jfrazierjr wrote:Azhrei wrote:What the Republican caucus is pushing is ideology -- their belief that trickle down economics works. The previous administration clearly showed that it doesn't
I don't think that can be proven true or false. I happen to believe it does work. Unfortunately, there are FAR to many variables.
Yep, I can agree with that.
I should have said, "The implementation used in the previous administration failed." That would've taken into account that perhaps the theory could somehow be made to work given the imperfect nature of governance.
Personally I don't see how it can ever succeed. The theory, as I understand it, is that the super wealthy have a pile of money that they want to make larger. So they give some of that pile to someone else and expect their principal back plus interest. But if I'm a super wealthy person, why would I want my pile of money to be bigger? I don't need more money, do I? I suppose one argument would be that in order to become wealthy one must have a personality that is always struggling to accomplish something, and thus one would never just sit back and relax, content with the size of their pile.
In that model, the super wealthy are comfortable and the others are... well, "not so comfortable". A comparison could be made to feudal Europe where the nobility lived richly while the peasants sweated and cried and bled for their lords. This is fine if you're one of the nobles, but not so good if you're a peasant.
In a "trickle up" economy, the masses would be given more money. Many of them would spend every dime they get, which is probably much more in the aggregate than the super rich would ever spend. For example, say there are 43 million people living at the poverty level in the U.S. (based on
2009 ACS data). If we give each person $1600, they will probably not add it to their (non-existent) pile of money, they will spend it! That $1600 represent $69 billion dollars added to the economy!
The tax breaks that the Republican caucus wants to extend for those making over $250k would cost this country $700 billion over the next ten years, or $70 billion per year. That's more than the money we just gave to every poor person in the country! Yet which is better for the society as a whole? The one that gives money to very few and
hopes that they spend it, or the one that gives money to people that
need it and are virtually assured of spending it?
Because remember that the goal is to get the money circulating into the economy.
(The idea that the super rich will put the money into stocks where it will help the poor, or into a bank where it can be loaned out to the poor is ridiculous. First, stocks are not a vehicle for the poor to make money. Second, the banks will never lend money to the poor since the super rich would sue them as a breach of their fiduciary responsibility... to the super rich, not to the poor. Besides, banks don't need money. The government already allows them to make loans for amounts totaling up to 10x their transaction deposits. See
Reserve Requirements and pay special note to how some funds are excluded from the liquidity ratio, such that the actual cash on hand for a bank can be a very,
very small portion of the total deposits.)
In summary, giving cash to the poor helps the economy significantly more than giving it to the rich. But the poor can't use tax breaks anyway -- they don't have any money! So the government has tax credits instead, which try to accomplish the same thing.
Given how massive the poor demographic is in this country, how can anyone defend giving cash to the super rich instead of to the poor? I'm not a bible-thumping man by a long shot, but this reminds of the "camel through the eye of a needle" problem...
As for getting along, that won't happen on most things as the two are just to polar opposites. As an example, it's hard to support any bill that allows abortion when you believe with your entire being that the act is murder. Not really much room for compromise there.
Yep. It's a shame that people are so tied to their opinions. I have strong opinions on many things as well, but I also understand what "pragmatic" means.
As a libertarian (my views lean primarily in that direction) I find it abhorrent that the government would choose to tell me what I can or can't do if it doesn't affect them. Examples include euthanasia, growing pot for my own use (I don't), spanking my kids (I don't have any kids), or any of a variety of laws based on the morals of people I don't agree with.
I would prefer that they pass laws based on practical necessity and not their belief system -- I don't care what political party they claim to be a member of. As I mentioned above, the nature of governance is imperfect because imperfect men make up its nature.
One example of "practical necessity" would be speed limits (faster speeds cause more mayhem, so theoretically slower speeds save lives). There's no church/god/omnipotent being/flying-spaghetti-monster/what-have-you involved. As soon as you start bringing spiritual faith into law making you are doomed to create strife.
Abortion is tricky. I can see both sides of the argument. Personally, I feel the decision is not mine to make, neither for you and your family nor anyone else's. By extension, neither is it the government's decision to make.
Supposedly it is government's role to protect society. That's the argument for having the State approve a marriage -- it promotes the family unit which is necessary for the continued survival of the society. But when government ostracizes those who don't believe the same way, it breaks the harmony of the group. Essentially, the government is saying, "You are not one of us because you don't act as we do." Society's method of protecting itself is to eject, or perhaps "exclude" is a better word, those who don't conform.
That works fine for a small group, but in a larger group it breaks down and can no longer work without artificial support. Which conveniently enough comes from the same government in the form of a police force. The more people that are "excluded", the larger the police force must be.
Whew.
