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.
Finger point all you want. In the end..OUR Congress could have possibly stopped the subprime bubble but chose to publicly say there was "NO PROBLEM" with housing.
The SEC and banking regulators could have possibly stopped the banksters from overleveraging themselves but chose to let them "SELF REGULATE".
The very people who let this happen blame everyone but themselves.
And they even think they can save us with more government.
The good news is that even Barney Frank may lose reelection this time around. It's not going to fix what he and his cohorts did, or allowed to be done by refusing to take action, but at least its something.
Well we ceretainly know that Oabma's spending didn't vreat any jobs worth having.The governamnt never crets jobs worth having its laways paid for by privte sewctor inclusing governamnt jobs. that is because they depend on private markets for their revenues.
So unemployment was 10% before 0bama was sworn into office?
This is not a fight between Bush and Obama. It's a fight between competing economic schools of thought.
Tax cuts + deregulation + easy credit = Boom/Bust. The boom, we all saw. It was great times, and everyone had a blast spending money they never had. The bust, we all saw as well. We're still deep inside it.
We need a better way to heal the economy, and tax cuts are NOT IT. Tax cuts have led to capital flight out of America, and rampant speculation, rather than business reinvestment (as proponents would have us believe). Instead of being nearly forced to reinvest capital into their businesses by sheltering their income from high taxes, the wealthy are able to take a majority of that money from their business after dodging taxes and use it to either speculate, or sock it away offshore. It either becomes a plaything on wall-street, or deadweight. A static dollar is a useless dollar, the point of high taxes is not to take away all the money, but to make reinvestment into your business the logical option. The most beneficial tax shelter is investment in business.
This is not a fight between Bush and Obama. It's a fight between competing economic schools of thought.
Tax cuts + deregulation + easy credit = Boom/Bust. The boom, we all saw. It was great times, and everyone had a blast spending money they never had. The bust, we all saw as well. We're still deep inside it.
We need a better way to heal the economy, and tax cuts are NOT IT. Tax cuts have led to capital flight out of America, and rampant speculation, rather than business reinvestment (as proponents would have us believe). Instead of being nearly forced to reinvest capital into their businesses by sheltering their income from high taxes, the wealthy are able to take a majority of that money from their business after dodging taxes and use it to either speculate, or sock it away offshore. It either becomes a plaything on wall-street, or deadweight. A static dollar is a useless dollar, the point of high taxes is not to take away all the money, but to make reinvestment into your business the logical option. The most beneficial tax shelter is investment in business.
so businessmen will start hiring once their taxes go up? sounds like fuzzy math. If you're talking about rich businessmen then they will invest in their business if it is profitable. Higher taxes put an extra burden on them, so they cut back on benefits & employees.
more money in the pockets of the people = more money circulating through the economy. the government has proven that it wastes money. Higher taxes = bad policy
so businessmen will start hiring once their taxes go up? sounds like fuzzy math. If you're talking about rich businessmen then they will invest in their business if it is profitable. Higher taxes put an extra burden on them, so they cut back on benefits & employees.
more money in the pockets of the people = more money circulating through the economy. the government has proven that it wastes money. Higher taxes = bad policy
This is the failure of supply-side. It sounds good on paper, but fails to take into account things like demand for the products and services that the businesses provide, or a compliant middle-class with plenty of discretionary income. Those things are also affected by taxes, but in an opposite way. Higher taxes on corporations and the rich may put an extra burden on them, but it takes that burden off of the middle class, who buys the products and services of the corporations and the rich. You do not have to believe me, you can look at historic tax rates in America for yourself, and then look at historic GDP in America, and also at periods of sustained economic growth and job creation.
The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well.
Does this mean that higher taxes will automatically mean better economic growth? Of course not. Debating the economy is like debating worldwide weather patterns. Nobody has the answer for everything.
However, if we look to history for answers in America, we do find that very high tax rates on the wealthy do not have a negative effect. The opposite appears to be true.
Somebody must bear the "burden" of high taxes. The point to realize is that the wealthy benefit from bearing that burden. If the "lower" echelons have low taxes and plenty of excess capital, they are likely to spend it, with the poor being the most likely to spend their money, and the rich being the least likely. So that money goes directly to the product and service providers who are so highly taxed. Demand grows for everything because the lower and middle classes have money to spend, and they are suckers for good advertising. Money "Trickles Up" to the wealthy.
The other side of the tax coin, is how does the government spend the money? If it builds infrastructure, improves and expands education, provides incentives for small businesses, and other domestic improvement, that spending all goes right back into the nation and improves it. If, on the other hand, it builds a trillion-dollar war machine for "power projection," creates a welfare state, throws the valves of the treasury wide open for wall street banks, etc... Well, you might have our current situation, where we have historically low taxes, coupled with historically high debt, no job creation, no wealth creation, and no end in sight.
To recap: Fiscally responsible and domestically-focused government, responsible regulation, a low tax burden on the middle class and a high tax burden on the wealthy, leads to prolonged economic growth without excessive risky investment or powerful boom-bust cycles.
The Bush tax cuts were not designed to create jobs. They were designed to transfer wealth to the already wealthy by shifting government costs to the wage earners.
Who needs these numbers? A sure-DEPRESSION was what we were headed towards when Obama took office. Bush's presidency was an utter failure and his policies stunk pretty bad. The economy was in shambles, 49 states an an economic free fall because of 8 years of Bush/Republican incompetence. All are still staggering from the stench that was Bush's agenda. The results speak for themselves, the tax cuts did NOT help. This is clear to all except the clueless regressives.
To recap: The Red states were wrong; Neocons were wrong; Republicans were wrong; Conservatives were wrong; Cheney, Bush, Rove, Limbaugh, Kristol, Gingrich - all wrong and misguided. Trickle-down, deregulation, small government, tax cuts, warmongering ALL FAILED! Despite the collosal failure, this sorry mindset is still being shoved in our faces by the third string: Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Romney, and the rest of the usual suspects. Quite pathetic is what it is.Of course the Bush tax cuts failed.
Everything Bush did failed. Obama doesn't seem to be on the passing track either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro
This is the failure of supply-side. It sounds good on paper, but fails to take into account things like demand for the products and services that the businesses provide, or a compliant middle-class with plenty of discretionary income. Those things are also affected by taxes, but in an opposite way. Higher taxes on corporations and the rich may put an extra burden on them, but it takes that burden off of the middle class, who buys the products and services of the corporations and the rich. You do not have to believe me, you can look at historic tax rates in America for yourself, and then look at historic GDP in America, and also at periods of sustained economic growth and job creation.
The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well.
Does this mean that higher taxes will automatically mean better economic growth? Of course not. Debating the economy is like debating worldwide weather patterns. Nobody has the answer for everything.
However, if we look to history for answers in America, we do find that very high tax rates on the wealthy do not have a negative effect. The opposite appears to be true.
Somebody must bear the "burden" of high taxes. The point to realize is that the wealthy benefit from bearing that burden. If the "lower" echelons have low taxes and plenty of excess capital, they are likely to spend it, with the poor being the most likely to spend their money, and the rich being the least likely. So that money goes directly to the product and service providers who are so highly taxed. Demand grows for everything because the lower and middle classes have money to spend, and they are suckers for good advertising. Money "Trickles Up" to the wealthy.
The other side of the tax coin, is how does the government spend the money? If it builds infrastructure, improves and expands education, provides incentives for small businesses, and other domestic improvement, that spending all goes right back into the nation and improves it. If, on the other hand, it builds a trillion-dollar war machine for "power projection," creates a welfare state, throws the valves of the treasury wide open for wall street banks, etc... Well, you might have our current situation, where we have historically low taxes, coupled with historically high debt, no job creation, no wealth creation, and no end in sight.
To recap: Fiscally responsible and domestically-focused government, responsible regulation, a low tax burden on the middle class and a high tax burden on the wealthy, leads to prolonged economic growth without excessive risky investment or powerful boom-bust cycles.
Simple and true. But logic and sense, play no part in our country anymore.
We are ALL now, paying for GREED. Paying for the mistakes of the uncaring greedy. Oh well. Everything in it's own time comes full circle.
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.
Of course the Bush tax cuts failed.
But logic and sense, play no part in our country anymore. 
