Texsox

I went 1000 levels and it never reach 100% it was 99.9877 returned. It can never go over $100 unless someone is adding into the original $100. If you start with $100 you will end with $100 no matter how many time you divide it up.

Again, I am not conceeding that government waste is anywhere near that high. What waste I've seen is brought on by excessive laws regarding specifications, the biggest one is buy American. So if we are that ineffective, we need to push our elected officials to improve. However, for the sake of debate I will agree. I then ask isn't it true that the company that is making more profit can pay their people better and those people will spend more at the local restaurant? I thought we were trying to get money into peoples hands? If the owner of the hammer company that is supplying to Home Depot is squeezed for profits how does he expand? And wouldn't there be a bigger risk of him building the hammer in China? At least with the US Government buying the hammer we know it is Americans that will be employed. Or is that even a factor in thuis model?

Thank you, we are getting closer. And thank you for taking us one step at time. I built a quick spread sheet. Starting with $100 and using an 20% tax rate and $0 into savings at the 27th level 99% of the money is returned. So I will conceed that we may approach a 100% payback. (I won't bring up interest) But how does $100 less to Washington ever add up to $101 later being returned? In other words how can the GOP say if we cut taxes $X dollars we will get something like $X+ back?

mreye, where did the $20,000 to pay that new employee come from? If it was my $1000 plus 19 other taxpayer's $1000 we just took $20,000 out of taxes and this person will only pay $4,000. Sounds like a $16000 loss in revenue. SS2k4 yes, please please explain how it multiplys. If a government worker cashes her paycheck and goes to the grocery store, does it have less of an impact than if you or I cash our paychecks and go to the grocery store? If the government builds a new building how does it have less of an impact than if you or I build a new building? I am not necessarily conceeding the point that the government is less wastefull than say a private company like Enron or K-Mart. But for the sake of debate, let's assume they are. If spendable income sparks the economy then wouldn't a company that is making 15% from a government job hire more people than someone who is making 10% from a private sector job? Wouldn't they pay their workers more money, so they could buy more stuff and return more money to Washington?

And that is the beauty of this plan. No one without a degree in econ can explain it. So the GOP says trust us, it works. And if anyone says it doesn't, they are part of the liberal media and cannot be trusted. It also makes people feel better that they can keep more of their money and the government will have more money too! Wow, isn't that wonderful. The citizens and the government all get more money. We can have our cake and eat it too. There is a free lunch. If we cut everyone's taxes to $2 per year, we would have so much money to run the government we couldn't spend it all. I would love to be convinced this works. It still seems to me if I was scheduled to pay $5000 in taxes and now I pay $4000 someone else needs to pay at least my $1000 for the system to break even. If everyone's rates are cut we need new people (Someone who was scheduled to pay $0 now pays $2000) to begin paying or someone who was scheduled to pay $1000 now pays $2000 (that sounds like an increase).

My fear is if this team does not look like it is going to postseason play, JR will want to dismantle and shoot for 2006 or 2007. We will start trading for "can't miss" prospects. In that scenario, Frank, Maggs, Jose, E-Lo, Sandy, and others are looking good to some other teams and probably not in our 2006/2007 plans.

Ok we cut taxes by $1,000,000,000. How does $1,000,0000,001 get back to Washington? If we cut everyone's tax rate, who pays the increased taxes to have more money in Washington? Do shopkeepers pay more in taxes? So if shopkeepers all get the $1,000,000,000 is their tax rate 105%? If we take the 5% of Americans who are unemployed and give them the $1,000,000,000 is their tax rate 105%

I thought profit was the key. If the shop keeper makes more profit doesn't he have more to invest? Actually I've been a supplier to many different government agencies and they pay some very cheap prices. The expenditures that everyone points to is usually military and those parts are built to much higher specks than civilian. I remember the infamous $1000 coffee pot. That was going on a spy plane and needed zero electrical emmisions so it would not be detected by the enemy. Nothing like a $40 Mr. Coffee kicking on and every tracker in Russia pointing and saying "there it is". And before someone asks why they need a coffee pot, that crew was typically on duty for up to 24 hours.

But how does the $1 multiply? The owner gets a dollar, builds kitchens, hires people, and send $1.20 to Washington? Using a 20% tax rate, the payroll will have to increase $5 for every dollar we take out of the system. Why does payrolls increase 5x for every $1 the shopkeeper gets? Where does the other $4 come from?

mreye, I'm not trying to be a dick, but I've ben hearing this for years and no one has been able to explain it. Why do republicans keep repeating this cut taxes to raise revenues, yet have no idea how it works? It seems to me, and using a rather unflattering label, that Tax and Spend Democrates seem more honest in their approach than cut taxes and spend Republicans. On one hand one group is saying "if we want these programs we have to increase taxes to pay for it". The other side seems to be offering "we can have these programs -and- cut your taxes". I would love for that to work, but I do not want a huge deficit for my kids to pay off.

OK she takes the $1.00 and spreads it between three people. How will those three wind up paying $1.20 in taxes? It is still only a $1 going in. If we send $1 to Washington, doesn't Washington spend that $1? Why is it different if the government spends the $1 or me? Besides it makes me feel better. If Washington spends a $1 on buying food for a deserving family, wouldn't the store increase their sales and it would have the same economic benefit?

Ouch. IMHO the least heralded advancement the last century was longevity. We are living an amazing amount of time now. A hundred years ago 50 was a ripe old age. Now it's 80. But we are finding all new frailities of our bodies. Soon we will fix those. 60 years ago a broken hip was damn near terminal. Now it's a concern but not nearly as life threatening. God Bless her. She already has a huge factor helping her, family and fiends who love her and will take an interest in her recovery.

A couple holes. Why would the restaurant owner build a bigger restaurant if they have the same number of customers? It's like the Blackhawks building a bigger stadium. It still comes down to the same number of people in the US sending money to Washington. We have about 6% unemployment. If I spend a dollar, how does another person send in $1.20 in taxes?

From all your friends here

And playing for different teams if we have a s***ty first half

smooth Steff, very smooth. I'll bet Jim didn't suspect a thing . . . Did he say something witty like have a nice trip, see you next fall?

I thought George W and saw it was cw posting and thought WTF?

THE three republicans in my county all happen to be friends of mine and last night they all tried to explain why if we cut individual taxes, Washington gets more money. We were discussing why George W likes to spend money and cut taxes. They tell me it works something like this: Individuals will take their $1 saved from taxes and spend it. The shop keepers will make more money and either: hire more people or reinvest it. Now we've taken 1 dollar away from Washington (increasing the defecit) and bought donuts. How does that $1 multiply so it becomes $1.20 in income tax? If you hire someone with the profits from that $1, I'll use .50 as an example. That person would pay $.13 in taxes. Seems like we lost .87 to fund the military, social security, the war on drugs, the war on terrorism, etc. Looks like Washington gives up $1 and gets back less. I do not see anyway for that $1 to magically become two dollars.

BeGood, MAYBE every once in a while, properly done, it would be nice to see an all cap kick off. Or soon we will have a Teddy Patalak on our hands. Obscure reference.

I believe this assertion should be verified, for the integrity of soxtalk. You'll need to send photos

I feel the love . . .

Then would you be against a draft? After all in times of war, it is in our best interest to have a full military. As far a public transportation; would it be wrong to shut off sections of a city to private vehicles to help eliminate air pollutions? Mexico City uses a system where based on your license plate number you can drive on certain days and not others.

And all of these people are in the gene pool

This could be a very significant year in Sox baseball. Lee, Crede, and Olivo are on the rise, Mark and Kong need to regain some career momentum, Frank needs to hang on. Maggs just needs to keep doing his thing. At the mid season point we are going to have a tough decision. If we are in the race, we will be buying. If we are out of the race, we could be in a situation for a big sale with some very good trade bait. If we are not winning we will see a huge turnover of personnel and a few years of crappy teams. I could easily see any of the following gone: Frank, E-Lo, Kong, Koch, and a couple others.

In four months we will be either buying or selling. If we are 8 games out, hell the Yankees may be talking about Mark or E-Lo.