The Democrats' view of prosperity
"That's what got us here." Whether it's Daniel the Catholic Alaskan Librarian or Obama the President who campaigned for two years I just shake my head in disbelief when I hear that the booming economy of 2003-2008 is what caused the meltdown. No interest loans. Mexicans flooding over the border to grab really high priced construction jobs in Ohio and drop their anchor babies. Managers frantically looking for workers--and giving them bonuses and parties for just showing up. On paper we had a phantom 3rd person living with us who just turned over his paycheck and asked for nothing but reinvesting his money. That wasn't disaster, that was a boom, and booms go bust if you're not careful about who you lend money to. Would you have preferred than the economy didn't recover after 2000 so you could blame that on Bush too?Here's Daniel commenting at my blog
- But having said that [he doubts the stimulus will work], we have been in serious tax cut mode since 2001 and failed to stave off what could be the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. I think it's probably time to try something different.
- "He criticized Bush for giving tax cuts to corporations and the rich while spending billions on the war in Iraq. Obama also rebuked Democratic rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Republican front-runner Sen. John McCain for supporting the war."
Posts
10 comments:
Murray sez:
It seems insanity has been imbedded in our two party system forever. It was only a matter of time as our legislators got bolder and gained arrogance that they would destroy our country. As if the damage wasn't bad enough they are now proving beyond any shadow of doubt that they haven't learned any lessons about any past economic failings. They are behaving like children while bashing each other and preparing to shoot another hole into our sinking ship. If this latest boondoggle passes, it will seal our children and grand children's destiny to insurmountable debt.
I would actually prefer it if they did bash each other (verbally, not physically), Murray, because bipartisanship is what got us here. The groveling of those 3 or 4 Republicans to do the bidding of the Democrats was sickening.
It makes complete sense to me. The economy is in the dumps, so if we tax people more to pay for abortions in Kenya, and take money from everyone to give it to people who will buy new cars on credit it will make the economy strong.
Please how hard is it to figure out, take from the poor and give to the poor and pay government employess to manage that transfer.
Correction: it's take from the poor and give to the middle class; take from the middle class and give to the rich. At the end of Obama's war on the economy, the poor will still be poor, you betcha.
Hi Norma,
I happy to be one of the sources of your writing inspiration today.
I appreciate you quoting me in context. It allows me to point out that I did NOT say that the tax cuts CAUSED the current economic crisis. If you go back and see what you quoted, you'll see I said the tax cuts "failed to stave off" the economic collapse. There's a difference. Giving someone apricot pits for cancer doesn't CAUSE the cancer, but it doesn't keep the disease from progressing, either.
When you say, "but his tax cuts were the right thing at the right time." I'm reminded that under the Bush administration, tax cuts were always the right thing at the right time. Have a 9/11 caused recession? Cut Taxes! Is business booming? Cut Taxes! Is there an expensive war going on? Cut Taxes!
There are no panaceas in life. And since the particular panacea didn't work its claimed magic of erasing the business cycle, we're entitled to do something different.
Will the stimulus work? I don't know. But it beats doing the same things that didn't keep us from crashing. At least we'll get repaired bridges and roads out of it.
Thinking about it some more, when you ridicule the idea of tax cuts being bad, I think you forget that tax cuts are a tool, neither good nor bad except in context.
If tax cuts were ALLWAYS good and NEVER bad, as your post implies, then the logically consistent view is that tax rates should be cut to zero.
I don't think you believe that. Where do you think taxes should be? When do tax cuts cease being good and became harmful to the national interest? Is there a time in history where taxes were about right in your view? What is government doing now that it wasn't doing then? What programs and services should we reject to get to the optimal tax rate?
Daniel: I never said tax cuts are always good, although I can't think of a recession that raising taxes helped. Obama is the one who won't consider them. Our tax code is huge, and got much bigger and complex under Bush. Our government regardless of which party is in power spends recklessly with far too little oversite. I believe a flat tax where all would pay some, even the poor, would be best.
Murray sez:
Our Federal government can afford to cut taxes since they have billions of potential taxes in reserve from everyone's IRA's, 401-k's, pensions and S.S. benefits. 25 years ago they didn't have these reserves. Just wait till the boomers get gouged! If Obama wanted to give a SIMPLE tax break he could eliminate taxes on S.S. benefits. They should have never been taxed in the first place. Just think of it. People give S.S. taxes to the government, then they give you some of it back, then you give some of that back to them. Now I ask you.... how silly is that?
Obama talked a lot about tax cuts during the campaign, as I recall. He just wants to eliminate the meaninful ones that will help the economy.
Ah, the wonderful future of trickle-up-poverty...and not much is funnier than that youtube video of Harry Reid saying that taxes in America are voluntary -- no one is forced to pay them...it is hilarious.
Post a Comment