- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 13,005
- Reaction score
- 5,739
- Location
- Huntsville, AL (USA)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
No, you should seek more than one source.
No, I do not care to re-think my position. The overall effect of Reagan was to reduce the impact of taxes on the economy, although SOME people (primarily rich people) paid more taxes while at a lower tax rate, since deductions were also eliminated. I think the article you cited is unbalanced. Do you care to re-think your position?
No, because the source you used doesn't discount the fact that Reagan did use Keynesian economics to stimulate economic growth. He may have masked an increase government spending (not to mention increased the size of goverment) by using the Defense Department (public-private defense contracts), but he did so by increasing taxes on the middle-class. Moreover, if anybody instituted class-warfare it was he.
But I digress. My intention w/posting the NYTimes opinion peace WAS NOT to rehash Reagonomics or tax policy. Mine was to illustrate the issue before us - whether or not to raise the debt ceiling - has alot of false impressions out there. So, can we bring the topic back around to the thread topic, please?
From a May 2011 article again from the NYTimes.com:
“Without significant spending cuts and changes to the way we spend the American people’s money, there will be no debt limit increase,” Mr. Boehner told members of New York’s business and finance community. “And cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the president is given.” Mr. Boehner said those cuts should be in the trillions of dollars, not billions.
...
Mr. Boehner said the reductions should be “actual cuts and program reforms, not broad deficit or debt targets that punt the tough questions to the future. And with the exception of tax hikes — which will destroy jobs — everything is on the table.”
Well, the Dems and the President are (still) very willing to agree to $4 TRILLION in spending cuts, far and above the $1 TRILLION dollars stated in the GOP Pledge to America. But once proposals to eliminate tax subsidies became part of the equation suddenly all bets were off w/the GOP. Everyone needs to understand this: tax subsidies (credits/deductions) ARE NOT tax hikes! No corporation nor individual's marginal tax rate will be increased. Such changes in the tax code aren't even part of the negotiations! As such, the GOP - including Tea Party members - are going to have to decide on "loyalty to party politics" or "loyalty to country".
Here's the bare bones of it, ladies and gentlemen...
Large commercial banks aren't expediting lending especially to small businesses. They've tightened their lending criteria insisting on backing loans with collateral. Small community banks that managed to keep their doors open were suppose to be a lending alternative. Unfortunately, they're being just as stringent as the larger banks. So, we have a credit problem of a different sort on our hands.
The other side of the economic problem is consumer spending. With fewer people working and incomes flat (not to mention the cost of goods and services increasing), people aren't shopping in large numbers nor buy large ticket items. This affects productivity, manufacturing and transportation. How to break the economic stalemate?
This linked article from The Economists provides a glimps into how the GOP leadership could have had their cake and ate it, too, that is until negotiations broke down and Cantor and Kyle walked out:
Next on my reading list is David Brooks' superb column on the Republican Party. About four months ago, John Boehner touted a report put out by Republicans that called for closing the budget gap by enacting 85% spending cuts and 15% revenue increases. That may have seemed impossible at the time due to Democratic opposition, but the current negotiations have swung so far in the Republicans' favour that the deal on the table now involves a ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases that is about that and includes no change to marginal rates. In other words, Republicans are getting most of what they wanted. Over to Mr Brooks:
If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases...
Bottom line is this: The private sector is still either unwilling or unable to inject capital into the economy. If they don't do start providing collateralized loans in larger numbers soon, the government may not have much choice but to raise taxes and enact another stimulus to break this economic gridlock.
Last edited: