Politics, Science, and Religion.
And sometimes intersections among them
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Somewhere out there...
there's a better idea. "Canada recovered from the same recession with higher job growth and its surplus intact by using more modest tax cuts targeted at the middle-class."
3 comments:
Anonymous
said...
It's apples and oranges.
Canada didn't have a 9/11 attack on its financial center.
And even so, Canada's "recovery" has a ways to go before it's on par with the U.S.'s per-capita output.
You're the one with the apples and orange comparison going. Thanks for the link. Canada has the lowest rate in three years. Without big tax giveaways to the rich. Imagine that.
I'm sure glad 9/11 came along so that Republicans could have something on which to blame the business cycle. Now which is it? Did the dot.com bubble burst and cause a recession that Bush (hswib) inherited? Or did the recession get caused by a terrorist attack? Or, was the recession aggravated by an administration that did nothing real to ameliorate it and merely used it as cover to give more money to its well-heeled constituency thereby diminishing the economy's confidence that the government had even a clue on how to help?
Personally I'm not one who blames Bush (hswib) for the initial loss of jobs with the recession. But I do blame him for the cluelessness to think that the only thing to do about it was to give big tax breaks to rich people. Never mind actually taking a look at the actual structure of the economy and taking appropriate actions to get it back on track. Is the problem our failure to structure our manufacturing to compete in the global economy? Are we providing to much encouragement to move jobs overseas with our tax laws? Are we lagging in getting new innovations to market? Are we lagging in the production of innovations? When we needed our government to be smart, it played dumb. It's time for a regime change.
3 comments:
It's apples and oranges.
Canada didn't have a 9/11 attack on its financial center.
And even so, Canada's "recovery" has a ways to go before it's on par with the U.S.'s per-capita output.
Hold on a second!
Let's take a closer look:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2004/10/08/jobless_041008.htmlCanada's unemployment rate is 7.1% and they think that's great? Ours is 5.4% and going down.
You're the one with the apples and orange comparison going. Thanks for the link. Canada has the lowest rate in three years. Without big tax giveaways to the rich. Imagine that.
I'm sure glad 9/11 came along so that Republicans could have something on which to blame the business cycle. Now which is it? Did the dot.com bubble burst and cause a recession that Bush (hswib) inherited? Or did the recession get caused by a terrorist attack? Or, was the recession aggravated by an administration that did nothing real to ameliorate it and merely used it as cover to give more money to its well-heeled constituency thereby diminishing the economy's confidence that the government had even a clue on how to help?
Personally I'm not one who blames Bush (hswib) for the initial loss of jobs with the recession. But I do blame him for the cluelessness to think that the only thing to do about it was to give big tax breaks to rich people. Never mind actually taking a look at the actual structure of the economy and taking appropriate actions to get it back on track. Is the problem our failure to structure our manufacturing to compete in the global economy? Are we providing to much encouragement to move jobs overseas with our tax laws? Are we lagging in getting new innovations to market? Are we lagging in the production of innovations? When we needed our government to be smart, it played dumb. It's time for a regime change.
Post a Comment