On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:09:28 GMT, "Larry L" wrote:


wrote


You are looking at things through the wrong lens. First, unless this
ranch is
VERY unusual, the 4 jobs created directly _upon_ the ranch are nowhere
near the
end of the overall economic impact created.



I do understand that .... but it doesn't answer my poorly asked question.
Let me try again. Why do Republicans seem to think that, IN THE CURRENT
SITUATION, where either tax cuts or spending will increase the already
terrible and dangerous deficit, ... why do they think that Xdollars of tax
cuts are better than Xdollars of spending, especially tax cuts for the 'not
hurtin'. ALL of the spending starts flowing, some of the tax cuts will,
some will 'just' get saved or tucked away for investment in better times.

My friend is one of this area's biggest developers, and he has created many
many jobs, but right now is not a time I'd bet he's eager to spend more
money 'developing' so why give him money 'back' instead of building improved
levees to protect all of his past 'development,' RIGHT NOW as a recovery
plan.


{{ As for my 'lens,' my life's work and circumstances have brought me
into contact with a lot of very wealthy people ( multi-million, billions in
a couple cases ) and, on the whole, I'm not impressed with that group. I
admit to, at this point in my life, having a 'guilty until proven innocent'
attitude about the true 'moral' ( can't think of better word right now )
character and motives of extremely rich people, especially inherited rich.

But I wasn't born that way, my experiences on the fringes of their world
have made me that way, so it's not. exactly, prejudice.

NOTHING is this world irritates me more than the very common idea, in their
circles, that rich people are not only rich they are actually 'better
people' than others. Few things irritate me more than flagrant consumption
simply for the sake of comsumption and 'because I can,' and this is true
when I see it in all economic levels. I've acquired my own luxuries, for
sure, when compared to most of the world, but I find the trememdous excesses
of many wealthy people, revolting. Thus, I admit to being a bit bias
against 'big money' people but I'm not a 'commie' G I'd bet that this
makes it harder for me to see and accept advantges of tax cuts to the rich,
but I'm trying to do just that, and not just bicker }}




Um ... a typical Larry L stream of semi-consciousness, aside ..... Last
night, my wife and I were discussing something I haven't seen mentioned, as
a possible consequence of bad times. The current situation with huge
disparity in wealth and the accumlation of it in a relative few hands,
coupled with lots of the 'masses' actually suffering, is a historical proven
recipe for social turmoil. If I was rich, I'd be careful about suggesting
that the people with no bread, eat cake instead. And, imho, that is
exactly what we're seeing in some of the most ugly CEO cases being reported.






You do realize that currently, a large portion of the potential pool of US
taxpayers are, well, taxpayers, and if Obama gets his way completely, even
less
will be.



You lost me there, so I guess I don't realize.

I'd have lost me, too - it should read "are, well, NOT taxpayers..."

, even just
passive investments (which create work), so the more they have to use via
less taxation, the more work it will create.


Again, why is ( in practical terms, ) is that a better way to get Xdollars
out actually working proding the economy into motion than direct spending on
projects in the public good? Especially considering the fact that those
projects will benefit the wealthy, too, and not just as 'levees' but one of
my contacts owns a huge Catapiller dealership, he can sell some bulldozers
and buy himself a third private plane.

Well, it's better to allow folks who have acquired wealth to do with it what
they see fit (as long as it isn't illegal, etc.). And when I say "wealth," I
mean it in the economic sense, not the common speech sense. I've never
understood the supposed logic behind the idea that those who earn or have more
should pay _disproportionally_ more than those who haven't earned as much.

Even Cuba, where "socialism" works about as well as it can, _depends_ on, first,
"parental support" (USSR) and now, capitalist support (tourism). And this is in
a State where the leaders are generally speaking, "walking the walk," unlike,
say Venezuela, where Chavez wears Patek Philippe watches and his cronies spend
like, well, the despotic nouveau riche trash that they are.


Larry L ( who lives in California where Arnold got elected by repealing the'
car tax' ( a very fair one, imho, and one the state needed for a dependable
source of income ) and is now fighting his own Republican 'brothers' with
their 'no new taxes,' as the 8th largest economy in the world goes straight
to the ****ter ...... I, for one, would be happy to pay some more taxes
instead of stealing money from furture education spending and such, and a
$thousand to me is more than a few $million to the rich guys I know, in
terms of real affect on my daily life )

And this kind of thinking does nothing but hasten a collapse. It may sound like
a good idea to fund "future education spending," but it's not and here's why:
what such spending does is shift the burden, and it shifts it from those who
benefit from it. Look at it like this - if someone has enough income to support
two children through college, while living "comfortably" but not "luxuriously,"
they could probably support another coupla-few children, although their style of
living might go from "comfortable" to "getting by well enough." Now, suppose
they are then forced to support their grandchildren. The person with two kids,
who each have two kids, goes from "comfortable" to "getting by well-enough" and
the person with 4 kids who have 4 kids each goes from "comfortable" to, well,
"broke." Now what? You've bankrupted the source and the beneficiaries are SOL
as they are unprepared on a variety of levels to support themselves. Granted, a
very simplistic illustration using broad terms like "comfortable," but the
principles remain - the "haves" cannot, even assuming they were willing to try,
support a geometric growth in "have-nots." To put it in ranching terms, you
cannot successfully run 15 pairs per acre on 10 pairs an acre land.

Think about this - the whole _practice_ of socialism/social welfare/whatever
term you prefer is really only about 80 years old (granted, the _concept_ is
much older), and it has never really worked. WW2 brought the world out of the
"Great Depression" - "Rooseveltesque" stuff wasn't working (go look at the
actual data), Sovietism...well, I don't really see anyone suggesting it worked,
and those that point to the alleged successes of various semi-socialist schemes
in Europe can only do so when those "successes" are viewed in a vacuum (take all
of the supposedly-wonderful healthcare schemes in Europe).

TC,
R