The Economy

[RoadToad]

With regard to the Bush tax cuts, I'm going to hit you with a concept that may be hard to grasp, but stay with me. The less money the federal government takes the more money people have to spend, thus spurring economic activity. As I said it's just a start.

You're still dodging Pontooner's question, somewhat condescendingly, I might add. Maybe it's "hard to grasp," so stay with me while I rephrase it for you. President Bush's tax cuts were enacted in 2001. If they're going to "spur economic activity," why hasn't that happened in the nearly 10 years they've already been in place? It seems to me that an assumption was made that the extra pocket money was going to go towards discretionary spending, which might have actually had a positive effect, but instead people used it to pay bills, or worse (for the economy), put it into savings. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for extending them, because to not do so would amount to a tax increase. But if you think that just extending tax cuts that have been in place since 2001 is going to provide a "boost" to the economy, I think you must have blinders on.

I too agree with Splitshot's statement about the PEOPLE being the key, but I would submit that that means there's little hope of a turnaround any time soon. Call me a cynic, but I don't think the American public is going to just spontaneously wake up and smell the coffee, and say, "You know what? I need to stop living beyond my means, and enjoying all these things in life that I really can't afford." My impression is that the prevailing attitude among Americans, particularly today's youth, is "live for the moment." And the quote "You can't fix stupid" is right on the mark!

[GeoFisher]

You didn't explain how extending the Bush tax cuts would help the economy since they have failed to for years and then you complain about the deficit but want the tax cuts extended.



Deregulation is a major reason the economy is in the toilet right now and again the Bush tax cuts have failed to help the economy and taken billions in revenue away from reducing the deficit.




You are required by law to have auto insurance aren't you.




Funny because every poll I saw had the economy as the number 1 issue by a large margin, not that I approve of all you listed but if the economy was doing good I think you know how things would have turned out.

Yea, you are REQUIRED by law to have auto insurance as a condition of DRIVING.....I guess by FORCING folks to purchase health insurance.......that is now a condition of LIVING........gotta love your thought on the matter.

[roadrunner]

If you go back to the tax cuts of Kennedy Reagan Clinton and Bush the government revenues increased and every tax increase the revenues went down. I can assure you Bush tax cuts did not cause this recession we had some of the best growth during the first six years of the Bush presidency. Then we get a Democrat congress for the last two years and Pelosi stand up and says we will have no more expensive gas we will have a much better economy and guess what went he other way.

Two things led up to our problems with Bush he did not control spending he should have used his veto pen when he got the democratic congress. And number two was the cost of the war.

It is time to understand the government is not the answer to all problems other than the military tell me one entity the government controls that is ran well.

We need more than 52% of the people paying taxes. We need a flat tax on spending that rewards savings and every one pays some tax. If the 48% of Americans who do not pay taxes (and Obama says it is the patriotic thing to do) paid just $200 it would amount to 30 billion dollars per year.

We need to realize we can make better decision on how to spend money than the government can.

We need to let the states do more than the federal government. The closer you are to the politicians the more bang for your buck. If you look at your local government the tax you pay for fire police ambulance etc it is fairly good investment and you have fairly good control over local politicians. Then you go to the state their is more waste and less control then you go to the federal government and it is atrocious.

When it is said smaller government it means fewer taxes at the federal level and less intervention. You may have to increase state and local government and will probably have to spend some of your tax cuts at these levels but you will not have all the waste and corruption and more control.

[RoadToad]

Yea, you are REQUIRED by law to have auto insurance as a condition of DRIVING.....I guess by FORCING folks to purchase health insurance.......that is now a condition of LIVING........gotta love your thought on the matter.

Actually no, you're required to purchase auto insurance as a condition of registering a vehicle, not of driving. Yeah, I'm splitting hairs (one thing I'm good at ). Seriously though, Devil's Horse is absolutely right on that point. There's no way on God's Green Earth the government can legally require citizens to purchase healthcare insurance. In his comments yesterday, President Obama talked about "tweaking" ObamaCare (not that he called it that, of course ). That is one provision that will definitely be "tweaked" away!

[pontooner]

Guess I should have expanded my auto insurace reply, I was refering to "the government cannot legally force us" part not comparing buying auto and health insurance.


As Road Toad pointed out the Bush tax cuts have been in place for 10 years, heck he even sent everyone out a nice little check in what 2008 but here we are today with the economy in the toilet. Also it's a bad idea to start two wars and then cut taxes.


Now to DJD's claim that "getting low income/poverty folks loans for houses" and that they are they problem is not entirely true.

Did you know the rich (I know you guys hate that word) were the biggest defaulters on homes. I think it was something like 1 in 7 homes valued over $1,000,000 was defaulted on , which brings us back to what Mr. Splitshot was saying about a vast majority of people live beyond their means.

Article talking about it
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/bu...my/09rich.html

[DJD]

I read that article and it's from July 8th 2010. The housing crash didn't just happen and as the article states it started in working class and is now striking the upper class. Interesting that it never mentioned low income? I guess noone in that bracket defaulted on loans?

My point was and I believe we all saw it when it happened that when the housing bubble popped years ago people lost their shirts and jobs.

My thought would be that a person making less money and getting into a loan they couldn't really afford would default much quicker than a rich person who could hang on for years and I think that article supports that.

I guess I read that article different than you?

[pontooner]

I read that article and it's from July 8th 2010. The housing crash didn't just happen and as the article states it started in working class and is now striking the upper class. Interesting that it never mentioned low income? I guess noone in that bracket defaulted on loans?

You were the one that said "getting low income/poverty folks loans for houses" caused the problem, I was just pointing out that it went beyond that. Again just lots of people living beyond their means.

My point was and I believe we all saw it when it happened that when the housing bubble popped years ago people lost their shirts and jobs.

My thought would be that a person making less money and getting into a loan they couldn't really afford would default much quicker than a rich person who could hang on for years and I think that article supports that.

I guess I read that article different than you?

I would hope someone making enough $$$$ to afford a million dollar plus home could hold on to the home a littler longer but in the end some were just cutting them loose and moving on where as your average home owner would fight tooth and nail to save their home because losing it would be devastating.

[kydonky]

Tuesdays over......gas is supposed to go to $3.50 by Friday....should be able to get it back up to $5.00 by summer.

[pontooner]

I feel the policies of Jimmy Carter on getting low income/poverty folks loans for houses and Clinton enforcing the idea with more regulations helped cause the meltdown.

Almost forgot about this but when is the deadline for the right to have to stop blaming the Dems for stuff because the deadline for blaming Bush or the right for anything ended about 2 years ago apparently. Looks like you took a trip in your Hot Tub Timemachine.

More than a few feathers were ruffled on here when the right got blamed for anything.


Man I wish I could get all these board rules down so I don't go breaking them every now and then.

[mhall]

Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Give up the Gavel you battered old hag!

[Chubminnow]

Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Give up the Gavel you battered old hag!

Pelosi will need a U-Haul just to be able to pack up all that make-up she has!

[Chubminnow]

Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Give up the Gavel you battered old hag!

Not sure who your wicked witch is, but Pelosi will need a U-Haul just to be able to pack up all that make-up she has!