buzzsawBeaver 12 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Very interesting document above. I do agree that curbing government spending is ABSOLUTELY the ticket we need in these times. However, I equally disagree with the maxim that lower taxes will help stimulate economic revival. We pay taxes to the government, right? I find it incredibly counter-intuitive to state that giving less money to the government will help our government to reverse a deficit. We give more money, the government gets more; if we are taxed less, the government will receive but a fraction of what it gives back to us. Precisely why Reaganomics flopped like a lead balloon. But this could be also why both hardcore conservatives and hardcore liberals both cannot stand my fiscal policy. I'm tax-and save; neither tax-and-spend nor cut taxes-and-save. An interesting take from Jack Cafferty: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/cafferty.stimulus/index.html When CNN starts criticizing its own (Democrats), you know all is not well on the left. I disagree, if you simply give people more of their $s through less taxes, they'll have more and spend or invest more and require less borrowing and credit. Government spending people's $s for them isn't the way to go. Government isn't the answer to everyone's problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 (edited) I disagree, if you simply give people more of their $s through less taxes, they'll have more and spend or invest more and require less borrowing and credit. Government spending people's $s for them isn't the way to go. Government isn't the answer to everyone's problems. True, if you give people a tax break, they'll have more of their own dollars to spend and invest. This is certainly true, and why on its face that a tax break is so darned inviting. However, my experiences have been that it has a smaller correlation with less borrowing and credit that you might suggest. If anything, it may encourage more borrowing and credit with regards to purchases such as vehicles and homes, as middle class Americans would have a greater ability to place down payments on such purchases; the latter signaled the whole mess of trouble we've got ourselves into, while the former is currently pleading and begging for a bailout. I totally agree with you that government isn't the answer to everyone's problems, nor should it be. Hence my support for cutting unnecessary government programs, of which there are far too many. However, if the government has in a deficit, reducing the flow of revenue is the opposite of what it needs. See: Reaganomics. I've yet to hear a convincing evidentiary counterargument that'll make me reconsider. Edited February 18, 2009 by UVAObserver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzsawBeaver 12 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 However, my experiences have been that it has a smaller correlation with less borrowing and credit that you might suggest. If anything, it may encourage more borrowing and credit with regards to purchases such as vehicles and homes, as middle class Americans would have a greater ability to place down payments on such purchases; the latter signaled the whole mess of trouble we've got ourselves into, while the former is currently pleading and begging for a bailout. But isn't that sort of suggesting that the American people aren't competent or responsible enough to spend their $s for themselves their way, and that the government should do it for them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 But isn't that sort of suggesting that the American people aren't competent or responsible enough to spend their $s for themselves their way, and that the government should do it for them? I definitely see where you can infer this, yes. But couldn't one make the same inference with much stricter regulation of the lending industry? Even assuming that this is true, tax cuts still do not further (and may hinder) the goal of creating less of a dependence on borrowing/loans. In an ideal system, it would; but we know that the marketplace is far from ideal. Time will tell if regulating the lending industry will cure these ills enough to where the tax cuts will actually further those goals. And as long as the federal and state governments provide services to the American citizens (military, welfare, etc. for the federal; education and such for the states), the payment for those services must come from the citizens. The deficits come where the government expenditures outweigh the income from taxes and fees. Cut the unnecessary fat from the government programs, but make sure the government has what it needs for its necessities. Tax cuts are a detriment to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fieldgeneral 10 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 The VEA may say that it will help, but they are amongst the most liberal organizations in America. Here in Buchanan County we are feeling the crunch, I hope that they are right, but something tells me that they aren't! It's hard to choose a side when your jobs and funding is at stake. The money is there in the stimulus for education and for state funding. Both should assist in the jobs / funds for education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsons 178 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 I disagree, if you simply give people more of their $s through less taxes, they'll have more and spend or invest more and require less borrowing and credit. Government spending people's $s for them isn't the way to go. Government isn't the answer to everyone's problems. You're ignoring the fact that job creation (and maintaining employment for those who are working) generates more cash to spend than any tax cuts. I don't think you'll find many economists saying we can get out of this mess without investing in education, transportation, and various other programs and developments that states and local governments no longer have the cash to pay for..........are you even aware that many states across the country are virtually broke???? Unfortunately, to correct this problem the federal government has no choice but to spend...... I am not an economist, but your implying that tax cuts alone can get us out of this mess is naïve and certainly not in line with any economic theory that I want to endorse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzsawBeaver 12 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 You're ignoring the fact that job creation (and maintaining employment for those who are working) generates more cash to spend than any tax cuts. I don't think you'll find many economists saying we can get out of this mess without investing in education, transportation, and various other programs and developments that states and local governments no longer have the cash to pay for..........are you even aware that many states across the country are virtually broke???? Unfortunately, to correct this problem the federal government has no choice but to spend......I am not an economist, but your implying that tax cuts alone can get us out of this mess is naïve and certainly not in line with any economic theory that I want to endorse. You're ignoring the fact that this spending "doesn't create jobs", your ignoring the fact that if your in dept you don't spend more and get in more dept, you certainly don't spend $s you don't have. This guy speaks the facts, the system should collapse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgWoECStxpI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsons 178 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 You're ignoring the fact that this spending "doesn't create jobs", your ignoring the fact that if your in dept you don't spend more and get in more dept, you certainly don't spend $s you don't have. This guy speaks the facts, the system should collapse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgWoECStxpI You’re ignoring the fact that without a safe and efficient transportation system commerce is stifled. You’re ignoring the fact that school systems need money to bus kids to school, pay the teachers and staff, and maintain the buildings themselves. Do you simply refuse to acknowledge that funding for these basic necessities is all but gone in many areas of the country? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzsawBeaver 12 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 You’re ignoring the fact that without a safe and efficient transportation system commerce is stifled. You’re ignoring the fact that school systems need money to bus kids to school, pay the teachers and staff, and maintain the buildings themselves. Do you simply refuse to acknowledge that funding for these basic necessities is all but gone in many areas of the country? The u.s. already has a safe and efficient transport system, highways do need to be maintained though, people will always be taxed for these things, along with education, never advocated not paying for these things, but aside from "some", not much but some, $s going to these things, this isn't a transportation and education bill, plain and simple it's a "lets fund all the liberal agenda projects bill", and put the country in debt another trillion $s bill.. And much of that expense is going to be the burden of the tax payer, those who do work, so I'm absolutely for not paying for this bill and having less tax $s go to this government agenda. Simply because there's problems doesn't suggest there's not a right or a wrong way to go about solving them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsons 178 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 The u.s. already has a safe and efficient transport system, highways do need to be maintained though, people will always be taxed for these things, along with education, You don't understand. They are out of money and it's only going to get worse. Are you even paying attention to the budget cuts in your own area?? When a state doesn't have money, THEY DON"T HAVE MONEY. When people don't have a job, they don't pay taxes.......WAKE UP!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzsawBeaver 12 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 (edited) You don't understand. They are out of money and it's only going to get worse. Are you even paying attention to the budget cuts in your own area?? When a state doesn't have money, THEY DON"T HAVE MONEY. When people don't have a job, they don't pay taxes.......WAKE UP!! I more than know that some are out of $s, exactly the reason it would be better off if some things simply failed, if a company or bank fails then it should fail, not be bailed out, if the economy fails then it should fail and start over from the foundation up, not be "rigged" to just buy some more years of time. If the states don't have $, they don't have $, so be it, let them not have $s, sometimes things just have to bad for a while. Band aids on mortal wounds accomplish nothing in the bigger scheme, people will eventually have to face these hardships, they'll be worse hardships the longer they're put off. The u.s. has been fortunate to enjoy the times they've had but perhaps people are going to have to anti up and prepare to sacrifice some. Edited February 20, 2009 by buzzsawBeaver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublue 939 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29296796 excerpt from the following NYTimes article: "But just as with the billions for schools, infrastructure projects and state aid, the stimulus will channel so much money so fast to some two dozen inspector-general offices, as well as a new Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, that it might be difficult to spend it all wisely. And some experts warn that the government might now need auditors for its auditors and new overseers for inspectors general, who typically answer directly to Congress." :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzsawBeaver 12 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29296796 excerpt from the following NYTimes article: "But just as with the billions for schools, infrastructure projects and state aid, the stimulus will channel so much money so fast to some two dozen inspector-general offices, as well as a new Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, that it might be difficult to spend it all wisely. And some experts warn that the government might now need auditors for its auditors and new overseers for inspectors general, who typically answer directly to Congress." :( this is much what I'm talking about, government isn't the answer to problems, it often complicates matters and has an agenda that is more about power and special interests than it is serving the people. If people will clear their minds and consider the matters, government doing for everyone is "socialism". Government taking charge of things is exactly that. The u.s. needs government out of peoples lives, and the arguments for this bill, these bailouts, against tax payers having less taxes and more to spend themselves is nothing more than people running to government to solve things and provide, it's people running towards socialism. Why is it that the poor and the welfare crowd suddenly have such an interest in politics? It's because they're for the 1st time seeing a government that wants to provide for them. A government that's saying we'll do for you, just let us be in charge of all things and solve all the problems. I'd rather see hardships than see America go down the socialism route.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.