Where is the US economy headed?

Gee, it's obvious you know nothing about history; when the democrats had control of the white house, "everybody" did much better economically.

"Practiced by democrats for decades" for the welfare of America is what has been proven over and over. You guys want to continue to disaster created by Bush during the past eight years.

There's no cure for stupid.

Tax cuts to businesses help all businesses, not just a few, and make them able to better compete in the market, to expand their businesses in response to higher demand. Higher demand should result by making the products more affordable and by being able to sell more products in the market of foreign competition.


I have posted this many many times. I would eliminate income tax completely, go to a national sales tax, and this would make the market a level playing field in this country. I would bust labor unions, they are outmoded and unnecessary now with all the labor laws. I would repeal the minimum wage laws. I would look at every regulation on business and repeal the ones that are not necessary, that drive up the costs of business. I would favor tort reform in a very big way, across the board and in relation to the medical care problem. I would cut government jobs nationwide where needed, and I would cut wage increase scales for government workers, after all this is a huge burden on tax payers. I would reform the education system nationwide, and inject competition. Spending 10K per student is ridiculous. The NEA should be busted. And corporate laws need reform to prevent executives running companies into the ground, taking huge payouts, then leaving.

What else. That would be a start, and you would see unprecedented growth in the economy in this country.

What makes you think there is 'higher demand?' We're in a recession and people have less money to spend. Demand is if anything lower right now than normal. That's why tax cuts to businesses do not provide a very good stimulus effect.

When people don't have money to spend it doesn't matter what you do for the businesses. Also, what about foreign-owned businesses? Do they get a tax cut? Businesses whose production facilities are all overseas; do they get a tax cut? They will be hiring more foreigners, not Americans.

Your theory has problems.


I have posted this many many times. I would eliminate income tax completely, go to a national sales tax, and this would make the market a level playing field in this country. I would bust labor unions, they are outmoded and unnecessary now with all the labor laws. I would repeal the minimum wage laws. I would look at every regulation on business and repeal the ones that are not necessary, that drive up the costs of business. I would favor tort reform in a very big way, across the board and in relation to the medical care problem. I would cut government jobs nationwide where needed, and I would cut wage increase scales for government workers, after all this is a huge burden on tax payers. I would reform the education system nationwide, and inject competition. Spending 10K per student is ridiculous. The NEA should be busted. And corporate laws need reform to prevent executives running companies into the ground, taking huge payouts, then leaving.

What else. That would be a start, and you would see unprecedented growth in the economy in this country.
[/quote]

Like I thought: tax cuts and regulation roll-backs. Just more of the same Republican ideology. That isn't a serious plan, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

Many businesses are losing money in this economy which is why they are laying people off and doing other measures to try to return to profitability.

A tax cut doesn't help a business that is losing money. It won't affect them until they are making a profit.

Of course, the flip side of that is the argument I have heard that oil companies, that just posted record profits, need government assistance to drill for oil since that will provide jobs.

Tax cuts are meaningless for people losing their jobs and homes.

Our country is losing over 100,000 jobs every week. This hemmeraging must be stopped soon, or those who have already lost jobs or lose jobs will only continue to increase. Without jobs, people do not spend money which used to make up 75% of our economy.

Thankfully we just passed a bill that will create 3.5 million jobs.

$789 billion to create or save 3.5 million jobs = $225,428 / job.

Very efficient.

The creation of jobs is not for just one year; it's for the future health of our economy.

Naturally, the money in that bill goes to other, non-job creative stuff as well, so the division you are doing is inaccurate. Not every dollar is intended to create a new job.

Cycloptichorn

But we're also not going to stop at 789 billion. Actually, to pay back that 789 billion it will cost us 1.3 trillion. And many "experts" predict that we'll have another stimulus bill by end of summer.

Hold on. You're in a downward cycle. People are getting laid off. Companies are not selling their products, and making a deficit. Mostly because people are not keen on spending money while they are afraid that things might get worse, while they have to fear for their jobs. People hold on to their money, which in turn results in businesses being even less able to sell goods, which, in turn, results in more people losing their jobs.

Now, unless I'm completely mistaken, part of what you'd want to do is encourage people to spend money rather than hoard it, right?

And in this situation, the first thing that comes to your mind is



Make it even more attractive to save money rather than to spend it? Seriously?

You're right, it's intended to create or save 3.5 millions jobs.

No, they are not; but doing nothing is not an option when over 100,000 people are losing their jobs every week. For those of us who were alive during the depression years during the first half of the last century, doing nothing now by our government is not an option.

I'm serious about this....it should be more attractive to save and invest your money than to spend your money.

God, this is how the country and it's peoples SHOULD operate. Doesn't everyone pretty much agree on this?

Of course it's an option.

It's also intended to help states meet their budget requirements and help people get by who are on unemployment. You understand my point, don't be obtuse.

Cycloptichorn

What is "more attractive" isn't how humans have practiced money management; most Americans fail to save enough for their own retirement. That should be a clue. Savings rates have gone into the negative during recent times.

Most Americans are now living from paycheck to paycheck, and many fear that their job may not exist next week or next month. That fear has changed their overspending habits into self-preservation. Very few are now buying luxuries or even the "necessities" of life. Fear will change habits, but the kind of "saving" they are doing today is much different from the "savings" we did many decades ago when we actually saved for our retirement years.

It's an option to the extent doing nothing will produce more pain to our country's economy and its people.

I agree that it should operate like that - under normal circumstances.

Thing is that you're in a downward spiral. Less spending by consumers leading to deficits by companies leading to lay-offs leading to less spending by consumers.... etc.


I'm not saying that you shouldn't aim for a higher savings rate once the economy is back on track. I just think that making this your top priority while you're in a recession seems unreasonable to me.

It may be "more attractive" to save your money, but have you noticed how banks charge on credit and pay on savings?

I've noticed. I was in my bank last week. They had a notice up that interest on savings accounts had dropped from 1% to .5%. Maybe that's good. It's a clear indication they don't need money. I should check and see what they are charging for loans.