<p>Also…reality check…as a time-out from all of the push and pull of different ideologies, we all need to admit that the dotcom crash and 9-11 are events that trump whatever we may have to say about each other’s viewpoints. Whatever side of things you are on, you can’t blame the other for either one of those.</p>
<p>I already responded to your numbers.</p>
<p>i gave you gdp numbers…</p>
<p>Employment numbers…</p>
<p>I already talked about tax rates…</p>
<p>There is an upward bias in tax revenues because the US gdp has grown over the decades…</p>
<p>Right now…is an exception even though we have the lowest taxes as a
share of gdp in 60 years…and the economy sucks.</p>
<p>i never said we shouldn’t cut 70 or 90 percent tax rates …those are too high…</p>
<p>I voted for Reagan… I didn’t like the higher tax rates of his time. We needed more supply and a more pro business agenda then…now…not so much.</p>
<p>The last 2 1/2 years…and the last 30 years, I have made my living in the financial markets…you know…,your free markets…where the top financial people are altruistic…and fair, and only look out for what is best for the economy. These financial people would never put the economy at risk. They don’t need regulation, but they will take their marbles home at any hint of tax hikes…on themselves.</p>
<p>Tax hikes on others…that is negotiable.</p>
<p>What have you been doing, spideygirl?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, I’m seeing no relevance.</p>
<p>Fair enough.</p>
<p>Businesses would benefit by government spending. Businesses would have more customers. Businesses would have more money.</p>
<p>"Where have you been the past two and a half years? Did you notice that what you are suggesting hasn’t worked? "</p>
<p>Oh really?? where would GM be without the government injecting $$$ into them in 2009? Out of business, is where they would be . Along with their suppliers. and dealers. </p>
<p>sheesh, you have a short memory.</p>
<p>If i were forunate enough to pass along significant monies to my children,which i worked hard for, why would anyone care one way or another…passing wealth fro one generaion to another, only concrns those that can’t…as i have said it numerous similar threads, i’d eat ramen noodles if it meant my children lived a better life then i…</p>
<p>dstark
</p>
<p>Are you trying to be funny? OK, it worked. Now go tell the other 300 million Americans.</p>
<p>Spideygirl…so I guess the tax cuts didn’t work. ;)</p>
<p>Hmmmm… I looked again at the chart and I see the same thing.</p>
<p>Who knows what a GDP is?</p>
<p>Spider?</p>
<p>menloparkmom
</p>
<p>Reorganization through bankruptcy, remember? Had that happened sooner, we would have saved more. Government intervention was not necessary.</p>
<p>I think you like the fact that it is a bikini graph, dstark. Step away from the bikini and address the historic numbers on tax cuts which you keep ignoring.</p>
<p>Spideygirl, the law of the jungle does have a rule: the strong win. That’s essentially been the growing bias in public policy in America for the past 30 years. Study what the Chicago School advocated in law and economic policy and what you end up with is: the strong should win, and government exists to enforce their right to do so. This is very overt in civil law, where protection of the weak has been watered down to the point where the dominant party to an economic interaction can dictate the terms of the most routine transaction so as to prevent the weaker party from even seeking to redress abuses by the strong. It’s a Randian utopia in the making - but it brought us economic stratification, the 2007 economic crash, and all of the other things that follow in the real world from an idealized set of “limited rules.”</p>
<p>That is why I don’t advocate the law of the jungle, Kluge, and I see the opposite growing bias in public policy. I think we are in an era of the victim, and neither extreme is good. </p>
<p>I’d love it if you could go back in time and have a conversation with an eight year old Bill Gates and explain to him how because public policy favors the strong, a skinny guy like him will have no chance. Oh…You are going to mention that he came from a middle class family. OK…Then pick another formerly skinny billionaire who came from more modest means. What do you even have in mind when you use the word “strong”? </p>
<p>Do you know how much harder it is today to get a business started with all of the government oppression in our way? Harder for the person with no means and no family money or guidance behind them. Licensing, for example. The vast majority of jobs require it, and I know you are going to mention safety and health but do you realize how much we have swung in the direction of ridiculous? There are places where you need a license to be a florist. Why? To prevent injury from rose thorns? Where is this jungle you speak of, because I don’t see it.</p>
<p>In this country, if government would just get out of our way, every manner of person could have a reasonable shot at putting together a nice business for themselves. Getting ahead with stifling taxes and regulations requires a heck of a lot more strength, I can assure you. </p>
<p>Regarding changes in law, it is the rules and regulations which prevent fair access to justice (tort reform needed). In a Randian utopia, the opposite would be true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bush’s SEC’s laissez-faire policy almost brought down the whole world economy in 2008. Chinese manufacturers put melamine in the dog food they sold to us. Some “nice businesses” that people come up with should not be allowed.</p>
<p>Spideygirl, with regard to the cherry-picked stats regarding tax rates and economic growth, our nation’s GDP has almost always grown along with increases in population, productivity and inflation. Separating out the actual impact of a single factor (such as tax rates) is kind of complicated. Here’s a recent example: [FactCheck.org:</a> Supply-side Spin](<a href=“http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html]FactCheck.org:”>http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html) </p>
<p>Reagan cut taxes in the 80’s - and engaged in massive deficit spending. Ronald Reagan can truly claim the mantle of the Father of the American National Debt. [U.S</a>. National Debt Graph + Amazing YouTube Story of the Debt](<a href=“http://zfacts.com/p/318.html]U.S”>National Debt Graph 1940 -- 2020: Zooming Again) Deficit spending does help the economy, short-term (at a cost to the future, of course, which means it should only be engaged in when necessary - a caution which Reagan gleefully ignored.) Also, OPEC cut oil prices 46%. So what caused what?</p>
<p>Your other examples - the 1920’s? Really? The first real modern bubble economy? That’s the example you want to use?</p>
<p>If you’re really interested, this appears to be a pretty well-reasoned analysis about the actual effects of tax increases, which I was referred to by a conservative poster here on CC: <a href=“http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf[/url]”>http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf</a></p>
<p>As to Bill Gates: you need to do your homework. Not even close on the facts.</p>
<p>As to “government oppression.” Uh, just a little bit over the top, doncha think?</p>
<p>[As</a> Middle Class Shrinks, P&G Marketing Aims High and Low - WSJ.com](<a href=“As Middle Class Shrinks, P&G Marketing Aims High and Low - WSJ”>As Middle Class Shrinks, P&G Marketing Aims High and Low - WSJ)</p>
<p>"To monitor the evolving American consumer market, P&G executives study the Gini index, a widely accepted measure of income inequality that ranges from zero, when everyone earns the same amount, to one, when all income goes to only one person. In 2009, the most recent calculation available, the Gini coefficient totaled 0.468, a 20% rise in income disparity over the past 40 years, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.</p>
<p>“We now have a Gini index similar to the Philippines and Mexicoyou’d never have imagined that,” says Phyllis Jackson, P&G’s vice president of consumer market knowledge for North America. “I don’t think we’ve typically thought about America as a country with big income gaps to this extent.”</p>
<p>“Reorganization through bankruptcy, remember? Had that happened sooner, we would have saved more.”
WHO would have “saved more” sooner?? Are you actually saying that had GM gone under when MORE workers were still employed, the TAX PAYERS would have SAVED MORE by having thousands MORE UNEMPLOYED workers receiving US government unemployment benefits ?? Rather than still having them drawing paychecks? Which allowed them to PAY their mortgages? And BUY groceries? and PAY for their kids tuition, goods and services ON THEIR OWN, which by the way, happens to feed more $$ into circulation through out the region and US, allowing more businesses to grow ?? Do you truly think that US taxpayers would be better off if MORE companies went bankrupt sooner when it throws more people out of work???</p>
<p>You ever heard the saying- “we’re saving so much were going broke”?</p>
<p>Cause that’s what’s happening with this this “penny wise, pound foolish” short sighted plan that some are advocating.
You don’t resuscitate a person dying from lack of oxygen by shutting off the respirator.</p>
<p>GM also IPO’d in mid 2010 and repaid 20plus of the 50 billion they borrowed to reorganize, with plans to repay the rest. Government current ownership was then reduced to only 30 some percent.</p>
<p>So, it was/is a business loan, which is the normal course of business. Money is being repaid with interest. </p>
<p>The concern is will they need to be bailed out again.</p>
<p>
Reorganized, menlo.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where did we meet, Parent1986 - in the high school forum?</p>
<p>Nope, ^^^ there it would have been Creepy Crawlie Girl.</p>