alexey Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Republicans appear to be still saying that we should focus on lowering taxes with the stimulus instead of investing it into building and fixing things. Is anybody buying into this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Republicans appear to be still saying that we should focus on lowering taxes with the stimulus instead of investing it into building and fixing things. Is anybody buying into this?Republicans are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I am. Have you seen what the "stimulus bill" is spending on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Republicans appear to be still saying that we should focus on lowering taxes with the stimulus instead of investing it into building and fixing things. Is anybody buying into this? You realize that, in terms of the federal government's budget, it winds up being the exact same thing, right? Either the government can dictate how $700 billion will be used, or it can give $700 billion back to individuals and allow them to decide how it should be used. One method has been proven to work by history, and one method has been proven to fail by history. It seems like you favor the latter because the government plan sounds good, like government plans always do. Problem is, when you're dealing with hundreds of millions of people, nothing ever goes according to plan. (By the way, I say this as someone who has absolutely no allegiance to the GOP. I think Bush was a disaster. This isn't some sort of partisan defense mechanism.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Is there any reason to believe there will be a significant difference between the two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Is there any reason to believe there will be a significant difference between the two? A significant difference between central planning and individualism? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Republicans appear to be still saying that we should focus on lowering taxes with the stimulus instead of investing it into building and fixing things. Is anybody buying into this? If you think about it, the only difference is that instead of the people spending their own money (tax cuts) the government is spending the people's money (government stimulus). Its the same money, it's just going through different channels. The building and fixing things is a nice way to think of it, but look at some of the things the g'ment wants to spend that money on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMat184 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Is there any reason to believe there will be a significant difference between the two? Yes..... The "free market" "power to the people" approach the Repubs continue to rally behind has been one enormous epic fail the last few years. Giving large tax cuts to businesses in the hopes they in turn hire employees with it is a great thought - if it could be required to work that way. We just got rid of a president who championed that approach since 01. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Yes..... The "free market" "power to the people" approach the Repubs continue to rally behind has been one enormous epic fail the last few years. Giving large tax cuts to businesses in the hopes they in turn hire employees with it is a great thought - if it could be required to work that way. We just got rid of a president who championed that approach since 01. Utterly untrue. http://www.meltingpotproject.com/mpp/2009/01/save-us-regulation-man.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Yes..... The "free market" "power to the people" approach the Repubs continue to rally behind has been one enormous epic fail the last few years. And a resounding amazing success for hundreds of years, with small periods of downturn during that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Yes..... The "free market" "power to the people" approach the Repubs continue to rally behind has been one enormous epic fail the last few years. Giving large tax cuts to businesses in the hopes they in turn hire employees with it is a great thought - if it could be required to work that way. We just got rid of a president who championed that approach since 01. Who said anything about businesses? **EDIT** (Are the Dems against giving "tax cuts" (i.e. giving them money to prop up bad companys) to businesses now?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMUGator19 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 If you think about it, the only difference is that instead of the people spending their own money (tax cuts) the government is spending the people's money (government stimulus).Its the same money, it's just going through different channels. The building and fixing things is a nice way to think of it, but look at some of the things the g'ment wants to spend that money on. Yes and no. I agree 99% of the time. However, when was the last time any of us decided to spend our own money to rebuild an interstate highway. or any corporation for that matter. The purpose of free market is to get money to those who know how best to use it. The purpose of goverment in a free market is to protect people from being neglected by that same free market force. Because of taxes, corporations donate tons of money. because of taxes, you have a road to drive on. because of free market economy you have everything else. Gotta feed the government bill some time. BUT no need to let them get gluttonous. The question is... do we really need a highway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 You realize that, in terms of the federal government's budget, it winds up being the exact same thing, right? Either the government can dictate how $700 billion will be used, or it can give $700 billion back to individuals and allow them to decide how it should be used. If you think about it, the only difference is that instead of the people spending their own money (tax cuts) the government is spending the people's money (government stimulus). Tax cuts will not guarantee jobs, and they will guarantee that things we need to build will not get built and things we need to fix will not get fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mursilis Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I prefer the third option - no stimulus whatsoever. Additional spending and/or additional tax cuts are both going to result in a higher national debt, the one thing we don't need long-term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator Bait Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 And a resounding amazing success for hundreds of years, with small periods of downturn during that time. most people don't understand economic cycles. Best thing for the Government to do is NOTHING. Let the invisible hand work. We will always go through booming times and troughs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 First stimulus didn't work, why would dumping quadruple the amount make the difference?? Second, people aren't spending but saving. So either tax cuts for people or giving them the money isn't a really good idea since they are more likely to save it than put it back into the economy. Tax cuts for small businesses are more likely to provide some kind of result. However, the govt got us into this mess and GOVT ISN'T the solution. We should let the market correct itself. For those of you who HATE him rush limbaugh had a pretty good idea. He acually purposed a bill for the govt to try. Ashe stated, a REAL bipartisan solution. Give half to the dems and half to the Repubs. Let them spend it as they see fit (ie their own versions of the stimulus) Than see which one works. Proving which policy is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 And a resounding amazing success for hundreds of years, with small periods of downturn during that time. exactly. If given the choice: I rather get my 14k back so i can spend it on the Upper cabinets in the kitchen and the roof of my house. I'll ensure i hire no white male construction workers: I promise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 And a resounding amazing success for hundreds of years, with small periods of downturn during that time. It would be a mistake to think of "free market" as a solution in itself. In order for us to enjoy fruits of the free market, the free market has to be properly regulated and it needs to have proper infrastructure to operate on. Electric grid, highway system, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Yes and no. I agree 99% of the time. However, when was the last time any of us decided to spend our own money to rebuild an interstate highway. or any corporation for that matter. The purpose of free market is to get money to those who know how best to use it. The purpose of goverment in a free market is to protect people from being neglected by that same free market force. Because of taxes, corporations donate tons of money. because of taxes, you have a road to drive on. because of free market economy you have everything else. Gotta feed the government bill some time. BUT no need to let them get gluttonous. The question is... do we really need a highway? There are actually privately funded highways. The Greenway for example. Thats besides the point. You will note that i did say that the building and fixing things was all fine and good. The government has ALWAYS been responsible for that. But if you really look at the stimulus plan, there is a lot of just pork in there that is pure garbage, and if you think the government is going to spend OUR money more efficiently than the free market capitalists, then.........then i dont know what to tell you. Maybe google "Social Security" or "Medicare" or any other governement run bureuacracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Tax cuts will not guarantee jobs, and they will guarantee that things we need to build will not get built and things we need to fix will not get fixed. so who is saying we are going to fix them. Again, look at what this stim. bill is doing, not at what is being "said" it will do. Look at the actual numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Tax cuts will not guarantee jobs, and they will guarantee that things we need to build will not get built and things we need to fix will not get fixed. That's not true at all. Private schools outperform public schools. Private toll roads outperform public toll roads. Competitive utility environments outperform the all-too-common counties and townships in which the local government has sanctioned a particular utility monopoly. If the people want something, they're willing to pay for it. If they're willing to pay for it, a company can make money off of it. The reason you think private companies would never build highways is because local governments never allow them to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 It would be a mistake to think of "free market" as a solution in itself. In order for us to enjoy fruits of the free market, the free market has to be properly regulated and it needs to have proper infrastructure to operate on. Electric grid, highway system, etc. Again, i agree. But does the government need a TRILLION DOLLARS of our money for that? a TRILLION. 1,000,000,000,000 A Million million dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Obama: January 8th, only govt can fix this economy. Obama: January 28th, only americas workers and those that employee them can fix this economy. WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMat184 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Obama: January 8th, only govt can fix this economy.Obama: January 28th, only americas workers and those that employee them can fix this economy. WTF? You want to provide links to these direct quotes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 so who is saying we are going to fix them. Again, look at what this stim. bill is doing, not at what is being "said" it will do. Look at the actual numbers. Why don't you show me the actual numbers you are talking about? A lot of people seem to focus on pointing out a number of bad sounding things that all add up to >$1B of a $800B+ bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.