Government stimulus in an economic downturn is good at one thing, inspiring lender confidence. The idea behind this is that if more money is lent (especially to business owners) that economic growth will result. So you may be saying isn't that just what we need right now? Well the problem isn't lender confidence its consumer confidence. http://www.conference-board.org/pdf_free/economics/bci/tcb20.pdf, http://www.phoenixmanagement.com/newsroom/phoenix-survey-indicates-lenders-confidence-waning These two studies indicate the problem is with consumer demand, there is plenty of money in the lenders pockets but no one to take it. So the next question is what sparks consumer confidence. That question is simple, tax cuts. Tax cuts put more money in the hands of the consumer and lead to businesses wanting to expand. Quantitative easing is the current trick that the Obama administration is using to jump start the economy but again this is a form of government stimulus and affects only lender confidence. We need to boost consumer confidence and the only way to do that is broad and sweeping tax cuts.
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Really not trying to be harsh. Gotta love a man with your dapper fashion sense, but down to business:
I'm not quite sure where you're getting your facts...
Take the European economy for example. Sure they has unemployment problems in the past. Especially during the 1960s and 1970s, but the rate of unemployment among 24-55 year old individuals in Europe (whats called the working segment)is no different then ours. They economy in Europe is also recovering slightly quicker then our own. Deregulation has taken place, as well as regulation, but the notion that eliminating social services, repealing ObamaCare, and what, lowering taxes to 10% or imposing a fairtax, is going to fix the economy is just ridiculous. "Government spending, government spending, government spending" blah blah blah. If you people gave a shit about the federal deficit you wouldn't be screaming not to repeal the Bush tax cuts. How you can rationalize being more concerned with the man who makes 10 millions dollars a year and is going to see his taxes increase then with the single mother of 3 working 2 jobs who can't even afford health insurance... I just don't understand.
Your Germany example (jot here, but given in person)doesn't work... they have a national bank... period.
If you also think the economic collapse had anything to do with taxes... or the poor minorities who bought homes they couldn't really afford... you're also kidding yourself.
Also, I'm curious.
I'm anti-tax because I think or taxes are spent in an insane fashion. You seem to be categorically opposed to taxation.
Wealthy Americans, corporations, etc. constantly tie up the American judicial system with frivolous lawsuits. Their wealth requires tremendous protection. Not only policy protection (tax free futures, trusts, etc.) but military protection.
In essence, they use and require MORE government. So the idea that they should pay higher rates of taxation (something Thomas Jefferson himself supported)doesn't seem all that absurd to me...
How do you justify your views?
@Michael Lines:
First of all, I can tell we're going to get along. Your line of questioning resembles my own, ever so slightly. That said, down to business:
"If you people gave a shit about the federal deficit you wouldn't be screaming not to repeal the Bush tax cuts."
What do you mean, you people?
Your demeanor is low grade. What, in the original post, could have possibly led you to believe that the author wants to eliminate social services, repeal Obamacare, or instigate the Fair Tax? Point to the phrasing which demonstrates the author's support for Bush's tax cuts. Your unsupported retort that the poster's (accused) positions are "ridiculous" is just as ridiculous, if not more so for the irony.
Now, if you know this poster ouside of this blog, and choose to attack other things he/she has claimed in a response to this post, then you're essentially attacking character, and forgive me for my previous demands. If you think you're too cool to bring any deductive logic or supporting information into a public discussion, then you come off as a troll.
I disagree with several things in uncommon sense's post. Other things I might agree with, but for different reaons. I would like to respond to the subject matter, as well as to your own outrageous claims, but I first feel obligated to address this silly business. We're here to debate, so explain why "they use and require MORE government". I have similar thoughts on this spiral effect. I would just like to see your reasoning to contrast it with mine.
"I'm anti-tax because I think or taxes are spent in an insane fashion. You seem to be categorically opposed to taxation."
I, myself, happen to be categorically opposed to taxation precisely because the tendency is to spend taxes in an insane fashion. I'll make a post centering around this believe, for fuller detail.
Just because Jefferson "supported" something doesn't give it any validity. I'm not entirely sure I even believe that claim. I'll have to research it, or...hey! You could show us. But regardless, there exists a very good argument (in my opinion) for why taxing the rich at higher rates is absurd. Hey, I'll make it my first post.
Calling my demeanor low grade, calling me a troll, asking for deductive logic...
Suffice it to say I had quite the energetic post typed up in response...
But for the purpose of encouraging future civil discourse (at least for the time being) I'm going to suspend posting it.
Looking forward to your first post though... In all its deductive, high-brow glory.
The idea of civil discourse is last in my mind, it's just you've given no discourse to begin with. Please, unleash the energetic glory that is your post.
Asking that people lean away from ad hominem, and lean towards giving some sort of explanation or rational for why "that is ridiculous" is not really high-brow.
Telling people that they're kidding themselves, without elaborating, is high-brow.
I would like to see people arguing the merits of different ideas (factual or philosophical) rather than worrying if they are low-grade, trollish, high-brow...or whatever...
Fail
Fair enough
Well, things will no doubt get heated from time to time and that is fine with me...just don't get bogged down in these little things!
Post a Comment