Fast Number Crunch, Made Me Sick

[Iacobus]

Bush's tax cut of 1.5 trillon ($1,500,000,000,000) dollars and his Iraq aid package (not counting the bugdeted amounts of 84,000,000,000 or was it 87? I used 84) none of which is being repaid for either of them. I was intrested if the goverement wrote out a check for each person in the US (not counting familes I am going by PERSON) under the very low Federal Poverte line and used only those two spending amounts HOW MUCH WOULD THAT CHECK BE?

In 2002, the Cenus reported 34.6 million Americans (or about 12.1% of ALL Americans) lived under the poverty line. Those two spending bills which could have been avoided equaled 1,584,000,000,000 dollars. So here is what I did...

1,584,000,000,000/34,600,000=?

Any guesses?

Guess what? It is higher than the avg American's salary at $42,409.

The US Federal Goverment could have divliered directly $45,780 to EVERY person under the povety line.

So I was than even more intrested seeing as my family paid MORE in taxes after the Bush tax cuts with little change in intake...

If the funds from those two bills were passed out equaly among the American population each PERSON would get $5,394.

[quote]Bush officials estimate that a family of four in a $42,000 household will save $1,083 annually. [/quote]

That is $270 a person. A $5,124 dollar diffence between if it was handed out as a check for both funds. Even with the tax cut alone there still is $4838 difference per person...

And say the US was feeling like being a nice guy...

We could give $251 to every man, woman, and child on earth...

Please tell me that money was spent wisly

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Keeping in mind that the poverty in Iraq is probably worse than ours...I think it's going to good causes.

It's not poverty of money, but poverty of soul that I fear.

[Iacobus]

...

Addressing poverty would be more likly to address more base issues. We can't ban killing than not provide for other means. Unrest leads to crime and sin. Proverty leads to unrest.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Jul 3 2004, 02:08 AM'] ...

Addressing poverty would be more likly to address more base issues. We can't ban killing than not provide for other means. Unrest leads to crime and sin. Proverty leads to unrest. [/quote]
No, Iacobus. Poverty in itself leads to virtue. Poverty in the context of people who think poverty is bad is what causes unrest.

[Iacobus]

Proverty due to opression and being ignored and the need for money leads to people trying other means. Like stealing or going out for gangs, etc. Also the more poor a region is the more likly that area is to be at war. So addressing proverty MAY lead to addressing other issues. Poverty to the extent of living and being safe without the comforts and poverty poverty (family of four earning less than 16,000 a year) are diffenrent things.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Jul 3 2004, 02:22 AM'] Proverty due to opression and being ignored and the need for money leads to people trying other means. Like stealing or going out for gangs, etc. Also the more poor a region is the more likly that area is to be at war. So addressing proverty MAY lead to addressing other issues. Poverty to the extent of living and being safe without the comforts and poverty poverty (family of four earning less than 16,000 a year) are diffenrent things. [/quote]
In particular:

[quote]Poverty to the extent of living and being safe without the comforts and poverty poverty (family of four earning less than 16,000 a year) are diffenrent things.
[/quote]

There is only one true type of poverty. When you mention "being safe" that is not something which is absent from poverty, because, strictly speaking, poverty has nothing to do with being safe or with being unsafe. The same applies with comfort.

Poverty itself is not to be feared, as Blessed Mother Theresa showed us. It is poverty in the midst of a society which scorns poverty which is the problem.

You and I have had similar discussions before. You know my stance. First comes morality, then comes politics (a section of morality). If people followed morality, there would be no need for welfare, for police, for luxury, etc. If you want peace, work for justice. If you want justice, work for morality.

[Iacobus]

Yes, we have talked about this before. But in my mind reliving massive porevrty would help lead to a better world.

[Oik]

President Bush, or our government aren't perfect. On this issue though, id have to lean in your direction. Handing out money would momentarily lead to a better world, but who knows about the long run.

[quote]First comes morality, then comes politics (a section of morality). If people followed morality, there would be no need for welfare, for police, for luxury, etc. If you want peace, work for justice. If you want justice, work for morality.[/quote]

I agree. So we as catholics set the living example. So, it is as catholics that we address the need of others. So all of us should employ (or deploy) the means we have (even if that means pushing for others to do something).

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Oik' date='Jul 3 2004, 01:03 PM'] President Bush, or our government aren't perfect. On this issue though, id have to lean in your direction. Handing out money would momentarily lead to a better world, but who knows about the long run. [/quote]
It would work short term, yes. But I say it would work long term maybe.

Two reasons,

*note here I am refering to the per American every*

Some American's would not spend this money or this money would not make them stilumated to buy something. This is due to the pure reason that if Bill Gates wants a new car Bill Gates is going to buy a new car, rebate or no.

However, many in the lower and middle classes would be encourged to spend money. Trust me a $5,000 check per person in a family of 5 yeilding 25,000 would be spent. Some of it would be put into stocks and bonds of course but that would also stimulate the stock market. Many families would pay off debt (which hurts the ecomoy) or buy some big ticket item (new applinces, car, computer, etc).

This increased buying cycle would create demand and produce an up take in the economy.

This incease in the economy would lead to creation of more jobs to make supply meet demand. Thus jobs would be made for those who wanted jobs.

This would help the ecomny and would lead to more prospietry. So I think it would help in the long run as well.

[Lounge Daddy]

[font="Courier"]i wanna make sure i understand what you are saying...
do you think you would have any tax refund at all with a Dem in office?
With a Dem in office you will have a tax increase, and the $$ will go to a bunch of bloated agencies - supposedly charitable government groups.

or do you simply have a problem with getting Iraq on it's feet again?[/font]

[Iacobus]

No, I see the war in Iraq as a big mistake and the money we put into Iraq avoidable because Iraq was an error. And the tax cut I also see as a mistake. I don't see tax cuts as bad but I see SSE tax cuts as bad. Bush (like Reagan and Harding) supports SSE even thought it is clearly flawed.

[Lounge Daddy]

[font="Courier"]"SSE" tax cuts?
ok... school me[/font]

[Iacobus]

Supply Side Economics (aka Trickle down or Reagannomics)

[dUSt]

How many poor people do you know? I know a lot. I can assure you that every poor person I know is poor because of their own decisions--not because of any type of oppression or government policies.

Bush's emphasis on strengthening the family is an attempt to get to the root of the problem. A government handout would be a very temporary solution, and I gaurantee you that 90% of that handout would go towards buying a big screen TV, a new car stereo, rims, drugs or alcohol. I doubt very seriously that it would go towards an investment, purchasing a home, or a college education for the kids.

If we're handing out money to the [b]truly[/b] oppressed, I say we give it [b]all[/b] to other countries, where the opportunities are [b]not[/b] there, like they are here in America. When did we start placing more importance on our individual countries than on humanity?

[dUSt]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Jul 3 2004, 03:12 PM'] Supply Side Economics (aka Trickle down or Reagannomics) [/quote]
In your opinion, what would be a better type of tax cut?

I say we need more tax cuts. I applaud Bush for it. Let's let the people who earn the money keep more of it, as opposed to growing the government. Smaller govmnt = better.