Fareed Zakaria on CNN today...How can Congress make a huge dent in the deficit in one fell swoop?
BY DOING NOTHING!!
Letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire would be the right step in reducing the massive federal deficit. The big banks, big corporations, the rich are sitting on billions of dollars just waiting for the right time to invest.
The rich have their tax cuts, they are hoarding their billions, yet the economy sucks and there is no lending going on for small business, there is little hiring..... so how is it the tax increase will be a negative?? They have their tax breaks and THAT is causing a negative!
Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) on C-Span today says if the tax cuts are allowed to expire then a huge tax increase will effect small business and individuals.
OH CRY ME A RIVER!! GOP LIES!!
If the Republican Party were to gain the majority they would tackle healthcare, financial reform and work to lower taxes and create jobs, according to McCarthy. He went on to criticize the Democrats and their policies, saying, “If you look at national polls, more people believe Elvis Presley is still alive than that the stimulus created jobs.”
So there you have it, the GOP wants to cut taxes, they think that will stimulate the economy and grow jobs. WE HAVE HUGE TAX CUTS IN PLACE NOW AND IT'S NOT DOING A DAMN THING FOR THE MIDDLECLASS!!
We all know tax cuts for the upper 1 to 2% do nothing for the middleclass. It only caused huge deficit increases. Keep on crying GOP, this time it will not work.....
Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said that the push by congressional Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts without offsetting the costs elsewhere could end up being "disastrous" for the economy.
In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Greenspan expressed his disagreement with the conservative argument that tax cuts essentially pay for themselves by generating revenue and productivity among recipients.
"They do not," said Greenspan.
Republicans want to keep the tax cuts in place but won't say how they will pay for them. Is this their secret plan to eliminate Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? Is this the way for the GOP, the corporate whores to rid the country of poor people? Because we all know the top 2% don't need SS or Medicare, surely not Medicaid. Damn people don't be so dumb!!
Trump Melts Down In Michigan And Starts Yelling Profanities
-
[image: Trump speaks at a campaign event in Michigan.]
[image: Trump speaks at a campaign event in Michigan.]
Donald Trump could not hold it together to d...
10 hours ago
52 comments:
If government comes along and takes money away from an employer, is that employer likely to hire more people, or less?
Neither.
Actually if they hire more people they will automatically get a tax break because they can deduct the employee's wages as a cost of doing business. The tax breaks for the top earners only encourage them not to hire.
If letting the Bush tax cuts expire means the largest tax increase, then of course, they were the largest tax breaks at a time when we were 8 trillion in debt and fighting two wars. Republican nut jobs.
Tax breaks do not mean more jobs. In fact an employer will invest that money into technology to cut his wage costs and make the business more profitable.
We have cut taxes since Reagan, and all it has done, is to build a 13 trillion dollar debt.
reality SF. Try it.
SF, you and the right still dance around the questions, WHY is there no hiring NOW while the tax cuts are in place?? Why are we in a recession if tax cuts to top earners are a GOOD thing??
The bill that would have given tax breaks to companies hiring was killed by the GOP.
Our economy expanded greatly under Reagan-Bush-Clinton's adherence to Reaganomics. Bush jr abandoned it for his progressive big government ideas and the economy tanked.
Out current crisis? Go google "Economic Uncertainty"
Taxes are neither good nor bad. We obviously need them to support our infrastructure. The trick is to set the right lever that maximizes government revenue while balancing it off against economic growth, which produces more revenue. Think about the Goose that laid the Golden Eggs.
Actually the economy grew the best under FDR(to '38), LBJ, and JFK (#1, #2, and #3).
Reagan, Bush, and Clinton were #5, #11, and #4. Also notice that the economy did better under 4 Democrats. Reagan was the best republican at #5.
The "trick" is to pay our bills.
The political game is to promise "No New Taxes" pandering for votes while our debt climbs to 13 trillion.
There is no doubt that the Bush Tax Cuts for The Rich harmed our nation economically and crippled the middle class with making up for the lack of revenue from the upper class (and I am talking top 1% here). Eventually, the middle class will be able to take no more and will collapse, and we will see only the rich and the poor. The rise and fall of capitalism. Great post, Girl. Nice work!
yeah we see how well the taking over of capital worked in Russia,Cuba and Venezuela.
All those systems brought economic hardship to it's citizens.
A few years of tax cuts didn't do it.
Maybe the congress who has been in control for the last 3 years should bear some responsibility or
Maybe you should ask actual business owners clearly which none of you are.
lisa just shut up and stop hiding behind anonymous. Whenever a comment has the words Venezuela, Cuba, and Russia I know its you, oh and don't forget about the trusty feedjit!
Jerry: We've been down this road before. You can take little slices of certain years and make anything look good. FDR started in a deeper hole than Reagan. Add to that the massive government spending as % of GDP (FDRs was way higher than Reagan's), and voila! 1938 was a very good year.
No serious person with even a passing familiarity would be foolish enough to say people in 1938 were better off than people in any year of the 1980's.
Look at this:
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=87&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=2000&LastYear=2009&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid
Even with Bush tax cuts, revenue still went up, just not very fast. Look at the spending. From 2000 to 2010 it doubled.
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704738404575347302831199046.html
Brian Reidl analyzed federal budgets and determined Bush's tax cuts, from 2002 to 2011 are valued at ...
"$1.7 trillion, caused just 14% of the swing from projected surpluses to actual deficits (and that is according to a "static" analysis, excluding any revenues recovered from faster economic growth induced by the cuts)."
What caused the rest of the debt explosion: Spending!
Momma: You failed to explain how this is the fault of capitalism. If it collapses, it will be under the weight of a grossly obese government.
And if capitalism is no good, what is the alternative?
MommaP you're right about the tax cuts harming our country but I hope you're wrong about the middle class dying. The thugs will not take back power and destroy us, the progressive movement is not gonna have it!
SF, what is the alternative? The 3 major budget busters are Social Security, Medicare and defense. The tax payers pay into Social Security so I don't call that an entitlement. Lets start with not allowing the filthy rich to get away with not paying their fair share in taxes and stop the fuckin wars! That's where we can start.
The GOP are hypocrites when it comes to the deficit. I'll be right back with a link to a Mike Pence article....
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/31/pence-extra-engine/
Seems Robert Gates wants to cut all unnecessary spending but Pence wants to spend hundreds of millions on an engine that is not needed.
As long as it has to do with war and defense the GOP is right there with the checkbook open.
# According to data from the IRS, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.
# The top 25 percent of income earners pay nearly 83 percent of the income tax burden, and the top 10 percent pay 65 percent.
# The top 1 percent of income earners pay almost 35 percent of all income taxes.
Nasty Rightwing Source (with CBO numbers to back it up):
http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/news/do-the-rich-and-businesses-pay-their-fair-share
That's pretty progressive.
"A rising tide lifts all boats"
Sue: I partially agree with you. The Pentagon alone should decide if something is useful to them or not. Dems and Repubs both do this crap.
I also want to see us wrap up our Middle East and Central Asia adventures and learn a lesson to stay out of it in the future.
Now, define "fair share."
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2010/07/shouldnt-rich-pay-their-fair-share-of.html
I love this post talking about the rich AND defense spending gone mad...
just incase you don't want to read that blogpost, here's the first paragraph, it's fabulous!!
All last week Digby had such incredibly penetrating coverage of the Aspen (Bad) Ideas Festival, that I mistakenly thought she had flown off to Colorado to frolic with the rich, Randian, and carefree. Wait, wait, wait... it's unfair to call them carefree. When people aren't worried about where they're going to get the money for the next mortgage payment-- or even for the next meal for their family-- they still have things they worry about and still have things they get angry about. Imagine someone trying to cope with the horror of having to pay FICA taxes (6.2%) on income over that first $106,800. I mean... fair, schmair. What if you want a vacation home in the lovely countryside near Aix-en-Provence? Or a million dollar bargain pad among the vineyards just north of Dubrovnik originally built in 1934 for the king of Serbia's treasurer? And, if, like AIG CEO Robert Benmosche, all you make is $7 million a year and some awful government type or, more likely, a progressive blogger, wants you to pay your fair share of taxes, that means another 6.2% on the untaxed $6,893,200, or $42,737.84-- money that could easily be used for a much needed renovation in a room of some drafty Croatian vacation castle!
Something else I found whic pretty much says it all:
The article was written nine years ago and warns that Democratic President Bill Clinton’s move to pressure Fannie Mae to make subprime loans could lead to an eventual government bailout.
Excerpts appear below:
Fannie Mae, the nations biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers.
In moving into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk…
If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry."
On the one hand, you seem to give credit to that the core problem being government backing of bad loans which was exactly a perverse incentive put in place by government regulations to help minorities.
So how can you blame “wall street greed” and capitalism? They were simply responding to incentives put in place by regulations moonbats approved. In many ways they were “forced” to participate in thes activities because of the regulatory landscape. Do you think they had any reason to make financially unsound loans apart from the government guarantee on those loans? If there was no backing, the risks would have prevented the bad loans.
The cautionary tale here is not one of greed and/or capitalism run amok. It is a story of the always present unintended consequences of wellintended but intellectually fucked government regulations pandering to a voting base. A true free market does not incentivize overly risky behavior, but bad regulation sure as fuck can...
and obviously has
Any questions???
Budget Deficts (Source: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41134.pdf)
2002 … $153B
2003 … $378B
2004 … $413B
2005 … $319B
2006 … $248B
2007 … $163B
2008 … $455B (1st Dem-controlled Congress)
2009 … $1,414B ($406 Bush, $1,008B Obama)
2010 … $1,550B (Obama WH #, CBO says $1.75T)
FACT: Bush tax cuts helped grow the economy out of a recession left by Clinton (Dot-Com Bubble).
FACT: Bush tax cuts grew GDP an average of 4.5% per year.
FACT: Bush tax cuts actually brought in MORE tax revenue by 2005.
FACT: Unemployment under Bush was at historic low levels unseen since the Roaring Twenties (Calvin Coolidge).
FACT: Bush tried to deal with the housing bubble but Chris Dodd spiked it in the Senate so his pals at Countrywide could go on being greedy.
FACT: Bush’s largest budget deficit was $455 Billion in a single year. Obama’s lowest was his add-ons to the 2009 budget (only covering about 7 months) was $1,008 Billion. His average including 2010 is $1.4 Trillion per year.
Go Lisa!
Doing the job that MSNBC is just too ignorant, biased and unbalanced to do.
Facts are stubborn things.
Sue: I must again partially agree with you. Imposing the social security tax on all earnings is indeed an idea, as long as we call it what it is: redistribution of wealth.
Once again, taxation is about finding the sweet spot between maximizing revenue and not killing the economy.
Pluck the chickens too hard, too often and they will fly the coop, and we'll be selling apples and pencils to one another wondering what the hell happened.
You know, the economy did pretty will when the top marginal tax rate was in the 70 - 90% range and it is doing pretty crappy now with it around 35% with the top 400 earners only paying an average of about 16 - 17%. So, it seems to me that the "sweet spot" is certainly higher than where it is now. At least let's start taxing capital gains the same as income again and get those to 400 to pay their fair share.
that was then Jerry,this is a different time.We also had the benefit of the Dot com Boom so the economy was doing good in spite of the high taxes.
We need to get the economy going not hamper it with uncertainty which is what is happening now . This admin is so not pro growth, Well maybe government pro growth.
lisa your numbers don't mean crap. Obama inherited a recession from BUSH, get it?? BUSH and his policies are the reason Obama has to spend to get us MOVING. YOUR guy drove us in the ditch, not mine. Economists are in agreement, the stimulus was not even big enough. I've told you before, let the dems do their work and don't fret your stupid little self about the deficit. The dems KNOW HOW to reduce it!
Economists are not in agreement, Sue.
And Jerry, We could tax the job makers at 90% back when the US was the only industrial power in the world following the economic destruction of WW II.
Do it now and they'll just move where capitalists are taxed less and rewarded more, like communist China
You are right, Silverfiddle. We have been down this path before. Let me present our economic dilemma somewhat differently. The right believes that the economy is driven by business. The left, or at least me, believe that the economy is driven by demand. Create the demand, and business will follow with the product. The demand comes first. Tax breaks for business do not create demand.
Similarly, putting money into the hands the rich does not stimulate demand as much as putting money into the hands of the poor and middle class. The poor and middle class spend it right away creating demand. The rich save it, at best delaying demand. At worst, it goes into an offshore account to never be seen again.
So, to get the economy going we need to stimulate demand, not business.
I don't believe most job makers would be in the 90% tax bracket, but obviously a low top bracket has not stopped companies from moving their operations overseas.
Plus, that is a corporate tax problem rather than a personal income tax problem.
I agree that the offshoring of jobs is a big problem, but I think it is more related to the cost of labor than taxes. Taxes come into play in moving the corporation offshore. Labor costs come into play in moving jobs offshore.
Sue let me ask you this,if Obama murdered someone on the White House Lawn would you still defend him?
Good points all, Jerry.
Demand does play a role, but demand with no money to satisfy it means nothing.
Here is the flaw in your thinking:
"Similarly, putting money into the hands the rich..."
It's their money, not the government's! Nobody is "putting it in their hands." They earned it.
What we are talking about is how much to confiscate and from whom.
Well, I must agree that income taxes take money from those that have earned it. We are talking about how much and from whom to take it.
But really, in the context of this post, and many discussions about the economy, we are actually talking about what stimulates the economy the most, not what is the fairest to some individuals. What is the best way to get out of the recession. Not what is a fair tax. If taxing the wealthy more improves the economy quicker and thus helps a greater number of people, is that what should be done? Or should we let people who earn the money keep the money, and let the economy go to hell. I realize this is a gross over-simplification, but this is kind of what we are talking about.
Lisa,
Let me ask you this. Are you still beating your children?
@Jerry:
But really, in the context of this post, and many discussions about the economy, we are actually talking about what stimulates the economy the most, not what is the fairest to some individuals. What is the best way to get out of the recession. Not what is a fair tax. If taxing the wealthy more improves the economy quicker and thus helps a greater number of people, is that what should be done? Or should we let people who earn the money keep the money, and let the economy go to hell. I realize this is a gross over-simplification, but this is kind of what we are talking about.
Well-stated. I agree. I happen to fall on the side of the economists and businesspeople who say uncertainty is killing the recover. People don't know what taxes or regulations car coming next. That businesses are sitting on over $1.5 trillion seems to support this.
The other component is the global market. Wages are going up in China and there is much demand there, which will eventually work out the imbalances.
Corporations are throwing workers over the cliff and realizing that they can squeeze the American worker even harder than before.
I don't get for a minute how you don't understand the unending greed of corporations. They don't care about hiring or good wages just their bottom line.
I wish Republicans would quit acting like they will start hiring if we just let them keep more of the money they have made off of the backs of American workers.
well said anonymous! sitting in billions while Americans are suffering is un-American and pure greed! Saying they don't know what Obamas plans are is an excuse they are sitting back watching this country implode on purpose
I love the way the right plays games with numbers. This %, that %, of course they continue to not mention that 30 years after their dangerous economic policies America is bankrupt, which they blame on Obama. They are, full of shit.
A 13 trillion dollar debt leaves little options for Obama. It will leave few options for future Americans. That kind of debt limits the choices of what a President, or Congress can do.
Bush debt numbers are a magic trick. He never put war costs on budget, they were always a supplemental. Obama has war costs in the budget.
Bush unemployment at historic lows? Bullshit. We were losing 6-7 HUNDRED THOUSAND jobs a month during Bush's last 18 months in office. Only when Obanma became President and instituted his bailout, that stopped businesses from going under, did the unemployment figures start going down.
What is the Republican plan to pay off the 13 trillion dollar debt they built?
Why do Republicans think it is OK to put a 13 trillion dollar debt on future Americans?
Republican economic policies are dangerous, selfish, political pandering for votes, incompetent leadership, and will continue to negatively affect the economy for decades to come.
Bush unemployment at historic lows? Bullshit. We were losing 6-7 HUNDRED THOUSAND jobs a month during Bush's last 18 months in office
You mean during the democrat contolled congress.
Yeah Anon and tom!
Let's just go in and confiscate all that ill-gotten loot! the corps aren't going to use it for the good of the people, time for the government to step in and take it to use it for the people, right!
Well SF, if you make over 250 grand a year and your tax rate goes up 3%, I don't feel sorry for you. You will still be a member of the country club. It will make no difference in how you live.
The wealthiest enjoy the benefits of our government and economic system far more than the poor and middle class.
Don't ask us to feel sorry for LeBron James cause his tax rate is going from 35 to 38%. They also get far more deductions than you and I do skewing their income and true tax rate even lower. Unless of course you make 10 million a year Silverfiddle. Then fuck you you rich, greedy fuedalist bastard.
Silverfiddle,
You make a couple of interesting points. I agree that uncertainty is adversely affecting the economic recovery. But, I don't think it is uncertainty about taxes and regulations so much. Those are primarily business concerns and, yes, businesses may be concerned about them. The uncertainty affecting the recovery is in the public sector and that uncertainty is about spending their money, which in turn, is uncertainty about jobs. Since the public is not spending money (and going into debt), demand is down, and companies are not hiring.
Your other point needs mentioning also, in that it has a direct impact on us also. You said, "Wages are going up in China and there is much demand there...". Wages are money put into the hands of the public. An increase in wages increases demand which stimulates increased production which creates more jobs. We have seen wage stagnation for the poor and middle class in this country for many years. The increase in business revenue as a result of increase production has not gone to the workers, but to the business executives and stockholders.
now if we could just get the democrats to pay their taxes.
By the way where is that post about the guy who writes tax laws?
Sue asked, "Is this their secret plan to eliminate Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security?" The answer is YES, although it is not a secret. The strategy is call Starve the Beast. According to Wikipedia it "is a fiscal-political strategy of some American conservatives to use budget deficits via tax cuts to force future reductions in the size of government. The term "beast" refers to the government and the programs it funds, particularly social programs such as welfare, Social Security, and Medicare".
Lisa pointed to an article that "warns that Democratic President Bill Clinton’s move to pressure Fannie Mae to make subprime loans could lead to an eventual government bailout". This lie has been debunked Lisa.
The Campaign for America's Future labels this (the claim made in Sue's article) a MYTH and reveals that the truth is that "the Community Reinvestment Act has encouraged banks to lend fairly and responsibly for over 30 years. ...it periodically examines FDIC-backed banks and issues them a CRA-compliance rating. To receive a high rating, banks must meet the financing needs of as many members of their community as possible and must not discriminate against racial and ethnic groups or certain neighborhoods. However, a bank cannot receive a high rating unless it is also maintaining safe and sound banking practices. In other words, the CRA requires banks to lend to working-class families and people of color, but only when those people have been deemed credit-worthy".
Unlike the banks that actually are responsible for the financial melt-down. They wrote the loans and sold them off without determining whether or not the person taking out the loan was credit worthy. They didn't care because after the loans were sold -- they had their money and passed the risk on. And, least we not forget, it was the Republicans (and the conservative ideology of deregulation) that made this possible. Before Phil Gramm shepherded his deregulation legislation through Congress, none of this was possible.
I am in complete agreement with Jerry, who pointed out that "that the economy is driven by demand". Indeed it is. The whole "supply side" nonsense is why we are in the predicament we are in. The theory is complete hogwash. However, Jerry, while I would agree that "taxing the wealthy more improves the economy quicker", I would also argue that it is FAIR. It is the DUTY of the US government to guide our economy so that the greatest number of people benefit (and not just the wealthy).
And I disagree with Silverfiddle who says (referring to the income of the wealthy) "nobody is putting it in their hands. They earned it". Baloney. While this is true to an extent, there is a point beyond which the money is not "earned", it is STOLEN. Overpaying CEOs by cutting the wages of the workers, or (worse), by off shoring jobs is THEFT (not literally or legally, but theft none-the-less). This isn't "earned" money, it is stolen money. I say it is completely fair that we recover some of this stolen money though higher income taxes and other forms of taxation (like increased tariffs).
Excellent comment, w-d.
From a column by Anne Applebaum in the WaPo today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/02/AR2010080203717.html?referrer=emailarticle):
"PRESIDENT BUSH INCREASED GOVERNMENT SPENDING MORE THAN ANY OF THE SIX PRESIDENTS PRECEDING HIM, INCLUDING LBJ."
She was quoting Veronique de Rugy, libertarian economist, of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
Obama is on his way to spending more, but - as Applebaum says - he has never clammored for smaller government. And I have to add, not like the GOP hypocrits.
NPR did a piece saying that car sales were higher in the month of July.
Damn I have so much to read, I've been switching from verizon to comcast the past 2 days and haven't had time to do anything! I'll read all the comments and respond, thanks all for commenting!
great comments from the left, Jerry W, and Tom, thanks for refuting SF. Truth I just love your rant and to the rest of you thanks for commenting.
Do you watch Ed Schultz? I'll put up a video later, it helps when I haven't the brain power to put his fabulous words into legible sentences.
The dems are correct, the right and that includes Wall St, are purposely destroying America....
that should be... Jerry, w-dervish, and Tom. And I don't mean at all to diminish the other commentors, I appreciate all of you coming by!
Dervish: Your righteous high dudgeon is admirable, but we are a country of laws. You yourself say it's not legally theft, but you still want to punish them.
You may want to think that one through to the end...
Tariffs? You do realize that is one of the causes of the great depression, right?
Silverfiddle, I'm not in favor of "punishing" anyone. This is an issue of fairness, and who our economy should benefit. Obviously you believe that the wealthy elites should be able to suck as much money out of our economy as they possibly can. If they do that by cutting the wages of blue collar workers or outsourcing their jobs... somehow you think this is a good thing -- even though it negatively impacts our DEMAND DRIVEN economy??
Obviously this is what Conservatives believe... Screw the American worker and pay the CEO class billions... even for failure (as was the case with the Wall Street CEOs and their unearned bonuses).
Silverfiddle, I think the real question is why are you in favor of rewarding failure and punishing productivity?
According to a 2006 New York Times article, "The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable, economists say, because productivity -- the amount that an average worker produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation's living standards -- has risen steadily over the same period".
This is one of the major failings of capitalism, and we (though our government representatives), have an OBLIGATION to do something about it. So that OUR economy works to the benefit of everyone, and not just the wealthy elite. I think that the way this should be (and IS) done is though the use of a progressive income tax. The goal being to recapture the money the wealthy elites have misappropriated and redistribute it.
We currently have a progressive income tax -- a tax no serious Republican effort has ever been undertaken to do away with. Which is why I previous mentioned that we DO "spread the wealth around" -- although not to the extent that we should. A return to Clinton era tax rates (after the bush tax cuts expire) is not enough. We need to roll back the Reagan tax cuts. Call it "socialism" if you like. I call it fair. The wealthy elite should not be allowed to keep unearned money. Just because you are able to TAKE something does not mean you have EARNED it.
As for tariffs, I do NOT "realize that [they are] one of the causes of the great depression". According to talk radio host and author Thom Hartmann, "The Smoot-Hawley tariff legislation, which increased taxes on some imported goods ... to protect American industries, was signed into law on 6/17/1930, well into the Great Depression. In the following 2 years, international trade dropped from 6% of GNP to roughly 2% of GNP (between 1930 & 1932), but most of that was the result of the depression going worldwide, not Smoot-Hawley".
and...
"The main result of Smoot-Hawley was that American businesses now had strong financial incentives to do business with other American companies, rather than bring in products made with cheaper foreign labor: Americans started trading with other Americans. Smoot-Hawley 'protectionist' legislation did not cause the Great Depression, and while it may have had a slight short-term negative effect on the economy (1.4% at most, according to many historians) its long-term effect was to bring American jobs back to America".
Our lack of tariffs is one of the reasons why companies have been able to take well paying American jobs and move them overseas to low labor cost areas. Just another example of businesses screwing the American worker for the benefit of their overpaid executives.
OK, Dervish, I'll put your personal attacks aside and go to the issue (I am not rich should be free to screw the American worker.
Thomm Hartmann is a great guy (I really do like him, I've read a few of his books and I agree with many of his points about mistrusting corporations. He and I have actually exchanged e-mails in the past.)
Thom is not an economist. The Great Depression did not start with a bang when the market crashed in 1929. It never really took off until mid 1930, when unemployment started its steep incline.
Tight money was a major factor. Go read this professor's web page. It neither proves or disproves what I am saying, but it's a nice overview of what happened:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/dep1929.htm
Your statement on Smoot Hawley is laughable! Unemployment over 25% and you call that "bringing jobs back to America?" That's nuts!
There was unprecedented unemployment in the the 1930's
Look, the point is, you can't point a gun at big business and force them to participate your centrally-planned statist economy.
I am for a simple, flat consumption tax on all business. No loopholes, not way to slither out of paying. The rate? It should be marginally, one dollar less that it would cost them to operate in a comparable foreign company.
Silverfiddle, in my previous post I asked, "why are you in favor of rewarding failure and punishing productivity"? That's a QUESTION, not a personal attack. Instead of answering it, you label it a "personal attack" and set it aside?! I doubt anyone here is going to fall for that tactic.
OK, so Thom Hartmann is a great guy who has makes points you agree with... despite some of them being "laughable"? My statement about Smoot-Hawley (or Hoot-Smalley, as some conservatives have referred to it) is actually Thom Hartmann's statement. I agree with it 100 percent, but it's not my statement (which is why I gave credit were credit was due).
Initially the effects of Smoot-Hawley were (slightly) negative, because American businesses had to shift to a new way of doing things. Bringing jobs back to America takes time, and there was a transition period. Unemployment continued to increase because we were in a DEPRESSION, it had NOTHING to do with Smoot-Hawley, which eventually DID bring jobs back to American. It isn't "laughable" at all -- tariffs have a LONG track record of building the American manufacturing sector UP and encouraging companies to employ Americans (and pay a living wage).
Thinking that America can do without a manufacturing sector -- that is what is laughable. I'm not in favor of "point[ing] a gun at big business and forc[ing] them to participate MY centrally-planned statist economy". I'm in favor of OUR government using regulations and the tax code to ENCOURAGE businesses to act in the interest of all Americans. In fact, I'd say that is our government's DUTY to do so.
I'm not sure what you mean by "a simple, flat consumption tax on all business", although I'm probably against it -- because any kind of "flat" tax is, by nature, regressive. Shifting the tax burden further onto the backs of the middle class and working poor is a horrible idea.
Post a Comment