It couldn't've hurt. And Bush's popularity was markedly different in his second term than in his first.
edited 1st Mar '11 12:46:25 PM by EnglishIvy
W. Bush's approval was basically a very big "meh" around 2004. It hadn't dipped into 2006 lows yet, but it was definitely past the 9/11 highs.
The graph reveals all.
edited 1st Mar '11 12:50:53 PM by EnglishIvy
NOT THE BEES
Mc Cain/Palin lost, because there was a gigantic collapse in the housing market, and they wanted to keep the status quo that caused it.I dunno, I Palin being batfuck insane might've had more to do with it :|
What?Mc Cain also appeared to not know what the fuck he was doing during his campaign once September rolled around.
I'm usually using my phone so typos and dropped words are bound to show up.
But Republicans loved her being batfuck insane, and had the economy not fallen apart, then lean-Republicans would almost certainly have gone along.
Lean-Rs? Unlikely, since they tend to be the moderates. Though this is kinda off-topic.
edited 1st Mar '11 12:57:17 PM by GlennMagusHarvey
That just means that they vote Republican nine times out of ten, as opposed to ten out of ten. (hurriedly thinks of a way to make this on-topic) Um... they also love tax cuts?
edited 1st Mar '11 12:58:53 PM by EnglishIvy
What?So, raising taxes during a recession - was it as bad of an idea as the Republicans suggested?
I'm usually using my phone so typos and dropped words are bound to show up.
If you're raising taxes on people who save instead of spend, then no.
Depends on what you're taxing.
This foreboding is fa...@ Deboss
So they're asking for half a trillion dollars a year, assuming even distribution.Yeah, right around 540 billion. It's worth noting three things though-we've already budgeted 1 trillion, so the remainder needed is 1.2 trillion. That report card is from 2009, I think by now things might actually be worse. And finally, that's only to get our infrastructure to passing levels. What it boils down to is that we have a lot of bills, and we either raise taxes to pay them or keep going into debt. Nobody with any experience in economics thinks we can "grow out of the debt", we can't end the debt with cuts (as previously mentioned, it would take 5 years if the government cut all spending, and that wouldn't work because the amount of tax money coming in would drop substantially *. So we have to raise taxes. And raising taxes on those who can't afford them, i.e. people who already spend the majority of their income, is only shooting your economy in the foot. So you tax the people who can afford it, who typically have a bigger percentage of their income that they don't spend and therefore doesn't help the economy. Not to mention that rich people typically benefit more from government infrastructure-their business profits depend on more roads than an individual, the safety of their corporations and the sum of their employees depends on more police & firefighters, etc. etc. Farmers and skilled laborers could survive without a highly structured government, hence why they have been around longer. Corporations, on the other hand, would fail without government infrastructure-in fact they would never exist *. So it only makes sense that they should pay a larger portion.
edited 1st Mar '11 7:07:43 PM by deathjavu
Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.
"Raise taxes on the richest 2%; when the accountants tell the billionaires they'll save more money by keeping it within their dividends instead of cashing out (and taking the tax hit), the corporations will suddenly be flush with cash and increase hiring again. Heck, just raising the marginal tax rate 3% (back to a Clinton-era 39%) would eliminate all the deficit problems everyone is whining about." (Back from like page 3) Here's the thing, the government counts among the two percent as rich "those who actually own a house without debt." You could be struggling even to do that, but you're rich. Also, let's use simple logic here: You pay taxes, the government uses it to build schools, roads, etc. Who benefits? People involved in schools, roads, etc. The government's hands are tied from collecting money, such services suffer. On the other hand, money not taxed stays in the hands of those making money. What does this mean? It means Joe Employer can now afford to hire ten workers instead of one (if you don't believe me, look at the huge taxes some businesses pay, such as wine growers). So what's behind the recession, low or high taxes? Neither, but more people actually can benefit from less taxes, and MUCH less government waste. The government is in debt, so they cut programs. This has nothing to do with low or high taxes, but the government being the greedy control freak it is, will use that as an excuse. No, what's behind the recession is not tax, but debt. Government debt, employee debt, landowner debt (look up the word underwater with regard to property), and especially debt to foreign countries. Tax doesn't do anything but shuffle around money. But money flows out of the country by doing things like employing immigrant workers who send money back to their homes (coughcoughHispanicscoughcough ), or trying to pay China, or Islamic countries off. If we wanna fix this system, here's what we do. We pool our money as a tax, stopping conventional taxes for about 5-10 years. All this money goes to paying off debts, and nothing else. The government acts like someone trying to become debt-free, and cuts back. Can we trust our government to do this? No. So why are we fretting about taxes? We should just all spend into debt until none of us has anything, then take our stuff and run. Leave the government to suck it up, and stop paying taxes, since they're just gonna overspend anyway.
It means Joe Employer can now afford to hire ten workers instead of one (if you don't believe me, look at the huge taxes some businesses pay, such as wine growers).Just because Joe Employer can afford to hire ten workers does NOT mean that Joe Employer will hire ten more workers. Joe Employer might not hire ten more workers if his corporate tax rate is high. However, Joe Employer will most definitely not hire ten more workers if his company has no business to do in the first place. As I like to put it: Some people say that taxes can negatively impact an economy. Maybe...maybe. But I have yet to meet an economy that can exist without demand. If you actually care about keeping money invested in the private sector, why not raise the top-bracket personal tax rate? Because then, instead of taking money out of the company as personal profit, Joe Employer will rather leave it in his company, investing more heavily in its development. That, and raise the capital gains tax rate so that it's more comparable to normal income tax rates. Venture capitalists have invested, and will continue to invest, in innovative new companies. They don't suddenly do more of it because the tax rate is lower—if you had enough money to throw around like that, a bit more taxes is the least of your worries. On the other hand, if you're just sitting on investments as your income, you ought to be taxed at least on par, if not more, on your capital gains income as others are taxed on their blood-tears-and-sweat income.
I changed accounts.I know that if my parents had enough money to hire ten more guys, they'd probably only end up hiring three more, plus buying equipment for them to run, and then we'd probably just put the rest towards paying bills. And that's with excess demand we have that we currently can't cover, mind you.
I am now known as Flyboy.
Last I checked, everyone benefits from having a good education and roads that we can actually use. Not to mention, that once those people are paid, they now have purchasing power to spread around to other businesses. And to hire more people in order to get the job done. (Though Glenn's point about Joe Employer also applies to the government.) Also, bulma, debt to foreign countries doesn't work the same as it does on the individual level. It's a whole new ballgame. Cutting taxes for five to ten years is a shit stupid suggestion and would drive this country into poverty, because then who the fuck is paying for the public hospitals, schools, and basic services like garbage collection. Face it; the government employs a crapload of people to do very basic things that we need. And they can't do it without taxes.
^^ The one big flaw in your argument is the presumption that businesses hire labour based on profit when no empirical data or logic suggests they should do so. Why would I hire more workers when I can pocket more profit? That makes little sense. I can agree that most of America's problems have little to do with tax levels and more to do with spending/allocation and so on. But I suggest several things:
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from firstname.lastname@example.org.