or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by foregoneconclusion

  Greater wealth production for whom? Certainly not for the general public, as wealth inequality has grown by leaps and bounds during the last 30 years. Wages and job growth have slowed significantly during the last 30 years vs. 1950 - 1980, and yet profit as a percentage of GDP is currently at an all-time high. The deficit has also exploded during the last 30 years, while it consistently dropped during 1950 - 1980. It should be obvious to anyone after three decades of...
  Truman was president from 1945 - 1953. Yes, the Debt/GDP ratio dropped from 116% down to 70% during that time...BUT it continued dropping during the following Democratic administrations as well. It went all the way down to 32% by 1980, and that was with government spending increasing each year. By 1990, after a solid decade of GOP administrations, it was back up to 55%.
  Federal, state, and local governments have to operate on PROJECTIONS for both revenue and spending. They don't really know for sure what spending costs will actually turn out to be, nor do they really know for sure what the tax revenue will end up being at the end of a given year. Why is that? Because expensive government projects can run over budget vs. the original projection (i.e., claiming the Iraq war is going to very short and the cost is going to be shouldered...
  Generally, the focus in terms of "fair" has been the reality that very low capital gains taxes can mean that some of the wealthiest people in the country pay a lower effective tax rate on the vast majority of their income than people in the middle class. That's why there was so much coverage regarding Mitt Romney's tax returns. Most of Romney's income is in the form of capital gains.   That's the reason why the top income tax bracket used to be 70% or higher pre-Reagan....
  It's not foolish. Clinton increased taxes during his first term, and the revenue from those increases helped create tax surpluses that allowed several consecutive balanced budgets during his second term and real reduction of the national debt. Of course, that was in combination with a fairly low level of average annual growth in the federal budget, but it wasn't a slash-and-burn austerity approach either.   So...modest increases in taxes, reasonable restrictions in...
  Tax cuts are statistically known to be one of the weakest forms forms of stimulus in terms of "bang for the buck". The CBO has confirmed this time and time again, and the federal government has decades of statistics on it. One of the problems with tax cuts as a stimulus during slower economic times is that people tend to save the money rather than spend it if they're worried about the economy...and it's only SPENDING of the money that stimulates the economy....
  Incorrect. It was Fiscal Year 2009 that had the first trillion dollar deficit. Fiscal Year 2009 ran from October 1st, 2008 thru September 30th, 2009 (as the federal fiscal year always does), and was the final Bush administration budget. It was George W. Bush that was signing all of the appropriations bills during 2008 that would enable the Fiscal Year 2009 spending.
  So you've never heard of the term "structural debt" as it relates to the private sector? You don't think it's possible for a company to pay off debt and continue borrowing at the same time?
  Of course you can keep spending money that you don't have. The private sector does it every day. Borrowing and lending is the engine of capitalism. Did the private sector vow to never borrow beyond their own capital again after the financial meltdown in 2008-2009? Of course not. The ability of corporate America to make money would slow to an absolute crawl without constant borrowing. It's really just a cynical double-standard to claim that the U.S. (which bailed out the...
At the end of the day, a corporation is focused on it's own self-interest, which by definition means it's not the best place to go for advice about what is best for the public interest.
New Posts  All Forums: