Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
Apparently you have thought long and hard so this might be hard for you to understand; most economists say the last thing that should be done in a recession is cuts. The economy needs an influx of money and people need jobs. Your major cuts idea would intially lead to the loss of 100,000's of jobs at a time when the economy needs people to spend money. Taxes on the wealthy would not fix the problem, but returning to the tax policies considered reasonable under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton would do a huge amount toward rudicing the yearly deficit, which would increase consumer confidence. Long term deficit reduction requires cuts and a reduction in tax loopholes. There is no plan that gets us out of the deficit without tax increases. WHen I bring that up here, the response from many is that we have to cut first. I disagree. Go back to what I started with: many, many economists say that the last thing you should do during a recession is cut. The tea party types mix anger and frustration about taxes with the current economic situation. They are two different things. A recession does not end by cutting. Long term deficit reduction could be done with cuts and increases in taxes.
|
"Your major cuts idea would intially lead to the loss of 100,000's of jobs at a time when the economy needs people to spend money"
You're saying that as government spends money, unemployment goes down, as jobs get created. Then perhaps you could explain tp us why, despite Obama dumping hundreds of billions of government spending into the economy, unemployment is much higher than when he took office?Those same economists you support, said Obamaa's "stimulus" would keep unemployment below 8%.
Anyway, I reject your premise that "most economists" say that spending cuts are counterproductive in a recession. I can quote just as many economists who say the last thingf you want to do in a recession is raise taxes.
So Zimmy, since you are opposed to cuts, please tell us how we generate another $60 trillion or so before the baby boomers die off? Because we need at least that much.
"Taxes on the wealthy would not fix the problem, but returning to the tax policies considered reasonable under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton would do a huge amount toward rudicing the yearly deficit"
Where on Earth do you get your facts? Our deficit this year will be about $1.5 trillion. Please post some numbers to show that tax hikes can generate anywhere near that number.
And Zimmy? You're saying that tax rate increases will lead to more tax revenue? So why, then, did tax revenue reach it's highest levels ever, AFTER THE BUSH TAX CUTS? Answer...tax cuts can be stimulative.
You spouted lots of theory, with no facts to back it up. In fact, your theory is directly contradicted by actual events of the last 5 years. But hey, don't let historical fact get in the way of a liberal rant.