On 20-Oct-08, at 3:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Trickle down economics hasn't worked for 90% of the country, I'd say >> a trickle up policy is long overdue. It's a government of the people >> for the people that has been rewarding the rich because they rich >> reward them directly. > > We tried that during Johnson's Great Society and the Carter > administration. Wealth doesn't trickle up under socialist policies, > particularly when there is a huge bureaucracy associated with those > policies. --
We're not talking about socialist policies, we're talking about changing the way taxes are calculated. >> Mr.Friedman is one of the architects of the "laissez-faire" school of >> economics: free markets, no regulation. >> > > Actually, he was a monetarist (target money supply) instead of a > Keynesian (target interest rates) that believed many government > policies at the time took away too much freedom of choice. He > promoted a freedom-to-choose policy. -- He was also a big believer that all free markets, all the time, with no regulations whatsoever was the way to go. He was an idealist. >> What's the problem, then? Do you simply disagree with that one >> suggestion of his, or do you have some specific problem with >> Friedman? Or are you accusing Obama of being unoriginal? Again, I >> can't tell if you're for or against here. Mr.Friedman has informed a >> lot of economic policy for a few decades now, including conservative >> economic policy. > > Can you comment on a topic without first knowing where I stand on > the issue? -- Not when I'm talking to you, no. You're a hawk, and you're going to beat me over the head with every misplaced word, so I have to write tactically. Sorry, just the way it is. > Google "Milton Friedman negative income tax" and you'll find lots > of references to his negative income tax plan. I thought it was a > good idea then because it would eliminate the huge welfare > bureaucracy we had at the time. Recall, 20 to 25 years ago, the > cost of the bureaucracy exceeded the cost of benefits being handed > out. Welfare distributed as a negative income tax was proposed to > eliminate that huge bureaucracy. > > If Obama is proposing something similar he would be wise to promote > it as such. He might be on to something. But, I'd still be > interested to know who is going to pay more in income, corporate > and capital gains taxes and who is going to get the negative income > tax checks. -- I don't have the tax plans in front of me to give you the language, but we're really just talking semantics here. Changing how much tax people will pay according to how much they earn. That's not socialism, or welfare, or even negative income tax. It's just changing how much tax people will pay. >> Or is it just paranoid anti-socialism that puts your defenses up >> whenever anyone discusses doing something for the middle class? > > May I please abhor socialism without being accused of paranoia? -- When you refer to a change in the tax plan as "socialism", then you're paranoid. The idea that any policy that favors the middle class is part of the slippery slope to communism is paranoia and a lack of imagination, as far as I'm concerned. >> I encourage you to see reversing the tax structure as a very >> capitalist >> idea. When you discuss the health and propulsion of the economy, you >> can't ignore the idea that giving 90% of the population more spending >> power might help more than letting some CEO buy his 13th house. If >> the system is set up to funnel all the money to a small group of >> people, eventually the money will all end up there and the economy >> will come to a halt. What's the end game? > > Class warfare. Yuch. Can't let that other guy make lot's of money, > even if you have to stifle everyone else. -- Dude, it's already class warfare. You're currently stifling the little guy with an unfair tax burden and rewarding the rich by lowering their taxes. Clinton slowly tried to back out of the tax inequity that Reagan started, and Bush tipped the scales right back over in favor of the rich. Obama's tax plan goes a little further than Clinton, but I've heard the two plans compared. > The choices aren't between the current economic crisis and > socialism or communism. There's much more that can be done to > improve the economy without growing the size of government, > imposing more regulations and limiting one's freedom to choose. -- It's fear and paranoia: business as usual. The cries of "socialism" right now are just hyperbole. Socialism and communism aren't even choices, and they aren't a feature of Obama's plan. You can change the tax structure without adding to the size of the government, imposing more regulations or limiting anyone's freedom. Do financial markets need regulation? Absolutely. To think otherwise is an idealism far worse than most socialists display. People will game any system, right or wrong. It's like taking the referees out of football so you don't "stifle" the players. Regulation isn't always bad. You want the government (FCC) to regulate what goes on TV, you want the government (FDA) to regulate the food that's imported, you want the government to regulate a lot of things on a fairly regular basis, but then you want to put regulation up as some sort of bastion of socialism. Bleh. -- Michael --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
