Fewer Taxes for Real Economic Stimulus

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Kevin_Kennedy, Apr 17, 2009.

  1. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    Congressman Ron Paul - Fewer Taxes for Real Economic Stimulus - Texas Straight Talk
     
  2. Iriemon
    Offline

    Iriemon VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,745
    Thanks Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Miami
    Ratings:
    +99
    Sounds nice and I'm sure it sells well with the "pass the buck" generation.

    But the truth is, while tax cuts have inevitably lead to trillions in debt, our economy has shown no significant correlation in terms of lower taxes and better economic growth. If anything, the opposite is the case.

    So, no thinks. While I can see the argument for temporary fiscal stimulus for the recession (and the stimulus bill does in fact contain hundreds of billions in tax relief) in the long term creating more debt is not better for the country.

    We need to raise revenues, not cut them.

    Somehow, our country managed to function just fine when the top tax rate was 91% in the 1950s and 70% in the 1960s. In fact, it was doing a lot better then than it did in the 00s with the tax cuts.
     
  3. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    How can you say "creating more debt is not better for the country" right after espousing the so-called "tax cuts" in the stimulus? There may be some sort of tax cuts in the stimulus, but I have to ask how the stimulus itself is going to be paid for? Taxation. The government doesn't just have hundreds of billions of dollars sitting around waiting to be used on something.

    What we need are tax cuts and significant spending cuts.
     
  4. Iriemon
    Offline

    Iriemon VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,745
    Thanks Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Miami
    Ratings:
    +99
    The exception being the argument for fiscal stimulus in an recessionj economy of fear and panic where no one is spending.

    I agree the stimulation is paid for with taxes. I also agree that because of the $11 trillion Republican debt using stimulus now is more problematic.

    How can you say "creating more debt is not better for the country" and then say we need to cut revenues further? If there are less revenues, won't there be bigger deficits?
     
  5. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    Ahh the "Paradox of Thrift." If no one is spending then that means they're saving, and that means there's more demand for future goods as opposed to present goods. If the government steps in with stimulus then it creates a bubble in present goods that is going to pop.

    Calling it the Republican debt is disingenuous. I prefer the "$11 trillion Republicrat debt."

    There will only be bigger deficits if we continue to spend recklessly. We need to significantly cut spending.
     
  6. Iriemon
    Offline

    Iriemon VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,745
    Thanks Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Miami
    Ratings:
    +99
    That also means there's no demand for current goods, and then more layoffs, more fear, less spending, less money ... etc. Add in a credit market frozen with crappy assets and you have a recipe for a disaster.

    So I guess the question is when your caught on an outgoing tide, do you sit back and watch the boat float out to sea, or paddle like hell and worry about if you will hit the dock later?

    The debt was $1 trillion when Reagan took office and $11 trillion when Bush2 left. Republican policies of tax cuts and military buildups and wars ran up this debt. It did go up $1.6T while Clinton was in office, but he inhereted a $340 B deficit and we had a surplus when he left. So I personally don't hold him much responsible for it.

    IMO it's fair to call it the Republican debt. Obama may change that, however, depending how he does over time.

    You didn't address my qeustion:

    How can you say "creating more debt is not better for the country" and then say we need to cut revenues further? If there are less revenues, won't there be bigger deficits?

    And if we increase revenues, won't there be smaller deficits?
     
  7. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    Yes, more layoffs during a recession. And what creates the recession? The government/Fed created bubble pops. So yes, there will be more problems so long as the recession lasts, but the solution is not to create another bubble for the future.

    Were there no Democratic Congresses in that period? Also, the deficit and debt are not the same thing, and to create that surplus Clinton dipped into the Social Security fund. So that's a myth. Therefore, both parties are equally as responsible for the debt. Don't think I'm defending Republicans, because that is far from the case. They're very much to blame with their hyper-interventionism abroad, but Democrats deserve much of the blame as well.

    I can say that because the revenue comes from the taxpayers, and stealing their money is wrong. The correct way to balance the budget is for the government to cut it's own spending drastically, and allow the people to keep more of the money they earn.
     
  8. Iriemon
    Offline

    Iriemon VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,745
    Thanks Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Miami
    Ratings:
    +99
    We just disagree. The mortgage crisis wasn't caused by the Fed. It was caused by too large financial institutions being willing to invest trillions in risky mortgages that they thought were less risky. And speculation fueled by a growing market, shoddy lending practices, and get rich quick infomercials.

    That had little if anything to do with the Fed.

    And I'd rather the Fed/Govt intervene now and worry about a "bubble" some years from now that watch the country sink into another great depression.

    Sure. The Dems increased taxes in 1993 which was the biggest reason we got a surplus budget.

    But it wasn't the Dems that slashed taxes and increased military spending in the 80s and 00s. That was the Republicans, and in the 80s with the help of a few "gypsy moth" dems.

    No myth. That's just propoganda from the Right.

    Clinton ran a true surplus in 2000. It is true that the Govt borrowed from the SS trust fund; but during 2000 it paid down the public debt more than it borrowed, and total debt decreased.

    12/31/1999 $5,776,091,314,225.33
    12/29/2000 $5,662,216,013,697.37

    Source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

    Give that all three Republican administrations exploded the deficits and debts; and the only Democratic administration since 1980 inhereted a record defict and turned it into a surplus, I don't share your "they're all equally blameworthy" attitude. The facts show otherwise.

    So in other words, you agree that increasing taxes and revenues will decrease the deficits, that's just not your preferred approach.

    That's fine. But it doesn't undermine the accuracy of my statement that a tax increase will reduce the deficit.

    What is more important to you? In an Obama administration where massive spending cuts are not going to happen, would you rather see continued large deficits and debt increases, or a tax increase that decreases the deficit?
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2009
  9. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    The problem with creating a bubble to avoid a painful recession is that when the new bubble pops it's going to be worse then what it is now. We need to take our medicine now while it's manageable, rather than letting it get worse.

    Well I'll continue to support tax cuts because I still see taxation as nothing more than theft, and if this administration lets the debt continue to pile up then that's their fault.
     
  10. Iriemon
    Offline

    Iriemon VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,745
    Thanks Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Miami
    Ratings:
    +99
    We are taking our medicine now!


    And that's why the Govt is $11 trillion in debt. The right won't compromise on taxes and the left won't compromise on spending. So the govt panders and does both. And the right is fine because they'd rather run up debt than pay more taxes. And the left is fine because they get their programs.

    And our children and grandchildren get fucked, as those at the tea parties were lamanted while at the same time screeching "don't raise my taxes"!

    We have no one to blame but ourselves the pass the buck generation. But the future will not judge us kindly I don't think.
     

Share This Page