- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,715
- Reaction score
- 751
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The title speaks for itself.
Depends on the type of recession
An inventory reduction type recession government spending can keep the economy at a level rate untill private enterprise picks back up, reducing the level of decline in the economy
A balance sheet correction type recession where individuals and corporations have taken on too much debt, and now are in the process of reducing debts, government spending will have a far harder time of making up for the reduction in private spending. It may be futile, but it will prevent the worst of the possible economic slowdown from occuring provided private demand picks up before the government has a problem in borrowing money
In my opinion, the only reason the middle and lower income people would need a tax break, was if we had run away inflation. That isn't the case now. What the middle and lower income folks need are jobs. The only way to create jobs is to cut the business owners some slack. Of course, you won't ever hear a politician say that, because that would be political suicide.
The title speaks for itself.
But the government doesn't create any wealth at all. It simply moves it around (thereby forcibly taking it from one person to give to another). How is spending trillions of taxpayer dollars in order to bail out failing businesses and finance frivilous "stimulus" spending going to help the economy? Especially when you consider the stimulus bill, which paid something like $142,000 for every job created.
How does cutting $Trillon$ of tax obligation on the very richest of the rich, without paying for it and getting us ass deep in TWO unnecessary wars put on a Chinese Credit Card equal responsible govening? You answer first.
IT doesn't just miss the point, it is false. He's confusing "doesn't create wealth" with "doesn't create as much wealth in all circumstances" with each other. This is a very Objectivist sort of bizarre reasoning, where private entities and their spending, investment are unique and fundamentally different.
How does cutting $Trillon$ of tax obligation on the very richest of the rich, without paying for it and getting us ass deep in TWO unnecessary wars put on a Chinese Credit Card equal responsible govening? You answer first.
Yes, this is one of the key points that libertarians miss. They behave as though tax dollars are put into some giant pile and set on fire, while posting on the internet which was developed with government funding, using electrical infrastructure subsidized with government funding, and they got to their home on roads built with government funding.
The other key point is actually the same point that communism misses: human nature. The free market is great, but left unchecked it will literally kill you to make a buck.
its worse than burning the dollars. the money is used to buy the votes of those who empower lib politicians and the money is used to create more dem bots addicted to government spending
I suppose you have some research links to show how spending more money on roads and schools converts people to Team Blue?
I suppose you have some research links to show how spending more money on roads and schools converts people to Team Blue?
you assume that is what all the tax money is being used for
most of the money for roads and schools comes from 1) gasoline taxes and 2) property taxes
I suppose you have research to show that the more money is all spent on roads and schools instead of on more entitlement programs that have historically kept people on team blue?
Why would you think that I assumed that? Now you're just being ridiculous.
Ok then. Show me how buying a fighter jet, tank, or paying a soldier's salary creates EVIL DIRTY LIBERALS.
No, you see, you don't understand at all. This is the part I'm saying doesn't actually happen. Just because more poor people vote democrat doesn't mean that those social programs made them become democrats. Correlation =/= causation.
No, you see, you don't understand at all. This is the part I'm saying doesn't actually happen. Just because more poor people vote democrat doesn't mean that those social programs made them become democrats. Correlation =/= causation.
Oh gawd. I can see from that comment that there is absolutely no point in talking to you.
why not man up and change your "lean" to ultra liberal? you are not fooling anyone with your undisclosed label. :lol:
Every new conservative to these boards does this. AHA! A LIBERAL! I'VE DISCOVERED YOU! MUAHAHA I AM SO CLEVER.
It's not something I hide, dude. So, are you going to provide any evidence that receiving a welfare check magically converts a staunch conservative into a socialist or are you going to stick with dodging questions and ad hominem?
But the government doesn't create any wealth at all. It simply moves it around (thereby forcibly taking it from one person to give to another). How is spending trillions of taxpayer dollars in order to bail out failing businesses and finance frivilous "stimulus" spending going to help the economy? Especially when you consider the stimulus bill, which paid something like $142,000 for every job created.
The % of people who received most or all of their income and benefits purely form government aid is very small. . . taxes aren't income redistribution (as someone very gracefully explained in another thread) - it's a way for the government to fund all of it's programs, expenses, wants and needs.
Only a very small portion of what they take from me goes to my neighbor down the street in the form of welfare, etc.
taxes are the source of income redistribution. If someone is taxed more than they use and someone else uses more than they pay then taxes are the vehicle by which income redistribution is accomplished