Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

ya i did you wanted to know about all the liberls who are in school i just told you

If your as fortunate as you say you are, why are you living in the black hole known as central Pennsylvania.

Oh yeah, since when is being neat a priority when you're poor. Unless you're in favor of a caste system, I don't think you should act the way your acting.

wow you know where i live and just bc i live my johnstown doesnt mean im a redneck too.... allso my black hole is nothing but something but listing to you wine. we are in war, we have money, we have nice houses, come one wine some more

You wouldn't understand because you have nothing to complain about, and no feeling of empathy. I do. Bush is screwing over the average American because he knows ignoramuses like you who aren't strong enough to help other people will agree with him. Don't ever leave your little pretend land because if you do and see what's going on, you'll whine too, and that will be a glorius day for me.

At 7/22/04 11:03 PM, KirbyMan wrote: You wouldn't understand because you have nothing to complain about, and no feeling of empathy. I do. Bush is screwing over the average American because he knows ignoramuses like you who aren't strong enough to help other people will agree with him. Don't ever leave your little pretend land because if you do and see what's going on, you'll whine too, and that will be a glorius day for me.

C'mon Kirb, don't waste your time. This little kid doesn't know what he's talking about. Wait for people who will give good worthwhile arguments. And anyway, I think it will be mroe fun just to let him and theburningliberal go at it.

hahaha try agen buddy

i kno enf

At 7/22/04 11:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote: C'mon Kirb, don't waste your time. This little kid doesn't know what he's talking about. Wait for people who will give good worthwhile arguments. And anyway, I think it will be mroe fun just to let him and theburningliberal go at it.

You're right. Debating him is easier than Carmen Electra on GHB.
Too late though I don't think he'll ever come up with a rubuttle worth answering.

P.S. It still helps my self-esteem

Duck I feel like playng your little game.

You made claim about the liberals in college. You said that they all go on to the service sector. This is first off not supported by any facts. Second off you simply spouted it out. Thirdly it doesnot answer the question which was posed to you..."If those who graduate highschool are conservative, then how can all the college people be liberal?"

Now to refute. I myself am a liberal. I am getting a tripple degree(dont ask long story) in Political Science, Computer Science, and Philosophy. After which time I will be attending Law school.

So it seems as though I wont be in the service area.

ALso a secondary refute is the amount of liberal politicians. Unless you consider politics to be a part of the service sector, well then there are alot liberal college graduates you have not accounted for.

It would seem to me that, as of now, this debate has degenerated to a very low level, with pretty much all of the speakers talking down to duckman1088 with more name calling than solid argumentation. That being so, I would just like to say that my Catholic colleague here speaks much sooth, in that, "Heaven helps those who help themselves."

Religious mantra aside (if you find Heaven unsuitable, simply substitute Great Spirit, Creator, etc.), this concept is applicable to the poor in our great nation. If anybody wishes to improve their economic standing in the U.S., they can do so through perseverance and hard work. Indeed, this concept is held dear by many a conservative and thus, GW's presidency, far from hurting the average American, is in fact aiding him immensely by providing tax cuts, raising the wages of those in the armed forces (many of whom only joined to learn job skills and or make money to break out of poverty), and generally working to build America's job infastructure.
All of these policies help lowerclass individuals by both letting them put more of their money towards their own advances and creating more and better jobs for them to work in.

At 7/23/04 12:07 AM, heihachi wrote: Religious mantra aside (if you find Heaven unsuitable, simply substitute Great Spirit, Creator, etc.), this concept is applicable to the poor in our great nation. If anybody wishes to improve their economic standing in the U.S., they can do so through perseverance and hard work. Indeed, this concept is held dear by many a conservative and thus, GW's presidency, far from hurting the average American, is in fact aiding him immensely by providing tax cuts, raising the wages of those in the armed forces (many of whom only joined to learn job skills and or make money to break out of poverty), and generally working to build America's job infastructure.
All of these policies help lowerclass individuals by both letting them put more of their money towards their own advances and creating more and better jobs for them to work in.

I am totally for that concept. I have worked hard for the past 14 years of my life in order to put myself in a place where, if I continue to work as hard and harder, I can put myself in a very comfortable financial position.

As for raising armed forces salaries, I totally agree. My cousins husband is in the airforce and they don't make shit.

As for tax cuts helping the poor... That's very debatable. Out of Bush's monsterous tax cuts earlier in his term, the lower class got nowhere near the $300 the average person got. And by taking away federal money we strip many chances the government offers to aid them in attaining opportunities (e.g. government grants for college.)

I am for reform of welfare. I say if you don't work, you don't get it.

Your skepticism regarding the actual monetary gain by the lowerclasses in regards to the Bush tax-cut is well placed. To be sure, the tax break fell most heavily on those who pay the most taxes. To me, this is a purely logical set up...to ease the burden where it is heaviest.
Now, you might wonder, if "all" the money goes to help the rich, then how do the poor benefit. Well, consider this: my father (an extremely hard-working executive who has 40% of his income eaten away by taxes) is now looking to buy a new car because of the money he has saved from the Bush tax-cut...for another wealthy person, it might be a new house or a boat, the list is virtually endless. At any rate, it will be the lowerclass that creates these things, in the automobile, construction, and boat-making industries respectively.
The benefits are reciprocal: my father will get his new car and someone from the lowerclasses will have their wages increased because of increased consumer demand. That is how the Bush tax-cut, while seemingly being an exclusively upper-class benefit, in fact "trickles down" and helps all classes.

At 7/23/04 12:31 AM, heihachi wrote: That is how the Bush tax-cut, while seemingly being an exclusively upper-class benefit, in fact "trickles down" and helps all classes.

Trickle-down economics didn't work under Reagan, and they still don't work today. All of the rich money trickles right down into the bank, where it collects interest and dust while it isn't being used by society. The best spenidng of tax rebates acctually comes from teh middle class who needs a new over, or a new washing machine, or a break from bills.

At 7/21/04 09:51 PM, K-BOB wrote: If I say something that offends you oh well because many people stand strongly against me and what i believe in. what do i believe in you may be wondering. well i believe FOX news channel is the best one on tv because they show you two sides of a story in liberal controlled media.

Theyre the worst for showing both sides.

:I believe George Bush should be re-elected because if John Kerry wins every thing we enjoy as Americans could fall into jepordy.

The USA people already lost their freedom (which is bragged about all the time), their economy and reputation. What else could they lose by switching leaders?

:also that Gay marrige is wrong and a bunch of other things. to tell the the truth im a conservitive. well say what you like i think i'll get of my little soap box now.

Your intolerant scum. Why should you care what gay people do? They have nothing to do with you.

"Trickle-down economics didn't work under Reagan, and they still don't work today."

That is debatable.

At 7/23/04 12:37 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/23/04 12:31 AM, heihachi wrote: That is how the Bush tax-cut, while seemingly being an exclusively upper-class benefit, in fact "trickles down" and helps all classes.

Trickle-down economics didn't work under Reagan, and they still don't work today. All of the rich money trickles right down into the bank, where it collects interest and dust while it isn't being used by society. The best spenidng of tax rebates acctually comes from teh middle class who needs a new over, or a new washing machine, or a break from bills.

Camaro is quite right here. I believe that I speak about this in more detail on some economics thread or something to that nature. The basic premise is simple: a rich person will never spend as much as a group of poor people with the same amount of net financial capital. As a whole, our economy really started to make its biggest strides when we became a consumer society, which I think happened in the 20s. Most people know what happened in 1929, or at least know of it: the stock market crashed as a result of way too much speculation on stocks and a myriad of other factors (there are excellent sources in your local library if you're interested, but 'm not going into that). Anyway, again, in the 50s, America reached a peak of economic prosperity that I don't think we will ever match. Aside from the power we possessed after having come out of WW2 unscathed, there were leaps and bounds in the area of marketing. Companies realized a very important thing (something they had started to grasp from the 20s) the net buying power of the average consumers will always overpower that of the rich. A rich man has no need of 100 washing machines, to reference Camaro's point, but 100 middle class people do. The premise is exactly the same in tax-cuts. In order to have the most impact on the economy, you have to make sure that the money you give back to the people is spent as much as possible. Therefore, the target group is that which spends the most on average, the middle class. The middle class is enormous and spends the most out of each extra dollar they make. Therefore, the ideal solution is to raise the disposable income of the middle class. This is all simply theory, and does not always work, but the theory is more sound than the idea of trickle-down economics.

Still, I don't think that the government should have much of a role in determining economics. I think that the Fed is a brilliant institution, in that it is a hybrid public/private institution that is able to alter the economy without having to worry about making the public like them more. A president loves to cut taxes and pump money into the economy to make it soar, everybody loves that. However, when it's time to raise taxes and cut spending to balance out the economy, the people hate it. The best thing to do is leave it up to the Fed to perform open market operations and manage the discount rate if the economy needs any adjusting.

Trickle-down economics didn't work under Reagan, and they still don't work today. All of the rich money trickles right down into the bank, where it collects interest and dust while it isn't being used by society. The best spenidng of tax rebates acctually comes from teh middle class who needs a new over, or a new washing machine, or a break from bills.

I would have to argue that "trickle-down economics" did work under Reagan and contributed in no small part, to the reversal of economic downturn that began under the Carter administration.

Your assertion that the upper class's wealth "trickles right down into the bank" is false, as many rich individuals choose to use their well-earned money in the pursuit of pleasure (for better or worse). All one has to do is turn on MTV and watch Cribs to see the sort of finery that the rich surround themselves in - multi-million dollar homes, Ferrari's, etc. Other wealthy individuals (who make their money through more orthodox means) might settle for a large suburban home, a nice car, and or various luxury items (H.D. TV's, Dockers, etc.), which must all be produced by the lowerclass. Granted, not all well-off individuals choose to live in such decadence, but a good portion do and the more they spend, the more lower class individuals are payed in the long run.

However, you have a good point about the middle class...they also require a substantial tax-break (perhaps more than the very well-off) and while their's was undoubtedly not as high as Bill Gate's, they still kept noticeably more money out of the clutches of the government.

At 7/23/04 12:37 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

Trickle-down economics didn't work under Reagan, and they still don't work today. All of the rich money trickles right down into the bank, where it collects interest and dust while it isn't being used by society. The best spenidng of tax rebates acctually comes from teh middle class who needs a new over, or a new washing machine, or a break from bills.

I was also trying to say that the middle class will spend their money much more practically than the rich will, the rich probably will not spend it all, whereas the middle class, who is always in need of something new for this and that or something redone, will spend all of their taxbreak money.

Finally! Some real political debate!

I side with heihachi, but that doesn't mean that I also don't agree with you Gunter45. For example, what you said about the middle-class needing a hundred washing machines is true in the sense of laundromats. Upper middle-class doesn't need washing machines, but will BUY a laundromat so that he can make money that way, which will be immediatly recycled back as the upper middle-class have larger bills to pay.

In that retrospect, I want to bring up something that people are keen to say quickly. I've mentioned this once before around here I believe but it wasn't a mature topic. I support that Bush decreased taxes on the rich because of the fact of businesses fleeing America. Still the rich get taxed a lot more than other civilians because of the demand our economy needs of the money, as well as governmental expenses. But what civilians don't focus on is the fact that the rich are the ones that own the businesses (thus why I bring it up after what I said) and pay a lot of salaries. Those same people can leave the country whenever they want when you tax them too hard, and so many have.

It would seem to me that regardless of whichever group would be best off with a tax-break, be it the rich or the middle class, the end goal is the same-a lack of government interference with the economy (laissez-faire ).

The less the government tries to interfere with the market place, the greater opportunity there is for the "magic hand" to diffuse the benefits of capitalism throughout the general populace.

fox news shows both sides thats right and i am jesus himself.

I agree, ultimately the same thing happens. I agree with the trickle down effect in theory, but I don't think that it is as effective as cutting taxes on the middle class. While the end result is similar, the amount of money needed to spent to reach that goal is very different. You suggest that the trickle down effect is good because for everything bought, somebody had to assemble, design, ship, or do whatever had to be done to it for it to be available for market consumption. However, doesn't the same thing also happen with middle class purchases? For everything bought by the middle class, the same process occurs. The simple fact is, the efficiency of the money going through the process is all determined by the MPC (marginal propensity to consume). If a group has a higher overall likelihood to spend the extra money, then it is best to target that group, as they will spend a greater percentage of that money.

As far as buying laundromats, that's a good point. I'm sure that some of the rich people who receive tax cuts use it to invest. I don't think that the kind of money a tax cut is going to net a person in the upper class will be enough to buy or create a new company or firm. That's more a matter of what interest rates are doing, because, before any reasonable person makes a capital gain, they check interest rates to determine if the potential rate of return is sufficient to risk investing money in. But, of course, the main problem with all of this is that it is theory at best, and most often disregards many other effects of other aspects of the economy. Most of these basic theories are based on the "all else equal" principle. If all the other economic factors were constants, then these would work just fine, however, it is never so simple, and the only way to see just how effective they are, you simply have to bite the bullet and try them out. It could be that when they work it is only because other factors in the economy had an effect, and the opposite is also true, it might be that the theory is quite sound, but a specific factor in the economy caused it to fail miserably.

Thus, it's pretty hard to judge which theories work the best or not, since the economy does not operate in a vacuum. In this case, both theories have very solid backing, but I feel that tax cuts in general are too easy a ploy for politicians to grab votes to be a serious economic tool.

THe Media is weird Most of all its albout money ABC is owned by Micky Mouse Fox is weird for the fact for republic News they do make the most Ranuchy sexy Volint Highly-unintellgent Shows and movies but their news is conseritve ( dose anyone hear double message here) But the media in genral (Mostly Network) is Piss-hole where people give you fear news so you can buy their protucts and live a happy life and belive the man on the TV And be blind to the real world its 1984 people can't you see that READ a book before their Burned to ash! Whatch PBS get satlight Live ok we are living in a distopa and its not going to get better intell we READ more

At 7/22/04 09:14 PM, duckman1088 wrote: well lets see..... most of the voteing class that vite for librals are...... middel/ lower class........ did half of them finsh high school ? no.... did they try to get ther gdi no. I try

You know, I am usually very forgiving of people who have atrocious spelling, but given your lack of grammar, spelling, and rudimentery English language skills makes me doubt the sincerity of your efforts.

1) it's VOTING - no e.
2) liberal WITH an e.
3) middle (which we will forgive since it seemed you were typing much faster than your brain could keep up).
4) finish has two eyes, er 'i's (perhaps you should use two eyes before posting).
5) gdi??? you've been playing way too much command and conquer. but seriously. It's GED. and queries tend to resolve with a little thing we call a 'question mark.'

Now - as for your assumption that lower and middle class people are liberals - thats a sad generalization. Were you aware that Kerry is worth millions? He votes 'liberal' at least according to your average redneck.

I really admire your efforts to get a GED. Thats a worthwhile goal that anyone should be proud of. But give people the benefit of the doubt. Educational level and socioeconomics have only a passing influence on politics. Just as many poor rednecks will vote for Bush as rich white bastards will vote for Kerry.

And probably vice versa as well.

I find both liberal and conservative candidates as pretty much the aborted children of a terminally ill system. If you want to argue over liberals and conservatives, perhaps you should look into some real issues and see how the two deviate when it comes to accepting money from big business.

(Hint: they don't).

At 7/23/04 02:07 AM, antiklaus wrote: I find both liberal and conservative candidates as pretty much the aborted children of a terminally ill system. If you want to argue over liberals and conservatives, perhaps you should look into some real issues and see how the two deviate when it comes to accepting money from big business.

(Hint: they don't).

Oh man, I was just talking about big business and the government with avie. Business has entangled itself with government ever since it has been able to see the profit in doing so (read "a damned long time"). There is not a politician alive, at least not one with any aspiration to reach the White House, that would hesitate to make deals with business to fund their campaign. It is not very good for the country as a whole, but when you boil it down, politicians are in it for the votes, and those campaign dollars go a long way towards getting those votes. I wouldn't completely rule socioeconomic factors in partisan politics, but you're right, it does not have an enormous effect on the policies and platforms that each side advocates.

You're right buisness and government have always been sleeping together. The problem is they used to hide it and when they didn't, there was a scandal. Bush is openly dealing with big buisness from Enron to Saudi Arabia, and no one cares!

At 7/22/04 07:51 PM, ohp-kyle wrote: Removing your lungs to prevent lung cancer works, too.

Best. Comeback. Ever. I commend you, sir.

At 7/22/04 10:38 PM, duckman1088 wrote: no see when i go into my city and i see shity houses with junk all over the place it makes me sick...... like my grandmother said to me " you can be poor, Just dont make a mess about it"

I would see that and wonder if there is anyway to help. What went wrong for these people? I have a hunch it's not about being lazy.

At 7/22/04 10:00 PM, duckman1088 wrote: haha no i just dont agree with you way of life.... ill keep my upper class

...?

P.S we pay far more taxes then you do

You pay more taxes when you make more money, which goes without saying. But to people who make hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, losing a couple thousand doesn't make that big of a difference.

When you're making twenty thousand per year, a couple of hundred dollars makes a larger difference.

At 7/22/04 09:14 PM, duckman1088 wrote: well lets see..... most of the voteing class that vite for librals are...... middel/ lower class........ did half of them finsh high school ? no.... did they try to get ther gdi no. I try

Finishing high school doesn't mean anything. How do I know this? I finished high school (around the top of the class, if you're interested), and I have completed one year of university, and I haven't been able to get a job. A friend who dropped out of high school in grade 12 has gotten almost every job he has applied for.

Until you get out of high school, you won't realize how useless that diploma really is. The same goes for talking about the lower/middle classes; until you're in it, you won't understand. That also goes for us lower class folk talking about the upper class, but we lack the upward mobility. (It's much easier for you to join us.)

Finishing high school doesn't mean anything. How do I know this? I finished high school (around the top of the class, if you're interested), and I have completed one year of university, and I haven't been able to get a job. A friend who dropped out of high school in grade 12 has gotten almost every job he has applied for.

Until you get out of high school, you won't realize how useless that diploma really is. The same goes for talking about the lower/middle classes; until you're in it, you won't understand. That also goes for us lower class folk talking about the upper class, but we lack the upward mobility. (It's much easier for you to join us.)

You are completely wrong about "how useless that [high school] diploma really is." Granted, on its own, it is just a flimsy piece of paper with fancy words on it, but, you can apply it towards getting into college and from there, getting a job that pays good money-not one that will just make ends meet. Right now, because of the relatively poor job market, your friend may get all the low-paying jobs he wants (while you are turned down for being overqualified), but if you finish college, you will ultimately be able to pursue more and better job opportunities than he ever will- especially when the economy really begins to get moving again.

Calling a High School Diploma 'useless' is ahighly debatable, at least considering the portion of the United States that I live in. Those with High School diplomas in SW Indiana can easily find jobs that pay well into the $9-10 an hour range, it may not sound like a lot in say the West or NE, but it provides a comfortable standard of living her. Take into consideration: My fathergraduated with a high school degree, and now has a state job working at a local high school, cleaning, but it's a good job. He makes approximate $27,000 a year after taxes which places us into the lower-middle class for this region. Given that the cost of living is far lower than elsewhere in the country ($69,000 to have a 1300 sq. foot house built on a 1/3 acre city plot..) The jobs that one can attain in this region prove that one can make a decent living on a high school education. A lot of the major factory jobs only require HS, service, HS.
I am not launching a argument for people to stay out of college, because it is needed for skilled work and a lot of money generally comes from a college education. But the general point is is that one can make it, provided that just like everyone else they work hard. The case may be different elsewhere though.

Personally I think were in trouble no matter who get elected.