arkrud wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

arkrud wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

holfresh wrote:Im watching CSpan right now..Republicans in the house talking about corporate tax cuts to help the deficit..It's comical..I had math in school..A negative number plus another negative number makes a bigger negative number..

Talking about elimination of the death tax..Trump's kids must be creaming themselves..

I wonder what's in it for these congressmen..Maybe the lobbyist just working them before they kick out that Christmas bonus..

Trickle down...one more time. Never worked...never will, but the GOP has an addiction to it.

Trickle down surely works... raining down does not...
Person on social help or min salary in US has more purchasing power that middle class in Russia or upper middle class in Tanzania.
No one will never be satisfied with what is trickling down and no one should.
Humans need to stay motivated to even move the finger not talking about working hard.

Wealth distribution will get out of hand even more...Trickle means more profit for executives... a bitter way of describing it is "trickle over," or "Trickle Up." Add the minimum wage hike aversion by the GOP and continued attempts to weaken unions, and things are going to get ugly at some point.

So what this evil 1% does with all this wealth? Boiling and eating it? Stuffing it into pillows?
Spending on personal bunkers to hide during nuclear war puking into golden toilets with diamond handles?

holfresh wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

djsunyc wrote:so when is trump visiting russia for his thank you tour?

Here is one Russian town hoping that he comes to see them...they are already welcoming him.

Putin started laying out what he expected from the US today in a speech..He said he expected things to be done equally with America..If not it could become dangerous..

martin wrote:this is our country

I despair, because I have no idea how you counter that politically- just people who refuse to acknowledge or accept a basic fact.

The argument is basically:

"I believe x and I know that because of y"
"But y isn't true- it never happened"
"Well I still believe it!"

WaltLongmire wrote:

holfresh wrote:Im watching CSpan right now..Republicans in the house talking about corporate tax cuts to help the deficit..It's comical..I had math in school..A negative number plus another negative number makes a bigger negative number..

Talking about elimination of the death tax..Trump's kids must be creaming themselves..

I wonder what's in it for these congressmen..Maybe the lobbyist just working them before they kick out that Christmas bonus..

Trickle down...one more time. Never worked...never will, but the GOP has an addiction to it.

Holfresh too (Was that article not clear?)

One of the creators of the tax plan, which I posted before (here is the link: Trump's Plan Isn't Trickle-Down Economics http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StephenMoore/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-trickle-down-economics/2016/10/04/id/751523/) said it isn't trickle down economics. Just because corporations are getting a tax cut, that doesn't make it trickle down. The cuts are across the board.

ramtour420 wrote:

arkrud wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

arkrud wrote:All current researches are based on premise that urbanization continue to be the main driver for population shift.
But reality shows that this trend is reversing.
Automation, robotization, computerization, and productivity grows already created huge excess of working hands and heads in the cities and we will see outflow of people back out of overcrowded urban centers as soon as the social help will not be able to keep them afloat. People will stream back to country site where they can be self-sufficient at least to the level of surviving.
This is already happening in Russia and other countries which are industrialized but failed to collect enough of public wealth to support large unemployed and underemployed population in cities.
It will take more time in US but is inevitable.
What most of the pundits see as racial or nationalistic issues are in fact demographic issues which they always were.
The refusal of general public to accept this reality is related to human race inability to control demographic for the most part.
The loss of control is psychologically unacceptable and depressive for many people.

demographics and race are intertwined. trump campaigned on race - i don't think that's even up for debate. there is enough data to support it.

i think white people in this country were ready for a change (obama) but to overcome what's in the subconscious takes a long time and trump was able to revert many back to it. racism isn't just about screaming at someone who's a different color - it's engrained in everyone since this country was built on racism. it's still very institutional and all of us have it in us whether we choose to admit it or not. but the fact is, one race has dominated all the others in this country - and any set back in terms of racial unity - and this election is a set back - takes years to overcome and further engrains what's already in our subconscious.

10th if not hundreds of millions emigrants came to US after slavery was abolished and even after segregation was ended.
Still they posses racist and nationalistic views they brought from other countries.
At least on the surface this manifests as such.
Deep inside it is the same tribal "us against the world" position which comes out of necessity to survive.
The only way to overcome this huge drag on the progress is to collect as much of public wealth as possible to support basic needs of all population groups. We are not there yet and focus should be on getting the pie bigger no evenly distributed.
Later proved to make it smaller.
Obviously it is counterintuitive and not easily accepted by those who are on the tin end.
But life in not fair. It is just what it is.

I do believe you are contradicting yourself here. On page one you explained that "wasteland" is of the social variety, and how US is not "wasteland" when it comes to that. I have to agree, compared to some of the other countries the United States have better social programs , but that's a direct result of splitting the wealth or "pie" to pay for healthcare, welfare, SS, education, disability etc. In this post you are advocating for concentration of the wealth which effectively cuts those said programs and would actually increase the "social wasteland" effect.
So which is it? Should US support its social benefits or give everything to the rich and pray that they take it upon themselves to distribute that wealth using the wonderful yet unexistant trickle down effect? To go the first path Trump is not the right leader. The second path will bring America closer to the proverbial and aforementioned "social wasteland" and yes, in that case Trump is your man.

There is no way the rich will give anything to the pure. They will not.
The mechanics of the society should make this act profitable and desirable.
You do this act and it makes you better financially and raze your social status.
People in general statistically are not inclined to do anything for anybody without some kind of profit.
Financial, psychological, moral, or whatever.
There are exceptions but they just proving the rule.
I think our society is setup to force people give up part of their wealth to support unfortunate or inept once.
And Trump/No-Trump has nothing to do with it.
And yes - we do have our internal "wastelands" and this problem will grow and will need attention.
The only way to make the things better is to work on them and to put aside any illusions and utopias about what people are.
We are still ugly creatures and we need to be kept in check. All of us.

arkrud wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:

arkrud wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

arkrud wrote:All current researches are based on premise that urbanization continue to be the main driver for population shift.
But reality shows that this trend is reversing.
Automation, robotization, computerization, and productivity grows already created huge excess of working hands and heads in the cities and we will see outflow of people back out of overcrowded urban centers as soon as the social help will not be able to keep them afloat. People will stream back to country site where they can be self-sufficient at least to the level of surviving.
This is already happening in Russia and other countries which are industrialized but failed to collect enough of public wealth to support large unemployed and underemployed population in cities.
It will take more time in US but is inevitable.
What most of the pundits see as racial or nationalistic issues are in fact demographic issues which they always were.
The refusal of general public to accept this reality is related to human race inability to control demographic for the most part.
The loss of control is psychologically unacceptable and depressive for many people.

demographics and race are intertwined. trump campaigned on race - i don't think that's even up for debate. there is enough data to support it.

i think white people in this country were ready for a change (obama) but to overcome what's in the subconscious takes a long time and trump was able to revert many back to it. racism isn't just about screaming at someone who's a different color - it's engrained in everyone since this country was built on racism. it's still very institutional and all of us have it in us whether we choose to admit it or not. but the fact is, one race has dominated all the others in this country - and any set back in terms of racial unity - and this election is a set back - takes years to overcome and further engrains what's already in our subconscious.

10th if not hundreds of millions emigrants came to US after slavery was abolished and even after segregation was ended.
Still they posses racist and nationalistic views they brought from other countries.
At least on the surface this manifests as such.
Deep inside it is the same tribal "us against the world" position which comes out of necessity to survive.
The only way to overcome this huge drag on the progress is to collect as much of public wealth as possible to support basic needs of all population groups. We are not there yet and focus should be on getting the pie bigger no evenly distributed.
Later proved to make it smaller.
Obviously it is counterintuitive and not easily accepted by those who are on the tin end.
But life in not fair. It is just what it is.

I do believe you are contradicting yourself here. On page one you explained that "wasteland" is of the social variety, and how US is not "wasteland" when it comes to that. I have to agree, compared to some of the other countries the United States have better social programs , but that's a direct result of splitting the wealth or "pie" to pay for healthcare, welfare, SS, education, disability etc. In this post you are advocating for concentration of the wealth which effectively cuts those said programs and would actually increase the "social wasteland" effect.
So which is it? Should US support its social benefits or give everything to the rich and pray that they take it upon themselves to distribute that wealth using the wonderful yet unexistant trickle down effect? To go the first path Trump is not the right leader. The second path will bring America closer to the proverbial and aforementioned "social wasteland" and yes, in that case Trump is your man.

There is no way the rich will give anything to the pure. They will not.
The mechanics of the society should make this act profitable and desirable.
You do this act and it makes you better financially and raze your social status.
People in general statistically are not inclined to do anything for anybody without some kind of profit.
Financial, psychological, moral, or whatever.
There are exceptions but they just proving the rule.
I think our society is setup to force people give up part of their wealth to support unfortunate or inept once.
And Trump/No-Trump has nothing to do with it.
And yes - we do have our internal "wastelands" and this problem will grow and will need attention.
The only way to make the things better is to work on them and to put aside any illusions and utopias about what people are.
We are still ugly creatures and we need to be kept in check. All of us.

Really? People like Donald Trump are paying less in taxes than lower income Americans are. They're paying the taxes for all the infrastructure and public services that he benefits from!

Bonn1997 wrote:

arkrud wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:

arkrud wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

arkrud wrote:All current researches are based on premise that urbanization continue to be the main driver for population shift.
But reality shows that this trend is reversing.
Automation, robotization, computerization, and productivity grows already created huge excess of working hands and heads in the cities and we will see outflow of people back out of overcrowded urban centers as soon as the social help will not be able to keep them afloat. People will stream back to country site where they can be self-sufficient at least to the level of surviving.
This is already happening in Russia and other countries which are industrialized but failed to collect enough of public wealth to support large unemployed and underemployed population in cities.
It will take more time in US but is inevitable.
What most of the pundits see as racial or nationalistic issues are in fact demographic issues which they always were.
The refusal of general public to accept this reality is related to human race inability to control demographic for the most part.
The loss of control is psychologically unacceptable and depressive for many people.

demographics and race are intertwined. trump campaigned on race - i don't think that's even up for debate. there is enough data to support it.

i think white people in this country were ready for a change (obama) but to overcome what's in the subconscious takes a long time and trump was able to revert many back to it. racism isn't just about screaming at someone who's a different color - it's engrained in everyone since this country was built on racism. it's still very institutional and all of us have it in us whether we choose to admit it or not. but the fact is, one race has dominated all the others in this country - and any set back in terms of racial unity - and this election is a set back - takes years to overcome and further engrains what's already in our subconscious.

10th if not hundreds of millions emigrants came to US after slavery was abolished and even after segregation was ended.
Still they posses racist and nationalistic views they brought from other countries.
At least on the surface this manifests as such.
Deep inside it is the same tribal "us against the world" position which comes out of necessity to survive.
The only way to overcome this huge drag on the progress is to collect as much of public wealth as possible to support basic needs of all population groups. We are not there yet and focus should be on getting the pie bigger no evenly distributed.
Later proved to make it smaller.
Obviously it is counterintuitive and not easily accepted by those who are on the tin end.
But life in not fair. It is just what it is.

I do believe you are contradicting yourself here. On page one you explained that "wasteland" is of the social variety, and how US is not "wasteland" when it comes to that. I have to agree, compared to some of the other countries the United States have better social programs , but that's a direct result of splitting the wealth or "pie" to pay for healthcare, welfare, SS, education, disability etc. In this post you are advocating for concentration of the wealth which effectively cuts those said programs and would actually increase the "social wasteland" effect.
So which is it? Should US support its social benefits or give everything to the rich and pray that they take it upon themselves to distribute that wealth using the wonderful yet unexistant trickle down effect? To go the first path Trump is not the right leader. The second path will bring America closer to the proverbial and aforementioned "social wasteland" and yes, in that case Trump is your man.

There is no way the rich will give anything to the pure. They will not.
The mechanics of the society should make this act profitable and desirable.
You do this act and it makes you better financially and raze your social status.
People in general statistically are not inclined to do anything for anybody without some kind of profit.
Financial, psychological, moral, or whatever.
There are exceptions but they just proving the rule.
I think our society is setup to force people give up part of their wealth to support unfortunate or inept once.
And Trump/No-Trump has nothing to do with it.
And yes - we do have our internal "wastelands" and this problem will grow and will need attention.
The only way to make the things better is to work on them and to put aside any illusions and utopias about what people are.
We are still ugly creatures and we need to be kept in check. All of us.

Really? People like Donald Trump are paying less in taxes than lower income Americans are.

There are many ways this done and most of them indirect.
Absolute majority of wealth own by 1% is working in the economy, creating working places, producing good and services, makes all our life moving.
Because the most profitable use of wealth is to make it work and produce more wealth not to make golden toilets and such.
Granted a lot of wealth is used for luxury and some outrages stuff but even this needs to be obtained from other players in the economy and actually personal consumption of reach is heavily taxed.
The only measure of the success of the society at the end of the day is people security, well-being, happiness, freedom, and opportunity.
US is one of the absolute leader in this.
Can we do better? Can we share more? Do we have issues, bad people, criminals, bigots? Yes, Yes, and Yes.
But we are moving in right direction. Lets keep moving and lets argue everything. This is the best way to solve issues.

arkrud wrote:

holfresh wrote:

arkrud wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:

arkrud wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

arkrud wrote:All current researches are based on premise that urbanization continue to be the main driver for population shift.
But reality shows that this trend is reversing.
Automation, robotization, computerization, and productivity grows already created huge excess of working hands and heads in the cities and we will see outflow of people back out of overcrowded urban centers as soon as the social help will not be able to keep them afloat. People will stream back to country site where they can be self-sufficient at least to the level of surviving.
This is already happening in Russia and other countries which are industrialized but failed to collect enough of public wealth to support large unemployed and underemployed population in cities.
It will take more time in US but is inevitable.
What most of the pundits see as racial or nationalistic issues are in fact demographic issues which they always were.
The refusal of general public to accept this reality is related to human race inability to control demographic for the most part.
The loss of control is psychologically unacceptable and depressive for many people.

demographics and race are intertwined. trump campaigned on race - i don't think that's even up for debate. there is enough data to support it.

i think white people in this country were ready for a change (obama) but to overcome what's in the subconscious takes a long time and trump was able to revert many back to it. racism isn't just about screaming at someone who's a different color - it's engrained in everyone since this country was built on racism. it's still very institutional and all of us have it in us whether we choose to admit it or not. but the fact is, one race has dominated all the others in this country - and any set back in terms of racial unity - and this election is a set back - takes years to overcome and further engrains what's already in our subconscious.

10th if not hundreds of millions emigrants came to US after slavery was abolished and even after segregation was ended.
Still they posses racist and nationalistic views they brought from other countries.
At least on the surface this manifests as such.
Deep inside it is the same tribal "us against the world" position which comes out of necessity to survive.
The only way to overcome this huge drag on the progress is to collect as much of public wealth as possible to support basic needs of all population groups. We are not there yet and focus should be on getting the pie bigger no evenly distributed.
Later proved to make it smaller.
Obviously it is counterintuitive and not easily accepted by those who are on the tin end.
But life in not fair. It is just what it is.

I do believe you are contradicting yourself here. On page one you explained that "wasteland" is of the social variety, and how US is not "wasteland" when it comes to that. I have to agree, compared to some of the other countries the United States have better social programs , but that's a direct result of splitting the wealth or "pie" to pay for healthcare, welfare, SS, education, disability etc. In this post you are advocating for concentration of the wealth which effectively cuts those said programs and would actually increase the "social wasteland" effect.
So which is it? Should US support its social benefits or give everything to the rich and pray that they take it upon themselves to distribute that wealth using the wonderful yet unexistant trickle down effect? To go the first path Trump is not the right leader. The second path will bring America closer to the proverbial and aforementioned "social wasteland" and yes, in that case Trump is your man.

There is no way the rich will give anything to the pure. They will not.
The mechanics of the society should make this act profitable and desirable.
You do this act and it makes you better financially and raze your social status.
People in general statistically are not inclined to do anything for anybody without some kind of profit.
Financial, psychological, moral, or whatever.
There are exceptions but they just proving the rule.
I think our society is setup to force people give up part of their wealth to support unfortunate or inept once.
And Trump/No-Trump has nothing to do with it.
And yes - we do have our internal "wastelands" and this problem will grow and will need attention.
The only way to make the things better is to work on them and to put aside any illusions and utopias about what people are.
We are still ugly creatures and we need to be kept in check. All of us.

Do you ever think about some of the things you say???So the 245 years of slavery where the wealthy of this country benefited from free slave labor is what then???..Was society set up then to benefit the wealthy literally on the backs of the poor..Can you really be that obtuse???

Human race had thousands years of slavery in many countries.
It was more advanced social setting comparing to primitive tribal society.
In Rome Empire or ancient Egypt citizens benefited from slavery until this settings became a drag to progress and gone.
The wealth concentration is required for progress. The way it is done can be ugly and it is.
But this is how human race evolved and operates.
Any attempt to brake this ended up in disaster.
We are what we are - greedy and selfish carnivores.
We are getting better over time but really slowly.

Their descendants are some of the inept ones you are referring to..Those people didn't become inept on their own, they were helped to that place and you are benefiting from a system built on that..So whether you not you have a valid point about where tax money goes, you should try to appreciate the historical context of how we got here...

earthmansurfer wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

holfresh wrote:Im watching CSpan right now..Republicans in the house talking about corporate tax cuts to help the deficit..It's comical..I had math in school..A negative number plus another negative number makes a bigger negative number..

Talking about elimination of the death tax..Trump's kids must be creaming themselves..

I wonder what's in it for these congressmen..Maybe the lobbyist just working them before they kick out that Christmas bonus..

Trickle down...one more time. Never worked...never will, but the GOP has an addiction to it.

Holfresh too (Was that article not clear?)

One of the creators of the tax plan, which I posted before (here is the link: Trump's Plan Isn't Trickle-Down Economics http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StephenMoore/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-trickle-down-economics/2016/10/04/id/751523/) said it isn't trickle down economics. Just because corporations are getting a tax cut, that doesn't make it trickle down. The cuts are across the board.

EMS, read up on what happened in the state of Kansas. It was hailed as the great experiment in 2010 for governor Brown. Tax cuts across the board; and indeed this is trickle down.

https://newrepublic.com/article/119574/sam-brownbacks-conservative-utopia-kansas-has-become-hell

The midterm elections of 2010 were good for Republicans nearly everywhere, but amid the national Tea Party insurgency, it was easy to overlook the revolution that was brewing in Kansas. That year, the GOP won every federal and statewide office. Sam Brownback, a genial U.S. senator best known for his ardent social conservatism, captured the governor’s mansion with nearly double the votes of his Democratic opponent.And having conquered Kansas so convincingly, he was determined not to squander the opportunity. His administration, he declared, would be a “real live experiment” that would prove, once and for all, that the way to achieve prosperity was by eliminating government from economic life.

Brownback’s agenda bore the imprint of three decades of right-wing agitation, particularly that of the anti-government radicals Charles and David Koch and their Wichita-based Koch Industries, the single largest contributors to Brownback’s campaigns. Brownback appointed accountant Steve Anderson, who had developed a model budget for the Kochs’ advocacy arm, Americans for Prosperity, as his budget director. Another Koch-linked group, the Kansas Policy Institute, supported his controversial tax proposals. As Brownback later explained to The Wall Street Journal, “My focus is to create a red-state model that allows the Republican ticket to say, ‘See, we’ve got a different way, and it works.’”

Brownback established an Office of the Repealer to take a scythe to regulations on business, he slashed spending on the poor by tightening welfare requirements, he rejected federal Medicaid subsidies and privatized the delivery of Medicaid, and he dissolved four state agencies and eliminated 2,000 state jobs. The heart of his program consisted of drastic tax cuts for the wealthy and eliminating taxes on income from profits for more than 100,000 Kansas businesses. No other state had gone this far. He was advised by the godfather of supply-side economics himself, the Reagan-era economist Arthur Laffer, who described the reforms as “a revolution in a cornfield.”

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-kansas-tea-party-disaster-20141023

Extremist Republicans turned their government into a lab experiment of tax cuts and privatization. And now they may be losing control of one of the reddest states in the nation

The devastation to that state is unreal. Tax cuts in this manor do not work.

Also, math must be done so that we can realize the % of money that represents savings when tax cuts are given from top to bottom. Even if you give a tax cut to the bottom 75% of everyone, that still only represents a proportionally small amount of total.

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

holfresh wrote:Im watching CSpan right now..Republicans in the house talking about corporate tax cuts to help the deficit..It's comical..I had math in school..A negative number plus another negative number makes a bigger negative number..

Talking about elimination of the death tax..Trump's kids must be creaming themselves..

I wonder what's in it for these congressmen..Maybe the lobbyist just working them before they kick out that Christmas bonus..

Trickle down...one more time. Never worked...never will, but the GOP has an addiction to it.

Holfresh too (Was that article not clear?)

One of the creators of the tax plan, which I posted before (here is the link: Trump's Plan Isn't Trickle-Down Economics http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StephenMoore/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-trickle-down-economics/2016/10/04/id/751523/) said it isn't trickle down economics. Just because corporations are getting a tax cut, that doesn't make it trickle down. The cuts are across the board.

EMS, read up on what happened in the state of Kansas. It was hailed as the great experiment in 2010 for governor Brown. Tax cuts across the board; and indeed this is trickle down.

https://newrepublic.com/article/119574/sam-brownbacks-conservative-utopia-kansas-has-become-hell

The midterm elections of 2010 were good for Republicans nearly everywhere, but amid the national Tea Party insurgency, it was easy to overlook the revolution that was brewing in Kansas. That year, the GOP won every federal and statewide office. Sam Brownback, a genial U.S. senator best known for his ardent social conservatism, captured the governor’s mansion with nearly double the votes of his Democratic opponent.And having conquered Kansas so convincingly, he was determined not to squander the opportunity. His administration, he declared, would be a “real live experiment” that would prove, once and for all, that the way to achieve prosperity was by eliminating government from economic life.

Brownback’s agenda bore the imprint of three decades of right-wing agitation, particularly that of the anti-government radicals Charles and David Koch and their Wichita-based Koch Industries, the single largest contributors to Brownback’s campaigns. Brownback appointed accountant Steve Anderson, who had developed a model budget for the Kochs’ advocacy arm, Americans for Prosperity, as his budget director. Another Koch-linked group, the Kansas Policy Institute, supported his controversial tax proposals. As Brownback later explained to The Wall Street Journal, “My focus is to create a red-state model that allows the Republican ticket to say, ‘See, we’ve got a different way, and it works.’”

Brownback established an Office of the Repealer to take a scythe to regulations on business, he slashed spending on the poor by tightening welfare requirements, he rejected federal Medicaid subsidies and privatized the delivery of Medicaid, and he dissolved four state agencies and eliminated 2,000 state jobs. The heart of his program consisted of drastic tax cuts for the wealthy and eliminating taxes on income from profits for more than 100,000 Kansas businesses. No other state had gone this far. He was advised by the godfather of supply-side economics himself, the Reagan-era economist Arthur Laffer, who described the reforms as “a revolution in a cornfield.”

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-kansas-tea-party-disaster-20141023

Extremist Republicans turned their government into a lab experiment of tax cuts and privatization. And now they may be losing control of one of the reddest states in the nation

The devastation to that state is unreal. Tax cuts in this manor do not work.

Also, math must be done so that we can realize the % of money that represents savings when tax cuts are given from top to bottom. Even if you give a tax cut to the bottom 75% of everyone, that still only represents a proportionally small amount of total.

Thanks for sharing that with me. Not sure why you would share anything with someone with such low intelligence and whose posts you just skip over.
But seriously, what is going to work? Obama (for whatever reason) has tripled the debt. The banking system is on the edge, really just being kept afloat since 2008 in this experiment called Quantitative Easing (better known as money printing to the banks, whose bad debt is bought.) I'm serious with this btw. No matter who got in as president, the cards are stacked against them.

There seems to be, and has been, a Globalist Agenda going on for years. There are some nice things for people regarding globalization, namely less of a chance of war (I think) but mostly it has raised unemployment in the States, but "helped" Mexico, China and some other manufacturing places that are "cheaper".

So, what would be best? What could get us out of this hole? Honestly.

In a very basic way, if we lower taxes across the board, and cut governments spending by a percentage of that amount (we don't need to cut it all by that, as spending will of course go up. Poor, people, lower middle class, who don't have enough would have more, they would spend that money.) Companies would spend more (I hope) and if they just planned on stock buy backs, perhaps we need to have clauses regarding these cuts. I'm not for more "laws" but we are between a rock and a hard place. We can't do what we've been doing, during a terrible economic and global situation and expect good results.