OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes

Larry L wrote:

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'.

'Cause they're idiots?

Allowing someone to keep most of what he earns is not giving him
anything.

After you understand that, you then may be able seriously to discuss
fiscal policy.

cheers

oz, fisherman

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

wrote in message
...
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.

the logic deals with social stability, and the observation made earlier that
when a society gets to the point where economic disparity is too great,
social upheaval occurs.
Usually violently, I might add. Why you haven't ever understood this, I
don't know. Lord knows I've tried to explain it to you enoughbseg.
Later in the post, you refer to the fact that such 'schemes' have never
'worked'. I am not sure that is the case, but before dashing off in search
of case studies, would like to hear your example of 'working'. In my view,
the goal was to prevent massive social upheaval, but your definition of
success may be quite different.
Finally, you cast out an aside about healthcare. Trust me, while no one's
healthcare system is perfect, there are(there HAVE to be) vastly better ways
of going about it, in the name of the good for ALL the citizens of the
nation, than the present US method. Another debate for another day........
Tom

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:28:27 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
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.

the logic deals with social stability, and the observation made earlier that
when a society gets to the point where economic disparity is too great,
social upheaval occurs.

But in most of the "western world," economic disparity is nowhere near what it
would take to cause "social upheaval" in the sense of violent upheaval. While
the difference between, say, Bernie Madoff and much of those in the US might be,
in pure numbers, great, in real terms, they aren't all that different insofar as
the necessities of life AND a few "luxuries." IOW, while some folks might be
able to spend $400K on a wedding using pocket change and others have to settle
for only one movie channel on their cable and are only able to afford to eat at
Mickey D's and then, only a coupla-few times a month, their "standard of living"
is, on a scale, closer to "rich" than much of population of the world outside of
the western world. So that brings us around to the fact that, in comparison,
the lesser-well-off in the western world, are, to truly _poor_ in the rest of
the world, "rich." So, in some mythical, ahem, "fair world," those in the
western world of even modest means would be taxed to (allegedly) help the truly
_poor_, while the (contextually) "rich" would be taxed to help, well, the whole
friggin' population. There are much larger numbers of people in the
"less-well-off" category than in the "rich" category, and so, if you had to
guess, whom would you guess is going to potentially react more "violently," the
"rich" people whose lifestyles aren't terribly affected or the "less-well-off"
who are reduced to basic cable and the value menu on their visits to Mickey D's?

Usually violently, I might add. Why you haven't ever understood this, I
don't know. Lord knows I've tried to explain it to you enoughbseg.
Later in the post, you refer to the fact that such 'schemes' have never
'worked'. I am not sure that is the case, but before dashing off in search
of case studies, would like to hear your example of 'working'. In my view,
the goal was to prevent massive social upheaval, but your definition of
success may be quite different.
Finally, you cast out an aside about healthcare. Trust me, while no one's
healthcare system is perfect, there are(there HAVE to be) vastly better ways
of going about it, in the name of the good for ALL the citizens of the
nation, than the present US method. Another debate for another day........

There are things that can be done to improve the healthcare system in the US and
worldwide - taxing the bejeebers out of anyone isn't the way. One thing to
consider is the cost of being a doctor. On a related-but-somewhat-converse line
is the attitude that doctors are entitled to be "rich" - the whole concept of
doctors being "rich" because they are, well, doctors, is new.

TC,
R

Tom

wrote

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.).



I, more or less, understand the ideology you support .... and support it
myself, ... again, more or less.


But, I still don't understand why NOW, in a state of crisis, with all the
economists I have seen suggesting that getting money into the economy, in
quantity and quickly, is desperately needed ... why in these unique
circumstances, .... why chant the ideology when it certainly seems, to me,
that thoughtful government spending ( odious as government spending may be
;-) is a more practical, pragmatic, approach ..... one that leaves us with
the dangers of a huge deficit, for sure, but then so would reducing
government income .... and, at least, we'd have the actual created
infrastructure as well as the deficit to leave our kid's.

Maybe I'm just very dense, but I don't see a pragmatic, non-ideological,
answer in the "better to" or "communism didn't work"

wrote

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

Well in the Arnold case, he is moving money that the public voted to spend
SPECIFICALLY on education ...... and using it for nearly anything else,
because everyone on both sides say cuts can't get deeper and the Republican
side simply chants "no new taxes" to any idea that income must be increased.

To use your homey, family situation, analogies for government it's time for
dad to admit that we can't cut more and even though it hurts get a second
job to increase income and not just chant " I don't believe in that"

Larry L ( whose ideology includes the idea that what the public voted to tax
themselves for is what that money should be used for .... )

"Larry L" wrote


Well in the Arnold case,




FWIW, Arnold has proven to be a better governor than I would have ever
guessed and it' interesting that his "own' party is the main reason he can't
govern better ... ah, in the opinion of many observers from the extreme
middle, not just me


Larry L ( who also will point out that he thinks that at the national level,
the Dem congress are being foolish in many ways... at least enough so to
equal the 'other side' )