Originally posted by whodeyThe US has a high *nominal* corporate tax rate, but actual revenue from corporate taxes is much lower due to loopholes put there by corporate lobbying. As for cap and trade, Obama is going to redirect the revenue from it to low-to-middle income earners plus invest in alternative energy, both of which will help stimulate the economy.
I know what he can do, he can reduce the capital gains tax that he just increased. What is this guy thinking in the midst of a Wall Street melt down? Is he daft or just in over his head?
Of course, those on the left would give some song and dance about a much needed redistribution of wealth, but the fact is that the average Joe is effected just as much a ...[text shortened]... g from a President over seeing the one of the, if not the worst, economic crisis in US history.
Originally posted by karnachzThe stimulus package has not halted job losses.
The stimulus package was an important first step because it has halted the job losses, as well as directing money towards recovery. Now it needs to be backed up by other measures, such as addressing the banking and housing issues. It's about doing a number of different things simultaneously.
FDR's new deal programs did not do very much good. It took a war that spent 6 times as much as the new deal programs to get us out of the depression. The stimulus package is far too small to be effective.
War is clearly the plan for recovery. That is why there is a push to repeal the War Powers Act before it goes to the supreme court. they can't risk having the supreme court rule it constitutional. That would mean consent from congress. It would also show that past presidents ignored the law and that the War Powers Act was simply not being enforced and that is the only reason it is ineffective. The War Powers Consultation Act of 2009 is even more ineffective because there is nothing binding about it. Replacing the War Powers Act with it would amount to a repeal.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-findley22-2008sep22,0,3471151.story
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june09/foreignpolicy_03-06.html
Originally posted by Metal BrainDo you think Obama should increase spending?
The stimulus package has not halted job losses.
FDR's new deal programs did not do very much good. It took a war that spent 6 times as much as the new deal programs to get us out of the depression. The stimulus package is far too small to be effective.
War is clearly the plan for recovery. That is why there is a push to repeal the War Powers Act be ...[text shortened]... 0,3471151.story
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june09/foreignpolicy_03-06.html
Originally posted by generalissimoGood question.
Do you think Obama should increase spending?
Our debt levels are so high it seems like higher debt levels would put my children into economic slavery. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I think 100% of the recovery package should have been infrastructure spending. The fact that it is not tells me the stimulus package is not intended to recover our economy.
Increasing spending will not do any good if it is wasted again on things other than infrastructure. If it was 100% for infrastructure I would support it, but if it is not it would be a waste.
Obama is a poor leader. He is letting congress run the show. Tax cuts are over double the infrastructure spending. Tax cuts don't work well anymore because of the trade deficit, yet Obama yielded to the failed policies of the republicans. Obama is a traitor!
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI see your point, but gross debt is different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
Umm, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
My government also has a big trade deficit, unlike after WW2. We cannot export our way out of this like we used to. Economic conditions have changed.
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainActually that table lists the gross debt (around 70% ). I don't want to say Obama should go on a spending spree, every trace of Reagan's pathetically poor economic policy should be removed, which basically means government revenue should be increased. But on the short term, it's nothing to worry about.
I see your point, but gross debt is different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
My government also has a big trade deficit, unlike after WW2. We cannot export our way out of this like we used to. Economic conditions have changed.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraDid you notice China was on that list? They hold most of our foreign debt, yet they are in debt. Can you explain that?
Actually that table lists the gross debt (around 70% ). I don't want to say Obama should go on a spending spree, every trace of Reagan's pathetically poor economic policy should be removed, which basically means government revenue should be increased. But on the short term, it's nothing to worry about.