Can any post any real data, that shows that Tax Cuts really create jobs:
http://blogs.forbes.com/petercohan/2011/05/03/do-tax-cuts-create-jobs/ (http://blogs.forbes.com/petercohan/2011/05/03/do-tax-cuts-create-jobs/)
The Above Link says that tax cuts do not, if someone could post some data that shows an increase in job growth, I will be happy to read it.
According to the Heritage Foundation we are 9th in world for Economic Freedom:
http://www.heritage.org/Index/
There is no data because it doesn't happen.
High taxes provide a strong incentive for businesses to invest in themselves as a tax shelter.
Low taxes provide a strong incentive to slash costs and take the profit.
Do lower taxes increase consumer demand? If it did that, it would create jobs indirectly. Maybe that's a concept worth looking at.
Lowering unemployment would be done ultimately making more of a demand for the services of workers. Businesses with extra money lying around wouldn't necessarily just hire more people unless there was a need and reason for those people to be there.
Thank you all for the replies. As I figured, my Trickle Down Folks could not come up with any data to support their claims.
Einstein nailed it when he describe reality as being relative. If taxes are too high cutting them can have benefits. The benefits however tend to go to wherever they will get the relatively highest ROI. The problem with being a rich country and trying trickle down (VooDoo) economics.
So after 30years of tax cuts we get no bang for the buck anymore. If we do try tax cuts the Regan/Clinton free trade instead of fair trade agreements screw us out of any benefits cuts may contain anyway.
Quote from: JeffreyS on August 08, 2011, 10:46:20 AM
Einstein nailed it when he describe reality as being relative. If taxes are too high cutting them can have benefits. The benefits however tend to go to wherever they will get the relatively highest ROI. The problem with being a rich country and trying trickle down (VooDoo) economics.
So after 30years of tax cuts we get no bang for the buck anymore. If we do try tax cuts the Regan/Clinton free trade instead of fair trade agreements screw us out of any benefits cuts may contain anyway.
Good points Jeff.
Bushes Daddy introduced us to that Voodoo Economics Term.
Economics is opinion.
It's akin to trying to rationalize chaos.
Tax cuts do not create jobs. Kind of a no brainer.
Demand for goods and services causes an increase in jobs. (That increase is not a constant.)
Tax cuts can (but do not necessarily) attribute to an increase in demand for goods and services. That is, provided that the money that remains in the private sector is actually spent (domestically). If that wealth is stored... as in commodities such as Gold, (or in the case of institutional banking, ca$h {a poor means of storing wealth, BTW}) well then, not so much in the way of increased demand for goods and services.
It's a large part of what is going on today.
To say that tax cuts = jobs is wrong.
To say that tax cuts cannot influence the creation of jobs is wrong.
It's a bigger issue than tax cuts vs no tax cuts.
Quote from: manasia on August 07, 2011, 06:06:50 PM
Can any post any real data, that shows that Tax Cuts really create jobs:
http://blogs.forbes.com/petercohan/2011/05/03/do-tax-cuts-create-jobs/ (http://blogs.forbes.com/petercohan/2011/05/03/do-tax-cuts-create-jobs/)
The Above Link says that tax cuts do not, if someone could post some data that shows an increase in job growth, I will be happy to read it.
Thanks for posting!
Supply-side economics doesn't work.......we've tried it for 30 years already. It's demand side economics (demand for goods and services that drives the economy), that also implies that tax-cuts for the middle class have a higher job creation effect than tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy.
Next time the wacko tax cut mythology comes up in conversation with the rigid right wing, just point to this chart to put the charade to rest:
(http://www.beatthesqueeze.com/images/issues/effective_stimulus.jpg)
Clearly, we HURT our economy with the tax cuts..........they do NOTHING TO IMPROVE GDP. in fact they make our GDP deteriorate..........more so in the case of tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy vs tax cuts for the middle class.
And the explanation is simple:
1. Give an unemployed person unemployment benefits and the entire amount (100%) goes right back into our economy through increased demand for goods and services.
2. give a middle class person a tax cut, and a portion goes to increased spending, but some of it gets squirelled away. (less than 100% goes back in the economy through increased demand for goods and services)
3. give the ultra-wealthy person a tax cut, and they are not spending any more money, since they were already able to buy whatever they wanted ( no ie 0% increased demand for goods and services)
Jobs are only created when there is an increased demand for goods and services, plain and simple.
It's not like: " Look, I've got some extra money this month, lets create a job with that" It doesn't work that way.
NO Demand= No Jobs created
By all means... PLEASE raise taxes already. Campaign on it... and run with it... and do it already. :)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 10, 2011, 12:29:12 PM
By all means... PLEASE raise taxes already. Campaign on it... and run with it... and do it already. :)
The time to do it was when we started those 2 wars: Never in the history of the US have we waged war on a credit card!!
A war tax is what is needed. You want war? You pay for it, plain and simple!!
Also, if we didn't have a system where the ultra-wealthy BUY elections, we could easily return back to the Clinton era taxes!
More common ground with Faye!
(Although I would still be opposed to the wars on moral grounds... attacking a sovereign nation which did not attack us)
QuoteAlso, if we didn't have a system where the ultra-wealthy BUY elections, we could easily return back to the Clinton era taxes!
Does that include our current President?
Why oh why... when dems owned the House... the Senate and the Executive... they not only did not raise taxes... they extended W's tax rate?
I said it before and I will say it again. I really dont think Dems WANT to raise taxes. They want to talk about raising taxes... They want to use taxes as a talking point...
I love how your arguments always leave off the culpability of the democrats. Because THAT is truly the issue with ALL of this. Both sides are intertwined in this... While you take great delight in simply pointing to republican culpability... I... in the spirit of bi partisanship blame them both. :)
BT has a point. To really eliminate the current $1.5 Trillion deficit though taxation would require raising taxes for ALL Americans. If the Dems really want to "increase revenue", then why hasn't a bill been proposed? The Reps have proposed several bills, most prominently the Ryan plan and Cut, Cap, and Balance. Shouldn't the Dem's put their money where their mouth is?
Of course the truth is just obvious. Although the Dems hold power in the government, they have failed to lead. The Reps have not been much better. We remain a country in search of leadership, serious statesmen/women who will "do what it takes" to put our house in order.
An FDR perhaps.
True enough... in the simplistic scenario you provide. Dems have the same fondness for ex lax as republicans. Come to think of it... too much ex lax accurately describes things doesn't it...
And of course, the restaurant analogy is faulty because StephenDare! refuse to acknowledge any Democrat culpability in the current Federal problems. Blind? Weak minded? Partisan? Call it what you want, but his mistake is obvious to the rest of us.
Quote from: JeffreyS on August 10, 2011, 02:06:56 PM
An FDR perhaps.
While I completely disagree with his policies, he DID lead the country. Of course, so did Fidel.
Well, I certainly can't see any evidence of job creation right now.
Of course, you know that I am a proponent of the fair tax.
I absolutely don't believe that you can tax the upper half of income earners and redistribute the money as political largess and call it "job creation".
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Chart_1.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Us_unemployment_rates_1950_2005.png
I hope these two graphs upload. If you are able to view them I think they provide evidence for both arguments. The 90's we had a period of comparably lower taxes and a decrease in unemployment. For the most part in the 50's, 60's, and 70's we had higher taxes and lower unemployment. There is that time period around 1976 where taxes remained high for the upper income earners but the unemployment rate was above 8%.
Take me back to the Clinton years. I'll be happy.
Quote from: A-Finnius on August 10, 2011, 02:24:00 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Chart_1.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Us_unemployment_rates_1950_2005.png
I hope these two graphs upload. If you are able to view them I think they provide evidence for both arguments. The 90's we had a period of comparably lower taxes and a decrease in unemployment. For the most part in the 50's, 60's, and 70's we had higher taxes and lower unemployment. There is that time period around 1976 where taxes remained high for the upper income earners but the unemployment rate was above 8%.
Take me back to the Clinton years. I'll be happy.
Ugh.. they didn't upload.. but at least you have the links...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 10, 2011, 12:52:29 PM
I said it before and I will say it again. I really dont think Dems WANT to raise taxes. They want to talk about raising taxes... They want to use taxes as a talking point...
Absolutely correct...and it's not just with taxes. Its practically EVERYTHING they rant about - taxes, the war, health care, etc. They had completely, unblockable control, and they didn't even TRY for the things they claimed were "right." I'm with you - the left would rather have what they think is a useful cudgel than act on the courage of their convictions.
I suspect someone is whispering in Mrs. Clinton's ear right now. ;)
The question is farcical. No one has proposed tax cuts here. The Obama tax cut extension was just that, an extension of the previous tax rate. I believe that the current argument is that increasing taxes right now would threaten jobs. That is my understanding of why the Obama administration extended the "tax cuts".
We could spend much time and many pages arguing economic theory (and we do). Perhaps a more thoughtful question is in order?
Are we creating new jobs or just giving back the jobs that the 10s of thousands lost over the last 3-4 years?
Quote from: stephendare on August 10, 2011, 02:33:09 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 10, 2011, 02:13:34 PM
So bridgetroll. and notnow.
Any evidence that Tax Cuts lead to Job Creation?
Since that is the point of this thread?
I have no intention of rehashing the past thirty years. Reagan first lowered taxes and brought us out of multiple cycles of recession and inflation... sparking an economic engine that now looks to be running out of steam. Bush I and Clinton made minor modifications to tax rates. At the end of the Clinton administration the country was headed for a recession and prompted W (and of course congress) to enact "the Bush tax cuts". Of course 911 happened along with Saddams antics.
Few would disagree that the past thirty years were pretty prosperous.
One thing that has most definitely increased over that time frame is spending. Spending keeps climbing regardless of administration or congress... rep or dem... we keep increasing our spending. I am not in favor of raising taxes... just so we can increase spending some more. You could get me to agree to a tax increase... possibly... IF it accompanied with a real halt or decrease in spending.
Or... you can do it with out me. If congress and the president raise taxes... I will dutifully pay mine.
It is actually an economic theory...that your party has signed onto. As stated previously, we could all point to graphs of points in time that might support on way or another, but really it is about perception. And BOTH parties subscribe to this theory at least in part. The Dems have avoided raising the income tax rate ostensibly because of this reason, and the President quoted this theory when he extended the "tax cuts". Like any theory, this one is true because all of the practicing participants BELIEVE that it is true.
I eagerly await the tax proposal that YOU have in mind. Oh but you have already posted that haven't you? 90% taxation anyone?
Our taxes are too low to support the kind of government that most people want and the military we have built and the wars we are in. This has been true for a couple of decades now. The problem is simple. It's the solutions that are hard.
I agree with most of your statement DW. Except for the "kind of government most people want". I believe that if you actually told the public the truth about the cost to them for many government programs, they would just say no. Claiming such things as insuring tens of millions of people for no cost is a good bit of our problem.
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 10, 2011, 03:21:18 PM
Our taxes are too low to support the kind of government that most people want and the military we have built and the wars we are in. This has been true for a couple of decades now. The problem is simple. It's the solutions that are hard.
If it has been true for a couple of decades then my premise is correct. The problem is quite obviously bi partisan. Over those thirty years we have had democrat and republican presidents and democrat and republican majorities in congress.
BOTH sides have had opportunities to raise taxes... or lower spending... and neither side does it.
Like Stephen suggested... we have been served too much ex lax by the only restaurant in town...
Quote from: stephendare on August 10, 2011, 03:26:46 PM
Quote from: NotNow on August 10, 2011, 03:12:19 PM
It is actually an economic theory...that your party has signed onto. As stated previously, we could all point to graphs of points in time that might support on way or another, but really it is about perception. And BOTH parties subscribe to this theory at least in part. The Dems have avoided raising the income tax rate ostensibly because of this reason, and the President quoted this theory when he extended the "tax cuts". Like any theory, this one is true because all of the practicing participants BELIEVE that it is true.
I eagerly await the tax proposal that YOU have in mind. Oh but you have already posted that haven't you? 90% taxation anyone?
so are you saying that there is NO evidence to support this 'theory'?
No, I am saying that the fact that the actual practitioners of macro economics subscribe to the theory. That in itself is evidence.
Quote from: stephendare on August 10, 2011, 03:35:02 PM
Quote from: NotNow on August 10, 2011, 03:31:01 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 10, 2011, 03:26:46 PM
Quote from: NotNow on August 10, 2011, 03:12:19 PM
It is actually an economic theory...that your party has signed onto. As stated previously, we could all point to graphs of points in time that might support on way or another, but really it is about perception. And BOTH parties subscribe to this theory at least in part. The Dems have avoided raising the income tax rate ostensibly because of this reason, and the President quoted this theory when he extended the "tax cuts". Like any theory, this one is true because all of the practicing participants BELIEVE that it is true.
I eagerly await the tax proposal that YOU have in mind. Oh but you have already posted that haven't you? 90% taxation anyone?
so are you saying that there is NO evidence to support this 'theory'?
No, I am saying that the fact that the actual practitioners of macro economics subscribe to the theory. That in itself is evidence.
but not hard evidence connected to actual events?
Just because someone subscribes to something, does not mean it works. If something works, especially something as quantifiable as results from tax cuts, then would post evidence of it.
If their was real evidence for it, we would not be having this discussion.
I believe in MMT - Modern Monetary Theory, I enjoy it, but can I show you evidence that it works, no not really. I can show you theories, but I cannot produce any evidence that it actually works, because it is not practiced that much by modern governments.
Tax Cuts have been practiced, and yet not even the CBO, BLS, or any proponent of them can display evidence that they work.
So what do you propose? I oppose confiscatory taxes base on principle and fairness. I don't like the income tax and I believe that ALL citizens should contribute to the society.
Quote from: NotNow on August 10, 2011, 04:14:44 PM
So what do you propose? I oppose conficatory taxes base on principle and fairness. I don't like the income tax and I believe that ALL citizens should contribute to the society.
Taxation is a challenging Subject. I prefer a flat tax, and total abolition of the IRS tax code. But I wonder if a Flat Tax can really provide the revenue streams, that are required by government.
"What is required by the government" is a lot of the debate as well, isn't it? And all of the calls to "pay for the wars" would be answered with a balanced budget amendment, wouldn't they?
And people who beleive as I do would say "What is authorized for the government to do."
NN, under the constraints of a balanced budget amendment, in a national emergency like WWII, taxes would have to be so high that it would be an economy and jobs killer. A government just has to be able to borrow at certain times for security and economic reasons. Remember War Bonds?
Absolutely agree that we are borrowing to much for general operating expenses and a couple of "off the books" wars. Why were they put off the books anyway? Don't I remember some talk from Dick Cheney about the Iraq war paying for itself with the revenues from Iraqi oil?
Agreed that there will have to be an exception for emergency and agreement on a definition of that.
I don't remember Cheney or anyone else in government talking about seizing Iraqi oil. We tried the Marshall plan and it didn't work again. I wonder when we will put that practice to rest.
The Marshall Plan DID work the first time because it was financing a well educated, experienced, civil society that simply needed some money to rebuild after the war. It was a smashing success then. We were nation rebuilding. There were nations there already.
NONE of those conditions applied to Iraq or Afghanistan. Trying to nation build in those places is/was absolutely foolish. Remember the punch line of the old joke, "and it just irritates the donkey" ?
This just posted on Politico by Sen. Bill Nelson:
QuoteClose the tax loopholes
We have to put the country back on the path to fiscal sanity, the author writes.
By SEN. BILL NELSON | 8/10/11 4:41 AM EDT
After watching Standard & Poor’s performance in the Enron and housing debacles, it’s hard to stomach their decision to downgrade America’s credit.
But even coming from S&P, there is a message we should hear: The finger pointing and hyper-partisanship has to stop. If it doesn’t, we really will be on the road to ruin.
Democrats need to see tea partiers as something other than debt-limit hostage-taking Republicans. And Republicans need to see President Barack Obama and Democrats as something other than big-spending socialists.
We’ve got to stop this attack madness. We have to bring civility back to the public square. We have to put the country back on the path to fiscal sanity.
To do that, we need to cut some $4 trillion to $5 trillion. We made a down payment on this with the $2 trillion dollars we cut just last week. Now we need to go further.
To understand what we have to do, though, we first need to look at how we got here.
We went from a $236 billion budget surplus in 2000 to a $1.3 trillion deficit last year â€" and a record $14 trillion debt.
A huge chunk of the debt comes from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We’re bringing the troops home.
Another significant piece stems from the Bush-era tax cuts. Warren Buffett, chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway, says the tax cuts for the wealthy should be left to expire. They’re set to do so at the end of next year. We should let that happen.
Agree or not, don’t you think most Americans were better off before the tax cuts than they are now?
Much of the rest of the debt comes from the economic downturn since 2008.
That brings us to today. And there’s no mystery about what we have to do. It’s just common sense. In addition to the spending cuts Congress just made, we need tax reform.
And by tax reform, I mean closing loopholes, special interest tax breaks and corporate subsidies. It’s just plain wrong to be protecting tax breaks for oil companies and to be rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas.
As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee’s Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Growth Subcommittee, I’ve scheduled a hearing for early September to investigate closing many of these loopholes. Doing so will likely generate $2 trillion over the next decade. Add that to the $2 trillion in spending cuts we’ve made â€" and we’re in the $4 trillion range that we need to hit.
It’s time to stop the shouting and bickering and political attacks. It’s time to show the world that America can take care of business.
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) is a member of the Senate Finance and Budget committees.
Quote from: manasia on August 10, 2011, 04:18:40 PM
Quote from: NotNow on August 10, 2011, 04:14:44 PM
So what do you propose? I oppose conficatory taxes base on principle and fairness. I don't like the income tax and I believe that ALL citizens should contribute to the society.
Taxation is a challenging Subject. I prefer a flat tax, and total abolition of the IRS tax code. But I wonder if a Flat Tax can really provide the revenue streams, that are required by government.
yes
RESTATING THE FACTS: Since 1980 wages for the bottom 90% of Americans has paralleled inflation.
This means your salary does not buy any more now than it did then, even though the amount of the check has gotten bigger. So have your bills. BUT the TOP 10% have grown their paychecks and their wealth exponentially.
That greater economic power allows them access to Politicians, which allows them access to policy. They can get tax policy to work in their favor. This has been a constant since Reagan's presidency. "Citizens United" has unleashed floodgates of money into our political process, further corrupting it. AND the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court made it happen, further erroding most folks trust in the Judiciary.
FINALLY: If the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy actually created jobs our economy would be blazing right now.
10 years and $1.5 billion (in tax cuts ) later, it didn't work and our economy is smoldering.
Quote from: MusicMan on August 10, 2011, 06:01:17 PM
FINALLY: If the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy actually created jobs our economy would be blazing right now.
10 years and $1.5 billion (in tax cuts ) later, it didn't work and our economy is smoldering.
Perhaps you could help me out here...is there a point where someone suggests that tax policy occurs in a vacuum? Because if not, you are after nothing more than a straw man...
OK, so you think that the US should have seized Iraqi oil as payment? DW's point (I think) was that Iraqi oil should have paid for the war there. I just didn't recall the formal proposal. Of course, neither the Bush or Obama administrations have chosen to do this, but if you are for it, OK.
No, I NEVER believed the bull stuff that the war would be paid for out of Iraqi oil revenues. (Thanks for finding those clips, Stephen) Nor did I ever believe that there were "weapons of mass destruction" there either. Both were blatant lies to get us to quietly go along with an unnecessary war that W wanted to prove that he was a warrior like his daddy and not a weiney, draft dodging, drunken frat boy, which he was.
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 11, 2011, 10:09:41 AM
.... a weiney, draft dodging, drunken frat boy, which he was.
Ha! So, DW, tell us how you
really feel about Dubya.....
The moderators wouldn't let me do that on a public forum. ;D
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 11, 2011, 10:16:17 AM
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 11, 2011, 10:09:41 AM
.... a weiney, draft dodging, drunken frat boy, which he was.
Ha! So, DW, tell us how you really feel about Dubya.....
Guess that shows that you can turn your life around huh... Pilot in the National guard, quit drinking, got married, and became president.
He was a pilot in the National Guard and seldom showed up for duty to avoid being drafted and sent to Vietnam. He was drinking heavily well after he got married. The fine woman who is his wife was probably the main reason he quit drinking.
And, in my opinion, he was mostly a sock-puppet president. Ironically, the Iraq war was probably one of the few times he was making independent policy.
LOL... sounds like someone else we all know and love...
Quoteavoid being drafted and sent to Vietnam
Not making excuses for him but... please ... lets be fair and real. He joined the NG... trained as a fighter pilot, earned his wings. He did not finish his obligation... and I do not excuse it. But I can also think of a couple recent presidents with no military service with one of then actively avoiding the draft altogether.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/felon.asp
Agreed, he earned his wings. I'll take back the draft-dodging, but not the war-avoiding. Then again, a lot of us avoided that other unnecessary war, but a lot of us didn't have to political connections to get into the National Guard to do so.
When will we ever learn?
His daddy was a genuine warrior hero in WWII. It must be tough to try to live up to that.
Quote from: stephendare on August 11, 2011, 10:50:49 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 11, 2011, 10:45:16 AM
LOL... sounds like someone else we all know and love...
Quoteavoid being drafted and sent to Vietnam
Not making excuses for him but... please ... lets be fair and real. He joined the NG... trained as a fighter pilot, earned his wings. He did not finish his obligation... and I do not excuse it. But I can also think of a couple recent presidents with no military service with one of then actively avoiding the draft altogether.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/felon.asp
So even the personal failings of a single man are covered by the blood of jesus similar failings as long as there is a democrat involved?
Dont you ever get tired of trying to defer blame onto the democrats, bridge troll?
To be honest, I think this is why your party and likeminded people are going to get another clock cleaning this election.
And looking back over the past 4 years, can you name a single instance where you chose the partisan approach and werent proven wrong by events themselves?
I'm not defering blame. Simply pointing out the hypocrisy. If you are gonna call W a draft dodger... then you better include Mr Clinton into the conversation. After all... we all want to be fair right?
Sorry, guys. I didn't mean to pull the thread so far off topic.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 10, 2011, 03:08:29 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 10, 2011, 02:33:09 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 10, 2011, 02:13:34 PM
So bridgetroll. and notnow.
Any evidence that Tax Cuts lead to Job Creation?
Since that is the point of this thread?
I have no intention of rehashing the past thirty years. Reagan first lowered taxes and brought us out of multiple cycles of recession and inflation... sparking an economic engine that now looks to be running out of steam. Bush I and Clinton made minor modifications to tax rates. At the end of the Clinton administration the country was headed for a recession and prompted W (and of course congress) to enact "the Bush tax cuts". Of course 911 happened along with Saddams antics.
Few would disagree that the past thirty years were pretty prosperous.
One thing that has most definitely increased over that time frame is spending. Spending keeps climbing regardless of administration or congress... rep or dem... we keep increasing our spending. I am not in favor of raising taxes... just so we can increase spending some more. You could get me to agree to a tax increase... possibly... IF it accompanied with a real halt or decrease in spending.
Or... you can do it with out me. If congress and the president raise taxes... I will dutifully pay mine.
I answered long ago...
Closer to home... Mayor Brown (who you endorse and volunteered) wants to do exactly what I an others like me want. He is decreasing the government budget while (i think his quote was) not raising fee's or taxes. Does that make him a republican or Tea Partier?
Quotebut would you equate prosperity, or economic growth with debt based expenditure?
I could see where people would do that. In the long run... it is an illusion.
QuoteI'm sure you remember a time when only rich people had Mastercards or American Express. Most people simply could not qualify for them. People used their checkbooks in public restaurants and most transactions were cash.
Yes I do. The only reason people incurred debt was to buy a house (only after a substantial downpayment), a car (same DP requirements). In both of these circumstances you needed a good credit rating. If you wanted something at Sears you could not afford you saved your money... or... you put the item on layaway and when it was paid off you took it home.
Debt was NOT the norm. Late payments and bankruptcy was taboo.
My how times have changed. Debt is now the norm. The use of cash to pay for items is openly discouraged. High risk borrowers are being lent money when it is a coin toss whether the money will actually get paid off. Our non house/car indebtedness is through the roof and savings are low.
I personally disapprove of this type of finance... both in personal/private finance and in public/governmental arenas. I am not judging others money matters... simply my own. How others run their finances is none of my business.
I have my parents to blame/thank for this attitude about money. It has served me well.
I apply my own old fashioned attitude towards the financing of the government. We are ALOT in debt... and it keeps growing. Every year. Even in economic lexicon a "spending cut" is really just a cut to a proposed increase in spending. There is no commitment to pay anything off... we only commit to keep making payments.
I believe Dems(not the candidates) want to talk about raising taxes... and berate reps who oppose raising taxes... but your candidates never seem to actually run for office on tax increases and spending increases. I actually hope the dems up for election in this cycle actually propose tax increases and spending increases as a major part of their platform
I have said before... I could... possibly commit to increased taxes... provided spending was halted or cut back. I realize this is a pipe dream... it will never happen.