>>Lower taxes and lower government spending for everyone should always be the goal. I don't believe in "managing" the economy. I think the tax burden should always be fair, but obviously people have different definitions of "fair".<<
we agree here. this is how it should be, but this isn't how it is, nor will it ever be how it will be. government requires power and power attracts certain types of people that like to yield it for personal benefit. in addition, seemingly unselfish people tend to become more and more selfish as they wield more and more power.
this is the fundamental flaw in humanity - people don't care for others equal to themselves, therefore, people are incapable of governing themselves. the powerful will *always* take advantage of the less powerful in whatever for of society one is in. it is true in communism, it is true in capitalism and it is true in socialism.
that donkey rider made this clear over 2000 years ago when he said the entire scriptures could be summed up as "love god and love your neighbor as yourself." he also said his second coming would be just prior to the annihilation of all life, so i think you know he was betting on people realizing on their own that selfishness would ultimately destroy everything.
>>When you lower taxes on consumers (typically the lower middle class and poor), you get a "short term" economic benefit because they spend the money. But over the long haul, consumption is not a good thing.<<
consumption is a good thing. no economy can survive without some form of consumption.
>>When you lower taxes on savers and investors (upper middle class, rich, business) you don't get as much short term benefit but you get a "long term" economic benefit because they save some of the money. It is increased savings and investment that increases productivity, leads to new businesses, new jobs etc...<<
yes, but what do they do with the saved money? extend copyright from a reasonable time frame off into infinity by bribing politicians, bribe the politicians so downloading 21 songs turns into a $200k+ fine, bribing politicians to maintain a monopoly position in the market, pay ceos to upper class jobs over seas, bribe politicians to leave our borders wide open so the lower class gets to compete with the modern day equivalent of labor slaves...
oh, and i love how a glut of labor = low wages, but a short supply of labor means workers aren't available so it is time to bring in workers from other nations to do the work.
it seems they think economics only works to their advantage. this is the powerful working to take advantage of the less powerful.
>>Economically, the idea is to use capital as effectively as possible. In the vast majority of cases, that means the only things that should be done inside government are the things that can't be done privately.<<
agreed, although we might disagree on some things that can't be done privately and it implies a private sector that isn't composed of a significant number of immoral thieves.
for example, did you know the private sector is providing meals in iraq at $25 per plate? that's $50 per meal per soldier that takes a second plate to keep their food warm. that is the private sector at work in the *real* world, not some hypothetical, "gee, it oughta work this way" world.
>>Unfortunately, some people are not blessed and others have misfortunes in life etc....Those people could be taken care of via charity (which would be my preference because of the greater freedom of where the dollars go) but if there aren't enough resources via charity, I have no problem with using government in a limited way.<<
ff, i'm afraid you live in an ivory tower. billions are spent to offshore jobs and open up the borders to increase the 21st century slave labor... so, if the "captains of industry" are doing everything they can to beat down the work force in the country, why would they turn around and offer charity to the required level to support all these people they spend billions to harm so much? they won't.
just like when reagan's policies turned thousands of mentally ill people on the streets - charity didn't provide most of them a decent a life.
i think the fatal flaw in your point of view is that you fail to try and walk in the shoes of others before dictating some kind of policy decision that would effect them. i try and be consistent by putting myself in their shoes. if i were mentally ill, i'd want some kind of state support so i wouldn't get beat down on the street, be homeless and/or starve to death. i think you'd want the same if you were in that situation, too. the only reasonable approach, without being hypocritical, is to provide some level of support for such people.
going through life always focused on what is good for oneself often leads to a pretty empty life devoid of any real meaning. you will die one day and you can either be proud of your life or not.
as that donkey rider said 2000 years ago, it isn't they person who provides lip service "may good things happen to you via charity," rather, it is the people that actually do something who will be blessed.
nobody will care what your tax is now in a billion years, but how you respect others will still be of utmost importance.
having said all that, yeah, government programs suck because they are geared toward fattening the wallets of the politicians. i guarantee you they love it while we discuss welfare for the poor as though that is where the government spends most of its money. it isn't. it is welfare for the wealthy and powerful. clinton took care of the powerful, too, which is why he's paid millions for not doing very much today. they all know who butters their bread and it isn't the homeless shelter guy.
also do not believe handouts are the best way to deal with the poor (or rich, since they get waaaaaaay more handouts from government), rather, they should be trained valuable skills and their jobs shouldn't be over run by 20,000,000 illegal aliens.
given the reality that is human nature (selfish and self centered), no government will ever succeed long term. only the folks who create a totally imaginary government will have any chance of deluding themselves that it would actually work.
the straight forward answer to the question i asked is that an oversupply of goods and services suggests trickle up ought to be applied and an under supply of goods and services suggests that a trickle down approach ought to be applied.
while this makes rational, economic sense, YOU'VE NEVER HEAR IT. this is why you didn't grab onto this simple concept when queried about it. the reason you never heard this simple analysis before is BECAUSE THE WEALTHY DON'T LIKE TRICKLE UP UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN THOSE WHERE IT IS THE MORE RATIONAL WAY TO PROCEED. you see, they *always* want the $1.00 in their pocket, rather than the profit fraction that would end up in their pocket. they are self centered and selfish and will cheerfully harm the economy to personally benefit.
then again, if we didn't keep the wealthy flush with lots of extra cash, we wouldn't have had the biggest bubble market in the history of the world, nor the one of the biggest housing bubbles in the history of the world... nor would we have to deal with the inevitable aftermath. |
