Quantcast

U.S. Drops to 18th in Global Economic-Freedom Rankings: Are You Worried?

Fef 2012/09/21 19:00:00
You!
Add Photos & Videos
The Fraser Institute report smacked U.S.A. down from 8th place a decade ago. Big government policies and a trend to more regulations by Washington, D.C. has dropped America out of the top 10.

The report blasts American policies in regard to freedom: The United States, long considered the standard bearer for economic freedom among large industrial nations, has experienced a substantial decline in economic freedom during the past decade.
WND.COM reports:
The United States has slipped to 18th in the world when it comes to economic freedom, according to an annual ranking of nations issued by the Fraser Institute.
wnd reports free press free people 1997

Read More: http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/u-s-drops-to-no-18-in-g...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • beavith1 lurx: t... 2012/10/19 21:55:43
    beavith1
    right. i agree with it.

    is there a problem?
  • lurx: t... beavith1 2012/10/19 23:33:34 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    ...funny how you failed to mention that eliminating the automatic budget cuts was also a concern of the CBO in averting another economic crisis.
  • beavith1 lurx: t... 2012/10/20 21:24:38
    beavith1
    how about cutting spending so that our revenues and spending are more closely matched?

    that seems to escape the left...
  • lurx: t... beavith1 2012/10/20 21:30:58
    lurx: the soda jerk
    "how about cutting spending so that our revenues and spending are more closely matched?"

    Well, according to the CBO, that form of economic stimulus would result in another economic crisis, at least for the next few years.
  • beavith1 lurx: t... 2012/10/20 21:34:54
    beavith1
    actually, you can't make that observation.

    the CBO is predicting a recession from tax increases AND spending cuts.

    THAT FORM hasn't been tried by the democrats.
  • lurx: t... beavith1 2012/10/20 21:38:50
    lurx: the soda jerk
    Sorry Bud, but the CBO never once mentioned that spending increases would trigger a recession.
  • beavith1 lurx: t... 2012/09/22 19:52:21
    beavith1
    Juuuust the message the DNC wants you to be concerned about.

    do you think that if GDP growth was at 5% or unemployment was at 4% anyone else would care?

    you're being fooled.
  • lurx: t... beavith1 2012/09/22 19:57:15 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    Nobody believes in the discredited trickle down policies of the Reagan era, not even Reagan's own budget director,

    http://rationalrevolution.net...

    ...income disparity does not create economic growth.
  • beavith1 lurx: t... 2012/09/22 21:35:42
    beavith1
    if Stockman was telling the truth then, and lying, now, how could you tell?

    he shoots his own credibility in the foot, even though i know you take his word as gospel. you need to.

    trickle down worked just fine for Clinton from about 1995 to about 2000...
  • lurx: t... beavith1 2012/09/22 21:38:28
    lurx: the soda jerk
    Dude, nobody believes that tax cuts can pay for themselves (and not create sizable deficits in the process...

    ● A 2005 Congressional Budget Office study during the time that Republican economist Doug Holtz-Eakin was director concluded that a 10 percent cut in federal income tax rates would recoup at most 28 percent of the static revenue loss over 10 years. And this estimate assumes that taxpayers have unlimited foresight and know that taxes will be raised after 10 years to stabilize the debt/GDP ratio. Without foresight and no compensating tax increases or spending cuts, leading to an increase in the debt, feedback would be negative; i.e., causing the actual revenue loss to be larger than the static revenue loss.

    ● In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Public Economics, Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, who chaired the CEA during Bush’s first term, estimated the long-run revenue feedback from a cut in taxes on capital at 32.4 percent and 14.7 percent for a cut in labor taxes.

    ● A 2006 analysis of extending the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts by the Republican-leaning Heritage Foundation estimated that only 30 percent of the gross revenue loss would be recouped through behavioral effects and macroeconomic stimulus.

    http://capitalgainsandgames.c...
  • beavith1 lurx: t... 2012/09/22 21:48:41
    beavith1
    Dude! Federal tax revenues climbed every year of his cuts. in 2005, Holtz Eakin didn't have very much proof of the climbing revenues. i wonder what he's say today?

    in 2006? even as revenues were still climbing?

    2006? again? ooo. and the Heritage Foundation cited 'stimulus?

    stimulus doesn't work. Since the bust, when Bush became a big K Keynesian, we've poured $7 TRILLION in 'stimulatory' deficit spending and today, the gross number of jobs is shrinking to the lowest numbers since 1985. unemployment numbers are dropping, not because more people are finding jobs, but because more people are leaving the workforce. GDP growth is down to 1.5%, and CBO is predicting recession by 3/13, even after the biggest tax increases in US history are scheduled to hit on 1/1/13. Japan has been 'stimulating' itself for 20 years and the only thing they have to show is a huge national debt, and a downgraded credit score.
  • lurx: t... beavith1 2012/09/22 21:58:16 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    "Dude! Federal tax revenues climbed every year of his cuts. in 2005, Holtz Eakin didn't have very much proof of the climbing revenues. i wonder what he's say today?"

    “When Ronald Reagan cut taxes in a significant way, revenues actually increased by almost 100 percent during his eight years as president. So this idea that significant, big tax cuts necessarily result in lower revenues – history does not [bear] that out.”
    In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue.

    Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.
    http://capitalgainsandgames.c...

    ...sorry dude, no serious economist actually believes that tax c...
    "Dude! Federal tax revenues climbed every year of his cuts. in 2005, Holtz Eakin didn't have very much proof of the climbing revenues. i wonder what he's say today?"

    “When Ronald Reagan cut taxes in a significant way, revenues actually increased by almost 100 percent during his eight years as president. So this idea that significant, big tax cuts necessarily result in lower revenues – history does not [bear] that out.”

    In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue.

    Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

    http://capitalgainsandgames.c...

    ...sorry dude, no serious economist actually believes that tax cuts pay for themselves, not even those that served under George W. Bush.
    (more)
  • lurx: t... lurx: t... 2012/09/22 22:04:43
    lurx: the soda jerk
    This is a view not shared by economists who worked for Bush. For example, Alan Viard, senior economist at the Council of Economic Advisers during Bush’s first term, told the Washington Post in 2006, “Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There’s really no dispute among economists about that.” Robert Carroll, deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis at the U.S. Treasury Department during Bush’s second term, also told the Post, “As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves.” On September 28, 2006, Stanford economist Edward Lazear, chairman of the CEA in Bush’s second term, testified before the Senate Budget Committee:

    “Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data…do not support this claim. Tax revenues in 2006 appear to have recovered to the level seen at this point in previous business cycles, but this does not make up for the lost revenue during 2003, 2004, and 2005. The tax cuts were a positive step and have contributed to the enhanced economic growth, additional jobs, higher real disposable income, and the low unemployment rates that we currently see today.”

    http://capitalgainsandgames.c...
  • beavith1 lurx: t... 2012/09/23 05:56:52
    beavith1
    why do you go to 2006? you can only see the whole picture in hindsight.

    but go ahead and reread your last sentence.
  • lurx: t... beavith1 2012/09/23 06:05:01 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    I wouldn't expect the Bush economists not to endorse their own policies, even if they're forced to admit that tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Apparently they were operating under the economic advice of Dick Cheney...

    "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter"

    http://crooksandliars.com/jon...
  • beavith1 lurx: t... 2012/10/19 21:57:38
    beavith1
    the Bush cuts increased federal tax revenues right up until the bust.

    seemed like they were paying off handsomely.

    Cheney might say that at $100B in annual deficits, and I may not agree, but at $1TRILLION+ per year, oh yeah, they definitely matter.
  • lurx: t... beavith1 2012/10/19 23:19:54
    lurx: the soda jerk
    "seemed like they were paying off handsomely."

    paying handsomely

    I guess it depends on what you mean by "paying off handsomely".
  • beavith1 lurx: t... 2012/10/20 21:25:43
    beavith1
    bring that graph back when you can put Obama on it. its not 2003 anymore.
  • lurx: t... beavith1 2012/10/20 21:32:20
    lurx: the soda jerk
    When President Obama took office, the federal deficit was $1.413 trillion dollars. Three years later, at the end of fiscal year 2012, the deficit has been cut by 25% to 1.089 trillion dollars.

    http://www.politicususa.com/f...
  • beavith1 lurx: t... 2012/09/23 05:55:05
    beavith1
    and you determine who the serious economist is?

    really?

    forget 'per capita.' look at total revenues. forget inflation as a major difference. the rates dropped during the 80s from Carter's horrific performance.

    where's inflation, population growth and tax increases under Bush 2?

    nice try.
  • lurx: t... beavith1 2012/09/23 06:08:07 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher, a turnaround of $11.7 trillion. Of this total, the C.B.O. attributes 72 percent to legislated tax cuts and spending increases, 27 percent to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56 percent occurred from 2009 to 2011.
    -------
    They would also have us believe that all of the increase in debt resulted solely from higher spending, nothing from lower revenues caused by tax cuts. And they continually imply that one of the least popular spending increases of recent years, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, was an Obama administration program, when in fact it was a Bush administration initiative proposed by the Treasury Department that was signed into law by Mr. Bush on Oct. 3, 2008.

    Lastly, Republicans continue to insist that tax cuts are highly stimulative, often saying that they add nothing to the debt, when this is obviously ridiculous.

    Conversely, they are adamant that tax increases must not be part of any deficit-reduction package because they never reduce deficits and instead are spent. This is also ridiculous, as the experience of the Clinton administration clearly shows. The new C.B.O. data confirm these facts.

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes...
  • beavith1 lurx: t... 2012/10/19 22:04:54
    beavith1
    saw it. and disagree.

    if the cuts caused federal revenues to climb steadily, the converse must be true, that higher tax rates depress revenue growth.

    you can be sure that if/when Obama got to raise the tax rates just on the rich bastards, revenue would decline.

    that is NOT a desirable outcome.

    this is basic Laffer Curve.

    i don't know why republicans would consider tax cuts as highly stimulative because stimulus doesn't work.

    when the private sector grows from its own internal investment, that's not stimulus, that's growth. stimulus is supposedly. external to the private sector.

    to the last point, Obama is no Clinton. Clinton could 'triangulate' or 'pivot'. Obama is simply incapable of anything like that.
  • lurx: t... beavith1 2012/10/19 23:27:26 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    "i don't know why republicans would consider tax cuts as highly stimulative because stimulus doesn't work."

    ...actually it's a good way to reward the people that tend to fund Republican campaigns.

    Actually food stamps stimulate the economy better than tax cuts...

    http://www.washingtonmonthly....

    -----

    "saw it. and disagree."

    ...of course you would.
  • beavith1 lurx: t... 2012/10/20 21:30:10
    beavith1
    its a good way to buy votes by building constituencies. welfare? expanding unemployment to 99 weeks? 'free' healthcare.

    that's what democrats do. and that's why we face annual trillion dollar plus deficits.

    food stamps DON'T 'stimulate' the economy. they cost the productive economy and use gov't dollars to pay for things that would otherwise be, somehow, purchased anyway. all food stamps do is to drive the cost OF food onto the gov't ledger.

    when the DNC tells you something, do you get tingle up your leg? or do you feel your knee twitch a bit.
  • lurx: t... beavith1 2012/09/23 06:36:05 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    "Dude! Federal tax revenues climbed every year of his cuts...."

    dude federal tax revenues climbed year cuts

    The 2001 tax cut did nothing to stimulate the economy, yet Republicans pushed for additional tax cuts in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2008. The economy continued to languish even as the Treasury hemorrhaged revenue, which fell to 17.5 percent of the gross domestic product in 2008 from 20.6 percent in 2000. Republicans abolished Paygo in 2002, and spending rose to 20.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2008 from 18.2 percent in 2001.

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes...

    ...oh really?
  • beavith1 lurx: t... 2012/10/19 22:06:23
    beavith1
    LOL! hemorrhaged revenue! its a recession! what else would anyone expect? that it'd climb?

    that's a good one!
  • lurx: t... beavith1 2012/10/19 23:23:48 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    "...the cuts caused federal revenues to climb steadily,"

    "LOL! hemorrhaged revenue! its a recession! what else would anyone expect? that it'd climb?"

    federal revenues climb steadily lol hemorrhaged revenue recession expect climb
  • Wyveryx 2012/09/22 07:24:32
    Yes, I'm worried
    Wyveryx
    +4
    Damn straight I'm worried, and every other citizen or idiot who can vote ought to be just as worried.

    We can't loan or spend our way back to the top...it isn't and hasn't worked. Plus, eventually people and nations who buy into our a bonds are eventually gonna want repayment...

    Ain't a pretty thought.
  • Jiorgia 2012/09/22 07:09:46
    No, I'm not worried
    Jiorgia
    +1
    Australia is still freer then the US.
    We are ranked 3rd in the world.
    Tell me again how Australia is full of laws that restrict freedoms...

    Also Obama may not have helped your situation but you will find out of the last decade, Bush had more of an impact.
  • Wyveryx Jiorgia 2012/09/22 07:27:33
    Wyveryx
    +5
    With nearly two years of a solid grip on the government, Obama had all the time to straighten up the house after any of Bush's leftovers. The blame Bush game is done with and old. IF Obama couldn't do it in four years like he said, then it's time to lay the blame where it belongs...

    Obama, didn't inherit a mess....he campaigned for it, fought for it, a spent for it....Now it's his mess and his fault.
  • Jiorgia Wyveryx 2012/09/22 07:40:27
    Jiorgia
    +1
    Most bills he tried to introduce that did anything to turn back what Bush did didn't make it through your Senate thanks to "The Party Of NO".
  • JoeBtfsplk Jiorgia 2012/09/22 07:50:37 (edited)
    JoeBtfsplk
    +4
    HE had complete control of both houses for the first two years. Read up.
  • Jiorgia JoeBtfsplk 2012/09/22 07:58:05
    Jiorgia
    +1
    The Democrats had majority control, not complete control and senators do not have to vote with their party. Read Up
  • apacheh... Jiorgia 2012/09/22 12:42:27
    apachehellfire65
    +3
    the democrats have had control of the senate. now if obummer can't get his own people to vote with him. that's not the GOP's fault.
  • Jiorgia apacheh... 2012/09/22 12:54:53
    Jiorgia
    The Democrats held 57/100 seats, independents held 2 seats and Republicans held 41 seats.

    If all 41 Republicans voted against a bill (which happened everytime almost without fail), 1 independent took each side and the 57 Democrats voted with their consciences it would only require 8/57 Democrats to vote against the bill for it to not go through.

    If all senators had voted based on their own opinions (rather then their parties), your current circumstances may be very different.
  • apacheh... Jiorgia 2012/09/22 13:05:52
    apachehellfire65
    +2
    if all people had voted their intellect and not their party. are circumstances would be different also.this is of the democrats own making. when obummer took office and they had power. they chose to lock the GOP out. and now they have lost that power they are whining it is happening to them. if you don't play nice then other people wont ether.
  • Jiorgia apacheh... 2012/09/22 13:16:46
    Jiorgia
    Look we currently have the same problem, we have had several same sex marriage bills go through both of our houses over the last year or so, every time it fails, that is because our Prime Minister is for same sex marriage but admitted that not everyone in her party was and gave them the conscience vote, The Leader of the Opposition has not given a conscience vote and therefore his party must vote against any same sex marriage bill, even though some of his party is personally in favor.

    The bill continues to go through 29-41 with 6 Ministers and 2 Independents siding with the nay sayers.

    Is it our Prime Ministers fault for not forcing her party to vote with her or is it The Leader of the Oppositions fault for forcing his party to vote with him?
  • apacheh... Jiorgia 2012/09/22 14:54:23
    apachehellfire65
    wouldn't you say both.
  • Franklin Jiorgia 2012/09/22 13:41:55
  • Jiorgia Franklin 2012/09/22 13:48:42
    Jiorgia
    when did i say he had no power?

    oh by the way, still not believing anything you say until you produce those barony records Franklin.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/23 17:21:05

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals