It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
This thread is not about Obama.
This thread is not about Obama's economic policies.
This thread is not about semantics of whether the current economic policy can be labeled the "Bush" policy.
This thread is asking a relatively simple question, the one in bold above.
Originally posted by The All Seeing I
On the "Question on Economic Policies" i think Ron Paul is the only one on the ball. As long as the Federal Reserve is pulling the strings, any difference in economic policy is trivial.
...what reason is there to assume that continued application of the trickle down economic model will have any different outcome in the future than it has had to date?
I know, Trickle Down theory is a complete and utter FALLACY. It has never worked and never will work.
Originally posted by AndrewTB
To my understanding, Bush's trickle down economics had very little to do with the situation we are in. Its unfair to blame him for something that happened primarily because of something Clinton put into power.
Originally posted by nj2day
The government should not just give a tax break for being a big corporation IMHO. but maybe, if they gave tax breaks based on what they provide for their employees, i.e. a tax break based on payroll figures for all wage employees making more than minimum wage (on a sliding scale to accommodate for higher payed wage employees, also note I said Wage, or the hourly guys... not salaried positions).
Or perhaps a tax break for providing extra benefits to your employees.
if the government could balance the costs incurred by these businesses with the appropriate level of tax relief, It might work...