Thu 12 Mar 2009
I was just looking at this funny anti-Obama poster calling Obama’s spending plan the Debt Star. Ironically, though, the real Debts Stars — the guys who amassed the largest deficits in American history — were Reagan and W. And they did it with the help of tax cuts paid for by debt, an arms race paid for by debt, and wars paid for by debt. As a matter of fact, the whole notion of tax cuts in the U.S. is really just one festering delayed taxation scheme we pay for in the short term by borrowing. We simply redistribute the wealth today by making someone else pay for it tomorrow.
And here we go again, the Republicans are calling for more tax cuts and Obama has had to put tax cuts into the stimulus bill. One day we’ll look back and won’t be able to distinguish the tax cuts from the toxic mortgages, predator lending, bailed-out flunkies and ponzi schemes.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:50 am
**coughcoughnottruecoughcough**
Tax cuts do stimulate economic growth. It frees up capital for investments, both the corporate and small business types.
The problem in this country is simple: it ain’t a frackin’ free market economy under a democratic government.
The main problem with socialism, and especially in the U.S., a quasi-representative socialism ~ those who take away from the system through lack of work/entitlement/forced largess, defeat those who work to put into the system.
It’s rather simple really, just basic mathematics: take away more than you are putting in and the result is sum negative.
Either send all the illegals home, or do the more uniquely entertaining thing and use them for military exercises with live rounds; and then tell all the welfare recipients … “Get to work and stop playing the entitlement game or starve”.
The other problem is the tax structure; it compels people to cheat and evade. Fair tax won’t work, because it is a socialist lie that would cost your more than 50% of your income, and flat tax is too difficult to implement because it doesn’t allow for any level of avarice. I don’t have a good answer for this issue, neither does anyone else ~ but it still needs fixed … somehow.
While you are bashing Reagan, you are completely missing the essential points, and I am a bit surprised at the lack of critical analysis.
Reagan inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression in 1981; from the heinous and repulsive Carter genetic defect. Under both Reagan and Clinton there was job growth; with three major differences.
The first difference was that the Reagan era job creation, (which means number of new jobs opened in the economy vs. number of jobs lost for a net percentage), was only a statistical .5% difference from the Clinton puke. (Then inflation index adjustments have to be done to see the actual effect of net percentage in $/job.)
Secondly, the demographics surrounding the job growth: i.e. Reagan was dealing with the Boomers and Clinton had wimmins and minorities. The manner of shift with demographics changes the last difference.
Under Reagan, there was a better educated workforce moving into above minimum wage jobs. Under Clinton, the only statistically relevant job creation above minimum wage was the dotcom bubble ~ meaning those jobs were later summarily lost/economically useless.
Reagan worked hard at the economy and the country, it was a good time to be an educated American under his Administration.
Clinton worked hard at equivocation, reduction of standards across the board, increases in socialised government, oral sex with interns and generally, the stupidity of social perception changes towards everyone being a “unique and special butterfly”. While destroying the ethical fabric of a once notable civilisation.
As much as I blame Bush, oh, and I do ~ Clinton left him a difficult legacy, and unfortunately the “I don’t needs no steekin edumakashenz” citizenry of this country voted the Village Idiot in … twice. Bush genetics are simply not up to the task ~ unless it is drinking … or misuse/abuse/mispronounciation/dismantling the English language.