[Blake360]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

He's been campaigning for 30 years? That's impressive.

No but he's spent over half his time as senator and president campaigning.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by jamest91

companies rely on stock and investment. who do you think makes up the majority of stock and investment ownership for companies? It isn't millions of people owning 1-2 shares.

Investment is not profit, business, or jobs. The consumerbase is everything. No customers = no business. Consider yourself educated, don't get it wrong again.

[jamest91]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

companies rely on a lump sum of savings for financing, whether it comes from the wealthy or middle class.



http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/...rch_of_fi.html

re read my edited post as i didnt write the original version well

[drgonzo]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...k-hanauer.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...eators/262833/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnthar.../job-creators/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-a...b_1852534.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/r-paul...b_1640523.html
http://www.inc.com/eric-markowitz/wh...iscussing.html

There are several takes on the basic fact, but everyone with any credibility knows that the rich are not job creators.

[jamest91]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Investment is not profit, business, or jobs. The consumerbase is everything. No customers = no business. Consider yourself educated, don't get it wrong again.

Where did I say "investments create profit or customers/business?"

Stocks are how companies get funded to grow larger. Usually, when someone wants to start a business, they pay for it with loans or even their own credit cards. Once they grow the company enough, they can get bank loans, or even float their own bonds to individual investors. But, eventually they will need a lot of money to really take the business to the next phase.

This is when they will sell the first stocks, called taking the company public�. Once that happens, no individual person owns the company because they have sold it to the stockholders.

Obviously a business relies on customers to survive. Stock is what helps the company continue to grow, which is where the investing class comes in to play. Also, taxing people and making it so people will be making less money doesn't help the economy or business at all.

[licence2kill]

what part of "lump sum of savings" didn't you understand?

[jamest91]

I don't want to sit here and argue with you any more, but when unemployment rises, middle class ends up making less money, obamacare fully kicks in, and we end up just like Europe(except having a much higher national debt), I'll be back to talk to you again about this subject.

"Lump sum of savings" refers to the savings. This meaning they are SAVINGS! Meaning you don't want to spend this, but continually SAVE IT. Hence the term savings. You save it. Savings are meant to be saved, not spent to stay alive, though you could eat in to it if times become hard enough, which will be coming for small businesses soon enough. You generally would also want to use these savings for things that may come up unexpectedly when running a business, such as having to buy new equipment or something.

[custar]

Originally Posted by Blake360

How about decreasing spending so you don't have to raise taxes in the first place? But that's obviously unrealistic since they don't know any better than to spend more than they take in.

Right now, we cannot cut expenditures to match income levels overnight without plunging our economy into total chaos. We have to cut expenditures gradually, and even if we reach a balanced budget, we would still have the issue of an enormous debt that someone has to pay off at some point.

Originally Posted by licence2kill

We're not raising taxes. We're letting a tax cut which was never paid for expire as it was written from the onset.

Taxes will go up from where they are right now. You can play semantics all you want, but people whose tax cuts are allowed to expire will be paying more in taxes.

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Actually since the lower income tax cuts will stay in place, we are cutting taxes.

The people whose tax cuts are extended will be paying the same they were last year (assuming their income levels remain stable, etc.). Why can't you guys just call it for what it is; an extension of a tax cut for xxx? It is what it is.

custar

[barrel roll]

I could never figure out the math or language behind paying for a cut.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by custar

The people whose tax cuts are extended will be paying the same they were last year (assuming their income levels remain stable, etc.). Why can't you guys just call it for what it is; an extension of a tax cut for xxx? It is what it is.

That's what we're saying, it's a tax cut. Not a tax increase.

Originally Posted by barrel roll

I could never figure out the math or language behind paying for a cut.

The theory is that the economic stimulus of a cut will boost the economy on the whole, which will match the absolute tax receipts despite the lower rate. In reality that doesn't happen.