Taxes Promote Economic Growth

A countries’ economy that increases its productivity, or total output of goods, would be considered a healthy economy. The increase in productivity equates to a demand for those countries goods. When a countries demand for their goods fall, their productivity will decrease this is referred to as a recession. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the most common measure for total output of an economy. Other key factor such as the unemployment and inflation rate extends the overall view of the economy.
Our country have experience some key tax cuts, the first one in the 20’s followed by the 60’s, Reagan’s tax cuts of the 1980’s and now in 2001, that all have some impressive numbers and data. The 1920 tax cut was the first federal experiment with supply-sided income tax cuts. Economists argue that it takes between 2-6 years for tax cuts to affect the economy. Data in the 1920’s indicate a decrease in federal revenues; however, revenues grew stronger in subsequent years during the economic expansion. The results of the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts of the mid-sixties displayed similar results.
Ronald Reagan achieved the greatest success during his tax cuts in 1981, which was not approved by congress until October 1981. Reagan inherited a 13% inflation rate, 7% unemployment rate that peaked at nearly 10% and a negative GDP. As in the 1920’s, there was a period of time elapse before the tax cuts proved to be successful. The unemployment rate dropped to 5.5%; inflation subdued to 4% by the time he left office and the GDP leveled at a low 4% average growth rate with the best year being 7% growth in GDP.
President Bush’s tax cuts of 2001 sparked heated arguments in the Senate but was eventually approved and has been endangered of elapsing. In 2001 our economy suffered a major blow from the terrorist attacks, however, the tax cuts in 2001 has affected job growth and our economy. Since August 2003, more than 8.2 million jobs have been created for the past 46 months with an unemployment rate of 4.5%. The GDP since 2002 has been experiencing over 3% growth rate coupled with 5% interest rates.
The data does not lie, in the long-run; tax cuts benefit a capital society by allowing investors to invest in businesses that allow companies to expand their operations by hiring additional employees. A larger work force provides the federal government with an increase in revenues from taxes and social security pay outs. History from a Democratic and Republican President has taught us that tax cuts spur economic growth by placing more money in the hands of the people then a bureaucratic government.

Why Offically Raising Minimum Wage is Bad for Businesses

The minimum wage issue has recently been debated in the Senate and after some debating and amendments, the minimum wage will increase to $5.85 per hour, effective July 24th 2007,$6.55 per hour, effective July 24th 2008 and $7.25 per hour, effective July 24th 2009. Since the minimum wage law was passed in 1996, there have been nine attempts to raise the law and nine attempts failed. To the low income worker a sigh of relief can be heard. The increase in pay allows the lower skilled workers to a greater disposal income to spend on essential items or save for the future. Society benefits from greater revenue in sales tax from the increase in spending. This would help fund need programs in the community. These are a few of the assumptions that democrats and anyone who is pro an increase in minimum wage wants everyone to believe. This is so far from the truth that it is appalling. John Edwards is so animate that he introduced an amendment to assist with the passage of the bill. He declares the lower class workers need it; they really need this to happen. John Edwards must have failed Economics 101 and slept right through a finance class, since this is not what the lower class impoverish workers need for their salvation. Basically, democrats are saying more money will save you from your money worries and here are a few nickels and dimes to appease you. Economics teaches us about the law of supply and demand. A business that employees worker at the new wage of $7.25 are forced to raise prices beyond their normal rates. Good old inflation allows business owners to raise their prices at least 3% a year, which is the average inflation rate in the US. Employee’s wages is calculated as a variable cost from accounting, and variable cost can be reduced when its price is excessive. The variable cost is figured in the price of the product or service of the company. Employers either have to raise the price of their product to maintain their profitability or lay off employees to stay competitive with other firms. A business’s value chain analysis will appear extremely expensive at any point where workers handle their product from harvesting their raw materials to serving the final product to the consumer. Any company that desires to maintain profitable analysis’s their value chain to determine the cost drives and implement ways to reducing their overall cost. The increase employees wages, which is a variable cost, has increased dramatically over a period of time, these costs are the first to be reduced by lay offs. Not only lay offs, but reducing the total workforce for their lower paid workers. Have you ever waited in long lines at a fast food restaurant or waited to be seated at a sit down restaurant? Now imagine fewer workers due to costs and more of your valuable time wasted for the same service. Raising minimum wage is not the solution to the low income workers; this is a political smoke screen by the democrats to pay off this sector of voters. Education increases individual’s value to employees, not legislative from Congress. President Bush has increase education spending from the very beginning of his administration. The increase of money is a short-term solution, increase your overall value is the long-term answer.

The Troubles With Social Security

At one time social security was an issue in the political arena that has taken backseat to news from Iraq, Lindsey Lohan, Rosie and Paris Hilton's Picasso. There is not much talk about it in newspaper or on TV. President Bush brought the issue to us some time ago and it was squashed. Uhm? It must be fixed, right? Wrong. Most industrial nations can't keep the promises they've made to older people under their pay-as-you-go social-security systems, says two economists, Jonathan Gruber and David Wise, in a new paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), in Cambridge, Mass. Despite the growing concerns of obesity in this country, people are living healthier and longer. The average life expectancy for U.S. residents is now 77.6 coupled with a 12-year decline in birth rate to the lowest level since national data have been available, according to statistics just released by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). When the social security act of 1935 was passed, there was over 7 million residents 65 and over compared to the over 40 million today. The baby boomers are healthier then their parents and are living longer but have had less children. The US workforce consists of about 146 million with an unemployment rate steady at 4.6% or 6.8 million. That means there are only 3.65 employed individuals paying one retirement check. Either FICA has increased its pay roll deductions or there is a shortfall in the system. That is why the government has offered seniors delayed retirement for the benefit of increased pay outs. There is something wrong with society and our planning if an individual is still working at age 70. I believe 65 or 62 is too long to enjoy the rest of your life. And with the pattern of Americans savings extremely low, in some cases they have to keep working, because social security benefits are inadequate. Here is the deal, why invest in a program that does not meet your retirement needs when you do retire? Our company will assist individuals of all ages to undergo a free Financial Needs Analysis (FNA) and determine your path and vehicle that drives you to your proper destination of complete and total retirement. -----If you have enjoyed these topics and would like to hear more on these and others, my free weekly news letter is a must read. Just click here and you will receive an e-mail on a user name and password for the member’s only page which is still under construction). Thanks and have a great day------your financial advisor at http://www.financialadvisor4u.org/.

Rosie & Alex and Harry Reid

It has been a busy time in the news media with topics as the Virgina school shooting, the recorded message from Alex Baldwin, Rosie O'Donnel departure from the View(poor Rosie) and the Democrates spending so much time and energy on a bill just so the President can veto due to the time table. I have a few words to say about Harry Reid(who does not speak for me) but his plan involves in cutting and running. Did you know his nick name growing up was "Pinky"? Harry must have been picked on alot due to that name and probally avoiding bullies by running away. Sorry Harry, this is war, and Americans will not be intiminated by fear from any country and any group just because they blow themselves up. Every time a memeber of their group decieds to be a Roman candle on Acid, it is evidence that we are winning. That is all they got. They can not fight against our highly training Army so they are reduced to a bunch of little kids sneaking out of their parents house to egg someone's house or in recent times, go on a killing spree.
At least Alex is apologizing over his voice mail, but Harry Reid has said nothing about his statement about announcing to the American people that the war is lost. What signals the war is lost? What objectives were not met? Are people worst off now by having their freedom, which Harry and others have to vote and make their voice know which during Saddam was not possible unless you wanted to die. Then another Senator has to explain what Harry really means that another direction is need in the war. NO- he said the war was LOST. So if we lost the war, then who won? Did the terrorist that flew airplanes in the World Trade Center win? Should people quite because things are getting tough or not looking good. They are saying that the President’s policy is a failure, why because the terrorist are blowing themselves up? His policy was to protect our country from another terrorist attack and that he has done? This is the same man that opposes semi-automatic weapons (that is a good thing) but is for the death penalty. That explains why inmates are injected with lethal drugs to kill them to be humane. Did Scott Peterson act humanely when he killed his wife and unborn baby and dump them in a body of water? Take an automatic weapon with the person being blindfolded and the deal is done.
Since Harry Reid is against such weapons and is far pulling our first line of defense out of Iraq, I guess his plan is to fight the enemies with pistols and possible knives. Well, we will just call in some ninjas and settle it that way.
Congress has said the President gave them misleading information about Iraq, well, that is the same information that he received from the CIA and all the others that supply intelligence. Democrats have shown that they are weak leaders that do not stand up for the American way and for concrete principals. The President has not wavered during the war or his decling approval ratings, but Congress is influenced by those that contribute the most amount of money to their campaigns. That is all for now. And this is my opinion.

Civil Rights Leaders?Not!

Ever since Don Imus made his slip, everyone has been bashing him and ended up firing him from his show. What he did may have been wrong, but does the punishment fit the crime. And it is interesting that the Lacrosse players were found innocent of raping a black women and not one Civil rights leader has said any apolyizes to the three men after they already deemed them gulity in their own eyes. In this country are assumed innocent until proven guilty. Unless you have all the evidence, no one is fit to make a decsion, this was just a race card. A black women said the three whites men raped her, gee it must be true, even if she is a stripper and has a history of false testimoney. The three men suffered for over a year, but where are the civil right's leader in this case. The truth be told, the civil rights leaders are biase towards black and not just Americans. Their true titles should be Black Civil Rights leader or African-American Civil Rights leader. They only care about the issues that affect their race otherwise they would have publicly aploygize for their condem words almost a year ago. But they are too busy with Don Imus, a 60 something old white man that does comic news reporting. If you are going to defend one races civil rights, then defend all races civil rights otherwise you are a hypricrite for standing up for the black community and not the other communities. This is what you would call favortism, bias and just plan ignorant. A leader does not just guide some people who are in need, the guide all, they influence and motivate people to do the right thing. My opinon has been spoken.

Game Area

Give your opinions on any games on any game system.

TV

Give your opinions about any Television shows.

Movies

Give your opinions about recent movies in theaters or for rent

Politics

Give your opinons about politicans: from local to the President.

Hot Issues

What is your opinion on the Don IMUS issue? Was he wrong? Is everyone over-reacting? What's your opinion?