Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (575560)	7/7/2010 7:30:00 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570113

A tax decrease would have a more efficient stimulus effect by allowing those who earn the money to spend the money. Money laundered by the government taxation and distribution process is infinitely more stimulative - just ask Nancy!!!

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (575560)	7/7/2010 9:32:13 PM
From: combjelly	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570113

"That money doesn't come out of thin air. It has to come from somewhere. " The brilliance of some of the posters here is just stunning... It does come from somewhere. "The taxpayers." Looks like you are topping out your Peter Principle quotient. "So while the unemployed spend the money that was taken from working Americans, those working Americans have less money to spend themselves. The net gain is zero. No stimulative effect." Now you are waayy past your level of competence. There are other ways to get the money in the short term. We could continue the policies under Bush. i.e., we could borrow it. I must have missed your complaints about this while the economy was growing. Given that the rates are at record lows, it would seem to be a good time to do it. Another option is we could just print it. Now, to those who understand this, and that likely isn't you based on your response, both of these methods have their drawbacks. Interestingly enough, neither has the effect that you claim. But, I digress... The former(uh, that means the first one), just delays it. The money has to be paid back, with interest. The latter(that is the last one) can lead to inflation. Both of these can cost the taxpayers in several ways. Which is why intelligent people don't do these things unless they have to. A class that apparently didn't include the Bush administration. Or its supporters. However, we have a situation where the house is on fire. Saying we need to save the water because we might need it in the future is, well, almost as dumb as what Bush did. And there is plenty of reason to think that by spending the money now, we can get the economy rolling faster and that will lead to greater revenues that can result in a lower overall cost. It is like borrowing money to start a business. As far as the printing option, that is mitigated by the fact we have been flirting with deflation. If you want to know how that can work out, just read up on the Long Depression. Or what has been happening to Japan for the past couple of decades. "A tax decrease would have a more efficient stimulus effect by allowing those who earn the money to spend the money." Well, there you go again. Consumers, and especially businesses, have money. They just aren't spending. Consumers don't spend because they are uncertain what will happen. High unemployment tends to spook people. Businesses aren't spending because they have overcapacity and they don't see that changing any time soon. But I already went over this. A tax cut will only increase the deficit without making much of a difference. Just look at the tax cuts that were part of the stimulus. Pretty much zero effect.