...enormous tax hikes will slow down economic growth because they will transfer resources from the productive hands of the private sector to the wasteful hands of Congress, raise energy prices, and reduce incentives to work, save, and invest.
Tax hikes are not the right solution for Americans—nor are they needed to reduce the deficit. Congress should pass on all of President Obama’s tax increases and instead cut spending and reform the tax code so it inflicts less of a burden on businesses and families and is more conducive to job creation.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Report … wer-Growth
will someone post an article from a liberal point of view on the economy...which ever one you think is the equal/opposite of above posted
let us continue the discernment of where we stand by viewing the differing points of view...so that a middle ground can be determined
I always find topics like this peculiar in the way the answers always seem to concentrate on the collection of revenue as the culprit for working against the recovery.
The government is a deficeit spending entity and when you think of it in those terms it seems more reasonable to concentrate on the spending rather than the collecting. The government will always spend all the money they receive from us.
The "Wars" and I state that in the most plural sense I can, are at the heart of our direction of waste that we refuse to review. Billions of dollars are spent to maintain some degree of dominance and not what they are intended which is the protection and defense of our country. But I guess there are those that claim the best defence is a good offence to counter my assertion. The countless billions such as seen through such past extravagant examples like Charlie Wilson in Afghanistan are not even counted in any responsible way and only add to the loss.
What it shows is a country trying to support a Roman conquest with a bankrupt treasury and overburdened tax base and we all know what happened to them.
I'd have to go sift through my bookmarks for an article laying out the opposing argument succinctly, but a few points:
1. Obama is talking about returning the upper tax bracket rate to the level it was during Clinton's presidency - a time of dismal economic performance and widespread misery, as you may recall.
And of course, the horrible economy that characterized Clinton's presidency was just a shadow of the economic nightmare that was the 1950's, when the top tax bracket was forced to pay more than 90%. It would be much more sensible to lower the rate to the 25% charged during the shining economic paradise of 1925-1931.
2. Cutting spending is all well and good and most people support it in theory, but it's much easier said than done, since the only part of the budget both Republicans and Democrats routinely manage to agree should be cut is foreign aid, which makes up an amazing 0.15% of our total spending.
3. 72% of all foreign corporations and about 57% of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005. This is at the same time many of them are receiving millions or billions of dollars annually in taxpayer-funded subsidies, contracts, and other handouts. Then they have the gall to complain about being overtaxed.
Even Obama has said tax hikes are bad for the economy. Still he believes the role of government is to create social and economic justice and that can only be achieved with more government and that means more revenue so tax the rich. The problem is government will expand to consume what ever revenue it collects and then some! The trouble arises though when the government believes their spending is actually expanding the economy and generating wealth.
"Tax hikes are not the right solution for Americans—nor are they needed to reduce the deficit." Guess it used to be called Reganomics, otherwise known as 'trickle-down', otherwise known as Voo-Doo economics; lower the tax rate for the rich and corporations who mostly don't pay anything anyway, and increase spending mainly for the military and empire.
by Alex Frias6 years ago
Question. If the Bush-era tax cuts were so popular and such the "economic reality" as it's being coined, then why did Obama fail to see this until recently. Where was his voice in favor of the Bush...
by Ralph Deeds4 years ago
Paul Krugman:" Back in 2010, self-styled deficit hawks — better described as deficit scolds — took over much of our political discourse. At a time of mass unemployment and record-low borrowing costs, a time...
by Ralph Deeds8 years ago
Paul Krugman's column in the NYTimes today 1-5-08 is entitled "Fighting Off Depression." In it he called the recent economic numbers "terrifying," not just in the U.S. but around the world....
by Nickny798 years ago
HIGH tax rates reduce economic growth, because they make it LESS profitable to work, save, and invest. This translates into less work, saving, investment, and capital--and ultimately fewer goods and services. Reducing...
by fishskinfreak20087 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100122/ts_nm/us_obama"Let me dispel this notion that we were somehow focused on that (healthcare) and so as a consequence not focused on the economy. First of all, all I think about is...
by uncorrectedvision5 years ago
What was my title? I thought about it and decided that Paul Krugman was the real point of this forum. I do know something about economics, politics and Paul Krugman. I know very little about the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.