If you understood Nono's point, why is this self-promotion necessary? Hand-outs increased the debt exactly as much as they were expected to.
On the contrary. The stimulus was suppose to offset the effects somewhat, but never did. Unemployment still remains high, and will as long as businesses don't have a sense of stability in regulations and taxes, and as long as we export high paying jobs over seas.
You supply siders are so funny. The private sector has been sitting on the sidelines with stuffed balance sheets. The problem is not on the supply side, it's on the demand. It's really not that difficult.
No, the stimulus was supposed to create jobs. Had it done so, it may have also created enough tax revenue to begin paying for itself, but it certainly wasn't passed as a deficit-reducing measure as much as an economic disaster-averting one.
The rest of your thought is beyond the scope of what I was addressing, but I will say it isn't the high-paying jobs that are leaving the country, it is hum-drum middle- and low-pay-scale positions, and even coddling legislation and tax-cuts to encourage corporations to keep manufacturing, CS, etc stateside hasn't worked (see: Rust Belt). The returns corporations get on product with minimum labor costs are too attractive, and the only way to compete with those #s short of legislation is to lower the US standard of living to match China's or hope for a crazy global energy crisis that makes shipping displace the savings on labor.
The problem is government cannot fix things as they claim.
Supply Sider? How do you figure, or is that how your bias has me pegged?
The government does not create jobs. the free market does, when they see a need to hire employees.
There needs to be an increased demand before businesses will, hire employees. As things stand, the economy has taken a nose dive after democrats took control of congress. the reason is all the talk of regulation, taxes, health care, etc. Businesses are not willing to take the risk with ever changing rules which complicates things as well.
Businesses need a clear future before investing in the future. Else, they fail and go bankrupt.
Do you not support policy that looks to increase output and unemployment by reducing government involvement in the economy to allow the free market to operate? I honestly don't know. I saw your comment on businesses not having a sense of stability in regulations and taxes, and jumped to that conclusion. So you're a protectionist? No taxes except on foreign compe ion?
So the Democrats are responsible? Is Lehman Bros in the Dem party? Goldman Sachs? Bear Stearns? Always with the partisan , as though the Dems and GOP aren't both bankrolled by the same interests to receive the same outcomes.
Businesses need robust lines of credit to invest in the future. Such credit is not available because banks are spending their bailout money acquiring assets at bargain prices instead of helping smaller-scale businesses and borrowers.
I'm not completely for any one extreme you mention. I have advocated elimination of corporate taxes, but that is for two reasons. Making our products more compe ive against foreign items, and more affordable as exports. Reason two is because there is double taxation to the owners of these corporations. The stock owners business is taxed, and then they are taxed again on the stocks as they receive income from them as capital gains or dividends.
I fully support tariffs as needed to keep US made goods compe ive, but not so expensive as to hamper foreign good people want. Out founding fathers had it right in Article 1 section 8 to To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.
To increase output, we need demand. Without demand, the price of sales will be lower than it should be, possible without profit.
Seems to me it's those who think these stimulus will work, are the supply siders. Adding supply with no demand.
I am in favor of reducing government involvement, but with care when it comes to regulations. I am in favor of complete elimination of some federal department. I am in favor of radically simplifying tax codes to the point of making it impossible to be a political football.
I could go on, but maybe that gives you a better sense of my thoughts.
Say what you will, but about six month after the democrats took control of congress with their continual talk of increasing taxes and change, things started falling apart.
I didn't need hindsight to know the tax cuts would severely increase the debt too.
My point is that the added jobs were suppose to offset the debt somewhat with the tax revenue they provided, and the added corporate taxes also. All this never happened, so far more of the stimulus remains as debt than if it worked as marketed.
The stimulus was passed as a way to try to pump the economy from a deep recession. Much like tax cuts were supposed to trigger a trickle down effect that was also supposed to pump the economy and create more jobs.
Both are different ways to apply the same Keynesian handout, and in hindsight neither worked and both increased the debt. I will always argue they're worth trying.
Your partisan revisionist history really is re ed. You can trace back the bubble that caused this recession as far back as Clinton, meaning it was coddled by both parties the same, when both parties have had control of both the legislative and the executive to this point.
And the tax cuts were supposed to be offset by increased trickle down and new hires, creating new tax payers. All this never happened, so far more of the tax cuts remain as debt than if it worked as marketed.
Correlation does not imply causation. Congress can't pass anything without the Republican president signing off the bills.
Where exactly do you think that demand is going to come from if not through government transfers? I don't understand why you think that redistributing wealth from the rich who save and invest (more increasingly in foreign markets as that's where the return is) to the poor, who spend everything they have on goods and services, will not increase demand. The government can, in fact, increase demand by simply transferring wealth through taxation. What's you're problem with that solution?
I disagree. I believe the tax cuts started in 2003 and we had a rise in revenue as a percentage of GDP, until after the democrats took office and started scaring job providers with talks of increasing the burden of doing business. It went from 16.1% of GDP in 2004 to 18.5% of GDP in 2007.
It's a solution for losers. You are only attempting to shift who buys something. You take away spending power from the rich, and they spend less. You give it to the poor so they spend more. That is a zeros net gain. It's a solution for losers. I say we need to get the losers working, stop giving them handouts. More productivity and less siphoning. this is far from the fix, but it is part of the problem.
The root problems are not being addressed. We are outsourcing too much. We need to bring jobs back here.
Call it the "Fear factor."
Please don't tell me you think business people do not assess what they think will happen in the future. Democrats did nothing but promise Americans not so well of to take from those who are well off. That is the trigger to our recession.
How are we going to get the losers working if there is no increase in demand? Again, the problem is with demand, not supply. You need to increase demand. What policy, if any, do you suggest the government implements to increase demand?
Look at this graph. There was higher revenue after the tax cuts, and a sudden drop after democrats took control of congress.
So more tax cuts to increase demand? That's the policy you're recommending? So, you're a supply sider, just as I had you pinned initially. Cool.Look at this graph. There was higher revenue after the tax cuts, and a sudden drop after democrats took control of congress.
Nice graph. I'm a photoshop guy myself, but I do enjoy an old school ms paint-job.Look at this graph. There was higher revenue after the tax cuts, and a sudden drop after democrats took control of congress.
The Dems psyched everyone out?
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...nal-points.jpg
That's the graph picture link. My man WC is chock full of credible sources and that's why I love him.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote