To Conservatives: What drives the economy?

What drives our economy? Consumer spending or business investment?

If you think consumer spending drives the economy, what would be wrong about putting more disposable income into the hands of the middle class and the poor?

If it's business investment, what would be wrong about making adjustments to the tax code that would discourage outsourcing and off shore tax shelters? Shouldn't American business investment be made in, I don't know, maybe America?

The answer is both.

Consumer spending and Business investment both drive our economy. The problem is since NAFTA we have a huge increase in outsourcing and people without jobs. People like to blame parties for this, but both parties wanted it because they were paid. The Anti-Outsourcing Bill of 2010 went no where even with good cause (bad, and incorrect name much like the GOOD NAME bills that pass, Patriot Act)

We want our lowest educated workers to have jobs because we need them. The current Right Wing wants to cut off their jobs and then wants to cut off their welfare. Everyone has seen this. Why outsouce their jobs and then call them lazy? It's not rocket science.
 
When we outsourced the consumers jobs, we created a welfare system we have never seen before. Certain media painted all unemployed people as LAZY and here we are.
 
.

Any time a thread begins with an either/or question to a highly complex issue, hilarity is bound to ensue.

.

I should like your response because you call a serious question with an A OR B answer a complex issue.
 
If consumer spending is responsible for greater than 70% of our economic growth, what have policies like out sourcing, casino financial systems, unregulated asset trading, elimination of collective bargaining and cut backs to the social safety net contributed to the strengthening of the Middle Class?

How can lowering the tax rate on corporate gains (money not earned but risked) and the marginal tax rate of those actually EARNING more than $1,000,000 benefit the majority Middle Class and poor?

1. Out sourcing provides the incentive to innovate. We're finally starting to understand that. Protectionist policies merely kick the can down the road and let some other nation take the lead. Believe it or not, it's a good thing that we aren't propping up 1940 models of manufacturing. Machinery, automation, and assembling products are just not that valuable anymore.

2. "Casino" finance systems are not ideal, but they are much better than the centralized systems in other parts of the world and that's why the US Dollar is still the reserve currency of choice. I'm not an advocate of the Gold Standard, but I'm not an advocate of the current monetary policy either. We've got 5-10% of latent inflation built into our system and it's going to hit hard when the QE ends. It's not a terribly harsh level, but it's going to suck for a lot of people when it happens.

3. Collective bargaining is a drain on innovation and performance. Why go above and beyond if you get paid the same either way? Detroit is a good example of how that simple concept can be taken too far.

4. We've had 6 years of focusing on the middle class and none of it has gotten better. I know it makes for good campaign rhetoric, but pandering doesn't increase wealth. The way to enrich the middle class is to provide an environment for people to expand their horizons. It's not the 1950s anymore, and any sort of policies trying to bring those days back are not going to work. Our government is bigger, our entitlement systems are bigger, and a 1950s high school education just isn't that unique anymore. That said, it is time for a major emphasis on trades. It seems 18 year-olds are getting worthless college degrees instead of learning a trade and studying humanities. We should encourage both. A well-rounded electrician is much more effective than a vo-tech only graduate, and way better than someone who is an expert in 17th Century French Literature only.

5. Lowering the tax rate on corporations makes us more competitive in the global economy. If I could set the policy, there would be no corporate tax rate at all with a consumption tax on everyone who spends money within our borders (which includes wires to and from US bank accounts). It's much more efficient and it pierces the corporate veil much better than our current idiotic scheme.
 
What drives our economy? Consumer spending or business investment?

If you think consumer spending drives the economy, what would be wrong about putting more disposable income into the hands of the middle class and the poor?

If it's business investment, what would be wrong about making adjustments to the tax code that would discourage outsourcing and off shore tax shelters? Shouldn't American business investment be made in, I don't know, maybe America?

There are always consumers, people have to eat.

Your premise is false.
 
What drives our economy? Consumer spending or business investment?

If you think consumer spending drives the economy, what would be wrong about putting more disposable income into the hands of the middle class and the poor?

If it's business investment, what would be wrong about making adjustments to the tax code that would discourage outsourcing and off shore tax shelters? Shouldn't American business investment be made in, I don't know, maybe America?

if your plan is to fix the tax code, great. Remember, it was written mostly by the democrats who have controlled congress for most of the last 80 years.
That does not preclude the need for massive tax reform. If we could get the politics and the special interests out of the process, I'm sure there could be bi-partisan support for tax reform.

The process is one of argument compromise and agreement. Are the House Republicans up for some actual governance? Or are they simply the Party of No!?

I've been saying for almost 20 years that the FairTax would be as good for Democrats as Republicans. It provides an easier way to increase the rate and the exempted consumption limit for those that want it, but it's much more efficient.

The efficiency gains are worth the risks of total collapse.
 
What drives our economy? Consumer spending or business investment?

If you think consumer spending drives the economy, what would be wrong about putting more disposable income into the hands of the middle class and the poor?

If it's business investment, what would be wrong about making adjustments to the tax code that would discourage outsourcing and off shore tax shelters? Shouldn't American business investment be made in, I don't know, maybe America?

Why are you so confused son??

What if I think neither, What if I think all you lazy couch potatoes that are societal leeches and constantly looking for ways to take what other hard working people have are the real problem in society.

What if I change your BS to read

If you think consumer spending drives the economy, what would be wrong with putting more disposable income into the hands of the middle class and poor??

Why can not the poor and middle class not get jobs and work like the rest of us tax paying folks?? Need more to spend, work harder, get a better job skill or another job, there are ways to be self dependent, self sufficient.

If it's business investment, what would be wrong about making adjustments to the tax code that would discourage outsourcing and off shore tax shelters? Shouldn't American business investment be made in, I don't know, maybe America?In other words we know you have profits and we want as much as we can get of them.... We will construct laws to keep you, your company and your money held hostage in the USA .............This will be fine with the rest of you, right comrades???

For the nation with the highest tax code of any Democratic nation you leeches sure are some thirsty bastards .........
I'm thinking purely about moving our economy forward with health, sustainability and gusto. The poor and the middle class do most of the consumer spending in this country, so having more disposable income means more capital flowing from hand to hand. That, after all, is the definition of economic growth.

As for corporations sequestering their profits from our economic system, I think that as those corporations benefit from the security of the United States, the transportation system of the United States and the workers of the United States, those corporations should kick in to help maintain all of the above. Allowing them to profit without paying for the privilege only removes capital from our system, thus slowing it and shrinking our economy.

While the middle class does indeed do most of the consumer spending, the poor do not. What we need is a system that incentivizes the rich to consume more and for the middle class to become rich.
 
Last edited:
Why do you hate this country?

Because I want to lower yours and mines taxes to 2% instead of 5 or 10, you have come to the conclusion I hate my country?

Hell, your kind is the ones that want to bankrupt us with a tax base that is so far below what we need, we would go bankrupt. I was just agreeing with you.

Who needs a stinking tax base to run a country. Somalia don't.
No paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic, and a constant state of fear and violence. Yes Somalia! Somalia: Land off Enchantment and Opportunity is your paradigm of progress!

Somalia is a collapsed Marxist state, not anarchy.
 
Once again we agree, but the societal leeches must unass the couches and become productive members of society. While the largest sector of the population that is of working age and is capable of working is refusing to participate in the work force. Now get them off their ass's and put them to work. By EARNING WAGES you have much more disposable income, than by leeching off of others, individuals or corporations / business's.

These corporations get the same or better benefits from other countries....

Japan Attracting Business with Corporate Tax Reforms | Tax Foundation

Wake the **** up and use some common sense.....
First, let's define what you call 'societal leeches'. Next, consider the job market. If folks who have here to fore made a comfortable living, yet their place of employment has closed down and moved to Asia or Latin America, there will be a real hardship securing work. If the factory in town closes, the property values plummet, the job market dries up and there is precious little chance of selling your home and moving to where the jobs are. No one is buying a house in a town that is dying from lack of work. These are real life situations, not some musings from a pundit employing bumper sticker thinking that is simple yet ingenuous.



Those who refuse to work despite being given the opportunity to. Those who would rather be paid a mediocre income sitting at home rather than earning an exemplary one on the job.



The hardship is created when the host country creates an environment hostile to new business, thus killing jobs and getting people laid off. The solution here is so simple, get rid of the excess burdens government places on the machinations of businesses. Stop finding ways to smother them into oblivion.


If the factory in town closes, the property values plummet, the job market dries up and there is precious little chance of selling your home and moving to where the jobs are.

True. But many factors could contribute to closing that factory. Unionization for example, bankrupted the City of Detroit. Lots of liberal policies are known to hurt business.

These are real life situations, not some musings from a pundit employing bumper sticker thinking that is simple yet ingenuous.]

Yes they are. And yes the solutions are quite simple. It's as easy as not making a mountain out of a molehill.

You really shouldn't be part of this conversation. You are an actual leech.
 
The Rabbi;9509349[SIZE="4" said:
]Business investment of course is the more important component of the economy, because that's what stimulates growth.[/SIZE]
Currently the administration is savaging that in two ways: the first is higher taxes with promises of more to come. That includes the Obamacare crap, which has been put off but is coming. Companies anticipating higher employee costs are not looking to expand.
The second is more regulation. Virtually every industry has seen more regulation, which adds to costs. The uncertainty of future regulatory action adds to anxiety among corporations, prompting them to increase their cash reserves and put off expansion projects
While employment has been increasing, the dirty secret is most of those are part time jobs. People must cobble together two part time jobs to get the earning power they used to get from one. So I don't think household income has increased that much. That's mostly an aside however.

Now, ignorant assholes like government worker Nosmo just can't understand why corporations are not stepping up to the plate and opening their coffers to employees, doing their civic duty. This is beause the only thing he's ever run is his keyboard on this site.

Good god you are a stupid ******* rabbit. Still repeating that same ole lie. But then again, you are so ******* stupid you believe what you write.

Every legit economist in America and most of the rethugs on this site all agree that the economy of the USA (65 - 70 %)is driven by consumer spending.

Except for the stupid ******* rabbit.

So rabbit, if a company producing widgets starts by building millions of widgets and no one buys them, how did that help the economy or the company that was stupid enough to crank up supply with no demand?

This answer should be a hoot. Or the squeal of a stupid rabbit.
 
The Rabbi;9509349[SIZE="4" said:
]Business investment of course is the more important component of the economy, because that's what stimulates growth.[/SIZE]
Currently the administration is savaging that in two ways: the first is higher taxes with promises of more to come. That includes the Obamacare crap, which has been put off but is coming. Companies anticipating higher employee costs are not looking to expand.
The second is more regulation. Virtually every industry has seen more regulation, which adds to costs. The uncertainty of future regulatory action adds to anxiety among corporations, prompting them to increase their cash reserves and put off expansion projects
While employment has been increasing, the dirty secret is most of those are part time jobs. People must cobble together two part time jobs to get the earning power they used to get from one. So I don't think household income has increased that much. That's mostly an aside however.

Now, ignorant assholes like government worker Nosmo just can't understand why corporations are not stepping up to the plate and opening their coffers to employees, doing their civic duty. This is beause the only thing he's ever run is his keyboard on this site.

Good god you are a stupid ******* rabbit. Still repeating that same ole lie. But then again, you are so ******* stupid you believe what you write.

Every legit economist in America and most of the rethugs on this site all agree that the economy of the USA (65 - 70 %)is driven by consumer spending.

Except for the stupid ******* rabbit.

So rabbit, if a company producing widgets starts by building millions of widgets and no one buys them, how did that help the economy or the company that was stupid enough to crank up supply with no demand?

This answer should be a hoot. Or the squeal of a stupid rabbit.

Isn't it great! Everything about the economy since Obama became president is just terrible.....but he is such a genius that he has managed to delay the effects of his poor policies until after he is out of office. In the meantime, he has tricked the economy into a slow,steady recovery.

Diabolical , incompetent, marxist!
 
The "tax cut trickle down" obviously failed. How about we streamline the tax code, reduce for businesses but eliminate loopholes. Drop the business tax a few percent/poor peeps still don't have to pay (cause they r broke duh). Win/win, kill the loopholes, keep the same or close cash coming in.
 
Anyone who reads history realizes our best years were after the war, when unions were strong, when manufacturing was here, when consumers rebuilt lives after the war, when taxes were the highest on those who gained most from America's freedoms, what changed? Americans became spoiled and isolated and businesses and the wealthy fought the New Deal and Great Society with money, education, and think tanks that do anything but think. And guess what, the education worked, the entitlement worked and no longer did America live up to its principles. Good stuff below for the reader of history.

"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'

"A great transformation of American politics began during the years that Ronald Reagan was in the White House. This might not, at first, have appeared the likely outcome of his two administrations. Conservative activists (the same ones who would in later years celebrate Reagan as a saint) struggled during the 1980s with various disappointments: as president, Reagan did not end abortion, he met with Soviet leader Mikhail Corbachev, and he failed to eliminate the welfare state or even notably shrink government bureaucracies. And the enthusiasm within the business community that followed his election did not last long, as the economy sank into a deep recession, with unemployment rising to nearly 10 percent in 1982. As the manufacturing belt began to rust over, political conflicts between industrial companies desperately seeking subsidies and protection and those businesses that were able to thrive in global free markets grew more heated and intense. Tensions erupted between the owners of stock - newly confident and aggressive about using their financial power to compel management to do anything to raise returns - and career corporate executives. Today, the economic changes that began during the 1980s have an air of inevitability about them - the advent of globalization, the shift to a service economy. But at the time these transformations proved devastating to many of the manufacturing companies that had once most vociferously protested the New Deal.

And yet over the course of the decade the old skepticism toward business that had been born in the Great Depression and reawakened for a new generation in the Vietnam era finally began to disappear. The economic transformations of the decade would be interpreted through the framework of the free market vision. The 1970s campaigns to revive the image of capitalism among college students bore fruit in the 1980s. Universities created new centers for the study of business themes such as entrepreneurship. Students in Free Enterprise, a group started in 1975 to bring students together to "discuss what they might do to counteract the stultifying criticism of American business," thrived on small college campuses, funded by companies like Coors, Dow Chemical, and Walmart (as well as the Business Roundtable). The group organized battles of the bands, at which prizes would be doled out to the best pro-business rock anthems, helped silkscreen T-shirts with pro-capitalist messages, and created skits based on Milton Friedman's writings, which college students would perform in local elementary schools. In the workplace, the decline of the old manufacturing cities of [he North and Midwest and the rise of the sprawling suburbs of the Sunbelt metropolises marked the rise of a new economic culture, dominated by companies such as Walmart and Home Depot and Barnes & Noble." Kim Phillips-Fein ('Invisible Hands')


"Capitalism is the ownership and use of the concrete but dynamic elements in a society - what is commonly known as the means of production. A capitalist is someone who produces more capital through the production of the means he owns. This necessitates the periodic reinvestment of part of the capital earned into the repair, modernization and expansion of the means. Capitalism is therefore the ownership of an abstraction called capital, rendered concrete by its ownership of the means of production, which through actual production creates new capital.... However, capitalism as conceived today tends to revolve around something called the profit motive, even though profit is neither a cause of capitalism nor at the heart of the capitalist action. Profit is a useful result of the process, nothing more. As for the ownership of the means of production, this has been superseded by their management. And yet, to manage is to administer, which is a bureaucratic function. Alternately, there is a growing reliance upon the use of capital itself to produce new capital. But that is speculation, not production. Much of the development of the means of production is now rejected as unprofitable and, frankly, beneath the dignity of the modern manager, who would rather leave such labour and factory-intensive "dirty" work to Third World societies. Finally , the contemporary idea of capitalism grandly presents "service" as its new sophisticated manifestation. But the selling of one's own skills is not a capitalist art. And most of the jobs being created by the service industries are with the exception of the high-technology sector descendants of the pre-eighteenth-century commerce in trade and services." p360 'Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West' John Ralston Saul

"It will be said that great societies cannot exist without government." Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government." Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray

"It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that [a society without government, as among our Indians] is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population." Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
 
The "tax cut trickle down" obviously failed. How about we streamline the tax code, reduce for businesses but eliminate loopholes. Drop the business tax a few percent/poor peeps still don't have to pay (cause they r broke duh). Win/win, kill the loopholes, keep the same or close cash coming in.

While your ideas seem to have merit for the middle and the poorer, why would the ultra wealthy want to change ANYTHING about the way things are currently being done?

The ultra wealthy have never had it so good. They have had the "trickle down" of QE to make money with. Great tax rates and an entire Republican party looking out for their interests.

Why change a thing?
 
15th post
The "tax cut trickle down" obviously failed. How about we streamline the tax code, reduce for businesses but eliminate loopholes. Drop the business tax a few percent/poor peeps still don't have to pay (cause they r broke duh). Win/win, kill the loopholes, keep the same or close cash coming in.

Because those who can afford the accountants will find more loopholes. Leave it where it is and diligently prosecute those who game the system. When the money starts flowing across the entire economy....talk of reducing rates can be had.

There is a reason why America can still borrow money so cheaply. Nutjobs saying that this country is not seen as a good investment are ignoring those reasons. Corporations don't leave for lower taxes. They leave for lower labor costs. One if those lower costs is, by the way, health care.
 
Anyone who reads history realizes our best years were after the war, when unions were strong, when manufacturing was here, when consumers rebuilt lives after the war, when taxes were the highest on those who gained most from America's freedoms, what changed? Americans became spoiled and isolated and businesses and the wealthy fought the New Deal and Great Society with money, education, and think tanks that do anything but think. And guess what, the education worked, the entitlement worked and no longer did America live up to its principles. Good stuff below for the reader of history.

Ah, the golden age when liberalism appeared to work. Of course, the one fact that liberals always ignore is that the rest of the industrial world had been bombed back into the Stone age. Foreign countries need American products. American business thrived despite all the socialist wrecking the government engaged in because we had a virtual monopoly on the world market.

It's funny how all these same policies you endorse were in place in the 1930s, but the the American economy wallowed in depression. Liberals don't like talking about that. And then, of course, prior to 1914, our economy was almost completely laizzes faire, and it grew at an astounding rate making ours the largest economy in the world. We bypassed Britain sometime in the late 1800s. So if you ignore all the times when liberalism didn't work, then it's obvious the way to go.

. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .

However, capitalism as conceived today tends to revolve around something called the profit motive, even though profit is neither a cause of capitalism nor at the heart of the capitalist action. Profit is a useful result of the process, nothing more.

BWAHAHAHAHA! You're serious? You actually believe the profit motive isn't necessary?

With that claim you destroyed any kind of meagre credibility you may have had. Only a Marxist would claim the profit motive isn't necessary.
 
What drives our economy? Consumer spending or business investment?

If you think consumer spending drives the economy, what would be wrong about putting more disposable income into the hands of the middle class and the poor?

If it's business investment, what would be wrong about making adjustments to the tax code that would discourage outsourcing and off shore tax shelters? Shouldn't American business investment be made in, I don't know, maybe America?

if your plan is to fix the tax code, great. Remember, it was written mostly by the democrats who have controlled congress for most of the last 80 years.
That does not preclude the need for massive tax reform. If we could get the politics and the special interests out of the process, I'm sure there could be bi-partisan support for tax reform.

The process is one of argument compromise and agreement. Are the House Republicans up for some actual governance? Or are they simply the Party of No!?


the GOP led house has passed dozens of tax reform bills, budget bills, jobs bills--------------the idiot Harry Reid has not let a single one be discussed or voted on in the senate.

Reid and Obama are the problem-------------face reality
 
if your plan is to fix the tax code, great. Remember, it was written mostly by the democrats who have controlled congress for most of the last 80 years.
That does not preclude the need for massive tax reform. If we could get the politics and the special interests out of the process, I'm sure there could be bi-partisan support for tax reform.

The process is one of argument compromise and agreement. Are the House Republicans up for some actual governance? Or are they simply the Party of No!?


the GOP led house has passed dozens of tax reform bills, budget bills, jobs bills--------------the idiot Harry Reid has not let a single one be discussed or voted on in the senate.

Reid and Obama are the problem-------------face reality


Anyone ever notice how a person like the above who is ate up with Obama Derangement Syndrome, never, ever accepts responsibility for what they have or haven't done?

It's all Harrys fault, It's all Obama's fault.

Fortunately the Repubs won't win the WH in my remaining life so they won't get to blame Obama for their next failed Presidency. But they would have if they could have.
 
Back
Top Bottom