Rant & Rave's for the day:
It looks like congress might agree on a tax deal. Of course the "Liberal Media" is playing it up as a battle between the rich & poor. Really it's a battle between the R's (generously funded by business etc. (LinkHere - and WSJ article here LinkHere) and the D's.
Cutting right to the chase, the crux of the matter is the well-to-do, sometimes called the rich. "The rich will start businesses & make out paychecks" the R's scream while stomping their feet.
Ahh… Not so argue the rational minds who are familiar with the facts (remember Bush Sr. calling Reaganomics "Vodo Economics"?). There is significant data to support both sides of this, pro-Reganomics and anti-Reganomics.
Here's a quote by a renowned economist: "In this view, Reaganomics was not a refutation but rather a confirmation of Keynesian economics: the expansion was primarily a recovery from the 1982 recession, which was created by the textbook Keynesian monetary policy of Volcker, not the tax policy of Reagan." (LINK This is a good & relatively impartial article).
And a couple Stevie points (I'm NOT a world renowned economist):
*Poor and middle income people are more likely to spend their savings from tax cuts. News Flash: This TOO stimulates the economy!
*Rich/Well to do people are more inclined to SAVE their $. They don't need it as bad! *Yes, some may actually give it out in the form of wages, gut there really isn't any evidence to support this.
Along the same lines, I was listening to NPR today and the commentator was interviewing an economist. He said that he had asked a business owner what he/she would do with a hypothetical $20,000.00 tax savings. Maybe buy a truck. The business owner said no, there wouldn't be any need for another truck because there aren't enough customers buying! Oh, so we need to "incentivize" the buyers of goods and services, the middle and lower income that WILL SPEND WHAT THEY GET! And that is the quickest way to stimulate the economy!
As I've said in earlier posts, many (maybe most?) economists believe that the economy goes in cycles, very much like the seasons of the year. And the government has far less control of this cyclical beast than the "anxious to be re-elected" legislators like to pretend. See that quote above again. See the words "a recovery from the 1982 recession"? Regan was just riding the wave of the economic cycle. He came in at the trough and luckily for him, rode the wave to its peak.
BREAKING NEWS - UPDATE!!!
It looks like congress might agree on a tax deal. Of course the "Liberal Media" is playing it up as a battle between the rich & poor. Really it's a battle between the R's (generously funded by business etc. (LinkHere - and WSJ article here LinkHere) and the D's.
Cutting right to the chase, the crux of the matter is the well-to-do, sometimes called the rich. "The rich will start businesses & make out paychecks" the R's scream while stomping their feet.
Ahh… Not so argue the rational minds who are familiar with the facts (remember Bush Sr. calling Reaganomics "Vodo Economics"?). There is significant data to support both sides of this, pro-Reganomics and anti-Reganomics.
Here's a quote by a renowned economist: "In this view, Reaganomics was not a refutation but rather a confirmation of Keynesian economics: the expansion was primarily a recovery from the 1982 recession, which was created by the textbook Keynesian monetary policy of Volcker, not the tax policy of Reagan." (LINK This is a good & relatively impartial article).
And a couple Stevie points (I'm NOT a world renowned economist):
*Poor and middle income people are more likely to spend their savings from tax cuts. News Flash: This TOO stimulates the economy!
*Rich/Well to do people are more inclined to SAVE their $. They don't need it as bad! *Yes, some may actually give it out in the form of wages, gut there really isn't any evidence to support this.
Along the same lines, I was listening to NPR today and the commentator was interviewing an economist. He said that he had asked a business owner what he/she would do with a hypothetical $20,000.00 tax savings. Maybe buy a truck. The business owner said no, there wouldn't be any need for another truck because there aren't enough customers buying! Oh, so we need to "incentivize" the buyers of goods and services, the middle and lower income that WILL SPEND WHAT THEY GET! And that is the quickest way to stimulate the economy!
As I've said in earlier posts, many (maybe most?) economists believe that the economy goes in cycles, very much like the seasons of the year. And the government has far less control of this cyclical beast than the "anxious to be re-elected" legislators like to pretend. See that quote above again. See the words "a recovery from the 1982 recession"? Regan was just riding the wave of the economic cycle. He came in at the trough and luckily for him, rode the wave to its peak.
BREAKING NEWS - UPDATE!!!
Sugar Subsidy’s are an example of a tax break for the rich and the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer. First of all the R's are constantly preaching about free and open markets. The ONLY reason that they don't support eliminating or at least reducing this "tax on the middle class and poor" is that they get BIG DONATIONS from the sugar producers in this country! By both absolute and relative numbers there are WAY more poor and middle class in this country than there are rich. So who buys more sugar? Who benefits from this subsidy? Rich agribusiness! What about opening up our markets to countries that conversely and proportionally open their markets to us? This is actually a inequity perpetuated on both sides of the political fence. (I think I'm rambling here but I can't stop myself.) Additionally there may be adverse health affects (LinkHere) from High Fructose corn syrup, which is what most of the sugar in this country is made from. And STILL furthermore (somebody stop me, PLEASE!) it would help some of the poorer countries that we send subsidies too!! Growing sugar in this country is environmentally harmful (LinkHere) too. Sugar subsidy's make as much sense as tobacco subsidy's do.
And what makes them think they should be able to modify their name? Margarine can't call itself butter. Artificial sweetener's can't call themselves sugar. Lard (or Crisco) can't call itself Olive Oil.
And what makes them think they should be able to modify their name? Margarine can't call itself butter. Artificial sweetener's can't call themselves sugar. Lard (or Crisco) can't call itself Olive Oil.
I could go on and on...
I should be so lucky…
Just one more thing and I’ll shut up. It’s shameful the amount of debt that we’re passing on to the next generation.
Thanks for reading my rants!
Steve
SOME of my sources can be seen at the links below:
1 http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/09/13/the-obama-tax-increase-and-small-business/
2 http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/07/15/gop-has-money-momentum-in-open-senate-races/
3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
No comments:
Post a Comment