First, you can't jail someone in civil court. Next, you can't sue the officers of a incorporated company unless they perform some sort of fraud. That's why companies get incorporated. It makes the company it's own entity. What made you leap to the conclusion that I was discussing mere civil penalties? They conspired to violate the 4th amendment. That's a criminal matter, just as if I had helped the police search my neighbor's house by breaking and entering. That's all fine and good, but that is not what is being debated by Congress here. The immunity is from civil cases, not prosecutorial ones. Besides, it would take Bush's Justice Dept to file the case and I don't see that happening.
Your beef is with the executive branch, not the telco's.
Not to mention all the applications native to KDE bundled in Kubuntu rock the socks off the included applications in Ubuntu. Amarok, K3b, Kate, SuperKaramba (ok, not bundled, but native to KDE), ktorrent, konqueror (maybe not for web browsing), kaffeine... Why not have both. I'm running Ubuntu and KDE, with all it's application goodness. All it requires is adding a repo or two and typing sudo apt-get install kde. (or something like that)
Now I have all that Ubuntu has to offer with the ability to run KDE or Gnome or even KDE apps in Gnome or maybe even Gnome apps in KDE.
I'll even give you a hint... where do TelCo's get their money?
In this case? Shareholders, ultimately. Telecoms' prices are already set at the profit-maximizing point. If they could make more money by raising prices, they would already have done so.
The benefit of liability would be that next time a shareholder chose which telecom company to invest in, he'd pick one that made the most credible promises not to spy on its customers, and crime would be deterred.
You can't sue the owners of an incorporated company as they are shielded. That's why companies incorporate. You have to sue the company itself as it is its own entity.
Now, if you can find a telco that allowed wire taps and is a sole proprietorship, then have at it! Good luck in finding one of those.
Tell you what -- the officers of the company dictated that illegal policy, and considering the phone company's history and how long those guys have been around, they knew damned well what they were doing.
Take ALL their assets. Bankrupt them, distribute the proceeds, THEN jail the sonzabitches. First, you can't jail someone in civil court. Next, you can't sue the officers of a incorporated company unless they perform some sort of fraud. That's why companies get incorporated. It makes the company it's own entity.
Finally, yeah, they knew what they were doing. First, FISA allows for wire taps to happen without a warrant. Next, it is not the job of the telephone company to uphold the Constitution or protect your rights. Their job is to provide you with a dial tone. If you want to go after someone, go after the executive branch.
All suing the telco's will do is make all of our phone bills go up and make lawyers rich.
Well, if they didn't break any laws, then there's no need to pass legislation that grants them immunity for breaking the law.
It's obvious the Republicans think that they and the telecommunications companies did break the law, and in such a serious way that they are desperately fearful of the aftermath of their actions. Immunity is not from prosecution. The immunity being debated is against someone like the ACLU taking the Telco's to CIVIL Court, seeking some sort of monetary judgment. BTW, who do you think will being paying those court costs, lawyer fees and any pending judgments? Where to businesses, like the Telco's, get money? So, take a look at your phone bills and imagine the hike in fees to pay for this crap.
I'm in favor of immunity because I already spend over $150/month for telephone service (2 Cells and a land line). I can't afford to spend any more. So if you think the telco's should be sued for $10 billion, then eliminate the middle man and just send an extra $20/month/phone directly to the ACLU or whoever you would like to see taking the telco's to civil court.
Because the law which allows them to tap the phones without a warrant also requires that they then obtain said warrant with.... I believe it was 72 hours time. So even though there is an allowance in the law for them to tap a call in a case of a dire need, they still need to go to FISA to make that tapping legitimate.
Bush couldn't even be bothered to do that much though. So that's why we are where we are. No, we are not talking about Bush. The topic is the Telco's. If you want congress to go after Bush, then that is a different discussion.
My point is that it is not the Telco's job to defend the Constitution. Since they can allow wire taps without breaking the law, then they should be granted immunity from frivolous law suits.
OK, almost everyone here agrees that if the Prez would follow FISA laws, there would be no problem, right?
OK, FISA rules state that the government can tap a phone line and get a warrant later. In other words, they DO NOT need a warrant at the time of the tapping.
So, if the telco's should allow the government to tap a line without a warrant according to FISA rules, then what did they do wrong? It appears to me that they followed the law, specifically FISA to the letter.
After they enumerate every last thing Bushco did. Sort of like how the prosecutor normally gets something of value for case A in exchange for not pursuing case B, generally as a stepping stone to indictment for a worse offense in case A?
I don't know what sickens me more, the extent to which Bushco has defiled the rule of law in this country or that they'll most likely succeed in avoiding prosecution by running out the clock. The fact that you call the President of the United States "Bushco" tells me that you are too blinded by your own hatred and bigotry to form an honest, open minded opinion. That negates anything you have to say and prevents those who still have the ability to hear and consider both sides of an argument honestly and fairly (aka NOT hate filled bigots) from taking your seriously.
I think *we all* could use that check for $150,000.00. Just curious. Where do you think all that money would come from? Even if it's not the 150k/person that you want, where do you think the money from any fines would come from?
I'll even give you a hint... where do TelCo's get their money?
So just delete/boot/grub/menu.lst after memorizing the magic commands to boot your system, and leave the customs agents staring at the GRUB> prompt.
As it happens, many customs agents know their own magic commands to boot the system.
"Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to boot this computer."
Saying "No" isn't the most helpful answer to that request.
It may be easier to just uninstall X before traveling.
"Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to boot this computer." "Sure, here ya go. Let me log in. There you go. You are in ~" "Sir, the mouse does not work and there are no windows." "Of course not! It's Linux. I have mine set up for text only due to the strict memory and graphical requirements that a GUI requires. There are no windows on this machine. (pun intended)"
Even if you do have porn on the system, it doesn't have the same effect when viewed in ASCII.
So just delete/boot/grub/menu.lst after memorizing the magic commands to boot your system, and leave the customs agents staring at the GRUB> prompt.
That's fine and all, except as I read in previous posts in this thread, they can make an image of your HDD and use a second OS to browse the files on your non-booting HDD.
Although, what are the odds that they would take the time to do this and have the tools readily available to read your EXT3 or whatever Linux format your drive is in? We are talking about TSA here.
I like the idea someone else in here mentioned. Unhook your HDD (or otherwise disable it) and set your system to boot off of a live CD or flash drive. You boot to a clean system and there is no way they can access your HDD or even know that it exists without turning screws on your system. Here's hoping that they just think you're not worth the trouble and tell you to move along.
Reagan's mismanagament of the economy will continue to fuck the country over for the net several decades, any harm Carter did to it pales in comparison. Let's see, since Reagan, we've had 26 out of 28 years with a positive GDP growth. In other words, a good economy. If that is how Reagan fucked us, then I'll say Reagan was the best damn fuck this country has had in quite a while. WOW! Of course, this is real data, no cherry picking here.
Nope, it doesn't. It makes the rich richer, grows the number of poor, and shrinks the middle class, as it has every time its been tried. You can cherry pick all the parts of Reagan's administration you want, it doesn't change facts. You keep saying that. Do you have any real data to back that up? I ask because in my experience and research, every time it's been tried, it has worked wonders. I gave the examples of the economy from 1980 to today with low taxes and almost constant economic growth. Where do you get that this is somehow a failure? And as someone who has worked his way out of the lower class to just above the middle of the middle class, I have to say that my own life proves that the whole "rich get richer/poor get poorer" thing is bullshit! We've been doing this for 28 years and yet we still have a middle class. Hell, the only class that is shrinking has been the lower class. In other words, the rich have gotten richer, the middle class has gotten richer and the poor have entered the middle class!
Rome and Greece, outside of small isolated portions of their history, didn't elect leaders either. Of course that doesn't really matter- the type of government you have is unrelated to the type of economic system you have. Greece was the world's first recorded Democracy and Rome had the first elected Senate (Republic).
The investments don't do jack squat unless there's people who can buy the finished products. That means money in the hands of the people. There's existing methods for getting excess money into the hands of people with the vision to make new products- its called banks and loans, and both are great ideas. Giving money to the already wealthy is actually a horrible source for new investment capital- they're far more likely to buy stock in existing companies, which doesn't stimulate the economy at all.
First, buying stock in a company DOES stimulate the economy, more than any thing else! Also, I never said to give money to already wealthy people. I said to take less of it from them. Also, as I mentioned many posts up, when people, rich or otherwise, invest in a company, that company does something with that money to get a return on that investment. In the example I gave, it built a new data center, which I and many other people work at. We make the company money, that they use to pay back investors who turn around and invest the money further, and the company pays us money, which use to survive and invest that which is left over.
They also tend to buy overpriced luxury items and high priced real estate. The first of those is a small stimulus at best, employing few to no people.
So, who made those overpriced luxury items? Why are they overpriced? Where does the EXTRA money go? If they are overpriced, that means they are priced much more the cost to produce such an item. The money doesn't disappear. It goes somewhere!
The second is no stimulus, as nothing has been created, wealth is just redistributed.
Really? Why buy a piece of property? To build on it! Who does the building? Who pays them? What do they do with their money?
Putting the money in the hands of the people will lead that money to being used, which will help businesses reinvest and allow some of those people to start their own small business- or put it in the bank to be loaned to those with business ideas.
Why would anyone want to start a business if the government is just going to take the money away from them as soon as they turn a profit? You seem to think that people start businesses as a hobby. The first purpose of a business is to make money for the investors. That is done by turning a profit. If you take that profit, why would anyone start a business?
or put it in the bank to be loaned to those with business ideas.
And where do banks get their money? From people saving it! Who saves money? Rich people who haven't decided where to invest yet. Why is this so hard to understand?
The idea of trickle down is just asinine.
I've shown over and over how it works. I've also shown that without it, capitalism fails. If no one has disposable income (rich people as you call them), no one invests money. No investment, no new business, no new growth. That is called recession! Sorry, but that is fact.
If you want to get money to the people, but you're going to do it through a middle man. Who won't skim too much off the top- honest!
No, cutting taxes for everyone, including the wealthy allows Michael Dell to build a plant that makes more computers and it allows the families in America to be able to afford them! It doesn't give money to the middle man, it gives the middlemen a fuckin' job!
not waste it on overpiced luxury items- really!
Again, someone got paid to make that luxury item. The money just didn't disappear. That seems to be the big flaw in your thinking. You think that if someone wastes their extra money by spending it on themselves, that the money just disappears. That is not the case and it is where your argument falls apart. So what if Bill Gates decides to buy a yacht with his tax return. Many people get paid to build that yacht and those people are not "rich". Many people are paid to maintain and store t
In reality, money doesn't actually trickle down. If it did, the middle ages would have been the most prosperous time in history- the rich didn't pay any taxes and owned everything. The greatest boom periods in history have all been a result of increasing the wealth of the lower and middle classes- the end of serfdom, the industrial revolution, etc. Its well proven- if you want to create wealth you don't give the rich more of it, you make sure the lower classes get it directly. something else you mentioned that I failed to bring up... The industrial revolution. The industrial revolution was a conversion from an agricultural based society to a production based one. It was driven by an increase in technology and production practices. It's where the farms were able to produce much more with less man power, leading those that formerly worked on farms to work in newly built factories. So, given that we have the premise down... who do you thing paid for and owned those factories? Here's a hint, they didn't belong to the lower or middle class! Now, imagine what would have happened if taxes were high enough so that the people who built and paid for those factories had no money? That's right! No industrial revolution! So, it's well proven. If you want to create wealth, you allow the wealthy to invest it by NOT taking it away from them. That investment means more jobs, more production, more ECONOMY! That is proven using YOUR own example.
I suggest you study history. Trickle-down economics like you discuss are proven not to work. Its been tried three times in US history, and at the end of each time was a major stock crash and a recession or depression. The first time was under Harding/Coolidge/Hoover which led to the Depression. The second was under Regan/Bush 1, which ended with the single greatest 1 day loss in stock market history, and a fairly nasty recession in the late 80s/early 90s. We're hitting #3 right now, and it will get much worse before it gets better. First, the great depression was not caused by supply side economics. It was caused by people buying and selling worthless stocks, bad banking practices and an over zealous laissez-faire attitude toward the economy.
Next, healthy economies are cyclical. They do really good for a while, then they do really bad for a while. The bad part is called a "correction". In general, they do better than they do worse. You mentioned Reagan. When Reagan took office, the economy was a mess. Taxes were as high as 75%, interest rates were around 19% and inflation was around 10%. When all that is combined with high unemployment, you have the makings for an economic disaster! Then Reagan took office in 1981. We had eight years of prosperity before one year of a minor recession in Bush's third year, right after taxes were raised (just enough to lose his reelection... well, Perot helped). With Clinton, taxes were cut under a Republican led congress and we had 6 years of economic boom, of course, followed by a correction. Same thing happened with W. Bush. Bush cut taxes, the recession (Clinton's correction) ended until 9-11. Then we suffered a slight recession followed by 6 years of non-stop economic growth. Hardly what I would call an economic failure. Right now, we are headed for a recession, possibly. Regardless of what you hear on TV, we are NOT in one now. A recession is two consecutive quarters of economic shrinkage. So far, we have not had one single quarter of shrinkage, much less two!
I noticed you didn't mention Carter in your little history lesson. He raised taxes, which led to stagflation. That's a shrinking GDP and inflation at the same time. BAD BAD BAD thing for economics. What solved it? Reagan and his tax cuts. Although, Reagan wasn't the first. JFK stimulated the economy by cutting taxes in 1963.
So, yeah, supply side economics (it's real name, not "trickle down economics" as you call it) WORKS, and history has shown that, regardless of how you try to rewrite it.
In reality, money doesn't actually trickle down. If it did, the middle ages would have been the most prosperous time in history- the rich didn't pay any taxes and owned everything. The greatest boom periods in history have all been a result of increasing the wealth of the lower and middle classes- the end of serfdom, the industrial revolution, etc. Its well proven- if you want to create wealth you don't give the rich more of it, you make sure the lower classes get it directly. That's AWESOME, but your reasoning is all wrong. Of course, you don't mention that those in the middle ages did not get to elect their government like those in say Rome or Greece, which had booming economies and a healthy upper, middle and lower classes.
You got a tax cut making 38k a year.. so what? Did you end up with $10 in your paycheck each week? People with higher incomes got to keep more, on everything from paychecks to capital gains. No, I didn't. However, the company I now work for received capital from those uber-rich people you complain about getting too much money. What do you think they did with that money? The invested it in companies like the one I work for. My company took that money and opened up a new support/data center in the city I live in. That is the data center where I now work and I now make quite a bit more than the 38k/year I was making when the taxes where higher. Same with the other 75 people who work here who would also be making less working somewhere else.
So while I did not get the big tax cut that the fat-cats got (in terms of dollars), I did get a pay raise and forwarded my career. With that new money, I bought a house, which means all the construction workers who built that house got paid to build it. The community I live in now gets my property taxes. They used that money to build two new schools which means more people working and paying more taxes.
Also, with that pay raise, I'm now paying more in taxes than I was when I was making 38k, meaning that the government is making more money from me than they were before the tax cuts. Same with everyone else here. Same with the construction workers. Same with the teachers and janitors at the new schools.
Are you starting to see how the economy works now? That tax cut for the rich means I make more money. Same with everyone around me, including the government itself. Funny how that works.
It's called Macro-economics. May I suggest you educate yourself before you make yourself look ignorant again.
Just because you can barely afford the payments for your Ferrari and 500k square foot house, not to mention the monthly trips down to the caribbean for hookers and blow doesn't mean that you aren't rich.
There was a similar discussion on another board I frequent. Part of the difficulty in defining 'Rich' is that many try to use income to define it, but in reality it's more a statement of wealth. For example, a sole proprietor of a business could have a gross annual income in the millions, yet not be 'rich' because 99% of that is immedietly spent as business expenses.
Still, one guy made a general rule of thumb that I liked:
Poor - Income at or below basic expenses; IE unable to save Middle Class - Has the ability to save money/live better. Rich - Independent of work; capable of living indefinitly off of assets. I agree that "Rich" is relative, which is why I get pissed off when someone says that tax cuts only benefit the rich and only the rich get tax cuts. I live check to check with absolutely no money left over. Trust me, I will benefit more from a tax cut than Bill Gates. Granted, he may get a few million more that I do, but what's a few million to a billionaire? Now, an extra $100 a month for me means that I can get that big credit card paid off four years sooner and/or be ready for when an "emergency", like my car breaking down happens! That is HUGE to me.
I would argue that the rich get tax cuts, the poor get social support and the middle class gets the shaft. What is rich? I only ask because I got a tax cut and I can barely pay my bills. Tell me, am I rich? Can you please put a number to you RICH claim?
The more you cut taxes, the more the government will collapse. In the real world however... taxes gets cut for the rich, and the poor pay for the infrastructure, education, military,... Do you have any numbers to back up that assertion? No? Maybe it's because they don't exist as your assertion is 100% false. The rich have been paying the vast majority of taxes since income taxes began and are paying EVEN MORE now AFTER Bush's so-called tax cuts for the rich.
BTW, I was making less than $38,000/yr when Bush got elected. Was I rich? I only ask because asshats like yourself keep claiming that only the rich get a tax cut and I got one.
THAT'S the REAL world. Please, don't let the facts get in the way of your "truth"
Why not drill in Federal land, like, let's say... ANWR,
Because it's a wildlife refuge. So is the Mojave desert, yet no one seems to mind that is where so many of these solar projects will be based.
One particular drilling site is about 15 miles from Prudhoe bay, where we are drilling without problems. Prudhoe bay's ice fishing industry doesn't seem to be affected by the drilling. What is the difference? If the government were to declare your state (which, odds are, is smaller than ANWR) a wildlife refuge, would you so gladly abandon your life there and move to another state?
Also, ANWR is the size of North Carolina. The areas suitable for drilling combine for an area about the size of 1/1000th of Charlotte, NC. I think the wildlife will survive. They don't seem to mind the drilling that is going on in Prudhoe bay or even in Canada, just the other side of the border.
I would love to see $600 billion poured into alternative fuels. It would be a boon to our economy, it would be a great opportunity for scientists and engineers, and it would isolate us from oil politics. Not to mention that it is an ethical thing to do, if we care about our planet. Why not drill in Federal land, like, let's say... ANWR, and use the profits, about $70.00/barrel to invest in renewables. Granted, it doesn't end up with us losing in Iraq and making Bush look bad, but it does offer a us a temporary relief to outrageously high oil costs and provides us the means to find a permanent solution.
Many so-called educational games just teach nothing (yes, there are many that are effective). I don't think I learned a damn thing from "Oregon Trail".
I assume today's games are better at both teaching and entertainment.
Slashdot Mirror
Your beef is with the executive branch, not the telco's.
Now I have all that Ubuntu has to offer with the ability to run KDE or Gnome or even KDE apps in Gnome or maybe even Gnome apps in KDE.
I thought everyone did this.
In this case? Shareholders, ultimately. Telecoms' prices are already set at the profit-maximizing point. If they could make more money by raising prices, they would already have done so.
The benefit of liability would be that next time a shareholder chose which telecom company to invest in, he'd pick one that made the most credible promises not to spy on its customers, and crime would be deterred.
You can't sue the owners of an incorporated company as they are shielded. That's why companies incorporate. You have to sue the company itself as it is its own entity.Now, if you can find a telco that allowed wire taps and is a sole proprietorship, then have at it! Good luck in finding one of those.
Take ALL their assets. Bankrupt them, distribute the proceeds, THEN jail the sonzabitches. First, you can't jail someone in civil court. Next, you can't sue the officers of a incorporated company unless they perform some sort of fraud. That's why companies get incorporated. It makes the company it's own entity.
Finally, yeah, they knew what they were doing. First, FISA allows for wire taps to happen without a warrant. Next, it is not the job of the telephone company to uphold the Constitution or protect your rights. Their job is to provide you with a dial tone. If you want to go after someone, go after the executive branch.
All suing the telco's will do is make all of our phone bills go up and make lawyers rich.
It's obvious the Republicans think that they and the telecommunications companies did break the law, and in such a serious way that they are desperately fearful of the aftermath of their actions. Immunity is not from prosecution. The immunity being debated is against someone like the ACLU taking the Telco's to CIVIL Court, seeking some sort of monetary judgment. BTW, who do you think will being paying those court costs, lawyer fees and any pending judgments? Where to businesses, like the Telco's, get money? So, take a look at your phone bills and imagine the hike in fees to pay for this crap.
I'm in favor of immunity because I already spend over $150/month for telephone service (2 Cells and a land line). I can't afford to spend any more. So if you think the telco's should be sued for $10 billion, then eliminate the middle man and just send an extra $20/month/phone directly to the ACLU or whoever you would like to see taking the telco's to civil court.
Bush couldn't even be bothered to do that much though. So that's why we are where we are. No, we are not talking about Bush. The topic is the Telco's. If you want congress to go after Bush, then that is a different discussion.
My point is that it is not the Telco's job to defend the Constitution. Since they can allow wire taps without breaking the law, then they should be granted immunity from frivolous law suits.
OK, almost everyone here agrees that if the Prez would follow FISA laws, there would be no problem, right?
OK, FISA rules state that the government can tap a phone line and get a warrant later. In other words, they DO NOT need a warrant at the time of the tapping.
So, if the telco's should allow the government to tap a line without a warrant according to FISA rules, then what did they do wrong? It appears to me that they followed the law, specifically FISA to the letter.
I don't know what sickens me more, the extent to which Bushco has defiled the rule of law in this country or that they'll most likely succeed in avoiding prosecution by running out the clock. The fact that you call the President of the United States "Bushco" tells me that you are too blinded by your own hatred and bigotry to form an honest, open minded opinion. That negates anything you have to say and prevents those who still have the ability to hear and consider both sides of an argument honestly and fairly (aka NOT hate filled bigots) from taking your seriously.
I'll even give you a hint... where do TelCo's get their money?
As it happens, many customs agents know their own magic commands to boot the system.
"Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to boot this computer."
Saying "No" isn't the most helpful answer to that request.
It may be easier to just uninstall X before traveling."Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to boot this computer."
"Sure, here ya go. Let me log in. There you go. You are in ~"
"Sir, the mouse does not work and there are no windows."
"Of course not! It's Linux. I have mine set up for text only due to the strict memory and graphical requirements that a GUI requires. There are no windows on this machine. (pun intended)"
Even if you do have porn on the system, it doesn't have the same effect when viewed in ASCII.
So just delete /boot/grub/menu.lst after memorizing the magic commands to boot your system, and leave the customs agents staring at the GRUB> prompt.
That's fine and all, except as I read in previous posts in this thread, they can make an image of your HDD and use a second OS to browse the files on your non-booting HDD.Although, what are the odds that they would take the time to do this and have the tools readily available to read your EXT3 or whatever Linux format your drive is in? We are talking about TSA here.
I like the idea someone else in here mentioned. Unhook your HDD (or otherwise disable it) and set your system to boot off of a live CD or flash drive. You boot to a clean system and there is no way they can access your HDD or even know that it exists without turning screws on your system. Here's hoping that they just think you're not worth the trouble and tell you to move along.
And as someone who has worked his way out of the lower class to just above the middle of the middle class, I have to say that my own life proves that the whole "rich get richer/poor get poorer" thing is bullshit! We've been doing this for 28 years and yet we still have a middle class. Hell, the only class that is shrinking has been the lower class. In other words, the rich have gotten richer, the middle class has gotten richer and the poor have entered the middle class! Rome and Greece, outside of small isolated portions of their history, didn't elect leaders either. Of course that doesn't really matter- the type of government you have is unrelated to the type of economic system you have. Greece was the world's first recorded Democracy and Rome had the first elected Senate (Republic).
The investments don't do jack squat unless there's people who can buy the finished products. That means money in the hands of the people. There's existing methods for getting excess money into the hands of people with the vision to make new products- its called banks and loans, and both are great ideas. Giving money to the already wealthy is actually a horrible source for new investment capital- they're far more likely to buy stock in existing companies, which doesn't stimulate the economy at all.
First, buying stock in a company DOES stimulate the economy, more than any thing else! Also, I never said to give money to already wealthy people. I said to take less of it from them. Also, as I mentioned many posts up, when people, rich or otherwise, invest in a company, that company does something with that money to get a return on that investment. In the example I gave, it built a new data center, which I and many other people work at. We make the company money, that they use to pay back investors who turn around and invest the money further, and the company pays us money, which use to survive and invest that which is left over.
They also tend to buy overpriced luxury items and high priced real estate. The first of those is a small stimulus at best, employing few to no people.
So, who made those overpriced luxury items? Why are they overpriced? Where does the EXTRA money go? If they are overpriced, that means they are priced much more the cost to produce such an item. The money doesn't disappear. It goes somewhere!
The second is no stimulus, as nothing has been created, wealth is just redistributed.
Really? Why buy a piece of property? To build on it! Who does the building? Who pays them? What do they do with their money?
Putting the money in the hands of the people will lead that money to being used, which will help businesses reinvest and allow some of those people to start their own small business- or put it in the bank to be loaned to those with business ideas.
Why would anyone want to start a business if the government is just going to take the money away from them as soon as they turn a profit? You seem to think that people start businesses as a hobby. The first purpose of a business is to make money for the investors. That is done by turning a profit. If you take that profit, why would anyone start a business?
or put it in the bank to be loaned to those with business ideas.
And where do banks get their money? From people saving it! Who saves money? Rich people who haven't decided where to invest yet. Why is this so hard to understand?
The idea of trickle down is just asinine.
I've shown over and over how it works. I've also shown that without it, capitalism fails. If no one has disposable income (rich people as you call them), no one invests money. No investment, no new business, no new growth. That is called recession! Sorry, but that is fact.
If you want to get money to the people, but you're going to do it through a middle man. Who won't skim too much off the top- honest!
No, cutting taxes for everyone, including the wealthy allows Michael Dell to build a plant that makes more computers and it allows the families in America to be able to afford them! It doesn't give money to the middle man, it gives the middlemen a fuckin' job!
not waste it on overpiced luxury items- really!
Again, someone got paid to make that luxury item. The money just didn't disappear. That seems to be the big flaw in your thinking. You think that if someone wastes their extra money by spending it on themselves, that the money just disappears. That is not the case and it is where your argument falls apart. So what if Bill Gates decides to buy a yacht with his tax return. Many people get paid to build that yacht and those people are not "rich". Many people are paid to maintain and store t
Now, imagine what would have happened if taxes were high enough so that the people who built and paid for those factories had no money? That's right! No industrial revolution!
So, it's well proven. If you want to create wealth, you allow the wealthy to invest it by NOT taking it away from them. That investment means more jobs, more production, more ECONOMY! That is proven using YOUR own example.
Next, healthy economies are cyclical. They do really good for a while, then they do really bad for a while. The bad part is called a "correction". In general, they do better than they do worse. You mentioned Reagan. When Reagan took office, the economy was a mess. Taxes were as high as 75%, interest rates were around 19% and inflation was around 10%. When all that is combined with high unemployment, you have the makings for an economic disaster! Then Reagan took office in 1981. We had eight years of prosperity before one year of a minor recession in Bush's third year, right after taxes were raised (just enough to lose his reelection... well, Perot helped). With Clinton, taxes were cut under a Republican led congress and we had 6 years of economic boom, of course, followed by a correction. Same thing happened with W. Bush. Bush cut taxes, the recession (Clinton's correction) ended until 9-11. Then we suffered a slight recession followed by 6 years of non-stop economic growth. Hardly what I would call an economic failure. Right now, we are headed for a recession, possibly. Regardless of what you hear on TV, we are NOT in one now. A recession is two consecutive quarters of economic shrinkage. So far, we have not had one single quarter of shrinkage, much less two!
I noticed you didn't mention Carter in your little history lesson. He raised taxes, which led to stagflation. That's a shrinking GDP and inflation at the same time. BAD BAD BAD thing for economics. What solved it? Reagan and his tax cuts. Although, Reagan wasn't the first. JFK stimulated the economy by cutting taxes in 1963.
So, yeah, supply side economics (it's real name, not "trickle down economics" as you call it) WORKS, and history has shown that, regardless of how you try to rewrite it. In reality, money doesn't actually trickle down. If it did, the middle ages would have been the most prosperous time in history- the rich didn't pay any taxes and owned everything. The greatest boom periods in history have all been a result of increasing the wealth of the lower and middle classes- the end of serfdom, the industrial revolution, etc. Its well proven- if you want to create wealth you don't give the rich more of it, you make sure the lower classes get it directly. That's AWESOME, but your reasoning is all wrong. Of course, you don't mention that those in the middle ages did not get to elect their government like those in say Rome or Greece, which had booming economies and a healthy upper, middle and lower classes.
So while I did not get the big tax cut that the fat-cats got (in terms of dollars), I did get a pay raise and forwarded my career. With that new money, I bought a house, which means all the construction workers who built that house got paid to build it. The community I live in now gets my property taxes. They used that money to build two new schools which means more people working and paying more taxes.
Also, with that pay raise, I'm now paying more in taxes than I was when I was making 38k, meaning that the government is making more money from me than they were before the tax cuts. Same with everyone else here. Same with the construction workers. Same with the teachers and janitors at the new schools.
Are you starting to see how the economy works now? That tax cut for the rich means I make more money. Same with everyone around me, including the government itself. Funny how that works.
It's called Macro-economics. May I suggest you educate yourself before you make yourself look ignorant again.
There was a similar discussion on another board I frequent. Part of the difficulty in defining 'Rich' is that many try to use income to define it, but in reality it's more a statement of wealth. For example, a sole proprietor of a business could have a gross annual income in the millions, yet not be 'rich' because 99% of that is immedietly spent as business expenses.
Still, one guy made a general rule of thumb that I liked:
Poor - Income at or below basic expenses; IE unable to save
Middle Class - Has the ability to save money/live better.
Rich - Independent of work; capable of living indefinitly off of assets. I agree that "Rich" is relative, which is why I get pissed off when someone says that tax cuts only benefit the rich and only the rich get tax cuts. I live check to check with absolutely no money left over. Trust me, I will benefit more from a tax cut than Bill Gates. Granted, he may get a few million more that I do, but what's a few million to a billionaire? Now, an extra $100 a month for me means that I can get that big credit card paid off four years sooner and/or be ready for when an "emergency", like my car breaking down happens! That is HUGE to me.
BTW, I was making less than $38,000/yr when Bush got elected. Was I rich? I only ask because asshats like yourself keep claiming that only the rich get a tax cut and I got one.
THAT'S the REAL world. Please, don't let the facts get in the way of your "truth"
Because it's a wildlife refuge. So is the Mojave desert, yet no one seems to mind that is where so many of these solar projects will be based.
One particular drilling site is about 15 miles from Prudhoe bay, where we are drilling without problems. Prudhoe bay's ice fishing industry doesn't seem to be affected by the drilling. What is the difference? If the government were to declare your state (which, odds are, is smaller than ANWR) a wildlife refuge, would you so gladly abandon your life there and move to another state?
Also, ANWR is the size of North Carolina. The areas suitable for drilling combine for an area about the size of 1/1000th of Charlotte, NC. I think the wildlife will survive. They don't seem to mind the drilling that is going on in Prudhoe bay or even in Canada, just the other side of the border.
I assume today's games are better at both teaching and entertainment.