Majority Now Want Tax Cuts To Stimulate Economy

[amrchaos]

Do you know there is something to be said for tax cuts as a way of stimulating the economy. The problem is when you cut taxes and keep on spending without reducing the deficit or you spend so freely that you outpace the economy you get into serious trouble. Clinton understood this, Reagan understood this, and JFK did as well. All three of those presidents cut taxes , in Clintons case he also cut spending and reduced the deficit. This is not magic here. In Reagans case he cut the top rates, and also cut them across the board, and created an environment for business to thrive. I have often wondered the last several trillion dollars that both Obama and Bush happily signed away to Banks, Auto companies, and lobby groups, would have been put to better use in the form of massive tax cuts and rebuilding the military which is very badly needed.

Yes--for stimulating the economy. But we have a massive debt on our hands and we are in a recession. So yes, cut taxes to stimulate the economy. But I say Do not stop there.

On the other hand, during the up times is when the government can "harvest" the tax revenues from the economy since it is less oppressive to we citizens. This is also the time to cut government spending since most citizens would be able to take care of themselves and businesses are able to thrive from private contracts. Thus, to reduce the debt involves two folds--increase taxes, cut spending.

By how much and how far remains to be seen, but one thing is clear--balanced budget or deficit spending during upswings is a no no.

 

[amrchaos]

Economic central planning? I am not suggesting that the Government dictates to the economy at all times. Only during downturns do think this makes sense. During the recovery phase, the government is to liquidate and bring it to the free market and try to generate surplus(to pay of the debt) or balance the budget as the markets improve themselves.

I guess you can say that is Temporal Government Central Planning.

Why on earth does the government need to engage in central planning AT ALL? there is no upside to it..... the current economic crisis is a direct result of central planning, it wasn't greedy bankers or free-market capitalism that caused this crisis is was government interventalism and the central bank. If they hadn't conspired to distort the hell out of the market we wouldn't be in this mess.

There is a chance that the recession can turn into depression if nothing is done. That is why.

 

[Annie]

Do you know there is something to be said for tax cuts as a way of stimulating the economy. The problem is when you cut taxes and keep on spending without reducing the deficit or you spend so freely that you outpace the economy you get into serious trouble. Clinton understood this, Reagan understood this, and JFK did as well. All three of those presidents cut taxes , in Clintons case he also cut spending and reduced the deficit. This is not magic here. In Reagans case he cut the top rates, and also cut them across the board, and created an environment for business to thrive. I have often wondered the last several trillion dollars that both Obama and Bush happily signed away to Banks, Auto companies, and lobby groups, would have been put to better use in the form of massive tax cuts and rebuilding the military which is very badly needed.

Yes--for stimulating the economy. But we have a massive debt on our hands and we are in a recession. So yes, cut taxes to stimulate the economy. But I say Do not stop there.

On the other hand, during the up times is when the government can "harvest" the tax revenues from the economy since it is less oppressive to we citizens. This is also the time to cut government spending since most citizens would be able to take care of themselves and businesses are able to thrive from private contracts. Thus, to reduce the debt involves two folds--increase taxes, cut spending.

By how much and how far remains to be seen, but one thing is clear--balanced budget or deficit spending during upswings is a no no.

However, we've been in a 'downswing' for more than a year and a balanced budget is so far out of the realm of possible that one can only laugh at the absurdity of such. Stopping what's going on? Possible, but unlikely given the leadership. Tax cuts? Would be foolhardy with the deficits.

No, we are truly f'd.

 

[American Horse]

Larry Summers was out today trying to explain the administration's overall economic plan...and it fell flat.

The guy sounds and looks moronic.

And the fact he was marched out to do so, is further evidence there is a crisis mentality brewing within the White House.

The internal polling data cannot be good...

The Gov't Controlled Media is likewise under tighter scrutiny by a restive public, and it increasingly looks moronic. They'll desperately prop up the pres as long as he can come up with good sound-bites for his Teleprompter. In a way, the GCM constantly feeds the pres status alerts. If it wasn't so dangerous it would be funny.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

There is a chance that the recession can turn into depression if nothing is done. That is why.

Curing the disease with more of the disease isn't the answer, if a depression is what we have brought on ourselves through our bone-headed, centrally planned, economic policies then so be it , it's far better to take the short term pain and let the market unwind all the malinvestment that has been created than what this further interventionalism is going to bring down on ourselves and much more importantly our children in the future, that's assuming these policies even work to alleviate the crisis over the short term, which is a big assumption.

Would you rather have a short term depression (like the one that lasted a bit over a year in the early 1920's when the government did not act) or a long term depression (like in 1930's-40's) that was drawn out by exactly the same types of government actions that we're seeing today or in the worst case scenario a complete economic collapse in the next decade?

No pain, no gain.

 

[Care4all]

There is a chance that the recession can turn into depression if nothing is done. That is why.

Curing the disease with more of the disease isn't the answer, if a depression is what we have brought on ourselves through our bone-headed, centrally planned, economic policies then so be it , it's far better to take the short term pain and let the market unwind all the malinvestment that has been created than what this further interventionalism is going to bring down on ourselves and much more importantly our children in the future, that's assuming these policies even work to alleviate the crisis over the short term, which is a big assumption.

Would you rather have a short term depression (like the one that lasted a bit over a year in the early 1920's when the government did not act) or a long term depression (like in 1930's-40's) that was drawn out by exactly the same types of government actions that we're seeing today or in the worst case scenario a complete economic collapse in the next decade?

No pain, no gain.

there is also the term in critical situations that you have to fight FIRE with FIRE....

and also the term that says sometimes you have to spend money to make money....

i'm not a big bail out fan and never have been but just pointing out that there are other terminologies that others believe strongly, like the 2 i mentioned, that fit this crisis we are in.... who really knows what is right?

 

[KMAN]

It's not that hard to figure out... Follow the constitution and only spend money on what it says you can... pretty simple... Like it or not welware, healthcare, bank bailouts, car bailouts aren't in the constitution...

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

who really knows what is right?

History books.

 

[Sinatra]

who really knows what is right?

History books.

Ah - that is a great reply.

Succinct - and very accurate!