And yet, he is POTUS. Why are you not POTUS? No flames Achilles, just askin. I did take a snipe so a return in kind is okay, but really, as one of the bright guys on this shithole, can you answer the question?
Answer what, exactly? It's really a non-sequitur. Idiot Presidents are the norm, not the exception. That's more a function of the race being a popularity contest (idiots voting for idiots), and which candidate has the most skeletons. Few economists, let alone politicians, understand the origin of wealth and how Government policy affects it. What Presidents do bring to the table is their own cliched ideologies, and Barack is no exception. I doubt if Bush was asked how tax cuts help spur job creation, he couldn't answer it. He was right for the wrong reasons. Barack is sorta a marxist throwback with no idea how things fit together, yet feels confident enough to declare the key tenets of the meritocratic system - a system that's produced the most wealth the world has ever seen - a "failure". That's a complete joke. It would be funny, and it often is (on university campuses), if he wern't so powerful. There's so many things wrong with this line of thought, it's difficult to enumerate in a single post. What gets me the most, and I don't want to turn this into a left versus right shit-fest, anti-capitalist types promote hardcore socialism and communism as the "answer" to wealth disparity, when those two systems created the most appalling humanitarian conditions the world saw in the past hundred years. And it's completely predictable under the free-market, capitalist approach. All an American needs to do is look around. There's no other country on the face of the earth that's created as much wealth as America, under a capitalist, SEMI free market system. That's how powerful the free market is. If it was a true free market, with honest money, we'd be close to a utopian paradise by now.
Obama is trying to drum up votes from the middle & working class from this clipped portion of his speech. He playing politics, which I don't agree with, but the starter of this thread is playing politics by claiming Obama said that capitalism never worked as well. It's all election games. Please be advised I am a Conservative Republican. Obama no doubt about it has to go as does his legion of academic entitlement minded appointees. Big govt & Democrats will not lift us up out of this weak economic cycle only business minded republicans can do that. However, you have to wonder in this polar debate at what point is there a balance, a middle ground between the extremes of over regulation & a current system where Big Business is enjoying perks of tax breaks that build their balance sheets while the middle class is experiencing a marked erosion. Its not really in the benefit of the greater good to create this sort of class dynamic regardless of one's political views. We have a current situation existing in our country that is not consistent with our traditional "good for all" American capitalism. Obama & the dems should not be the ones to address this issue as it will translate into more entitlements & debt. But, it needs to be addressed otherwise it will ultimately undermine our nation's standing in the long run. The questions he raises are valid ones. PS Eliminating the Fed is just a plain asinine idea.
Great response to a really stupid question. I'm glad I'm not POTUS. In this day and age, it would mean I'm a total sell-out with no spine or principles.
haha. Probably both. But they do. Tax cuts accelerate growth for a few reasons. One is incentives. Two is efficiency (dollar spent/invested by the private sector is done far more efficiently than the public sector). When taken to it's logical conclusion, the tax argument becomes an illustration in wealth creation between capitalist and communist systems. Ex. Under 90% taxation (communism) versus 10% taxation (free market capitalism), which system produces the most private wealth? And why?
Good thing it didn't have anything to do with underwriting no-doc loans that were then bundled under a bribed AAA rating and sold off around the world. If your house of cards crashes from a breeze, is it because of the breeze, or because you built your house from a deck of cards?
You are right it has been repeatedly shown by economists that the laffer curve effect only happens at > 80% tax rate. Anything below that and there is no detectable reduction in "incentives" that lead to this purported reduced output. So as long as you are talking about 30-40% or even 50% tax rates, the argument that lower rates lead to more output (and more tax revenue despite lower tax rates) does not apply. In fact almost all the evidence from US history supports keynesianism, the post-war boom and the golden age of the middle class (50s 60s) being prime examples.
Again, this is more clap-trap. Would you work just as hard as you do today for 20% of your paycheck? Instead of the ~70%+ you keep now? Do you honestly think any American laborer, entrepreneur or investor would risk thousands of hours of sweat equity and precious, hard-earned capital to only keep 20 PERCENT of their gross profit? This is laughable and beyond comprehension. There's so much disinformation out there, it becomes a headache to weed through it. Those Laffer studies do not include pre-1980's China, Russia, India, Africa and much of South America. They do not include them for a reason. That reason is socialism/communism and Government expropriation are the norm in those countries (read: ~excessive taxation), which creates EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE conditions Laffer studies predict = grinding third-world level, shithole poverty. When Keynesian economists set out to make the case for socialism/communism, they don't include social/commie 3rd world hell holes in their research. However, they do include the very few and notable examples where it has worked (Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Germany), point to the Nordic Tigers as the New Way Forward, and conveniently sweep one thousand years of economic history under the rug, hoping nobody will catch on. For every socialist success story, a Germany or a Sweden, there are TWENTY COUNTRIES where socialism/communism failed miserably, with terrible human consequences. What the spoon-fed pap eaters need to understand is they're being sold revisionist history. Keynesian's are talking their book. Their studies are cherry-picked to prove a forgone conclusion which ignore the gaping holes that would render socialism and communism an unworkable fraud (in >95% of cases). High regulation, high taxes and central banking all go hand-in-hand. Conventionally, we refer to that system of Government as socialism. In order to make Central Banking palatable, the Keynesian's have to make socialism palatable. This is their stock in trade. This is the problem with liberal arts degrees. Social sciences are a mixture of art and science. Plenty of room for interpretation depending on the ideological starting point. Most of these trained PhD's you put so much faith in, are indoctrinated with one side of the story, given a very narrow and slanted interpretation of their field, are graded and accredited based on their allegiance to that narrative, then go out in their "productive years" and regurgitate papers and books that are in accordance with that fairy tale. Then, the idiot laymen hold up their work as "impartial" and "unbiased", not understanding how the "authorities" they trust were indoctrinated themselves (effectively a sophisticated form of propaganda), and go on to regurgitate their regurgitations, thinking themselves as somehow learned and on the "cutting edge" of intellectual thought. The net result is an echo chamber where societies underlyings repeat what their academic "authorities" have to say, who are basically victims of propaganda, themselves, to varying degrees. As far as America and it's 90% tax rates in the US, only on paper. The top income earners paid nowhere close to that amount because the IRS included generous exemptions. I think the effective rate was around 40-50%. Another canard the Keynesian love to throw out there... As for the post-war boom era, all the major industrial powers were destroyed and were forced to rebuild. America was the only country of significance with an industrial capacity left, and essentially rebuilt the world with it's exports. That's why we boomed. Not because of some retarded 95% tax rate nobody paid.... This is the propaganda they're feeding you.
All Day CHF Bank Holiday All Day EUR French Bank Holiday All Day EUR German Bank Holiday All Day EUR Italian Bank Holiday All Day GBP Bank Holiday imho they aught to be on their knees scrubbing Wall St. clean as an Easter pennance !!
If the US got rid of all medicare and obama care the debt would soon be paid off. The poor sick would die off quicker and not be a financial burden. The rich sick could easily afford their own health bills. Clear out the prisons withdraw troops in foreign bases - about 50 in Germany alone !! What the US needs is a President " with balls ".