Quote:
Originally posted by shakran
1) "factory activity" does not necessarilly mean "lots of jobs were created." It could, and probably does, mean that factories are producing more with fewer people than in the past. Meanwhile, Bush wants to cut the workers' overtime pay. Comes through for the working man my foot.
2) Cutting taxes while increasing spending to gargantuan proportions WILL stimulate the economy, but ONLY in the short term. It is not sustainable. That extra 4 or 5 grand in your pocket won't mean jack when the economy tanks again.
A simple explanation of this is: If you have $10, and you get $1, you now have $11. But if the value of the dollar falls so that your $11 can only buy as much as $9 bought before, you have actually LOST a real dollar, even though you appear to have gained one. Cash in your pocket is meaningless if the economy tanks.
3) Here comes the old "it takes 8 years for presidential policy to have an effect on the economy" - this is the excuse republicans used to claim Clinton didn't turn the economy around at all. Unfortunately, those same republicans had 12 YEARS to try trickledown economics and it didn't help anything. If it takes 8 years for a good economic policy to effect the economy positively, and they had 12 years, then obviously their economic plan isn't a good one.
These same republicans are now crowing that, in less than 4 years, Bush Jr. has boosted the economy, despite the fact that they claimed Clinton couldn't have boosted it in his first 4 years because of the 8 year rule. These arguments are made separately from each other in the hopes that the ignorant masses will fall for it, and in many cases those hopes have been realized.
The real story is very simple. You cannot cut your income while increasing your expenditures without winding up in a worse financial situation than you were before. Who here thinks that reducing their salary while increasing the amount of stuff they buy would result in them getting rich?
|
1. Yep, activity does not mean jobs.
2. First off, the spending does not significantly impact the economy. Look at the size of the economy versus the spending. It's a drop of water in the sea. Second, I don't know where you're getting the 4 or 5k figure but regardless, there's little evidence that there's inflation, so your spending power is not decreasing. Third, which would you feel better about in the face of a tanking economy, having that 4 or 5k you speak of or the government having it? Fourth, can you honestly say that the economy isn't going to tank again if the government just had more money? Of course it's going to tank again and there's not a person alive who can control it.
3. I'm a Republican and I've been saying the Pres has virtually no influence over the economy. Your brethren point to Bush as being the cause of the downturn, does that mean the election of a President retroactively effects the economy? Please. The economy moves in cycles the President simply suffers or prospers at the hand of the economy's performance.
And lastly, why would we want to make the government rich?