c*****r
发帖数: 8227 | 1 其中超过一半（1700亿）是a one-year extension of a payroll tax cut for
workers and an extension of expiring jobless benefits - 没有任何针对性的刺激
作用。
剩下1300亿 （人均 < $400)， 够塞牙缝？
O8是手足无措，3000亿作秀而已！ | N********n
发帖数: 8363 | 2
Part of the plan to bribe for his 2nd term.
【在 c*****r 的大作中提到】
: 其中超过一半（1700亿）是a one-year extension of a payroll tax cut for
: workers and an extension of expiring jobless benefits - 没有任何针对性的刺激
: 作用。
: 剩下1300亿 （人均 < $400)， 够塞牙缝？
: O8是手足无措，3000亿作秀而已！
| c*****r
发帖数: 8227 | 3 真没有更好的解释
【在 N********n 的大作中提到】
:
: Part of the plan to bribe for his 2nd term.
| a********t
发帖数: 4508 | 4 钱是不会消失的。少收的税会变成其他人的收入重新流入市场。1,700亿的放大效应是
巨大地。 | c*****r
发帖数: 8227 | 5 Have you ever heard there is one thing called "liquidity trap"?
Do you know how many excess reserves hold by big banks in Fed's account?
1.5T!
【在 a********t 的大作中提到】
: 钱是不会消失的。少收的税会变成其他人的收入重新流入市场。1,700亿的放大效应是
: 巨大地。
| x*******0
发帖数: 2439 | | i****a
发帖数: 36252 | | a********t
发帖数: 4508 | 8 不太一样。
银行的大量reserve是因为Fed提供大量低息贷款而银行不愿意贷出去。银行用这些
liquidity反过来向FED收息来填充资本。企业不投资而持有大量现金是因为市场上没有
消费能力来鼓励企业投资。还是因为银行没有把钱贷出去。
减税就不一样了。钱直接到个人手中。消费会上升。导致企业收入、投资上升。这和
FED高买低卖保银行导致的所谓liquidity trap性质完全不同。
完全不同。
【在 c*****r 的大作中提到】
: Have you ever heard there is one thing called "liquidity trap"?
: Do you know how many excess reserves hold by big banks in Fed's account?
: 1.5T!
| m*t
发帖数: 7490 | 9 08年小布什干过，没啥用
现在这个黑洞太大太深了
【在 i****a 的大作中提到】
: 應該學香港，每人發 $6000 港幣, 現金
| a********t
发帖数: 4508 | 10 此一时，彼一时。
08年是火车头在山顶正要往下掉，什么办法也没用。另一个比喻是脓包将破未破。你抹
药还是手术它都要破。现在不同。经济复苏的关键时期。提一把是很重要地。
【在 m*t 的大作中提到】
: 08年小布什干过，没啥用
: 现在这个黑洞太大太深了
| | | h*******a
发帖数: 573 | 11 The best way to stimulate the economy is thru direct government spending,
not tax cuts. It's economics 101. Pure and Simple.
Obama can't do much with government spending as Republicans in congress have
tied up his arms.
American voters need to vote Republicans out of the congress for the
government to be really able to help the economy. But there are too many
ignorant voters out there. The situation is pathetic... | a********t
发帖数: 4508 | 12 You really need to live in a state like California to understand what you
are talking about...
And also, which Econ 101 are you referring to? You have no clue what's in
Econ 101, do you?
have
【在 h*******a 的大作中提到】
: The best way to stimulate the economy is thru direct government spending,
: not tax cuts. It's economics 101. Pure and Simple.
: Obama can't do much with government spending as Republicans in congress have
: tied up his arms.
: American voters need to vote Republicans out of the congress for the
: government to be really able to help the economy. But there are too many
: ignorant voters out there. The situation is pathetic...
| h*******a
发帖数: 573 | 13 I live in Californa. I was an econ student before...
【在 a********t 的大作中提到】
: You really need to live in a state like California to understand what you
: are talking about...
: And also, which Econ 101 are you referring to? You have no clue what's in
: Econ 101, do you?
:
: have
| v****o
发帖数: 978 | 14 was, thats right, cauze you did not even know shit about economy.
【在 h*******a 的大作中提到】
: I live in Californa. I was an econ student before...
| h*******a
发帖数: 573 | 15 What I referred to was the "multiplier effect" - that the multiplier effect of direct goverment spending is much larger than that of tax cuts in increasing demand, because some of the tax cuts will be saved rather than spent.
That's a well known theory of Keynesian economics. I just say what I know.
You can disagree, but please respect yourself and others when you speak in
public forums.
【在 v****o 的大作中提到】
: was, thats right, cauze you did not even know shit about economy.
| a********t
发帖数: 4508 | 16 Government spending will not help the economy. The short-term boom of job
creation would just be an illusion.
Where does the government money come from? Taxes, right? The government is
spending the same money that the private sector would've spent anyway. When
the government collects money to hire construction workers, other private
companies will have to cut hiring because of higher taxes. It's a zero sum
game.
No, I'll take it back. It's not zero sum. In fact, the private sector can
build stuff in a more efficient way. Don't you agree? So the government is
pretty much collecting and spending the same amount of money that the
private sector would've spent, but in a less efficient way. You see my point?
The only argument that the government spending may help the economy is that
it may help upgrade the infrastructure. However, the best way to achieve
that goal is through tax supports rather than direct government spending.
Pure and simple.
【在 h*******a 的大作中提到】
: I live in Californa. I was an econ student before...
| h*******a
发帖数: 573 | 17 I think you are mixing up supply and demand. It's very true that in most
situations, the private factors can provide supply more efficiently than the
government. However, the problem with the US economy right now is not that
there is a shortage of supply, but that there is a shortage of demand. So
the focus should be what the best way it is to stimulate the aggregate
demand. Tax cuts can stimulate demand. No doubt about it. However, it's not
as efficient as direct goverment spending, because tax cuts to the rich will
only be saved, not spent (If spent, we all know where the money will most
likely go to - Yeah! The Wall Street!). Direct government spending, like
unemployment benefits, will be more likely to be injected into the economy,
thus giving a greater bang of the buck on increasing demand. That's also
what economists refer to as the higher multiplier effect of direct
government spending vs tax cuts.
When
【在 a********t 的大作中提到】
: Government spending will not help the economy. The short-term boom of job
: creation would just be an illusion.
: Where does the government money come from? Taxes, right? The government is
: spending the same money that the private sector would've spent anyway. When
: the government collects money to hire construction workers, other private
: companies will have to cut hiring because of higher taxes. It's a zero sum
: game.
: No, I'll take it back. It's not zero sum. In fact, the private sector can
: build stuff in a more efficient way. Don't you agree? So the government is
: pretty much collecting and spending the same amount of money that the
| a********t
发帖数: 4508 | 18 Because you are not demanding...
We are collecting more of your money...
And create something...
So that you will start to demand...
......
By the way, what demand are you talking about? How about we make it more
specific?
the
that
not
will
,
【在 h*******a 的大作中提到】
: I think you are mixing up supply and demand. It's very true that in most
: situations, the private factors can provide supply more efficiently than the
: government. However, the problem with the US economy right now is not that
: there is a shortage of supply, but that there is a shortage of demand. So
: the focus should be what the best way it is to stimulate the aggregate
: demand. Tax cuts can stimulate demand. No doubt about it. However, it's not
: as efficient as direct goverment spending, because tax cuts to the rich will
: only be saved, not spent (If spent, we all know where the money will most
: likely go to - Yeah! The Wall Street!). Direct government spending, like
: unemployment benefits, will be more likely to be injected into the economy,
| r******o
发帖数: 1530 | 19 talking about "multiplier effect", doesn't ECON101 say we should reduce the
reserve requirement now to get THAT effect?
Again, pls don't mention Keynesian, I repeat this crisis is the failure of
Keynesian social experiment.
I'm a fan of Austrian School.
effect of direct goverment spending is much larger than that of tax cuts in
increasing demand, because some of the tax cuts will be saved rather than
spent.
【在 h*******a 的大作中提到】
: What I referred to was the "multiplier effect" - that the multiplier effect of direct goverment spending is much larger than that of tax cuts in increasing demand, because some of the tax cuts will be saved rather than spent.
: That's a well known theory of Keynesian economics. I just say what I know.
: You can disagree, but please respect yourself and others when you speak in
: public forums.
| w******s
发帖数: 16209 | 20 the video is interesting..
【在 N********n 的大作中提到】
:
: Part of the plan to bribe for his 2nd term.
| | | h*******a
发帖数: 573 | 21 I am talking about supply vs demand in pure economic terms. It's basically
an aggregate of all the "wants" of people in an economy.
I know what you are concerned about. The money the goverment spends got to
be paid for somehow...huh...usually by collecting tax dollars that everyone
hates :-) Ideally, that shouldn't be an issue. In economic downturns, the
government runs budget deficits to make up for the decrease in demand. When
the demand recovers in ecomomic upturns, the budget deficit can be offset by
increases in tax revenue, which can even result in budget surpluses that
can be used to stimulate demand in the next economic downturn. However,
increasing tax revenue doesn't necessarily mean the tax rates have to be
higher for everyone. There will be more tax revenue even if the tax rates
stay the same for most people, with more people working and paying taxes...
If the Keynesian ecomomics was to be followed, the Bush administration
shouldn't have given tax cuts when the government ran budget surpluses back
in 2001. The money should have been saved and used to combat the financial
crisis we saw earlier. Now with the threat of a double dip recession, the
government should engage in more job creation by engaging in direct
government spending, coupled by tax increases to the millionaires and
billionairs, forcing them to put money in the banks to real use.
The Republican ideology of tax cuts as the only solution to economic
recession is simply wrong. They have been wrong during the Bush term to cut
taxes during economic boom and when waging 2 wars, and they are now again
wrong to refuse government spending and prescribe only tax cuts to combat
unemployment.
I have to quit this chat as I am leaving work. Nice talking to you!
【在 a********t 的大作中提到】
: Because you are not demanding...
: We are collecting more of your money...
: And create something...
: So that you will start to demand...
: ......
: By the way, what demand are you talking about? How about we make it more
: specific?
:
: the
: that
| h*******a
发帖数: 573 | 22 I have to respectfuly disagree. The crisis is a failure of not following Keynesian economics. Look at what Bush did? Tell me how many jobs his tax cuts helped create?
the
in
【在 r******o 的大作中提到】
: talking about "multiplier effect", doesn't ECON101 say we should reduce the
: reserve requirement now to get THAT effect?
: Again, pls don't mention Keynesian, I repeat this crisis is the failure of
: Keynesian social experiment.
: I'm a fan of Austrian School.
:
: effect of direct goverment spending is much larger than that of tax cuts in
: increasing demand, because some of the tax cuts will be saved rather than
: spent.
| t**e
发帖数: 2379 | 23 小小孩儿之间的对话，好有意思，中间还夹着一只猫。 | u********e
发帖数: 4950 | 24 Good article
It seems to me that Democratic believes the "demand" side fiscal policy whil
e the Republic believes the "supply" side fiscal policy.
everyone
When
by
【在 h*******a 的大作中提到】
: I am talking about supply vs demand in pure economic terms. It's basically
: an aggregate of all the "wants" of people in an economy.
: I know what you are concerned about. The money the goverment spends got to
: be paid for somehow...huh...usually by collecting tax dollars that everyone
: hates :-) Ideally, that shouldn't be an issue. In economic downturns, the
: government runs budget deficits to make up for the decrease in demand. When
: the demand recovers in ecomomic upturns, the budget deficit can be offset by
: increases in tax revenue, which can even result in budget surpluses that
: can be used to stimulate demand in the next economic downturn. However,
: increasing tax revenue doesn't necessarily mean the tax rates have to be
| e**s
发帖数: 4638 | 25 小树从 刺激经济就减税一招 ～～～～～～～lol | a********t
发帖数: 4508 | 26 Let's take a look at why/when the Bush tax cuts happened, shall we?
Do you think the Bush admin cut taxes for no reasons or because it had too
much surplus, or because they were insane?
The first tax cut happened in 2001. We all know what happened in 2001.
The second tax cut happened in 2003 to be expired in 2010. The economy in
2003 was just like what's now in 2011. Recovery is brewing, however, the
confidence was low. Do you think, from today's standing point, that tax cut
was a good one or not? The economy took off in 2004 until 2008.
The cuts were supposed to expire in 2010 when Obama and Democratics were
controlling the legislation. Well...if every talking head thinks the Bush
tax cuts were bad and should be terminated, why didn't Obama expire them?
Because they wanted to keep them in effect so that they could blaming on
them for their failure?? No, because they couldn't come up with a better
idea! And they knew,although didn't acknowledge it in public, that the cuts
were critical to the economy.
I am trying to make a sense with you here. I see where your point view comes
from. I hear those views a lot from some media. But they don't make sense.
The government spending in the past three years have proved to be a failure.
The spending has not created jobs. The spending has not encouraged private
companies to hire people.
It's not the government's role to save fiscal surplus for rainy days. You
won't get that idea from any economics books published in the US. That
sounds more like the Chinese interpretation of the modern economics.
I agree there are problems with the US tax codes, but believing the
government spending can save the world is more troublesome.
everyone
When
by
【在 h*******a 的大作中提到】
: I am talking about supply vs demand in pure economic terms. It's basically
: an aggregate of all the "wants" of people in an economy.
: I know what you are concerned about. The money the goverment spends got to
: be paid for somehow...huh...usually by collecting tax dollars that everyone
: hates :-) Ideally, that shouldn't be an issue. In economic downturns, the
: government runs budget deficits to make up for the decrease in demand. When
: the demand recovers in ecomomic upturns, the budget deficit can be offset by
: increases in tax revenue, which can even result in budget surpluses that
: can be used to stimulate demand in the next economic downturn. However,
: increasing tax revenue doesn't necessarily mean the tax rates have to be
| c*****r
发帖数: 8227 | 27 转一篇新鲜出炉的。没什么可说的，此次危机之后，可能的积极成果是让凯恩斯经济学
派的荼毒寿终正寝！
引子：“a federal contractor said he was told to use smaller, nonstandard
tiles that are harder and more expensive to install in order to increase the
cost of the project. That way, the government could claim the money was
moving out the door faster. The famous Milton Friedman line about government
ordering people to dig with spoons to employ more people comes to mind.”
Why the Stimulus Failed
New research on what actually happened to a trillion dollars.
Even zero jobs growth in August doesn't seem to have disrupted President
Obama's faith in the economic policies of his first three years, so one
theme we'll be listening for in tonight's speech is how he explains the
current moment. Why did his first jobs plan—the $825 billion stimulus—so
quickly result in the need for another jobs plan?
For readers who want to know, an important account is offered in a pair of
new Mercatus Center working papers by the George Mason economists Garett
Jones and Daniel Rothschild, who did field research on what they call the
supply side of the stimulus.
The Keynesian theory was that a burst of new government spending would take
up some of the slack in aggregate consumer demand. This was justified in
2008, again in 2009, and is still defended now based not on real-world
observation but on abstract macroeconomic models that depend on the
assumptions of the authors. The Congressional Budget Office's quarterly
studies—often cited to claim the stimulus created tens of thousands of new
jobs—are based on such a model. By informative contrast, Messrs. Jones and
Rothschild interviewed actual people who received stimulus dollars and asked
how they spent the money.
In the first paper, the authors survey 85 different businesses, nonprofits
and local governments across the country and conclude that "As is often the
case when economic models are transferred from the blackboard to actual
public policy, there was a gap between theory and practice."
One of the major patterns Messrs. Jones and Rothschild uncovered was that
the top-down stimulus was poorly targeted. In one redolent example, a
federal contractor said he was told to use smaller, nonstandard tiles that
are harder and more expensive to install in order to increase the cost of
the project. That way, the government could claim the money was moving out
the door faster. The famous Milton Friedman line about government ordering
people to dig with spoons to employ more people comes to mind.
In another case study, a budget shortfall forced a mid-size city to lay off
185 public workers—but the city received a $4 million stimulus grant to
improve municipal energy efficiency. The manager of a construction company
received funds for "the last thing on our list; and truthfully, the least
useful thing." It happened to be a crane and a forklift.
The authors are careful to note that such anecdotes do not mean that all of
the stimulus was a waste, and they did find some success stories. The
problem is that all but the most reductionist Keynesians of the Paul Krugman
school believe it matters what the government spends money on. A dollar
that eventually will be taken out of the private economy through borrowing
or higher taxes to fund pointlessly expensive projects—a la the tiny tiles
—is not the way to nurture a recovery.
The second paper suggests that the stimulus did not "create or save" nearly
as many jobs as the models indicate. On the basis of 1,300 interviews,
Messrs. Jones and Rothschild estimate that merely 42.1% of the firms that
received grants hired people who were unemployed. Instead, they poached
workers from their competitors.
"This suggests just how hard it is for Keynesian job creation to work in a
modern, expertise-based economy," they write. The stimulus "was implemented
at a time when the Keynesian model had every chance of succeeding on its own
terms. The high level of unemployment and the rapid deadline for spending
created both the supply of workers and the demand for workers. If the job
market results are so lackluster in this setting, economists should expect
even weaker stimulative results during more modest recessions."
The lesson of such on-the-ground knowledge is that the stimulus was a lost
opportunity. In practice it became a shotgun marriage between an economic
theory justified by computer models and 40 years of liberal social
priorities (clean energy, Medicaid expansions and the rest). This produced
the 9.1% unemployment we now have.
The economy would have benefitted far more if the government had instead
improved the incentives for people and businesses to invest, produce and
grow. The President probably won't mention any of this, but it does explain
why he has to give his latest speech. | h*******a
发帖数: 573 | 28 Not sure where you watch your news. Obama wanted to extend only the tax cuts
for the middle class and raise taxes on the top 5% richest in the country.
But the Republicans rejected any tax increases and threatened not to approve
extending unemployment benefits. So Obama conceded (When did he not concede
?) to the Republican blackmail by extending the tax cuts for the super rich.
Some bits of history for the Bush tax cuts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/bush-tax-cut-mythol
Paul Krugman wrote some excellent articles on Bush tax cuts. You can check
out his blog on NY Times.
Keynes believed that there was a significant role for the government to play
in reducing fluctuation in economic activities. Budget surpluses in
economic upturn and budget deficits in economic downturns were exactly what
he prescribed in response to the Great Depression. I know some Republicans
tried to label Keynesian economists as communists. LOL. Maybe that's why you
got the impression the theory came from China.
cut
【在 a********t 的大作中提到】
: Let's take a look at why/when the Bush tax cuts happened, shall we?
: Do you think the Bush admin cut taxes for no reasons or because it had too
: much surplus, or because they were insane?
: The first tax cut happened in 2001. We all know what happened in 2001.
: The second tax cut happened in 2003 to be expired in 2010. The economy in
: 2003 was just like what's now in 2011. Recovery is brewing, however, the
: confidence was low. Do you think, from today's standing point, that tax cut
: was a good one or not? The economy took off in 2004 until 2008.
: The cuts were supposed to expire in 2010 when Obama and Democratics were
: controlling the legislation. Well...if every talking head thinks the Bush
| n****u
发帖数: 229 | 29 @hydrangea
The Bill Clinton's "Surplus" is a lie from MSM.
How could you have surplus and at the same time the national debt keeps
increasing?
Just like this: this year you earn more money than you spend. So your
overall net worth should increase, less debt.
Also, you may try to search "Bill Clinton Surplus Myth", you may find out
why it is very bogus | n****u
发帖数: 229 | 30 Paul Krugman spends more time on politics these days. His options serve
democrap party.
Back to the Bush tax cut.
Some cuts makes sense. For example: the divided tax.
The company pays tax on profit. Now it passes it the shareholders. Why tax
again?
If you makes $100 profit, then you pay $20 to the government. Then you pass
$30 to your son, why government tax the $30 again?
It's not about tax cut. It's about tax loophole. The rich can always find a
way to reduce tax, at the mean time the middle class always pay more! | | | n****u
发帖数: 229 | 31 If Keynesian ecomomics work, why complain the wars?
Government spend money on wars, which creates a lot of jobs. Does it work?
Some kids break your windows, so you spend money to repair, it's good for
other people. Does it really a good thing? | u****d
发帖数: 2578 | 32 Keynesian Solutions - After Total Failure -Try, Try Again
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-keynesian-solutions
-after-total-failure-try-try-again
从大的格局看，美国赢得冷战，中国加入WTO，是全世界资本主义的重大胜利。不要动
辄用狭隘的民族主义来看待各国国力的此消彼长，要看到资本主义这种制度的深入人心
，和他自己的发展规律。
资本主义的核心是企业，或企业背后的资本家。资本家被永无止境的贪婪所驱使，会通
过其所控制的企业来完成利润的攫取。时间进入21世纪，发达国家的各种消费市场经过
多年发展，已经饱和。资本家采取的策略是充分利用中国加入体制的契机，在空间（全
球布局生产，极力压低成本）和时间（放松信贷，让发达国家，主要是美国普通民众以
未来收入作抵押，大举举债消费）两个轴上拼命扩张。
马克思早就指出，资本主义的根本矛盾是无序的扩大生产和民众有限的消费能力之间不
可调和的矛盾。他的药方是充满理想色彩的社会主义。
世界上的资本家们在空间和时间轴上扩张到尽头后，还不知足，将魔爪最终伸向次贷人
群，搬起石头砸了自己的脚。
未来的经济危机，必是全球资本主义世界的危机，必是全世界在危机和资本家双重迫害
下逐渐觉醒的劳苦大众重新思考社会道路的开端。
大的危机将导致大的变革或革命。
cuts
.
approve
concede
rich.
【在 h*******a 的大作中提到】
: Not sure where you watch your news. Obama wanted to extend only the tax cuts
: for the middle class and raise taxes on the top 5% richest in the country.
: But the Republicans rejected any tax increases and threatened not to approve
: extending unemployment benefits. So Obama conceded (When did he not concede
: ?) to the Republican blackmail by extending the tax cuts for the super rich.
: Some bits of history for the Bush tax cuts:
: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html
: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/bush-tax-cut-mythol
: Paul Krugman wrote some excellent articles on Bush tax cuts. You can check
: out his blog on NY Times.
| a********t
发帖数: 4508 | 33 I am glad we had this discussion. We both can find articles to back us up, but those articles all have their political angels. We should look at both sides and come up with our own views based on free thinking.
The discussion shows that the fundamental difference between you and me is not supply vs. demand or anything else, but our belief systems. I believe in free market (capitalism) and you believe in controlled/intervened economy (socialism).
I believe that the main driver that can pull us out of the recession is the private sector, and you believe the government should dominate the process.
I believe when the revenues don't meet spending, especially when we are still in a recession, we should first heal the wounds and let the recovery continue. You believe it is on the revenue side(not on the spending side), and therefore we should collect more tax revenues from "the rich".
The Democratics use this word "rich" a lot. They pretty much invented this word without a clear cut definition. They blame on "the rich" for all the problems this country faces. Interestingly, the Repulicans don't use this word, and they don't blame on "the poor", even though the majority of the budget deficit comes from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and we know who benefit the most from these spendings. I believe the society is fair. You believe the society is in a constant unfair position, so somebody is always taking advantage of the others (the poor), and therefore they should be taxed more. (but how much more is fair? Another muddy question. We'll let you know when we have another deficit. LOL)
I believe Obama is a mediocre president. His reforms have fixed nothing. He has done nothing other than playing the political cards. You believe Obama has done nothing because he was overwhelmed by the bad guys on the other side of the negotiation table. To some level, this is true, because this is not Obama's private island. He gave in because of lack of support, the support from the citizens of this country, not from the politicians - we have to keep this in mind. | c*****r
发帖数: 8227 | 34 主义不重要，重要的是个体：
Core American principles: Self-Reliance, Individual Responsibility, Fair
Play and Hard Working!
这一段话，最好的总结了美国过去成功的精神所在：
“American exceptionalism is, among other things, the result of a difficult
rigor: the use of individual initiative as the engine of development within
a society that strives to ensure individual freedom through the rule of law.
Over time a society like this will become great. This is how—despite all
our flagrant shortcomings and self-betrayals—America evolved into an
exceptional nation."
but those articles all have their political angels. We should look at both
sides and come up with our own views based on free thinking.
not supply vs. demand or anything else, but our belief systems. I believe
in free market (capitalism) and you believe in controlled/intervened economy
(socialism).
the private sector, and you believe the government should dominate the
process.
still in a recession, we should first heal the wounds and let the recovery
continue. You believe it is on the revenue side(not on the spending side),
and therefore we should collect more tax revenues from "the rich".
word without a clear cut definition. They blame on "the rich" for all the
problems this country faces. Interestingly, the Repulicans don't use this
word, and they don't blame on "the poors", even though the majority of the
budget deficit comes from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and we
know who benefit the most from these spendings. I believe the society is
fair. You believe the society is in a constant unfair p: osition, so
somebody is always taking advantage of the others (the poors), and therefore
they should be taxed more. (but how much more is fair? Another muddy
question. We'll let you know when we have another deficit. LOL)
He has done nothing other than playing the political cards. You believe
Obama has done nothing because he was overwhelmed by the bad guys on the
other side of the negotiation table. To some level, this is true, because
this is not Obama's private island. He gave in because of lack of support,
the support from the citizens of this country, not from the politicians - we
have to keep this in mind.
【在 a********t 的大作中提到】
: I am glad we had this discussion. We both can find articles to back us up, but those articles all have their political angels. We should look at both sides and come up with our own views based on free thinking.
: The discussion shows that the fundamental difference between you and me is not supply vs. demand or anything else, but our belief systems. I believe in free market (capitalism) and you believe in controlled/intervened economy (socialism).
: I believe that the main driver that can pull us out of the recession is the private sector, and you believe the government should dominate the process.
: I believe when the revenues don't meet spending, especially when we are still in a recession, we should first heal the wounds and let the recovery continue. You believe it is on the revenue side(not on the spending side), and therefore we should collect more tax revenues from "the rich".
: The Democratics use this word "rich" a lot. They pretty much invented this word without a clear cut definition. They blame on "the rich" for all the problems this country faces. Interestingly, the Repulicans don't use this word, and they don't blame on "the poor", even though the majority of the budget deficit comes from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and we know who benefit the most from these spendings. I believe the society is fair. You believe the society is in a constant unfair position, so somebody is always taking advantage of the others (the poor), and therefore they should be taxed more. (but how much more is fair? Another muddy question. We'll let you know when we have another deficit. LOL)
: I believe Obama is a mediocre president. His reforms have fixed nothing. He has done nothing other than playing the political cards. You believe Obama has done nothing because he was overwhelmed by the bad guys on the other side of the negotiation table. To some level, this is true, because this is not Obama's private island. He gave in because of lack of support, the support from the citizens of this country, not from the politicians - we have to keep this in mind.
| a********t
发帖数: 4508 | 35 纲举才能目张。
difficult
within
law.
【在 c*****r 的大作中提到】
: 主义不重要，重要的是个体：
: Core American principles: Self-Reliance, Individual Responsibility, Fair
: Play and Hard Working!
: 这一段话，最好的总结了美国过去成功的精神所在：
: “American exceptionalism is, among other things, the result of a difficult
: rigor: the use of individual initiative as the engine of development within
: a society that strives to ensure individual freedom through the rule of law.
: Over time a society like this will become great. This is how—despite all
: our flagrant shortcomings and self-betrayals—America evolved into an
: exceptional nation."
|
|
