Next Idea to Fix the Economy

[Ed Breen]

Shanana...you don't have very thick skin do you?...so quick to descend into vulgarity...clear sign of a weak intellect. I might have written a better paragraph but I think you have to appreciate it with the other paragraphs that in the thread on the same general point.

Nonetheles, I think the clear point is that investors will have no confidence that the government will implement your plan consistently or that it would work if it did. You suppose that factories what know what the GDP is will have confidence that government will implement the reactive policy that you suggest. I have to point out that the commerce department which issues the official GDP doesn't seem to know what it is in current time...first it was 3.7, then it was 2.4 and now it is 1.6...what do you think it will be next month? How do you expect factories to have any certainty about that number and how and when government will react? Certianly, scepticism about the governments commitment to any policy going forward is well supported in the real world. The simpler the policy the better chance it will actually be implemented. I apoligize that I said your idea was stupid (there really is a basis to imagine counter cyclical policy). I want to revise my comment to say that your proposal is simply nieve...like most socialist thought...sounds reasonable when you are drunk and young but never works in sober reality.

 

[endsongs]

Quote from Scataphagos:

We need to SLASH tax rates AND spending... ALL TYPES OF SPENDING. Too much has been undeservedly given and promised to too many and it must be cut back. Otherwise, we will ALL soon have nothing. (When the goose that lays the eggs is killed for supper, soon thereafter nobody eats.)

In a sense, Obama's words were correct... about the need/desire for Fundamental Transformation (funny, that's about the only think I can think of where he didn't lie.. must have been an accident. Anyway...) Unfortunate his plan is 180 degrees off of what we NEED.

Tax cuts and Tax rate cuts DO NOTHING but add to the debt. The debt tripled when Reagan cut taxes. The debt doubled when Bush II cut taxes. There has never been an example in history where tax cuts paid for themselves by the extra tax revenue generated by tax cuts. In fact, it is mathematically impossible for tax cuts to ever pay for themselves. I'm tired of debating "shoot from the hip" posters who never produce any statistical evidence or facts to make their points, so I won't post anything else under this "fix the economy" topic.

 

[Ed Breen]

Endsong, I agree with your sentiment about spending, but I still want to impress that there are certain pro growth tax cuts that are essential to a long term healthy economy...not all tax cuts...the issue is to maximize tax revenue long term which always must include macro growth to be successfull. You have to acknowledge that there are two sides to a cash flow ledger...revenues and expenses...you need to manage both. If you look at the history of the Kennedy tax cuts, the Reagan tax cuts, the Clinton tax cuts, and the Bush tax cuts...putting aside that not all the tax cuts were positive...but enough were...and realizing that other fiscal pro growth policies also played a role...you have to honestly see that revenue growth exceeded expectaions of the policy makers when they debated the cuts as recorded in the hearings and record, the revenue exceed the CBO estimates and it even exceeded the highest estimated of the proponents of the legislation....so revenue was not the cause of the deficits. This confirms your emphasis on spending but it does not refute the positive impact of the correct pro growth tax cuts.

 

[BSAM]

The people aren't taxed too little; the government spends too much.

(Thank you Ronald Reagan.)

 

[Scataphagos]

Quote from endsongs:

Tax cuts and Tax rate cuts DO NOTHING but add to the debt. The debt tripled when Reagan cut taxes. The debt doubled when Bush II cut taxes. There has never been an example in history where tax cuts paid for themselves by the extra tax revenue generated by tax cuts. In fact, it is mathematically impossible for tax cuts to ever pay for themselves. I'm tired of debating "shoot from the hip" posters who never produce any statistical evidence or facts to make their points, so I won't post anything else under this "fix the economy" topic.

Who said anything about "tax cuts paying for themselves"? The problem in the US is not that taxes are too low... it's that LIBERAL, SOCIAL SPENDING is WAAAAAYYYYY TOO HIGH.

And... thank you for deciding to not ad further drivel to your earlier posts.

 

[olias]

Quote from endsongs:

In fact, it is mathematically impossible for tax cuts to ever pay for themselves.

it's not impossible. Not at all

in simple terms, would you make more money by taxing 25% of $64,000 or 20% of $100,000? the idea being that lower taxes would lead to increased productivity and thus more revenue. I don't see any problem with the logic. Obviously there is a equilibrium rate there somewhere...and ideal tax rate that is neither too high nor too low. Higher taxes is not always better / lower is not always better

 

[shbhanda]

Quote from Ed Breen:

Shanana...you don't have very thick skin do you?...so quick to descend into vulgarity...clear sign of a weak intellect. I might have written a better paragraph but I think you have to appreciate it with the other paragraphs that in the thread on the same general point.

Nonetheles, I think the clear point is that investors will have no confidence that the government will implement your plan consistently or that it would work if it did. You suppose that factories what know what the GDP is will have confidence that government will implement the reactive policy that you suggest. I have to point out that the commerce department which issues the official GDP doesn't seem to know what it is in current time...first it was 3.7, then it was 2.4 and now it is 1.6...what do you think it will be next month? How do you expect factories to have any certainty about that number and how and when government will react? Certianly, scepticism about the governments commitment to any policy going forward is well supported in the real world. The simpler the policy the better chance it will actually be implemented. I apoligize that I said your idea was stupid (there really is a basis to imagine counter cyclical policy). I want to revise my comment to say that your proposal is simply nieve...like most socialist thought...sounds reasonable when you are drunk and young but never works in sober reality.

Breen, i appreciate you bringing the conversation back to civility. You are right, that is a huge problem with government, especially our government.

The only reason I would suggest such a radical policy is that, to me, this economy is about to go belly up for a long time, since I believe the corporate sector will never hire at even close to the same pace again.

However, I think we are at very critical time right now, where the boat may still be able to be righted, and I do think it will take somewhat creative and new measures from government. I know that is a very scary thought, but if things start slipping further, it will slowly become relatively less scary until we bungle something useless together and call it the Second Stimulus.

Do you think there is a fundamental problem in the labor market, meaning that we are reaching a point where it is much more beneficial for companies to spend extra money on technology than on hiring new workers?

 

[equitydaytrader]

jus my 2 pennies

innovation is the only thing can bring this economy bac.
a new industry or a reborn industry

everything else is jus a band-aid to stop the bleeding

 

[Scataphagos]

Quote from equitydaytrader:

jus my 2 pennies

innovation is the only thing can bring this economy bac.
a new industry or a reborn industry

Innovation isn't where the money is. It's in manufacturing. Don't you think any innovation coming from America would be produced in Chindia if at all possible?

 

[equitydaytrader]

Quote from Scataphagos:

Innovation isn't where the money is. It's in manufacturing. Don't you think any innovation coming from America would be produced in Chindia if at all possible?

yeah ur rite.
but
innovation in the services sector could spur things as well