Thread: Where is the Prosperity?

We've had more than 8 years of Republican tax cuts. Taxes are lower than they have been in over 50 years now. Throughout the last Bush Administration very few jobs were created by the private sector, I don't know this as fact but, I'd wager a guess that Bush created more government jobs with his spending than were made by private corporations (at least in this country).

I don't see the break neck speed at which Republicans and teabaggers are channeling the country as doing anything to alleviate the current economic situation: In Wisconsin, Scott Walker created (he didn't have one taking office) a state budget deficit by giving huge tax breaks to corporations but then took away state workers bargaining rights which did nothing to even pay for corporate tax breaks. In Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty over 2 terms cut taxes and services and racked up a 5 billion dollar deficit. Rural communities were crushed by the loss of aid to local communities and resorted to raising property taxes, so Pawlenty will be able to say in his campaign for President he didn't raise taxes. Yeah, technically he did and he still racked up debt.

We have to deal with the deficit and debt. I don't see that happening by obliterating the middle class. At least I can make an argument that the middle class cuts Obama facilitated last summer helped the economy get a bump as likely the Social Security moratorium will also. So, where is the prosperity? You'd think after 8 years of Bush tax cuts for the wealthy we'd be seeing more.

Nothing the government does results in prosperity. Tax cuts won't "make us prosperous," tax hikes won't significantly reduce our debts anymore, we can't spend our way out of debt, and the economy doesn't "prosper" when it's running on constant inflationary stimuli.

Governments create an illusion that they steer the national economy with their policies, and what convinces people this illusion is true is that government does them a favor now and then while concealing or obscuring what it had to do to obtain the money for that favor.

One's expectation to have been provided prosperity by one's government, as a child expects to be provided with his dinner, has become the sad and sorry entitled attitude for which our nation has become known.

Corporations still look like they're spending elsewhere. I fully support closing their loopholes and giving them a much lower tax rate. However, corporations oppose that, apparently because they'd end up paying more.

It really looks like corporate America is deliberatly trying to crush the middle class and put the country in general into 2nd world status.

The fallacy is in the argument that the rich invest their money. They don't, mostly they just try to keep it safe.the wall street collapse was all about inflated risk. The rich got antzy and put their money elsewhere, and the overextended market imploded. But the corps made out pretty good in all this, didn't they? Proof that they don't depend on the rich.

Where's the prosperity? That's a tough question and it has to be asked.

Firstly we know that trickle-down is BS, bush Sr called that one right out of the starting gate, he called it voodoo economics and he was right.

Then there is also the reality that there are only two places government can get money: taxes and borrowing. Ergo, if you lower taxes you have to borrow more. Duh. Right?

Thirdly the debt is important because nations in intractable debt do silly stuff like start wars to try to cover it up. Or trade wars that provoke real wars. These things don't usually end well.

The sane option would be a 10% across the board cut, no exceptions. Ten percent would make a sizable dent on a yearly basis. And simply outlaw unfunded mandates, to prevent backsliding.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

Where's the prosperity? That's a tough question and it has to be asked.

Firstly we know that trickle-down is BS, bush Sr called that one right out of the starting gate, he called it voodoo economics and he was right.

Then there is also the reality that there are only two places government can get money: taxes and borrowing. Ergo, if you lower taxes you have to borrow more. Duh. Right?

Thirdly the debt is important because nations in intractable debt do silly stuff like start wars to try to cover it up. Or trade wars that provoke real wars. These things don't usually end well.

The sane option would be a 10% across the board cut, no exceptions. Ten percent would make a sizable dent on a yearly basis. And simply outlaw unfunded mandates, to prevent backsliding.

We supposedly had tax cuts that would expire. Once you have a straight up cut in spending, your 10%, why not have an increase in taxes, accross the board of course, that expires on a calculated date. And you could phase both of those in, allowing for a still shaky economy. No unfunded mandates. I suppose there are so many special interests and therefore "jobs" dependent on our current revenue generating system to ever get a flat tax.

What annoys me about Daktoria's econ 101 comment is, he's referring to the text: Economics 101, written by Ronald Reagan.

The prosperity has also gone overseas, along with the jobs.

This is the fundamental truth that lawmakers haven't responded to yet.

And why should they bite the hand that feeds?