Romney: Stimulate the economy, not government

[trickblue]

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/romney.stimulus/index.htm)

Commentary: Stimulate the economy, not government
By Mitt Romney
Special to CNN

Editor's note: Mitt Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts and was a candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 2008. This commentary was adapted from remarks he made last week to the House Republican Conference.

(CNN) -- These are extraordinary times, and like a lot of Republicans I believe that a well-crafted stimulus plan is needed to put people back to work. But the Obama spending bill would stimulate the government, not the economy.

We're on an economic tightrope. The package that passed the House is a huge increase in the amount of government borrowing. And we've borrowed so much already that if we add too much more debt, or spend foolishly, we could invite an even bigger crisis.

We could precipitate a worldwide crisis of confidence in America, leading to a run on the dollar or hyperinflation that wipes out family savings and devastates the middle class.

It's still early in the administration of President Obama. Like everyone who loves this country, I want him to adopt the correct course and then to succeed. He still has a chance to step in and insist on spending discipline among the members of his own party.

It's his job to set priorities. I hope for America's sake that he knows that a chief executive can't vote "present." He has to say yes to some things and no to a lot of others.

As someone who spent a career in the private sector, I'd like to see a stimulus package that respects the productivity and genius of the American people. And experience shows us what it should look like.

First, there are two ways you can put money into the economy, by spending more or by taxing less. But if it's stimulus you want, taxing less works best. That's why permanent tax cuts should be the centerpiece of the economic stimulus.

Second, any new spending must be strictly limited to projects that are essential. How do we define essential? Well, a good rule is that the projects we fund in a stimulus should be legitimate government priorities that would have been carried out in the future anyway, and are simply being moved up to create those jobs now.

As we take out nonessential projects, we should focus on funding the real needs of government that will have immediate impact. And what better place to begin than repairing and replacing military equipment that was damaged or destroyed in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan?

Third, sending out rebate checks to citizens and businesses is not a tax cut. The media bought this line so far, but they've got it wrong. Checks in the mail are refunds, not tax cuts. We tried rebate checks in 2008 and they did virtually nothing to jump-start the economy. Disposable income went up, but consumption hardly moved.

Businesses aren't stupid. They're not going to invest in equipment and new hires for a one-time, short-term blip. What's needed are permanent rate cuts on individuals and businesses.

Fourth, if we're going to tax less and spend more to get the economy moving, then we have to make another commitment as well. As soon as this economy recovers, we have to regain control over the federal budget, and above all, over entitlement spending for programs such as Social Security and Medicare. This is more important than most people are willing to admit.

There is a real danger that with trillions of additional borrowing -- from the budget deficit and from the stimulus -- world investors will begin to fear that our dollars won't be worth much in the future. It is essential that we demonstrate our commitment to maintaining the value of the dollar. That means showing the world that we will put a stop to runaway spending and borrowing.

Fifth, we must begin to recover from the enormous losses in the capital investment pool. And the surest, most obvious way to get that done is to send a clear signal that there will be no tax increases on investment and capital gains. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts should be extended permanently, or at least temporarily.

And finally, let's exercise restraint in the size of the stimulus package. Last year, with the economy already faltering, I proposed a stimulus of $233 billion. The Washington Post said: "Romney's plan is way too big." So what critique will the media have for the size of the Obama package?

In the final analysis, we know that only the private sector -- entrepreneurs and businesses large and small -- can create the millions of jobs our country needs. The invisible hand of the market always moves faster and better than the heavy hand of government.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mitt Romney.

[JimDandy]

Romney is spot on. Obama's bill is nothing more than "free candy" to the left.

[Yeagermeister]

Further proof he should have been running instead of McCain.

[irvin4evs]

I can't believe there's a single person who still thinks tax cuts for the rich does anything good. Insane. Willfull ignorance for the sake of going "MY SIDE IS BETTER THAN YOURS."

[neosapien23]

I can't believe there's a single person who still thinks tax cuts for the rich does anything good. Insane. Willfull ignorance for the sake of going "MY SIDE IS BETTER THAN YOURS."


Have you ever worked for a poor person before??? Please tell me the last time you worked for someone who had no money. Unfortunately the rich are the ones who pay workers. The more you tax them, the more people get laid off so they can make a profit. The United States charges the rich more money than any other country in the world in taxes. Not making this up either, you can look it up. By cutting taxes for the rich, they are able to expand and hire more middle class and lower class workers like you and me. I make somewhere around 45,000 a year. Yes I would like more tax cuts for myself, but I will not hire any employees any time soon. Same goes for people in the poverty level that Obama wants to give money to. They will not stimulate the job market.

[JimDandy]

I can't believe there's a single person who still thinks tax cuts for the rich does anything good. Insane. Willfull ignorance for the sake of going "MY SIDE IS BETTER THAN YOURS."

Sorry guy, redistribution of wealth doesn't work. Just ask the former leaders of the USSR. :laugh2:

[ScipioCowboy]

I can't believe there's a single person who still thinks tax cuts for the rich does anything good. Insane. Willfull ignorance for the sake of going "MY SIDE IS BETTER THAN YOURS."

It's not "tax cuts for the rich." It's tax "cuts for everyone," which has an established history of spurring economic growth.

Reagan's tax cuts in 1981 were followed by seven years of uninterrupted economic expansion.

Clinton's capital gains tax cut (whose primary beneficiaries are the "rich") in 1996 carried us through the second half of the economic boom of 1990s.

[Yeagermeister]

Have you ever worked for a poor person before??? Please tell me the last time you worked for someone who had no money. Unfortunately the rich are the ones who pay workers. The more you tax them, the more people get laid off so they can make a profit. The United States charges the rich more money than any other country in the world in taxes. Not making this up either, you can look it up. By cutting taxes for the rich, they are able to expand and hire more middle class and lower class workers like you and me. I make somewhere around 45,000 a year. Yes I would like more tax cuts for myself, but I will not hire any employees any time soon. Same goes for people in the poverty level that Obama wants to give money to. They will not stimulate the job market.

They will either lay off workers or raise prices. They aren't going to eat the loses.

[Doomsday101]

I think it is critical to lower corporate taxes rates more so than just individual taxes. We have to allow American business to compete and with one of the world’s highest corporate tax rates it is difficult for them to have a level playing field.

[Doomsday]

I just dont understand how people cant get the fact that WE the consumers are the ones who pay the increased taxes on businesses.

Business are going to raise prices or cut back the work force to maintain the highest margains possible regardless. We pay the increased prices and we pay the unemployment of the people who are laid off. One way or another we are fitting the bill.

[Hostile]

We blew it as a country. IMO, this guy, a proven economist, was the best choice.

I say that openly admitting that I was voting for McCain due to a regional influence. I was hoping he would be the VP candidate.

He simply understood more about the economy than McCain and Obama put together.

[Hostile]

Further proof he should have been running instead of McCain.He did run. The GOP was worried about his religion more than what he could do for the country.

[trickblue]

He did run. The GOP was worried about his religion more than what he could do for the country.

The same people crying foul over Barack's church were openly vilifying Mormonism...

[MetalHead]

I can't believe there's a single person who still thinks tax cuts for the rich does anything good. Insane. Willfull ignorance for the sake of going "MY SIDE IS BETTER THAN YOURS."

One simple question,have you ever been hired by a poor man?

[iceberg]

I can't believe there's a single person who still thinks tax cuts for the rich does anything good. Insane. Willfull ignorance for the sake of going "MY SIDE IS BETTER THAN YOURS."

One simple question,have you ever been hired by a poor man?

i don't do this often - but

PWN!!!

irvin - when the poor pay taxes, i'll be glad to give them a tax break. when you figure the "rich" pay a vast bulk of the taxes anyway, who else would you give a break to?

[Kangaroo]

Further proof he should have been running instead of McCain.

I did not Vote for McCain in the Primary

It was a joke that he was elected by the Republican party as the nominee

[SuspectCorner]

i don't do this often - but

PWN!!!

irvin - when the poor pay taxes, i'll be glad to give them a tax break. when you figure the "rich" pay a vast bulk of the taxes anyway, who else would you give a break to?

the rich have tax loopholes and offshore tax havens (and other shellgames) available to them that the poor will never see... the tax burden on the rich is vastly overrated. the bulk of the tax burden is on the middleclass. end of story.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Further proof he should have been running instead of McCain.

But the media picked McCain for the Republicans.

[theogt]

So his plan is:

1. A larger % of the package should be tax cuts. Fair criticism.
2. Spending should be on "essential" projects (whatever that is), but we shouldn't reduce the total spending. Rather, we should spend the rest on military spending.
3. No rebate checks??? There's nothing about rebate checks in this package. WTH???
4. After the recession is over we should balance the budget. What? That's great, but how is that a plan for now?
5. Promise not to raise capital gains taxes in the future. Again, how does this help anything right now?

Pretty disappointing overall piece. There's really only one substantive suggestion and that's to funnel more money back to the economy via tax cuts rather than spending. But the problem with that, as he notes, is that there's no guarantee that extra money will go back into spending.

[SuspectCorner]

So his plan is:

1. A larger % of the package should be tax cuts. Fair criticism.
2. Spending should be on "essential" projects (whatever that is), but we shouldn't reduce the total spending. Rather, we should spend the rest on military spending.
3. No rebate checks??? There's nothing about rebate checks in this package. WTH???
4. After the recession is over we should balance the budget. What? That's great, but how is that a plan for now?
5. Promise not to raise capital gains taxes in the future. Again, how does this help anything right now?

Pretty disappointing overall piece. There's really only one substantive suggestion and that's to funnel more money back to the economy via tax cuts rather than spending. But the problem with that, as he notes, is that there's no guarantee that extra money will go back into spending.


Tax cuts as a stimulus has been disproven time and again over the last three decades. More trickledown voodoo from the Party that brought us the miracle of inefficiency that has been Reaganomics.

[theogt]

Tax cuts as a stimulus has been disproven time and again over the last three decades. More trickledown voodoo from the Party that brought us the miracle of inefficiency that has been Reaganomics.Or not.

[SuspectCorner]

Or not.

Witness the subtlety of Krugman... zombies. :D

http://select.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=1&hp

[theogt]

Witness the subtlety of Krugman... zombies. :D

http://select.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=1&hpKrugman? This guy couldn't even figure out how speculative investors were driving up oil future prices.

[SuspectCorner]

Krugman? This guy couldn't even figure out how speculative investors were driving up oil future prices.

IMHO, overblown conspiracy theory is what it turned out to be - and I love a good conspiracy theory... no ****. But name one piece of significant enacted legislature that inhibited "the evil speculators" from working their wicked mojo - just one. And yet oil prices dropped last summer.

Here's your chief conspirators... Adam Smith and "the invisible hand".

[burmafrd]

Speculation is an INTERNATIONAL area. Us passing some stupid law would accomplish NOTHING.

[SuspectCorner]

Speculation is an INTERNATIONAL area. Us passing some stupid law would accomplish NOTHING.

And it needn't, either. Speculation as a major factor in the price of oil is already debunked. It's now a matter of record.

We passed no laws. Oil prices, heretofore considered to be pretty much inelastic, fell... because demand fell - worldwide. Hello.

[burmafrd]

Demand fell because the economies went into the toilet. People got scared and scaled back. And so it goes. Supply and demand will always be 75% of the movement; speculation can sometimes add or subtract but as was pointed out: you cannot keep 1 million barrels of crude just steaming around in a supertanker since THAT costs money as well. No one has the storage to just salt it away and wait for prices to go up.

[iceberg]

the rich have tax loopholes and offshore tax havens (and other shellgames) available to them that the poor will never see... the tax burden on the rich is vastly overrated. the bulk of the tax burden is on the middleclass. end of story.

go find me a graph or two that shows how much taxes the poor pay.

quit talking generalities and get specifiic.

[iceberg]

So his plan is:

1. A larger % of the package should be tax cuts. Fair criticism.
2. Spending should be on "essential" projects (whatever that is), but we shouldn't reduce the total spending. Rather, we should spend the rest on military spending.
3. No rebate checks??? There's nothing about rebate checks in this package. WTH???
4. After the recession is over we should balance the budget. What? That's great, but how is that a plan for now?
5. Promise not to raise capital gains taxes in the future. Again, how does this help anything right now?

Pretty disappointing overall piece. There's really only one substantive suggestion and that's to funnel more money back to the economy via tax cuts rather than spending. But the problem with that, as he notes, is that there's no guarantee that extra money will go back into spending.

i have to agree with you here. nothing in the bill directly addresses the problem. it's a bill full of democrat pet green projects.

[sbark]

CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/)
Stephen Dinan
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.
CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.
CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.

This is right out of Atlas Shrugged.....
The moral of Atlas Shrugged is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

[Rogah]

Witness the subtlety of Krugman... zombies. :D

http://select.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=1&hpHeh heh... This is a joke, right? An op-we piece in the New York Times carries as much "proof" as Ms. Cleo. With all due respect, it is quite absurd to suggest tax cuts provide ZERO stimulus.

ABCNews did a report on a study saying $1 of tax cuts provides 75 cents of stimulus and $1 of spending provides $1.50 of stimulus. But before you jump too heavily on the spending bandwagon, consider that tax cuts stimulus tend to take effect immediately, but spending can take years (if not decades) to funnel their way through the economy.

IMHO, the ideal stimulus package would have elements of both.

[Rogah]

the rich have tax loopholes and offshore tax havens (and other shellgames) available to them that the poor will never see... the tax burden on the rich is vastly overrated. the bulk of the tax burden is on the middleclass. end of story.That is a very vague statement. How exactly do you define "the rich" and how exactly do you define "the bulk"? If we say "the rich" is the top 5% of wage earners, then they are paying something like 40% of the tax burden. That's a pretty big "bulk" if you ask me, wouldn't you agree?

[sbark]

That is a very vague statement. How exactly do you define "the rich" and how exactly do you define "the bulk"? If we say "the rich" is the top 5% of wage earners, then they are paying something like 40% of the tax burden. That's a pretty big "bulk" if you ask me, wouldn't you agree?

The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%.


Think of it this way: less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives, and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%).

The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%).

The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%).

The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.

......all the tax loopholes and off shore stuff is actually employed more by the "old money"---Kennedys, Rockerfellers, Heintz Kerry (she of the 10% tax rate).........ie old Democrat money --what a coincidence........

........its the bottom 50% who are not carrying their weight in this country.......that would be like Jerry Jones giving 10 million a year to Stanback vrs Witten who earns it...........same line of thinking.........

Cannot punish the risk takers and innovators.........they soon stop taking risks and innovating...........

[theogt]

IMHO, overblown conspiracy theory is what it turned out to be - and I love a good conspiracy theory... no ****. But name one piece of significant enacted legislature that inhibited "the evil speculators" from working their wicked mojo - just one. And yet oil prices dropped last summer.

Here's your chief conspirators... Adam Smith and "the invisible hand".What on earth are you talking about?

And it needn't, either. Speculation as a major factor in the price of oil is already debunked. It's now a matter of record.

We passed no laws. Oil prices, heretofore considered to be pretty much inelastic, fell... because demand fell - worldwide. Hello.LOL! You really have no idea what you're talking about. Global demand began falling long before July 2008 when oil peaked at $147. In fact, if you look at January 1, 2008 to July 14, 2008, global demand went down and global supply went up. What should that do to prices? They should plummet. Yet what did they do? They went from $95/bbl to $145/bbl.

Please, don't even begin to discuss this issue.

[Rogah]

What on earth are you talking about?

LOL! You really have no idea what you're talking about. Global demand began falling long before July 2008 when oil peaked at $147. In fact, if you look at January 1, 2008 to July 14, 2008, global demand went down and global supply went up. What should that do to prices? They should plummet. Yet what did they do? They went from $95/bbl to $145/bbl.

Please, don't even begin to discuss this issue.I think you're both right and you're both wrong. I agree that speculation brought the price of oil to record highs, increasing the price even as demand dropped, so it certainly has some short term effect. But, as we have learned several times in the past decade, speculation alone cannot and will not sustain high levels in the long term. The oil bubble (like the internet bubble and the housing bubble) burst, bringing us down to a price much more in line with supply v. demand.

[trickblue]

IMHO, overblown conspiracy theory is what it turned out to be - and I love a good conspiracy theory... no ****. But name one piece of significant enacted legislature that inhibited "the evil speculators" from working their wicked mojo - just one. And yet oil prices dropped last summer.

Here's your chief conspirators... Adam Smith and "the invisible hand".

Go ahead and say it... it was Bush and his evil oil buddies... ;)

[irvin4evs]

The United States charges the rich more money than any other country in the world in taxes. Not making this up either, you can look it up.

This is a hilariously inaccurate statement. I have the figures, thank you, and you've been lied to.

[irvin4evs]

Sorry guy, redistribution of wealth doesn't work. Just ask the former leaders of the USSR. :laugh2:
There's a difference between levelling the playing field and nationalizing the economy.

There are plenty of examples throughout the world that show, in fact, that a nation can exist without 10% of the wealth being controlled by 0.1% of the population.

[iceberg]

There's a difference between levelling the playing field and nationalizing the economy.

There are plenty of examples throughout the world that show, in fact, that a nation can exist without 10% of the wealth being controlled by 0.1% of the population.

then the other 99.9% can work harder.

[irvin4evs]

Right, like right now. It failed. Get over it, folks. Free markets don't solve problems unless you keep them in check.

[iceberg]

Right, like right now. It failed. Get over it, folks. Free markets don't solve problems unless you keep them in check.

if you keep them in check, they're not free are they?

you want the gov to run your life, find a country/government that does that. i don't want it here.

[JimDandy]

if you keep them in check, they're not free are they?

you want the gov to run your life, find a country/government that does that. i don't want it here.

Excellent response. Simply excellent. Astounding that some of our nation's youngsters seem to actually believe socialism is the better system for the USA. Gotta give the libs running the school systems and media some credit on brainwashing our young ones. :(

[iceberg]

Excellent response. Simply excellent. Astounding that some of our nation's youngsters seem to actually believe socialism is the better system for the USA. Gotta give the libs running the school systems and media some credit on brainwashing our young ones. :(

don't ever agree with me again.

it makes me feel ...

...dirty.

[jterrell]

The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%.


Think of it this way: less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives, and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%).

The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%).

The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%).

The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.

......all the tax loopholes and off shore stuff is actually employed more by the "old money"---Kennedys, Rockerfellers, Heintz Kerry (she of the 10% tax rate).........ie old Democrat money --what a coincidence........

........its the bottom 50% who are not carrying their weight in this country.......that would be like Jerry Jones giving 10 million a year to Stanback vrs Witten who earns it...........same line of thinking.........

Cannot punish the risk takers and innovators.........they soon stop taking risks and innovating...........

This post is honestly sad. It is an example of how internet reading can make one retarded.

There are a lot of numbers indicating a borrowed source or various searches but zero common sense.

While there may be complaints and legit ones about the middle to high tax brackets there CAN BE ZERO at the top 1%. ZERO!!!

Anyone with a brain realizes we are not taxing money actually earned by the top 1% we are taxing their interest and other monies that they earn for doing nothing more than having money in the first place.

Risk takers and innovators??? What does that have to do with the top 1%? They may have bene innovators at one point but the top 1% now just sit ona pile of money.

Besides when was the last time anyone in that top 1% complained about taxes???

Further as this topic be very clear tax cuts will NOT spur real growth. Every real economist understands this. We have went the tax cut method for years and it isn't working. Both individuals and companies are saving as much as they can.

The more money they can save the more they will. They aren't going to spend an unnecessary penny period. Every budget is being gone over looking for savings. Np stimulus package changes that.

Companies will hire and create budgets based on sales. Sales will only come from individuals buying things.

It has been proven time and time again that money passed to the lower income will actually be pout back into the economy because they don't have the means or ways to save it.

This isn't about Dems or Repubs this is reality.

One of the biggest issues we have is that we have had such rampant outsourcing that more and more money is going overseas while we rely on consumers here to feed the machine. We have had no choice but to keep running up debt because we want to keep these corporations going who make money here but spend it on support people overseas.

Only the biggest idiot in the world would suggest Bill Gates is going to hire more people if he gets a tax cut.

[jterrell]

So his plan is:

1. A larger % of the package should be tax cuts. Fair criticism.
2. Spending should be on "essential" projects (whatever that is), but we shouldn't reduce the total spending. Rather, we should spend the rest on military spending.
3. No rebate checks??? There's nothing about rebate checks in this package. WTH???
4. After the recession is over we should balance the budget. What? That's great, but how is that a plan for now?
5. Promise not to raise capital gains taxes in the future. Again, how does this help anything right now?

Pretty disappointing overall piece. There's really only one substantive suggestion and that's to funnel more money back to the economy via tax cuts rather than spending. But the problem with that, as he notes, is that there's no guarantee that extra money will go back into spending.

His plan was to sound very conservative and help build his political base for a run in 4 years.

The article was hogwash of course with very little real content. He drudges up things like Obama's present votes that are clearly just political banter.

[burmafrd]

The tax cut deniers are always fun to listen to.

Sort of like the kids who hold their breath and stamp their feet.

[JimDandy]

don't ever agree with me again.

it makes me feel ...

...dirty.

:lmao2: You big kidder. I know you are flattered to be of the same mindset as me on this one.
Have a great day.

[JimDandy]

Right, like right now. It failed. Get over it, folks. Free markets don't solve problems unless you keep them in check.

Yeah, let's just give all the wealth of this country to the folks in DC and let them decide who gets it. They have, after all, proven to be objective and quite efficient in spending our tax dollars. :laugh2:

You sound as if you'd love to live under the rule of Venezeula or North Korea. Capitalism rewards those who actually want to work hard and get ahead. It sucks for the lazy types who whine they are victims from the mean ole executive types. Please...

[MetalHead]

Right, like right now. It failed. Get over it, folks. Free markets don't solve problems unless you keep them in check.

It did not fail on it's own.
It was set to fail.

[jterrell]

Yeah, let's just give all the wealth of this country to the folks in DC and let them decide who gets it. They have, after all, proven to be objective and quite efficient in spending our tax dollars. :laugh2:

You sound as if you'd love to live under the rule of Venezeula or North Korea. Capitalism rewards those who actually want to work hard and get ahead. It sucks for the lazy types who whine they are victims from the mean ole executive types. Please...

capitalism rewards those who have money by its very definition.

same way socialism rewards the lazy.

we do not and have never had a meritocracy except where capitalism has been balanced with proper regulation. de-regulation time and again leads to rampant misuse and abuse. this is our 3rd time in my adult life seeing a major financial crises arising from failure to regulate a financial sector.


our military and school system are socialist.
the biggest socialist organization we have in this country is the military.

[JimDandy]

capitalism rewards those who have money by its very definition.

same way socialism rewards the lazy.

we do not and have never had a meritocracy except where capitalism has been balanced with proper regulation. de-regulation time and again leads to rampant misuse and abuse. this is our 3rd time in my adult life seeing a major financial crises arising from failure to regulate a financial sector.


our military and school system are socialist.
the biggest socialist organization we have in this country is the military.

Well at least we agree that socialism rewards the lazy.

Our school systems are run by pretty much liberal, socialist types, so I can see your point there.

Our military exists to preserve our freedoms and way of life. They are organized in such a way to be effective. They are not socialists.

[irvin4evs]

Our school systems are run by pretty much liberal, socialist types, so I can see your point there.

Our military exists to preserve our freedoms and way of life. They are organized in such a way to be effective. They are not socialists.

Thanks for proving you don't know a ******* bit of what you're talking about here.

The schools and military are socialized because they aren't privatized. It's not about what the people within the structures think.

Genius.

[irvin4evs]

This is what happens when Glenn Beck teaches you about economics:

if you keep them in check, they're not free are they?

you want the gov to run your life, find a country/government that does that. i don't want it here.

You people have a serious problem in this whole socialism/capitalism discussion because you think it's one or the other and that they don't coexist. They are the ends of the spectrum, and they are opposites.

A perfectly free market is anarchy. The opposite of a free market would be a state-owned economy, which we are nowhere near.

If you want a perfectly free market, then there's no public schools, ambulances, fire fighters, cops, libraries, MILITARY, etc. And we all know how aroused you people are by the military.

If you love free markets so much, then say goodbye to your holy military you hypocrites.

[iceberg]

This is what happens when Glenn Beck teaches you about economics:

You people have a serious problem in this whole socialism/capitalism discussion because you think it's one or the other and that they don't coexist. They are the ends of the spectrum, and they are opposites.

A perfectly free market is anarchy. The opposite of a free market would be a state-owned economy, which we are nowhere near.

If you want a perfectly free market, then there's no public schools, ambulances, fire fighters, cops, libraries, MILITARY, etc. And we all know how aroused you people are by the military.

If you love free markets so much, then say goodbye to your holy military you hypocrites.

heh, you sure do assume a lot from a single smart alec sentence.

[JimDandy]

Thanks for proving you don't know a ******* bit of what you're talking about here.

The schools and military are socialized because they aren't privatized. It's not about what the people within the structures think.

Genius.

Calm down there fella. Anything that is not privatized is not automatically "socialized". That's just plain kooky. :laugh2:

You need to cease the naive generalizations along with the hot temper.

Oh and what the hell does "it's not about what the people within the structures think" supposed to mean? Sounds a little out there to me. Deep, heady stuff there guy. :bow:

Lighten up. Socialism is for sheep and fools. Our military is neither. As I stated, a compelling case could be made that our school systems have many liberal, socialist types employed within.

[JimDandy]

heh, you sure do assume a lot from a single smart alec sentence.

:laugh2: :lmao: :bow: :)

[SuspectCorner]

go find me a graph or two that shows how much taxes the poor pay.

quit talking generalities and get specifiic.

You're missing the forest for the trees. A main regard of this thread is tax cuts and their relative stimulative effect on the economy. And anybody with a rudimentary understanding of macroeconomics will tell you that tax cuts provide little in the way of a stimulus unless they are given to the lower income brackets.

This is because the lower income classes will tend to spend any economic gains - which is the essence of a "stimulus"... to encourage spending.

From the middle class on up the tendency tilts incrementally more toward saving of any economic gains. And the wealthy generally do not spend any gains from tax cuts. They either: 1) sit on those gains or, 2) seek investment - and this not a good climate for investment.

Unless you can find a way to equate savings with spending - tax cuts to the wealthy is wasted motion. But the lower classes will immediately pump it right back into the economy via spending.



http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/webfeatures_viewpoints_stimulus_memo/

[CowboyMcCoy]

The tax cut deniers are always fun to listen to.

Sort of like the kids who hold their breath and stamp their feet.

Pro-war! Tax cuts! Build Prisons! Tax Cuts! George Bush! Tax Cuts!
:laugh2:

[burmafrd]

I Knew There Was Hope For You.

[burmafrd]

for suspect


http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/Why_Permanent_Tax_Cuts_are_the_Best_Stimulus-WSJ-11-25-082.pdf

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122757149157954723.html


http://www.rgemonitor.com/financemarkets-monitor/254566/taylor_why_permanent_tax_cuts_are_the_best_stimulu s

And an alternative
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9816

http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-3454:1

[iceberg]

You're missing the forest for the trees. A main regard of this thread is tax cuts and their relative stimulative effect on the economy. And anybody with a rudimentary understanding of macroeconomics will tell you that tax cuts provide little in the way of a stimulus unless they are given to the lower income brackets.

This is because the lower income classes will tend to spend any economic gains - which is the essence of a "stimulus"... to encourage spending.

From the middle class on up the tendency tilts incrementally more toward saving of any economic gains. And the wealthy generally do not spend any gains from tax cuts. They either: 1) sit on those gains or, 2) seek investment - and this not a good climate for investment.

Unless you can find a way to equate savings with spending - tax cuts to the wealthy is wasted motion. But the lower classes will immediately pump it right back into the economy via spending.

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/webfeatures_viewpoints_stimulus_memo/

no. you're missing the point - quit blithering and prove it.

[ABQCOWBOY]

You're missing the forest for the trees. A main regard of this thread is tax cuts and their relative stimulative effect on the economy. And anybody with a rudimentary understanding of macroeconomics will tell you that tax cuts provide little in the way of a stimulus unless they are given to the lower income brackets.

This is because the lower income classes will tend to spend any economic gains - which is the essence of a "stimulus"... to encourage spending.

From the middle class on up the tendency tilts incrementally more toward saving of any economic gains. And the wealthy generally do not spend any gains from tax cuts. They either: 1) sit on those gains or, 2) seek investment - and this not a good climate for investment.

Unless you can find a way to equate savings with spending - tax cuts to the wealthy is wasted motion. But the lower classes will immediately pump it right back into the economy via spending.



http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/webfeatures_viewpoints_stimulus_memo/

This would suggest differently.


http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/pi/taxes/taxbook/taxbook4.html

[JimDandy]

no. you're missing the point - quit blithering and prove it.

:lmao: I'm beginning to enjoy your posts more and more! Make it a great day!