- Joined
- Sep 23, 2011
- Messages
- 11,273
- Reaction score
- 5,733
- Location
- On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Where are you getting 3.7 trillion? Bush was President when the Federal Fiscal year 2009 budget was passed and the spending was 3.1 trillion. Obama's first budget passed during his presidency in 2010 was 3.09 trillion.Obama budgets are 600 billion a year more than Bush's 2008 budget thus the baseline is 3.7 trillion. Why do we need a 3.7 trillion dollar budget?
Long term yes, short term no, which is the whole crux of the argument.20% of GDP is govt. spending so tell me who pays for that govt. spending? Spending offset by debt creates a net gain of zero.
So your defense of Bush spending is based on plans that didn't pass....by the minority party that knew their plan wouldn't pass.Deficits are yearly and if you are going to blame Bush for the Medicare Part D expense you better look at the Democrat alternative which was much higher.
I know them pretty well actually. I will amend my statement...a targeted tax cut at income levels where individuals spend near their full salary on consumption will spur an increase in consumption. A tax cut for individuals at income levels were they already don't spend their full income on consumption will lead to an increase in investing. The question is...what's our issue here. I would say that it's not an issue with capital...we have companies sitting on cash, our issue is consumption, which is why they aren't using that cash to employ people.then you would be wrong and someone who doesn't know the components of GDP
My issue with the whole "tax cuts spur growth" is that if you give say a 900 billion dollar tax cut, and a large chunk of that goes towards individuals who will not use that for consumption (high income earners) then you're not spurring growth with those taxes. Now you may spur a stock market boom, but that doesn't necessarily translate to job growth...which is evident under the Bush years and during our "recovery" period.
I posted the breakdown on the tax cuts on this thread. Suggest you review them and then explain how they helped the economy especially since we have more unemployed today than when that stimulus was signed and when Obama took office. The actual number today is 842 billion dollars and was for shovel ready jobs. Guess the shovels weren't ready. 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans don't think the stimulus was successful
Why would I need to argue this. Economists from Goldman Sachs to the CBO state it created jobs and increased GDP growth.