Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Dubya's Economic Stimulus Deal
iGrandTheftAuto.com Forums > GTA4.TV/GTA-SanAndreas.com Archive > Old Forum Archive (Read Only) > General > Political & World Issues
Severus Snape
Ijust read on MSNBC.com the details of the economic stimulus rebates that Americans are supposed to get. $300 per child, to a cap of $1200, for those individuals making less than $75,000 per year (households less than $150,000). And you had to have made more than $3000 in 2007.

This all sounds good, but what about those of us without kids? We got screwed the last time he did this, and now we're getting it sideways again? I make less than $75,000, and I end up paying in on my taxes every year. I don't have kids. And now my tax dollars that I pay in every year are going to some broke family (that obviously needs the money) that is too stupid to stop having kids? And what are they gonna do with the money? Buy groceries and pay rent. They aren't gonna go off on some shopping spree at the mall.

It really bites being a middle-aged, middle income white guy in this country. We get no breaks from the government, and our two options in life are work or prison. (Side note - this is not a racist rant. There are plenty of other people who are not white who have their own issues. I am merely stressing my point about things from my own point of view. Please do not get all bent out of shape and take this as a racial rant. You will only be embarassing yourself after everyone reads this disclaimer.) The government gets all bent out of shape when somebody gets discriminated against, but then they go and discriminate against those people who don't have kids.

I don't have a problem with the people who have kids getting the rebate. But I think that if they are gonna get one, so should I. Why should I be singled out and not get one just because I don't have kids?
Hardcore Ottoman
Because you simply want the money. They need the money by degrees more than you I'm sure. Hate to bust your bubble but your defense is practically paper-thin here. This sort of policy of the government paying its citizens is so vastly not the true answer to problems; it creates people that depend upon the gov't rather than themselves. You are lucky to be placed in this position, now make something of yourself and be grateful in that higher respect than the short-term you're so angry over here.
Qdeathstar
those of you without kids won't get anything because you don't spend enough to qualify for the tax cut. If you have children, you are spending that money on the children, not yourself.

You don't have any children, therefore you don't have any additional expenses, therefore you don't get any more cuts. Its quite obvious.

Secondly, its not "Dubya's" anything.. it was a bipartisan economic stimulus deal. Dun dun dun..
Severus Snape
QUOTE(punxtr @ Jan 24 2008, 07:55 PM) [snapback]1389574[/snapback]
Because you simply want the money. They need the money by degrees more than you I'm sure. Hate to bust your bubble but your defense is practically paper-thin here. This sort of policy of the government paying its citizens is so vastly not the true answer to problems; it creates people that depend upon the gov't rather than themselves. You are lucky to be placed in this position, now make something of yourself and be grateful in that higher respect than the short-term you're so angry over here.


You and psycho must be the same person, because that's what I expected to hear from him.

This isn't a question of who needs the money more. It's merely about discrimination, pure and simple, by our government against a certain group of the general population. And as far as the short term - this is the second time in this guy's administration that this has happened. Remember back in 2001? Post 9/11? The government did this then to try and stimulate the economy, and those of us without kids got screwed then too.

As far as making something out of myself - wtf? You don't know me, or my economic standing, my education level, or my social standing for that matter. Before you make statements such as those, you might want to try getting to know someone first. If you knew for a fact that I was a broke loser, then I would have no problem with that statement. Think before you speak.

QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Jan 25 2008, 12:21 AM) [snapback]1389652[/snapback]
those of you without kids won't get anything because you don't spend enough to qualify for the tax cut. If you have children, you are spending that money on the children, not yourself.

You don't have any children, therefore you don't have any additional expenses, therefore you don't get any more cuts. Its quite obvious.

Secondly, its not "Dubya's" anything.. it was a bipartisan economic stimulus deal. Dun dun dun..


So, according to your logic, I should run out and have a bunch of kids so I can get a tax rebate and spend it all on them?

And what makes you so sure that someone with kids is spending more money than I am? You can't even prove that we (myself and someone with children) aren't spending money on the same things. I may not have children, but that doesn't mean I spend less money than they do. As an example: Someone with children has to budget their money to spend on things such as food and clothing, and may in some cases have to buy less expensive items to stretch their money further. Someone without kids (like myself) has to do the same budgeting, but I may in some cases be able to buy more expensive items as I do not have to worry about buying them for more than 1 person.

Your logic above assumes that I am buying the exact same items as someone with children, without taking into account that we may be spending the same amount of money in different ways. And it also assumes that I don't have "additional expenses" just because I don't have children.
basicked
actually i thought teach individual tax payer gets 600$, parent with children 1200 or soemthing plus 300$ with kid.
i read that today on yahoo.
Hardcore Ottoman
QUOTE(Arch Angel @ Jan 25 2008, 08:26 AM) [snapback]1389720[/snapback]
QUOTE(punxtr @ Jan 24 2008, 07:55 PM) [snapback]1389574[/snapback]
Because you simply want the money. They need the money by degrees more than you I'm sure. Hate to bust your bubble but your defense is practically paper-thin here. This sort of policy of the government paying its citizens is so vastly not the true answer to problems; it creates people that depend upon the gov't rather than themselves. You are lucky to be placed in this position, now make something of yourself and be grateful in that higher respect than the short-term you're so angry over here.


You and psycho must be the same person, because that's what I expected to hear from him.
Obviously, because psycho likes to argue with himself...

QUOTE
This isn't a question of who needs the money more. It's merely about discrimination, pure and simple, by our government against a certain group of the general population. And as far as the short term - this is the second time in this guy's administration that this has happened. Remember back in 2001? Post 9/11? The government did this then to try and stimulate the economy, and those of us without kids got screwed then too.
They did it back then so the economy wouldn't go into a deep recession. It wasn't simply Bush... it isn't solely pu to him and if you think so then gtfo. It isn't discrimination either... the gov't has to have a sound reason to invest free money to eligable persons. Why give a single person money to spend on booze rather than spend money on children that increase the amount of money they can put back into the govt's pockets... tell me that doesn't make sense.

QUOTE
As far as making something out of myself - wtf? You don't know me, or my economic standing, my education level, or my social standing for that matter. Before you make statements such as those, you might want to try getting to know someone first. If you knew for a fact that I was a broke loser, then I would have no problem with that statement. Think before you speak.
I did think. For one, you didn't even understand the bill beyond the fact that you weren't getting free money. Therefore, you want a free handout. Plain and simple--you want a free handout. So that tells me something about your character. As for your education level, I don't doubt your intelligence because I have no precedence to do so but what you are lacking in this topic is common sense. I don't know your social standing or economic standing either but I believe you are hinting toward be purposely that you are not doing so well. All I can say that if it isn't your fault then I have nothing against you.

You see, maybe if the average individual was on the same level as someone during Depression-era then I might have pity on you. Until then, I have nothing but disgust for someone who seems to passionately believe he needs a free handout.

QUOTE
QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Jan 25 2008, 12:21 AM) [snapback]1389652[/snapback]
those of you without kids won't get anything because you don't spend enough to qualify for the tax cut. If you have children, you are spending that money on the children, not yourself.

You don't have any children, therefore you don't have any additional expenses, therefore you don't get any more cuts. Its quite obvious.

Secondly, its not "Dubya's" anything.. it was a bipartisan economic stimulus deal. Dun dun dun..


So, according to your logic, I should run out and have a bunch of kids so I can get a tax rebate and spend it all on them?

And what makes you so sure that someone with kids is spending more money than I am? You can't even prove that we (myself and someone with children) aren't spending money on the same things. I may not have children, but that doesn't mean I spend less money than they do. As an example: Someone with children has to budget their money to spend on things such as food and clothing, and may in some cases have to buy less expensive items to stretch their money further. Someone without kids (like myself) has to do the same budgeting, but I may in some cases be able to buy more expensive items as I do not have to worry about buying them for more than 1 person.
Okay, first off you don't understand the role of the gov't anymore. The gov't would only give you this handout to help boost the economy and restore peace of mind to its citizens. It isn't supposed to pay for your "more expensive items" because if you have it so rough right now you could simply cut down on these items. Until then, your argument holds no water.

QUOTE
Your logic above assumes that I am buying the exact same items as someone with children, without taking into account that we may be spending the same amount of money in different ways. And it also assumes that I don't have "additional expenses" just because I don't have children.

What are your additional expenses? The only one I can think of that might not be benefitting you at all is something like having to pay child support. In that case I will sympathize with you a little.
Qdeathstar
QUOTE(Arch Angel @ Jan 25 2008, 01:26 PM) [snapback]1389720[/snapback]
So, according to your logic, I should run out and have a bunch of kids so I can get a tax rebate and spend it all on them?


No, according to my logic the tax cut is helping those who need it the most.

QUOTE

And what makes you so sure that someone with kids is spending more money than I am?
They are spending money on things they need. If you are spending the same ammount of money as they are, then either you have some sort of disability (which in that case you would already get more aid).. Or your spending money on things you want.

A car for example. Soda for example. Shoes, clothes, that shiny new nextgen system, the computer your using right now. All of that. None of its needs... its all wants.
QUOTE

Someone with children has to budget their money to spend on things such as food and clothing, and may in some cases have to buy less expensive items to stretch their money further. Someone without kids (like myself) has to do the same budgeting, but I may in some cases be able to buy more expensive items as I do not have to worry about buying them for more than 1 person.
Therefore, you don't need the money as much. If you need to, you can buy cheaper clothing, and adjust your budget accordingly. On the other hand, the mother of three can't cut costs anymore therefore in a recession she can't "change" her budget, as even the cheapest stuff costs more.

QUOTE
Your logic above assumes that I am buying the exact same items as someone with children, without taking into account that we may be spending the same amount of money in different ways. And it also assumes that I don't have "additional expenses" just because I don't have children.


No, I'm assuming that doesn't matter. Thats what i'm assuming. Because it doesn't matter. The Woman with children is spending it on needs, your spending it on luxury.. as you have already admitted (Ei buying expensive clothing)
Severus Snape
Against my better judgement, I feel I need to defend myself here.

Let me start by saying that I am not looking for a free handout from the government. My first point, pure and simple, was that the government is singling some people out by giving them the rebate. If one person is eligible, all should be eligible. QDeathstar and punx's points they made above are nothing more than "We are all equal. Some are just more equal than others." Don't believe me? Read their posts. Single (or married) people with kids will benefit more from the tax rebate than someone without kids. Which (according to their posts) means that people with children should get the rebate while people without children should not. Ergo, they are more equal than those of us without kids.

Secondly, I want to address the issue of spending money and who has a greater impact on the economy here. If we are to assume that the people with children are spending more money, then we are assuming that the people with children make more money than I do. It's simple math, really. For example:

If I make $1000 a month, and someone with children makes $1000 a month, we are putting the same amount of money into the economy.
If I make $1000 a month, and someone with children makes $1500 a month, then the person with children is putting $500 a month more into the economy.
If I make $1500 a month, and someone with children makes $1000 a month, then I am putting $500 a month more into the economy.

Follow me so far? Good. Because the only way that a person with children is putting more money into the economy than I am is if they are making more money than I am. It has nothing to do with stretching the dollar, or how they spend it. The amount of money put into the economy is solely determined by how much you are spending.

So please - someone explain to me how someone with children puts more money into the economy than I do?
Qdeathstar
QUOTE(Arch Angel @ Jan 29 2008, 02:00 PM) [snapback]1390816[/snapback]
QDeathstar and punx's points they made above are nothing more than "We are all equal. Some are just more equal than others."


That statement is also very true. Some people are more equal...

QUOTE
So please - someone explain to me how someone with children puts more money into the economy than I do?



Because, you in the macro sense, will most likely use it to save and/or pay of previous debts while the mother will spend it for day to day current necessities. Its quite simple really.
Hardcore Ottoman
Hey Arch. This isn't about equality. This is about the little bit of generosity our gov't will allow us in the adherance to guidelines that don't create a money hole. Don't try to make a straw man out of me or Q; it is insulting.

Yes, your money theory is beyond correct... but after a while you will get old, you will probably owe the gov't money for some final things you bought and some state clinic for the elderly bill... etc. Now, if you had one child, they could possibly throw some bills onto your children. That's one good point to think over. Another is that when you die, you will no longer be helping the economy ergo a wasted investment for a man who never had children...

because, if he did, there are more people to continue the economy. Some want population control, some just want more people to keep the economic body flowing and circulating with newer and newer blood. That is why they'll give the child-bearers some cash: the children will be insured to eat healthy, they won't die so soon, and they'll grow up to believe every gimmick ingrained in their skull from commercials via repitition.
Mekstizzle
Won't this just cause more inflation
Qdeathstar
QUOTE(Mek-lol-Wut @ Jan 30 2008, 12:48 AM) [snapback]1390912[/snapback]
Won't this just cause more inflation



No.

Its just changing who has the money... it doesn't effect the value of the dollar. (the way a change in the interest rate would)
Severus Snape
QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Jan 29 2008, 03:26 PM) [snapback]1390882[/snapback]
QUOTE(Arch Angel @ Jan 29 2008, 02:00 PM) [snapback]1390816[/snapback]
QDeathstar and punx's points they made above are nothing more than "We are all equal. Some are just more equal than others."


That statement is also very true. Some people are more equal...

QUOTE
So please - someone explain to me how someone with children puts more money into the economy than I do?
Because, you in the macro sense, will most likely use it to save and/or pay of previous debts while the mother will spend it for day to day current necessities. Its quite simple really.


How are some people more equal than others? Are you truly saying that someone with kids has and should have more rights than I do just because I don't have children?

To your second point - if I am paying off debts, isn't that putting money back into the economy? For example - if I am paying off a credit card bill, I am giving money to the credit card company. So not only am I putting that money back into the economy (by giving it to a company), wouldn't I also be giving myself the ability to spend money that I don't currently have by having the credit card available?

QUOTE(punxtr @ Jan 29 2008, 05:25 PM) [snapback]1390901[/snapback]
Hey Arch. This isn't about equality. This is about the little bit of generosity our gov't will allow us in the adherance to guidelines that don't create a money hole. Don't try to make a straw man out of me or Q; it is insulting.

Yes, your money theory is beyond correct... but after a while you will get old, you will probably owe the gov't money for some final things you bought and some state clinic for the elderly bill... etc. Now, if you had one child, they could possibly throw some bills onto your children. That's one good point to think over. Another is that when you die, you will no longer be helping the economy ergo a wasted investment for a man who never had children...

because, if he did, there are more people to continue the economy. Some want population control, some just want more people to keep the economic body flowing and circulating with newer and newer blood. That is why they'll give the child-bearers some cash: the children will be insured to eat healthy, they won't die so soon, and they'll grow up to believe every gimmick ingrained in their skull from commercials via repitition.


Hey punx - this WAS about equality when I started the topic. I am not trying to make a straw anything out of you or Q. And if you're insulted - I can't help that.

And what you're saying above, in essence, is that if you have no children, the government wants nothing to do with you. Or, effectively, that the government sees no use in you so you should not even be here. Which is beyond ludicrous - the government wants every living, breathing, tax-paying citizen it can get its hands on. Not to mention your theory about throwing bills on your children. I will agree that once children become adults and have the ability to pay taxes on their own is something the government wants. But you cannot say that I won't be helping the economy once I die. What if I end up being worth millions of dollars and having it donated to a foundation that helps people? Wouldn't that be contributing to the economy once I die? And what happens if I live til I'm about 100 being healthy, while someone elses' children die young from alcohol, or drugs, or just walking across the street?

You need to take all of this into account when making your points. Which is why my points about the amount of money an individual makes are more on the dot than yours. If you have any other points to make, I will be more than willing to listen.
Hardcore Ottoman
Your points are hardly specks... are you kidding me? If you want to be so anal then produce some empirical proof because the burden is on you. I did take it all into account...

What annoys me the most is that you suggest that somehow you will become a rich person and help the gov't. Well, first off that is a big stretch. The gov't isn't exactly waiting for such an anomoly to happen when history itself shows older people get poorer and live off of social security and medicare that costs the gov't money--no money going in. The gov't doesn't like investing in works that don't bring money back--many Republicans you could say are trying to reverse a lot of the New Deal legislation. The gov't also doesn't really need to care about their citizens as until the last century everything was live and let die. Read up on history.

As for you thinking the gov't believes each millionaire will give away money in philanthropy after retirement... completely laughable. There are only a handful of those that "give back" and most of them give back to advance their own agenda in funding presidential candidates and such. Granted that some truly do, it isn't a large enough percentage that the gov't would count on them for "giving back."

You are an optimistic person in the baseless sense in that you cannot look at history and its trends to bolster any of your claims. Remember, the burden of proof is on you. You brought up this argument. Sources would be lovely.
Qdeathstar
QUOTE(Arch Angel @ Jan 30 2008, 03:05 PM) [snapback]1390988[/snapback]
How are some people more equal than others? Are you truly saying that someone with kids has and should have more rights than I do just because I don't have children?


yes.

QUOTE
To your second point - if I am paying off debts, isn't that putting money back into the economy? For example - if I am paying off a credit card bill, I am giving money to the credit card company. So not only am I putting that money back into the economy (by giving it to a company), wouldn't I also be giving myself the ability to spend money that I don't currently have by having the credit card available?


No, when you pay off debts, your paying back money already spent. Your not buying any new products. Your paying for ones you've already bought. GDP is Gross Domestic Product and can be measured by production (how much America produces) or how much America Consumes. You've already consumed the product, now all your doing is waiting to pay for it.


Also, to the credit card company, the money you owe them isn't an asset, its a liability. They owe that money to someone already, and they paid out in the last quarter. SO last quarter they lost the money you spent on your credit card, and this month they gained it back, for a net of (just above) zero. The margins on credit cards aren't huge from the consumer end. Credit card companies make most of their money from stores/ect that accept their card. You paying off money you already owes affects GDP, but no where as much as the mother who is going to use the money to consume more new products.
Severus Snape
QUOTE(punxtr @ Jan 30 2008, 07:12 PM) [snapback]1391112[/snapback]
Your points are hardly specks... are you kidding me? If you want to be so anal then produce some empirical proof because the burden is on you. I did take it all into account...

What annoys me the most is that you suggest that somehow you will become a rich person and help the gov't. Well, first off that is a big stretch. The gov't isn't exactly waiting for such an anomoly to happen when history itself shows older people get poorer and live off of social security and medicare that costs the gov't money--no money going in. The gov't doesn't like investing in works that don't bring money back--many Republicans you could say are trying to reverse a lot of the New Deal legislation. The gov't also doesn't really need to care about their citizens as until the last century everything was live and let die. Read up on history.

As for you thinking the gov't believes each millionaire will give away money in philanthropy after retirement... completely laughable. There are only a handful of those that "give back" and most of them give back to advance their own agenda in funding presidential candidates and such. Granted that some truly do, it isn't a large enough percentage that the gov't would count on them for "giving back."

You are an optimistic person in the baseless sense in that you cannot look at history and its trends to bolster any of your claims. Remember, the burden of proof is on you. You brought up this argument. Sources would be lovely.


You need to re-read my post. All of my points were hypotheticals, and not things that may or may not actually happen:

1. I never stated that I would become wealthy. I asked "what if".
2. I never stated that the government believes that each wealthy person would give their riches away in philanthropism. Again, I asked "what if". (Although in my case I would, because I have no kids)
3. When did history get brought into this? And what burden of proof is on me? The only historical fact I brought up was that this is the second time an economic stimulus deal has been done, and both times were in the current president's administration. And that is a fact. What sources do I need to bring up to support my side of the argument when I am not the one who is going overboard and spouting off about how the government thinks about a sector of the population that you and I know nothing about?

QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Jan 31 2008, 11:33 PM) [snapback]1391321[/snapback]
QUOTE(Arch Angel @ Jan 30 2008, 03:05 PM) [snapback]1390988[/snapback]
How are some people more equal than others? Are you truly saying that someone with kids has and should have more rights than I do just because I don't have children?


yes.


You may be an admin, but you're a pretty fucking stupid one if you truly believe that someone with kids is more equal than someone without kids. Read the Declaration of Independence again. "We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal." So explain to me how someone with kids is more equal than I am? If you can't, then I suggest you retract your statement.

QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Jan 31 2008, 11:33 PM) [snapback]1391321[/snapback]
No, when you pay off debts, your paying back money already spent. Your not buying any new products. Your paying for ones you've already bought. GDP is Gross Domestic Product and can be measured by production (how much America produces) or how much America Consumes. You've already consumed the product, now all your doing is waiting to pay for it.


Also, to the credit card company, the money you owe them isn't an asset, its a liability. They owe that money to someone already, and they paid out in the last quarter. SO last quarter they lost the money you spent on your credit card, and this month they gained it back, for a net of (just above) zero. The margins on credit cards aren't huge from the consumer end. Credit card companies make most of their money from stores/ect that accept their card. You paying off money you already owes affects GDP, but no where as much as the mother who is going to use the money to consume more new products.


I can see the logic in your argument here. But you aren't entirely correct - I am paying back money that I PROMISED I would pay at a later time. Which is the essence of using a credit card - get the goods/services now, and pay for them later. But (and just think about this for a moment), if I am paying money to the credit card company and they are getting what I owe plus interest, isn't that pumping money back into the economy? I am not only paying for a service (the use of the credit card), but I am also now paying for the goods I originally promised I would pay for at a later time. Isn't this correct?

And to further my point - After having paid for said service, I now have the ability to buy more goods and pay for more services. And I now have the ability to do so with both cash and credit. I can pay for things such as groceries, gas, house and car payments with cash, and buy things like clothes, music, movies, etc., with credit.
Hardcore Ottoman
QUOTE(Arch Angel @ Feb 1 2008, 08:19 AM) [snapback]1391404[/snapback]
QUOTE(punxtr @ Jan 30 2008, 07:12 PM) [snapback]1391112[/snapback]
Your points are hardly specks... are you kidding me? If you want to be so anal then produce some empirical proof because the burden is on you. I did take it all into account...

What annoys me the most is that you suggest that somehow you will become a rich person and help the gov't. Well, first off that is a big stretch. The gov't isn't exactly waiting for such an anomoly to happen when history itself shows older people get poorer and live off of social security and medicare that costs the gov't money--no money going in. The gov't doesn't like investing in works that don't bring money back--many Republicans you could say are trying to reverse a lot of the New Deal legislation. The gov't also doesn't really need to care about their citizens as until the last century everything was live and let die. Read up on history.

As for you thinking the gov't believes each millionaire will give away money in philanthropy after retirement... completely laughable. There are only a handful of those that "give back" and most of them give back to advance their own agenda in funding presidential candidates and such. Granted that some truly do, it isn't a large enough percentage that the gov't would count on them for "giving back."

You are an optimistic person in the baseless sense in that you cannot look at history and its trends to bolster any of your claims. Remember, the burden of proof is on you. You brought up this argument. Sources would be lovely.


You need to re-read my post. All of my points were hypotheticals, and not things that may or may not actually happen:

1. I never stated that I would become wealthy. I asked "what if".
2. I never stated that the government believes that each wealthy person would give their riches away in philanthropism. Again, I asked "what if". (Although in my case I would, because I have no kids)
3. When did history get brought into this? And what burden of proof is on me? The only historical fact I brought up was that this is the second time an economic stimulus deal has been done, and both times were in the current president's administration. And that is a fact. What sources do I need to bring up to support my side of the argument when I am not the one who is going overboard and spouting off about how the government thinks about a sector of the population that you and I know nothing about?
I can't respond to this. You are narrow and daft... I cannot stoop to it. All I will point out is that if you claim you incorporate and think of the big picture, why didn't you consider historical precedence? And yes, you do need to prove some things because Q and I are having a hard time believing them.

QUOTE
QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Jan 31 2008, 11:33 PM) [snapback]1391321[/snapback]
QUOTE(Arch Angel @ Jan 30 2008, 03:05 PM) [snapback]1390988[/snapback]
How are some people more equal than others? Are you truly saying that someone with kids has and should have more rights than I do just because I don't have children?


yes.


You may be an admin, but you're a pretty fucking stupid one if you truly believe that someone with kids is more equal than someone without kids. Read the Declaration of Independence again. "We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal." So explain to me how someone with kids is more equal than I am? If you can't, then I suggest you retract your statement.
This is one of them. Yes, you produced a line from the Declaration but you took it out of context. You've twisted it into some socialist utopian dream...

THIS HAS NOTHING TO ACTUALLY DO WITH EQUALITY. I'm not yelling at you--I'm leering at you. What is fair is getting what you need and getting a free handout is not what you need. If everyone were eligable the single citizens wouldn't feel the drive to do anything they haven't already been doing and the child-raisers would feel cheated. I wish you would stop being so selfish.

QUOTE
QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Jan 31 2008, 11:33 PM) [snapback]1391321[/snapback]
No, when you pay off debts, your paying back money already spent. Your not buying any new products. Your paying for ones you've already bought. GDP is Gross Domestic Product and can be measured by production (how much America produces) or how much America Consumes. You've already consumed the product, now all your doing is waiting to pay for it.


Also, to the credit card company, the money you owe them isn't an asset, its a liability. They owe that money to someone already, and they paid out in the last quarter. SO last quarter they lost the money you spent on your credit card, and this month they gained it back, for a net of (just above) zero. The margins on credit cards aren't huge from the consumer end. Credit card companies make most of their money from stores/ect that accept their card. You paying off money you already owes affects GDP, but no where as much as the mother who is going to use the money to consume more new products.


I can see the logic in your argument here. But you aren't entirely correct - I am paying back money that I PROMISED I would pay at a later time. Which is the essence of using a credit card - get the goods/services now, and pay for them later. But (and just think about this for a moment), if I am paying money to the credit card company and they are getting what I owe plus interest, isn't that pumping money back into the economy? I am not only paying for a service (the use of the credit card), but I am also now paying for the goods I originally promised I would pay for at a later time. Isn't this correct?

And to further my point - After having paid for said service, I now have the ability to buy more goods and pay for more services. And I now have the ability to do so with both cash and credit. I can pay for things such as groceries, gas, house and car payments with cash, and buy things like clothes, music, movies, etc., with credit.
This all quite very nice for your bank and the gov't but it doesn't get you a free handout. Fulfilling your promise of paying off your debts is the bare minimum one should do... the gov't doesn't have an incentive for you to get richer because we aren't Switzerland.
psychÝ
It isn't discriminating in anyway, your parents got your money when you were a kid, go beat them up they stole it off you while paying for your clothes, food, accommodation, transport, healthcare, school equipment.......................

I think you deserve it back personally, considering I can't think of anything worthwhile your parents would have spent it on.
Mad Space Ghost
Like an OG once said.

A Mcdonalds or blue collar dont pay the bills so niggas have to turn to making their own.

Theirs alot of shit crime related that most people get by with you just have to be good at what you do.

But more about the issue Dubbya sucks and hes getting out of office soon so hopeuflly a smarter new president will unfuck the middle man thats unwed and unkiddy-fied
Qdeathstar
QUOTE(Arch Angel @ Feb 1 2008, 01:19 PM) [snapback]1391404[/snapback]
You may be an admin, but you're a pretty fucking stupid one if you truly believe that someone with kids is more equal than someone without kids. Read the Declaration of Independence again. "We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal." So explain to me how someone with kids is more equal than I am? If you can't, then I suggest you retract your statement.


Just because it says it on paper, don't make it true. Dur da dur.

QUOTE

I can see the logic in your argument here. But you aren't entirely correct
Actually, yes I am. I majored and got my degree in economics...

QUOTE
But (and just think about this for a moment), if I am paying money to the credit card company and they are getting what I owe plus interest, isn't that pumping money back into the economy?


No. Credit card companies make the majority of their money from the businesses that choose to accept credit cards. Credit cards charge a flat MONTHLY fee ON TOP of percentage (usually 1-2%) of each transaction. The interest they make on your transactions are relatively small.
QUOTE

I am not only paying for a service (the use of the credit card), but I am also now paying for the goods I originally promised I would pay for at a later time. Isn't this correct?
The fact that your paying for the goods now doesn't matter, since you've already consumed that portion of GDP in the previous quarter.

The percentage you pay is the only effect on current quarter GDP.
QUOTE

And to further my point - After having paid for said service, I now have the ability to buy more goods and pay for more services. And I now have the ability to do so with both cash and credit. I can pay for things such as groceries, gas, house and car payments with cash, and buy things like clothes, music, movies, etc., with credit.


Actually... in the current economy, people hear about talks about recession and spend less. So while you'll still be buying things such as groceries, gas, ect... you might not buy that new TV or extra pair of sneakers because your worried about your job/future expenses. IE, people like you will tend to pay off accumulated debt, AND save.




Your effect on GDP is only the percentage of interest on the credit card, when you pay off debt. On the other hand, the mothers effect on GDP is all the necessities she buys with that extra money she gets.
Mad Space Ghost
Well not knowing what anyone else has said.

If you think about it the peple with kids deserve it because they have to take care of themselves + thier kids which have to get an education eat, sleep, and piss. so it puts more strain on the family more-so than someone without the little shits.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.