Pointing the finger
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
We can’t delay, and we can’t go back to the same, worn-out ideas that led us here in the first place. In the last few days we’ve seen proposals arise from some in Congress that you may not have read, but you’d be very familiar with, because you’ve been hearing them the last ten years — maybe longer. They’re rooted in the idea that tax cuts alone can solve all our problems, that government doesn’t have a role to play, that half-measures and tinkering are somehow enough. That we can afford to ignore our most fundamental economic challenges — the crushing cost of health care, the inadequate state of so many of our schools, our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.
So let me be clear: Those ideas have been tested, and they have failed. They have taken us from surpluses to an annual deficit of over a trillion dollars. And they have brought our economy to a halt. And that’s precisely what the election we just had was all about. The American people have rendered their judgment. And now it is time to move forward, not back. Now is the time for action.
……..
Now, I read the other day that critics of this plan ridiculed our notion that we should use part of the money to modernize the entire fleet of federal vehicles to take advantage of state of the art fuel efficiency. This is what they call pork. You know the truth. It will not only save the government significant money over time, it will not only create manufacturing jobs for folks who are making these cars, it will set a standard for private industry to match. And so when you hear these attacks deriding something of such obvious importance as this, you have to ask yourself — are these folks serious? Is it any wonder that we haven’t had a real energy policy in this country?
For the last few years, I’ve talked about these issues with Americans from one end of this country to another. And Washington may not be ready to get serious about energy independence, but I am. And so are you. And so are the American people.
Those ideas have been tested, and they have failed.
Indeed, massive federal government deficit spending, special-interest driven public policy, and the fruitless destructive pursuit/continuation of attritive middle east wars have all failed….miserably.
The lesson, I guess, is that Obama (and the rest of us) should run from his administration and its proposals….FAST!
Your post runs completely against the very professional report given today by an economist who works for Moody and was a U of D professor.
The event was to business leaders. The stimulus package was brought up and the speaker clearly and empahtically supported tax cuts which would support growth and investment.
The cuts could be to individuals and businesses. As he said government and the people who work for government do not seek results but support a process.
You may find it hard to believe but giving businesses or individuals the decision making ability with their money is a wise thing.
Also, the speaker is not a conservative.
Need to hear more?
I’m telling you now, if you give me a tax cut I am NOT spending it. Got that? NOT spending it. And I’m sure a lot of people agree with me.
I have a college and retirement fund to rebuild. I will not be shopping.
Need to hear more?
IF Protack is Against it…we ALL should be for it
Agreed, DV. That’s an excellent barometer.
Now, given the current financial crisis who here would run out and blow their tax cuts on consumer goods?
the speaker clearly and empahtically supported tax cuts which would support growth and investment.
June 7, 2001 (Bush signs tax cuts): DJIA = 11,090.74
Jan. 20, 2009 (Bush leaves office): DJIA = 7,949.09
Any questions?
The Day Obama is elected : DJIA – 9,625.28
Today : DJIA – 7,956.66
Your point?
Bush’s chickens started to come home to roost in the last quarter of 2008, and the main flock has yet to arrive.
LOL, nice dodge.
What I took away is that you think the world is encapsulated in the Dow Jones. How ‘liberal’ of you.
Of course DJIA does not encapsulate the world.
The original point was about the effect of tax cuts on growth and investment. DJIA is not the best but is perfectly acceptable as a gross indicator of business investment, especially over 8 years.
Nice dodge.
“DJIA is not the best but is perfectly acceptable as a gross indicator of business investment, especially over 8 years”
Nah. It is a totally subjectively-driven gross indicator of day-to-day trading valuations of certain select equities. No more, no less.
Oh, also it is a very cheap shorthand way to extrapolate a purely cherry-picked political point.
TPN… would you like to suggest an index that proves the success of the Bush tax cuts?
The floor is yours.
good point TPN, because Really, O was the president on Nov 5th
Perhaps we need to repeat this again:
Bush got all the tax cuts he wanted. His rate of job growth was 0.3%, the worst record after Herbert Hoover. Tax cuts are not good stimulus! Especially tax cuts for the rich!
And let’s remember that these tax cuts never paid for themselves — they created a deficit almost immediately and those deficits continued through adding on wars and whatever else BushCo wanted. So now not only are we in economic trouble, Bush left office pretty much leaving alot of the other tools for recovery not available or ineffective.
Actually, Tyler is right. The DJIA is a scaled average of only 30 stocks. For a lot of reasons, it sucks as a benchmark for anything.
The S&P 500 is a much better benchmark or indicator. And it shows that the investment climate under Bush and the repubs sucked.
Actually, Tyler is right.
No, Tyler is wrong. The inadequacies of the DJIA do not invalidate it as a gross indicator of equity investment over time. He just pointed that out to muddy the waters for the main point that tax cuts do not create business investment. The flaws in the DJIA do not change the facts.
So, say for example, dropping all taxes, including state and local…but even just federal, on people making less than $50K/yr would be no stimulus?
You all have the intellectual dishonesty problem here of branding any efficacy to any tax cuts with your political rhetoric against “tax cuts for the rich”…all of which occurred with the same constant you ignore : MASSIVE DEFICIT SPENDING.
Please. Discuss.
dropping all taxes, including state and local…but even just federal, on people making less than $50K/yr
Republicans would filibuster that until tax cuts for the rich were added.
That isn’t stimulative if you don’t have a job to get tax cuts from.
People are saving or paying down debt tax cuts and rebates at lower wage rates — we already know this from last spring’s stimulus.
And then what happens with the giant hole in revenues that you open up by these tax cuts? MASSIVE DEFICIT SPENDING.
Which has little to no multiplier effect.
And do remember that the massive tax cuts for BushCo produced a total of .3% job growth over 8 years. Not exactly stimulative.
To qualify as stimulus, the spending has to either pass through a lot of hands, create a productive asset, or both.
“gross indicator of equity investment over time”
Get real. The DJIA is a reflection of day-to-day trading of equity shares, not per se long-term capital investment in the economy.
The daily bid/sell pricing reflected in the DJIA is simply not a, at least, politically-instructive long-term indicator of productive economic capital investments by the wealthy as a result of increased holdings (from paying less taxes).
As I said, it is just a cheap political non-point maker.
“So, say for example, dropping all taxes, including state and local…but even just federal, on people making less than $50K/yr would be no stimulus?”
I make less than $50,000 a year, and I’m sure as hell not going to be stimulatizing any of my tax cuts / rebates / etc. I’m paying down debt and socking the pennies I have left over into savings.
The daily bid/sell pricing reflected in the DJIA is simply not a, at least, politically-instructive long-term indicator of productive economic capital investments by the wealthy as a result of increased holdings (from paying less taxes).
The wealthy put their money into stocks, which lost value because the wealthy outsourced, laid off, or cut the pay of ALL THEIR CUSTOMERS.
The Bush admininstration failed their economic stewardship. David Stockman called out trickle-down in 1982 as a “Trojan Horse for the rich.”
Now it’s time for trickle-up, baby.
So, say for example, dropping all taxes, including state and local…but even just federal, on people making less than $50K/yr would be no stimulus?
Spending money without raising taxes=Deficits
Cutting taxes without cutting spending=Deficits
You’re still getting “MASSIVE DEFICIT SPENDING.” The reason spending is preferable is because you’re investing in future GDP growth by creating jobs and infrastructure that the private sector can’t or won’t.
Tax cuts don’t do that. And if you make the corresponding spending cuts with the tax cuts, you lose the stimulus effect.
Besides, if you don’t have a job, a tax cut doesn’t help.
You’re so far out of your league here, it is pitiful.
Cassandra, again here we go with the chicken and the egg.
Your theories are from the vantage of government, mine is from the taxpayer. It is admittedly a very different mindset.
I just don’t buy, nor is there any recent or historic instance of a massive centralized government that can persist and perpetually grow without eventually sapping the life out of its hosts….the livelihood and earnings of its subjects.
You think government is too important to eliminate taxes on the lowest earners (e.g. 50K or less).
I happen think your nanny/papa government fantasies should go to hell, and let these lower income people keep their damn money.
If that means less spending for DC masters of the multi-verse, so be it.
If you are saying the government is “too big to not grow more (much less shrink)”, well then we are all really screwed anyway.
To hijack Marvin Gaye slightly : more is not the answer.
Now it’s time for trickle-up, baby.”
Testify! We can start with elimination of ALL taxes for those making under $50k/yr.
Let the wealthy masters of the universe pay for the big government they so love, and that so loves them…
You know, Tyler — this is you being an asshole all over again, I never said any of the bullshit you;ve got going on in #26. None of it. I DID answer your question in 18. You want to discuss what I said — then let’s go. But making up a bullshit strawman so you can tilt at your usual windmills at my expense is over. Do that over at your own place or settle down and deal with what I actually said.
I really admire your patience with this people, but I can’t understand why you are wasting your time engaging in this discussion with somebody who is clearly brain dead. Anybody who believes that tax cuts will solve our problems after the past 30 years is beyond any ability to think or process logically.
So what happens, Tyler, if you cut taxes and people don’t spend it? Isn’t this part two of tax cuts?
So, anonone, you’re against “letting” people under $50k/yr, especially minimum wage earners, keep ALL their earnings?
Why do you hate poor people?
Americans are on the cusp of a historic reduction in their standard of living. The political fallout will be huge and unpredictable.
Without wage inflation (which implies we have jobs), we must reduce our standard of living.
To inflate wages, our best hope is that the rest of the world is even more screwed than we are, and we can somehow sell something to them.
Oh, here we go. The personal attacks begin. Now I know I am cutting to the bone here.
So what happens, Tyler, if you cut taxes and people don’t spend it
OMG. Lower and lower-middle class earners shouldn’t be able to, God forbid, save money for themselves?
God, this mindset over here is truly fucked. Even simple thrift is a sin against the “stimulus” dogma.
…elimination of ALL taxes for those making under $50k/yr.
We are not that far from that now, for a family with 2 kids and mortage payments the taxable part of $50K is not all that much.
the taxable part of $50K is not all that much
Maybe not to you. I doubt people struggling right now would share a blithe view of their hard-earned money.
But remember I said ALL taxes, not necessarily just on income.
Not fair, Tyler. The Republicans are offering tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy. That’s their claim.
I never trashed the benefits of saving. I simply asked a question.
Sorry, pandora. Point taken.
I am not arguing tax cuts from a Republican view.
Frankly, I am not buying what either Republicans or Democrats have to say at this point on tax cuts. Both have very unclean hands, whether from profligate spending ways or special-interest drive broad-brush ideology about the manner and efficacy of cutting (or not cutting) the tax burden on working Americans. Both sides are guilty of same.
My ideal is not “stimulation” (which I believe government can only inherently get wrong), it is burden-reduction on lower and lower-middle income earning citizens (which government can effect immediately and substantially in myriad ways).
Anyway, enough of this. I have taxes and fees to go pay…
It’s been quite stimulating. Thanks!
The change the DJIA and the S&P 500 is only one measure of how much Bush sucked as a president. Any economic measure you look at for his presidency is terrible, unless you’re one of the 1 percenters.
Tyler,
Actually, Tyler, I think everybody that works should pay taxes, even if it just a very small amount. I think that everybody who lives in this country should help contribute to its prosperity.
Your suggestion that I hate poor people is silly. But I think you know that.
Tyler is battling the invisible hippies under his bed.
LOL. They’re not invisible, I tells ya!