Lol at anybody who thinks ANY politicians can create jobs and or save the economy. The time to act was 20 years ago nobody had the courage, the debt can has been kicked down the road too many times. The real cliff is the debt cliff and we already went off that. Good news is it was so damn high it's going to take a little while before we splat all over the ground.

@stonebat

sound like a true sweatshop owner as usual!

...and you're still ignoring the truths of nature, evolution, and reality. :)

Just forget everything you've been indoctrinated with, and look at the world objectively. We're not all geniuses. We cannot all manage companies. We cannot all be doctors and scientists. I think the biggest flaw of the left-ist and progressive thinking, is this assumption that without "evil rich people" and "evil-institutions"... then everyone on earth would be living the equivalent life-style of $200k a year with 200+ vacation days. I mean come on... does this even sound close to reality? I'm not saying you, yourself, think this way... but I meet people all the time that truly believe this. It's bizarre. It's cognitive-dissonance... pure and simply. Basic psychology. What's easier for a persons ego to deal with?

And again, just because I... on a scientific and objective level... think that allot of people are not intellectually capable of more than average psychical labor, does not mean that I condone "sweat-shops". There is a BIG difference between civilly treating everyone as an equal in the workplace and society, which is good... and then ganging up and demanding that we're all entitled to equal everything... and that if someone has "more" than another, they must have acquired it immorality, and it should be stripped from them. The latter is very bad... it's not even close to rational.

I mean, can you rationally argue that with enough education and the right institutions that we're all capable of Einstein-like intelligence? Or Micheal Jordan-like athletics? Who taught all the geniuses throughout history then? How were they capable of surpassing what the "institutions" and the knowledge that "other people" were teaching them? How did anybody ever invent something? Who is holding the access to this secret trove of infinite knowledge and innovation that should be available for everybody? Well, guess what? It doesn't exist. Some people are just flat out better and smarter than most humans. They are the intellectual 1%. They did not "take intelligence" from others... they're were just born with more capability for it. Their peers all received the same opportunity and education, and they flat-out surpassed them. So what seems more rational? Ganging up and demanding that "we should all be equal" and then using that mentality to justify enslaving those who happen to be capable of more? Or allowing a economic system and society to function, which allows those with more potential to realize it, and make profitable the means to exploit it in improving the lives of everyone? I think we all know the answer... we've just been miss-lead down a darker road by people who wish to simply "own" the current means of production and invention... and do-away with competition from the rest of society. Stop trying to think of everything in terms of "moral and immoral" and go more towards what "is and isn't". Morals are subjective, they can be programmed to lead you away from your best interests, and sometimes what makes you "feel good" isn't what's right.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev

While it can be non zero game (as wealthy really print money), you'll have hard time competing with same individual who just happened to have more money. Why? Because he has certain advantages, main of this advantages is extra time he has (as he can delegate many things to other people, be it food preparation, home cleaning, faster transfort with driver, professionals in your field who help them on core competition task). Yes, some poor genius could still win in competition, it happens. But most of people will lose and will become just small screw in the machine working for rich people.

Yes. See, this is actually a good arguing point. And one I've been trying to tackle over the last year or so. Can individual and groups even invent on their own anymore? Are things just too complicated to tackle unless you have 100+ people working under you? These are valid questions to ask, and I definitely agree here. The solution as I see it though, is not that rich people exist... and not that they "stole" from everyone else. But that we don't have the right variety of "wealthy people" right now in the world. We don't have innovators anymore. We have schmoozers and people that simply inherited power. The question is not "How do we take all the wealth and give it to everyone?", but "How do we get wealth and resources to the "right" people again?"

@art

Discussinf tax policy to cure current problem is like discussing urine amount required to be consumed to cure cancer.

As for Reagan, he was puppet when guys went to final credit expansion to get more time (the end will be in early 90s if not few traitors).

From http://old.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200406100915.asp

"Between the late 1960s and 1980, the U.S. inflation rate rose from 2 percent to 14 percent, while the unemployment rate gradually drifted higher, from 4 percent to almost 10 percent. It was a period of decline for the country. Americans were demoralized.

As stagflation became more deeply embedded in the U.S. economy, Soviet adventurism in Central and South America, Asia, and elsewhere around the world became more pronounced. The Soviets saw the U.S. cut and run from Vietnam. Our Cold War adversary saw nothing but weakness emanating from the U.S.

Ronald Reagan changed all that. From the moment of his swearing-in in Jan¬ uary 1981, with his extraordinarily strong character and deep and abiding faith in God, Reagan acted relentlessly to revive the nation.

More than any modern president, Reagan understood the link between economic growth at home and American strength overseas. It was the Gipper’s most brilliant insight. He acted swiftly to show our enemies that we would produce the necessary economic resources to do whatever it would take, for however long was necessary, to triumph over the Communist menace.

Immediately upon assuming office, he reversed the economic policy of the decline years. He brought down marginal tax rates, restoring the incentives necessary for economic growth. He gave Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker the strong ground to stand on, allowing him to harden the value of the dollar and slay inflation.

At bottom, what became known as Reaganomics was a new pro-growth policy mix of tax incentives at the margin and stable money. But there was more. The Californian launched a massive military buildup totaling about $1.5 trillion. He deregulated oil prices, proving the conventional wisdom wrong as energy became much cheaper. He launched U.S.-Canadian free trade. He was unyielding in his opposition to the air-traffic controllers’ strike, firing thousands of these government workers and ending the anti-growth union stranglehold on private industry. He created individual retirement accounts and 401(k)s, giving birth to the investor class. He also slashed social spending by reducing domestic program levels (excluding Social Security and health care) by nearly $50 billion in 1981. That amount would come to about $90 billion today.

By 1986, Reagan’s tax-reform plan left two marginal rates of 28 percent and 15 percent, a long stone’s throw from the 70 percent top rate he had inherited. His plan also cut about 2,000 pages from the tax code.

Ideas matter. Results quickly followed for Reagan. Between 1982 and 1989, the economy grew, adjusting for inflation, by 35 percent: more than 4.5 percent per year. As growth was restored, tax revenues came flowing in. Income-tax revenues grew by 50 percent during this period even as tax rates dropped. By 1986, the inflation rate had fallen to 1 percent. By the end of his term, unemployment had dropped to 5.5 percent. Interest rates had plunged. The stock market had soared.

From July 1982 through the end of 1988, the S&P 500 averaged a near 21 percent annual gain. Brand-new industries arose in computing, software, communications, and the Internet — original endeavors that completely streamlined and transformed the American economy for the decades to come. In effect, Reaganomics launched a 20-year boom, the longest prosperity period in the 20th century."

So tell me again why cutting taxes isn't the way to go? Before Reagan, Carter increased taxes (very similar to what Obama wants to do) and taxes topped out at 70% and jobs started leaving this country in droves. Reagan came in and he brought those down and people invested and jobs were created AS WELL as closing loopholes and deductions/credits.. The real fix would be to reduce tax rates but make everyone pay their percentage without loopholes or tax shelters, etc. Flat tax or federal sales tax would be a good alternate.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304911104576443893352153776.html http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-70-tax-rates-wont-work http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2957581/posts?page=7 http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm

@sam_stickland

Issue that you do not look deep. Ignore mass media. Thing that you see is capitalism issue multiplied with credit issue. And used money printing never helped in such situation, but not using money printing will make things worse, and quick.
And big change involve either big war or complete change of elites (and owners, I must add).

@Bueller I believe the theory is that if you don't tax them they will invest the money instead and the company will use that money to expand and employ more people

@stonebat

It is not some uncertainity.
It is fundamental capitalism problem.

Look at the "wrong" countries list that suddenly must be "democratic" (tm). What are common? Not only location or resources.
But simple fact that this countries was independent, you could not bring them on their knees by just demanding debt they have.

It also clearly show current main principle in Europe - divide and conquer.
Make one idiots belive that Germany is to blame, and make Germany belive that it is in their interest to part with others. After this follows big life level drop in country thrown our of EU, it induce next round of problems in remaining countries. Go to start.

LoL. I don't believe in some conspiracy theory.

And the hundreds of millions these people spend lobbying politicians every year is for entertainment purposes only? Or it just happened by chance? The money blew out of their bank accounts and just happened to find the right pockets to get their favored legislation and government policy?

Sounds more like you're on sleeping pills, than weed.

LoL. I don't believe in some conspiracy theory. But I believe things could happen by chance. Each group is acting on their own best interests, but eventually they'd discover common goals. That's when things really start changing. I'm not seeing it yet. Maybe it's too early to tell.

CEOs, taxes, profits, bailout, austerity, fiscal cliff... yeah we know it. Everyone knows it :)

What's the common goal among them?

@stonebat

Remember that it can be not horrible end, but endless horror.

@jrd

The U.S. is about the only growing economy in the West at the moment, because it's the only country which didn't pursue a determined austerity program, inadequate though the Obama stimulus was.

Difference is not because of this. It is because of dollar, big number of economic colonies and military. Remove any of this triad, and it'll fall.

As for growing, thing that you refer is GDP, remove goverment stimulus, cuts, and other parts going to GDP, make statistics independent, and it'll be other pictures.

@stonebat

The consequences of austerity are no mystery. Have a look a Ireland, Spain or Greece. Mass unemployment. Increasing public debt (yes, you read that right). Prolonged recession, or worse. The U.S. is about the only growing economy in the West at the moment, because it's the only country which didn't pursue a determined austerity program, inadequate though the Obama stimulus was.

I'm more interested in consequences of austerity measures instead of measuring economic prosperity. What are the real changes? Details... that's important.