Skeeter,
>ff, so the data shows your theory is wrong and so you claim the data is wrong, with not one iota of supporting evidence.<
Any data you could possibly supply on either side of the argument (and there is plenty on both side) will prove nothing because economics is inherently a very long term and complicated process.
However, I think virtually anyone with a functioning brain, intellectual honesty, a little background in business and economics, a tad of insight into human behavior, and the time and energy to pay attention to developments knows that a pro business, low tax, free market agenda increases growth and standards of living for all.
In fact, I don't even think that's in debate anymore. The only people that argue otherwise are the total morons, free market haters, and people with a short term political agenda. The evidence that has been accumulated by observing the US and other countries over the decades (especially since the fall of communism and the wide spread adaption of free markets) supports what everyone already knows anyway.
Recently you expressed great admiration for Warren Buffett's opinions on taxes and politics.
IMO, he's one of the rare birds on the left that doesn't suffer from economic delusion or the type of jealousy/hate of the wealthy, hate of business business, hate of unequal income distribution etc.... that plagues many on on the left.
Warren admits that our resources are used "very poorly" inside government. But he also speaks about the immediate needs of the poor, the programs that people want, etc...
When he talks about raising taxes, he talks about trying to help the poor without "killing the goose that lays the golden egg".
What he is saying is that moving resources from the private sector to the government will reduce economic growth, reduce the growth rate of standards of living, etc... and harm the goose (free markets and a pro business low tax agenda) that lays the golden eggs. He is saying exactly what I am saying!
However, he thinks it's often a good idea to make that sacrifice because of the short term needs of the poor.
That is a reasonable position and the one I am trying to explain to you is the real core of the debate between bright and intellectually honest people!
The "tradeoff" is what we should be debating!
Unfortunately, that view is not shared by most liberals and democrats.
If it was, there would be an all effort to take everything out of government that could possible be taken out in order to maximize the resources of the country and atill be able to focus the remaining resources primarily on the short term needs of the poor, disabled, mentally ill etc.... that really need it in effective ways.
That's not what the left wants!
What the left is constantly trying to do is EXPAND the role of government and make ever more people (especially those on the margin) dependent on mandatory participation programs and other government services via taxation to increase its own power and control. Some people will always vote for their own programs even if they are paying twice as much for them than they are worth (many people aren't very gifted on these matters).
If government spending on the middle and upper class was slashed dramatically and their taxes were reduced sharply, they would have larger incomes and savings to take care of themselves now and in the future as a result. In that event, there would be very few republicans/conservatives opposed to paying some taxes that went entirely towards helping the poor and needy in return for that greater economic freedom and the greater long term benefit that would accrue to the country.
Indeed, most republicans and conservatives are only opposed to having to participate in programs they PERSONALLY don't want and don't need. They are very concerned about the poor. They just prefer helping privately.
|
