France wants to slap the rich with 75% super tax

Tax rates do not effect whether a person decides to create a company. Clinton had the good fortune to be President during a technology boom, but he was also more of a business friendly President than Obama. He signed the NAFTA agreement and he kept low levels of spending.

When you look at stimulus spending, you can see that it was not effective. Four years later we are still in the same place with unemployment. Government does not have the capability to spend us back to health. Short term jobs are no replacement for permanent employment.

When you have massive deficits, you cut spending. Then you can lower or raise taxes depending on the economy. In a good economy, you can raise taxes. But if you're in a bad economy, you need to lower taxes to allow for saving and spending levels to go up with individuals. Our country has had its biggest growth periods under Republicans who use supply side economics.

 

Borrowing foreign money and leaving expenses off budget isn't supply side economics or controlling spending.

I hope you aren't counting the Dubya years as an example of an economic boom in the United States.

 

Every president has borrowed foreign money, so I'm not sure what you're saying. Supply side economics is about having lower tax rates and broadening the base to encourage spending and growth.

We did have an economic boom under George Bush. When President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. During the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually — a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.

 

You need to take a look at Dubya's job record in his 2nd term, and consider how many jobs were lost during Dubya's presidency.
Also ask yourself why Dubya eliminated paygo if he was so concerned with future deficits.

 

I've admitted several times on here that George Bush lost control of spending in his second term. When Rob Portman was his head of OMB, the deficit was $161 billion. that is roughly 1/10th of the Obama administration. That's the concerning part for me, Democrats admit no fault for Obama. They all play the blame game. But the fact is Obama called deficits under Bush ridiculous, but then he racked up deficits twice the size for four straight years now. Having an honest debate means you have to be honest...

 

I find it interesting that on the one hand Romney doesn't believe it's the governments job to take care of its people (even though they basically "pay" for that service) and on the other he's promising that as president he will create 12 million jobs.

If he's going to do that as the president, isn't that effectively the government doing the job creating? And like, caring for its people?

Or does he just mean he will create these 12 million jobs in china?

Things that make you go hmmmmmm......