jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (10 posts)

Is Romney right by thinking tax and regulation breaks creates jobs?

  1. 0
    oldandwiseposted 4 years ago

    When I voted for President Bush, I bought into that, hook, line, and sinker. Did it happen? If it did, I certainly didn't see it. Did the wealthier get richer? Every indication they did. Did the middle class fall? The answer to that, I'm sure is obvious with the recession. So I ask, anyone, to please make the case that tax breaks and less regulation will bring a different outcome. Will those breaks offer security for the average American? Will it enable the average American to attain the American Dream?

    1. Cagsil profile image83
      Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Tax breaks won't do a damn thing except allow the wealthiest continue to stockpile their money. As far as less regulations? Probably some regulations need to go away. However, even with that said....it would be nice if the people who are paid to be regulators actually did their job properly.
      No because the two are not mutually exclusive.

    2. 69
      logic,commonsenseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well, ask yourself this.  Why did Obama make such a fuss over cutting the social security tax?  He said it was needed to help stimulate the economy!
      What he didn't say is he set us down the slippery slope of destroying social security.  Everyone conveinently ignores that issue, just to get a few more dollars a week.  It will end up costing more than it helps.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Wrong, as usual. The temporary moratorium on SS tax was needed to stimulate the economy and it won't jeopardize the future of Social Security, provided the tax is reinstated once the end of the recession is in sight. Then some small changes in the Social Security system will be needed to make benefits secure for the foreseeable future. Any one or a combination of changes can easily accomplish this. The real problem is with the effect of skyrocketing health care costs on Medicare. There is no easy fix for this problem.

  2. Cassie Smith profile image75
    Cassie Smithposted 4 years ago

    It's no secret that the tax breaks will lose money for the government in the short term.  But by itself it won't really do anything, there has to be a good environment for economic growth.  During Bush's time, whatever tax break he signed was unable to lift the economy because of additional security increases due to September 11, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the economy which tanked after September 11 then again after the mortgage crisis in 2008.  Even then, unemployment was under 6%.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      In addition to wasting trillions on his foolish invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush passed a Medicare drug program without funding and which was a gift to the drug industry. Those dumb moves combined with tax cuts for the 1% put the country into a deep deficit situation. Then, failure to deal promptly with the housing and subprime mortgage bubbles pushed the country and the world into a Great Recession. Our problem has not been too many regulations but rather failure to regulate effectively--banks, the environment, guns and so forth.

  3. kerryg profile image86
    kerrygposted 4 years ago

    I don't think there's a simple answer to that question.

    Bush's tax breaks were a failure because they shrank government revenues at the same time spending was increasing exponentially (probably deliberately on the part of some of their architects - "starve the beast" remains popular in many Republican circles) and because they gave the biggest breaks to the wealthy, who mostly hung onto it rather than spending it as lower or middle class families would be more likely to do.

    Similarly, giving tax breaks to investors used to be a good way to boost the economy by increasing investment in businesses, but after the deregulation of the last 30 years, investors just used the extra money to indulge in ever riskier and more destabilizing speculation, which ultimately led to the collapse of '08.

    Regulation is equally complex. Some regulation is necessary to protect human and environmental health, workers rights, etc. If you have no regulations (or no enforcement of regulations), you end up with a situation like Nigeria, which has had the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez worth of spilled oil contaminate its soil and waterways every year for decades, leaving the common people impoverished and sick and resulting in internet scams, piracy, and terrorism being some of the country's major growth industries.

    Regulation can also drive innovation. For example, regulations on ozone-destroying CFCs led to a new generation of freezers and other products that worked just as well as the old ones without the unwanted side effect of destroying the ozone hole.

    On the other hand, other types of regulation are written by companies themselves (in cooperation with their pet lawmakers) specifically to give themselves an advantage over smaller competitors and this type of regulation can be very economically damaging. Check out Joel Salatin's "Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal" for countless examples from the food and ag industries alone.

  4. Billjordan profile image61
    Billjordanposted 4 years ago

    No but he will say so to gather votes. Tax breaks without Job creation is just political talk.

  5. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    Some have said the easy fix is everyone on Medicare. However that is socialist, and the politicians are owned by the capitalists, so best to eat and sleep right, if you're not rich.

  6. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    He is right to make you believe in the magic of their understanding of economics. The problem is that people are not forced to listen to what the politicians are saying. Since when did they listen to people's will?
    On youtube people are alluding to a future civil war. It would not surprise me, if it had to happen