|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
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?
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.
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.
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.
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%.
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.
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.
No but he will say so to gather votes. Tax breaks without Job creation is just political talk.
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.
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
by Dennis L. Page6 years ago
Do tax breaks for the rich really create jobs?Nick Hanauer, a venture capitalist states consumers create jobs and not the wealthy. He claims the rich only hire if consumers are buying goods and products and that there...
by nightwork47 years ago
should tax breaks be given only to companies that don't outsourse their jobs?why are companies that send jobs to other countries given tax breaks and how does these breaks help our economy if they do help at all.
by Bill Russo7 years ago
Should we give tax breaks to start-up companies developing wind, water, or solar power?Should we increase tax advantages to homeowners who install wind, water or solar power?
by Jack Lee8 months ago
In the 10 months of the Trump administration, we are seeing hard data that our economy is coming back. The stock market is a leading indicator of things to come. It has crossed over the 23000 mark.That is an 18%...
by Holle Abee7 years ago
I felt it my duty today, as a patriotic American, to help stimulate the economy. I took my three grown daughters and the youngest grandchild Christmas shopping today. We bought tons of toys at Toys R Us, then we went to...
by Dennis L. Page5 years ago
Where are the jobs?Should companies that outsource jobs receive tax breaks equal to the employers that keep jobs within a country's borders? If yes, why do you feel that philosophy is acceptable?
Copyright © 2018 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.