It is basic economics.
Tax cuts give more disposable income and more money to invest. Unless people sock the money away under their mattresses, it is going back into the economy in some fashion, creating more demand and more jobs.
Most any theory of economics views tax cuts as stimulative precisely for the reasons I just laid out.
The only debate comes in how they effect tax revenue.
Did you read the links I gave you? Anyways, just to add to things, studies show that for every dollar spent on tax cuts, $0.60 is returned to the economy, whereas for every dollar spent on welfare programs it is something like $1.50 that is returned to the economy. I'll find the studies some time when I get the chance, I haven't read them in a while, so it may take a while for me to remember where to find them. Anyways, I guess that means that people are just stuffing that extra money away under their mattresses. It is NOT simple economics. If it were, you should be able to produce some evidence to that demonstrate that tax cuts have a direct link to job creation. I won't deny that lower taxes may have SOME positive impacts on the economy some of the time, but they cannot drive the economy. If you could just cut taxes to create jobs, why have so many people lost their jobs?
Any explanation needs to make logical, economic sense. What you have provided, on it's own does not. You need to flesh out the explanation. I would agree that changes in regulation did lead to the recession. I would not agree that it was a lessening of regulation that lead to it. That is to simplistic and makes absolutely no economic sense.
So.... relaxing regulations on banks and lenders had nothing to do with the housing bubble?
You don't think 9/11 or the mild recession that started before Bush took office had anything to do with that?
No. If anything, 9/11 should have created jobs. We saw the creation of the largest government bureaucracy ever, tons of additional security jobs, and the US at war in two countries created additional demand for many goods including military goods. Mild recession that started before Bush took office? not really....
http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/press/2003/fs_bushrecession073103.pdf
Perhaps you just weren't paying any attention to the economy at the time. I guess that you have spent to much time learning about the early years of Bush's presidency on conservative websites. Maybe you were in school at the time and didn't really have the time to pay attention to those kind of things. I don't know the reason, but you should be able to remember stuff that happened less than 10 years ago.....
Additional food for thought
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692
Do you disagree with the notion of an inherent boom and bust cycle in the economy?
Did I say that I did?
Would you disagree with the notion that the more you subsidize an activity, the more you get of the activity?
No. Having had to collect unemployment myself in the past, I can say from experience that it is not something I would have wanted to stay on. Perhaps there are some that want to leech off of welfare, but they are the exception, not the rule. For most people who utilize unemployment, it is a temporary means to supplement their savings until they can find work. Tell me, if you were on unemployment, would you want to stay on it?
:bowrofl:
