09-15-2008, 01:58 PM
|
|
|
Hello world!
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 12,508
|
Is McCain's economic plan any different than the "trickle down theory" described below?
Quote:
History has shown that the ?trickle down theory? does not work. Republican President Hoover tried the ?trickle down? theory (his words) to solve economic problems during the last few years of his only term, when the greatest economic depression this country has ever faced began. It is often called the Republican Depression because it was their financial philosophy that led to the collapse of the economy. Tax cuts for the rich did not work and things got worse.
President Roosevelt got into office, raised taxes on the rich, created jobs for the poor and turned things around. Mr. Reagan employed Hoover?s failed trickle down theory again in the ?80s and again it did not work. The rich got richer, but the poor got poorer and the economy declined. Mr. Bush Sr., who always had a problem with the ?vision thing?, continued the failed policy of his immediate predecessor.
Mr. Clinton took a more progressive approach and, as Roosevelt had done, turned the Hoover model upside down. Instead of making the rich richer in the hope that they would spend that money and thus create demand and therefore jobs, he created a tax environment that encouraged the creation of jobs directly. It was an economic environment where everyone could get rich, not just a few, and it worked. Lots of jobs and lots of new millionaires were created while Clinton was in office. More new millionaires were created during the Clinton administration than at any other time in our history.
President Bush II slipped into office and once again applied the Neo-Con manta of the old trickle down tax model and immediately created a need to raise the debt level to pay for an unjustified tax cut in 2001. Predictably (and before 9/11) the nation lost jobs and there were fewer new millionaires. Not learning from his past mistakes, Bush pushed through yet more tax cuts in 2003, 2005 and 2006 -- all while expanding the military, the largest single component of the budget. He and his lap dog Republican Congress never learned from their mistakes. As a result, the national debt has increased an average of $1.5 billion per day since the beginning of 2002.
While it is a great jabbing sound bite, the facts show that the ?tax and spend? rhetoric Republicans often spew about Democrats is not as bad as it sounds. Taxing before spending actually reflects good government. The facts also show that it most often takes a Democratic President to control and reduce spending. The truth is that the Republicans are the party of ?borrow and spend?. They hate taxes, but love to spend; their solution is to put off paying till later for our security today. They prefer to see our children pay for their debt. Neo-Conservative thinking has run up over an 8.5 trillion dollar debt that will not be paid off for a generation or more, and is still increasing at an astounding rate with no end to deficit spending in sight.
|
- http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
Is his tax plan any different from the Bush Tax cuts (or rather tax shift) described below?
Quote:
If spending increases, as it has under the current administration, then sooner or later taxes must increase (or inflation, a type of tax, will go up)...
Today, conservatives seem to believe that the public does want big government and that the only way to curb government growth it is to fool the public with lower taxes today so that the costs of government will be so high tomorrow that no one will accept the offer....
Will deficits in fact force future administrations to cut spending? It?s possible but I am fearful. The combination of changing demographics and current tax cuts is seeding our economy for a fiscal ?perfect storm.? When the storm hits there will be a crisis, and as economist and historian Robert Higgs has ably demonstrated in Crisis and Leviathan, small government rarely does well in a crisis...
Today it is evident that we have two political parties: the Tax and Spenders and the No-Tax and Spenders. Neither party is fiscally conservative. Is there no room at the inn for an honest conservative? A conservative who makes the case for smaller government on its merits and not just as the fallback option when fiscal bankruptcy threatens?
|
- http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1143 |
|
|