How to kickstart en economy

evince

evince

Truthmatters
http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/new-study/#more-7553


The New England states, can no longer afford to spend scarce resources on tax credits and other business giveaways. Instead, the region needs to focus its economic development efforts on rebuilding neglected infrastructure and improving education for people at all levels, from pre-school youngsters to older adult workers.

Those are the conclusions of a new study released today by economist Jeffrey Thompson of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Thompson’s paper is based on his extensive analysis of research on what works and doesn’t work to create jobs and strengthen state and regional economies. It suggests a better approach to economic development, one that the New England states should pursue as they slowly dig out from the Great Recession that began in late 2007.

According to Thompson, the New England states have for too long viewed funding for public services and economic development as competing interests. That’s a false dichotomy, he says.
 
I wish recovery plans didn't have to split along ideological lines. I'm more for a "kitchen sink" approach.

There is no question that greater emphasis on education & training at all ages & levels is economically beneficial.

But the characterization that there are "scarce resources" for tax credits and "giveaways" to business is ridiculous. Our economy is basically based on consumer spending. When consumers have more, they spend more. When business hire here, consumers have more.

We want businesses to say in the US, and keep their hiring in the US. That means creating a favorable business environment, which means keeping business taxes fair.
 
I'm sorry to focus on the source here but the site has a link in the upper right that says Democratic Socialists of America. I state this only because Desh used to tell blackascoal his views 'didn't count' in essence because he was to far out of the mainstream being a socialist. Now she believes we should follow economic beliefs from such a group?
 
Onceler said:
I wish recovery plans didn't have to split along ideological lines. I'm more for a "kitchen sink" approach.

There is no question that greater emphasis on education & training at all ages & levels is economically beneficial.

But the characterization that there are "scarce resources" for tax credits and "giveaways" to business is ridiculous. Our economy is basically based on consumer spending. When consumers have more, they spend more. When business hire here, consumers have more.

We want businesses to say in the US, and keep their hiring in the US. That means creating a favorable business environment, which means keeping business taxes fair.
Click to expand...


Agreed. It is absolutely moronic to pretend that there are not funds for each of these:

1) tax credits and incentives to induce businesses to hire
2) education
3) infrastructure

The problem comes in the vast amounts of wasteful spending. Education, defense, Medicare, Medicaid etc... all have immense amounts of wasteful spending. Cut out 50% of all the administrative positions in Education and you will find more than enough money to educate the populace AND pay the teachers more.

Cut 1/3 of the defense budget and use those funds for infrastructure. Switch to a flat tax with standard deduction and eliminate taxes on pieces of paper (corporations) and that will provide ample resources for businesses to hire.


Note: before someone tees off on how those evil corporations need to be taxed.... if you tax ALL sources of income at the flat tax rate, then teh money the company makes WILL BE TAXED via dividends to shareholders, capital gains incurred by the sale of shares or taxes on wages of employees.
 
Onceler said:
I wish recovery plans didn't have to split along ideological lines. I'm more for a "kitchen sink" approach.

There is no question that greater emphasis on education & training at all ages & levels is economically beneficial.

But the characterization that there are "scarce resources" for tax credits and "giveaways" to business is ridiculous. Our economy is basically based on consumer spending. When consumers have more, they spend more. When business hire here, consumers have more.

We want businesses to say in the US, and keep their hiring in the US. That means creating a favorable business environment, which means keeping business taxes fair.
Click to expand...
Partisans of both stripes are going to destroy this country. I've had it with them. A pox on both houses. You're exactly right with your common sense comments and it will never happen because of ideological partisans.
 
cawacko said:
I'm sorry to focus on the source here but the site has a link in the upper right that says Democratic Socialists of America. I state this only because Desh used to tell blackascoal his views 'didn't count' in essence because he was to far out of the mainstream being a socialist. Now she believes we should follow economic beliefs from such a group?
Click to expand...
I have no problem attacking a source particularly if the source is unreliable or biased and their is evidence to back that up.
 
Superfreak said:
Agreed. It is absolutely moronic to pretend that there are not funds for each of these:

1) tax credits and incentives to induce businesses to hire
2) education
3) infrastructure

The problem comes in the vast amounts of wasteful spending. Education, defense, Medicare, Medicaid etc... all have immense amounts of wasteful spending. Cut out 50% of all the administrative positions in Education and you will find more than enough money to educate the populace AND pay the teachers more.

Cut 1/3 of the defense budget and use those funds for infrastructure. Switch to a flat tax with standard deduction and eliminate taxes on pieces of paper (corporations) and that will provide ample resources for businesses to hire.


Note: before someone tees off on how those evil corporations need to be taxed.... if you tax ALL sources of income at the flat tax rate, then teh money the company makes WILL BE TAXED via dividends to shareholders, capital gains incurred by the sale of shares or taxes on wages of employees.
Click to expand...

We are in accord on most of this. In the past decade or so, when anyone has talked about cutting government, they have talked in terms of cutting whole programs or departments. The talk of "smaller, smarter" government from the '90's disappeared. Efficiency should be the centerpiece of any discussion around programs & budget; how can this agency run leaner? Where can we reduce paperwork (litigation reform very tied to that one)? Where can we trim the fat?

And the defense budget needs a revolution. 1/3 is a great start.

I'm not hearing any serious conversations about any of these steps at the natonal level, but they are badly needed. What we have now is wholly unsustainable. People need to completely rethink how we want our government to work, and where we want to invest in terms of priorities.
 
Superfreak said:
Agreed. It is absolutely moronic to pretend that there are not funds for each of these:

1) tax credits and incentives to induce businesses to hire
2) education
3) infrastructure

The problem comes in the vast amounts of wasteful spending. Education, defense, Medicare, Medicaid etc... all have immense amounts of wasteful spending. Cut out 50% of all the administrative positions in Education and you will find more than enough money to educate the populace AND pay the teachers more.

Cut 1/3 of the defense budget and use those funds for infrastructure. Switch to a flat tax with standard deduction and eliminate taxes on pieces of paper (corporations) and that will provide ample resources for businesses to hire.


Note: before someone tees off on how those evil corporations need to be taxed.... if you tax ALL sources of income at the flat tax rate, then teh money the company makes WILL BE TAXED via dividends to shareholders, capital gains incurred by the sale of shares or taxes on wages of employees.
Click to expand...
I agree with you in part. I dont' agree that waste full spending is the crux of the problem though it is certainly a problem. The crux of the problem is that we want some very expensive programs, and I"m specifically refering to defense and entitlement programs, but we don't want to pay for them. We need to decide to either increase taxes to pay for these programs or cut these programs and learn to live with less. We can't have our cake and eat it too.
 
cawacko said:
I'm sorry to focus on the source here but the site has a link in the upper right that says Democratic Socialists of America. I state this only because Desh used to tell blackascoal his views 'didn't count' in essence because he was to far out of the mainstream being a socialist. Now she believes we should follow economic beliefs from such a group?
Click to expand...

Your a lying taintwallow
 
Onceler said:
We are in accord on most of this. In the past decade or so, when anyone has talked about cutting government, they have talked in terms of cutting whole programs or departments. The talk of "smaller, smarter" government from the '90's disappeared. Efficiency should be the centerpiece of any discussion around programs & budget; how can this agency run leaner? Where can we reduce paperwork (litigation reform very tied to that one)? Where can we trim the fat?

And the defense budget needs a revolution. 1/3 is a great start.

I'm not hearing any serious conversations about any of these steps at the natonal level, but they are badly needed. What we have now is wholly unsustainable. People need to completely rethink how we want our government to work, and where we want to invest in terms of priorities.
Click to expand...
I'm all for that too and I do believe it's important but it's not as critical as to making the hard decisions about the very expensive programs we all like but don't want to pay for. I'll ask anyone who wants a smaller, leaner government with less spending so that we don't have to raise taxes this question.

Would you be willing to cut spending on the millitary, social security and medicare/medicaid in half?

The reason I ask this is because greater efficiencies, though very much to be desired, alone will not solve our problem.
 
Because you dont like the site the study was mentioned on you trash the study?

Dudes cant you just read what the study has to say?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I'm all for that too and I do believe it's important but it's not as critical as to making the hard decisions about the very expensive programs we all like but don't want to pay for. I'll ask anyone who wants a smaller, leaner government with less spending so that we don't have to raise taxes this question.

Would you be willing to cut spending on the millitary, social security and medicare/medicaid in half?

The reason I ask this is because greater efficiencies, though very much to be desired, alone will not solve our problem.
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying. Improving efficiency probably won't make much of a dent overall; I think it changes the overall attitude, though, and is a good start.

As to your other point: with defense, they HAVE to slash that budget. SF mentioned 1/3, which to me, would be the minimum. It's outdated & not needed; we don't live in the '80's anymore.

I think SS should be privatized. I don't understand opponents to privatization; there is no scenario based on history where those who need the benefits do not increase their return exponentially. It's a win, win, win if there ever was one.

I think you have to keep medicare/medicaid intact; I'm not as versed on those programs, but from what I understand, there are ways to make them run leaner, without compromising benefits.
 
evince said:
Because you dont like the site the study was mentioned on you trash the study?

Dudes cant you just read what the study has to say?
Click to expand...

If you read the responses people obviously read the article and are having a discussion about it. I simply referenced the irony I found in you trying to call out blackascoal and then posting economic suggestions from a group that supports his beliefs.
 
Quit spending money on corporate and union welfare (not talking about tax breaks but actual subsidies and bailouts) and there will be plenty for infrastructure and education.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top