PDA

View Full Version : Even the communists know free-markets better than this administration


Preacher
03-11-2009, 04:50 PM
So let's get this straight. They have cut taxes on automobiles, and then provided a stimulus. . . to the businesses to CUT their prices so that more people can buy the cars.

Hmm. No govt. involvement beyond that. No govt. "Creating" jobs.

Just cutting taxes and helping the companies cut prices.

Wow... and look, even GM is doing decent over there.

Really is a shame when the communists know free markets better than this administration.

March 10 (Bloomberg) -- China vehicle sales surged 25 percent in February, the first gain in four months, after the government cut taxes on some models, helping the country extend its lead as the world’s largest auto market this year.
Sales of passenger cars, buses and trucks climbed to 827,600, the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers said today in Beijing. The tally in the first two months rose 2.7 percent to 1.56 million, compared with a 39 percent decline to 1.35 million in the U.S.
China has halved retail taxes on small cars and drawn up plans to give out vehicle subsidies in rural areas to revive demand after auto sales rose at the slowest pace in a decade last year. Combined with the country’s wider 4 trillion yuan ($585 billion) economic stimulus package, the policies have caused General Motors Corp. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=GM%3AUS) to roughly double its forecast for China’s nationwide auto market growth this year.
“Consumers are regaining confidence because of the government’s stimulus policies,” said Ricon Xia (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Ricon+Xia&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), an analyst at Daiwa Research Institute in Shanghai. “Still, vehicle sales may fluctuate in the coming months.”
Sales this month will likely be better than in February, Xiong Chuanlin (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Xiong+Chuanlin&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), vice secretary-general of the automakers group, told reporters in Beijing today. The body is “cautiously optimistic” about full-year sales, he added.
Snow, New Year
The February sales jump, the biggest in 18 months, was also helped by an earlier Lunar New Year holiday. The weeklong break was in January this year compared with February last year. Snowstorms across much of China also disrupted the market in 2008.
Passenger-car sales, including sport-utility and multipurpose vehicles, rose 24 percent last month to 607,300, the association said. In the first two months, the tally climbed 5.8 percent to 1.22 million.
Sales of cars with engines or 1.6 liters or less jumped 19 percent in the first two months. Their market share gained by 7.71 percentage points.
Rising sales and production cuts by automakers has caused the nation’s stockpile of unsold vehicles to fall to the lowest in two years last month, the grouping said.
Commercial-vehicle sales fell 6.9 percent in first two months as the sector received less government support than passenger cars, the group said. Truckmakers are now seeking similar stimulus plans, it added.
GM Forecast
GM, the biggest overseas automaker in China, raised its forecast for the nation’s market growth this year to a range of between 5 percent and 10 percent from an earlier prediction of less than 3 percent, GM Asia-Pacific President Nick Reilly (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Nick+Reilly&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), said last week.
India, the world’s second-most populous nation, also had an increase in February auto sales, the first gain in five months, as emerging markets avoid the world of the global recession.
By contrast, GM is shuttering plants in the U.S. and seeking a government bailout on tumbling demand. GM’s domestic sales collapsed 51 percent in the first two months as the industrywide sales rate dropped to the lowest level since 1981 amid the recession.
In China, the government halved sales taxes on cars with engines of 1.6 liters or less starting from Jan. 20. It’s also providing 5 billion yuan in subsidies to spur auto sales in rural areas. That has particularly benefited GM’s SAIC-GM-Wuling Automobile Co. venture, the largest minivan-maker in China, Reilly said. The carmaker expects its own China sales growth to outperform the market by as much as 3 percentage points this year, he added.
Volkswagen AG (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=VOW%3AGR), the second biggest automaker in China, said last month that it plans to double local sales by adding at least four new models a year until 2018. The carmaker sold 1.02 million vehicles in China last year.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aDCOM2mACDYY&refer=home

Dino 6 Rings
03-11-2009, 05:08 PM
I refuse to believe this Preacher, you must be making it up, there is no way that Tax Cuts could help he Economy, no way!

:flap:

MACH1
03-11-2009, 06:07 PM
The only way out of this is to spend money you don't have and tax the chit out of people.

The Patriot
03-11-2009, 07:42 PM
So let's get this straight. They have cut taxes on automobiles, and then provided a stimulus. . . to the businesses to CUT their prices so that more people can buy the cars.

Hmm. No govt. involvement beyond that. No govt. "Creating" jobs.

Just cutting taxes and helping the companies cut prices.

Wow... and look, even GM is doing decent over there.

Really is a shame when the communists know free markets better than this administration.



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aDCOM2mACDYY&refer=home

A communist government regulates an industry by fluctuating the taxation on separate businesses to prevent a monopoly, or an industry from going under. These are industry tax breaks, (not to be confused with income tax breaks). Don't automatically attribute "tax cuts" to a free market. If we were both selling hot dogs and people were buying more of my hot dogs, then China would give you a tax break to even things out. That's a very extreme version of "fair trade".

Preacher
03-11-2009, 07:50 PM
A communist government regulates an industry by fluctuating the taxation on separate businesses to prevent a monopoly, or an industry from going under. These are industry tax breaks, (not to be confused with income tax breaks). Don't automatically attribute "tax cuts" to a free market. If we were both selling hot dogs and people were buying more of my hot dogs, then China would give you a tax break to even things out. That's a very extreme version of "fair trade".

Nice text book answer, but that doesn't work in the case of China, which has introduced "free trade zones" and has accomplished what the USSR could not, a mix of free market/communist ideas.

Yet, the fact of the matter is that China has realized that by allowing autos to sell cheaper, they will spark their economy. They are doing that by giving the companies money to cut the prices.

It is not the GOVT. which is trying to create the jobs, it is the govt. which is allowing companies to create jobs.

THAT is the vast difference between our two countries right now. Communist china is trusting companies to create jobs. Capitalist America is depending on the govt. to create jobs.

Do you see a problem with that?

The Patriot
03-11-2009, 08:19 PM
Nice text book answer, but that doesn't work in the case of China, which has introduced "free trade zones" and has accomplished what the USSR could not, a mix of free market/communist ideas.

Yet, the fact of the matter is that China has realized that by allowing autos to sell cheaper, they will spark their economy. They are doing that by giving the companies money to cut the prices.

It is not the GOVT. which is trying to create the jobs, it is the govt. which is allowing companies to create jobs.

THAT is the vast difference between our two countries right now. Communist china is trusting companies to create jobs. Capitalist America is depending on the govt. to create jobs.

Do you see a problem with that?

We've given the automakers trillions of dollars to keep them afloat. The U.S. Government has been more than accommodating. Ford and GM aren't failing because of stifling taxes. They're failing because they have largely outgrown the demand for automobiles in this country. Foreign Auto companies are selling better cars for less and the American Auto companies just can't compete. Bailing out the automakers is the most socialist thing this country has ever done. And we're forced to do it because, both democrats and republicans agree, if the automakers go down then the economy falls off a precipice.

The difference between Capitalist America and Communist china is that their auto companies are making money and ours aren't, and no amount of tax breaks will solve that.

Dino 6 Rings
03-11-2009, 08:22 PM
The difference between Capitalist America and Communist china is that their auto companies are making money and ours aren't, and no amount of tax breaks will solve that.

And the Chinese Automakers don't have to pay for Unions. And don't have to follow any environmental standards what so ever.

Lets go swim in the Yangtze River!

The Patriot
03-11-2009, 08:36 PM
And the Chinese Automakers don't have to pay for Unions. And don't have to follow any environmental standards what so ever.

Lets go swim in the Yangtze River!

That's very true.

Preacher
03-11-2009, 08:41 PM
We've given the automakers trillions of dollars to keep them afloat. The U.S. Government has been more than accommodating. Ford and GM aren't failing because of stifling taxes. They're failing because they have largely outgrown the demand for automobiles in this country. Foreign Auto companies are selling better cars for less and the American Auto companies just can't compete. Bailing out the automakers is the most socialist thing this country has ever done. And we're forced to do it because, both democrats and republicans agree, if the automakers go down then the economy falls off a precipice.

The difference between Capitalist America and Communist china is that their auto companies are making money and ours aren't, and no amount of tax breaks will solve that.

You are right about the automakers.

My point was more general to the fact that here in America, the govt. is trying to create jobs via stimulus. All these "shovel ready" jobs are nothing more than pork.

To really help the economy, you cut taxes on the top 50 percent, the ones who STILL have money to spend, so that they go and spend their money. When they do, businesses will have to employ more people, which means more work for middle and lower class.

You cut taxes on gas, so more people can save a few dollars, instead of RAISING taxes on gas, especially like California is planning on doing.

You cut taxes on business, instead of installing a cap and trade system which will be passed on to the consumer in what amounts to a consumption tax on top of income tax.

Instead, our govt. is raising taxes in order to bring in more money, so that they can look like hero's and dole it out to others.

The former looks bad, but works in the long run. THe latter looks good, but creates an unsustainable system in the long run.


BTW... when I said "Nice text book answer" I realize that could have come across ugly. What I meant was, in theory, you are exactly right. However, it has worked out differently in China.

Sorry for putting it the way I did.

The Patriot
03-11-2009, 09:36 PM
You are right about the automakers.

My point was more general to the fact that here in America, the govt. is trying to create jobs via stimulus. All these "shovel ready" jobs are nothing more than pork.

To really help the economy, you cut taxes on the top 50 percent, the ones who STILL have money to spend, so that they go and spend their money. When they do, businesses will have to employ more people, which means more work for middle and lower class.

You cut taxes on gas, so more people can save a few dollars, instead of RAISING taxes on gas, especially like California is planning on doing.

You cut taxes on business, instead of installing a cap and trade system which will be passed on to the consumer in what amounts to a consumption tax on top of income tax.

Instead, our govt. is raising taxes in order to bring in more money, so that they can look like hero's and dole it out to others.

The former looks bad, but works in the long run. THe latter looks good, but creates an unsustainable system in the long run.
There I have to disagree. Cutting taxes absolutely looks good. I would love to keep more of my money. Raising taxes and spending looks scary. I support Obama but even I'm getting cold feet. I was actually in DC this weekend and I was able to listen to a political analyst, who apparently interviewed Obama and McCain during the election. He said that Obama is the first president he has seen embrace a 2 trillion dollar deficit, and that it's a big gamble but if Obama succeeds then he'll be seen as a hero and the Republican Party will be on the run. But if he fails, Romney will be president in four years (He said that quite certainly). He does trust Obama though, but says that, contrary to public perception, Obama's more of a politician than jesus christ. Good news for you, Obama is very reasonable and is definitively not a ideologue. His "adopted Bush policy" on Iraq best illustrates his ability to be swayed with reasoning.

Personally, I still like him. I voted for Obama to invest in new industry, and I'll give him four years to do so.

BTW... when I said "Nice text book answer" I realize that could have come across ugly. What I meant was, in theory, you are exactly right. However, it has worked out differently in China.

Sorry for putting it the way I did.
(lol) Don't worry about it. This is politics. I expect nothing less.

Stlrs4Life
03-13-2009, 04:33 PM
A communist government regulates an industry by fluctuating the taxation on separate businesses to prevent a monopoly, or an industry from going under. These are industry tax breaks, (not to be confused with income tax breaks). Don't automatically attribute "tax cuts" to a free market. If we were both selling hot dogs and people were buying more of my hot dogs, then China would give you a tax break to even things out. That's a very extreme version of "fair trade".




Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh! You are making too much sense.



Tax breaks that were given out by Bush sure didn't work.

revefsreleets
03-13-2009, 04:52 PM
What, you mean THESE tax cuts?

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts—and the Facts

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

By the way, these are the same "Failed Bush tax cuts" that Obama is keeping.

Sometimes this is TOO easy...

Stlrs4Life
03-13-2009, 08:45 PM
.


They're failing because they have largely outgrown the demand for automobiles in this country. Foreign Auto companies are selling better cars for less and the American Auto companies just can't compete.


BS, maybe in the 70s, Our cars are built just as well as the foreign counterparts. And cheaper, foriegn cars at the moment are higher..



Bailing out the automakers is the most socialist thing this country has ever done.



Oh, but bailing out the banks in December wasn't? OK, gotcha.


Bailing out the automakers is the most socialist thing this country has ever done. And we're forced to do it because, both democrats and republicans agree, if the automakers go down then the economy falls off a precipice.


True in a way, but GM and Chrysler are asking for a loan. Not a bail out.


The difference between Capitalist America and Communist china is that their auto companies are making money and ours aren't, and no amount of tax breaks will solve that


Wonder why? Maybe because they have sweat shops and lower, (or lack of) regulations. Different situation, and imagine that, GM outsells Toyota overseas? Hmm, interesting.



Not today, but not in the 70's either:

vote nowBuzz up!JD Power Study Shows Auto Quality Improving
Posted: Aug. 07, 2008 10:08 a.m.


JD Power and Associates has released its annual automotive dependability study, and for the 14th straight year, Lexus stands atop the list. Overall, the dependability of the average new car has improved over last year, according to Power's analysis.

The study ranks vehicle brands by the number of problems reported for each 100 vehicle sold. The AP reports, "Lexus had 120 problems per 100 vehicles, down from 145 last year."

The five most reliable automakers in the study included two domestic makes. "Ford Motor Co.'s Mercury brand ranked second, followed by General Motors Corp.'s Cadillac. Toyota was fourth, and Honda Motor Co.'s Acura luxury brand was fifth." The lowest-performing brand in the study, Land Rover, showed 344 problems per 100 new vehicles.

The automotive industry showed an overall improvement, with the industry average falling from 216 problems per vehicle last year to just 206 this year.

The AP notes that the most common complaint cited in the study was wind noise, "followed by noisy brakes, pulling to the left or right, dashboard issues and window fogging."

Research the most reliable cars in every class with U.S. News' car rankings and reviews.

http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/daily-news/080807-JD-Power-Study-Shows-Auto-Quality-Improving/

Stlrs4Life
03-13-2009, 08:51 PM
What, you mean THESE tax cuts?

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts—and the Facts

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

By the way, these are the same "Failed Bush tax cuts" that Obama is keeping.

Sometimes this is TOO easy...


Yep, them, they sure created alot of jobs.

revefsreleets
03-14-2009, 10:09 AM
Yep, them, they sure created alot of jobs.

Hating Republicans and George Bush does NOT qualify as a sound line of reasoning.

http://www.contactomagazine.com/bushclinton1125.htm

Clinton and Bush in the US News Media

A Study by the Free Market Project

The media gave President Bush consistently negative press about perceived poor job creation and unemployment in the summer of 2004 but their reports were overwhelmingly positive when President Clinton ran for reelection in the summer of 1996 under similar economic circumstances, according to the a study by The Free Market Project, a division of The Media Research.

The media have consistently criticized the Bush record, minimizing 13 straight months of positive job creation, more than 1.5 million new jobs in 2004 and an unemployment rate that dropped from 6.3 percent to 5.4 percent. In contrast, the media consistently hailed the Clinton record of seven straight months of positive job creation, more than 2 million jobs in 1996 and an unemployment rate that dropped from 5.8 percent to 5.2 percent.

The analysis focused on TV news coverage the day of or newspaper coverage the day after the release of unemployment and job creation reports during the summer reelection season in 1996 and 2004. (The 10 employment situation reports, five from May through September each year, came out the month following their survey date.) FMP researchers analyzed ABC, NBC and CBS, CNN, The Washington Post and The New York Times. Their findings include:

Clinton Good: Bush Bad: (Where have we seen THIS before...well, actually AFTER?) Stories about jobs during Bill Clinton’s reelection campaign were positive 85 percent of the time – more than six times as often as they were for Bush, despite similar economic data. Reporters praised the Clinton unemployment rate of 5.6 percent as “low,” but they downplayed a 5.4 percent rate under Bush and called job growth “anemic.”

Good News Becomes Bad News: Under Bush, reporters presented good economic data as bad news stories by minimizing positive achievements and emphasizing people who might be out of work or regions of the U.S. that were still “struggling.” The opposite approach was taken under President Clinton. Then, reporters explained away a 0.2 percent rise in unemployment as minor or, “not necessarily bad news.”

Ignoring Job Impact from the 9/11 Attacks: The media we examined never quantified the more than one million jobs that were lost due to the 9/11 attacks. Only six of the stories dealing with jobs during the study period (13 percent) discussed terrorism or 9/11. No story detailed the enormous job losses as a result of the attacks.

CNN the Best; CBS the Worst: No network has been consistent in its coverage of Clinton and Bush. CNN did the best job covering jobs and unemployment. The network was balanced in its coverage of the Clinton economy and did characterize one month under Bush as positive. CBS was the most unbalanced in its coverage. After the five Employment Situation reports in the summer of 2004, the network didn’t find any good news to report. CBS didn’t air any negative job creation and unemployment stories during the Clinton months.

CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather merits criticism. He handled an unemployment increase during Clinton by downplaying it. Then the reporter covering the story claimed it wasn’t even bad news.

The Free Market Project offers a series of recommendations for the media in an effort to help journalists provide more balanced reporting on unemployment and job issues. Those recommendations include:

Urging the media to report stories that actually reflect the data and to find a consistent way to cover the monthly release of labor data so that it isn’t spun any direction.

Encouraging the media to help the public understand unemployment rates and job creation.

Suggesting the media find a way to make balanced news coverage an ongoing priority.

Along with these recommendations, this study includes a commentary by Dr. Gary Wolfram, a George Munson Professor of Political Economy at Hillsdale College. Wolfram explains that the media should look at the existing employment picture from a more informed view and understand “when one compares the current unemployment rate of 5.4% to historical levels, it is quite low.”

Source: The Free Market Project - The Media Research Center
www.freemarketproject.org

xfl2001fan
03-14-2009, 11:00 AM
Is someone suggest that the news networks need to present facts as facts...and not give their opinions on what those facts may or may not suggest?

Stlrs4Life
03-14-2009, 01:54 PM
Jobs? What kind of jobs? Wal-Mart and McDonalds?

Preacher
03-15-2009, 03:00 AM
Jobs? What kind of jobs? Wal-Mart and McDonalds?

God forbid you EVER stopped listening to the unions.

BTW, a McDonald's employee around here makes about 11 bucks an hour, 2 weeks vacation, full medical, dental, AND a 401k.

Not sure about you, but that doesn't seem bad for an entry level position in the work force. And no, that is NOT management. That is an HOURLY employee.

SunshineMan21
03-15-2009, 04:01 AM
While the most recent stimulus package contains an appalling amount of pork, its basic premises--tax cuts and investment in public infrastructure and social spending--are absolutely necessary.

The post that cited the Heritage Foundation was a lesson in how to lie with statistics--obviously the deficit was created more by increased spending and less by decreasing tax revenues.

Have you ever heard of the Laffer Curve? Tax revenues didn't really fall much during the Bush years (although more than that author tries to portray by not adjusting for real growth in his statistics), but the problem is that the 'spending' that Bush engaged in wasn't the productive kind (as Obama is attempting to do with the stimulus package)--it was largely on things such as the Iraq War, which have fairly little positive impact on consumption.

The greater issue with extreme supply-side tax breaks such as the ones we saw during the Bush Administration is that they shift the distribution of wealth upwards to an extent that our society becomes virtually stratified, and the marginal effect of the tax cut on actual consumer behavior decreases. People living in absolute poverty can't afford to buy things--if the portion of your population living in extreme poverty keeps growing, it's eventually going to hurt consumption, as there's only so much that the top 1% (the only people whose taxes will be higher under Obama than Bush) need.

Perhaps the biggest myth that the Heritage Article (and some of the previous posts) promote is that the Bush policies were successful because the post-9/11 recession ended, and relative prosperity was restored.

Just as Bush doesn't deserve blame for the economy's crash following 9/11, he doesn't deserve praise for its recovery. The post-9/11 shock was not a reflection of fundamental problems in the economy (as the current one is), but a product of a traumatic event that intensified a fairly mild recession by destroying aggregate demand. Bush's policies were neo-Liberal, the most extreme of their kind that any modern American president has practiced (far more so than Reagan)--they contributed to the core instabilities Obama is trying to solve now.

Any ECON 101 student could tell you this, so when a (theoretically) intelligent journalist or research fellow writes an article disregarding basic facts he's probably either being deliberately manipulative to support his ideological agenda (both parties and their partisans are guilty of this, but this article is pretty obvious) or he doesn't know what he's talking about.

GBMelBlount
03-15-2009, 08:58 AM
SunshineMan

The post that cited the Heritage Foundation was a lesson in how to lie with statistics--obviously the deficit was created more by increased spending and less by decreasing tax revenues.

of course.

Have you ever heard of the Laffer Curve? Tax revenues didn't really fall much during the Bush years (although more than that author tries to portray by not adjusting for real growth in his statistics), but the problem is that the 'spending' that Bush engaged in wasn't the productive kind (as Obama is attempting to do with the stimulus package)--it was largely on things such as the Iraq War, which have fairly little positive impact on consumption.

So are you implying that MASSIVE government deficit spending is a good thing now simply because Obama is spending it on more "productive" things than Bush?

The greater issue with extreme supply-side tax breaks such as the ones we saw during the Bush Administration is that they shift the distribution of wealth upwards to an extent that our society becomes virtually stratified, and the marginal effect of the tax cut on actual consumer behavior decreases. People living in absolute poverty can't afford to buy things--if the portion of your population living in extreme poverty keeps growing, it's eventually going to hurt consumption, as there's only so much that the top 1% (the only people whose taxes will be higher under Obama than Bush) need.

Really? Not sure I buy that Sunshine. couldn't you argue the increased stratification is more due to a larger portion of our workforce that is poorly educated and less motivated as well as the loss of better paying jobs due to companies moving overseas and going out of business because they can't compete because taxes are STILL too high?

Bush's policies were neo-Liberal, the most extreme of their kind that any modern American president has practiced (far more so than Reagan)--they contributed to the core instabilities Obama is trying to solve now.

This is a serious question Sunshine. What exactly do you mean by neo-liberal?

GBMelBlount
03-15-2009, 09:22 AM
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh! You are making too much sense.

Tax breaks that were given out by Bush sure didn't work.

Really? Why don't you feel they worked Dom? You do realize that a "tax break" simply means that the government is letting hard working Americans keep more of what they rightfully earned and deserve don't you?

So do you feel that letting hard working Americans keep more of the money THEY earned through hard work and sacrifice is wrong?

revefsreleets
03-15-2009, 10:05 AM
Jobs? What kind of jobs? Wal-Mart and McDonalds?

I suppose all Clinton's jobs were high paying tech jobs (whoops...maybe they were...can anyone say "Dot com bubble burst?)?

This is a silly argument. A job created is a job created. From 2005 through end of term Bush created 1.94 million new jobs.

But this is irrelevant anyway. All bringing up Bush is is classic deflection. It's not a germane argument to say "Oh yeah, but Bush did THIS!"...it sounds like Jan Brady complaining about Marsha. It is NOT a viable defense when talking about Barrack Obama. Obama needs defended on his own (so far pretty weak) merits.