[quote]knewsom wrote:
hedo wrote:
Fair enough.
Excellent.
- I believe that tax revenue will increase after a tax cut due to economic stimulus.
I think that this CAN be true, but I wouldn’t necessarily treat it as a rule. Your #2 directly influences this, but yes, economic stimulus due to a tax cut can result in increased tax revenues.
However, it doesn’t always work that way because:
A, it takes time for the effects of ANY tax cut to have a noticeable effect on revenues.
B, If the economy is being badly hampered by forces greater than the effect of the proposed tax cut (i.e. rampant inflation, reduced purchasing power, outrageous costs of living or outrageous cost of materials and energy, international boycott, etc.)
Also of note, once a tax cut has sufficiently jump started things, a gradual increase would be ideal to ensure that tax revenues STAY high, even if the economy stabilizes and doesnt’ continue to grow at such an incredible rate. This is important to consider because we can’t count on the economy continually growing by leaps and bounds. We need to structure things to hope for growth, while preparing for stability and sustainability.
- I think tax policy is as important as the level of taxation if not more so, properly imlimented tax cuts have always stimulated the economy.
Again, true, with the caveat of proper implimentation. Whats important before cutting taxes is to consider where the tax cut can be directed to have the most impact. I also believe it’s important to prserve the environment to the best of our ability, and sometimes there are areas of the economy that suffer because of this. This is unfortunate, and two things can prevent this: 1. Tax incentives for use of sustainable technology, and 2, funding for further INDEPENDENT research into sustainable technology (we can’t have a corporation with a vested interest doing scientific research - it becomes innately biased at this point).
- GDP is but one neasure of the economy. Inflation, real wages, employment and purchasing power are all indicitive of a strong economy.
Ture - but I was under the impression that ADJUSTED GDP was one of the best general gauges of the economy. I do agree that purchase power is also incredibly important, and I’d love to see some historical statistics in that regard.
I view the unemployment percentage as somewhat less of a good measure, because I’d rather see the nation at 10% unemployment with the average family income at $35,000 instead of 4% unemployment with average family income at $20,000. I guess the point here is that 4% unemployment with mostly minimum wage jobs isn’t really a solution, ESPECIALLY if you’re trying to avoid a welfare state.
- The best thing a president can do for the economy, imo, is keep his hands off of it. Republicans generally do a better job of this then the Dems and a liberal president (last one being Carter) can’t help but play around with it.
I don’t know, I think I’d rather have a leader that systematically analyzes our weaknesses and devises methods of specifically addressing them rather than just taking a complete hands off approach. It’s important to make plans for the futre politically AND economically. If a resource that is a staple of your nations energy is going to be more costly to obtain, it’s important to prepare accordingly.
I have prospered under both Clinton and Bush. I got to keep more of my money under Bush. I plow most of it back into my business which employs a lot of people for a small economy.
Awesome! But I have to ask: do you really think it’s responsible for the federal government to spend such vast ammounts of money with taxes remaining as low as they are?
Another perspectie: I’m pretty much just now paying taxes, last year and this year. Prior to that, I didn’t make enough to BE taxed (was in college). Approximately 15% of my check is taken out, and I know I won’t see any of that back at the end of the year. I really don’t mind much, because I’m getting paid a lot more than ever before, and an extra percent or two really won’t make much of a difference. I understand the concept of defecit spending as an investment, but even at 3.5% interest, the student loans I took out to go to college are still difficult to pay off. It’d be horribly irresponsible of me to go back to workinig part time and take out MORE student loans in order to get a more adanved degree if it mean that when I was finished with my advanced degree I’d be making a similar ammount of money to what I currently earn, don’t you think?
Foriegn affairs remain the most important issue however. We are at war whether we acknowledge it or not. We can argue how best to prosecute the war but hoping it goes away is not the best strategy. Clinton hoped things went away. Mrs. CLinton hopes things will go away. Bush took action. Like the choice or not he took action. I believe it was effective, others do not. Time will tell. I think I am way better off with Bush fighting Al-Queda and Islamofacism then I ever would have been under Gore or Kerry.
Well, I think we should ALL be hoping our problems go away, but certainly action needs to be taken in some respects. I don’t think invading Iraq was a pertinent decision, and I think it has the potential to draw such a significant ammount of our resources away from fighting the war on terror, that we fall dangerously behind on that front.
We should have stuck with Afghanistan, and made that our new base of operations in the M.E. instead of pushing ahead and invading the most stable secular state in the region. Granted, Saddam was a cruel, horrible dictator, but it’s really not like the Saudis are much better, and they’re our close allies. As to the allegations that there is some connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, I think that’s totally rediculous - Bin Laden has as much disdain for S.H. as he does for G.W.B.
According to the former second in command of Iraq’s Air Force, the WMD they DID have were all transported to Syria during the build up to the war. I’m not sure the dude is telling the truth about all this, I suspect he’s lying to lend credibility to the US agenda in the region. However, if he’s telling the truth, then things are a HELL of a lot worse now than they were before we decided to invade Iraq. Saddam wasn’t really aiding terrorists before - sure, he turned a blind eye to training camps in Iraq, but he didn’t fund them or provide them with WMD. Unless what I previously mentioned IS true, in which case he only did that as a response to imminent invasion.
Action is only valuable when it is well thought out and necessary. Some of what Bush did was, but Iraq certainly was not. I can tell you for sure that nearly ANY Dem would’ve taken action against al Qaeda and Afghanistan, but would’ve been more thoughtful with the next few moves on the chessboard. What evidence have you seen that supports your theory that Kerry or Gore would’ve been poor commanders in chief? Kerry was a decorated war verteran, and positively outspoken in terms of national security. Furthermore, he’s incredibly inteligent, which is more than I can say for Duhbya.
Looking forward to future spirited debates with you.
…right back atcha.[/quote]
Knewsom
No evidence at all that Kerry or Gore would have been a better leader. It’s all speculation at this point. That specualtion is based on a couple of things, primarily being public statements they have made. For Kerry to say that the gWOT should be prosecuted as a law enforcement issue was silly. It would have been like charging the Japanese in civil court for Pearl Harbor. Gore was just Gore. Dull boring and more of the same. The GWOT requires new thinking.
I’ve heard the charge that Bush is dumb. I’ve always responded the same way. The man graduated from Yale and Harvard Business School. Family connections may get you in ahead of others but they do not get you a degree. It’s petty political noise by the democrats and nothing more. I’d stack Bush’s credentials up against any Democrat they run against him. Not a great communicator but certainly not dumb.
Iraq has divided the country. In the end we are better off without Sadaam and the Baath party. The documents that are coming out now will prove it. We are also better off now exposing former allies who have proved worthless. Obviously now amount of diplomacy would have got Russia on board. Hell they were an ally of Iraq it seems. The next battle will be fought differently based on leassons learned. Faster, bigger and much more vicious. It also has to happen within a short news cycle. Once the pundits start to specualte the momentum is lost.
