Reply With QuoteThe Left/Democrat economic policies have been shown through models to be flawed. Now everyone can see those models to be true in real time with the utterly dismal performance of Keynesian applied economics.
Why Barack Obama could be America’s last big government president
While not as low as the ratings for Congress, public satisfaction with the federal government has also plummeted. According to Gallup:
• 57% have little or no confidence in the federal government to solve domestic problems, exceeding the previous high of 53% recorded in 2010.Most strikingly of all, Gallup finds that:
• Americans believe, on average, that the federal government wastes 51 cents of every tax dollar, similar to a year ago, but up significantly from 46 cents a decade ago and from an average 43 cents three decades ago.
• 49% of Americans believe the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. In 2003, less than a third (30%) believed this.
These figures pose huge problems for Barack Obama ahead of the presidential election in November 2012. Obama’s declining presidency has become synonymous with the image of big government, from spiralling budget deficits and out of control federal spending to massive taxpayer funded bailouts and increasing regulations on businesses and healthcare. Even 28 per cent of Democrats agree with the 61 per cent of Republicans (and 57 per cent of independents) who now view the federal government as “a threat” to the rights and freedoms of the American people. It is little wonder that a mere 11 per cent of US voters now describe themselves as liberal on fiscal issues in Rasmussen polling, compared to 44 per cent who call themselves conservative and 40 per cent who describe themselves as moderate.
The United States is undergoing one of the biggest political revolutions in its post-war history, and perhaps the most important since Ronald Reagan, with an emphatic rejection of the idea that government knows best when it comes to handling key domestic issues, especially relating to the economy. President Obama, whose administration has practically worshipped at the trough of big government, looks spectacularly out of touch with a clear majority of the American people. The highly interventionist liberal experiment of the last two and a half years has been a spectacular failure, with 14 million Americans out of work, sliding consumer confidence, collapsing house prices, and falling stock markets.
This is why Barack Obama could well end up being the last big government president of the United States, a nation that simply cannot afford the lavish excesses of an imperious presidency that drains the pay-checks of hard-working Americans with impunity and reckless abandon. The historic loss of faith in the federal government under Obama has combined with growing support across America for a return to the limited government ideals of the Founding Fathers. Nothing is ever certain in politics, but it is hard to see how a future president can shamelessly adopt the same borrow, bailout and spend approach zealously adopted by the current administration, without extremely damaging consequences for the United States. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...ent-president/
It's an older article from last year, but I still agree with his take on most of it. The trend hasn't changed according to the latest Gallup: http://www.gallup.com/poll/149678/Am...?version=print
The Left/Democrat economic policies have been shown through models to be flawed. Now everyone can see those models to be true in real time with the utterly dismal performance of Keynesian applied economics.
Many of them still need to clean the nukkake out of their eyes though.Originally Posted by G-AWZT
An article on politico.com entitled "Facts show democrats are job creators" shows you are mistaken. In truth there is no one good model to create jobs. Government can create jobs just this congress is so deadlocked nothing is going to happen.
Hehehehehe................good one.
Government doesn't create jobs unless they are government jobs which are typically a net cost to the taxpayer. Government can create policies or conditions favorable to job growth, that's all.
In the 1980's Ronald Reagan told small businesses that they would be tax exempt for two years if they invested "X" amout of dollars in improving their business. Businesses directly hired people, hired contractors who in turn hired more people (laborers) etc. Not only that, all sorts of building and advertising/business related materials were sold. The end result was more tax payers and therefore more revenue. (favorable conditions for growth)
Throwing the people's money at a government highway project, a defunkt solar company or hiring more IRS agents isn't job creation.
(net cost to the taxpayer)
Last edited by Mein Teil; 06-09-2012 at 12:21 AM.
This is somewhat true, the government did create jobs during with the New deal with rail,road and park construction which greatly reduced the unemployment rate.
Those jobs only last until you run out of other people's money.
You do understand that kind of thing is temporary. Who paid for that anyway?
Don't we need something temporary now? Plus why do you think the 1950s was such a prosperous time in the US? because of the New Deal so it worked in the short term and you and argue in the long term as well. And who is going to pay for it? with tax increases and the new revenue from the 1 million or so people that would start working. Government should not take over our lives but should be there when it's people need it. And now we need it.
So let me get this straight. The way they're going to pay for the new jobs is to tax the people working those jobs?
This might help you:The myth of the New Deal http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=627This concept -- that a large government project such as a war can be good for the economy -- is neither new nor unique to the area of foreign policy. We often hear that government must spend more on this or that program in order to create jobs. After Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent flooding of New Orleans, some newspaper pundits even suggested that the cleanup effort might increase employment and spur productivity, as though it is better for the economy to suffer a natural disaster and then spend billions cleaning it up than it would be never to have endured the disaster in the first place. You'd think if such reasoning were sound, the best policy would be for the government to spend large sums of money on expensive goods and rocket them off into space, or even spend money destroying American infrastructure, in order to "create jobs" and "boost productivity."
The seen and unseen Such naive reactions to spending due to war and natural disasters are perfect examples of what the great French economist Frederic Bastiat described as the broken-window fallacy. Bastiat asks his reader to imagine a delinquent boy throwing a rock through a store window, about which some presumptuous onlooker comments that it might indeed be good for the economy. The glazier will make money replacing the window, which he will use to buy bread from a baker, who in turn will buy a new pair of shoes.
The economic activity will snowball and lead to greater general prosperity. (In modern times, Keynesian economics has favorably referred to this as "the multiplier effect.") What this ignores, as Bastiat explains, is the unseen costs: what the storeowner could have done with that money had he not had to spend it on the glazier, but rather on something he would value higher had his window been left intact.
With government spending, the same principles apply. Money seized from the private sector -- from those who know how to make productive, profitable economic decisions -- and transferred to government programs does indeed produce jobs, but to focus on this ignores what the wealth could have been used for had it not been forcibly transferred. As the humorist Dave Barry so succinctly put it,
See, when the government spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when the money is left in the hands of taxpayers, God only knows what they do with it. Bake it into pies, probably. Anything to avoid creating jobs.
And yet, while the logically impeccable insights of Bastiat and the sardonic wit of Barry should probably have settled the matter, the myth of government spending as an economic boon persists. Why is this? The most likely reason is that despite the soundness of the critique of government spending as an economy booster, people cling to what they see as concrete examples of the phenomenon in action. The most common examples are probably the New Deal and especially the Second World War, which are credited with ending the Great Depression, effecting general prosperity, and finally repudiating America's devotion to laissez faire, replacing it with a regular commitment to central administration, military strength, and federal-spending projects that have in combination allowed America to maintain its economic superiority for the last 60 years.
Unfortunately, even many free-market thinkers have shied away from taking on this argument. Certainly, the mainstream conservative dedication to free enterprise, if it exists at all, is not so robust as to challenge the economic fallacies underlying World War II. On the Left, Right, and Center, the idea that Franklin Roosevelt dragged America out of its economic rut is by now as American as apple pie. But World War II, whatever else can be said of it, was probably the largest government program in American history, and if those of us who favor free markets and believe government spending to be generally deleterious to economic growth are not willing and able to effectively impugn this sacred cow, we have pretty much lost the battle. It is awkward, after all, to insist that a measly food-stamp operation is going to kill the economy if Roosevelt's incredible nationalization of the U.S. economy during World War II was its lifesaver.
Yes, those on top get taxed more than those on bottom.So let me get this straight. The way they're going to pay for the new jobs is to tax the people working those jobs?
And maybe I can power my house by using an electric motor to power my generator. It's easy. The generator produces the electricity to run the motor that runs the generator.
You mean like taxing rich guys that buy yahts? You know when you tax the rich you actually screw the poor.
See below
It’s All Connected
Here's the problem with raising taxes on business entities: “Any economist will tell you that corporations don’t pay taxes. They’re passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices,” says Giovanetti. “When you’re buying a car from Ford (F: 10.66, +0.11, +1.04%), you’re paying Ford’s taxes. Business taxes are embedded in the prices of goods and services. They’re counter productive.” In other words, if you want to pay more for your next car, you should be in favor of raising taxes on the automotive industry.
In addition, when you tax “millionaires” you’re taxing a lot of small business owners, who typically hold their companies as “pass-through entities” (sole proprietorship, partnership, LLC) and, thus, pay tax on their business profits at the individual level.
Last fall, Tax Foundation president Scott Hodge pointed out to the House Committee on the Budget that “fully 68% of private business income is earned by taxpayers with AGI [adjusted gross income] above $200,000- the target range of President Obama’s proposed tax rate increases.” Since small businesses are the engine of job creation, reducing the income of the owner means s/he has less incentive to take on the risk of expanding, buying new equipment, or hiring more employees.
Just Do the Math?
Don’t take my word for it. According to Hodge’s testimony, international researchers at the OECD concluded that “the corporate income tax is the most harmful tax for long-term economic growth.” Moreover, while “75 countries have cut their corporate tax rates to make themselves leading industrialized nations at over 39 percent.” Is it any wonder jobs are leaving this country and going overseas?
Think about this on a personal level. If the sales tax in your area was 6% and a neighboring state has no sales tax, wouldn’t it be worth it to drive a little farther to save the money? Especially on a big-ticket item such as a television? Why would the owners of corporations act any differently? All other factors being equal, if you were on the board of a company looking to build a new plant, wouldn’t you vote to locate it in a low-tax country?
If a company can’t or doesn’t choose to re-locate, raising the corporate income tax hurts American employees in the form of lower wages. A national study by an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City, found that “a one percentage point increase in the average corporate tax rate decreases annual gross wages by 0.9 percent.” The Tax foundation explains that in non-economic speak, “this means that a $10.4 billion increase in corporate tax collections would lower overall wages by $43.5 billion.”
Yet the message we continually get from Democrats is that the way to dig ourselves out of the record-breaking deficit we’ve amassed in the past 4 years of the current administration is to impose ever higher tax rates on businesses and The Rich. “Every time you try to raise taxes you eventually reach a point of diminishing returns,” says Giovanetti. “It drives companies to re-located jobs and employees off-shore and it drives capitalists to move their wealth.”
I’ll Take My Wealth To Go
In other words, the thing that politicians forget is that everyone- even the wealthy- makes choices about how they spend their money. Remember the 10% “luxury tax” passed in the 1990s? It was an additional tax on the purchase of boats and cars above a certain value. Before this tax was repealed, it nearly wiped out the domestic boat industry in this country. Turns out, it doesn't matter how deep pockets go--even "The Rich" will choose to postpone buying a new yacht to avoid the expense of a burdensome tax. “The luxury tax didn’t hurt the wealthy,” says Giovanetti, “It hurt the people that makethings for the wealthy.”
Money is one of the most mobile resources corporations and individuals possess. According to Giovanetti, a year after Maryland enacted its so-called ‘millionaire’s tax’ a third of the state’s millionaires disappeared off the tax rolls. “Either they moved or they made changes to their personal finances [in order] to report less income.” There are already anecdotal reports of a similar phenomenon occurring in France, which has just elected a socialist president who ran on a platform of demonizing the wealthy and has promised to sharply raise taxes on top earners. The London newspaper The Guardian reports local realtors are starting to receive inquiries from French citizens looking to re-locate across the Channel.
Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-...#ixzz1xGjGDqgD
Posting Permissions
