The idea behind cutting corporate taxes is to allow liquid assets to make improvements in infrastructure that would prompt higher employment and product production. When businesses find they have markets to satisfy but don't have enough product to provide to that market it inhibits GROWTH.
When government provides funds for business to expand in the way of tax cuts, it isn't giving up any income. Or I should say, it isn't supposed to be giving up any income, i.e. The Bush Tax Cuts provided deficit government spending without purchasing anything.
The way it is supposed to work, is that government grants tax cuts to businesses, in turn business builds more infrastructure and produces more product. Within that dynamic is increased employment for the citizens of the country as well as additional income to the country through personal income tax, and for states and local governments through sales taxes when more product is sold.
The reason the McCain tax cuts and why Bush's Tax Cuts mean nothing to the economy is because there was no market share demanding more product. If a business has a maximum 'market share' it doesn't matter if they get tax cuts because there is no need to expand. The Bush/McCain Tax Cuts will go to the profit side of the business and will go into stockholders pockets.
The Bush/McCain Tax Cuts lose money for the federal government and place greater indebtedness to the federal and state governments.
The infrastructure for any country is actually fixed and growth within that infrastructure is mostly measurable. The federal government is supposed to realize the needs of the populous of the USA and provide for short falls in state needs through federal subsidies to all fifty sates. The income to the federal government is derived from citizens throughout the states and territories of the USA. Those funds become a general fund to pay for costs of the people across the same demographics that the taxes were received with special attention to states with lower income.
Example: The poorest state in the country is Alabama. In order to insure better quality of life for people in Alabama there needs to be federal subsidies to that state derived from income obtained from all the states, including those that are wealthier states. No state will ever be self-supporting to the point of never needing funding from the federal government, by the sheer fact each state could never afford their own military nor support it through enlistment of only their state populous.
The federal government is necessary and taxes to that level of government is necessary. The Executive Branch is the administrator of the country's needs and is supposed to be adequately addressed through the cabinet. It is legitimate use of the federal government to provide stability to the needs of people in this country through taxation and appropriate expenditures.
What Bush and McCain have done in randomly stating they will remove tax burdens from businesses to supposedly increase employment is to actually and continually remove services to the people of the USA and downsize the federal system. Their approach to tax cuts is completely invalid and has added to the deficit of the USA.
Tax cuts to the Middle Class is a benefit to the 'return' of American economic infrastructure because it adds to the demand for products. When the American people don't have good quality of life, poor paying jobs or no jobs at all, face ill health without hope and have their children's education compromised through poorly funded local and state expenditures that screams of federal government NEGLECT. That neglect exists in our federal government today, because of poor supply side economics. Bush/McCain puts money in the pockets of people and businesses that have no need for it and do nothing to contribute to the growth of the USA.With existing tax cuts, there is no reason to provide more of the same to the same people. The Middle Class of this country need to have their standard of living returned to them and can be assisted by providing tax cuts. It also needs a new infrastructure in the way of employment opportunities to high school educated folks.
The quality of education has been compromised in the USA. There was a radical change in educational infrastructure that was poorly funded while providing impetus for families to move their children to private or charter schools. Those charter schools on rare occassion have proven to provide underachieving students rather than exceptional achievers as was expected. Due to the decrease in the achievement of our young learners there is a drop off in the need for college infrastruture as it is anticipated college admissions will level off as soon as next year.
With that in mind, we have had an increase in our population to the tune of currently 300 million, with primarily more and more of that demographic ending their initial years of education at the high school or less level. There are dearly few jobs for these folks. To believe we can educate all of them to high school level, send them to two or more additional years of education and then assist them into better paying jobs is only to realize demise for a 'start up' economy at the onset of the new administration.
The USA is in a very poor state today. We have enough of the 'Old World' USA from the Baby Boomer generation to allow for expertise and leadership, but, the new generation of American is struggling to find focus and impetus to a future that is secure and predictable. For a new administration to succeed they have to abandon any idea of providing further tax cuts to business and the 'upper crust' of this country and focus on bolstering the Middle Class including focusing on the budget shortfalls of states currently holding their own but struggling to stay afloat.
We need to refocus on our Brain Trust in the USA and provide the infrastructure to once again compete on that international stage. To facilitate all that, will require a 'quick fix' to the 'start up' economy awaiting an ambitious, young President.
Barak Obama will have to first focus on the actual needs for our military, see its futility in places where deaths and poverty provide for 'quite' and shift 'occupation' from Iraq to the needs of victory for Afghanistan without alienating the methodologies of the current President Karzai. Karzai has a clear understanding of his people and their desire to achieve a peace in Afghanistan they have longed for but to date have evaded them because of hostile regimes.
Stabilizing the 'costs' of our military will provide for vital elbow-room at home. We can then turn toward the most direly needed infrastructure for the USA and that is energy and transportation. The last Congress sessions beginning in 2006 have moved mountains in providing funding for 'discovery' of better battery technology for staunchly American companies like GM. They have begun the restructuring but need a President that is on their side to complete that vision. A President that can also deliver a Middle Class capable of purchasing products with advanced technology.
The new 'start-up' economy will be a 'working presons' economy whereby physical infrastructure will be addressed and changes to our energy needs coming quickly. It doesn't take decades to build wind farms or high speed magnetic rail across this country. With a return to 'jobs' that are predictable will return a 'tax base' we can count on while those paying that tax continue to enjoy expenditures on a personal level and raising 'demand' for the products we love to enjoy.
Huge infrastructure changes do not occur through private industry expenditures. It comes with government spending and taxing those with the most income is the right thing to do. The highest earners in the USA are approximately 1 to 2 percent of the population, how much 'demand' can they realistically create? The focus to the next Executive Branch and Congress in DC has to be one of focus and valuing the return of quality of life for all Americans.
The dynamics are really quite simple. There is no 'mystical' understanding of what makes the USA economy tick. Its good paying jobs that address the infrastructure changes required in this country to be an international leader on all fronts. Once the tax base is feed and the 'demand' side of the economy is stimulated we can accomplish anything. The answer to the return of the USA economy's vigor, is not to downsize the federal government to achieve balanced budgets and surpluses, but, to provide a widened tax base with healthy, happy Americans from all walks of life proud of their accomplishments with goals set on keeping our promises to our children as so many generations of Americans have done before.
Read My Lips.
No New Tax Cuts for The Rich !!!
