Sweden cutting income taxes to spur employment (1 Viewer)

[dtc]

Are you saying the Bush tax cuts caused our economy to tank? Are you kidding me? The economy grew and the country was at full employment following the Bush tax cuts.

It's sad to read the rantings of someone that has swilled the Koolaid. How can presidents change unemployment figures overnight? I have to question if Obama knows what he is doing. Obama insisted unemployment would not go over 8% once the unread, stimulus (pork) package was passed. Unemployment is not approaching 10% and in reality is probably over 16%.

Obama has spent more money in his 8 months (750b-stimulus) than Bush spent on the entire Iraqi war (650B).

Your whole argument is failing and you don't evens see it.

1. It's been pointed out that tax cuts are stimulative in the same manner as other govt stimulus.

2. You're arguing that tax cuts will help the economy and that the stimulus did not, but you don't understand they're essentially equivalent nor do you acknowledge that the ARRA was made up of some 40% tax cuts. It's as if you think tax cuts have to go to the rich to have their magic powers.

3. You're arguing that Obama's attempts to stimulate the economy didn't work simply because the numbers forecast as the top of the unemployment rate were incorrect. You're also inaccurately quoting the POTUS and, furthermore, it seems you see a relationship between an inaccurate forecast and the results of the stimulus despite well presented arguments and factual statements to the contrary.

I guess I'm going to take from this that you're simply partisan and have no desire to discuss the facts or accept anyone else's thoughts because you've already made up your mind.

Maybe you should take up a blog instead of a discussion? Just sayin.

 

[Crzycjunx76]

Krugman only won two Nobel Prizes, so we obviously don't have to listen to anything he has to say.

Look, I'm not saying everything he says is right or infallible, but you don't get anywhere in my eyes by discounting the opinions of a two-time Nobel Prize winner in economics for a reason you just made up.

Well Milton Friedman who also won said prize in Economics would undoubtedly disagree with him and I am inclined to side with Friedman.

Also the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences as the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is commonly called is not actually a Nobel Prize at all even though it is awarded at the Nobel Prize ceremony.

The Sveriges Riksbank also happens to be the Central band of Sweden, Sweden being one of the worst examples of a properly run economy in an industrialized nation that I can think of.

 

[BHM]

And, btw, it's not 911 we're having to recover from. 911 was truly stimulative. It's the excessive spending including nation building in Iraq that we're suffering from.

Could you please explain to me how 9/11 was a stimulative? It crippled our airline industry and all the related businesses associated with it from the show shine guy to airline meal providers. Vacation resorts were hit hard. Insurnace companies were hit hard. A year following the attacks, the stock market was still down almost 13%.

Other than security jobs, how did 9/11 stimulate our economy directly?

 

[dtc]

Could you please explain to me how 9/11 was a stimulative? It crippled our airline industry and all the related businesses associated with it from the show shine guy to airline meal providers. Vacation resorts were hit hard. Insurnace companies were hit hard. A year following the attacks, the stock market was still down almost 13%.

Other than security jobs, how did 9/11 stimulate our economy directly?

In the short run, 9/11 was a negative event. Over the longer run, I don't believe it was. Frankly, the government spent more money on 911 recovery than they probably have on Katrina despite damage being confined to a smaller geographic area.

Anyway, to answer your question, it was not DIRECTLY stimulative, but the FEMA money in NYC and elsewhere, the re-investment, increases in fuel costs and, ultimately, war in the ME were.

Now please none of you construe this as me saying 911 was good. I'm just pointing out the fact that everything that was broken had to be fixed and fixing costs money. That money came from government and private spending. Decreases in interest rates from the FED in response to 911 contributed greatly to the housing bubble imho and the irresponsible fiscal policies of the Bush Administration which most right wingers excuse because of 911 delayed the natural downward cycle movement putting it off essentially until NOW. Those actions in response to the attacks stimulated us away from the recession we should have seen.

Essentially, my thoughts lead me to believe that the actions of the govt in response to 911 force fed the economy sugar and caffeine to stave off a due recession from the dotcom bubble. Tax cuts and borrowing contributed to 100% increases in federal debt over the time since 911. That government printing kept us going without paying the piper.

Had 911 never occurred, we most likely would have seen a mild recession and slower growth obviously without the short term spike immediately after the attacks.