On Jan 30, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote:
That is exactly the presumption some make - that the government
should
allocate income to the population, using the tax code as a tool of
social engineering to enact the currently fashionable conception of
"fairness".
Fairness is not a fashion. Fairness is a fundamental virtue.
Yes, but the definition of fairness blows with the wind for some.
There are many on the left who think that treating all citizens the
same in the eyes of the law in not fair. There are many on the left
who think having government pick winners and losers is fair. There
are many on the left who think income transfer programs are fair.
What do you think is fair?
If spending on goods and services is stimulative, then most tax cuts
will be stimulative directly, when folks spend, or indirectly, when
folks save and the banks lend to others who will spend.
When a poor person goes to the grocery store the multiplier effect
of the
expenditure is much higher than when a rich person spends that same
money
on more bling.
How so? Often that "bling" involved considerable man hours of effort
to produce.
As an example, when Obama's guys criticize buying a corporate
aircraft, they are criticizing the salary of the pilot and co-pilot,
the dispatcher, all the guys who work to support general aviation
(refuelers, mechanics, etc.), the aircraft finishers, the assemblers,
the component makers, etc. That is a lot of monetary velocity out the
door.
Keeping that poor person healthy and productive has an
additional multiplier effect on the economy and reduces emergency
health
care costs.
Granted. So how about a payroll tax holiday to let that poor person
keep more of what they can earn so they can afford health care. Oh,
don't forget to forbid the self destructive behavior that is a major
driver of such costs - you know, smoking, over eating, couch potato
lifestyle (hey, back to the TV switch over thread!), drinking, drugs.
Giving the money to a rich person has zero impact.
Do you know any economics? Rich people don't bury it in the back
yard. They spend it or invest it - just like everyone else.
It really is simple math, but neocons deny math and global warming.
Good thing I am not a neo-con then.
I hate the fact that my children and grandchildren are being saddled
with an enormous debt to feed a prolifigate government.
The debt was run up by prolifigate bankers and a government that
didn't
function.
No, it was run up by the government spending more than it took in, and
they are at it again with hammer and tong. That is simple math.
If the money is spent wisely, and not wasted on tax breaks for the
rich,
Such a waste to not take money from people. Why do you persist in the
fiction that it is the government's money in the first place?
the economy will grow and the debt can be quickly paid back. This is
what
happend before, Reagan ran up the debt, Clinton retired it, and Bush
ran
it up again. Your children don't have to worry as long as we can keep
those wacky neocons away from the government and the economy.
I would say Reagan helped right the economy a bit, Clinton reaped the
benefits (which always lag), restrained from spending by anti-tax,
anti-spending conservatives, but pumped the housing bubble big time,
and then Bush and the republican spendthrifts made things worse by
expanding spending further.
Matthew
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
