Funny, in Germany people are mocking the influence of the EU, because everyone knows that EU funds equal wasted tax payer money. It's just difficult to change anything about that because every single party in the political spectrum is pro EU.
Maybe Germans are one step ahead of their other European counterparts. Maybe they realize they are the ones paying the most of the EU waste, and any funds Germany receives from EU is only a fraction of what is sent to Brussels.
As far as all the major parties being pro-EU, well, EU as a common market is a good idea. European Commission as a "government" of EU is a bad idea. Maybe it is not easy to distinguesh between the two, and at this point, the EU government has reached escape velocity, and there is no way to stop it, or to reform it for the better.
The same applies to the US on a federal level. The Republicans had plenty of chance to change the system back according to their philosophy, yet they didn't.
So who do you vote for? People who actually stand for what they say or spineless opportunists?
I don't thik a lot of Republican voters were unhappy when Republicans lost Congress in 2006. That bunch became worthless, only caring about holding power, instead of doing anything constructive. Republicans certainly needed some time in the wilderness to find themselves, and they did. Paul Ryan (Romney's pick for VP) has emerged as an intellectual leader of Republicans, Republicans won the House of Representatives in 2010, and they are actually not spineless opprtunists.
They are willing to address issues facing the US (and just about every country in the West) which is the imminent bankruptcy, as the bills for promises made by the political opportunist of the past come due.
Also, it's funny you speak of how taxing the people is stealing from them. How do you explain, then, that the phases in which the US economy grew most where times of high taxes, and that the republican tax cuts led to bubbles and crashes?
I did not say stealing, I said taking by force. Not exactly the same thing, but I don't want to get into semantics.
As far as taxing, I really like the way Ron Paul says it. Spending is the tax. If the money is spent, it will have to be taxed. Either immediately, or later, with interest. So, he tells Republicans, don't talk about cutting taxes, talk about cutting spending.
As far as booms and busts, bubbles and bursting of bubbles, they may or may not have to do anything with taxes. Unless you are talking a huge change.
- Reagan boom might be partially attributed to change in taxes, but it was a change from a ridiculus 70% marginal tax rate (that most people avoided) to a sane rate in around 30.
- Clinton years boom and bust in the last year of his presidency was in my opinion not caused by his increase of personal taxes or cut of capital gains taxes. It was technology driven
- Bush II era tax cuts did not exactly start a boom. They were just a reaction to revive a moribound economy after 2 back to back shocks (Dot.com crash and 9/11).
- The real estate bubble and subsequent crash had nothing to do with Clinton tax increase or Bush reversal of that tax increase in personal taxes
What cuased the real estate bubble has happened during Clinto era, and Republicans (who controlled Congress) and Clinton share the blame almost equally, IMO. Two things happened:
1. Clinton administration took some banks to court wit a charge: "The deadbeats you are NOT lending money are predominantly racial minorities, and the fact that you are not lending to them is racial discrimination. Clinton "won". Banks were
forced to make home mortgate loans to deadbeats (as part of the settlement). The banks then found out that it was not really such a bad thing, because there were idiot investors out there who kept buying these sub-prime mortgages from them...
2. Clinton + Republicans passed a general capital gains tax cut plus a special tax cut on real estate transactions on top of that. For all practical purposes, real estate gains became tax free. Unlike any other investment that was taxable. So a lot of money (including a lot of Greenspan easy money) went into real estate.
Here is how it worked:
Real estate prices were going up for the reasons mentioned. So you buy a house you can barely afford with no intention of eventually paying it off. The intention is to hold it for a few years, while the prices went up. Then you sell it with a gain. This gain is tax free, up to $500,000 for a couple. You take your gain, spend some of it, and invest the rest into even a bigger house, that you can afford even less than the first one. Again, the intention is to just hold it for a while, pay the minimum in payments, and sell it again.
I know people who flipped 2-3 houses. It is all based on the "greater fool" theory. You are a fool for buying a house that you can't afford, that is not worth the price you are paying, but you "know" that there will be a greater fool down the road who will buy it from you at even more foolish price.
So the crash was inevitable, regardless of what the personal tax rates were (irrelevant to this cycle) or who the president was at the time...
But you can fool a lot of people by confusing the coincidence, correlation and causation. Not just the in popular media. The scientific journals are full of this confusion...
You don't need to lock back to the 50s and their 9x% top tax bracket, just look back to the 80s and how the economy suffered under reagan, then look how Bush I raised taxes and the economy prospered under Clinton (for which he did his part, but it was mainly Bushs merit), and now look how the Bush II tax cuts created a bubble economy and left the entire world in trouble.
If only Bush II had had the wisdom of his father.
A lot of coincidences, but one factual error: Economy under Reagan had long, sustained boom, very high economic growth rates, year after year, with no bust following it, just a minor recession during Bush I. The double dip recession as he entered office was largely due to the intention of the Fed to slay the inflation dragon that has plagued the world for a decade of 70s. Bundesbank, Bank of England did their part in inflation fighting, causing recession in 81, 82.
You can look up the stats here:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growthWhat I find amaszng is not that you said "just look back to the 80s and how the economy suffered under reagan". I am sure there was no ill intent on your part. I am sure you heard from some source you may have thoght was credible. The part that I find amazing is that how the leftie media re-writes history and the fact that it works.
So what we end up is that the ever shrinking minority of people who still have interest in the real world end up being served altered reality by the media.
The reason I say shrinking minority is because a growing majority of people have absolutely no interest in real the world. They live in alternate universe of celbrity (sub) culture, gossip, sport fanaticism ...
