yeah, had absolutely nothing to do with oil supply and demand and the fact that the auto industry is the primary source of employment in the state. Or that businesses are turning tail and running to other states because they can tell that if the big 3 go away there won't be any way for them to run their businesses. or that tourism is down because people aren't driving to our ski areas or beaches.
yeah, the tax hike was the ONLY factor in the recession. you really nailed that one Casp.
I didn't use the r-word, but I will acknowledge that although I never think a tax hike is a good idea, now would be just about the worst time for one that we've seen in quite some time.
I don't disagree entirely. However, non-defense and non-discretionary spending only accounts for 31% of the federal budget. There's only so much cutting that can be done.
The potential tax hikes aren't that bad -- they're still talking about a 15% rate on cap gains and dividends and moving the marginal rate brackets back to the Clinton schedule which, to offer a historical perspective, were actually lower than the rates in Reagan's first term.
I'd suggest that starting off with that failurific headline made it difficult to see any serious points you made afterwards. Where the headline implies "Action: Tax Hike --- Result: Recession", the reality is that the tax hike was made 12 months into *this* recession. I emphasize "this" because Michigan has been in or on the edge of recession since the days of Engler.
At this point it's far to early to gauge at all what impact the tax hike will have.
True, the farkline implies a causal relationship that may or may not exist. But it's certainly fair to say that the tax hike is not the economic savior that Dems try to advertise.
yeah, the tax hike was the ONLY factor in the recession. you really nailed that one Casp.
Reply
What I said was that a tax hike DURING an economic down turn (which would imply that the economic down turn pre-existed the tax hike) is a bad idea.
Reply
Regardless, Clinton and Obama aren't Granholm. I think we can all be thankful for that.
Reply
No they're not, but they both want to hike our taxes by an alarming percentage.
Reply
must. log. off. must. log. off. must. log. off.
Reply
Reply
that's awesome! HAHAHAHA! I'm so stealing that. (I'm not even being mean. That's a hoot)
Reply
And that's so not mine, I heard it elsewhere. Ya know, just full disclosure or whatever.
Reply
Because, of course, the fact that our long-term obligations outstrip our income is absolutely no reason for worry.
/sarcasm
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
The potential tax hikes aren't that bad -- they're still talking about a 15% rate on cap gains and dividends and moving the marginal rate brackets back to the Clinton schedule which, to offer a historical perspective, were actually lower than the rates in Reagan's first term.
Reply
At this point it's far to early to gauge at all what impact the tax hike will have.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment