An appropriate honor.

[audtatious]

Hardly anything of note was found.

It was the main reason conveyed to the public. The horse deserves to be beaten.

More than is reported, that's for sure. As of '06 approximately 500 weapons munitions which contained mustard or sarin nerve agent had been recovered along with the yellowcake. It really does not matter because opinions have been formed and nobody is going to change their minds on the subject. Congress agreed and Bush telling lies is not proven and total BS in my opinion.

Ha ha, funny. Real difficult mission.

Because we were able to do it in 2 weeks then it was not difficult? Maybe we should ask that of the families of those who died.

They had complete control of the government for 6 years. That's enough time to get a lot done, but they did little besides security theater and gave handouts to the wealthy. They sat and watched the housing markets get out of control, and the rich got richer while everyone else stagnated. But, hey, it's Clinton's fault...

Yeah, Bush should have gone to the banks and told them to knock that crap off. He should have told the Dems that poor and stupid people did not deserve housing either. Since when have the rich not gotten richer? Rich getting richer allows them to invest more and grow corporations which help the population.

He reneged on his promise to punish anyone in his administration who leaked. He let people get away with treason.

Hang him. Let's hang the whole Gov since the Dems in office have been leaking stuff for years.

Health care is a different story. I find it interesting that most of the "compassionate conservatives" have a "live and let live" attitude toward most aspects of society, when it is more humanistic to supply certain fundamental human needs.

I see some of our issues in society similar to a parent dealing with a 6yo begging for a cookie right before dinner. The proper parent would say no while the irresponsible parent relents instead of hearing the kid whine. For the most part, what the healtcare industry is providing is way more than fundamental human needs. Hospitals nor doctors will kick out patients anymore due to legal ramifications so you have a portion of the population who is in and out of the hospital at an unbelievable rate. Some of these people are only there for their drugs and when sent home will have an ambulance take them back to the hospital for another week or two stay while going through CAT scans and MRI's and other proceedures that those of us who work our butts off would have a hard time paying for even with insurance. I hear my wife all the time telling me the majority of their patients are welfare and demand the nurses to get food and drink for their family and are on the call lights or at the nursing station 30 minutes early (every 4 hours) wanting their pain meds early. Don't give them their drugs to them quick enough? They complain of chest pains and you have to call the doctors and do 1/2 hour of paperwork. In the last 5 years it has been consistently getting worse. So, you want to talk about Universal Healthcare then you are going to have to address these people who are running up all our costs. Will it be addressed? Nope. So, don't tell me that the poor don't get quality healthcare. They get it all the time and at our expense. There is only so much compassion you can give to people who have run their lives into the ground, blame everyone else for it and demands their entitlements.

Some aspects of society should be socialized, IMO. See my previous comment.

It will be done as a whole or not at all. There is going to be no middle ground because that would end up being a rich vs. poor scenario or brought up as a racial issue.

[smockers83]

They had complete control of the government for 6 years. That's enough time to get a lot done, but they did little besides security theater and gave handouts to the wealthy. They sat and watched the housing markets get out of control, and the rich got richer while everyone else stagnated. But, hey, it's Clinton's fault...

It is not the business of the government to walk into corporations, in this case banks, to inspect that they are doing things correctly. That's up to the board, auditors, and other higher ups in management. If you want to blame someone for part of the housing crisis, look to the banks, not the government. In terms of prices, its also not the business of the government to interfere with the market...we are a capitalist society, remember that. The government however can act as stopgap measure to bring stability to a market that is in trouble and in free fall, such as the housing market. But this is also not just about banks and people defaulting. The housing market has seen fewer and fewer startups. Why? Because so many people bought new homes and now there's not many interested in new homes. There was a small and profitable market for new homes and that market has now disappeared essentially as all buyers have been matched to their seller. With so many new homes and a population that isn't growing too fast, you're bound to reach a point where you oversupply the market with homes. This is also a partial reason for the drop in housing prices, in my theory, I really have no concrete evidence. But think about it, many many new homes were being built, leaving already standing homes up for sale. Demand for housing never really went up out of the ordinary, its just that so many bought new homes. This leaves all the homes that these people moved out of up for sale, but to who? Now you have an oversupplied market in free fall and people are waiting to get in when they feel the bottom is reached. Until then, prices will continue to fall. Falling prices is half the problem with mortgages as its leaving many people with negative equity and net worth.

As for the rich getting richer. It is a problem, a problem not helped by the Bush tax cuts. Cut the taxes of the rich and their pre-tax incomes will undoubtedly become bigger. This is one of the few things I agree with Obama on (taxes) in order to bring the income gap more into control.
Modified by smockers83 at 1:06 AM 7/8/2008

[BigMACKenzie]

audtatious you are pushing trickle down economics, you are hereby cut off lol but only after you give some specifics on some classified information a democrat/liberal has leaked and or act of treason they have committed.

[WDRacing]

Yes, California has it's problems, however it has never invaded a country and cost the U.S. taxpayers a 1/2 trillion plus dollars in the process. California hasn't stood hopelessly by as the economy tumbled, all the time proclaiming "all is well with the economy."

Maybe if Bush had been playing with some staff member under his desk instead of drunk driving the ship of state we'd all be enjoying a good economy and a more peacful world.

Just my opinion.

Bob, we may disagree on many things. But that my man was an excellent post.

[stopcamping]

Are we certain this isn't, ummmm, a hoax?

Quote »George W. Bush Sewage PlantFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

The George W. Bush Sewage Plant is a proposed renaming of a San Francisco, California, sewage plant in faux honor of the forty-third president of the United States, George W. Bush. By summer 2008, it had received a sustained burst of coverage from local and prominent national and international print and broadcast outlets.

The initiative, spurred by a group of liberal activists, the Presidential Memorial Commission, has collected enough signatures to be placed as a ballot initiative in the city. If passed, The Oceanside Wastewater Treatment of San Francisco will be renamed The George W. Bush Sewage Plant.

Organizer Brian McConnell stated the reasons for the ballot proposal and renaming.

Fifty years from now in a civics class, students will learn about the Lincoln Memorial, that other presidents are on Mount Rushmore—and George W Bush got a sewage plant. It will prompt people to ask why, and they can discuss the Iraq war, and everything that led to it. People want to forget bad moments of history, and this is our way of making sure that doesn't happen.[/quote]No one is more deserving of such an "honor."

[hsckris]

Please refer us to an objective, infallible news source then.

I've always found The Economist to be largely impartial.

http://www.economist.com/

[ishkabibble]

More than is reported, that's for sure. As of '06 approximately 500 weapons munitions which contained mustard or sarin nerve agent had been recovered along with the yellowcake. It really does not matter because opinions have been formed and nobody is going to change their minds on the subject. Congress agreed and Bush telling lies is not proven and total BS in my opinion.

Wow, sounds like an immediate threat to the US that we needed to act upon!

Like I said before, Office of Special Plans. Intel was cherry-picked.

Because we were able to do it in 2 weeks then it was not difficult? Maybe we should ask that of the families of those who died.

139 lost is not much. Nope, not difficult at all.

Yeah, Bush should have gone to the banks and told them to knock that crap off. He should have told the Dems that poor and stupid people did not deserve housing either.

Lowering interest rates was the catalyst, and yes, nowadays banks are being told to knock that crap off.

Since when have the rich not gotten richer? Rich getting richer allows them to invest more and grow corporations which help the population.

Exponentially richer than the rest of the population does (as a % of income)? That doesn't sound normal to me. Corporations are formed to help the population? Then why isn't the rest of the population getting richer?

I thought small businesses were the largest employer in the US...

Let's hang the whole Gov since the Dems in office have been leaking stuff for years.

Leaking the identity of a covert agent is a special case. You can't draw a comparison here. What exactly have the Dems in office leaked?

[ishkabibble]

I've always found The Economist to be largely impartial.

http://www.economist.com/

Yeah, they are pretty good. Thanks for the reminder.

[ishkabibble]

I really have no concrete evidence.

Come back when you do, and you might write something worth responding to.

[smockers83]

Come back when you do, and you might write something worth responding to.

Hence why I called it a theory, a hypothesis if you will. Instead of scoffing, why don't you just respond with some of your own insight? Or do you not have any? All I did was simply look at it from a supply/demand perspective as a possible reason given that a record number of homes are going unsold, which means the market is oversupplied. If its wrong, prove it. I never said what I was saying was fact so its up for debate.

And going with a supply/demand side perspective, when prices are going up, producers want to produce more--hence more new homes--simple economics 101. As prices go up, people get priced out of the market and once a market reaches its peak in price, it has nowhere to go but down in order to come back to the equilibrium. Do you refute this scenario? When I have the time to actually find data, I'll let you know on how my theory stands up. But remember, this theory is only a partial cause of the problem.
Modified by smockers83 at 12:04 AM 7/9/2008

[smockers83]

Evidence as requested Mr. Ish

Still, before the housing market can turn around, it must first work off the record numbers of unsold homes on the market. From 2005 to 2007, the number of new and existing vacant homes for sale rose 46% to 2.12 million.

The nationwide glut of unsold homes has hit the real estate market hard, forcing down sale prices, stemming new construction and leaving millions of homeowners with properties worth less than the value of their mortgage.

In early 2008, the nation had an 11-month supply of unsold new homes and a 10.7-month supply of existing single-family homes, according to the Harvard study. A six-month supply of existing homes is considered a buyers' market. Reducing the current supply will require price declines, a decrease in interest rates, employment growth, a return of consumer confidence and the revival of accessible mortgage credit.

Evidence of oversupply. The runup in prices were due to lower i-rates, which spurred investment in new homes by construction companies looking to make profits. As prices went up and up, only the richer could buy these homes which were ridiculously priced, new and standing, pricing many out of the market and as people bought these homes, they oversupplied the rest of the market. Just draw simple supply/demand curves and you'll see what I'm talking about.

[skylndrftr]

Wow this got heated...

I hate freaking work taking away from my internet arguing time.

I'll bet we can all agree though that there are definitely better potential candidates for president than the people presented by either party.

and audaticious, congress is not part of the white house, but when the president starts using signing statements to say the law doesn't apply to him then why bother having congress or hell...elections.

[BigMACKenzie]

if you want some real fun, look up the presidential order bush signed saying that in times of "crisis or national emergency" the current president does not have to give up his seat and remains in power until the "emergency" is contained. I would have preferred he fight this issue in the open instead of sneaking it into a one paragraph blurb on the white house website. Then maybe ppl would actually smell what he is cooking. then again that requires some spine and bravery, not his cup of tea ^^

[ishkabibble]

Evidence of oversupply. The runup in prices were due to lower i-rates, which spurred investment in new homes by construction companies looking to make profits. As prices went up and up, only the richer could buy these homes which were ridiculously priced, new and standing, pricing many out of the market and as people bought these homes, they oversupplied the rest of the market. Just draw simple supply/demand curves and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Close, but you are missing a couple of pieces. The lower interest rates made homes normally out of reach affordable, and banks lowered their lending standards. This led to a buying frenzy which got out of control, and then everyone and their brother got in to "flipping". It's not simply about supply, but also demand, and also not simply about new homes, but also used. In fact, new homes actually tend to sell around here better than old.

But none of this deserves much discussion. The reasons for the housing bubble are well-known, so there is little to debate.

[smockers83]

Close, but you are missing a couple of pieces.

But remember, this theory is only a partial cause of the problem.

Yes, and we've already discussed those in other threads in which I said almost exactly what you said. However, one thing I'd like to point out though is that lower i-rates didn't make homes normally out of reach actually affordable, it just made them seem affordable due to all the liquidity floating around in the market. The real price essentially stayed the same because the rates went down (cause) and nominal prices went up (& effect).

[ishkabibble]

Yes, and we've already discussed those in other threads in which I said almost exactly what you said. However, one thing I'd like to point out though is that lower i-rates didn't make homes normally out of reach actually affordable, it just made them seem affordable due to all the liquidity floating around in the market. The real price essentially stayed the same because the rates went down (cause) and nominal prices went up (& effect).

Ummm, yeah, the fact that average prices went up has already been established.

The house I was looking at in Pittsburgh was the same price before and after the interest rate drop. How did it not become more affordable?

[audtatious]

audtatious you are pushing trickle down economics, you are hereby cut off lol but only after you give some specifics on some classified information a democrat/liberal has leaked and or act of treason they have committed.

Off the top of my head I would say leaking the "secret" CIA "prisons" and information about the "illegal" tapping of phones. Proof of who did what? Of course not.

Yes, I believe trickle down economics can work. Most rich people have their money invested in other companies and opportunities. What happens if that stops? Nothing?

[smockers83]

Yes, I know higher prices has already been established, we established that months and months ago. What I'm establishing is that affordability as a whole never really changed. You bring an isolated case into the picture when talking about a market as a whole. When talking about the market, we have to talk about the whole market, the majority, not isolated cases. When you do that, you put the ball game into another direction.

In that specific case, of course the house became more affordable, but the market as a whole, not so much. We can talk about specific cases all day. In my specific case, homes in my area didn't really skyrocket like most during the boom and have hardly plummeted (some are still rising). My area is pretty isolated from what's going on in the market and the economy as a whole as well.

[audtatious]

Wow, sounds like an immediate threat to the US that we needed to act upon!

Like I said before, Office of Special Plans. Intel was cherry-picked.

You know my answer already. Thus it's a moot point to discuss. You believe on thing I believe another and it's not going to change any time soon.

139 lost is not much. Nope, not difficult at all.

Compared to other wars the lives lost in this 5+ year struggle can be considered "not much" as well.

Lowering interest rates was the catalyst, and yes, nowadays banks are being told to knock that crap off.

Who signed what? You feel all poor people are simply stupid and need protection from the pitfalls of real life? What about people who get credit cards at 24%+ and charge them to the max, Bush causing that as well?

Exponentially richer than the rest of the population does (as a % of income)? That doesn't sound normal to me. Corporations are formed to help the population? Then why isn't the rest of the population getting richer?

Some people believe corporations are there to supply jobs and it is their responsibility to do so. I say BS. I also don't hate rich people because they have money, made choices in their life that made them rich or came out with some new product that everyone wanted, thus turned out rich. Good for them.

I thought small businesses were the largest employer in the US...

Are small businesses being targeted as evil entities like corporations?

[skylndrftr]

Off the top of my head I would say leaking the "secret" CIA "prisons" and information about the "illegal" tapping of phones. Proof of who did what? Of course not.

Or releasing the identity of an undercover CIA operative as a revenge move?

BTW the CIA 'secret' prisons is easily tracked through public flight records, both here and abroad.

And also, somebody 'leaked' information regarding the watergate breakin among the other things Nixon did.

[ishkabibble]

You know my answer already. Thus it's a moot point to discuss.

Sorry, but that's weak.

Who signed what? You feel all poor people are simply stupid and need protection from the pitfalls of real life? What about people who get credit cards at 24%+ and charge them to the max, Bush causing that as well?

What the heck are you talking about? Banks sold unqualified mortgages and passed nearly all of the risk off to a quasi-governmental agency. You're ok with that?

I also don't hate rich people because they have money, made choices in their life that made them rich or came out with some new product that everyone wanted, thus turned out rich. Good for them.

Off topic. This isn't about hatred of rich, it's "why id the rich suddenly get way more rich while everyone else is treading water?"

[audtatious]

Sorry, but that's weak.

Why is it weak? We have argued the same thing on numerous occasions and neither of us are going to change our minds so why continue?

What the heck are you talking about? Banks sold unqualified mortgages and passed nearly all of the risk off to a quasi-governmental agency. You're ok with that?

I'm not OK with simply finger pointing that Bush caused it. I do agree the Gov should not be bailing banks out either. If they choose to give unqualified mortgages then they should suffer the consequences just like the idiots who agreed to them. Penny Pritzker and family seem to be the ones behind "Mortgage Backed Securities" and she is far from the Bush Admin. In fact, she is the Obama Campaigns Finance Chair.

Off topic. This isn't about hatred of rich, it's "why id the rich suddenly get way more rich while everyone else is treading water?"

Because they are capitalizing on investments and the majority of others are living beyond their means and sinking in self-inflicted debt? Just a thought.

[skylndrftr]

I don't know enough about Penny Pritzker to comment, but McCain has a history of being involved with less than reputable characters, and was investigated for it. If your going to hate on a politician for being involved with sketchy dealings your going to have to look at a lot wider group of candidates.

[ishkabibble]

I'm not OK with simply finger pointing that Bush caused it. I do agree the Gov should not be bailing banks out either. If they choose to give unqualified mortgages then they should suffer the consequences just like the idiots who agreed to them. Penny Pritzker and family seem to be the ones behind "Mortgage Backed Securities" and she is far from the Bush Admin. In fact, she is the Obama Campaigns Finance Chair.

I don't know anything about her.

Fannie and Freddie (which are quasi-government entities) absorbed a bunch of unqualified mortgages due to brokers giving out mortgages like candy and we saw part of the fallout from that today. So, the taxpayers are going to have to bail them out Fannie and Freddie in the near future. This happened on Bush's watch, and it was completely predictable that it was going to happen.

Because they are capitalizing on investments and the majority of others are living beyond their means and sinking in self-inflicted debt? Just a thought.

So, let me get this straight. The super-rich invest nearly all of their free capital and always have an incredible ROI regardless of market conditions, while the upper middle class never invests anything and is always in debt? Unlikely.

It's strange that you claim to both believe in "trickle-down economics", yet try to rationalize evidence that "trickle-down" does not trickle down. If "trickle-down" worked, the "rising tide would lift all boats", no? Or is this yet another policy which has a selective delayed effect, probably during Obama's presidency?

[audtatious]

I don't know anything about her.

http://gdaeman.blogspot.com/20....html

Fannie and Freddie (which are quasi-government entities) absorbed a bunch of unqualified mortgages due to brokers giving out mortgages like candy and we saw part of the fallout from that today. So, the taxpayers are going to have to bail them out Fannie and Freddie in the near future. This happened on Bush's watch, and it was completely predictable that it was going to happen.

Those were put in during Bush? I've already stated I think bailouts are BS. Hell, my maxima has needed 4 sets of tires during Bush's reign of terror so it's his fault.

So, let me get this straight. The super-rich invest nearly all of their free capital and always have an incredible ROI regardless of market conditions, while the upper middle class never invests anything and is always in debt? Unlikely.

The rich take the risk of losing everything due to failed investments. The poor only have the opportunity of new jobs based upon _someone_ investing in something. If the poor does not have the money and never invests then who is growing our economy? I would hope the middle class is at least investing in their future and retirement.

It's strange that you claim to both believe in "trickle-down economics", yet try to rationalize evidence that "trickle-down" does not trickle down. If "trickle-down" worked, the "rising tide would lift all boats", no? Or is this yet another policy which has a selective delayed effect, probably during Obama's presidency?

What you call trickle-down economics I call common sense. If you do not have individuals who stir the markets with new technology or new businesses then you have no need for additional workers. Where does the capital come from for these new initiatives that grow the economy since banks only back so much?

[ishkabibble]

Those were put in during Bush? I've already stated I think bailouts are BS. Hell, my maxima has needed 4 sets of tires during Bush's reign of terror so it's his fault.

Heh, unfortunately those two entities need to be bailed out. Letting them fail would not be good.

Other than that, your comment does not make sense. loose lending standards happened on Bush's watch. Period.

The rich take the risk of losing everything due to failed investments. The poor only have the opportunity of new jobs based upon _someone_ investing in something. If the poor does not have the money and never invests then who is growing our economy? I would hope the middle class is at least investing in their future and retirement.

Ok, so the entirety of the middle class is just doing really really poorly on their investments? Or what?

What you call trickle-down economics I call common sense. If you do not have individuals who stir the markets with new technology or new businesses then you have no need for additional workers. Where does the capital come from for these new initiatives that grow the economy since banks only back so much?

Lots of places, not just the super-rich. Some are funded by banks. Some are funded by corporations. Some are funded by non-profits. Some bootstrap it, using what they have in their savings. Some are even funded by the (gasp) government!

You still didn't address my point that the money does not trickle-down. Tax cuts for the rich equals a lot more money for the rich, and maybe a few pennies for everyone else. The approach needs to be a bit broader than that.

[smockers83]

So, let me get this straight. The super-rich invest nearly all of their free capital and always have an incredible ROI regardless of market conditions, while the upper middle class never invests anything and is always in debt? Unlikely.

It's strange that you claim to both believe in "trickle-down economics", yet try to rationalize evidence that "trickle-down" does not trickle down. If "trickle-down" worked, the "rising tide would lift all boats", no? Or is this yet another policy which has a selective delayed effect, probably during Obama's presidency?

Because that's not what he was saying. The rich don't always have an incredible ROI, hardly the case. In regards to the topic of mortgages, some of the upper-middle class lived outside of their means, putting them in debt. This does not equate to trickle-down economics nor them not investing. Trickle-down economics can't help these people who lived outside of their means.

To answer a question on how the rich got richer--quite a bit of it had to do with the Bush tax cuts. As taxes on rich went lower, their incomes (pre-tax) went up. This is how their incomes work (higher taxes, less pre-tax income, and vice versa). Incomes also shift between capital gains, salary, so on and so forth.

The theory of trickle-down economics starts with taxes on the rich. If you cut taxes on the rich, eventually the people below them will benefit in one way or another. The rich getting richer due to these tax cuts gives them more capital to invest. These investments spur business activity and growth, providing more/better jobs. The key thing to understand is that the trickle-down effect of people below getting more money doesn't come from the invested money itself. You are exactly right that of the invested money, those that benefit from trickle-down would only get a couple of cents out of it. But if you hire someone who previously didn't have a job or someone gets a better job, you're talking about thousands to tens of thousands of dollars.

[ishkabibble]

Yes, he is saying that they always have an incredible ROI, because that apparently was the case these past several years despite the market being in a significant downturn.

I'll ignore the fact that you are conflating the separate mortgage and trickle-down topics being discussed.

You job growth theory doesn't hold water, "trickle-down" supposedly made the rich got a lot richer, but the supply of jobs during that time period did not grow by a phenomenal amount.

What I am trying to show here is that the trickle-down approach does little besides make the rich a lot richer. It doesn't doesn't really do much to make the general populace happier. If we are going to cut taxes, we should cut them for everyone. (The effective tax rate for the rich and middle class is about the same, FYI)

[smockers83]

Yes, he is saying that they always have an incredible ROI, because that apparently was the case these past several years despite the market being in a significant downturn.

Please point out where he said that. If that's what you're implying from the statement you quoted, I have no idea how you got to that. And, umm, what market has been in significant downturn the past several years? Just curious? Rich people who can be classified as institutional investors (and even those that aren't classified as such but still very rich) do take a lot of risk out of the markets as they invest in things that others would not. Overall they do make a ROI, but they also have large failures in there as well.

Other than that, your comment does not make sense. loose lending standards happened on Bush's watch. Period.

If a comment doesn't make sense (at least to me) its this one. Why is Bush to blame for other people's actions, people who are not even related in any way to the government besides through taxes? The government is not in the business of popping into a business and saying, hey what are you doing and how are you doing it? That's the job of auditors, internal and external. Since it got out of hand, we now have to have investigations and get the government involved, but the government gets involved only once an investigation becomes needed. If you want to blame someone, blame the boards of the banks. Some people need to get that through their heads. I'd also like to inquire on how this was predictable when only the people in the business knew this was going on? I'm not taking issue with it, I'm just asking.

[audtatious]

Heh, unfortunately those two entities need to be bailed out. Letting them fail would not be good.

Other than that, your comment does not make sense. loose lending standards happened on Bush's watch. Period.

OK. All Bush's fault. You know, it feels better to finger point and play the blame game. I'm gonna sleep well tonight. Thank you for that.

Ok, so the entirety of the middle class is just doing really really poorly on their investments? Or what?

What are investments for the middle class? Usually IRA's and 401k's, maybe some money markets, CD's, etc. They make money based on what other companies or those with other initiatives do relative to increases in revenue/profit/growth. They themselves don't invest millions into new initiatives because they would then not be middle class, would they?

Lots of places, not just the super-rich. Some are funded by banks. Some are funded by corporations. Some are funded by non-profits. Some bootstrap it, using what they have in their savings. Some are even funded by the (gasp) government!

Sorry if you think I am simply making some blanket statements here. There are other avenues for investments here as you mentioned, but even then there are some "rich" people behind the loans and the banks themselves. Of course, the Gov simply sucks it out of the populations pocketbooks.

You still didn't address my point that the money does not trickle-down. Tax cuts for the rich equals a lot more money for the rich, and maybe a few pennies for everyone else. The approach needs to be a bit broader than that.

Let me ask you a question to your question. What happens if the rich and super-rich stop investing in new business and expansion?

Joe Bloe has a new idea. Joe Bloe pitches his idea to investors and banks for the money to put his new idea into production (investors and those who run banks should be considered "rich" for the most part). He get's his capital and builds a new company and has to hire employees. He uses other businesses as well for shipping, internet design, accounting, graphic design, advertising, printing, etc. He has directly added jobs for people based upon the money he received from investors and is now giving his business to other businesses who have employees. If he is successful, he invests more of his money, and potentially more of the happy investors money, into expanding his business, thus further increasing the positive impact of his business into the economy. If he is not successful, then he loses out and the investors lose money.

Now, let's further tax the "rich" or the investors in this case. With less money they are less willing to invest due to the risk of loss and people like Joe Bloe may never get the opportunity to even have a business in the first place. Investors, with less funds, will be less willing to risk those funds or only willing to invest a smaller share of their cash for the potential of a ROI. There is no guarantee of a return in any investment.

You call it trickle-down economics. I call further taxing those who are investing in our economy a stupid and limiting move from a growth perspective. It also causes existing companies, due to high corporate taxation, to look at other avenues to keep profit margins within a range acceptible to their shareholders, thus why a large number of companies have overseas factories and personnell.