(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/03--03-09stairwayRGB20090303110816.jpg)
Vic,
we get the same rhetoric in our parliament. We have an opposition that was pompous when in power and scornful in opposition. The economic downturn is a political windfall for them, as they marginalise the problem as the making of the present government and ignore the external influences. The peoples’ problems have nothing to do with their concern, as it is a political windfall, all the way to the bank. The current opposition party, like the Republicans when in power, lived through a boomtime and even if they mismanaged the whole affair, they still came out smelling like roses, as they were removed from power not long before the economic ‘tsunami’ hit.
One thing that will come out of the latest congressional hearings is that will be obvious who wants to fix the economy and who simply wants to score political points (at the expense of the economy). Politicism is a more powerful aphrodisiac than patriotism.mike omalley said:I guess you're right Mike and Judd Gregg is wrong. I mean, after all, he was only nominated to Commerce Sec and turned it down. Heck, he was even dumb enough to pay his income taxes.
He's absolutely right that the Obama budget increases spending--absolutely right. He's wrong that it represents a huge or unprecedented tax increase.
The increase in taxes is on the top 2% of earners. It returns tax rates for the top 2% to the level they were at in 2000. So it amounts to an increase for the top 2% It doesn’t matter what either Gregg or I think, it’s the facts, it’s not a matter of “knowing more,” it’s the facts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/06/AR2009030603367.html
Whether or not you think it’s a good plan is another story. But the idea that it’s a large tax increase for most americans is simply wrong.
It isn’t directly. Indirectly it will be.
??How will that work? What “indirect taxes” are being raised?
To get our country out of debt, we are going into more debt. The U.S. Congress and POTUS has spent more tax revenue in the past 7 weeks than all the previous administrations in the previous 232 years combined.
David Hill said:Not true. The Federal deficit was close to 10 trillion when this mess started. The deficit is not 20 trillion..........yet. Ralph
To get our country out of debt, we are going into more debt. The U.S. Congress and POTUS has spent more tax revenue in the past 7 weeks than all the previous administrations in the previous 232 years combined.
Allow me to be a little bit nit-picky here, a common error is confusing the national debt with the annual deficit. The debt has been increased by over $11 trillion. One must add in the entitlement costs and interest on the debt. If you buy a home for $100,000 your debt is $300,000 +/- with the compound interest. Same same!
I may have mis-spoke as I read my post. This crew has SPENT more in the past 7 weeks than the sum of the previous 233 years.
If you are counting the interest on the money borrowed recently, you must also count the interest on the money borrowed previously.
As for the annual budget deficit, I have not looked up the numbers to compare to the previous 232 years.
But even the money being spent on the stimulus will be spread over several years.
I don’t condone the bailouts started by the Bush administration based on principle. This will not change.
Time will tell if it works, or not.
They are so far down their chosen path that turning around now would severely delay any chance of economic recovery.
What we need to do now is vote out every politician that voted for the bailout, Democrat or Republican. They disrespected the wishes of 99% of Americans, and they need to go.
Unfortunately our last Presidential election was dominated by two Senators who did vote for the bailout.
Ralph
The same strategy did not work for FDR, only the financial stabiliy of the country was in much better shape then than it is now, so we can expect a much more difficult outcome.
David Hill said:It worked for the people whose families had a roof over their head because they had a job in the public works administration. Ralph
The same strategy did not work for FDR, only the financial stabiliy of the country was in much better shape then than it is now, so we can expect a much more difficult outcome.
Yes it did, but are you sure we wouldn’t have had fewer people out of work for so long, if the jobs that were created were in the private sector rather than “make work” jobs. (Later the NRA found to be unconstitutional by SCOTUS.)
(http://www.lscdata.com/users/lastmanout/_forumfiles/fdr.jpg)
No, I’m not sure.
I don’t think anyone can say what would have happened had they taken a different approach.
I would like to see them create more permenent jobs. It would be nice if we could at least clothe ourselves again.
Ralph
Agreed, textile mills were a mainstay in my area at the turn of the last century, as well as steel, autos and trucks, cigars, ore and coal and beer.
ONLY the private sector is able to create real sustainable jobs. Excessive gov’mint corporate regulation, now the phony “green” regulations, having the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world as well as unionized labor’s low production rates and high costs, have driven industry overseas.
Government is not the solution, it is the problem!
How about jobs in the military–or related to the military? A lot of people in my area are defense contractors–are these not “real” jobs? The police? Firemen? Not real jobs?
How about anything related to the internet? The internet emerged from defense department projects aimed at creating a nuclear proof distributed network. All the major original software–the whole idea of a web browser,–was created at taxpayer expense. Seems like a lot of jobs came out of that, no? Seems like a major technological and economic transformation came out of that.
Then of course there’s government spending that enables other forms of economic development, like, say, the TVA under FDR–provided electricity and flood control to the tennessee valley. Or the federal highways begun after WWII–how much development was enabled by that federal spending? How many people drive to work on Federal highways?
If Obama spends money to rebuild crumbling local bridges, should I not hire onto the construction crew because it’s “not a real job?” How about if he sends money on mass transit, and then people can use the mass transit to go to “real jobs” or to be more productive in those jobs? How about if he spends money on alternative energy research, and this enables the industry to get started, and then it creates jobs that lessen our dependence of foreign oil?
Or how about federal spending on water supplies–dams, irrigation channels aqueducts? Entirely central to the growth of “the sun belt” and the agricultural success of California. Who do you think built the water systems that make it possible to grow lettuce in the California desert of build casinos in Las Vegas?
I could go on, but I think the point is clear.
mike omalley said:
How about jobs in the military--or related to the military? A lot of people in my area are defense contractors--are these not "real" jobs? The police? Firemen? Not real jobs?How about anything related to the internet? The internet emerged from defense department projects aimed at creating a nuclear proof distributed network. All the major original software–the whole idea of a web browser,–was created at taxpayer expense. Seems like a lot of jobs came out of that, no? Seems like a major technological and economic transformation came out of that.
Then of course there’s government spending that enables other forms of economic development, like, say, the TVA under FDR–provided electricity and flood control to the tennessee valley. Or the federal highways begun after WWII–how much development was enabled by that federal spending? How many people drive to work on Federal highways?
If Obama spends money to rebuild crumbling local bridges, should I not hire onto the construction crew because it’s “not a real job?” How about if he sends money on mass transit, and then people can use the mass transit to go to “real jobs” or to be more productive in those jobs? How about if he spends money on alternative energy research, and this enables the industry to get started, and then it creates jobs that lessen our dependence of foreign oil?
I could go on, but I think the point is clear.
I never said they weren’t real jobs. Just that I would like to see more permanent jobs. Mass transit and alternative energy research will help create permanent jobs.
Ralph