USA Economics Cannot Afford Repub Home Loan Scams and Free Lunch Tax Dollar Handouts

Discussion in 'Politics' started by merrill, Jan 21, 2012.

  1. merrill
    Offline

    merrill VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,263
    Thanks Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +92
    There is no evidence that candidates from the business community make the best politicians. They are much too eager to give our tax dollars away to the corporate community without solid foundation as to why. Speculation is not a solid foundation.

    There is no solid evidence that tax cuts produce tons of jobs. If tax cuts/tax incentives produced tons of jobs the USA would be standing in the sea of job surplus.
    Still a Bad Idea | Dollars & Sense

    If business people make the best candidates why did the USA become a “boom town economy? Boom town economies always crash this is not new economics. There are way too many “free lunch programs” .

    "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You with the Bill)"

    More republican thinkers anywhere in government is a recipe for economic disaster.
    Remember Reagan/Bush and Bush/Cheney home loan frauds = job losses by the millions.

    Millions of jobs were lost during the FIRST Savings and Loan/home loan scandal and during the global economy push = outsourcing under Reagan-Bush. Yes republicans gave outsourcing a wide open door as they began waving good bye to the best paying USA jobs.

    Then Bush/Quale came along.

    Then free trade and Clinton's NAFTA came along.

    Bush/Cheney lost 2 million in their first admin and 9 million during the second admin when the SECOND home/loan scandal surfaced.

    The USA is down about 20 million jobs. No new industry has been been developed to bring those jobs and their pay scales back = loss of national wealth. No country,state or city can afford companies that send jobs abroad. It’s called Wreckanomics.
     
  2. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    We leaned heavily into the therories of RANDIAN economics for the last 40 years.

    How's that worked out for us?

    America is poorer than ever, nearly half the population is broke or on the verge of going broke, the government is broke, too.

    If that's the conservative vision of how society ought to work, I'm not having any of it.
     
  3. occupied
    Offline

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,456
    Thanks Received:
    2,251
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,767
    Business people are never so irresponsible as they are when they gamble with other people's money.
     
  4. TakeAStepBack
    Offline

    TakeAStepBack Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    13,935
    Thanks Received:
    1,723
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,012
    We've been heavily leaning into the Keynesian economics theory for the last 40 years. Keep looking at the symptoms of the disease and attempting to cure them while the disease itself rages on. It's the new economic bell bottoms.
     
  5. merrill
    Offline

    merrill VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,263
    Thanks Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +92
    Defending the Indefensible

    The editors of the Wall Street Journal never met a pro-rich tax cut they didn't like. And the Bush tax cut is much to their liking. Last December, they argued the case for a massive tax cut on three grounds:

    * "Taxes are too high. Last year [1999], federal tax revenue as a percentage of the economy reached an historic peak—20.4% of GDP."
    * "For the past couple of years, our tax overpayments have put the federal budget in surplus. And Congress, incited by this surplus, has exceeded its own budget caps and increased its spending beyond the rate of inflation. And they've just done it again, passing a humongous budget."
    * "The economy is beginning to wobble. Economic forecasters are sniffing a recession; they are busily lowering growth projections for next year. And for good reason; some of the data are starting to look scary."

    On closer inspection, none of these arguments holds up. First, let's look at what the Journal editors had to say about government being too large and taxes too high.

    Federal tax revenues—as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or national output—are currently, as the editors suggest, at their highest levels since World War II. But that is not because government got bigger during the 1990s or because today's federal budget is "humongous" in historical terms.

    The economic boom of the 1990s—faster economic growth and a skyrocketing stock market—did enlarge the tax base and allow the federal government to collect more tax revenues. Those added tax dollars closed a $300 billion deficit in the federal budget and then generated the current surplus.

    But that surplus hasn't translated into bigger government, as the Journal editors claim. During the 1990s, federal spending as a share of GDP actually got smaller, not bigger, slipping below 20%. In 2000, it reached just 18.2%, the lowest mark in 35 years.

    Still a Bad Idea | Dollars & Sense
     

Share This Page