Tax cuts VS. Spending on infrastructure

I agree that Trickle Down economics didn't work, hasn't worked, and will never work as an economic theory. We have tried it twice, and both times it ended up hurting the country for year (remember it took Clinton almost ten years to fix the reagan economy). I agree that creating jobs in infrastructure won't solve all of our problems, but it will be a bridge till the economy can get better. I agree that we need to change our country back to a producing economy, instead of a consuming economy. We need to enact mirror trading so we are on an even playing field with our trading partners, and if we have trade agreements that are not fair, then we need to rewrite them. We are the most powerful country in the world, and we have some trade agreements that treat us like a third world country. We need to stop that, right away.

Wkl, President Reagan signed his tax cuts, along side his spending bills. They were a compromise to get what both parties wanted. As today Bush's Billionaire welfare (you call them tax cuts for the rich) is still alive, so why aren't companies using is tax cuts to hire employees? As a matter of fact, they are still getting these tax cuts and are firing employees to the tune of 1 million in the last two months, with many more to come. I guess that shot your tax cuts equals hiring out the window. Bush got rid of paygo, which forced congress to off set every new spending program with a cut in another to off set the cost. He didn't like it because it limited the amount of money he could spend, and Bush LOVED to spend everyone elses money. Need I remind you that Bush had total control of the government from 2005 to 2007, and if you look at the bills passed during this time you will see that the republicans spent like drunken sailors, and Bush never vetoed one of these bills. Speaking of Socialism, why is it that republicans call liberals Socialist, yet everytime they use Trickle Down economics the government ends up Socializing the loses, while corporations privative the profits. So if you want to call anyone Socialist, I guess that would republicans. Well your tax cuts, Bush's spending, and lack of regulation that led to the collapse of the housing market have led our country to a point where our entire economy is on the brink of total collapse. I think that the vast majority of Americans would agree with me when it comes to Bush's economy vs. Clinton's.

Yes, President Reagan signed the spending bill along with the tax cuts but the Government does need to spend to keep running. If you check history you will find the deal as for congress to cut spending to do the off set the supposed money lose by the tax cuts. This did not happen, but the coffers had more money coming in. I received a tax cut from Bush and I am not a millionaire. Of course in 2010 you will have what you want when the Bush tax cuts run out. This will be the tax increase that Obama promised he would not do. Companies are hurting do to the fact that the economy that is affected by the congress and president, past and present, is hurting. I did see many companies hiring for most of the years that Bush was in office. If I am correct, the unemployment rate was under 5% and this is considered full employment. 7 out of 8 years of high employment makes a good record. Bush can not get rid of pay as you go without congress. Republicans may have been in charge but the democrats did block anything they wanted to do to the fact that 60 votes are needed to pass anything through the senate. That means democrats also voted for it. If they did not want this to fall, it was easy for them to block. As to Bush spending, read the constitution and find out what part of the government is in charge of spending. He is one vate that is all. I am not disagreeing that the republicans were that in name only (rino), But they sure were not conservative. The government should not socailize any business. They do a terrible running what they supposed to handle. They can not control their own spending and they want to get their hands into private business. If they followed the founding fathers they would let the businesses such as the auto makers and the banks follow the course of action set up by the laws and sit baqck and watch the outcome. If the business fails so be it. My money, yes the taxes that I pay is my money, does not belong being given to private industry to try to bail them out. Government is doing this to get some control of these private businesses and I hope that some one tries to stop it. Even if the supreme court has to rule it unconstitutional. What lead to the housing market collapse was CONGRESS. They passed laws that forced morgage leaders to lend money to people that can not afford it. That is why there are sub primr and arm morgages. If Barney Frank, Chris Dod and the other democratic leadership had not stopped the investigation into Fanny Mae and Freddie Mack (these people got donations from them) the collapse may not be as bad or have happened at all. The republicans tried to check this a few years ago and was blocked by the democrats. Yes they had enough votes to block it. By the way, the economy problem is world wide. Bush must have run the world to destroy the world economy. Check history, it ahs been proved that Clinton's economy was not as god as thought. Ex-president Clinton fudged numbers simular to Enron. I know that tax cuts including Reagan's and Bush's very much helped the economy. President Kennedy also agreed with tax cuts for growing the economy. Thanks for a vet healthy discussion.

Bush's tax cuts should have been temporary, that way when you have a problem like we do now, you can lower then again and help to stimulate the eonomy. Many ecnomist were saying this in 2005, but republicans were greedy, and didn't want to raise taxes (not really a rise in taxes, but republicans feel any rise in taxes is a tax increase even if it is only putting the rate back to where it was). Let me ask you a question: Was that tax cut worth the economy we have now? The reason Bush's employement number were so low is because many people are under employed (working part time, or less than 20 hours a week, or not making enough to raise a family). Many Americans are working multiple jobs just to make ends meet. Durning the Bush administration Americans increased spending because they were using their houses as ATM's, it wasn't Bush's booming economy, it was low interest rates, and lax lending that led to where we are today. Bush's unemployment is good, but his economy as a whole won't go down in history as a anywhere near good. Bush side stepped Paygo, and wanted nothing at all to do with limits on his spending. Remember D!ck Cheney saying that deficits aren't a bad thing? Do you still think that Cheney was right? The government has socialized the defense industry: How has that worked out for us? I wouldn't even try to go back to what the founding fathers would have thought. These are entirely different times then back then, and they I have no idea what they would do. Your taxpayer dollars are handed out every single day to corporations around the world, even ones that support terrorism. The reason why the government is giving this money out is because republicans HATE regulations, and have done everything in their power to limit it. If we had more regulations, and regulators than our current economic problems would NEVER have happened. But, I am sure you will disagree with that. I really enjoy that idea that congress forced these companies to loan to people that couldn't afford it. If you look at the forclosure rates of Million dollar + houses it would amaze you. Congress never told banks they had to make loans on Jumbo mortgages, and they never covered them, but may have gone into forclosure. The real reason this happened was the fact that a group of men came up with a way to munipulate the system using AIG's insurance division, and the complete lack of regulation by the Bush administration. If you talk to anyone that actually knows what happened, they will tell you all about it, but if you want to listen to republican talking points you won't have a clue (kind of like right now). Don't you remember during the election when John Sidney McCain said that he warned the world in 2005, along with George W. Bush about the housing bubble? There is one problem with what he said: See at that time republicans controlled the entire goverment, and democrats couldn't block any investigation. Barney Frank didn't led anything, and republicans didn't do one damn thing because that would be regulating, and republicans HATE regulations. Even if they did investigate Fanny Mae, and Freddie Mack, they won't discover what was really doing on because it really wasn't that issue that brought down the housing market, it was AIG's balance sheet. The reason the global economy is bad is because we buy everyone elses products, thus when we stop buying products, the world stops making products, and then you have a world wide recession. Anything else you want to know about? During Clinton's administration we had a thriving economy, low energy cost, low unemployement, and most importantly A BUDGET SURPLUS. Clinton's administration did what the Great Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush, couldn't do: Grow the economy, create millions of jobs, and balance the budget. This is something that none of these men could do. Why couldn't the other three great republicans do that?

Lil, didn't we just try the whole Trickle Down Economics theory for the last eight years? Last time I looked Bush left office much worse then when he came in. The problem with the Bush tax cuts is that they were targeted to the upper income, and if you give them tax cuts today they are just going to put that money in the bank which does nothing to help the economy. The banks are to afraid to lend money out because the rating agencies can't even give accurate assements of credit scores, so that money just sits there making 1% interest. We also have a huge deficit that we need to pay down, and companies are laying off employees at such high rates that the unemployement numbers are expected to reach 10 by summer. People are afraid to lose their job, so they are only buying the things they need to survive, so giving them tax cuts again will do nothing to help the economy. I am reminded of an old adage about the difference between giving someone a fish, and teaching them how to fish. Ever hear that?

WKL, the price of gas when Bush took office was $1.46 on average, on January 20, 2009 the average was $1.78. The difference here is that under Clinton the price of Oil never reached $55.00 a barrel, under Bush it reached $147.00. Bush has left this country as a whole in much worse shape then any other president since the great depression. And, this man had total control of the country for two years while many of our current problems were starting, and did nothing at all to stop them. He was quoted as saying that he say the housing crisis starting in 2005, yet he controlled the government and made no attempt to stop it. His hatrid of government regulation led to an investment industry that was regulated less than your local McDonalds, which led to Trillions of dollars lost, and CEO's of those companies floating off in their golden parachutes. What a great president.

As to Bush leaving office worse than when he came in, I think gas prices are lower that when he came into office, he had a major terristic attack in NY that could have collapsed our economy and it did not happen. I think the economy runs cycles. Even your beloved ex-president Clinton had a small recession at the end of his term.