Keynesian spending, increasing debt, taxing the wealthy

I am of the opinion that the tax cut enacted by G Bush in 2001 was the first error. He starts a war and cuts taxes, duh! Talk about Economics 101! The war continues much longer than his rant on the ship some short days later when he states,’mission accomplished’ and here we are ten years later still paying to get out of the place. If his tax and plan was so worthy why did it put us into the deepest recession since the great depression? Obviously his bad policies coupled with Europes continuuing issues have made getting us out of the hole difficult but I will add that we are better today than where we were 3.6 years ago when there was legimate concern of sinking into a depression, and I will opine that we will likely be better 4 years from now if we get a congress willing to do something besides just assault the opposition. This last statement will apply no matter who gets elected. e.g. Tip O’neal worked with Ron Reagan and moved legislation wheras these clowns just want to be a fly in the ointment.

If reducing the tax on the wealthy was so right than why did we sink into such a horrendous economic situation by late 2008? The policy had a seven year time frame of opportunity in which to show the effects of the trickle down economic theory and since it has continued for what is now over ten years, why is it still a failed theory? I will offer that todays newspaper ( The Record) hits the nail on the head by reporting that the wealthiest 15% of NJ population have seen their fortunes expand while the balance and especially the poor have seen theirs deteriorate. In other words the rich have chosen to merely retain most of the excess and not re-invest the additional wealth and so they have gotten richer at the expense of the poorer class of our society. If this is allowed to continue we will breed revolt (isn’t that what Occupy Wall Street really is?) and so I offer that if for no other reason we need to return to a fairer tax on the wealthy and allow them to keep less so that even though it may not cure the economy it will at least send the signal that the pendulum has swung and we will again be on the road to a more just economy. In my opinion this is an important step in declaring the intent of the American Democratic system. No I am not in favor of grants and handouts but we need to recognize that most people given an opportunity want to have meaningful employment and not get a gift. The rich will still prosper and certainly they will eat three meals a day and have a roof over their heads but if their intent is to just see how much their finances grow at the expense of folks who are struggling with daily necessities then my vote is for those who have little. The notion that the rich will no longer invest is bogus and overstated in my opinion because ultimately they do want more as that is what makes them successful to begin with. While the great majority are content with having a roof over their heads and food on the table there are those who will always be ambitious and strive to succeed beyond the norm and that is a good thing and I suspect the world would be a very sad place if it were not for those folks. The fact that they have to make do with a little less will not crush their ambition but it may crush the opportunity for a poor student because the cost for a semester at the local community college went from six hundred dollars to nine hundred dollars and so that persons family just cannot afford to let them attend.

I have gone on a bit but I wanted to make a point that while taxing those higher incomes may in fact not as you stated make any “significant impact on the debt or that it will do anything to create jobs or stimulate growth” , yet I beleive it will make a significant difference in the attitude with which the majority of the public views the spirit of our American Society and as such is a worthwhile motive for enactment. In my opinion enhancing a sense of fairness is a worthwhile motive especially when it applies to the 99%!

LikeLike