[quote]
Why can’t the Tea Party types have a rational conversation, why can’t they apply some very basic critical thinking to their arguments, why can’t they consider alternatives without getting their panties in such a bunch?
[/quote]
First of all I’m not a tea party type at all and seriously you need to get off this silly democrat republican party line crap. Just because there’s a political fight doesn’t mean I have to be on one side or the other, of course you’re too shallow to understand that. You’re so incredibly enamored with a particle political party that you are completely blinded and have to make it an us vs them. If you aren’t on my side you must be on the other side, when more than 2 sides exist. I view myself closest to libertarian, but frankly I’m not going to narrow down all of my views to a single political view point.
[quote]
It is entirely possible that government spending has a positive influence on GDP, but that the private-sector component (which is much bigger) is pushes the numbers the other way. I’m not claiming this is the case, I am claiming that it is difficult to know (and not easy as you claim.)
[/quote]
It could but even if it does that would mean that government spending is crowding out the private sector. The truth is that government deficit spending is an attempt to boost the overall economy and it’s pretty clear that government spending is as a whole not producing a positive return on investment.
The problem with the Keynes economic model is there’s no way to isolate it and prove it works an experiment. It seems to look good on paper but maybe it’s totally wrong. Maybe it never produces the intended effects because actors in the economy don’t do rational things. I do know that over the past 30 years of various stimulus spending exercises we’ve never gotten GDP to grow faster than government debt for any length of time. Look at any GDP vs debt chart and it’s rather clear.
[quote]
We aren’t talking about “confiscation,” we are talking about relatively small changes to marginal tax rates. We are talking about returning tax rates to the same or lower-than they have been in the past many times. When did we go from a tax-rate discussion to “confiscation?” Why the hyperbolic vocabulary?
[/quote]
I’m fine with some minor tax increases that get us back to longer term total tax collections of 18%, but if I’m going to agree to that I want a balanced budget. No more deficit spending. I’d take some kind of 4-5 dollars in cuts to every dollar of tax increases. I’d also cut across the board. Military spending is not some kind of sacred cow, neither is medicare, medicaid, social security or anything else. If that means rationed care or wheelchairs instead of hip replacements so be it.
The reason I made the comment is because you seemed hellbent of forcing companies to invest their capital. That they must go out there and stimulate demand. Enough with the stimulating the demand side of the equation. If our economy shrinks and living standards are reduced to a sustainable level then so be it. Everybody is looking for a quick fix to our economy and I personally think a painless fix exists. No amount of stimulative spending, no amount of government regulation, or anything else is going to fix the economy. We have 30 years of overspending to unwind and the debt hangover is going to suck, let’s deal with the hangover instead of searching for a magical cure while continuing to drink.
Imagine a guy making $50K a year that lives a $100K a year lifestyle and did it by running up debt. When that guy gets to $500K in debt and gets cut off by his creditors there’s no quick fix that is going to allow him to keep his $100K a year lifestyle. He’s going to have to learn to live a <$50K lifestyle even though it might suck.
