Here's the problem BFGrn.. The OLD econ books don't work anymore. We don't have the economy we had 50 years ago. 50 years ago you could hand out $100 bills and folks would go out and buy tennis shoes and radios and American factories would crank up and hire workers. 50 years ago, you could tax the **** out of American corporations and they would just shrug and carry on..
The Keyesian shit doesn't work anymore.. All handing out money does is increase the number of Container ships coming into Long Beach and Chinese factories expansion. Corporations that don't like tax policy here can go serve other markets that didn't exist 50 years ago. Regulations have INCREASED the strangle hold by big biz because it THROTTLES the engine of NEW and INNOVATIVE ventures.
In FACT --- Everyone of these OLD ideas has the OPPOSITE effect that it used to. That's why Obama/Reid/Pelosi are so wrong. MORE regulation and Keyesian crap is GOOD for embedding the power of BIG corporations and INCREASING the wealth gap. You guys don't even realize that those policies feed the crap you abhor.
It's really a shame that you're talking 50 years ago and I'm talking TODAY. Because we'd probably agree on a lot. How the objective SHOULD be to restart Innovation and grow NEW IPOs with more meaning than LinkedIn or Facebook. Our kids are gonna climbing garbage dumps looking for common household objects if we don't address Globalization. And the thread Started out with folks discussing how SMALL and NEW businesses need to be unleashed so that they can KNOCK OFF the big multinationals.
That's why I'm not groovin' on so much reminescing about history. We've got a RIGHT NOW problem that defies an FDR approach. In fact -- you folks that feel that the DEMs always had this right are not gonna be part of the solution if you don't realize it's not 1950 anymore..
Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke
I am talking about today, what worked 50 years ago and what hasn't worked for the last 30 years. The Keyesian shit does work. Please show me one economy of the face of the earth that has ever used the 'Austrian school' shit to run an economy? Hoover took the advice of the 'Austrian school' predecessors, it led to the great depression. Austerity and liquidation will only lead to another depression.
I agree that we don't have the economy we had 50 years ago. And that 50 years ago you could hand out $100 bills and folks would go out and buy tennis shoes and radios and American factories would crank up and hire workers. And 50 years ago, you could tax the **** out of American corporations and they would just shrug and carry on...
BUT...what hasn't worked for the last 30 years is tax cuts for the 'job creators'. 50 years ago we didn't have a HUGE debt. The 'job creators' took that accumulated wealth and created the increased number of Container ships coming into Long Beach and Chinese factory expansion. And left We, the People who live and die here are not only left without those jobs, we now have to face a HUGE debt.
There are no easy solutions. We are now faced with an America where corporations have no allegiance to the American people or our national interests, just their private interests.
It is the bigger context of what President Obama and Elizabeth Warren are saying.
And, the President is not calling for taxing the **** out of American corporations. He called for lowering the corporate tax rate, BUT, closing the loopholes. GUESS who wanted no part of it?
And, the President is not calling for taxing the **** out of Americans who make over $250,000. He is talking about letting the Bush tax cuts for people earning over $250,000 expire. Going back to the Clinton era tax rate but ONLY on income ABOVE $250,000.
If you make $250,001, your taxes would go up FIVE CENTS.
Here is how it really works. What happens is that the first $250K is taxed just like it has been, but anything that is made over $250K -- and only the amount over $250K -- is then taxed at the higher rate. The tax on the amount below $250K is not changed.
Example: Suppose the tax increase is 5% on income over $250K. This means that a person who reports income of $250K plus one dollar will be taxed an additional 5 cents. FIVE CENTS!
Yes, that's right, if it is 5% they are talking about then it means a 5 cent tax increase on people who make $250,001.
In reality, ObamaÂ’s plan actually is a continuation of a tax cut on the vast majority of the income of the vast majority of Americans, job creators and small businesses included. Senators who vote against this plan will have mainly protected the wealth of the top one percent.
HereÂ’s why. As a few of us keep pointing out, ObamaÂ’s plan continues the tax cut on all income up to $250,000, including that earned by those who make more than that. The restoration of Clinton-era rates would only hit income above $250,000, which is earned by two out of every 100 taxpayers, and represents only a very small share of the overall income enjoyed by many of them.
Idea That Deregulation Leads To Jobs 'Just Made Up' - Ex-Reagan Economist
Consider proposed cuts in taxes and regulation, which nearly every GOP candidate is pushing in the name of creating jobs. The initiatives seem to ignore surveys in which employers cite far bigger impediments to increased hiring, chiefly slack consumer demand.
"Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration, and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today," writes Bruce Bartlett. He's an economist who worked for Republican congressmen and in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
As for the idea that cutting regulations will lead to significant job growth, Bartlett said in an interview, "It's just nonsense. It's just made up."
Government and industry studies support his view.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tracks companies' reasons for large layoffs, found that 1,119 layoffs were attributed to government regulations in the first half of this year, while 144,746 were attributed to poor "business demand."
Mainstream economic theory says governments can spur demand, at least somewhat, through stimulus spending. The Republican candidates, however, have labeled President Barack Obama's 2009 stimulus efforts a failure. Instead, most are calling for tax cuts that would primarily benefit high-income people, who are seen as the likeliest job creators.
"I don't care about that," Texas Gov. Rick Perry told The New York Times and CNBC, referring to tax breaks for the rich. "What I care about is them having the dollars to invest in their companies."
Many existing businesses, however, have plenty of unspent cash. The 500 companies that comprise the S&P index have about $800 billion in cash and cash equivalents, the most ever, according to the research firm Birinyi Associates.
The rating firm Moody's says the roughly 1,600 companies it monitors had $1.2 trillion in cash at the end of 2010. That's 11 percent more than a year earlier.
Small businesses rate "poor sales" as their biggest problem, with government regulations ranking second, according to a survey by the National Federation of Independent Businesses. Of the small businesses saying this is not a good time to expand, half cited the poor economy as the chief reason. Thirteen percent named the "political climate."
More small businesses complained about regulation during the administrations of Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush, according to an analysis of the federation's data by the liberal Economic Policy Institute.
Such findings notwithstanding, further cuts in taxes and regulations remain popular with GOP voters. A recent Associated Press-GfK poll found that most Democrats and about half of independents think "reducing environmental and other regulations on business" would do little or nothing to create jobs. But only one-third of Republicans felt that way.
The GOP's presidential hopefuls are shaping their economic agendas along those lines.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney says his 59-point plan "seeks to reduce taxes, spending, regulation and government programs."
Bruce Bartlett, Ex-Reagan Economist: Idea That Deregulation Leads To Jobs 'Just Made Up'