It's time more "Investing"!
Why yes. In time of Recession, or even very slow recovery from recession, you want to increase Government investement to jump-start the economy. The other half of this equation is to raise taxes sufficiently to pay for the Government spending.
It's a Supply-Side Myth that raising taxes destroys productivity. In WW-II, we had enormous productivity, as well as quite high taxation to deter "War Profiteering".
When Bill Clinton raised tax-rates in 1992, the Republican Supply-Siders predicted a huge drop in productivity, a huge increase in unemployment, and profits dropping as employers fired people so they wouldn't have to pay taxes. In fact, exactly the reverse happened. Supply-Siders conveniently ignore this "inconvenient truth", so they can continue to advocate for low-low tax rates despite the Recession.
Now, if we had 6% unemployment from the private sector, then further Government pump-priming wouldn't be needed. But as we don't, further pump-priming IS needed. And cutting Government subsidies NOW in some mis-guided attempt to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, would do what it did in 1936 -- guarantee a double-dip recession.
September 5th, 2012 9:52am
>>With that analysis you could welcome the return of a poll tax:
I Wish! But a poll tax is not "Progressive"..
Truth is my family will have to pay 2m.. while 7 other families pay nothing... (because they helped us "build it")
September 5th, 2012 9:55am
It's not the poor you are subsidising to any large degree(which any decent society does despite distaste about maintaining supposed workshy layabouts and welfare queens) - it's the recipients of QE. Yeah, them.
Just pray your 7m is eventually paid in future dollars rather than upfront in levies.
September 5th, 2012 10:05am
Repair our infrastructure that's crumbling.
Gut the military.
Raise taxes on the rich.
Recovery in a year.
September 5th, 2012 10:36am
So basically the Gov't should just spend money, it doesn't really matter on what.. BECAUSE THAT'S STIMULUS BABY!
September 5th, 2012 10:39am
Huh. That's what you get from my reasoned argument?
You really are a morons.
September 5th, 2012 10:42am
>>That's what you get from my reasoned argument
That's what is got from your "response".
September 5th, 2012 10:57am
16 trillion was the amount of the bailout to bankers.
16 trillion is the current debt.
Yep, that's about right.
Let's here more about how much bankers contribute to investment and jobs, and the plebians need to tighten their belts because they are spending too damn much on heating oil and powdered milk.
September 5th, 2012 2:47pm
Well, no, 800 billion was the Bush-II bailout, of which Paulson spent 400 billion before he left, then an additional 700 billion was the Obama Stimulus, mostly loans, most of which has come back to the Treasury.
So that's 1.5 trillion, not 16 trillion, and it's not all "spent", a lot of it was "loaned" and is being paid back. But yes, we STILL have a lot of questionable CDO shares in the market, preventing the banks from making mortgages.
September 5th, 2012 3:01pm
The national debt isnt affecting me at all. Not one bit. The price of groceries, gas and health insurance do though. Having to pay for my own retirement and my children's education some day is also a concern.
I have an idea: Tax the rich. Tax the hell out of them. Spend that money on power infrastructure, public transit, social security, and free education for all. Oh, and cut military spending. Oh, also, let homosexuals get married if they want to.
Which of the remaining two candidates more closely reflects these desires?
September 5th, 2012 4:58pm
"Tax the hell out of the rich"? What kind of talk is that?
A nice 39% rate, both for income and capital gains, would do nicely. After all, they're not even paying Social Security taxes. That was the rate under Clinton, and it worked out pretty well, until Bush-II came in.
September 5th, 2012 5:02pm
A nice 39% rate, both for income and capital gains=Tax the hell out of the rich.
Also Obama Defines YOU as rich.
A Kinder, Gentler, Humble Morons
September 5th, 2012 6:54pm
Well, I should hope so. With 16 Trillion in total deficits, and a 1 trillion deficit every year, and only 300 million Americans to make that up, that's, let's see,
1e12/300e6 == $3,333 increase per person. Now, some people only make $12K or less, and can't afford that. So for each 10 of those, we'll have somebody like Romney pay 33,333. Seems quite affordable if we do that.
Bottom line: The Clinton Era Tax Rates did NOT destroy the American economy, did NOT cause employers to close their doors, did NOT result in 12% unemployment. It's NOT a disaster, in fact it's the opposite of a disaster, despite what Romney and his Supply-Siders keep claiming. The Bush tax-cuts meanwhile DID cause employers to close their doors when Bain Capital took them over, DID damage the American Economy, and DID result in 12% unemployment.
So why does everyone think retireing the Bush-II tax cuts is such a bad thing?
September 5th, 2012 7:07pm
And yes, if you increased my taxes a whole fucking THREE PERCENT, and increased Romney's taxes from 13% to 33%, we could have a balanced budget.
September 5th, 2012 7:09pm
We'd still have to cut the shit out of the military budget.
September 5th, 2012 7:54pm
Shit? It's all most excellent pork.
Willy Pete III
September 5th, 2012 8:21pm
Funny, we didn't have a "spending problem" that couldn't be fixed by "taxation" until Bush-II cut taxes.
Well, actually, the Republicans have been characterizing it that way since Reagan. "Government doesn't SOLVE problems, Government IS the problem", he said, and proceeded to hugely increase the military budget and cut taxes to prove his point.
I'm sorry, but a "Spending Problem" that doesn't exist until somebody cuts taxes is REALLY a "taxation problem". Unless you've been drinking the Supply-Side koolaid, and missed the failure of Supply-Side economics to help the economy under Reagan, Bush-I, and Bush-II.
And yes, we need to cut military spending. Who the fuck are we gonna fight, after bankrupting ourselves building 12 fucking Carrier Battle groups, and the fucking "Star Wars" anti-missle system? Not to mention yet another Super-Fighter Plane to shoot down Arabic Migs.
September 5th, 2012 8:52pm
>Funny, we didn't have a "spending problem" that couldn't be fixed by "taxation" until Bush-II cut taxes.
Yes we did. I never said republicans are now, or ever where good at controlling spending, they are not. BUT at least they acknowledge there is a problem.
We need to cut spending across the board (Military included, but mostly entitlements)
Lastly: and i know i said this 45 time before but it never seems to sink in with you, we can raise taxes once the Gov't demonstration it can control it spending and that our tax money will be put to good use. I am 100% against raising taxes on anyone just so jerk-ass crooked pols (elephants and donkeys alike) can piss it away buying votes from special interest groups.
September 5th, 2012 9:05pm
"we can raise taxes once the Gov't demonstration it can control it spending"
And the fact that Social Security has extremely low overhead, that Medicare/Medicaid overhead is extremely low, that Welfare has a work requirement... What of ALL of this tells you "Government Can't Control It's Spending"? Government controls its spending great -- except for when Republicans get in and unbalance the budget on the Military and tax-cuts we can't afford.
The only time Government doesn't "control its spending" is when it's involved in foreign wars -- Viet-Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea. The Military-Industrial Complex -- that's the risk. The Social Safety Net pays for itself -- again, unless Republicans underfund it.
Bottom line, the Government has demonstrated over and over again that it CAN control its spending. It's Republican Propaganda that says "Entitlements Cost Too Much, fucking poor freeloaders, should die and cut our costs and taxes". Look at India, that's what you get if you follow Republican propaganda -- people have to have their own diesel generators, because the state power is too unreliable.
September 5th, 2012 9:16pm
You just keep on smoking whatever it is that you are smoking.
I'm done with this idiocy.. see the links above.
September 5th, 2012 9:21pm
There are none so blind, as those who will not see.
September 5th, 2012 9:25pm
>>There are none so blind, as those who will not see.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
September 5th, 2012 9:26pm
Government of the people, by the people, and for the people. If you don't believe that, you're missing a lot of what it means to be an American.
September 5th, 2012 10:19pm
If I understand STH, the current economic problems are because Obama has to deal with the crap that Bush II left behind his presidency.
But of course STH doesn't remember that the economy was falling apart in the first year of Bush II's first term. And if it did decline, then it wasn't Clinton's fault, it was because Bush II was an idiot and lowered taxes.
Said another way:
All problems in a democrat's reign are because a republican was in office before him. All problems at the start of a republican's reign are because he is a republican.
September 6th, 2012 12:21am
No, it wasn't "falling apart". It was a slight down-turn because the dot-com bubble burst. Bush-II RAN on cutting taxes, so his tax-cutting wasn't to "stimulate the economy", it was his pre-existing goal.
Just as invading Iraq wasn't because of WMD, that was just an excuse.
Now, when Bush-II left office, with banks failing left and right, and "too big to fail" financial institutions failing left and right, and GM and Chrysler declaring bankruptcy, and 15 TRILLION dollars of expected value vanishing overnight, and 12 percent unemployment rising uncontrollably -- THAT was "falling apart". Last time that happened we had 20 years of Great Depression.
That Obama was able to turn that free-fall into a steady recovery was a wonderful thing. That Romney wants to pursue the exact same policies that gave us the crisis in the first place is sheer stubborn dogmatic stupidity.
September 6th, 2012 8:20am
So no, your thesis that I only support Democratic economic policies is bogus. I can't help it if every Republican since Reagan has tried to implement Reaganomics, with resulting negative impact on the American Economy.
In fact, Eisenhower had 90% top tax rates -- I think he did a wonderful job.
September 6th, 2012 8:22am