Hmm, it was BUSH who created 33 new agencies in Homeland Security. Growth in political appointees, not Civil Service jobs was rampant under Ronnie, 41, and 43- but using the Reform Act of 78, many appointees were converted, and are still screwing things up.
What are the government guys building? They must be building something. And that something (let’s say, a road) is annoying at the moment but will be useful later.
lala
I disagree. Firstly, 2/3rds of the US GNP comes from small business. What do you think large businesses were when they got their start?
Not all small businesses get to be large corporations, but I assure you, the ones that do, get there by capitalism.
The stimulus has had effects. Not as great as could be expected, perhaps, but some. Ultimately, it’s hard to prove just how big they are, as we don’t know just what would have happened without it . All the spin - on both sides, btw - is to make them less or more depending on your goal. Then again, do you have any way to prove the effects of the Bush Tax cuts? The money that was, in effect, forfeited, by the federal government in the last 10 years is around 2 trillion dollars. That’s not exactly chickenpeas in a time where the deficit rose, is it?
As for comparing the two - effectively, both work in similar manner. One is a measure putting money in the economy (eventually, in private businesses), so is the other. Both lead to deficits, as both have the federal government not collect money from the taxpayer (or actually pay money to private companies for projects). Heck, about a third of the stimulus IS tax cuts. Another third is money given to states to patch their own budgets and spending. A third is infrastructure - and I personally think that such projects tend to be a lot more useful, in the long run, than their price tag shows.
As for the “cutting taxes always brings in more money to the government” - please, spare us the dogmatic BS. Not only does it not “always” do so, but I’ve been hard pressed to find ONE example when it did. Even many conservative-leaning economists distanced themselves from that little bit of reagonomics. (check http://tinyurl.com/2lmnhu , possibly others - and do note who the people who said corporate taxes are an exception are).
Johndh123 said:”lala, I disagree. Firstly, 2/3rds of the US GNP comes from small business.”
Btw, Johndh123, GNP & GDP are two different economic indicators. I suggest you read up on the differences, especially when mentioning small businesses.
comYics over 14 years ago
Offer him a bagel.
avarner over 14 years ago
Business will not expand when they know they are going to be taxed & regulated to death if they are successful. .
The administration has made it perfectly clear this is going to be their policy. How stupid do they think people are?
Whatroughbeast over 14 years ago
Infinitely stupid. With good reason, I might add.
4uk4ata over 14 years ago
Bush cuts gone?
If only. That’s 250 or so billions that hardly did a tenth of the work that the stimulus did.
Dtroutma over 14 years ago
Hmm, it was BUSH who created 33 new agencies in Homeland Security. Growth in political appointees, not Civil Service jobs was rampant under Ronnie, 41, and 43- but using the Reform Act of 78, many appointees were converted, and are still screwing things up.
lalas over 14 years ago
America is terrible at small business. We pretend it’s the backbone… but it’s not.
HARVIN over 14 years ago
Shovel ready
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 14 years ago
What are the government guys building? They must be building something. And that something (let’s say, a road) is annoying at the moment but will be useful later.
johndh123 over 14 years ago
lala I disagree. Firstly, 2/3rds of the US GNP comes from small business. What do you think large businesses were when they got their start? Not all small businesses get to be large corporations, but I assure you, the ones that do, get there by capitalism.
4uk4ata over 14 years ago
Harley,
The stimulus has had effects. Not as great as could be expected, perhaps, but some. Ultimately, it’s hard to prove just how big they are, as we don’t know just what would have happened without it . All the spin - on both sides, btw - is to make them less or more depending on your goal. Then again, do you have any way to prove the effects of the Bush Tax cuts? The money that was, in effect, forfeited, by the federal government in the last 10 years is around 2 trillion dollars. That’s not exactly chickenpeas in a time where the deficit rose, is it?
As for comparing the two - effectively, both work in similar manner. One is a measure putting money in the economy (eventually, in private businesses), so is the other. Both lead to deficits, as both have the federal government not collect money from the taxpayer (or actually pay money to private companies for projects). Heck, about a third of the stimulus IS tax cuts. Another third is money given to states to patch their own budgets and spending. A third is infrastructure - and I personally think that such projects tend to be a lot more useful, in the long run, than their price tag shows.
As for the “cutting taxes always brings in more money to the government” - please, spare us the dogmatic BS. Not only does it not “always” do so, but I’ve been hard pressed to find ONE example when it did. Even many conservative-leaning economists distanced themselves from that little bit of reagonomics. (check http://tinyurl.com/2lmnhu , possibly others - and do note who the people who said corporate taxes are an exception are).
lalas over 14 years ago
John – Plz support yr 2/3 claim.
http://www.smallbusinessnotes.com/aboutsb/rs299.html
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/small-business-2009-08.pdf
OmqR-IV.0 over 14 years ago
Interesting articles Lalo, thanks.
Johndh123 said:”lala, I disagree. Firstly, 2/3rds of the US GNP comes from small business.”
Btw, Johndh123, GNP & GDP are two different economic indicators. I suggest you read up on the differences, especially when mentioning small businesses.