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.
What if that money was spent on job creation so the poor had better opportunities to make money? You know what they say,
You give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. You teach a man to fish, he will never go hungry...
Why couldn't that money be used for job creation?
Let me give a simple example - because I don't have any complicated examples.
Poor Joe gets an $560 extra / year
I'd bet most of that would go towards eating, paying rent, gasoline and basic needs.
So, that money ends up at his local mcdonalds, and other local shops.
Even middle-class Joe probably spends the majority of his income, so an increase is likely to have the same effect - though perhaps middle-class Joe can afford to save or invest.
Of course, that money isn't going directly to mcdonalds as it would with a corporate tax cut - they have to cover costs of the goods (and employees) purchased by Poor and middle-class Joe.
But when there are so many poor Joes, and middle-class Joes getting a cut, its not hard to see demand increasing for basic services and food. Which should mean increased revenue for mcdonalds and the ability for them to create more jobs.
Let me give a simple example - because I don't have any complicated examples.
Poor Joe gets an $560 extra / year
I'd bet most of that would go towards eating, paying rent, gasoline and basic needs.
So, that money ends up at his local mcdonalds, and other local shops.
Even middle-class Joe probably spends the majority of his income, so an increase is likely to have the same effect - though perhaps middle-class Joe can afford to save or invest.
Of course, that money isn't going directly to mcdonalds as it would with a corporate tax cut - they have to cover costs of the goods (and employees) purchased by Poor and middle-class Joe.
But when there are so many poor Joes, and middle-class Joes getting a cut, its not hard to see demand increasing for basic services and food. Which should mean increased revenue for mcdonalds and the ability for them to create more jobs.
That is my theory, in any case.
it sounds good on paper...I am not sure this is how it would work though. I find it depressing that the gambling industry hasn't lost money during this financial crisis. I assumed that would be the first thing people cut out, but Casinos are still going strong, even though people have less money.
Here's a question for those of you who believe in greatly expanded social programs.
Social programs are expensive and they get more expensive over time (see Social Security, Medicare, etc.) Social programs are funded with tax money. Despite what either major party candidate says, more social programs = more taxes. (Yes, I know they claim they will cut enough spending to pay for their programs. We've heard this before. Let's not be naive...) We, the American people, are on the hook for whatever the government chooses to spend.
The Question:
Since social programs will cost the taxpayers more money, what are you personally willing to give up to expand them? How are you going to change your lifestyle to afford these programs and the corresponding taxes?
-Live in a smaller house?
-Drive cheaper cars and upgrade cars less frequently?
-Clip coupons/buy generic items rather than name brand?
-Buy clothes at discount/2nd hand stores rather than the mall?
-skimp on savings for your kids college?
-skimp on retirement and other savings?
-pay off debt slower?
-reduce gift giving at birthdays/Christmas?
-drink less beer?
-go out to eat less?
-other
What is it that you are happy to give up to pay for expanded social programs?
With all due respect Marlow, Bush did do squat, and the economy, up until the housing and financial crisis as of this year, was actually doing very well throughout the first 7 years of his Presidency, and a lot of that had to do with his tax cuts. Now don't get me wrong, I'll be glad to see him out of there finally, but let's talk about your statement, about McCan being the same. Supposing your statement were true, keeping the tax cuts in place, which would be more of the same, would be a far superior strategy for helping this economy than the strategy of Obama to raise taxes on the most successful small businesses in America, thereby causing massive layoffs. Just out of curiousity, I wonder if you are old enough to remember the Jimmy Carter years, the long gas lines, the 18% mortgage rates, 25% interest on credit cards, and a 75% tax on small businesses? Good ol Jimmy even hurt himself because no one could afford to buy his peanuts. If you don't remember this, I can certainly understand you not being able to full grasp the severity of the issue, but I can only say that you are in for quite the learning experience if he is elected.
The economy just stagnated, and there was no growth, and no incentive to invest in American companies or no incentive to start a business of your own. Interest rates were sky high and no one could afford home payments because of it.
You're going to vote for "hope" you said. You "hope" he will find us a way out of this mess. That is voting with your heart and your feelings. John McCain has been through economic times like this and has seen and been involved in what it took to manuever the country out of it. In this situation were in, voting for Obama is like going to Vegas and playing the tables. You may win, you may lose, but in this case our livelihoods are at stake, and that's not something I'm willing to gamble with. But I do thank you for stating your thoughts with civility.
The economy was booming under Clinton and we had a budget surplus. Bush got into office and cut taxes and the economy continued to do well for a while, but with a steadily growing budget deficit, even before 9/11 and the Iraq War. I don't think you can give Bush all, or even much, of the credit for the good economy during the first part of his presidency. Now, even if it means higher taxes, we have to get an handle on the deficit (and now, the bailout--ugh) or all of the growth is just an illusion.
Regarding Carter--I do remember his presidency and it wasn't good. But the recession didn't start with him. Do you remember the "WIN" program under Gerald Ford--Whip Inflation Now? I was in middle school and I thought that was lame. And that's also when the energy crisis started. Ford was president when we were all asked to lower the thermostat and wear sweaters and daylight savings time went year 'round.
Presidents are not really responsible for the economy--Congress passes the budget after all. But what a good president can do is LEAD--inspire people and give them hope and get Congress to work for the good of the country. I think that Obama will be able to do that better than McCain. If that is voting with my heart and feelings, so be it. I think it's what the country needs right now.
And thank you for being civil as well.
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.
