Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so let's change to socialism. let us invite Chaves as our mentor, he might have a tip or two on how to run a socialist USA.
Nah I love my "private" property too much. But then again, even a Democracy has loopholes...see "Eminent Domain" put in there by our so-called founding fathers...LOL
But then again are we a "true" Democracy? Hmmm...a Republic more like it.
Paul Krugman says the experience since the Bush tax cuts shows that trickle down theory does not work:
Where’s My Trickle?, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Four years ago the Bush administration, exploiting the political bounce it got from the illusion of success in Iraq, pushed a cut in capital-gains and dividend taxes through Congress. It was an extremely elitist tax cut even by Bush-era standards: the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that more than half of the tax breaks went to Americans with incomes of more than $1 million a year.
Needless to say, administration economists produced various misleading statistics designed to convey the opposite impression, that the tax cut mainly went to ordinary, middle-class Americans. But they also insisted that the benefits of the tax cut would trickle down — that lower tax rates on the rich would do great things for the economy, helping everyone.
Well, Friday’s dismal jobs report showed that ... working Americans have a right to ask, “Where’s my trickle?” ... What’s really remarkable ... is that four years of economic growth have produced essentially no gains for ordinary American workers.
Wages, adjusted for inflation, have stagnated..., benefits have deteriorated..., [a]nd one of the few seeming bright spots of the Bush-era economy, rising homeownership, is now revealed as the result of a bubble inflated in part by financial flim-flam...
Now you know why 66 percent of Americans rate economic conditions in this country as only fair or poor, and why Americans disapprove of President Bush’s handling of the economy almost as strongly as they disapprove of the job he is doing in general.
Yet the overall economy has grown at a reasonable pace over the past four years. Where did the economic growth go? The answer is that it went to the same economic elite that received the lion’s share of those tax cuts. ...
The absence of any gains for workers in the years since the 2003 tax cut is a pretty convincing refutation of trickle-down theory. So is the fact that the economy had a much more convincing boom after Bill Clinton raised taxes on top brackets. It turns out that when you cut taxes on the rich, the rich pay less taxes; when you raise taxes on the rich, they pay more taxes — end of story. ...
[T]he whole idea that a rising tide raises all boats, that growth in the economy necessarily translates into gains for the great majority of Americans, is belied by the Bush-era experience. As far as I can tell, America has never before experienced a disconnect between overall economic performance and the fortunes of workers as complete as that of the last four years.
America was a highly unequal society during the Gilded Age, but workers’ living standards nonetheless improved as the economy grew. Inequality rose rapidly during the Reagan years, but “Morning in America” was nonetheless bright enough to make most people cheerful, at least temporarily. Inequality continued to increase during the Clinton years, but wages rose, as did the availability of health insurance — and the great majority of Americans felt prosperous.
What we’ve had since 2003, however, is an economic expansion that looks good if not great by the usual measures, but which has passed most Americans by.
Guaranteed health insurance ... would eliminate one of the reasons for this disconnect. But it should be only the start of a broader range of policies — a new New Deal — designed to turn economic growth into something more than a spectator sport.
Paul Krugman says the experience since the Bush tax cuts shows that trickle down theory does not work:
Where’s My Trickle?, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Four years ago the Bush administration, exploiting the political bounce it got from the illusion of success in Iraq, pushed a cut in capital-gains and dividend taxes through Congress. It was an extremely elitist tax cut even by Bush-era standards: the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that more than half of the tax breaks went to Americans with incomes of more than $1 million a year.
Needless to say, administration economists produced various misleading statistics designed to convey the opposite impression, that the tax cut mainly went to ordinary, middle-class Americans. But they also insisted that the benefits of the tax cut would trickle down — that lower tax rates on the rich would do great things for the economy, helping everyone.
Well, Friday’s dismal jobs report showed that ... working Americans have a right to ask, “Where’s my trickle?” ... What’s really remarkable ... is that four years of economic growth have produced essentially no gains for ordinary American workers.
Wages, adjusted for inflation, have stagnated..., benefits have deteriorated..., [a]nd one of the few seeming bright spots of the Bush-era economy, rising homeownership, is now revealed as the result of a bubble inflated in part by financial flim-flam...
Now you know why 66 percent of Americans rate economic conditions in this country as only fair or poor, and why Americans disapprove of President Bush’s handling of the economy almost as strongly as they disapprove of the job he is doing in general.
Yet the overall economy has grown at a reasonable pace over the past four years. Where did the economic growth go? The answer is that it went to the same economic elite that received the lion’s share of those tax cuts. ...
The absence of any gains for workers in the years since the 2003 tax cut is a pretty convincing refutation of trickle-down theory. So is the fact that the economy had a much more convincing boom after Bill Clinton raised taxes on top brackets. It turns out that when you cut taxes on the rich, the rich pay less taxes; when you raise taxes on the rich, they pay more taxes — end of story. ...
[T]he whole idea that a rising tide raises all boats, that growth in the economy necessarily translates into gains for the great majority of Americans, is belied by the Bush-era experience. As far as I can tell, America has never before experienced a disconnect between overall economic performance and the fortunes of workers as complete as that of the last four years.
America was a highly unequal society during the Gilded Age, but workers’ living standards nonetheless improved as the economy grew. Inequality rose rapidly during the Reagan years, but “Morning in America” was nonetheless bright enough to make most people cheerful, at least temporarily. Inequality continued to increase during the Clinton years, but wages rose, as did the availability of health insurance — and the great majority of Americans felt prosperous.
What we’ve had since 2003, however, is an economic expansion that looks good if not great by the usual measures, but which has passed most Americans by.
Guaranteed health insurance ... would eliminate one of the reasons for this disconnect. But it should be only the start of a broader range of policies — a new New Deal — designed to turn economic growth into something more than a spectator sport.
Great article--thanks for the share! And it is RIGHT on the mark about "W"!
I just want to throw in a tidbit for a bit of humor to this board (as everyone needs it).. it's something Chris Titus said:
"Bush has got to wake up every morning, read the paper, and be like 'WHAT THE %*^(?!'"
Personally, Bush has not made the right choices on a lot of matters that are of concerns to the American Public. However, personally, I feel that we really can't hate a man for having a difference in opinion and sticking to it. You may hate his policies and actions... but until he slaps you, in person, with a fish or calls you specifically by an un-called for name..... you shouldn't hate him.
He's sticking to what he believes... allbeit wrong in the eyes of the majority of America. Gotta give him at least SOME credit for that.
I just want to throw in a tidbit for a bit of humor to this board (as everyone needs it).. it's something Chris Titus said:
"Bush has got to wake up every morning, read the paper, and be like 'WHAT THE %*^(?!'"
Personally, Bush has not made the right choices on a lot of matters that are of concerns to the American Public. However, personally, I feel that we really can't hate a man for having a difference in opinion and sticking to it. You may hate his policies and actions... but until he slaps you, in person, with a fish or calls you specifically by an un-called for name..... you shouldn't hate him.
He's sticking to what he believes... allbeit wrong in the eyes of the majority of America. Gotta give him at least SOME credit for that.
You give him credit for driving the car we are all passengers in straight off of a cliff, despite the repeated protests from everyone in the back seat?
I don't see the saving grace in conviction - when you're right, then I suppose it works out. But to remain steadfast when you're clearly wrong is just insanity.
Bush has repeatedly ignored the lessons of history, the testimonial of experts, and the pleas of the public; in other words, Bush has ignored reality. More important, this is a tragic, dangerous, and expensive (not just financially) display of insanity on his part.
But hey, at least he sticks by what he's always believed, right or wrong.
You give him credit for driving the car we are all passengers in straight off of a cliff, despite the repeated protests from everyone in the back seat?
I don't see the saving grace in conviction - when you're right, then I suppose it works out. But to remain steadfast when you're clearly wrong is just insanity.
Bush has repeatedly ignored the lessons of history, the testimonial of experts, and the pleas of the public; in other words, Bush has ignored reality. More important, this is a tragic, dangerous, and expensive (not just financially) display of insanity on his part.
But hey, at least he sticks by what he's always believed, right or wrong.
Exactly my point. If you're right, it works out.. but just because he uses this trait in a bad way.. does it make it a bad trait? Or is it a good trait to have to not bulge in to peer pressure to be "cool"? In a general setting, sticking to your guns is usually a good idea.
As for the driving reference.. I've always stated in my car: I have the keys, I control the car. So I just can't change my "rules" for driving simply because someone with half a brain uses them as well.
But hey, I'm probably just looking at the gas tank *haha* as half full.
[b]Guaranteed health insurance ... would eliminate one of the reasons for this disconnect. But it should be only the start of a broader range of policies — a new New Deal — designed to turn economic growth into something more than a spectator sport.
I am not wishing for more tax cuts to the rich, more profits to the corporations, their CEO's and greedy shareholders- I am looking for economic fairness for all Americans-something conservatives and the republican party have opposed for nearly a century.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
