(01-19-2012 04:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 03:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I would imagine a vast majority of the money was borrowed at a next to nothing interest rate. Also, quite a bit of the stimulus was in tax cuts.

The "tax cuts" in the "stimulus" were arguably not tax cuts at all, at least not in any usual sense of the term, but merely handouts processed through the tax system. There were no tax rate cuts, and tax rate cuts are what is needed to stimulate investment. There were certainly no tax cuts of any of the sorts that were recommended by republicans.

Whether the money was distributed through spending or through handouts processed through the tax system, in either case there is a shortfall and it had to be made up somewhere. For the life of me, I cannot see how the interest rate paid on borrowed funds has any relevance at all to any of the points I was making.

I am not sold that tax cuts stimulate investment, or the right type of investing. How does my buying stock in GE create jobs?

In my opinion most investments decisions are based on ROI. The tax impacts are secondary.

(01-19-2012 06:00 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 04:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 03:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I would imagine a vast majority of the money was borrowed at a next to nothing interest rate. Also, quite a bit of the stimulus was in tax cuts.

The "tax cuts" in the "stimulus" were arguably not tax cuts at all, at least not in any usual sense of the term, but merely handouts processed through the tax system. There were no tax rate cuts, and tax rate cuts are what is needed to stimulate investment. There were certainly no tax cuts of any of the sorts that were recommended by republicans.

Whether the money was distributed through spending or through handouts processed through the tax system, in either case there is a shortfall and it had to be made up somewhere. For the life of me, I cannot see how the interest rate paid on borrowed funds has any relevance at all to any of the points I was making.

How does my buying stock in GE create jobs?

You can't be serious.

(01-19-2012 06:08 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 06:00 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 04:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 03:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I would imagine a vast majority of the money was borrowed at a next to nothing interest rate. Also, quite a bit of the stimulus was in tax cuts.

The "tax cuts" in the "stimulus" were arguably not tax cuts at all, at least not in any usual sense of the term, but merely handouts processed through the tax system. There were no tax rate cuts, and tax rate cuts are what is needed to stimulate investment. There were certainly no tax cuts of any of the sorts that were recommended by republicans.

Whether the money was distributed through spending or through handouts processed through the tax system, in either case there is a shortfall and it had to be made up somewhere. For the life of me, I cannot see how the interest rate paid on borrowed funds has any relevance at all to any of the points I was making.

How does my buying stock in GE create jobs?

You can't be serious.

Yes, I buy GE stock through the exchange. They received their capital contribution when they initially sold the stock. I am not contributing capital directly to GE. It may be treasury stock I am buying, but I do not know.

I understand it if a startup or small business where the capital is an infusion directly to the company.

(01-19-2012 06:31 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 06:08 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 06:00 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 04:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 03:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I would imagine a vast majority of the money was borrowed at a next to nothing interest rate. Also, quite a bit of the stimulus was in tax cuts.

The "tax cuts" in the "stimulus" were arguably not tax cuts at all, at least not in any usual sense of the term, but merely handouts processed through the tax system. There were no tax rate cuts, and tax rate cuts are what is needed to stimulate investment. There were certainly no tax cuts of any of the sorts that were recommended by republicans.

Whether the money was distributed through spending or through handouts processed through the tax system, in either case there is a shortfall and it had to be made up somewhere. For the life of me, I cannot see how the interest rate paid on borrowed funds has any relevance at all to any of the points I was making.

How does my buying stock in GE create jobs?

You can't be serious.

Yes, I buy GE stock through the exchange. They received their capital contribution when they initially sold the stock. I am not contributing capital directly to GE. It may be treasury stock I am buying, but I do not know.

I understand it if a startup or small business where the capital is an infusion directly to the company.

You don't get the whole concept "investment creates jobs"? For a company to grow and thrive, it must expand marketshare. To expand marketshare, it must to produce jobs. This capital comes from these things called "investors".

Damn, if you're serious, I'll lighten up. I just can't understand anyone not getting this elementary-level concept.

(01-19-2012 06:00 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 04:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 03:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I would imagine a vast majority of the money was borrowed at a next to nothing interest rate. Also, quite a bit of the stimulus was in tax cuts.

The "tax cuts" in the "stimulus" were arguably not tax cuts at all, at least not in any usual sense of the term, but merely handouts processed through the tax system. There were no tax rate cuts, and tax rate cuts are what is needed to stimulate investment. There were certainly no tax cuts of any of the sorts that were recommended by republicans.

Whether the money was distributed through spending or through handouts processed through the tax system, in either case there is a shortfall and it had to be made up somewhere. For the life of me, I cannot see how the interest rate paid on borrowed funds has any relevance at all to any of the points I was making.

I am not sold that tax cuts stimulate investment, or the right type of investing. How does my buying stock in GE create jobs?

In my opinion most investments decisions are based on ROI. The tax impacts are secondary.

So taxes don't affect ROI?

(01-19-2012 06:38 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 06:31 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 06:08 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 06:00 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 04:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The "tax cuts" in the "stimulus" were arguably not tax cuts at all, at least not in any usual sense of the term, but merely handouts processed through the tax system. There were no tax rate cuts, and tax rate cuts are what is needed to stimulate investment. There were certainly no tax cuts of any of the sorts that were recommended by republicans.

Whether the money was distributed through spending or through handouts processed through the tax system, in either case there is a shortfall and it had to be made up somewhere. For the life of me, I cannot see how the interest rate paid on borrowed funds has any relevance at all to any of the points I was making.

How does my buying stock in GE create jobs?

You can't be serious.

Yes, I buy GE stock through the exchange. They received their capital contribution when they initially sold the stock. I am not contributing capital directly to GE. It may be treasury stock I am buying, but I do not know.

I understand it if a startup or small business where the capital is an infusion directly to the company.

You don't get the whole concept "investment creates jobs"? For a company to grow and thrive, it must expand marketshare. To expand marketshare, it must to produce jobs. This capital comes from these things called "investors".

Damn, if you're serious, I'll lighten up. I just can't understand anyone not getting this elementary-level concept.

I understand capital of which common stock, and other capital such as borrowing money via floating bonds, preferred stock, or taking out a loan.

My point is that for stock, or bonds, the company only gets its infusion at the time of the IPO or in a secondary offering. When I buy stock (invest) through my broker it is on the secondary market. The company is not getting any capital form my purchase yet I still get the 15% rate if held over a year.

(01-19-2012 07:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 06:00 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 04:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 03:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I would imagine a vast majority of the money was borrowed at a next to nothing interest rate. Also, quite a bit of the stimulus was in tax cuts.

The "tax cuts" in the "stimulus" were arguably not tax cuts at all, at least not in any usual sense of the term, but merely handouts processed through the tax system. There were no tax rate cuts, and tax rate cuts are what is needed to stimulate investment. There were certainly no tax cuts of any of the sorts that were recommended by republicans.

Whether the money was distributed through spending or through handouts processed through the tax system, in either case there is a shortfall and it had to be made up somewhere. For the life of me, I cannot see how the interest rate paid on borrowed funds has any relevance at all to any of the points I was making.

I am not sold that tax cuts stimulate investment, or the right type of investing. How does my buying stock in GE create jobs?

In my opinion most investments decisions are based on ROI. The tax impacts are secondary.

So taxes don't affect ROI?

Taxes do, but it is secondary in my opinion based on what the investor considers the risk/return. I am only talking income taxes here, and assuming the tax is not 100% wich would create zero returns.

(01-19-2012 03:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 03:25 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 01:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And you prove post after post that you have no clue about the economy. That money spent went into the economy. If we would not have put that money into economy things would have been much worse. It's simple math fool.

Since you're wrong, I guess we are all in agreement that you can't even do simple math.

Don't you have another worthless article to start another stupid thread with that only SMN will respond to?

Dude, wanna know what I see? I see Dr.T dangling a carrot in front of you, a carrot you don't even like, yet you keep chasing it.

(01-19-2012 08:25 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 06:38 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 06:31 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 06:08 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 06:00 PM)dcCid Wrote:  How does my buying stock in GE create jobs?

You can't be serious.

Yes, I buy GE stock through the exchange. They received their capital contribution when they initially sold the stock. I am not contributing capital directly to GE. It may be treasury stock I am buying, but I do not know.
I understand it if a startup or small business where the capital is an infusion directly to the company.

You don't get the whole concept "investment creates jobs"? For a company to grow and thrive, it must expand marketshare. To expand marketshare, it must to produce jobs. This capital comes from these things called "investors".
Damn, if you're serious, I'll lighten up. I just can't understand anyone not getting this elementary-level concept.

I understand capital of which common stock, and other capital such as borrowing money via floating bonds, preferred stock, or taking out a loan. My point is that for stock, or bonds, the company only gets its infusion at the time of the IPO or in a secondary offering. When I buy stock (invest) through my broker it is on the secondary market. The company is not getting any capital form my purchase yet I still get the 15% rate if held over a year.

But the ability to sell the stock to you at a profit is one of the reasons why the original investor at the time of the offering bought the stock. So your investing is one of the things that makes the initial investors invest.

And you always have the opportunity to invest in startups instead of GE. You've obviously made the decision that investing in GE makes more sense in your current position, and you are probably correct. But others will be in situations where it makes more sense for them to invest in startups, and while this doesn't work for you, it does work for them.

(01-19-2012 08:32 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 07:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 06:00 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 04:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 03:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I would imagine a vast majority of the money was borrowed at a next to nothing interest rate. Also, quite a bit of the stimulus was in tax cuts.

The "tax cuts" in the "stimulus" were arguably not tax cuts at all, at least not in any usual sense of the term, but merely handouts processed through the tax system. There were no tax rate cuts, and tax rate cuts are what is needed to stimulate investment. There were certainly no tax cuts of any of the sorts that were recommended by republicans.
Whether the money was distributed through spending or through handouts processed through the tax system, in either case there is a shortfall and it had to be made up somewhere. For the life of me, I cannot see how the interest rate paid on borrowed funds has any relevance at all to any of the points I was making.

I am not sold that tax cuts stimulate investment, or the right type of investing. How does my buying stock in GE create jobs?
In my opinion most investments decisions are based on ROI. The tax impacts are secondary.

So taxes don't affect ROI?

Taxes do, but it is secondary in my opinion based on what the investor considers the risk/return. I am only talking income taxes here, and assuming the tax is not 100% wich would create zero returns.

The larger the tax bite, the smaller the return. If an investment yields a 15% pretax return, but only a 10% after tax return, and the same investment in, say, Ireland, yields a 15% pretax return but a 13% after tax return, where are you going to invest?

(01-19-2012 05:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Of course not. The tax breaks went to poor people. And the only investment that tax cuts through lower tax rates would fund, recommended by Republicans, would go to the top 1%, and would end up in a bank account, not in any sort of job investment.

Ummm, where does the money that "ends up in a bank account" actually end up?

(01-19-2012 09:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But the ability to sell the stock to you at a profit is one of the reasons why the original investor at the time of the offering bought the stock. So your investing is one of the things that makes the initial investors invest.

And you always have the opportunity to invest in startups instead of GE. You've obviously made the decision that investing in GE makes more sense in your current position, and you are probably correct. But others will be in situations where it makes more sense for them to invest in startups, and while this doesn't work for you, it does work for them.

It's pointless to try an educate a liberal prole. I'm REALLY starting to believe that. The liberal elite know it full well. The proles? Man, they are f'n clueless. ...and under Lib stewardship, they'll remain clueless.

(01-19-2012 09:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 08:25 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 06:38 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 06:31 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 06:08 PM)Rebel Wrote:  You can't be serious.

Yes, I buy GE stock through the exchange. They received their capital contribution when they initially sold the stock. I am not contributing capital directly to GE. It may be treasury stock I am buying, but I do not know.
I understand it if a startup or small business where the capital is an infusion directly to the company.

You don't get the whole concept "investment creates jobs"? For a company to grow and thrive, it must expand marketshare. To expand marketshare, it must to produce jobs. This capital comes from these things called "investors".
Damn, if you're serious, I'll lighten up. I just can't understand anyone not getting this elementary-level concept.

I understand capital of which common stock, and other capital such as borrowing money via floating bonds, preferred stock, or taking out a loan. My point is that for stock, or bonds, the company only gets its infusion at the time of the IPO or in a secondary offering. When I buy stock (invest) through my broker it is on the secondary market. The company is not getting any capital form my purchase yet I still get the 15% rate if held over a year.

But the ability to sell the stock to you at a profit is one of the reasons why the original investor at the time of the offering bought the stock. So your investing is one of the things that makes the initial investors invest.

And you always have the opportunity to invest in startups instead of GE. You've obviously made the decision that investing in GE makes more sense in your current position, and you are probably correct. But others will be in situations where it makes more sense for them to invest in startups, and while this doesn't work for you, it does work for them.

I just picked GE at random for this example since I assume it is a stock everyone has heard of. The majority of stocks purchased in this country are purchased by mutual funds and retirement plans (401k, pensions) where the purchasers are not the ones who will actually pay the capital gains tax. The tax will be paid by the owners of the mutual fund, and in the case of 401K’s and pension funds – by the recipient when they retire. The Retirement withdrawals/pension payments are taxed as ordinary income (unless it is a Roth).

Much of the rest is purchased by companies such as Berkshire Hathaway who will keep them as long as the underlying business fits their model. There is a large volume of short term trades to capture a few ticks on high volume; they are trading, not investing.
So again, my point Is that unless you are a venture capitalist, or involved in an IPO or secondary offering purchase, or private equity placement, then the money you are investing is not actually going to the company to expand. Most investment is in the secondary market, versus the primary.

For many companies that go public, the secondary market will be there for them to profit from their risk based on people having cash to invest and the strength of the market. Capital gains will not be the big driver, except perhaps to hold the investment if you can to capture the long term rate.

The large private companies, like Mars and Beltane are not planning to sell, and could care less about the capital gains rate. They get private capital if needed who plan to hold.

(01-19-2012 09:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 08:32 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 07:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 06:00 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 04:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The "tax cuts" in the "stimulus" were arguably not tax cuts at all, at least not in any usual sense of the term, but merely handouts processed through the tax system. There were no tax rate cuts, and tax rate cuts are what is needed to stimulate investment. There were certainly no tax cuts of any of the sorts that were recommended by republicans.
Whether the money was distributed through spending or through handouts processed through the tax system, in either case there is a shortfall and it had to be made up somewhere. For the life of me, I cannot see how the interest rate paid on borrowed funds has any relevance at all to any of the points I was making.

I am not sold that tax cuts stimulate investment, or the right type of investing. How does my buying stock in GE create jobs?
In my opinion most investments decisions are based on ROI. The tax impacts are secondary.

So taxes don't affect ROI?

Taxes do, but it is secondary in my opinion based on what the investor considers the risk/return. I am only talking income taxes here, and assuming the tax is not 100% wich would create zero returns.

The larger the tax bite, the smaller the return. If an investment yields a 15% pretax return, but only a 10% after tax return, and the same investment in, say, Ireland, yields a 15% pretax return but a 13% after tax return, where are you going to invest?

And yes the income tax rate will factor into the ROI at some point, but is secondary. If it is a worthwhile investment it will not matter. You could almost argue the opposite for a business to higher if they had a higher tax rate. If I can hire someone and it will cost me 10K in cash, the net cost to me if I am in the 20% bracket is 8K, if in the 50% bracket it is 5K.

The difference between different countries will have an impact to a point in some cases, but the decision on where to locate will usually be driven by other factors such as political risk, cost of labor, access to raw materials, transportation cost, and cost of doing business.

Ireland is pretty stable, but depends on what I am doing. A small business would not have a choice, a larger company may look at Ireland if the other cost make it worthwhile. If I want a European branch, I may pick Ireland over other EU countries, or if I was a company where location did not matter I may pick Ireland. But only if I thought Ireland would work to begin with. Call centers are a good example of something that may be portable, but then I am more concerned about cost of labor. If I am a financial company, then may want a place to park profits.

(01-19-2012 03:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 01:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And you prove post after post that you have no clue about the economy. That money spent went into the economy. If we would not have put that money into economy things would have been much worse. It's simple math fool.

But you are missing a key point. That money didn't just "go into the eocnomy." It had to come FROM somewhere. Governments, like plaintiffs' attorneys, lack the capcity to create value, they simply take it from people who created it and move it people who didn't.

And the act of taking that money from somewhere else hurt the economy. And while that hurt may or may not be greater than the help that the economy got in the short run from the "stimulus," some of that hurt is long-term. Hence CBO's own scoring that the long-term effect of "stimulus" would be negative. And CBO didn't consider all the negative impacts, because many are too hard to quantify.

I fight for social justice. The rich old man who runs over a little girl with his car may have "created" value, but the flip side of that coin is he has to pay for his destruction too.

(01-20-2012 10:26 AM)Max Power Wrote:  
I fight for social justice. The rich old man who runs over a little girl with his car may have "created" value, but the flip side of that coin is he has to pay for his destruction too.

I was wondering how many times I was going to have to drop that zinger in a post before you reacted.

So you admit that you don't create any value, you just redistribute it?

And just how often do you fight for that social justice without a substantial contingent fee?

Just jacking with you a bit, don't take offense.

I realize there has to be a balance between creation and distribution. but I think the pendulum has swung too far toward redistribution over the last 50 years, and unless we start swinging it back toward creation, we are going to reach the point where there is nothing left to redistribute--the point Maggie Thatcher described as "sooner or later, you run out of somebody else's money." I think we are dangerously close to that point, and our leaders don't seem to recognize it. So republicans fight wars with somebody else's money and democrats pay off favors to special interests with somebody else's money.

And not every wealth creator runs over little girls in his car. In fact, the vast, vast majority of them do no such thing. You perform a useful service by keeping the ones that do in check. But don't try to extrapolate that to a population to whom it does not apply.

(01-20-2012 12:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 10:26 AM)Max Power Wrote:  
I fight for social justice. The rich old man who runs over a little girl with his car may have "created" value, but the flip side of that coin is he has to pay for his destruction too.

I was wondering how many times I was going to have to drop that zinger in a post before you reacted.

So you admit that you don't create any value, you just redistribute it?

And just how often do you fight for that social justice without a substantial contingent fee?

Just jacking with you a bit, don't take offense.

I realize there has to be a balance between creation and distribution. but I think the pendulum has swung too far toward redistribution over the last 50 years, and unless we start swinging it back toward creation, we are going to reach the point where there is nothing left to redistribute--the point Maggie Thatcher described as "sooner or later, you run out of somebody else's money." I think we are dangerously close to that point, and our leaders don't seem to recognize it. So republicans fight wars with somebody else's money and democrats pay off favors to special interests with somebody else's money.

And not every wealth creator runs over little girls in his car. In fact, the vast, vast majority of them do no such thing. You perform a useful service by keeping the ones that do in check. But don't try to extrapolate that to a population to whom it does not apply.

Forget redistribution, I want a better distribution. Only Owl could say the pendulum has swing too far towards redistribution when income inequality is surging and wealth concentrations are at their highest point since the gilded age.

(01-20-2012 01:02 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 12:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 10:26 AM)Max Power Wrote:  
I fight for social justice. The rich old man who runs over a little girl with his car may have "created" value, but the flip side of that coin is he has to pay for his destruction too.

I was wondering how many times I was going to have to drop that zinger in a post before you reacted.

So you admit that you don't create any value, you just redistribute it?

And just how often do you fight for that social justice without a substantial contingent fee?

Just jacking with you a bit, don't take offense.

I realize there has to be a balance between creation and distribution. but I think the pendulum has swung too far toward redistribution over the last 50 years, and unless we start swinging it back toward creation, we are going to reach the point where there is nothing left to redistribute--the point Maggie Thatcher described as "sooner or later, you run out of somebody else's money." I think we are dangerously close to that point, and our leaders don't seem to recognize it. So republicans fight wars with somebody else's money and democrats pay off favors to special interests with somebody else's money.

And not every wealth creator runs over little girls in his car. In fact, the vast, vast majority of them do no such thing. You perform a useful service by keeping the ones that do in check. But don't try to extrapolate that to a population to whom it does not apply.

Forget redistribution, I want a better distribution. Only Owl could say the pendulum has swing too far towards redistribution when income inequality is surging and wealth concentrations are at their highest point since the gilded age.

It was probably a bad choice of words by Obama but this is what Obama means when he says "redistribution".

(01-20-2012 01:02 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Forget redistribution, I want a better distribution. Only Owl could say the pendulum has swing too far towards redistribution when income inequality is surging and wealth concentrations are at their highest point since the gilded age.

We agree that a more equitable distribution is preferable. Where we disagree is that you believe government efforts to redistribute money produce a more equitable distribution, and I think that natural human reactions to such efforts ultimately produce a less equitable distribution. Taxing the "rich" makes the USA a less attractive place to invest. Making the USA a less attractive place to invest results in more high-paying jobs, the kind needed to sustain the middle class, moving overseas. The money that is taken from the "rich" is redistributed to the "poor" through a convoluted series of programs whose requirements impose a "welfare trap" that confines people in poverty to remain stuck in poverty. Those program requirements also subsidize destructive practices, like out-of-wedlock pregnancies, which further ingrain the poverty cycle.

To get out of this, I think we have to break the cycle. I would propose to break the poverty cycle by going to a non-welfare-trap aproach, something like Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prefund coupled with French health care as the baseline. I would propose to fund this by eliminating all tax loopholes and lowering and flattening the rate structures, lower rates across a broader base including a consumption tax, in order to make the USA more attractive to investment. I think these steps would bring about an increase in the demand for more upper-middle-class workers to fill the jobs created by new investment, and an increase in the supply of people to become those workers now that they aren't hamstrung by welfare trap considerations.

In his new book Bill Clinton takes the position that taxes on the "rich" should be raised to the highest level consistent with not chasing investment offshore. I think we're already past the level that we're chasing investment--and jobs--offshore. Bowles-Simpson and Rivlin-Domenici, two bi-partisan groups that looked seriously at the issues, seem both to have reached a similar conclusion. You have commented very negatively about both. But comparing you to them, there are more of them than of you, they are smarter than you, they have better information than you, and they are bipartisan (with a majority of both parties represented on Bowles-Simpson voting to adopt its results, for example)--whereas you are a left wing political hack.

I know you disagree with my proposed approach. Why don't you put your proposed approach on the table and we can compare?

Equitable distribution? I think both of you need to understand that government does not CREATE the damn wealth. Those dollar bills are nothing but a vehicle used to materialize someone's wealth and earnings. They could just as easily trade those dollar bills in for Euros. The dollar bill, nothing but a piece of f'n paper, is the ONLY thing the government controls.