Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3811
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out of the
>private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of where
>the money comes from (rich or poor).
If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out of the
>private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of where
>the money comes from (rich or poor).
If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#3812
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <2Kiqb.11735$9M3.10343@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>"Explain how increased taxes improve the economy."
>>>It improves the economy by starting a recession (ex. the Clinton
>>>Recession)... see the logic I followed there??
>>
>>Yes, those 8 years of gloom, doom, and recession. When the stock market goes
>>above 10,000, that's a sure sign of recession. When unemployment hits record
>>lows, gotta be in a recession!
>
>But you didn't answer the question:
>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>nothing.
>How about it?
You obviously didn't read about the last few rebates. Some people actually
put them in the bank.
Assuming government spending is linked to government income, when you tax
people, you take the money out of their hands and into the hands of an
entity that does not save. The government expands to fill all possible
revenue. So, a tax cut will pull money out of the active economy, causing
a recession. Leaving taxes alone does nothing. Raising taxes will
decrease the money that someone can save, and passes it along to an entity
that will spend it. As the government continually tells us, spending is
good for the economy.
Any questions?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <2Kiqb.11735$9M3.10343@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>"Explain how increased taxes improve the economy."
>>>It improves the economy by starting a recession (ex. the Clinton
>>>Recession)... see the logic I followed there??
>>
>>Yes, those 8 years of gloom, doom, and recession. When the stock market goes
>>above 10,000, that's a sure sign of recession. When unemployment hits record
>>lows, gotta be in a recession!
>
>But you didn't answer the question:
>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>nothing.
>How about it?
You obviously didn't read about the last few rebates. Some people actually
put them in the bank.
Assuming government spending is linked to government income, when you tax
people, you take the money out of their hands and into the hands of an
entity that does not save. The government expands to fill all possible
revenue. So, a tax cut will pull money out of the active economy, causing
a recession. Leaving taxes alone does nothing. Raising taxes will
decrease the money that someone can save, and passes it along to an entity
that will spend it. As the government continually tells us, spending is
good for the economy.
Any questions?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#3813
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <2Kiqb.11735$9M3.10343@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>"Explain how increased taxes improve the economy."
>>>It improves the economy by starting a recession (ex. the Clinton
>>>Recession)... see the logic I followed there??
>>
>>Yes, those 8 years of gloom, doom, and recession. When the stock market goes
>>above 10,000, that's a sure sign of recession. When unemployment hits record
>>lows, gotta be in a recession!
>
>But you didn't answer the question:
>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>nothing.
>How about it?
You obviously didn't read about the last few rebates. Some people actually
put them in the bank.
Assuming government spending is linked to government income, when you tax
people, you take the money out of their hands and into the hands of an
entity that does not save. The government expands to fill all possible
revenue. So, a tax cut will pull money out of the active economy, causing
a recession. Leaving taxes alone does nothing. Raising taxes will
decrease the money that someone can save, and passes it along to an entity
that will spend it. As the government continually tells us, spending is
good for the economy.
Any questions?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <2Kiqb.11735$9M3.10343@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>"Explain how increased taxes improve the economy."
>>>It improves the economy by starting a recession (ex. the Clinton
>>>Recession)... see the logic I followed there??
>>
>>Yes, those 8 years of gloom, doom, and recession. When the stock market goes
>>above 10,000, that's a sure sign of recession. When unemployment hits record
>>lows, gotta be in a recession!
>
>But you didn't answer the question:
>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>nothing.
>How about it?
You obviously didn't read about the last few rebates. Some people actually
put them in the bank.
Assuming government spending is linked to government income, when you tax
people, you take the money out of their hands and into the hands of an
entity that does not save. The government expands to fill all possible
revenue. So, a tax cut will pull money out of the active economy, causing
a recession. Leaving taxes alone does nothing. Raising taxes will
decrease the money that someone can save, and passes it along to an entity
that will spend it. As the government continually tells us, spending is
good for the economy.
Any questions?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#3814
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <2Kiqb.11735$9M3.10343@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>"Explain how increased taxes improve the economy."
>>>It improves the economy by starting a recession (ex. the Clinton
>>>Recession)... see the logic I followed there??
>>
>>Yes, those 8 years of gloom, doom, and recession. When the stock market goes
>>above 10,000, that's a sure sign of recession. When unemployment hits record
>>lows, gotta be in a recession!
>
>But you didn't answer the question:
>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>nothing.
>How about it?
You obviously didn't read about the last few rebates. Some people actually
put them in the bank.
Assuming government spending is linked to government income, when you tax
people, you take the money out of their hands and into the hands of an
entity that does not save. The government expands to fill all possible
revenue. So, a tax cut will pull money out of the active economy, causing
a recession. Leaving taxes alone does nothing. Raising taxes will
decrease the money that someone can save, and passes it along to an entity
that will spend it. As the government continually tells us, spending is
good for the economy.
Any questions?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <2Kiqb.11735$9M3.10343@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>"Explain how increased taxes improve the economy."
>>>It improves the economy by starting a recession (ex. the Clinton
>>>Recession)... see the logic I followed there??
>>
>>Yes, those 8 years of gloom, doom, and recession. When the stock market goes
>>above 10,000, that's a sure sign of recession. When unemployment hits record
>>lows, gotta be in a recession!
>
>But you didn't answer the question:
>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>nothing.
>How about it?
You obviously didn't read about the last few rebates. Some people actually
put them in the bank.
Assuming government spending is linked to government income, when you tax
people, you take the money out of their hands and into the hands of an
entity that does not save. The government expands to fill all possible
revenue. So, a tax cut will pull money out of the active economy, causing
a recession. Leaving taxes alone does nothing. Raising taxes will
decrease the money that someone can save, and passes it along to an entity
that will spend it. As the government continually tells us, spending is
good for the economy.
Any questions?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#3815
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
So you are...but not in chemistry...
;-)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:P4udneCH6o9SJjaiRTvUrg@speakeasy.net...
[.............]
>
> Naa, I just know more science than you. (OK, perhaps not chemistry,
> but I wouldn't bet on that if I were you). Heck, I'm even published.
..................
;-)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:P4udneCH6o9SJjaiRTvUrg@speakeasy.net...
[.............]
>
> Naa, I just know more science than you. (OK, perhaps not chemistry,
> but I wouldn't bet on that if I were you). Heck, I'm even published.
..................
#3816
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
So you are...but not in chemistry...
;-)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:P4udneCH6o9SJjaiRTvUrg@speakeasy.net...
[.............]
>
> Naa, I just know more science than you. (OK, perhaps not chemistry,
> but I wouldn't bet on that if I were you). Heck, I'm even published.
..................
;-)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:P4udneCH6o9SJjaiRTvUrg@speakeasy.net...
[.............]
>
> Naa, I just know more science than you. (OK, perhaps not chemistry,
> but I wouldn't bet on that if I were you). Heck, I'm even published.
..................
#3817
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
So you are...but not in chemistry...
;-)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:P4udneCH6o9SJjaiRTvUrg@speakeasy.net...
[.............]
>
> Naa, I just know more science than you. (OK, perhaps not chemistry,
> but I wouldn't bet on that if I were you). Heck, I'm even published.
..................
;-)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:P4udneCH6o9SJjaiRTvUrg@speakeasy.net...
[.............]
>
> Naa, I just know more science than you. (OK, perhaps not chemistry,
> but I wouldn't bet on that if I were you). Heck, I'm even published.
..................
#3818
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> Care to compare the Clinton economy to that of Bush I or II?
The "Clinton econmy" did not magically begin the day Clinton took office and end
the day he left office. At least some of the good economic trends of the 90's
were the results of the economic policies of Bush I (which did include a big tax
increase) and some of the bad economic results of the early '00's were likewise
the results of the economic pollicies of Clinton.
Having said this - I personally think the Bush II tax cut was stupid and short
sighted, but that is just my opinion.
Ed
#3819
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> Care to compare the Clinton economy to that of Bush I or II?
The "Clinton econmy" did not magically begin the day Clinton took office and end
the day he left office. At least some of the good economic trends of the 90's
were the results of the economic policies of Bush I (which did include a big tax
increase) and some of the bad economic results of the early '00's were likewise
the results of the economic pollicies of Clinton.
Having said this - I personally think the Bush II tax cut was stupid and short
sighted, but that is just my opinion.
Ed
#3820
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> Care to compare the Clinton economy to that of Bush I or II?
The "Clinton econmy" did not magically begin the day Clinton took office and end
the day he left office. At least some of the good economic trends of the 90's
were the results of the economic policies of Bush I (which did include a big tax
increase) and some of the bad economic results of the early '00's were likewise
the results of the economic pollicies of Clinton.
Having said this - I personally think the Bush II tax cut was stupid and short
sighted, but that is just my opinion.
Ed