|
On September 13 2011 01:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 00:18 hummingbird23 wrote:On September 13 2011 00:14 xDaunt wrote:Government spending can stimulate job creation. However, it is wildly inefficient at doing so. This past July, Obama's economists concluded that the stimulus package "created or saved" 2.4 million jobs at a cost of $666 billion in stimulus money spent so far. That is $278,000 spent per job "created or saved." http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdfOf course, the "created or saved" metric is facially absurd, so the real cost per job actually created is likely significantly higher. However, even being charitable, $278,000 per job "created or saved" is still incredibly wasteful. Could you please explain why the created or saved metric is absurd and why you believe the real cost per job is higher? The problem with the "created or saved" metric is that it's entirely speculative because of the "jobs saved" component. You can't prove why or how a job "was saved." I may be wrong, but I don't believe that anyone ever talked about "created or saved" as a real economic metric until the Obama administration. Cynically, it looks like a political artifice that was created to help Obama and the stimulus package look good. I believe that the real cost per job is probably higher because the "jobs saved" component of the metric is almost certainly inflated. Again, this isn't really something you can prove, which is why the metric is problematic in the first place.
It's ok, we get it, you don't have the slightest clue about political economy.
User was warned for this post
|
On September 13 2011 00:36 Blix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 00:14 xDaunt wrote:Government spending can stimulate job creation. However, it is wildly inefficient at doing so. This past July, Obama's economists concluded that the stimulus package "created or saved" 2.4 million jobs at a cost of $666 billion in stimulus money spent so far. That is $278,000 spent per job "created or saved." http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdfOf course, the "created or saved" metric is facially absurd, so the real cost per job actually created is likely significantly higher. However, even being charitable, $278,000 per job "created or saved" is still incredibly wasteful. It is not necessarily government spending in general that is inefficient; but in your particular example it was - Assuming that the 278k$ is much more than a created/saved job pays, the question is: who got the rest of the money? imho that question answers why this was so ineffective...
That was the problem with the stimulus package in the first place. Largely portions of it were not even calculated to be economic stimulus or infrastructure improvement. It was largely a political payoff bill to democratic supporters. There's a reason why people derided the stimulus package as the "porkulus bill."
|
And it's not like federal jobs are just a hole to throw money at. Wages paid by the government go *directly* back in to the economy. Your public workers, teachers, cops, firefighters, etc, it's not like money which pays them just magically vanishes.
They take their paycheck, and they spend it. On their mortgage. On food, on clothes, for rent, on goods and services. They pay their utility bills, and occasionally they buy luxuries. On all the things which directly stimulate the economy. Yet for some reason we keep on demonizing the (already suffering) lower/middle class as if they are some economic black hole from which the magical and never entirely explained "private sector profits" never reemerge. Public sector employees do wonders for the economy.
|
On September 13 2011 01:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 00:36 Blix wrote:On September 13 2011 00:14 xDaunt wrote:Government spending can stimulate job creation. However, it is wildly inefficient at doing so. This past July, Obama's economists concluded that the stimulus package "created or saved" 2.4 million jobs at a cost of $666 billion in stimulus money spent so far. That is $278,000 spent per job "created or saved." http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdfOf course, the "created or saved" metric is facially absurd, so the real cost per job actually created is likely significantly higher. However, even being charitable, $278,000 per job "created or saved" is still incredibly wasteful. It is not necessarily government spending in general that is inefficient; but in your particular example it was - Assuming that the 278k$ is much more than a created/saved job pays, the question is: who got the rest of the money? imho that question answers why this was so ineffective... That was the problem with the stimulus package in the first place. Largely portions of it were not even calculated to be economic stimulus or infrastructure improvement. It was largely a political payoff bill to democratic supporters. There's a reason why people derided the stimulus package as the "porkulus bill."
Yes, the reason is that they are Republicans who know their electorate or radio listeners are dumb enough to buy into their rhetoric.
|
On September 13 2011 01:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 00:36 Blix wrote:On September 13 2011 00:14 xDaunt wrote:Government spending can stimulate job creation. However, it is wildly inefficient at doing so. This past July, Obama's economists concluded that the stimulus package "created or saved" 2.4 million jobs at a cost of $666 billion in stimulus money spent so far. That is $278,000 spent per job "created or saved." http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdfOf course, the "created or saved" metric is facially absurd, so the real cost per job actually created is likely significantly higher. However, even being charitable, $278,000 per job "created or saved" is still incredibly wasteful. It is not necessarily government spending in general that is inefficient; but in your particular example it was - Assuming that the 278k$ is much more than a created/saved job pays, the question is: who got the rest of the money? imho that question answers why this was so ineffective... That was the problem with the stimulus package in the first place. Largely portions of it were not even calculated to be economic stimulus or infrastructure improvement. It was largely a political payoff bill to democratic supporters. There's a reason why people derided the stimulus package as the "porkulus bill."
Which is funny because all those jobs Perry seems so proud of "creating" in his state, (which by the way, are 2/3 low-class wage jobs, and an entire 40% minimum wage jobs), were created/funded using that very same stimulus bill he loves to attack.
|
On September 13 2011 01:27 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 01:20 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2011 00:36 Blix wrote:On September 13 2011 00:14 xDaunt wrote:Government spending can stimulate job creation. However, it is wildly inefficient at doing so. This past July, Obama's economists concluded that the stimulus package "created or saved" 2.4 million jobs at a cost of $666 billion in stimulus money spent so far. That is $278,000 spent per job "created or saved." http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdfOf course, the "created or saved" metric is facially absurd, so the real cost per job actually created is likely significantly higher. However, even being charitable, $278,000 per job "created or saved" is still incredibly wasteful. It is not necessarily government spending in general that is inefficient; but in your particular example it was - Assuming that the 278k$ is much more than a created/saved job pays, the question is: who got the rest of the money? imho that question answers why this was so ineffective... That was the problem with the stimulus package in the first place. Largely portions of it were not even calculated to be economic stimulus or infrastructure improvement. It was largely a political payoff bill to democratic supporters. There's a reason why people derided the stimulus package as the "porkulus bill." Which is funny because all those jobs Perry seems so proud of "creating" in his state, (which by the way, are 2/3 low-class wage jobs, and an entire 40% minimum wage jobs), were created/funded using that very same stimulus bill he loves to attack.
Quite frankly, I think that this is the wrong line of attack on Perry's job record. It's going to be very hard to convincingly argue that Texas has not done relatively well compared to other states in the country over the past several years. This argument is even worse when matching Obama's job record against Perry's.
The better attack is that the only reason why Texas is doing well is because of its oil and natural gas resources, which have propped its economy up over the past several years with the energy price spike, which Perry had little do with.
|
On September 13 2011 01:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 00:18 hummingbird23 wrote:On September 13 2011 00:14 xDaunt wrote:Government spending can stimulate job creation. However, it is wildly inefficient at doing so. This past July, Obama's economists concluded that the stimulus package "created or saved" 2.4 million jobs at a cost of $666 billion in stimulus money spent so far. That is $278,000 spent per job "created or saved." http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdfOf course, the "created or saved" metric is facially absurd, so the real cost per job actually created is likely significantly higher. However, even being charitable, $278,000 per job "created or saved" is still incredibly wasteful. Could you please explain why the created or saved metric is absurd and why you believe the real cost per job is higher? The problem with the "created or saved" metric is that it's entirely speculative because of the "jobs saved" component. You can't prove why or how a job "was saved." I may be wrong, but I don't believe that anyone ever talked about "created or saved" as a real economic metric until the Obama administration. Cynically, it looks like a political artifice that was created to help Obama and the stimulus package look good. I believe that the real cost per job is probably higher because the "jobs saved" component of the metric is almost certainly inflated. Again, this isn't really something you can prove, which is why the metric is problematic in the first place.
In short, you have no argument except for "I dunno, the numbers don't say what I want and I don't like Obama, so I roll a sleight of hand check and push the error bars up because I say so." You either give credence to the report or you ignore it entirely, you don't get to make your anti-government point and also bash the very numbers you use without a shred of evidence.
Edit: Plus, the point of stimulus was to put money into the economy so that people actually start spending. However you cut it, unless the money was transferred into a static pool, it did something.
|
On September 13 2011 01:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 01:27 Haemonculus wrote:On September 13 2011 01:20 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2011 00:36 Blix wrote:On September 13 2011 00:14 xDaunt wrote:Government spending can stimulate job creation. However, it is wildly inefficient at doing so. This past July, Obama's economists concluded that the stimulus package "created or saved" 2.4 million jobs at a cost of $666 billion in stimulus money spent so far. That is $278,000 spent per job "created or saved." http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdfOf course, the "created or saved" metric is facially absurd, so the real cost per job actually created is likely significantly higher. However, even being charitable, $278,000 per job "created or saved" is still incredibly wasteful. It is not necessarily government spending in general that is inefficient; but in your particular example it was - Assuming that the 278k$ is much more than a created/saved job pays, the question is: who got the rest of the money? imho that question answers why this was so ineffective... That was the problem with the stimulus package in the first place. Largely portions of it were not even calculated to be economic stimulus or infrastructure improvement. It was largely a political payoff bill to democratic supporters. There's a reason why people derided the stimulus package as the "porkulus bill." Which is funny because all those jobs Perry seems so proud of "creating" in his state, (which by the way, are 2/3 low-class wage jobs, and an entire 40% minimum wage jobs), were created/funded using that very same stimulus bill he loves to attack. Quite frankly, I think that this is the wrong line of attack on Perry's job record. It's going to be very hard to convincingly argue that Texas has not done relatively well compared to other states in the country over the past several years. This argument is even worse when matching Obama's job record against Perry's. The better attack is that the only reason why Texas is doing well is because of its oil and natural gas resources, which have propped its economy up over the past several years with the energy price spike, which Perry had little do with.
I think it's plenty reasonable.
The man is quite proud of all the jobs he created. Doing work for the economy he says. The fact that the majority of them are low-wage jobs, and that a full 40% of them are minimum wage jobs is always conveniently omitted. He then berates the stimulus package as another misuse of government spending. He pays for the jobs he boasts about using money from the stimulus package.
And the low-wage problem is a pretty crucial point when our economy is so down the shitter. These are not the kinds of jobs we need. These are not the jobs which stimulate the economy. These are the kinds of jobs that keep people just barely getting by, and often times additionally required to depend on government assistance. People making minimum wage certainly aren't stimulating growth.
|
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal to endorse Perry.
|
There's another debate tonight on CNN. Here's Politico's preview:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63223.html
The debate is in Florida, so it'll be interesting to see how the candidates dance around the social security issue. Because Perry has doubled-down on his "social security is a ponzi scheme" position, he'll need to be prepared to explain how he would change it.
I really hope that no one goes after Romney's job creation record again. It's such a stupid and misleading attack. Again, it's hard to have job creation when your state was already at full employment.
|
On September 13 2011 01:24 Haemonculus wrote:
And it's not like federal jobs are just a hole to throw money at. Wages paid by the government go *directly* back in to the economy. Your public workers, teachers, cops, firefighters, etc, it's not like money which pays them just magically vanishes.
They take their paycheck, and they spend it. On their mortgage. On food, on clothes, for rent, on goods and services. They pay their utility bills, and occasionally they buy luxuries. On all the things which directly stimulate the economy. Yet for some reason we keep on demonizing the (already suffering) lower/middle class as if they are some economic black hole from which the magical and never entirely explained "private sector profits" never reemerge. Public sector employees do wonders for the economy.
How are you guys not understanding this? Yes, when government "creates" jobs, the employees spend money, and the money gets spent. But where does the money come from? It comes from the economy, which could have spent it, which would have stimulated the economy.
The government is doing nothing but moving the money around! And it does so with decreased efficiency relative to the market, so how is it "stimulating" anything that wouldn't already be stimulated?
And I'm getting very tired of the "supply side economics" straw man argument. There is no such thing as supply side economics. There is no economic theory which uses the term supply side, and there are no economists who actually support anything like "supply side economics."
Having people keep their own money isn't "supply side economics." People will spend their money, creating demand. We might as well call it "demand side economics." Yes, I realize that supply-side is simply a Marxist euphemism for "the rich," and that we should be taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, because supposedly the poor spend their money better than the rich do, which is a pretty hilarious assertion.
This entire mindset people have regarding economics is based upon the faulty assumption that spending alone is what creates wealth. The keynesians have certainly drilled that idea into people's heads. What actually creates wealth is increased efficiency with existing resources. Otherwise we could simply pay people to dig holes and fill them back up, and the money we paid them would "circulate" and create wealth. It's a total nonsense assertion.
Increased efficiency and better allocation of scarce resources is what creates wealth, and what the entire study of economics is all about. Decreasing efficiency by removing profit incentives, price signals, and by spending resources on bureaucratic institutions is not going to do a single thing to "stimulate" anything. If you want to talk about interest rates and the federal reserve, ie. monetary policy, you need to realize that is completely separate from the "job's proposal" BS that politicians put out to make themselves look good to people who don't know the first thing about basic economics. Considering the economic fallacies I read in threads like this one, I'm sure it's working.
|
On September 13 2011 04:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 01:24 Haemonculus wrote:
And it's not like federal jobs are just a hole to throw money at. Wages paid by the government go *directly* back in to the economy. Your public workers, teachers, cops, firefighters, etc, it's not like money which pays them just magically vanishes.
They take their paycheck, and they spend it. On their mortgage. On food, on clothes, for rent, on goods and services. They pay their utility bills, and occasionally they buy luxuries. On all the things which directly stimulate the economy. Yet for some reason we keep on demonizing the (already suffering) lower/middle class as if they are some economic black hole from which the magical and never entirely explained "private sector profits" never reemerge. Public sector employees do wonders for the economy. How are you guys not understanding this? Yes, when government "creates" jobs, the employees spend money, and the money gets spent. But where does the money come from? It comes from the economy, which could have spent it, which would have stimulated the economy. The government is doing nothing but moving the money around! And it does so with decreased efficiency relative to the market, so how is it "stimulating" anything that wouldn't already be stimulated? And I'm getting very tired of the "supply side economics" straw man argument. There is no such thing as supply side economics. There is no economic theory which uses the term supply side, and there are no economists who actually support anything like "supply side economics."Having people keep their own money isn't "supply side economics." People will spend their money, creating demand. We might as well call it "demand side economics." Yes, I realize that supply-side is simply a Marxist euphemism for "the rich," and that we should be taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, because supposedly the poor spend their money better than the rich do, which is a pretty hilarious assertion. This entire mindset people have regarding economics is based upon the faulty assumption that spending alone is what creates wealth. The keynesians have certainly drilled that idea into people's heads. What actually creates wealth is increased efficiency with existing resources. Otherwise we could simply pay people to dig holes and fill them back up, and the money we paid them would "circulate" and create wealth. It's a total nonsense assertion. Increased efficiency and better allocation of scarce resources is what creates wealth, and what the entire study of economics is all about. Decreasing efficiency by removing profit incentives, price signals, and by spending resources on bureaucratic institutions is not going to do a single thing to "stimulate" anything. If you want to talk about interest rates and the federal reserve, ie. monetary policy, you need to realize that is completely separate from the "job's proposal" BS that politicians put out to make themselves look good to people who don't know the first thing about basic economics. Considering the economic fallacies I read in threads like this one, I'm sure it's working.
That's such a crazy claim that is most definitely false. >.> Just saying.
Also, if you're gonna accuse people of strawmanning supply side economics, stop straw manning Keynesian theory. Yes, Keynes once stated that money spent on digging holes and filling them back up is money well spent, but the thought of Keynesian theory has evolved ever since Keynes died. There are few people (like Paul Krugman) who take it to the extreme, but I think the overall perspective on how to implement his theory is broad and different from person to person.
I think everyone agrees that "efficiency" and allocating resources correctly is the best way to maximize something. But that technically doesn't "create" wealth. That just means you used your pre-existing wealthy correctly.
Sure, you can come up with theories all day about how government is terrible at efficacy, but you can say the exact same thing about private markets. The fact is this: there needs to be a combination of intelligent government focused spending that most effectively involves the private sector to stimulate growth and jobs.
Honestly, I don't know why certain people shoot down the government and call for a perfectly privatized society, that has historically been faulty with the same corruption and problems that government is associated with.
|
On September 13 2011 04:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:
How are you guys not understanding this? Yes, when government "creates" jobs, the employees spend money, and the money gets spent. But where does the money come from? It comes from the economy, which could have spent it, which would have stimulated the economy.
The government is doing nothing but moving the money around! And it does so with decreased efficiency relative to the market, so how is it "stimulating" anything that wouldn't already be stimulated?
This is mostly true if the spending is offset by raising taxes (although you still need to take into account marginal rates of consumption). Deficit spending, in theory anyway, gets around that.
And I'm getting very tired of the "supply side economics" straw man argument. There is no such thing as supply side economics. There is no economic theory which uses the term supply side, and there are no economists who actually support anything like "supply side economics."
Having people keep their own money isn't "supply side economics." People will spend their money, creating demand. We might as well call it "demand side economics." Yes, I realize that supply-side is simply a Marxist euphemism for "the rich," and that we should be taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, because supposedly the poor spend their money better than the rich do, which is a pretty hilarious assertion.
lol, you have no idea what you're talking about so you just start calling people Marxists. (especially hilarious since you apparently have an issue with the term "supply side economics" ... hypocrisy much?)
The term "supply side" comes from the classical assumption that demand is fixed and economic growth can only be bolstered by moving the supply curve outwards. You can have a supply side theory that is liberal (ie free market) or that is progressive, or even theories that do not assume a market economy at all. What makes it "supply side" is the focus on production rather than demand/consumption. As Marx was focused on production rather than consumption, he arguably is both a supply-sider and a Marxist
Keynesian economics is "demand side" economics; it's just typically referred to as Keynesian since there is one leading figure who popularized this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics
If you think it's meant as a pejorative, consider that many adherents to these economic philosophies use the term to describe themselves, for example:
http://www.supplysideforum.com/
|
On September 13 2011 05:13 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 04:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:
How are you guys not understanding this? Yes, when government "creates" jobs, the employees spend money, and the money gets spent. But where does the money come from? It comes from the economy, which could have spent it, which would have stimulated the economy.
The government is doing nothing but moving the money around! And it does so with decreased efficiency relative to the market, so how is it "stimulating" anything that wouldn't already be stimulated? This is mostly true if the spending is offset by raising taxes (although you still need to take into account marginal rates of consumption). Deficit spending, in theory anyway, gets around that. Show nested quote +
And I'm getting very tired of the "supply side economics" straw man argument. There is no such thing as supply side economics. There is no economic theory which uses the term supply side, and there are no economists who actually support anything like "supply side economics."
Having people keep their own money isn't "supply side economics." People will spend their money, creating demand. We might as well call it "demand side economics." Yes, I realize that supply-side is simply a Marxist euphemism for "the rich," and that we should be taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, because supposedly the poor spend their money better than the rich do, which is a pretty hilarious assertion.
lol, you have no idea what you're talking about so you just start calling people Marxists. (especially hilarious since you apparently have an issue with the term "supply side economics" ... hypocrisy much?) The term "supply side" comes from the classical assumption that demand is fixed and economic growth can only be bolstered by moving the supply curve outwards. You can have a supply side theory that is liberal (ie free market) or that is progressive, or even theories that do not assume a market economy at all. What makes it "supply side" is the focus on production rather than demand/consumption. As Marx was focused on production rather than consumption, he arguably is both a supply-sider and a Marxist Keynesian economics is "demand side" economics; it's just typically referred to as Keynesian since there is one leading figure who popularized this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economicsIf you think it's meant as a pejorative, consider that many adherents to these economic philosophies use the term to describe themselves, for example: http://www.supplysideforum.com/
Well thanks for bringing that definition to my attention. That's certainly not what the majority of people mean when they talk about "supply side economics." It certainly is used as a pejorative term.
And I didn't call anyone Marxist btw. The term is used as a euphemism in order to evoke a Marxist image of competing classes, ie. "demand vs. supply" as a euphemism for "poor vs. wealthy," ie. "trickle down economics."
|
IBut that technically doesn't "create" wealth. That just means you used your pre-existing wealthy correctly.
This is why I absolutely refuse to vote for democrats. They have no desire to patch existing leaks in the government programs (Republicans are guilty of this too but not to the extent of democrats) , and nonchalantly allow our money to be pissed away to their union buddies for campaign funds. I find it rather revolting that tax money I pay for public services ends up endorsing candidates that I have no interest in voting for, via union dues. If the govt wasn't so terrible at spending our money I can guarantee you that a plethora of conservatives and independents wouldn't mind small tax increases from time to time. But as of right now, no more money for the government until waste / mistakes reach an acceptable level.
|
On September 13 2011 05:20 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +IBut that technically doesn't "create" wealth. That just means you used your pre-existing wealthy correctly. This is why I absolutely refuse to vote for democrats. They have no desire to patch existing leaks in the government programs (Republicans are guilty of this too but not to the extent of democrats) , and nonchalantly allow our money to be pissed away to their union buddies for campaign funds. I find it rather revolting that tax money I pay for public services ends up endorsing candidates that I have no interest in voting for via union dues. If the govt' wasn't so terrible at spending our money I can guarantee you that a plethora of conservatives and independents wouldn't mind small tax increases from time to time. But as of right now, no more money for the government until waste / mistakes reach an acceptable level.
That's kind of one-sided outrage. Neither party wants the system to change because that system gets them re-elected. I'm not interested in itemizing all the corruptions of both sides because it would take all day, but they are many and often overlapping. I was actually talking to my barber about this the other day. For all the arm flailing and harsh rhetoric, they have much more in common with each other than with any of us. And we have much more in common with each other than with any of them, although we are so expertly convinced that we do not.
I like to hear the language of "structural change" that Romney uses in the debates, but language is all it is. All of the hallowed ideas of every candidate, R or D, are superficial surface scratches. "I'll lower the corporate tax rate to 25%!" is so far from structural, or meaningful to the real world full of loopholes where corporations don't actually pay any taxes (hyperbole but many of them don't and those that do pay far less than what the tax code would suggest). Oh here I go about to rant about bailouts and corporate congress. Must resist...I'll leave it at this:
If they're too big to fail they're too big to exist.
I guess that turned into a tangent. Oops. <2
|
On September 13 2011 05:20 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +IBut that technically doesn't "create" wealth. That just means you used your pre-existing wealthy correctly. This is why I absolutely refuse to vote for democrats. They have no desire to patch existing leaks in the government programs (Republicans are guilty of this too but not to the extent of democrats) , and nonchalantly allow our money to be pissed away to their union buddies for campaign funds. I find it rather revolting that tax money I pay for public services ends up endorsing candidates that I have no interest in voting for, via union dues. If the govt wasn't so terrible at spending our money I can guarantee you that a plethora of conservatives and independents wouldn't mind small tax increases from time to time. But as of right now, no more money for the government until waste / mistakes reach an acceptable level.
And Republican are better because they want to cut said programs in order to sustain their tax breaks on the rich?
Also, why is your paragraph constructed to make it sound like Republicans don't give money away to their special interest buddies for campaign funding? o_O The Republican money machine is significantly larger than the Democrats.
The current "conservative" mindset is this (among all presidential candidates): I refuse $10 in spending cuts and $1 in tax increases.
Seriously?
|
Debate is starting now on CNN if you can peel yourself away from football.
|
On September 13 2011 08:10 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 05:20 Pillage wrote:IBut that technically doesn't "create" wealth. That just means you used your pre-existing wealthy correctly. This is why I absolutely refuse to vote for democrats. They have no desire to patch existing leaks in the government programs (Republicans are guilty of this too but not to the extent of democrats) , and nonchalantly allow our money to be pissed away to their union buddies for campaign funds. I find it rather revolting that tax money I pay for public services ends up endorsing candidates that I have no interest in voting for, via union dues. If the govt wasn't so terrible at spending our money I can guarantee you that a plethora of conservatives and independents wouldn't mind small tax increases from time to time. But as of right now, no more money for the government until waste / mistakes reach an acceptable level. And Republican are better because they want to cut said programs in order to sustain their tax breaks on the rich? Also, why is your paragraph constructed to make it sound like Republicans don't give money away to their special interest buddies for campaign funding? o_O The Republican money machine is significantly larger than the Democrats. The current "conservative" mindset is this (among all presidential candidates): I refuse $10 in spending cuts and $1 in tax increases.
Maybe it hasn't occurred to you, but paying MORE money into a system that wastes billions of dollars it is not a good idea at all. Waste of the magnitude which government produces is simply unacceptable, if a business tried to cut corners like this they would be clobbered by their competitors. You should also look at the list of organizations that have donated the most money to political campaigns, you will find that unions like the AFL-CIO have donated far more since 1990 than almost all major corporations.
SOURCE
You'll find that number 2 on this list is a union composed of PUBLIC workers so guess what? That means our tax dollars are being rerouted into campaign funds, which is just downright wrong considering that money should be paid solely to workers for the individual services that they perform, and nothing else.
We've reached a point where taxing more will only encourage more waste, because welfare is handed out far too liberally. If someone doesn't need government aid they've been given, it's waste by definition. There is more than enough money being brought in right now to pay for programs that are much more airtight and selective than the ones we currently have. Until the government gets its shit together regarding wasteful spending I will not support any tax increases whatsoever.
So sorry If I hold my standards for government accountability higher than most people on here, who won't see half their paycheck vanish every year when the tax man comes knocking. Because once I have everything set up the way I want it, that's what is going to be happening. If you got a problem with that, consider how you would feel if you had half the money you made taken from you . Maybe then you'll see what I'm getting at here.
EDIT: Revised a little of the post and fixed some formatting.
|
I wish the Tea Party didn't exist so I could focus on hating Huntsman instead of liking him for just not being stupid/insane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
