I feel the same way about married women. They aren't doing me any good and they're taking up space and resources that single women could be utilizing.
so it all comes around to being responsible: people having responsible spending habits = no need for bailouts people being responsible parents = less need for government raising kids problem is, nobody holds the individual responsible and accountable anymore. Are you clumsy? Stupid? It's not your fault you spilled coffee on yourself, apparantly we need to sue McDonalds. Are you fat? Let's sue McDonalds again. Smoker? Let's sue the tobacco industry. on and on...hold people responsible. Bad parent? You got 30 days to start taking care of your kids. If you don't, they belong to us now, and you no longer get to claim them on your taxes. I better stop there...stupid people piss me off (none of ya'll, of course, but the majority of folks out there that make this discussion possible)
Take them away cut the parents off and then you have money to raise them. Sorry see too many crack head parents around. If the parent or parents are working that is one thing. If not I see no reason to expect the kids to be better. Good thoughts there see above. Fuzzy
got in a hurry and rushed off before clarifying that I do not support that exact thought, at all, government already thinks they can raise our kids better than the parents, and in many cases, sadly, does, but it's not the government's, or my, responsibility. Do I mind helping any way I can? absolutely not Do I mind being forced to help, in ways I disagree with, and for those whom it's a game playing the system? You bet I mind here's an idea for a tax system...you still pay the same you do now, and certain % goes to necessities - roads, rails, emergency, LEO - but you get to pick where the rest goes. Disagree with abortion, global warming? opt out of your $$$ going there. want to add more to disease research? opt in. I know it'd never work, but just think...the people's voices for what they want going exactly where they've decided what's important to them, not their "representative" wow
I don't particularly like the ideao of government dole. I think it encourages sloth - it empowers people who have a distinct desire to do nothing but leech off of others. That being said, I know we are always going to have some, and of all the forms, the ones I have the least objection to - in theory - are for the genuinely desperate adults (i.e. those who have tried, but come up short), and children. However, in practice none of these problems really solve any problems. Government spending on welfare programs have skyrocketed since the '60's and the Johnson administrations beginning the "war on poverty," and we have absolutely nothing to show for it - the level of poverty has not changed appreciably in the intervening years. Furthermore, most of the money supposedly helping "the children" does no such thing - it goes to powerful teachers' unions, which use the money for political objectives, it goes to programs like midnight basketball, which show no sign of reducing juvenile crime rates, it goes to worthless, symbolic gestures that make people feel good while solving absolutely nothing. These programs are absolutely wonderful, right up until the point they are initiated, in which case an overgrown, bloated bureaucracy gets a hold of the funding, and by the time the money trickles out to the intended beneficiaries, a lot of lifelong government civil servants have gotten a nice thick slice of the pie, and the children and the genuninely needy get precious little. This stimulus package will do nothing but perpetuate this vicious cycle. Don't get me wrong - I vote Republican - but as of late, the Republican party has been only marginally more in my line of thinking regarding economics and fiscal policy and government spending, than the Democrats.
Which is exactly why I didn't like the big-spending policies of the former administration, and hate them even more now with the current administration, which will make the former look like rank amateurs. Tax for the things we MUST tax for: infrastructure, defense, law enforcement and life saving, and yes, help for the truly indigent and needy, but NOT for the chronically dependent and the bottom-feeders. Then get out of the way and let our entrepreneurs and private sector once again LEAD the way in innovation. As long as government is spending the money and the private sector ISN'T, we'll be in this cycle.
I think it is important to note that no financial crisis has ever been solved by growing government. We got out of the Great Depression only after the New Deal started to be scaled back and private industry could become more involved. Notice the TVA - to this day, it has never been a profitable venture. It continues to operate at a loss. Bigger government doesn't build the economy, because bigger government means taking more money out of the economy. There is a huge operational cost to do any kind of government project that is not there with private sector operations. The government makes a point to hire more people than is necessary to perform any given job, and then refuses to make any kind of cutbacks. I saw an interesting news piece today about more municipal governments outsourcing infrastructure jobs - like waste removal, etc. - to private companies, and saving a lot of money in the process. Government is extremely bad at being efficient. Has anybody had a pleasant experience - ever - standing in line at the Social Security office? My wife just wanted to change her name on her Social Security card when we got married, and she had to wait an hour in line. I dread going to the DMV for any reason. I don't look at it as a good thing for more of the economy being run in similar fashions.
Dr Mike, great points. Something I feel like I need to point out here about the "Stimulus Package" though.. This is the same principle as taking a bucket of water from the deep end of a pool, walking to the shallow end of the pool and pouring that water back and proclaiming that you have made the shallow end of the pool deeper... They are taking money out of the economy to "Stimulate" the economy, it can not work. Historically it has never worked, look up the lost decade in Japan, they spent something like 47 trillion yen on stimulus and it accomplished nothing. The treasury secretary for FDR said that the money they spent on the new deal accomplished nothing, and probably made the depression last longer. If they want to get the economy rolling again, they need to cut taxes, and limit the interest that banks can charge on loand and credit cards. Both of these things combined will put more money into the economy than any stimulus package possibly could. And it would do it without deficit spending. The people who suddenly have more money at the end of the month will spend it. Maybe on food, maybe on bills, maybe on a new tv. It does not matter, every dime of it will go back into the economy, to businesses that people are actually utilizing, and they will continue to operate and maybe even grow. This will preserve jobs and create new jobs, where they need to be, not where the government is artificially creating them.
I agree - the best way to get money flowing again is to put more of it back into the hands of those who will spend it - consumers. You need to cut taxes, not just write a one-time check to people. Give me a one-time check, and I'll put it away for safe keeping (this is exactly what I did with the last "stimulus" check). Cut my taxes, and I'll feel more confident about my economic future, and will go spend some more. And it will be immediate. Government spending programs take forever to implement, and are fraught with inefficiency - an inevitable by-product of bureaucracy. I am a little anxious, though, about cutting interest rates too far. If this happens, we run the risk of inflation. This was also one of the causes of where we are today - money became too "cheap" and people were borrowing out of control and irresponsibly. In general, I think that the biggest problem in all of this has been excessive meddling in the economy by the government, creating artificial bubbles. Take government out of this reckless game they are playing at trying to manage the economy - they can't. Your average politician has a hard enough time comprehending the founding documents of this country - do we really believe they have a firm grasp of complex economic theory? I highly doubt it. Considering, also, the fact that our current Treasury secretary couldn't even figure out his own taxes, I highly doubt that he is the financial whiz kid he is purported to be. And with as eager as Ben Bernanke was to jump on board with the TARP plan, I currently have little or not trust in the people in power in being able to properly manage a convenience store, let alone the U.S. economy.
I think you are the exact opposite of the majority of people in this country. If taxes are reduced, the small, incremental increase in paycheck-to-paycheck will be spent, but won't have the impact of, say, getting a one-time check for $X hundred or $X thousand dollars (in the case of families, etc.) In my opinion, people will be more willing to buy more with a single check than a marginal raise in weekly paychecks. I admit I'm only going off my opinion.
Ill have to go along with Dr. Mike here and I think...............the latest numbers will back us up: A stimulus plan that includes only tax cuts is now more popular than the economic recovery plan being considered in Congress. Forty-five percent (45%) favor a tax-cut only plan while 34% are opposed. Those figures reflect a modest increase in support over the past week. Candidate Obama campaigned heavily on a promise to cut taxes for 95% of all Americans, and voters strongly believe that tax cuts are good for the economy. Most Americans believe that a dollar of tax cuts is better for the economy than a dollar of government spending. Source: Rasmussen
Tax cuts will do nothing to repair our crumbling infrastructure. It must be fixed at some point in the very near future or we're all screwed, multi billionaire and those working in poverty alike.
I will agree that our infrastructure needs some work, I would not use the word crumbling though. The problem is that the "Stimulus" bill does not contain very much infrastructure dollars, it is earmarks for special interest groups. The good news is that they are being called on it by their constituents, that is why the tax cut for Hollywood producers is going away along with several other positively ridiculous proposals. The problem still remains though that they think they can rebuild the economy through deficit spending, all of this money they are spending (which they don't have by the way) has to be paid back someday. That can only mean increased taxes, which will remove more money from the economy and hurt it even worse in the long run. Let the system correct itself, given time it will, it is going to be tough in the interim but it really is the best solution. Look at the real numbers that are associated with this bill. If they come in at the high end of the estimated jobs created (3.6 million) it is at an estimated cost of $217,000 per job created to the taxpayers. If they come in at the low end (1.2 million) then it is at a cost of $651,000 per job created. Is this really worth it for something that stands a snowballs chance in hell of really fixing the economy? On a funnier note though, Nancy Pelosi made a statement today that if we don't pass this bill there will be 500,000,000 people out of work soon... That is more people that are currently in the United States. Way to go Nancy!!! happy102happy102:happy102
For the sake of argument, we'll accept it as true that we need to invest more in infrastructure. Be that as it may, providing spending for infrastructure will not stimulate the economy. The example of the Great Depression proves this point. There was massive infrastructure spending, but it didn't get us out of the depression. Infrastructure projects take quite some time to get up and running - even if plans are currently in place for them. They provide no immediate stimulus. Places like California take years to get any kind of infrastructure project operational - even after they have been approved and money appropriated. The reality is that the only immediate stimulus that infrastructure projects provide are to the voting base of the politician who gets the infrastructure projects for his constituents. If Democrats want an infrastructure spending bill, fine, let them write one and try to pass it. But don't include it in a bill that they claim will provide immediate economic stimulus, and then use fear tactics to bully the opposition into passing it, claiming the economy will collapse if it isn't passed.
