And where are all the jobs the Bush tax cuts were supposed to create?
Job creation doesnât happen unless people are able to buy products and services.
Two things:
-
The Bush tax cuts were for every economic class, not just for the rich.
-
Those tax cuts were promised and I believe delivered just before 9/11 and war was upon us.
War cost moneyâŠ
If you want a good example of tax cuts growing an economy look the Reagan tax cuts. The country grew almost 20 million jobs.
It is logical is it not? The more money left in the hands of the job creators the more jobs there will be. As opposed to handing more money to the government which wastes a good deal of it hands some out to welfare recipients and other give-a-way programs and pays bureaucrats, and grows the government with the rest.
More money in the hands of people of all economic classes will create a more prosperous country. Itâs been done and it works!
And people are not able to buy products and services unless they are employed. And they are not going to be employed unless more money is left in the hands of job creators.
And what happened to the deficit/debt under Reagan?
To the contrary, the more money in the hands of consumers, the more jobs there will be.
We all know what happened the dems in Congress refused to stop spending. Thatâs what always happens. Was there ever a spending program that a democrat didnât like? HA NOPE!
And how does money get in the hands of the consumers if not through those consumers being employed? It doesnât get into the hands of the consumers by raising taxes on job creators.
Leave your partisan hat off for a second and think logically.
Let me make sure I understand: Reagan gets credit for the jobs, but the Dems take the blame for the deficit/debt? Interesting perspective.
As American history has amply demonstrated, how the money gets in their hands is not a critical factor.
This from the guy who credits Reagan with the jobs and the Dems with the deficitâŠ
Obviously, if they cut spending the way he wanted then âŠ
WHAT? Well then tell me how should money get in the hands of consumers? Is it through government giveaway programs after taxes have been hiked on the job creators? How does that make any sense?
Reagan proposed a budget that would have cut programs and the size of government. Is it his fault that YOUR democrats didnât go for it?
Let logic be your friend here and think twice.
A person of modest means ($65 to invest) was able to take part ownership in the means of production. This would not have been possible for the majority of human history. Capital markets fund companies that create value.
If youâd like to see countries that donât have functioning capital markets Iâd like to direct your attention to Africa.
Did someone hold a gun to his head and force him to sign the budget bill they sent him?
That approach saved us during the Great Depression.
Again, Iâm fairly sure no one forced him to sign the budget bills Congress put on his desk.
Yes, of course thatâs the answer keep spending and the hell with sane fiscal policies.
Handing people free stuff saved us during the great depression soâŠletâs use it as the ultimate way to run an economy. Oh myâŠ
That is a non-responsive response.
We werenât talking about âthe ultimate way to run an economyâ; we were talking about the relative effectiveness of Keynesian vs supply-side interventions for dealing with a faltering economy. In that regard, Iâll stick with Keynes.
Except Keynes said his policies would be disastrous when implimented with a fiat currency. He was right.
You sure about that? My impression has always been that he was distinctly unattached to the gold standard. (That said, I readily admit itâs far from an area of expertise for me.)
1 Like
And your comment about how handing out free stuff during the depression was âŠwell letâs just say it made no sense relative to good sound fiscal policy
. [quote=âEyeDentist, post:272, topic:229191â]
a faltering economy
[/quote]
I donât get it Obama had 8 years to turn the economy around using Keynsian economics and it was the worst climb out of a recession in US history. SoâŠI will take supply side any day. It makes sense to allow people to keep more of their money. More money to spend, more money to invest and less money for the government to grow even larger and more out of control.
Liberal policies make no sense and deep down I think you know that.
Now where are all of those fiscally successful large Cities run by democrats for long periods of time? And donât point out the one or two outliers. Letâs talk about Detroit, Chicago, NYC, and the many, many failing bloated bureaucracies created by the left.
Then again letâs not talk about them âŠtoo depressing.
Yep. Want sustained growth that sends signals to expand business and wind up hiring more workers? It will come from the demand side of the macroeconomic equation, not the supply side. Supply side cuts donât categorically generate new jobs.
Except for the fact that it got us out of the Great Depression, of course.
Considering where the Obama economy started, it was a hella effective recovery. And if anything, Obama, failed to âprime the pumpâ as much as he should have.
Presumptuous, condescending statements such as this do nothing to advance the discussion.
Although I realize it is one of your go-to rhetorical gambits, this is not a valid method for evaluating fiscal policy, so I wonât get sucked into that discussion.
True, but they do generate massive amounts of new wealth for the super-wealthy. (Which, I suppose, is why those folks support such policies so vociferously.)
Well yes and no. He always hated inflationary policies (quote below). Early on he believed that fiat money was capable of being a stable currency. Until he witnessed what happened in post WW1 Europe and came to the conclusion that currency pegged to a gold standard protected economies from excess inflation (Bretton Woods).
He actually proposed a supranational currency called the bancor that would be used for international trade and only be purchased with gold (it was a weird system designed to fight international movement of capital). He argued lowering interest rates to stimulate the economy doesnât work when capital can seek higher interest in another country.
âBy a continuing process of inflation governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth.
Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become âprofiteers,â who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.
Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.â
I have never said otherwise. My point, which you are well aware, is that such fiscal policy is no way to run an even semi-healthy economy.
LOLâŠokay. We can only go another post or two.
Interpretation --The truth hurts!
Yes that and you canât get around the fact that long-term democrat leadership in major Cities have âŠFAILED. Itâs a fact there is no escaping it.
A more accurate interpretation is that I wonât continue responding to you if youâre going to behave like this.
Iâll repeat myself just once in this regard: This is not a valid method of evaluating fiscal policy, and thus I wonât engage in it. Further responses on your part will be tantamount to trolling.