|
On November 03 2010 04:17 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 04:07 Servolisk wrote:On November 03 2010 03:47 Savio wrote:On November 03 2010 03:32 Dimenus wrote:On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote:
Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills"
Reagan: Tax cuts Why are you not responding to what I wrote? Reagan's recession was CAUSED BY THE FED. Stop comparing two recessions that were caused by completely different things. I didn't respond to this because it didn't deserve a response. Every recession has a different cause, and we were never talking about what the cause of these 2 recessions were, we were talking about the presidents' response to the recession they had. Before you get all happy about that graph, you should look at the little box at the bottom of each division that says "total cumulative tax cuts/increases" Total cumulative tax cuts: -275.3 Billion Total cumulative tax increases: 132.7 Billion Edit: Also that very same writer points out that Reagan did most of his tax increases during the "expansion" that followed the recovery and not during the recession itself. The writer attributes this to the fact that Reagan "actually cared enough about budget deficits that [he] thought raising taxes was necessary to bring them down" There is a fundamental difference between the approach Bush and Obama took to their recession and the one Reagan took to his. So far, Bush and Obama's approach has been unsuccessful. Your selective interpretation aside, you realize Bush began the current recession while having tax cuts, right? After inheriting a massive surplus. I'm pretty sure the sub-prime mortgage bubble had something to do with the creation of the initial shock that caused the recession, not the tax cuts. I don't believe his cuts were done in response to a recession but before it making the application irrelevant since the topic of discussion is "Presidents' response to recession" NOT "causes of recessions".
Before that bubble burst a surplus had turned to a deficit. A large portion of that recession was lack of regulation. A philosophy your party generally supports hand in hand with tax cuts.
While you criticize stimulus, I have not seen part of your post that addresses what type of worse recession we would have to solve if there had been zero.
You also did not address the point in my post, and in other peoples post, that Obama is attempting tax cuts for businesses and the middle class, where it obviously stimulates the economy, but not for areas where a tax cut is not stimulative (for the rich)-which would also increase debt if not done.
|
On November 03 2010 04:08 Dimenus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 03:59 Savio wrote:
The principle of cutting taxes to ppl have more money on hand to spend or save or whatever they like is well known. It doesn't really matter what the initial shock was to the economy that caused the recession. The point is that its better to give the people their money directly through tax cuts than to try to artificially create temporary jobs with "jobs bills" and bailouts.
Also, you admit that Reagan's actions were a good idea, but why do you think Bush's and Obama's are also good? I think Reagan's were good and Bush and Obama's were bad. So why do you think Obama's have been good and where is the evidence that they are working in any way?
There is no multiplier in giving the RICH a massive tax decrease during a demand caused recession. Things like big ass boats, bigger ass houses, and biggest ass novelty items have no multiplier.
Are you suggesting that houses and boats are spontaneously created from nothing and that workers don't get paid for building them and suppliers are not paid for the resources to create them? If not then why do you say these goods do not have a muliplier associated with them while cereal boxes do?
The middle class having money to spend is what drives the demand portion of our economy.
This is true because the middle class in America hold the majority of money. It does not mean that money from rich or poor people does nothing for the economy. Money is money, and it can be saved or spent, and both savings and spending are "good"
That's why I would advocate infrastructure spending in this case, to put more people back to work giving them money to spend.
It certainly hasn't worked so far.
I admit Reagan's actions were kind of good from a feel good perspective, not that they were necessarily good from a monetary perspective. (Reagan tripled the national debt in 8 years).
Don't make me get some graphs of Obama's forcasted deficits....
I don't think Bush's response was good at all. Blank check to the banks hello TARP. Obama's wasn't good but wasn't as terrible, the auto industry is at least profitable now and the execs were replaced.
meh, they were both bad. I think your desire to dislike Bush and to like Obama are clouding your view that their policies were very similar and had the same recovery effect: not much
|
I really have no pity and little enough patience when we talk about tax breaks for the 'wealthy'.
The wealth distribution within America is horrible, and not likely to change any time soon. The wealthy (as a whole, not individually) have proven, time after time, that they can not be trusted, or relied upon to help drive the economy. There is a finite amount at which point, you really can't spend any more, and a very real hoarding effect takes over.
I don't really want to influence a massive re-distribution of wealth, as it's fairly selfish of me to consider it, but in light of other options, I don't see much of a choice. Taxes on the upper brackets are far to low, there are too many loopholes and shelters and ways to avoid paying.
Even if we managed to get them to not only pay what they should, but doubled it on top of that... they would still have a standard of living many times, if not exponentially better than your average American. What good does it do anyone to have so much wealth bottled up into so few a number of people?
|
On November 03 2010 04:27 Savio wrote:
Are you suggesting that houses and boats are spontaneously created from nothing and that workers don't get paid for building them and suppliers are not paid for the resources to create them? If not then why do you say these goods do not have a muliplier associated with them while cereal boxes do? .
No I'm saying one buying one big expensive thing has a much lower multiplier than many not so expensive things. Dollar for dollar wise the gov would get more kickback from middle class tax cuts than rich tax cuts.
This is true because the middle class in America hold the majority of money. It does not mean that money from rich or poor people does nothing for the economy. Money is money, and it can be saved or spent, and both savings and spending are "good"
When we're in a recession with money that could be spent by someone else, giving to people who would save it gains us nothing. Under normal circumstances I completely agree with you, one of the things that got us into this mess was too much spending. But everyone saving at the same time would also make the economy contract.
Show nested quote +
That's why I would advocate infrastructure spending in this case, to put more people back to work giving them money to spend.
It certainly hasn't worked so far.
There wasn't exactly a very large percentage of spending dedicated to infastructure spending. Most of our not big enough stimulus package went to state/local budgets and Repub's favorite TAX CUTs.
Show nested quote +
I admit Reagan's actions were kind of good from a feel good perspective, not that they were necessarily good from a monetary perspective. (Reagan tripled the national debt in 8 years).
Don't make me get some graphs of Obama's forcasted deficits....
The budget deficit before Obama even took office for 2009 was 1.2 trillion. Explain to me again how much of that was his fault?
Show nested quote +
I don't think Bush's response was good at all. Blank check to the banks hello TARP. Obama's wasn't good but wasn't as terrible, the auto industry is at least profitable now and the execs were replaced.
meh, they were both bad. I think your desire to dislike Bush and to like Obama are clouding your view that their policies were very similar and had the same recovery effect: not much
That is actually quite possible, but I think you're overstating my liking of Obama. A stimulus that wasn't big enough and an economic team filled with deregulators was Obama/Dem's downfall. Keynesian policy wasn't actually implemented. It was half ass-ed pretend crap.
Edit: I am going to work though for a few hours so If this thread persists, I'll be back in about 4 hours.
|
On November 03 2010 04:22 Dimenus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 04:17 Savio wrote:On November 03 2010 04:07 Servolisk wrote:On November 03 2010 03:47 Savio wrote:On November 03 2010 03:32 Dimenus wrote:On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote:
Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills"
Reagan: Tax cuts Why are you not responding to what I wrote? Reagan's recession was CAUSED BY THE FED. Stop comparing two recessions that were caused by completely different things. I didn't respond to this because it didn't deserve a response. Every recession has a different cause, and we were never talking about what the cause of these 2 recessions were, we were talking about the presidents' response to the recession they had. Before you get all happy about that graph, you should look at the little box at the bottom of each division that says "total cumulative tax cuts/increases" Total cumulative tax cuts: -275.3 Billion Total cumulative tax increases: 132.7 Billion Edit: Also that very same writer points out that Reagan did most of his tax increases during the "expansion" that followed the recovery and not during the recession itself. The writer attributes this to the fact that Reagan "actually cared enough about budget deficits that [he] thought raising taxes was necessary to bring them down" There is a fundamental difference between the approach Bush and Obama took to their recession and the one Reagan took to his. So far, Bush and Obama's approach has been unsuccessful. Your selective interpretation aside, you realize Bush began the current recession while having tax cuts, right? After inheriting a massive surplus. I'm pretty sure the sub-prime mortgage bubble had something to do with the creation of the initial shock that caused the recession, not the tax cuts. I don't believe his cuts were done in response to a recession but before it making the application irrelevant since the topic of discussion is "Presidents' response to recession" NOT "causes of recessions". Obama/Bush have spent trillions of dollars in bailouts and jobs bills since the recession started and if they had just done across the board (yes even the wealthy who pay most of our taxes for us anyway) tax cuts, it would have been better in my opinion. It would be a simple bill to pass to. You don't have to restructure the current tax schedule, just say "Everyone who is paying taxes, gets 10% off this year" or whatever it is. Leave the restructuring of the tax schedule (which will always be controversial) for years when we are not in crisis and we can take our time to really debate stuff long and hard. If Obama was serious about wanting his tax cuts to go through he would have done this. Instead he tried to pass a controversial restructuring of the tax schedule in the middle of a financial crisis. Dude the SUPER rich pay less than the other 49.9 % due to the capital gains tax. The medium-rich do pay quite a bit in taxes, but the super rich are way below anyone else above even 120k. (which I'm not calling rich btw).
Tax burden:
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/J2bJBl.jpg)
|
United States24740 Posts
Just voted; also NY like that guy above. Probably a bit less likely to have mistakes than the way I used to vote (we are using machines with bubble in sheets this year).
I chose not to choose a candidate for a few of the minor positions and the machine said 'undervote, return ballot or submit' and I was gonna choose submit. The employee who was 'assisting' me was like 'WAIT' and clicked the button himself to return the ballot. I'm like "I undervoted on purpose" and he's like '....oh'
lol
|
My state (Georgia) had early voting, so I voted on Friday. I'm really hoping the Democrats do better than anticipated.... very much so. The current platform of the Republicans really destroyed the economy, and the Democrats have only just started to right the ship (see graph at the end of this post). It takes time to fix a broken system as large and complicated as the entire United States and giving the control back to the party that lead to this recession seems premature.
Besides the overall picture, if the republican candidate (Nathan Deal, one of the most corrupt members of Congress) wins the governor race here in Georgia, it will mean I shall leave this state within the next year or two. So tired of living in corrupt, short sighted red states (having grown up in South Carolina, and now being in Georgia).
Job loss/growth graph (Red for Bush's term, Blue for Obama)
![[image loading]](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/privatejobs_aug10.jpg)
|
On November 03 2010 04:33 Obsidian wrote:
I really have no pity and little enough patience when we talk about tax breaks for the 'wealthy'.
The wealth distribution within America is horrible, and not likely to change any time soon. The wealthy (as a whole, not individually) have proven, time after time, that they can not be trusted, or relied upon to help drive the economy. There is a finite amount at which point, you really can't spend any more, and a very real hoarding effect takes over.
I don't really want to influence a massive re-distribution of wealth, as it's fairly selfish of me to consider it, but in light of other options, I don't see much of a choice. Taxes on the upper brackets are far to low, there are too many loopholes and shelters and ways to avoid paying.
Even if we managed to get them to not only pay what they should, but doubled it on top of that... they would still have a standard of living many times, if not exponentially better than your average American. What good does it do anyone to have so much wealth bottled up into so few a number of people?
And its this kind of thinking that started the french revolution... and communism.
I fail to understand why people such as the gentleman above continuously believe that the wealthy are an elite group of people who are seeking to control society at their whim (though granted, it is justified to some degree)
I find it quite humorous that people dont understand just how taxes work, especially if you're a business owner. I find it even more funny that people think raising taxes on the wealthy has absolutely no affect on the lower pyramid structure of American wealth.
|
On November 03 2010 04:40 [-Bluewolf-] wrote:My state (Georgia) had early voting, so I voted on Friday. I'm really hoping the Democrats do better than anticipated.... very much so. The current platform of the Republicans really destroyed the economy, and the Democrats have only just started to right the ship (see graph at the end of this post). It takes time to fix a broken system as large and complicated as the entire United States and giving the control back to the party that lead to this recession seems premature. Besides the overall picture, if the republican candidate (Nathan Deal, one of the most corrupt members of Congress) wins the governor race here in Georgia, it will mean I shall leave this state within the next year or two. So tired of living in corrupt, short sighted red states (having grown up in South Carolina, and now being in Georgia). Job loss/growth graph (Red for Bush's term, Blue for Obama)
![[image loading]](http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/graphics/LNS14000000_110095_1288727026566.gif)
source
Seems to me like your graph was upside down, so I helped you out!
|
On November 03 2010 04:35 Dimenus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 04:27 Savio wrote:
Are you suggesting that houses and boats are spontaneously created from nothing and that workers don't get paid for building them and suppliers are not paid for the resources to create them? If not then why do you say these goods do not have a muliplier associated with them while cereal boxes do? .
No I'm saying one buying one big expensive thing has a much lower multiplier than many not so expensive things. Dollar for dollar wise the gov would get more kickback from middle class tax cuts than rich tax cuts.
I see where you are coming from with this but I wonder if there is a evidence or a source you can link that backs it up. Despite having an Econ degree I have never heard this. Doesn't mean its wrong, but its new, so some back up would be appreciated.
When we're in a recession with money that could be spent by someone else, giving to people who would save it gains us nothing. Under normal circumstances I completely agree with you, one of the things that got us into this mess was too much spending. But everyone saving at the same time would also make the economy contract.
savings = investment. The US is plagued by a historically low savings rate but a thirst for investment which must be financed through foreign investments such as from China. Domestic savings in the US would be beneficial all around.
The budget deficit before Obama even took office for 2009 was 1.2 trillion. Explain to me again how much of that was his fault?
That is why I said Obama's "forcasted deficits" because the deficits we have now and the debt we have now are nothing compared to what the Obama future looks like.
|
On November 03 2010 04:27 Servolisk wrote:
Before that bubble burst a surplus had turned to a deficit.
The two are not related.
A large portion of that recession was lack of regulation. A philosophy your party generally supports hand in hand with tax cuts.
It wasn't a lack of regulation but rather, bad regulation, as both the housing and the financial industry were and are one of the most regulated industries. The Canadian banking system is less regulated than the American one, but the main reasons they did not suffer while the rest of the world did is:
1) Their capital requirements are higher.
2) They do not subsidize home buying.
What it comes down to is that the American system did not properly regulate leverage, and in fact encouraged it. The Canadian system has the opposite approach. The saddest part of all this is that the new financial regulations barely address the leverage problem.
|
On November 03 2010 04:46 Energizer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 04:40 [-Bluewolf-] wrote:My state (Georgia) had early voting, so I voted on Friday. I'm really hoping the Democrats do better than anticipated.... very much so. The current platform of the Republicans really destroyed the economy, and the Democrats have only just started to right the ship (see graph at the end of this post). It takes time to fix a broken system as large and complicated as the entire United States and giving the control back to the party that lead to this recession seems premature. Besides the overall picture, if the republican candidate (Nathan Deal, one of the most corrupt members of Congress) wins the governor race here in Georgia, it will mean I shall leave this state within the next year or two. So tired of living in corrupt, short sighted red states (having grown up in South Carolina, and now being in Georgia). Job loss/growth graph (Red for Bush's term, Blue for Obama) source Seems to me like your graph was upside down, so I helped you out!
One can make statistics say anything. Notice how in your graph it is by years, and that the line really spikes from 2008 to 2009. During this period, Bush was president and in control for the majority of the months (you cannot simply end his term at 01/08). In addition, my graph still has job losses after Obama attains the office for some time - just that those job losses are decreasing until the eventual trickle of growth currently. Lastly, the loss or creation of a job is more "instant" than the unemployment claim that can take some time to be processed.
In order to keep up with population growth, the US must add a ton of jobs per month that has not been reached. Simply stopping the bleeding does not yet reach the needed threshold to decrease unemployment. Expecting a president to stop the bleeding and then cause a period of economic boom in 2 years when dealing with the United States as a whole is a bit unrealistic considering it took 8 years to break the economy.
|
On November 03 2010 04:40 [-Bluewolf-] wrote:My state (Georgia) had early voting, so I voted on Friday. I'm really hoping the Democrats do better than anticipated.... very much so. The current platform of the Republicans really destroyed the economy, and the Democrats have only just started to right the ship (see graph at the end of this post). It takes time to fix a broken system as large and complicated as the entire United States and giving the control back to the party that lead to this recession seems premature. Besides the overall picture, if the republican candidate (Nathan Deal, one of the most corrupt members of Congress) wins the governor race here in Georgia, it will mean I shall leave this state within the next year or two. So tired of living in corrupt, short sighted red states (having grown up in South Carolina, and now being in Georgia). Job loss/growth graph (Red for Bush's term, Blue for Obama)
That's private sector-only my man. So many public sector jobs have been hemorrhaged every month that the unemployment rate, and more importantly, combined unemployment + underemployment rate, continue to rise. It's great that the private sector is hiring, but calling it a "job loss/growth graph" is very misleading.
|
On November 03 2010 04:55 city42 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 04:40 [-Bluewolf-] wrote:My state (Georgia) had early voting, so I voted on Friday. I'm really hoping the Democrats do better than anticipated.... very much so. The current platform of the Republicans really destroyed the economy, and the Democrats have only just started to right the ship (see graph at the end of this post). It takes time to fix a broken system as large and complicated as the entire United States and giving the control back to the party that lead to this recession seems premature. Besides the overall picture, if the republican candidate (Nathan Deal, one of the most corrupt members of Congress) wins the governor race here in Georgia, it will mean I shall leave this state within the next year or two. So tired of living in corrupt, short sighted red states (having grown up in South Carolina, and now being in Georgia). Job loss/growth graph (Red for Bush's term, Blue for Obama) That's private sector-only my man. So many public sector jobs have been hemorrhaged every month that the unemployment rate, and more importantly, combined unemployment + underemployment rate, continue to rise. It's great that the private sector is hiring, but calling it a "job loss/growth graph" is very misleading.
Good point, and accurate. I should have labeled it "private sector" growth. My apologies.
|
On November 03 2010 04:41 Energizer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 04:33 Obsidian wrote:
I really have no pity and little enough patience when we talk about tax breaks for the 'wealthy'.
The wealth distribution within America is horrible, and not likely to change any time soon. The wealthy (as a whole, not individually) have proven, time after time, that they can not be trusted, or relied upon to help drive the economy. There is a finite amount at which point, you really can't spend any more, and a very real hoarding effect takes over.
I don't really want to influence a massive re-distribution of wealth, as it's fairly selfish of me to consider it, but in light of other options, I don't see much of a choice. Taxes on the upper brackets are far to low, there are too many loopholes and shelters and ways to avoid paying.
Even if we managed to get them to not only pay what they should, but doubled it on top of that... they would still have a standard of living many times, if not exponentially better than your average American. What good does it do anyone to have so much wealth bottled up into so few a number of people? And its this kind of thinking that started the french revolution... and communism. I fail to understand why people such as the gentleman above continuously believe that the wealthy are an elite group of people who are seeking to control society at their whim (though granted, it is justified to some degree) I find it quite humorous that people dont understand just how taxes work, especially if you're a business owner. I find it even more funny that people think raising taxes on the wealthy has absolutely no affect on the lower pyramid structure of American wealth.
Excuse me for going abit OT but I'm just wondering, are americans still deathly afraid of communists and socialism? When I look at the cold war america it's all boo-boo communism which is understandable given the tense situation but is this also present today?
From an outside viewer it looks kinda comical ("Communist from outer SPACE!", "destroy our way of life!", etc) but is it really still viewed seriously in US?
Also-- out of interest why is there only two policital parties in the US? For example we have 7 major policital parties in sweden and a number of smaller parties, covering pretty much every political view possible. How can you manage with only two parties, and why is neither dominant?
|
On November 03 2010 04:37 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 04:22 Dimenus wrote:On November 03 2010 04:17 Savio wrote:On November 03 2010 04:07 Servolisk wrote:On November 03 2010 03:47 Savio wrote:On November 03 2010 03:32 Dimenus wrote:On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote:
Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills"
Reagan: Tax cuts Why are you not responding to what I wrote? Reagan's recession was CAUSED BY THE FED. Stop comparing two recessions that were caused by completely different things. I didn't respond to this because it didn't deserve a response. Every recession has a different cause, and we were never talking about what the cause of these 2 recessions were, we were talking about the presidents' response to the recession they had. Before you get all happy about that graph, you should look at the little box at the bottom of each division that says "total cumulative tax cuts/increases" Total cumulative tax cuts: -275.3 Billion Total cumulative tax increases: 132.7 Billion Edit: Also that very same writer points out that Reagan did most of his tax increases during the "expansion" that followed the recovery and not during the recession itself. The writer attributes this to the fact that Reagan "actually cared enough about budget deficits that [he] thought raising taxes was necessary to bring them down" There is a fundamental difference between the approach Bush and Obama took to their recession and the one Reagan took to his. So far, Bush and Obama's approach has been unsuccessful. Your selective interpretation aside, you realize Bush began the current recession while having tax cuts, right? After inheriting a massive surplus. I'm pretty sure the sub-prime mortgage bubble had something to do with the creation of the initial shock that caused the recession, not the tax cuts. I don't believe his cuts were done in response to a recession but before it making the application irrelevant since the topic of discussion is "Presidents' response to recession" NOT "causes of recessions". Obama/Bush have spent trillions of dollars in bailouts and jobs bills since the recession started and if they had just done across the board (yes even the wealthy who pay most of our taxes for us anyway) tax cuts, it would have been better in my opinion. It would be a simple bill to pass to. You don't have to restructure the current tax schedule, just say "Everyone who is paying taxes, gets 10% off this year" or whatever it is. Leave the restructuring of the tax schedule (which will always be controversial) for years when we are not in crisis and we can take our time to really debate stuff long and hard. If Obama was serious about wanting his tax cuts to go through he would have done this. Instead he tried to pass a controversial restructuring of the tax schedule in the middle of a financial crisis. Dude the SUPER rich pay less than the other 49.9 % due to the capital gains tax. The medium-rich do pay quite a bit in taxes, but the super rich are way below anyone else above even 120k. (which I'm not calling rich btw). Tax burden:
Wealth distribution:
![[image loading]](http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_1.gif)
|
On November 03 2010 04:58 KaiserJohan wrote:
Excuse me for going abit OT but I'm just wondering, are americans still deathly afraid of communists and socialism? When I look at the cold war america it's all boo-boo communism which is understandable given the tense situation but is this also present today?
From an outside viewer it looks kinda comical ("Communist from outer SPACE!", "destroy our way of life!", etc) but is it really still viewed seriously in US?
Communism is quite destructive, but you're correct that there isn't much danger if it grabbing hold of people's ideologies. But you should realize it's mostly just rhetoric and people don't truly care about Communism.
Perhaps a European analogue is the perceived fear of Nazism.
Also-- out of interest why is there only two policital parties in the US? For example we have 7 major policital parties in sweden and a number of smaller parties, covering pretty much every political view possible. How can you manage with only two parties, and why is neither dominant?
We have a winner-take-all Presidential system, which inevitably leads to a two-party equilibrium.
|
On November 03 2010 04:59 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 04:37 Savio wrote:On November 03 2010 04:22 Dimenus wrote:On November 03 2010 04:17 Savio wrote:On November 03 2010 04:07 Servolisk wrote:On November 03 2010 03:47 Savio wrote:On November 03 2010 03:32 Dimenus wrote:On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote:
Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills"
Reagan: Tax cuts Why are you not responding to what I wrote? Reagan's recession was CAUSED BY THE FED. Stop comparing two recessions that were caused by completely different things. I didn't respond to this because it didn't deserve a response. Every recession has a different cause, and we were never talking about what the cause of these 2 recessions were, we were talking about the presidents' response to the recession they had. Before you get all happy about that graph, you should look at the little box at the bottom of each division that says "total cumulative tax cuts/increases" Total cumulative tax cuts: -275.3 Billion Total cumulative tax increases: 132.7 Billion Edit: Also that very same writer points out that Reagan did most of his tax increases during the "expansion" that followed the recovery and not during the recession itself. The writer attributes this to the fact that Reagan "actually cared enough about budget deficits that [he] thought raising taxes was necessary to bring them down" There is a fundamental difference between the approach Bush and Obama took to their recession and the one Reagan took to his. So far, Bush and Obama's approach has been unsuccessful. Your selective interpretation aside, you realize Bush began the current recession while having tax cuts, right? After inheriting a massive surplus. I'm pretty sure the sub-prime mortgage bubble had something to do with the creation of the initial shock that caused the recession, not the tax cuts. I don't believe his cuts were done in response to a recession but before it making the application irrelevant since the topic of discussion is "Presidents' response to recession" NOT "causes of recessions". Obama/Bush have spent trillions of dollars in bailouts and jobs bills since the recession started and if they had just done across the board (yes even the wealthy who pay most of our taxes for us anyway) tax cuts, it would have been better in my opinion. It would be a simple bill to pass to. You don't have to restructure the current tax schedule, just say "Everyone who is paying taxes, gets 10% off this year" or whatever it is. Leave the restructuring of the tax schedule (which will always be controversial) for years when we are not in crisis and we can take our time to really debate stuff long and hard. If Obama was serious about wanting his tax cuts to go through he would have done this. Instead he tried to pass a controversial restructuring of the tax schedule in the middle of a financial crisis. Dude the SUPER rich pay less than the other 49.9 % due to the capital gains tax. The medium-rich do pay quite a bit in taxes, but the super rich are way below anyone else above even 120k. (which I'm not calling rich btw). Tax burden: Wealth distribution:
You can't really compare the two charts, especially because of the 8 year difference and the fact that one is income tax and the other is total wealth. The American tax system is fairly progressive, there's no doubt about that.
|
On November 03 2010 04:54 [-Bluewolf-] wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 04:46 Energizer wrote:On November 03 2010 04:40 [-Bluewolf-] wrote:My state (Georgia) had early voting, so I voted on Friday. I'm really hoping the Democrats do better than anticipated.... very much so. The current platform of the Republicans really destroyed the economy, and the Democrats have only just started to right the ship (see graph at the end of this post). It takes time to fix a broken system as large and complicated as the entire United States and giving the control back to the party that lead to this recession seems premature. Besides the overall picture, if the republican candidate (Nathan Deal, one of the most corrupt members of Congress) wins the governor race here in Georgia, it will mean I shall leave this state within the next year or two. So tired of living in corrupt, short sighted red states (having grown up in South Carolina, and now being in Georgia). Job loss/growth graph (Red for Bush's term, Blue for Obama) source Seems to me like your graph was upside down, so I helped you out! One can make statistics say anything. Notice how in your graph it is by years, and that the line really spikes from 2008 to 2009. During this period, Bush was president and in control for the majority of the months (you cannot simply end his term at 01/08). In addition, my graph still has job losses after Obama attains the office for some time - just that those job losses are decreasing until the eventual trickle of growth currently. Lastly, the loss or creation of a job is more "instant" than the unemployment claim that can take some time to be processed. In order to keep up with population growth, the US must add a ton of jobs per month that has not been reached. Simply stopping the bleeding does not yet reach the needed threshold to decrease unemployment. Expecting a president to stop the bleeding and then cause a period of economic boom in 2 years when dealing with the United States as a whole is a bit unrealistic considering it took 8 years to break the economy.
Really...? I mean.... Reeeaaallyyyy?
|
On November 03 2010 04:58 KaiserJohan wrote:
Excuse me for going abit OT but I'm just wondering, are americans still deathly afraid of communists and socialism? When I look at the cold war america it's all boo-boo communism which is understandable given the tense situation but is this also present today?
From an outside viewer it looks kinda comical ("Communist from outer SPACE!", "destroy our way of life!", etc) but is it really still viewed seriously in US?
Also-- out of interest why is there only two policital parties in the US? For example we have 7 major policital parties in sweden and a number of smaller parties, covering pretty much every political view possible. How can you manage with only two parties, and why is neither dominant?
I think a part of it is that American's tend to have hold to a sort of "live and let live" and "leave me alone to do my thing" attitude when it comes to government. Socialism and communism both generally involve the government taking a more active role in the day to day life of the citizen, so Americans generally distrust/dislike it (especially those of us who have worked in/with the government  ).
The two party system works because most of the country falls in the moderate area between the two party platforms. As a result, when the two parties compete and espouse their political views, voters moderate them and everything falls sort of towards the middle of the road. Of course, our pundits and politicians create a pretty hostile and adversarial environment in politics, which makes a lot of people associate with one party or another, so depending on who is successful in office one party or another will 'dominate' for a normally short period of time.
It's also quite common for one party to dominate one area of government (such as a Democrat as President, Republicans in the Senate, and Democrats in the House of Representatives).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gcA0ZuKGkI8/SxXXFx28TZI/AAAAAAAAFBc/mwZYaYFvjJ0/s640/bush_deficit_vs_obama_deficit_in_pictures_2.jpg)
