What we need to do to spur job growth – especially given the reports for August – is to give big corporations more money. I know what you’re saying, “But that’s retarded. They already have trillions of dollars on hand and they aren’t using it to hire anyone. At all. It’s the consumer who needs to be given more money. They will then go out and spend, thus giving businesses a reason to hire in the first place. And if you don’t believe me, just look at the fact that giving corporations more money has been a dismal economic failure for the past 10 years, save the times when we enjoyed a few bubbles.” To that I reply, let’s slash everything in the budget so that overall growth will immediately shrink.
…
Remind me again why we listen to a damn thing Republicans have to say?
Filed under: Misc | Tagged: Thought of the day, Trickle down economics |
For the Sake of Science 
I’m sorry, Obamas big stimulus was all about handing out gobs of money to corporations, is there a reason that’s okay, but the conservative idea that we should allow companies and individuals to KEEP more of their money to begin with is a bad idea?
Again, not give, but keep more of what already belongs to them.
And the rest of what you have written just shows a disturbing lack of understanding of anything that has been proposed by anyone, republican or democrat.
What business needs and wants is stability. If you aren’t going to loosen rules and cut taxes than do nothing and make it clear it is going to stay that way. Why sit on money you ask? Perhaps because no one knows how much obamacare will cost, what their taxes are going to be next year, what environmental regulations are going to be imposed. It doesn’t matter what your viewpoint on those things is, they can all cost money.
And Michael, the only way to give “consumers” more money is to borrow it. From corporations… and other consumers… and foreign governments… Not sure if you were aware.
Right, Michael. Thanks. Ignore the man behind the curtain spouting inanities.
Who said anything about GIVING corporations money? Republicans are guilty of that in other issues, sure, but when liberals talk about reducing someones taxes, they talk about it as if all property belongs to the government, and taking less taxes is “giving” something.
Making churches tax-free is not a subsidy, for example.
As for your larger point, I’ve heard a lot of academic support for the Bush/Obama tax cuts. http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2010/09/should-bush-tax-cuts-be-extended.html
Whats the best evidence for your stance, (A) that putting more money into poor and middle class hands will (B) increase consumer spending and (C) Increase GDP, and (D) that growth will be higher than alternative strategies.
Tax reductions are ways of allowing people to keep their money. Tax breaks are usually giveaways. The latter has been the case for the better part of the past 10 years.
Businesses can’t grow if no one is spending. Consumers make up 70% of economic spending. It only makes sense to put more money in the hands of the average person, not the super-wealthy, in order to stimulate spending. That in turn will encourage businesses grow and hire people. After all, I may hire one gardener for my tomato patch, but if no one can buy my product, I’m not going to just go and hire a second gardener for the cukes I also won’t be able to sell.
I understand the theory – but do you have any studies that show it works in practice? Can you show it actually increases aggregate demand, instead of just having people pay off existing loans?
Making churches tax-free is a subsidy. Why should they get public services free but not you or I? I pay for their services, so I subsidize them.
Kennedy’s economic policies effectively did all that. He put more more in the pockets of the average citizen with the express intent of spurring more demand. (He also combined his demand-side policies with reasonable supply-side economics – unlike what we’ve seen over the past 30 or so years.)
(Also, LBJ actually signed the legislation.)
Bob, please come back when you learn what a subsidy is.
Michael, I think you’d make your point better if you had a modern study that teases out difference in the economy between the 1960s and 2000s.
The other problem with your example is that JKF cut corporate taxes and taxes for the rich as well as for everyone else
This is from an article saying JFK was not a true conservative in modern terms, so I don’t think you’ll object to using it as a reference:
http://www.slate.com/id/2093947/
“Many liberals disliked Kennedy’s plan on grounds of equity. Leon Keyserling, an economist who had served Harry Truman, lamented that the richest 12 percent of Americans would get 45 percent of the benefits. Michael Harrington, the scholar of poverty, called the plan “reactionary Keynesianism.” The AFL-CIO came out against it.”
If you want to reduce the economy to “these cuts happened, then the economy improved” then you have to let the right use the same logic for Reagan and beyond.*
*before you say it, I know the soundbite that Reagan raised 11 specific taxes at the same time he lowered all taxes. Thats not a compelling argument.
I pay. Churched do not. That is a subsidy. Learn English.
You pay. Churched don’t pay. Churched don’t get money for their religious operations from the government. No subsidy present.
Follow your own advice.
I find it hard to believe anyone calling the non-confiscation of wealth a subsidy. The government did not take my car today. Therefore: the government gave me a car. Free car! Yay!
Police protection. Fire protection. Trash collection. Roads serviced and some places give police directing traffic for church services. You must be a moron to not see the services they use that I pay for. There is no reason for their subsidy.
Don’t forget the church pedophiles destroying the lives of children.
You mean a very small percentage as compared to the general population and very small compared to public schools.
And you are still missing what a subsidy is.
What about all the other non-profit entities. If you are sincere about your belief in what a subsidy is (one of those beliefs without evidence, you despise) certainly there is no reason for the non-profit designation at all, for any organization. Including numerous atheist organizations that use services and don’t pay for them.
Sigh, I hate having to do this:
A subsidy (also known as a subvention) is a form of financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector
Churches don’t drive on roads, unless they are a church bus. You are talking about people, not organizations, and the people are already on a tax role.
Churches are often charitable organizations. Bob, you are making a very specific claim that on net, churches do more harm than good. Maybe it’s true, maybe it isn’t. What evidence do you provide. The burden of proof is on you, so put up or shut up.
Yes, I do mean all non-profit organizations that exclude people as religious organizations do, even the Boy Scouts who exclude gays. That does not include the public library or Doctors Without Borders.
Bullshit that churches are charitable. Very little of the donated money actually goes for the intended purpose, unlike NGOs where far more of the donated money goes to the intended purpose. Churches mostly do it for proselytizing and recruitment. As we all know, religious organization are some of the least moral ones.
So you want the government to censor certain organizations? How democratic of you.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=115
At least two of those are affiliated in some way with churches, I didn’t look too deeply into all 10. Not trying to paint the whole canvas with one big brush are we?
On the other hand…
Click to access 21_2_1.pdf
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html
I don’t disagree with reasonable tax rates all around. Before JFK’s plan, the highest tax rate for the wealthy was somewhere near 90%. He changed that to around 70%. That makes sense. But what also makes sense is putting more money in the hands of the consumer. The wealthy will only create so much wealth through investment and hiring. At some point you need the consumer to start pushing things.
Nate, you jump from fair taxation to censorship? That makes no sense. Think again.
When you tax, you get less of something, That’s pretty well established. Currently the government does not look at content when they award non-profit status. As many groups would cease to exist in a taxing world, yes I call it censorship. At the very least the government would be knowingly quieting specific messages.
I’ll ask again though, if churches aren’t non-profit, than why should atheist groups be so? They are, as far as I’m concerned, more or less the same category of organization. Religious and anti or irreligious. If churches cannot be tax exempt, neither can atheist groups.
Nate, I agree with what you’re saying, but to make a fair comparison atheists groups would have to have a regular inflow of money and a paid leader.
Otherwise, there’s no money coming in for the government to even consider taking a piece of.
For the sake of clarity, the Supreme Court has ruled that atheist groups are to be treated the same as religious groups under the law. Freedom of religion makes no sense if freedom from religion is not an equal option.
Michael H, I’m not sure what you’re saying. I’ve always felt I’m legally free to reject religion.
Legislation has no say over social forces, however, and that seems to be the big problem for us heathens.
I was really trying to talk about non-profits as a whole. Many of which, including some atheists groups I’m sure, have at least one paid employee and pay no taxes because of their tax status.
I do believe there are atheist groups that have dues, at least voluntary ones (like most churches collect in a sense).
https://www.atheists.org/store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=26
If churches go on the tax rolls, so must they, and many others. It’s not what I want, but it seems to be what others wish. And you are quite right Michael Hawkins, that legal status was what I was referencing.
I was summarizing the gist of the Supreme Court ruling. It doesn’t make sense to say we have freedom of religion if we aren’t going to treat non-believers in the same way. As it happens, at least ideally and by law, we do now; the Court held that people and groups must be granted freedom from religion if they are to have freedom of religion.
Exactly. As far as the courts are concerned everyone has a “religion” and ‘none’ is a perfectly valid “religion” that should receive the same protections.
As it should be. It just doesn’t lend itself to good articulation.