Gubment Spending Rant
#81
08-10-2009, 07:58 PM
What so many people fail to understand is that the gov't doesn't make money. They tax us to get their money. So consequently when they create defficits like they have been, the only way to pay it back is to increase our taxes. Why is this so difficult for people to get?????
So all of those misguided individuals who think that the stimulus is just what the economy needs, will someday learn (and all to late) that we, the taxpayer are who is providing the stimulus. The debt that has been created will have to be paid by us by increased taxes. There is no other way. Our government has never made a profit on anything that it has done.
So all the gov't programs, jobs, grants, welfare, etc. are funded 100% by us the taxpayer!
Stimulus? I don't think so ....... train wreck would come closer to describing it.
So all of those misguided individuals who think that the stimulus is just what the economy needs, will someday learn (and all to late) that we, the taxpayer are who is providing the stimulus. The debt that has been created will have to be paid by us by increased taxes. There is no other way. Our government has never made a profit on anything that it has done.
So all the gov't programs, jobs, grants, welfare, etc. are funded 100% by us the taxpayer!
Stimulus? I don't think so ....... train wreck would come closer to describing it.
#83
08-11-2009, 01:37 AM
OK, I'm in.
Most people have on overly simplistic view of things, including the economy.
A government stimulating the economy is not only a good idea, it is essential.
The only debate is by how much.
The fundamental problem facing a declining economy is the rising unemployment.
People who don't work don't spend which puts more people out of work.
It spirals down and down until you enter a depression.
The economy grinds to a halt as people don't have enough money to spend and those that do don't spend it.
Enter the government.
The great depression was made far worse than it needed to be due to government inaction. Or should I say not enough action as they did do some things.
All governments of all persuasions are stimulating their economies to reduce unemployment.
Sure it's essentially borrowing money that will have to be paid back, and the people that will have to pay it back are you and me, but that is far better than letting the economy spiral down.
When the economy picks up, the tax take automatically increases.
The tax rates may not need to actually increase.
But even if they do, that is better than having no job at all.
It is of course about balance.
If a government spends too much, this will have the effect of putting too high a burden on the economy going forward which has its own negative effect.
Look at countries in the past who tried to solve problems by printing money?
If you want to know if your government has gone too far, look at its credit worthiness. That’s a measure of whether or not banks think your country is good for the money so to speak. If that stays nice and high, relax.
It will all work out.
A market driven economy is a very good thing but left entirely to its own devices creates problems of stability and equality.
Just as too much government involvement in an economy is a bad thing as it stifles incentive, risk and work ethic.
A certain level of government involvement is a very good thing.
It is wrong to see government employees as parasites.
Whilst you can argue about what they should be paid etc, they are an integral part of an economy and probably the single biggest way governments returns collect taxes to the economy.
Some institutions are better left to government.
We all have different views on this but a totally privatised world is to be avoided.
There are some pillars of a civilized society that should not be sold to the highest bidder. Think law and order, defense etc.
Anyway, can we get back to bikes now?
What’s better, Muzzy or Big Gun?
Most people have on overly simplistic view of things, including the economy.
A government stimulating the economy is not only a good idea, it is essential.
The only debate is by how much.
The fundamental problem facing a declining economy is the rising unemployment.
People who don't work don't spend which puts more people out of work.
It spirals down and down until you enter a depression.
The economy grinds to a halt as people don't have enough money to spend and those that do don't spend it.
Enter the government.
The great depression was made far worse than it needed to be due to government inaction. Or should I say not enough action as they did do some things.
All governments of all persuasions are stimulating their economies to reduce unemployment.
Sure it's essentially borrowing money that will have to be paid back, and the people that will have to pay it back are you and me, but that is far better than letting the economy spiral down.
When the economy picks up, the tax take automatically increases.
The tax rates may not need to actually increase.
But even if they do, that is better than having no job at all.
It is of course about balance.
If a government spends too much, this will have the effect of putting too high a burden on the economy going forward which has its own negative effect.
Look at countries in the past who tried to solve problems by printing money?
If you want to know if your government has gone too far, look at its credit worthiness. That’s a measure of whether or not banks think your country is good for the money so to speak. If that stays nice and high, relax.
It will all work out.
A market driven economy is a very good thing but left entirely to its own devices creates problems of stability and equality.
Just as too much government involvement in an economy is a bad thing as it stifles incentive, risk and work ethic.
A certain level of government involvement is a very good thing.
It is wrong to see government employees as parasites.
Whilst you can argue about what they should be paid etc, they are an integral part of an economy and probably the single biggest way governments returns collect taxes to the economy.
Some institutions are better left to government.
We all have different views on this but a totally privatised world is to be avoided.
There are some pillars of a civilized society that should not be sold to the highest bidder. Think law and order, defense etc.
Anyway, can we get back to bikes now?
What’s better, Muzzy or Big Gun?
#85
08-11-2009, 02:08 AM
I'm curious to see where some of us fall on this graph.
http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2
I'm about 4 to left of the vertical line and 3 down from the horizontal line.
http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2
I'm about 4 to left of the vertical line and 3 down from the horizontal line.
#88
08-11-2009, 03:20 AM
Neil-
Government can never stimulate an ecomomy by taking more money from people who create jobs and then wonder why un-employment rises. Government has no wealth, it by nature confiscates it from the wealth producers.
Government can help spur economic growth by taking less from the wealth producers through lower taxes, theyby providing more incentive for wealth producers to invest and put their capital at risk, which in turn creates jobs and causes economic growth. That growth then results in more people on the tax roles, and more taxes from investors becuase they are producing more which means more money into the treasury.
If I sell 1,000 KLX250's then the government will recieve more revenue from me than if I sell 200 of them. That in turn employs more people because it takes more paid labor from an employer to create 1,000 KLX250's than it does to produce a mere 200 of them. Incentive creates work, work creates growth, and growth creates jobs. All of this will result in more money into government.
Taxes and regulation are the opposite of incentive and will result in less growth, less jobs and less money to government as a result.
M
Government can never stimulate an ecomomy by taking more money from people who create jobs and then wonder why un-employment rises. Government has no wealth, it by nature confiscates it from the wealth producers.
Government can help spur economic growth by taking less from the wealth producers through lower taxes, theyby providing more incentive for wealth producers to invest and put their capital at risk, which in turn creates jobs and causes economic growth. That growth then results in more people on the tax roles, and more taxes from investors becuase they are producing more which means more money into the treasury.
If I sell 1,000 KLX250's then the government will recieve more revenue from me than if I sell 200 of them. That in turn employs more people because it takes more paid labor from an employer to create 1,000 KLX250's than it does to produce a mere 200 of them. Incentive creates work, work creates growth, and growth creates jobs. All of this will result in more money into government.
Taxes and regulation are the opposite of incentive and will result in less growth, less jobs and less money to government as a result.
M
