Romney comments criticized but true.

[.blank cd]

Ok, not confirming or denying the above statement, just repeating......

so Romney wants to help rich people, Obama wants to help poor people.

From which of these would everyone benefit the most? If we lower taxes on poor people, are they going to start hiring people and rebuilding america? If we lower taxes on poor people, are they going to start investing and stimulating the economy?

Poor people are the job creators. When middle class people have money, they buy things, they pay utilities. This creates demand for things. When people buy things, you need more people to make more things. This is economics 099. Rich people can create all the jobs they want, but if middle class and poor people don't have money to buy things, then they're dead in the water. This is why Regans supply-side economics model is a collossal one-sided failure. When rich people get more money, they save it and/or hide it off shore, or they invest it in companies that people aren't buying from. Sitting money does nothing. When you give rich people more money in the form of tax breaks, it gets saved.

Let's say you took TARP and let's say half of funds spent on hostilities and just gave it to everyone who pays fed taxes(maybe 150m people). Lets call it $2T. That works out to roughly $10-15k What would you do with it? Buy groceries? Car parts? Clothes? Pay bills? If a million more people are buying these things, you think another grocery store or car parts store or clothing store would have to pop up, full of employees?

[stillaneon]

Poor people are the job creators. When middle class people have money, they buy things, they pay utilities. This creates demand for things. When people buy things, you need more people to make more things. This is economics 099. Rich people can create all the jobs they want, but if middle class and poor people don't have money to buy things, then they're dead in the water. This is why Regans supply-side economics model is a collossal one-sided failure. When rich people get more money, they save it and/or hide it off shore, or they invest it in companies that people aren't buying from. Sitting money does nothing. When you give rich people more money in the form of tax breaks, it gets saved.

Let's say you took TARP and let's say half of funds spent on hostilities and just gave it to everyone who pays fed taxes(maybe 150m people). Lets call it $2T. That works out to roughly $10-15k What would you do with it? Buy groceries? Car parts? Clothes? Pay bills? If a million more people are buying these things, you think another grocery store or car parts store or clothing store would have to pop up, full of employees?

But that doesn't mean that 'Poor People are creating the jobs'. It means that they are a high percentage of the people creating the demand. Someone still has to put up the capital to create the supply for the demand. This is where the job creation comes from. Not the consumer...

[Vteckidd]

Poor people are the job creators. When middle class people have money, they buy things, they pay utilities. This creates demand for things. When people buy things, you need more people to make more things. This is economics 099. Rich people can create all the jobs they want, but if middle class and poor people don't have money to buy things, then they're dead in the water. This is why Regans supply-side economics model is a collossal one-sided failure. When rich people get more money, they save it and/or hide it off shore, or they invest it in companies that people aren't buying from. Sitting money does nothing. When you give rich people more money in the form of tax breaks, it gets saved.

Median Family income increased every year, until IIRC last year of bush and 1st year of Obama. That, by definition, means trickle down works. Its not perfect and could always use improvement, but the fact that society as a whole benefited from largely conservative economic principles via Reagan, Bush, Clinton , Bush proves that model is the best.

More people owned made more money, invested, went to school, bought cars, etc

Let's say you took TARP and let's say half of funds spent on hostilities and just gave it to everyone who pays fed taxes(maybe 150m people). Lets call it $2T. That works out to roughly $10-15k What would you do with it? Buy groceries? Car parts? Clothes? Pay bills? If a million more people are buying these things, you think another grocery store or car parts store or clothing store would have to pop up, full of employees?

Your scenario would not work, it would lead to massive inflation and price hikes. If everyone was just given $15,000, prices of good would double triple, etc to keep up with the inflation you just created.

Its what happened in the
housing market - Give everyone loans regardless of if they can pay, Housing prices skyrocket
College tuition- give everyone college loans, tuition skyrockets

Traditionally you can give small amount back in rebates or something and it has little to no effect. But massive amounts like you are talking about isnt feasible. The money has to be created and generated from the private sector and transferred to the people or it cannot be created at all.

We are in agreement that TARP did little to nothing to the economy if not just make it worse