Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone who takes a tax cut and puts it away for a rainy day does double damage to the economy.
no, being responsible with your money isnt damaging to the economy. it helps create a strong and stable economy. encouraging people to spend for the sake of spending and creating economic activity without concern for what they can actually afford is doing damage to the economy. not to mention the fact that when people save money, the money is still being utilized by the banks and invesments that the money is put into.
the logic that people are supposed to take stimulus checks and then go out and spend them is totally idiotic. how can that possibly lead to long term economic health?
Senior citizen voters, mid-age voters, young-age voters, young children, grandchildren... and the generation after them. That is assuming that the country exists after that long.
Whether it be republican presidents or democratic presidents, one thing is true: not a single one could stop the bleeding.
Just some rough numbers from that website showing the debt that someone posted earlier:
Eisenhower administration: 7.5% increase in debt
JFK/Johnson administration: 21% increase in debt
Nixon/Ford administration: 75% increase in debt
Carter administration: 30% increase in debt
Reagan administration: 160% increase in debt
Bush#1 administration: 42% increase in debt
Clinton administration: 29% increase in debt
Bush#2 administration: 73% increase in debt
Bottom line... you can't slap yourself on the back if you were president and say "Well, I only increased the nation debt by 1.5 trillion." If an individual said after 4 or 8 years, "Hey, my overall debt (including assets) went from $100,000 to $200,000," I don't think they'd be boasting.
Side note: not counting the current administration since we don't have the concrete figures yet... democrats have held office less than 40% of the time for the time in which those debt figures are shown on that page. Naturally the other party will be responsible for more.
no, being responsible with your money isnt damaging to the economy. it helps create a strong and stable economy. encouraging people to spend for the sake of spending and creating economic activity without concern for what they can actually afford is doing damage to the economy. not to mention the fact that when people save money, the money is still being utilized by the banks and invesments that the money is put into.
the logic that people are supposed to take stimulus checks and then go out and spend them is totally idiotic. how can that possibly lead to long term economic health?
The entire concept behind Reaganomics is that you give the money back to the people and they will spend it and expand the GDP which will in turn create more tax dollars. If you give people money and they sock it away for a rainy day (which, from an individual perspective is the smart and responsible thing to do) then you do not expand the nation's GDP and the government ends up with less tax dollars. That's exactly what is wrong with trickle-down economics. It only works with the careless, stupid, frivilous people and since there are enough smart people out there (and probably the more wealthy people) then it means that you have larger deficits and larger compounded debt and an even worse fiscal position than you started with.
The real reason behind trickle-down economics is that some people think that if you cripple government revenues that other politicians will be unable to think of new ways of spending government money. Tax cuts as a way of preventing new spending has never, ever come close to working in the United States. It is a completely failed approach to fiscal management.
Yes, some of that saved away money will earn Management Expense Ratios and sales commissions for the financial industry but it will not nearly generate as much revenue as purchasing a boat or a car that was made in America. It won't generate nearly enough revenue to make up for the money that was spent on the tax cut. That's one major reason why Reagan ended up with such a large deficit compared to what he inherited. Just look one post up and you'll see it was a 160% increase.
Bush Sr. was the one who coined it "Voodoo Economics" and you'll see that he did better job at keeping the fiscal budget under some control. He knew that some times you do need to raise taxes (whether or not you can read his lips).
The real reason behind trickle-down economics is that some people think that if you cripple government revenues that other politicians will be unable to think of new ways of spending government money. Tax cuts as a way of preventing new spending has never, ever come close to working in the United States. It is a completely failed approach to fiscal management.
i love the idea of starving the government. you are right though, it doesnt work because cutting spending goes contrary to political corruption and all politicians are 100% corrupt. still, if we give up on the dream of cutting both taxes and spending then we are giving our future away to the communists.
i love the idea of starving the government. you are right though, it doesnt work because cutting spending goes contrary to political corruption and all politicians are 100% corrupt. still, if we give up on the dream of cutting both taxes and spending then we are giving our future away to the communists.
haha come on. the democratic party is the same thing as the communist party. you lose opposition and you have communism. one thing i find interesting is that communism was too offensive so they wanted to be called socialists. now the word socialism is too offensive so they cry whenever they are called socialist. ultimately, its all high taxes, redistribution of wealth, more government control, less freedom, same thing.
haha come on. the democratic party is the same thing as the communist party. you lose opposition and you have communism. one thing i find interesting is that communism was too offensive so they wanted to be called socialists. now the word socialism is too offensive so they cry whenever they are called socialist. ultimately, its all high taxes, redistribution of wealth, more government control, less freedom, same thing.
This has to be one of the dumbest polls/questions I've ever seen. You do realize that taxes aren't collected according to generation?
Generally, one has to be alive to pay taxes. The baby boomers won't be paying for all this debt if they are dead before the ship finally gets turned around.
No, but the first step is to stop the bleeding. You'll never stabilize the patient until you stop the bleeding.
Yes, bleeding must be stopped. But it won't be free. It comes with a cost, what many would call "spending". And the more things are mismanaged, for longer, the more it would take to fix. One can't expect the bleeding to be stopped for free.
Key is in having a vision for the future, to ensure bleeding can be avoided. And even that, will take some investment into the future, not just being short sighted and working with things as they turn out.
You don't expect this massive ship to turn around on a dime, do you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
