Yeah, and so what? More one-liner sarcasm, that's all. We entered and came out of the Great Recession, which was the worst since the Great Depression. That precursor took WW2 to stop it - despite the fact that Keynes had convinced Roosevelt to embark on a program of stimulus-spending. There have been two mainstay economic arguments explaining the reasons for the Great Depression. You will find them here: Mainstream explanations (for the GR) It is worthy to note that there is also a confluence of both that reads like this: I am of the opinion that the same has happened once-again as a result of the Great Recession - which is bolded in the previous quotation. The money just aint there anymore. We've had to start from scratch, and our present National-Debt position shows that we are presently at a point just slightly lower than any time since WW2. Which could mean that corporations will add Corporate Debt in order to expand and meet a resurgence of Demand. Dingaling. Dingaling. Dingaling. (That was a warning bell!) My point: *What the hell is Donald Dork doing reducing Upper-income Taxation! He is kissing the ass of Large Replicant Donors who manage corporations, that's what! And he could not care less about resulting lower tax-revenues because he thinks the revenue-loss will be covered by forcing Congress to cut ObamaCare. *The middle-class wanted him as PotUS? Now you (plural) have The Dork - but also now he's got YOU taxpayers by the fiscal short 'n curlies. *Here's hoping you are in Good Health!
Read your Economics History Book. It was a conservative JM Keynes who convinced Roosevelt (in 1933) to employ "Stimulus-spending" that would pull America out of a deep recession. Roosevelt created the "New Deal" Alphabet Agencies that spent money on projects employing workers. Which was not quite as successful as well as hoped but was better than nothing. By the end of the 1930s, WW2 rolled around, and war-expenditures boosted the American economy. But when the Great Recession came around in 2009/10, the Replicants in the HofR - looking to oust Obama in 2012 - refused all stimulus-spending that might create jobs. So, no jobs were created from 2010 through 2014 by the American economy. (See that fact represented in a BLS chart here.) Brilliant economic strategy by the Replicants. Just brilliant ... !
I am a free market lover...but of course trickle-down doesn't work. Poor people do not have much. So when they get to keep more of their taxes, they WILL spend that money. So every dollar you save the poor in tax reductions almost certainly that dollar will almost immediately go back into the economy. Middle class people usually have everything they need, but not much that they want. So when they get a tax break, they will usually spend all of it right away - though some might save a little of it. But certainly the vast majority of the tax dollars they save will go back into the economy. Wealthy people already have everything they need and much of what they want. So when trickle-down gives them more money by reducing their taxes, they may not spend the money. They might save it or they might put it into investments which may not help the economy directly. Plus, they often spend the money offshore or buying foreign manufactured goods. So the money you save the wealthy in tax reductions will go far, FAR less into the economy then if you had cut taxes on the middle class/poor. Trickle-down economics is nothing but a cash grab for the wealthy. I say always cut taxes to the poor first, the middle class second and the rich last. But, of course, since Trump and the other politicians are rich, they think of themselves first. They could not give a **** about the poor/middle classes until election day. BTW - I think the present tax rates are too high for all levels.
THE PROBLEM IS UNEMPLOYMENT BUT THE CURE IS FREE RETRAINING I think they are too low for just one level. The Replicant oligarchs who infest America. Our rush to buy-out companies has had the simple effect of reducing competition - which means more revenue to those who are still in the market-game. Which translates directly into higher corporate incomes. I say, rather, reduce unemployment by retraining (free, gratis and for nothing) those who were thrown into long-term unemployment by the Great Recession. Let's take a look at what really happened since Obama was elected. It is an instructive lesson in political-mischief by the Replicant Party. Obama's Timeline regarding the Great Recession: *When Obama came to the White House (Jan. 200, the Great Recession had already started. Unemployment was at 8% when he took office and would move up to10% later in 2008. *Prior to his arrival, the Employment-to-population Ratio (E-to-p Ratio) was at around 63%. *Obama had passed the ARRA-bill ($830M in spending) in February of 2009 to jump-start re-employment. But like all such spending it takes time to work into the economy. *It served to spike the the unemployment rate at 10% later in 2009 from which it started to descend. (See Bureau of Labor Statistics graphic here.) *Were Americans grateful for the action taken? Nope. In the late 2009 mid-terms, they voted the control of the HofR over to the Replicants. When Obama in 2010 asked the Replicant HofR for some more stimulus-spending what he got in return was speechifying saying "Austerity, Austerity, Austerity! The National Debt will destroy America!" *The Replicants refused any further stimulus-spending. Why? To sink Obama in the 2011 November presidential election with high unemployment. Unemployment was down-trending but still at a relatively high of 8.2%. *For the next four years (Nov. 2009 to Nov. 2013), the E-to-p Ratio did not budge. It was stuck at 58%. *There was finally an initial uptick in the ratio in Nov. 2013- and the E-to-p Ratio is now (2017) only back to 60 - nowhere near the the 63% when the Great Recession had begun. So I make this claim: The present circumstance (3% lower than the historic E-to-p Ratio) is no glowing success. It will be a long, hard slog back up the slope-line to regain 63%. Why? Because most of those jobs that shut-down in 2008/9 have left for the Far-east forever. And when, since Donald Dork's mishap election in 2016, has there been any solution to that ominous problem? Which can only be solved by enhanced training for the jobs that are going without workers! So? So this: *Our unemployment rate is scratching bottom because those now declaring unemployment are much fewer than they were in 2007/8 when most jobs were lost. *The Employment-to-population Ratio is on an uptick at 60% today, but still way below its historic rate of 63% pre-2008. *How do we create jobs in a country that has automated manufacturing, which destroyed jobs*? *That's the Megabuck Question starring us in the face ... *The jobs destroyed are not coming back, so the people who worked them are likely to have taken lesser paying jobs because they don't have the credentials necessary for the higher-paying work that is hiring today.
Actually, no it doesn't. Check the 1920/21 Depression. The government cut tax rates, balanced the budget and basically let the economy fix itself. The result? Both the unemployment rate and the DOW were back to pre-crash levels within 3 1/2 years. And the national debt went DOWN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920–21 Austerity works, if it is done right.
Austerity works in only one direction. To diminish economic activity. It's opposite - market-indulgence - is economic expansion that tends to happen at breakneck speed because we do not know how to control it. What government has ever "controlled prices" (to, say, diminish inflation)? None outside of war-conditions. We might see on the news that prices have escalated quickly - but does that instigate government policy-measures. Rarely. What are the ways to "condition prices"? Reducing consumption by enhancing taxation (iow "take-home pay") is most effective. Less sales and companies (in time) reduce their pricing. There is not much a government can do, because elected officials are political animals. Those in charge typically want to stay in charge, ie., get reelected. So they do little that is contrary to that end. Which is, of course, tantamount to a do-nothing policy that leads inevitably to inflation and even hyper-inflation (if not dealt with timely) ...
I don't think it did. Debt is caused by libcommies who always spend more than they tax because they always need to buy more votes by promising more welfare..
absurd of course: 1) taxing the private sector diminishes private sector activity, cutting taxes stimulates private sector. 2) govt spending by definition creates bubbles that burst and crash the economy. 3) politicians will always grow debt unless doing so is illegal.
Correct. The problem lies not with the mechanism, and how it is operated - but by human will to operate it. Politicians get elected and they get unelected by the people. We humans the world over HATE hardship. But, that is what a recession produces if not corrected beforehand. Some mature countries may understand that fact, but most citizens today could care less about how a country is run (until it all goes to hell in a handbag). Only then do they become truly indignant at the political hierarchy "in control". Obama learned that lesson when, in 2009/10, his spending-bill (ARRA) effectively lowered unemployment from 10% to 5%, and at the 2010 midterms an American minority-at-the-polls actually voted the HofR over to the Replicants. The result was no further stimulus-spending and the economy created no net new jobs from 2010 to 2014. Then, all by itself, and because consumers had had enough, the economy started improving ...
Stimulus spending comes from de-stimulus taxing so no net gain is possible but a net loss is likely since govt spending is bubble spending which must then burst and be corrected by another recession ie the time it takes the Republican free market to correct the burst bubble.
All one needs to do is to examine the trends in key factors during the Bush administration and into Obama's. Your position instantly and clearly becomes a pathetic crock.
You refuse to show the causation factor you appear to think you exposed. The dumbest statement one can make is the president caused a bad economy.
A liberal will always forget to say that stimulus spending comes from destimulus taxing. Perhaps they believe that when govt spends your money for you it is magically stimulative but when you spend it is magically destimulative
So Trump is a liar? He had nothing to do with the stock market continuing to go up? Nothing to do with unemployment coming down to 3.5% or whatever? He had nothing to do with corporate profitability?
Excuse me, what is on that list that is bad? Trump has bragging rights on a few things. Such as he has been dismantling the job killing rules made by Obama.
Wrong. Yes and absolutely. Or are you actually claiming that a president can cause a good economy but not a bad one?
