberal Democrat.

No actually I'm a liberal Democrat, not a Libertarian.

Best Wishes,

Josh M.

Wow, there's this huge libertarian vibe on this page. Rock on. If you guys like Ayn Rand, you should read The Virtue of Selfishness. It's non-fiction, but pretty short and a pretty quick read.

It really just makes sense that people shouldn't be taxed on the spoils of their own labor for services they may not ever use. Why not let the labor force keep the money they earn and use it as they see fit? This is not a sustainable economy!

President Bush's tax cut plan is horrible. He’s trying to make income from investments tax-free Most of his plans only cater to the wealthy, and will take at least 10 years to fully kick in, which by then the Social Security system is projected to start running cash deficits, puting America in even greater risk of another recession. Bush and Republicans believe that the rich should be taken care of better since they have "lived" the American dream and they earned there money fair and square, but at the same time everytime you turn on the news you hear about some corporate scandel where 500 workers are fired and those CEO's (bush's friend) take home millions, while the workers are left with NOTHING! Common sense would tell you tax breaks for the top 1% income bracket will not help the economy in the short term or long term. A person who makes $40,000 a year or less is more likely to spend extra money from a tax cut on things that matter and help the ecomony. They may have enough then to buy a new car or a downpayment for a new home, both of which stimulate the economy. The reasone most American's don't support his tax cut plan is because it makes no sense to the AVERAGE American who doesn't normally make over $100,000, but the rich understand it very well and are praying for it very much. It also makes no sense to issues tax cuts when you boost military spending by so much and when our country is running in high deficits. His budget only calls for $41 billion for homeland defense and over $600 billion for his tax cuts over the next 10 years. Right now we need to focus on protecting ALL Americans rather then focusing on tax cuts for the wealthy. His 1st tax cut didn't stimulate anything but his pocket and we are still in economic trouble. Bush: WE NEED HELP! The Democratic plan is much, much more efficient and better. It provides quick tax relief for middle and low income class families as well as tax incentives for small businesses and it also doesn't threaten Social Security, nor does it create even more mass deficits. So, on tax cuts the Republicans get an D- and the Democrats get an A+.

Best Wishes,

Joshua M.
http://www.pagedepot.com/MurphyConsulting

[This message was edited by YNLissa on February 16, 2003 at 01:05 PM.]

*catching breath* jenny, that article totally hurt my head.alternet link is cool too.

anyway... bush wants the dividend tax cutt money to go into the hands of those ALREADY invested in the market.

so they can have more to invest.. in...whatever..they investeded in.
atleast thats what

CSPAN2

told me

I don't think Bush's paln can work or we help the avarage american If you have a large number of shares then this is a wish come true buts o afr Bush tryies to avoid local problems by turning the heat off by talking about war with Iraq. which ios a big mistake the democrat paln first of all cost leaa and its effect will help evn the little guys in our country cause how amny people who are struggling to pey college tution and etc buy shares thats crap. So choose the democrat way.

A TAX-CUT THAT WOULD SINK THE ECONOMY
Maria Tomchick, AlterNet

George Bush's tax-cut, especially the elimination of taxes on dividends, could harm the U.S. economy and drive it deeper into a recession.
Full Article


Love, Jenny

P.S. This article is from my favorite online news source, AlterNet. They recently won an award from the Utne Independent Press for Online Political Coverage. Yay!

I have a hard time understanding economics as well, but there's one underlying current here that nobody - and I mean nobody - has even hit on.

And that is the Federal Reserve.

First, it's a private corporation - nothing "federal" about it.

Second, our money is no longer - and hasn't been - based on the backing of gold and silver.

Third, inflation rates are out-of-control.

Fourth, our treasury doesn't print money - the Fed does.


If you really want to get rid of this economic crisis every Republican administration, ABOLISH the Federal Reserve - or at least pull out of it, then put our money back on the gold standard.

The value of a dollar is pennies, people.

Why is this?

Inflation perhaps? The Fed perhaps?

It wouldn't be easy to just abolish this system overnight.

One of the things that got JFK killed was his Executive Order abolishing the Fed.

You don't F with the Fed.

But I still support abolishing it. We need more Kennedy-types with that much courage and guts.

acer and strangelove are absolutely right. personally i would take that 300 or so, and put it right back into the stock market (for long term investments). only i'd put into innovative and upandcoming business stocks, that want to utilize new technologies and create new industries; thus new jobs.
about jobs....

granted most americans have work and or could easily find it. all i'm saying is new industries open new markets; new markets new consumers. this would undoubtly stimulate the economy also, giving it long term oppurtunity. of course that's when money is needed to put together such industries. under the bush plan however, i fear that bush and his rich friends will just squander that available money. they seem to be good at that.

Ayn Rand aside...

The solution to the current economic troubles isn't really with job creation, we don't have an unemployment problem. It's with revitalizing consumer confidence, strengthing the stock market, and promoting growth, spending, and innovation.

The reason that the stock market is so important is that the vast majority of Americans guage the economy by it. Right or wrong, that is what they do. You get it back up, people will invest in it more, companies will have more captial, which will created jobs, and raise wages. It will also allow new and different ideas to be explored as companies and individuals are more willing to risk money. This will again lead to more profitablility. It's basically what happened back in 99 and 2000. The problem was it wasn't monitored and people were blinded by the seemingly unstoppable increase in the market. After the last crash, people are wiser, as are companies. The internet and online capablilites, as well as new and emerging tech, have so many possibilites to be explored and strengthend.

quote:

---

I am still not sure, however, about the quote being directly from Atlas Shrugged. It is a pro-capitalist book...Objectivism is based basically off of self gain.

---

What I meant was, it's a direct quote of the views Ayn Rand was preaching AGAINST. Obviously.

Sinope-

By giving people money, jobs WILL be created. That's the whole point of economic stimulation. You put money back into the system so people buy products. This increases demand. By increasing demand for products, companies need to supply more of those products, and therefore need more of a labor force. That is when they hire more people. Simple economics.

I am still not sure, however, about the quote being directly from Atlas Shrugged. It is a pro-capitalist book...Objectivism is based basically off of self gain.

Pete

Read what? Tell me the name of that book again.

quote:

---

If the rich would stop raising their salaries then we would not have to lay off people because of budget issues or loss of revenue. Because in the end the rich stay rich and the poor are always poor. Its an endless cycle of greed and stupidity!

---

Wow .. you should SO read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Seriously. Your comment is practically a direct quote.

I made this topic so I could maybe figure out the differences between the two .. economics stuff confuses me ..

I agree I would love 300 dollars in my pocket. But I dont think that creating more jobs is going to help at all. Why? Because we can create millions of jobs but if people dont have any money then how do we spend money at a store that in turn pays its employees? The answer is simple we cant! If stores are loosing money because people cant buy products then how are they going to pay all of there new employees? The answer is simple no money no jobs. We as a nation have put ourselves in a bit of a bind and now we are feeling the pinch. It really sucks but what are we to do if we have no money to spend because we have all lost our jobs do to the crummy economy? If the rich would stop raising their salaries then we would not have to lay off people because of budget issues or loss of revenue. Because in the end the rich stay rich and the poor are always poor. Its an endless cycle of greed and stupidity!

the democrat plan. if they want to give me 300 dollars, they can be sure i'll use it.

but if they really want to stimulate the economy, they'd create JOBS.