Jul 19th 2011, 23:21:34
Ok, so we agree that it is not the reason for government to exist to take as much money as it can possibly take from the people. I think you will see that spending cuts were 6:1 larger than tax revenue increases for Canada to balance their budget. Take a look at the table I already posted Q, it shows that revenues, regardless of tax rates, are pretty flat compared to GDP, so why should we continually raise taxes when it won't help? All it does is discourage growth while it has no benefit of higher revenues. It goes back to the video I posted even higher above, businesses/individuals aren't willing to spend money when there isn't any reward. When the government can decide at a whim that suddenly all those investments you made are worthless, or maybe they decide that all those investments you made are now nationalized, what business will create wealth? Why would someone put their neck on the line only to be beholden to the whims of politicians?
The relationship between government spending on health and life expectancy is skewed at best and ridiculous to compare at worst. What do those countries with high life expectancy have in common more than anything else? Wealth. The creation of wealth allows us to live better lifestyles not the creation of government programs. The exact cultures of each country have much more to do with actual life expectancies than anything else. We live slightly shorter lives in America due to the lifestyles we live not because the government doesn't spend enough.
Crime rates, education and standards of living really have nothing to do with government spending. Our crime rates are 100% culture and could possibly be blamed on the government and their backwards welfare programs that have created ghettos throughout the country. We spend more on education than anyone and yet we fall behind many countries in all tests. Here is a good summary of that: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/12/46643496.pdf
Standards of living come with wealth again, not government spending.
"Now, maybe you just don't give a fluff about people and want to live in a gated community away from the rest of society; but I think more Americans care about their society as a whole - at least I certainly hope so."
LOL, so because I want freedom, I don't give a fluff about other people. This is the disconnect you aren't seeing here. If everyone is given more freedom, wealth will be created and everyone's boats rise with a high tide. It's the difference between splitting the pie equally and baking a larger pie. America has traditionally had a "bake a larger pie" mentality, until about 1932 when it started changing. Did you know we were the largest producers in the world by 1895? How could that have happened without government programs creating an atmosphere of safety? It happened precisely because government stayed out of the way. For an example I cite President Grover Cleveland when he vetoed the Texas Seed Bill in 1887. http://mises.org/daily/3627
What happened after that you may ask? The farmers received 10x what the aid would have been from government by way of charity. Private charity. Almost anything the government does domestically can be done better by the private industry. Want to fund abortions? Create a charity and money will roll in. Want to help the poor? We already have charities and churches all over and they do a better job than creating section 8 housing ghettos. Want to feed the poor? Countless organizations do that already and again do a better job than the government. Do you know why they do a better job? Because they actually care. They are actually spending a limited(not unlimited) amount of money that was not received through lobbying, but through people and if they don't prove the money was worth it, they will cease to receive more. They compete with other such organizations which only increases their efficiency. The government throws more and more money at it hoping it will solve the problem, but it only increases corruption.
You want to find the largest culprits for regulations, look to the largest businesses. Clearly regulations must benefit big business, just check out the history of US Steel. Look to the banking crisis and by your own admission government was bought and paid for by the banks(I don't necessarily agree, but my viewpoint has an even more negative view on the governments involvement). What you cannot see is that government, so long as it has the power, will always be a corrupt force that has it's own best interest at heart rather than the people. Would you agree that medicare is treating citizens better than private insurance? Did you know that many doctors are refusing medicare patients because the repayment is either so small or delayed that they cannot run their business if they accept medicare patients? Would you agree that welfare and affirmative action has essentially placed the African American race back into economic slavery? Did you know that African Americans had a higher employment rate in 1960 before the civil rights act than they did after in 1970? How many millions of people will live on welfare their entire lives and have their kids follow in their steps because of how the welfare system is set up? How successful is a welfare program that keeps people on the dole for generations? Our education system throws more money at the problem than anybody, yet we cannot compete on any standardized tests with many other countries. Why? The intentions of liberals are honorable most of the time, but the actual consequences of their actions are usually disastrous. FDR wanted to help the poor and unemployed with his New Deal yet it kept us in the great depression for about a decade. Can you name any other time in our history where we had 10 years of bread lines in this country? Even the author of the New Deal said it was a failure.
I could go outside our borders and show where communism gets even worse, but I would hope that all here see communism as the failure it is so I do not see the need.
If I go back to the revenue question, if revenues remain relatively flat, why raise taxes? Even Pang admits that it was common sense to lower taxes after WW1 (which created a boom in the economy). Though he wouldn't admit it, his logic must lead to the conclusion that tax cuts led to the boom whether by spending side on government or supply side in private industry. Without that logic would be to admit that should the tax rates not been lowered we still would have had the roaring 20's. It seems that was not occurring since the recession of 1920 was proving to be worse than the crash in 1929.
In the end my logic is as follows: Keep the government small and create an atmosphere that will foster economic growth.
Your logic would be: Use government as the central pillar for economic growth and create an atmosphere for economic equality.
The only problem is that government is the antithesis of production and thus economic growth and wealth. Stagnation occurs and a slow death is what ensures afterward.
whew, sorry that was so long, my mind got running and got away from me.
The relationship between government spending on health and life expectancy is skewed at best and ridiculous to compare at worst. What do those countries with high life expectancy have in common more than anything else? Wealth. The creation of wealth allows us to live better lifestyles not the creation of government programs. The exact cultures of each country have much more to do with actual life expectancies than anything else. We live slightly shorter lives in America due to the lifestyles we live not because the government doesn't spend enough.
Crime rates, education and standards of living really have nothing to do with government spending. Our crime rates are 100% culture and could possibly be blamed on the government and their backwards welfare programs that have created ghettos throughout the country. We spend more on education than anyone and yet we fall behind many countries in all tests. Here is a good summary of that: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/12/46643496.pdf
Standards of living come with wealth again, not government spending.
"Now, maybe you just don't give a fluff about people and want to live in a gated community away from the rest of society; but I think more Americans care about their society as a whole - at least I certainly hope so."
LOL, so because I want freedom, I don't give a fluff about other people. This is the disconnect you aren't seeing here. If everyone is given more freedom, wealth will be created and everyone's boats rise with a high tide. It's the difference between splitting the pie equally and baking a larger pie. America has traditionally had a "bake a larger pie" mentality, until about 1932 when it started changing. Did you know we were the largest producers in the world by 1895? How could that have happened without government programs creating an atmosphere of safety? It happened precisely because government stayed out of the way. For an example I cite President Grover Cleveland when he vetoed the Texas Seed Bill in 1887. http://mises.org/daily/3627
What happened after that you may ask? The farmers received 10x what the aid would have been from government by way of charity. Private charity. Almost anything the government does domestically can be done better by the private industry. Want to fund abortions? Create a charity and money will roll in. Want to help the poor? We already have charities and churches all over and they do a better job than creating section 8 housing ghettos. Want to feed the poor? Countless organizations do that already and again do a better job than the government. Do you know why they do a better job? Because they actually care. They are actually spending a limited(not unlimited) amount of money that was not received through lobbying, but through people and if they don't prove the money was worth it, they will cease to receive more. They compete with other such organizations which only increases their efficiency. The government throws more and more money at it hoping it will solve the problem, but it only increases corruption.
You want to find the largest culprits for regulations, look to the largest businesses. Clearly regulations must benefit big business, just check out the history of US Steel. Look to the banking crisis and by your own admission government was bought and paid for by the banks(I don't necessarily agree, but my viewpoint has an even more negative view on the governments involvement). What you cannot see is that government, so long as it has the power, will always be a corrupt force that has it's own best interest at heart rather than the people. Would you agree that medicare is treating citizens better than private insurance? Did you know that many doctors are refusing medicare patients because the repayment is either so small or delayed that they cannot run their business if they accept medicare patients? Would you agree that welfare and affirmative action has essentially placed the African American race back into economic slavery? Did you know that African Americans had a higher employment rate in 1960 before the civil rights act than they did after in 1970? How many millions of people will live on welfare their entire lives and have their kids follow in their steps because of how the welfare system is set up? How successful is a welfare program that keeps people on the dole for generations? Our education system throws more money at the problem than anybody, yet we cannot compete on any standardized tests with many other countries. Why? The intentions of liberals are honorable most of the time, but the actual consequences of their actions are usually disastrous. FDR wanted to help the poor and unemployed with his New Deal yet it kept us in the great depression for about a decade. Can you name any other time in our history where we had 10 years of bread lines in this country? Even the author of the New Deal said it was a failure.
I could go outside our borders and show where communism gets even worse, but I would hope that all here see communism as the failure it is so I do not see the need.
If I go back to the revenue question, if revenues remain relatively flat, why raise taxes? Even Pang admits that it was common sense to lower taxes after WW1 (which created a boom in the economy). Though he wouldn't admit it, his logic must lead to the conclusion that tax cuts led to the boom whether by spending side on government or supply side in private industry. Without that logic would be to admit that should the tax rates not been lowered we still would have had the roaring 20's. It seems that was not occurring since the recession of 1920 was proving to be worse than the crash in 1929.
In the end my logic is as follows: Keep the government small and create an atmosphere that will foster economic growth.
Your logic would be: Use government as the central pillar for economic growth and create an atmosphere for economic equality.
The only problem is that government is the antithesis of production and thus economic growth and wealth. Stagnation occurs and a slow death is what ensures afterward.
whew, sorry that was so long, my mind got running and got away from me.