All of this is irrelevant to the point that no one has suggested that we tax wealth.What I showed you was how the US addressed income equality after the 1920's, through an increase in income tax rates for the wealthy. That is the same way we plan to address the wealth inequality today, by increasing the tax rates for the wealthy.
Then why do Republican Administrations create so few jobs? Conservatives hate low unemployment it drives up wages.
Your view of the Great Depression "history" is a bit flawed, IMHO.
What Ended the Great Depression? : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education
The Great Depression - End of the Depression
When did the Great Depression end
But the president just released a stunning new bipartisan plan to solve the spending crisis with....a slight increase in the tax rate for the wealthy coupled with.....0 reduction in spending.
The Obama administration has cemented this centrist as a permanent Republican...and don't get me started on their mental problems.
The people who benefit from paving projects are the oil companies whose materials are the big cost of asphalt, and the guys who drive the equipment. It isn't like they take people off welfare and give them a backhoe, dump truck, or asphalt roller or let them put down steel or even direct traffic. Perhaps if your idea of infrastructure were a little more modern than hacking your way through the Blue Ridge Mountain during the depression. The jobs created are highly concentrated in existing industry that just add aggregate demand for isolated things like concrete production, steel work, metal fabrication. That is great for those people, but adds no wide-spread job bump and to hold it out as some great hope for people in manufacturing is just cruel and manipulative.
All of this is irrelevant to the point that no one has suggested that we tax wealth.
Thus, your failure, for all to see. Again.
He doesn't get it, raising taxes for the millionaires won't solve our problem. We need to cut spending now.
You mean like how Congress just voted to spend again next year almost as much as the rest of the world combined on the military? 90 Democrats voted against the spending but not a single Republican.
Think beyond those who will benefit directly from the government contracts. ALso, infrastructure involves more than road and bridge building. Still, when people have money in their pockets, they spend more. When more money is being spent, stores have to hire more people. When products are being sold, more people need to be hired to produce those products. This is how a major construction project can spur job growth in many sectors.
As Obama is getting over $1 trillion in debt each year, despite all that job growth, there are a couple more examples of where these trillions went.
The Fisker Electric auto company with the $110,000 sports car, and almost $200,000,000 in Obama Dollars is now on its death bed.
A123, the company which was supposed to supply the batteries to Fisker, received $133 million of Obama Dollars and is now being sold to the Chinese. It was once valued at $2 billion though there should be some doubt on that number.
Maybe the idea is to create jobs based on Obama's entrepreneurial and management skills learned in Chicago before favoring American politics but so far the results have been "mixed".
So when Obama proposes trickle-down economics, it works better than when a republican does? I don't think so. Infrastructure is a necessity, but $85B is a drop in the bucket. That is like 1/2 of 1 % of annual GDP and it would not all be spent at once, just budgeted that way. I wouldn't over-estimate the ability of that amount to add velocity in a trickle-down way, but feel free to believe whatever makes you feel good.......
Funding employment by rebuilding infrastucture is not trickle down. Giving more money to corporations and tycoons thru tax breaks and regulation changes is trickle down theory. Nice try
In fact it is important to all of us how other people run their countries because one day we may be strongly effected by their policies. This has happened throughout history. America was at war with Iraq and Afghanistan and Barrack Obama then decides, after many good Service people were killed or wounded, that Iraq was isn't worthwhile (it was) but another is. Then he announces a retreat from that war as well.
In other American wars there was a continuity of policy, often lasting years as with the Cold war, but everyone knew where America stood. Now there is confusion and malaise, and all coming from the American side. America looks foolish and weak as a result because there is no longer any continuity. This is no longer American Wars being fought, it is Presidential wars, one who decides attack and the next who decides retreat. And as a result foreign interests are already having more interest and input into US politics and policies. America ran from Iraq and now they are retreating from a country that is as third world as they come. This is really opening the US to long term danger.
Americans are getting killed during these 'training projects' in Afghanistan. Get the hell out now. You have lost. Get the planes ready and move on and the hell with those training programs. You're only training the enemy anyway because the Taleban will be back in power the moment the last plan leaves. ! You want a finely coordinated retreat while Americans are being killed? Run before there are more good people killed.
So he can buy any company or corporation he wants, fire the president and board of that company, and just have his people take over. He can give tax dollars to any person who fits his personal criteria in order to start up a company of which he approves, again despite not having any training or experience. And you're saying this is okay because it's in the Constitution? I had respected the US Constitution as being second only to the Magna Carta as one of the most important documents ever devised by man but this seems to illegitimatize the entire work of the forefathers if any politician can take taxpayer money and give it away to their political cronies. What surprises further is that many of the American people seem to be okay with this. No wonder Hugo Chavez supports Barrack Obama!
If the people want the Muslim Brotherhood so be it? I remember a Dem in the Clinton Administration once, during the Clinton administration saying that if the people of Cuba want a communist government they should have one. You don't know anything of the Muslim Brotherhood, do you? You'll see it in Libya and Iraq in a decade.
Really? Where does BHO want to reduce spending? Does it come anywhere near $1,000,000,000,000 a year?
So you think all that money is stored away is a safe place somewhere ready to be accessed when you need it?
And all these jobs will be paid for with money the American people don't have, keeping in mind that the government has to repay over $16,000,000,000,000 before they have nothing. So how will they pay for it? Borrow the money? Print it? My guess is on the latter because their credit has already been downgraded and will be downgraded again. Inflation is coming.
How is he going to stop corporations from moving overseas? Force people to stay? Put up a Berlin type Wall? At one time not that long ago everyone wanted to invest in the US, that is was a safe place to put your money, and entrepreneurial types were confident that this was the place to follow their dream. What went wrong? Have you given that much thought?
Maybe it was all George Bush, huh?
So all investments are sucessful?
That's why capital gains need to be taxed as income.
There is no risk involved.
I'm glad we agree.
Funding employment by rebuilding infrastucture is not trickle down. Giving more money to corporations and tycoons thru tax breaks and regulation changes is trickle down theory. Nice try
First of all, we should have never went into Iraq.
It is not our place to tell other countries how to run things.
The UN governs UN members and the US shouldn't step outside of UN authority.
Other countries don't like the way we run our country
and if another country tried to come here and take over, we would view that as wrong.
We can't conduct our business with double standards. That gives us a bad reputation and the world will start seeing us as the ones who need to be taken out.
The President can follow the guidelines set forth by TARP, which congress enacted and GW Bush signed into law. TARP grants the president the power to help companies that are troubled as to avoid the problems it would cause to the economy. Obama bailing out the auto industry, for example, saved jobs and prevented the economy from going into a deeper recession.
There is nothing in the constitution that says the president must have business experience in order to use his power in business matters.
OBama has already cut millitary spending and medicare spending. It's crazy to think Obama wants to just spend money because it's fun or whatever.
The issues is on what we should spend money on. We should spend more money on job creation, because that would being in more revenue.
That is wise spending, but if congress will not pass the jobs bill then the economy will remain sluggish. The people will have more money once they get jobs. This is basic economics 101. I don't see why it's so hard for people like you to understand. Spend money to make money is simple.
As for SS, yes, SS funds are held in a trust fund to pay out benefits. Some of that money is invested.
You talk a big talk about cutting spending, but you don't see that we should cut subsudies to corporations that ship jobs overseas?
Really? Why should we reward companies with our tax money if they are not helping our economy. That makes no sense. If we cut out the tax breaks and subsudies to corporations that do not reinvest in our economy, they will either move or create jobs here in the US.
No I mean health care, gov. stimulus, ect.
The fact that you up my taxes on no way necessitates I will have less wealth than I had before you upped my taxes.If increasing tax rates on income and capital gains did not decrease wealth...
The fact that you up my taxes on no way necessitates I will have less wealth than I had before you upped my taxes.
:shrug:
:roll:Hell of a deal! Then the wealthy won't mind when their tax rates are increased! Its a win, win for everyone!
In other words, the spending that is helping our own people here at home is what you are opposed to? I'm opposed to the GOP spending that doesn't help our own people here at home.
Neither side is proposing spending cuts, they just have different priorities for how it is spent.
Agreed, we should not increase defense spending. Keep it where it is, maintaining the worlds strongest military, and cut social programs.
We could cut our military spending by 2/3 and still spend more than the next biggest military spender. That is all that is required for defense.
What social programs are you talking about cutting? SS has been so successful, it helped fund the rest of the government. The only way to address health care cost is to upgrade to UHC. Is that what you are talking about?
I'm talking about stopping UHC, weening off SS, and spending less money in general. I am fine with cutting the defense budget as well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?