Why would any of them want to be a president in the next 4 yrs . There will be a recession for a couple of years , the $ will go in to a free fall , geting out of iraq we will get alot of bitching for screwing up the country and the democrats will have to take the blame even though they inferited all the problems . And you know if there is the slightest attack on US citizens youll never hear the end of it from the republicans . Its a no win situation .
President Hillary Clinton - Best for the Economy !!
- Thread starter Joab
- Start date
Barack Obama has the best economic ideas of the three major candidates. Hillary takes second place in my view; McCain would be a complete disaster and he would just dig the hole we are in deeper.
The whole root of the U.S.'s problem stems from bad economic policies that the Republicans believe in
- tax cuts are always good and raise revenue
- unregulated free markets are good for the economy
- disproportionate tax cuts to the wealthy result in "trickle down" benefits to lower income households
Let me dismantle and refute all of them.
Tax Cuts. The right wing believes the lower the tax rate, the better. The obvious problem with this is that it causes persistent budget deficits and a weaker dollar. Tax rates in the U.S. are clearly too low -- when the economy rebounded in 2004-2007, the boom should have generated enough revenue to balance the budget. Worse, insufficient revenue starves the government from doing what it does best in recessions, which is to stimulate the economy through spending (e.g., public works projects). Low tax rates cause an unending cycle of budget deficits that weaken the currency. The damage the Bush administration has done to the U.S. dollar borders on the criminal.
Unregulated Free Markets. Free markets are a fairy tale. They could work in a perfect world, but only if all of the participants are honest, ethical and all transactions are transparent. The mortgage crisis is a poster child for the flawed free market hypothesis. Unregulated banks and lenders crashed the system by conducting unethical opaque mortgage trades. The only reason the crisis exists is because unregulated lenders rebundled their products in a way that hid the risk from the market. Enron is another example -- energy traders, when unregulated, took advantage and made unethical trades. Until mankind becomes ethically pure, business needs to be regulated to ensure we all get a fair and open transaction.
Trickle Down. Doesn't work, never did and never will. Give a $1,000 tax credit to a lower middle class person and it gets spent, providing immediate economic stimulus. Give $1,000 to a wealthy person and it sits in a money market account. Tax cuts for the wealthy are the least efficient form of economic stimulus because the money tends to get stuck.
Barack Obama believes in "bottom up" economics and government. He's right. The best way for both the lower and higher economic classes to benefit is to ensure a growing and expanding middle class. Once that happens, money "trickles up" and the rich get richer as the middle class consume more products and services.
The whole root of the U.S.'s problem stems from bad economic policies that the Republicans believe in
- tax cuts are always good and raise revenue
- unregulated free markets are good for the economy
- disproportionate tax cuts to the wealthy result in "trickle down" benefits to lower income households
Let me dismantle and refute all of them.
Tax Cuts. The right wing believes the lower the tax rate, the better. The obvious problem with this is that it causes persistent budget deficits and a weaker dollar. Tax rates in the U.S. are clearly too low -- when the economy rebounded in 2004-2007, the boom should have generated enough revenue to balance the budget. Worse, insufficient revenue starves the government from doing what it does best in recessions, which is to stimulate the economy through spending (e.g., public works projects). Low tax rates cause an unending cycle of budget deficits that weaken the currency. The damage the Bush administration has done to the U.S. dollar borders on the criminal.
Unregulated Free Markets. Free markets are a fairy tale. They could work in a perfect world, but only if all of the participants are honest, ethical and all transactions are transparent. The mortgage crisis is a poster child for the flawed free market hypothesis. Unregulated banks and lenders crashed the system by conducting unethical opaque mortgage trades. The only reason the crisis exists is because unregulated lenders rebundled their products in a way that hid the risk from the market. Enron is another example -- energy traders, when unregulated, took advantage and made unethical trades. Until mankind becomes ethically pure, business needs to be regulated to ensure we all get a fair and open transaction.
Trickle Down. Doesn't work, never did and never will. Give a $1,000 tax credit to a lower middle class person and it gets spent, providing immediate economic stimulus. Give $1,000 to a wealthy person and it sits in a money market account. Tax cuts for the wealthy are the least efficient form of economic stimulus because the money tends to get stuck.
Barack Obama believes in "bottom up" economics and government. He's right. The best way for both the lower and higher economic classes to benefit is to ensure a growing and expanding middle class. Once that happens, money "trickles up" and the rich get richer as the middle class consume more products and services.
Are you talking about taking money away from " THE MAN " . This is america it will never pass congress . The lobbyist industry will probably be the boom business of the next 4 years .
What evidence is there that trickle up is better than trickle down? Where is the money that will 'trickle up' coming from? Is Obama an economist that has a plan, or nearly a good speaker who has no viable solutions to anything he suggests?
If you tax the hell out of the wealthy and business class, you may actually SHRINK the middle class when companies leave the country bc of high taxes (think massive layoffs). High taxes will discourage investment and raise the cost of capital, hurting business' ability to expand.
What do you mean the money gets stuck if given to the wealthy? If they invest in companies or bonds, etc, even in bank accounts...the money either gets used for expansion, paying down the debt, government projects, lending, etc. The money is only 'stuck' if they put it under the mattress.
True but concider this:
Canadian citizens pay almost 25% more of our income to taxes then you do and our current standard of living is par.
That's the temporary answer ... COMBINED ... with controls on government spending and waste.
Let the rest of the world fight a few wars for thier own good for the next 5 years.
Thanks for a fun thread Joab. 
Here's my call for you :eek: -
US markets and USD rip on Obama election - in large part due to collpase of embeded terrorism and associated risk premiums, and then rip even more from the moment AF 1 touches down in Africa, Lat Am and Asia with him in it.
We'll see... .
Here's my call for you :eek: -
US markets and USD rip on Obama election - in large part due to collpase of embeded terrorism and associated risk premiums, and then rip even more from the moment AF 1 touches down in Africa, Lat Am and Asia with him in it.
We'll see... .
Many in this country wish Canada could find a reason to invade and occupy the USA, capture the senior executives running the health insurance companies, for profit hospital, the American Medical Association and try them for crimes against humanity for all the Americans who have died from our shitty overpriced health care system. Canada would then impose universal health care. After a period of pacification which would root the con men and exploiters of the sick and dying from their bunkers and hiding places, Canada could gradually restore sovereignty and withdraw forces.
If a little nation building was good for Iraq, why not here?
If a little nation building was good for Iraq, why not here?
Bill couldn't have done it without the republicans, but the balanced budget will be his legacy. Bill proved that markets can fly in the face of tax hikes on the wealthy in order to provide some fiscal discipline. Period. This completely goes against the republican mantra so don't kid yourself.
The deficits we are currently living under were a result of Reagan and Bush II. The republicans are the most fiscally bankrupt party on the face of the earth. Look at what they accomplished with their absolute power when they controlled both houses and the White House... earmarks and subsidies to their cronies. At least when the democrats try to buy off the electorate they at least take a progressive approach.
Hate the man if you want, but Bill did instill confidence from foreign dollars that he would return America to some fiscal policy. And beleive me when he took office he didn't want to go down this path. It was Greenspan and Rubin (a republican) who took him aside and told him the consequences of irresponsibility, and he actually listened.
So I have to agree with the OP, I beleive Hillary would return this country to a more fiscally responsible stance if she does nothing more than rescind these idiotic tax cuts for the most wealthy. More importantly, the lack of faith in the current president has undoubtably effected the dollar and foreign investment. The world loves the Clintons and money and fiscal sanity will return when they do.
Youre missing something important though. Bill's tax increases were only possible because of the booming economy and massive productivity increases for real GDP. This would not be possible in all environments, in fact it could cripple the economy if done at the wrong time...