The Correct Response...
 

On 5/4/10 11:42 , bpnjensen wrote:
On May 4, 7:29 am, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/4/10 09:11 , bpnjensen wrote:





On May 4, 3:05 am, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/3/10 23:17 , bpnjensen wrote:

On May 3, 8:48 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/3/10 18:57 , m II wrote:

D. Peter Maus wrote:

Yeah, when I pay more tax than John Kerry, it makes my blood boil, too.

Would paying more tax than George Bush be different somehow?

George Bush didn't run on a platform of raising my taxes.

...nor did he run on a platform of doubling our national debt.

You mean the way Obama trebled it in less than 5 months? Or
increased it 10 times over the period of his first term? I mean, if
you want to have a third grade argument, we can. But you've
demonstrated too many times that you're smarter than that.

The discussion, however, is that Kerry, like Obama, and
especially Biden, ran on a platform of raising taxes for us, while
doing everything he can to avoid paying his own. If he's so
determined that more taxes need to be paid, then let him lead the
way...pay more of his own money into the Treasury before he
confiscates ours. If Biden is so convinced that paying taxes is a
patriotic thing to do, then let him lead the way. Let him show us
his own patriotism and forego his exemptions. Let him and pay more,
before telling us that we must pay til it hurts as a matter of duty.

If it's a matter of taking care of the less fortunate, then
donate more of his own money before redistributing ours. By his own
released records Kerry donates nothing to charity. While you and I
do, out of our own pockets. Bush and Cheney donated more out of
their own pockets...more of their own money...than all the Democrats
in Congress combined. While those same Democrats argued that we must
be more generous, and take care of the less fortunate, by raising
our taxes and redistributing that wealth, at the same time
protecting their own.

Kerry, especially, makes 5-10 times what you and I do, and yet he
avoids paying his share of taxes, while arguing that you and I must
pay more. If George Bush had done the same, I'd be just as ****ed at
the double standard. But he didn't.

It's laughable at how the argument, no matter the topic, always
gets pushed back to what Bush did or did not do. The truth is that
I'm no happier about Bush's Presidency than I am Obiteme's. His
administration is responsible for not one, but two lame-ass stimulus
packages that did nothing but make busywork for civil employees. It
cost the government about $2400 in man-hours to write those silly
$600 stimulus checks that did nothing to stimulate the economy.
While a simple tax cut would have boosted economic output, and in
the process increased the flow into the Treasury immediately. Bush's
administration further wrote checks on my future to bailout General
Motors, Chrysler and how many banks and Wall Street brokerages?
While letting them go to bankruptcy when bankruptcy first
threatened, would have ended the harping, and started the rebuilding
within two weeks. Instead of dragging the process out, further
depressing the economy until there was no way the banks, the auto
companies or Wall Street brokerages could recover themselves.

The reality is, that Bush did precisely what he ran
against...government interference in the private sector. Had GM, for
instance, simply been allowed to fail when the issue first came up,
there would have been a bankruptcy, and another manufacturer, or
manufacturers would have swooped in and bought up the assets for
pennies, restructured the businesses, and moved on. For two weeks
there would have been a lot of nail biting, stocks would have been
depressed, and then recovery would have been well under way by the
time the housing bubble burst and the real crash occurred nearly a
year later. The economy would have strong enough to absorb the hit
without spending nearly two trillion more out of public coffers,
which created the public panic that virtually halted the economy for
more than a year.

The economy is resilient. It has the ability to right itself
after a bubble burst. Had it been allowed to simply do so, as with
the crash of the 20's, the economic calamity that followed, like the
Great Depression, would have been very short lived before recovery
began. History has shown time and again, that economic downturns are
short lived except when government interferers. And that the debt
soars when the ruling party can't keep its hands to itself.

So, yes, I'm furious at Bush, as well. He took a well
intentioned, and successful Presidency and ran it off the rails.

But that's not what this discussion is about.

You know, it's rare that Kevin and I find ourselves on the same
side of a political issue, but he's right...both parties are
abominations to the Founding Fathers' intentions, these days.

There are 535 people who can be blamed for the state of the
nation. 535 people who have run for office decrying the enormous
government waste. The same 535 people who could at anytime put an
end to that waste overnight. And yet, they have not. 535 people who
have run for office decrying runaway government spending. The same
535 people who could at anytime end that runaway government spending
overnight. And yet, they have not. 535 people, every term who have
promised campaign after campaign, that there will be improvement in
government responsibility, government transparency, and government
effiency. The same 535 people, who, every term fail to fulfill those
promises, blaming the economy, the deficit, international terrorism,
tooth decay and toenail fungus.

The deficit hasn't been addressed because those 535 people don't
WANT it addressed. Because it's a touchstone for their campaigns.
End the debt and they lose the issue that gave them their impetus
for election. Government waste hasn't been addressed because that
money is their pipeline to support in the civil sector. Runaway
government spending hasn't been addressed because that money is the
source of their power for that 535 people.

535 people. That's all it takes to end these ills. 535 people.
Each one with the power to change things.

And yet, they don't. Because they don't want to.

It could be done overnight. In the dead of night. The same way
they hide their efforts from those of us who elect them. But it
doesn't happen because those 535 people con't want it to.

But all of this is not the issue at topic in this discussion.

The argument that we, The People, must surrender our hard-earned
productivity to the Federal Treasury being made by persons who,
themselves, exploit every opportunity to avoid their share of
taxation is an abomination unto itself.

And that was the point of this discussion.

Peter - there is one issue that this argument, and many others like
it, miss entirely - it is the FLOW of money, not the amassing of
money, that keeps the economy going. Pure private enterprise, for all
its innovation, tends to amass and concentrate money in specific
places; in some cases, like Wall Street or the banks, that amassed
money is either given to execs or squandered. The stimulus packages,
OTOH, kept money flowing. So what if some of it goes to public
employees? Public employees, at the end of the day, are mostly middle-
class, mostly typical family people, and spend that money in turn at
lots of private commercial stores - whether for clothing, cars, food,
washing machines or entertainment of one kind or another. The private
sector gets it back again...but in the meantime, someone's child not
gone hungry, sopmeone has not lost his home or been unable to afford
health care.

It's the flow that matters when the economy is tanking.

That's exactly right. FLOW matters. But only private sector
spending. In the private sector, each dollar spent is turned over to
create another dollar and that dollar goes back into the economy.
Further, in private sector spending each dollar spent triggers
productivity, which increases total domestic product, which
increases the value of every other dollar spent.

Public spending comes from taxation, which is a dollar removed
from the economy, lost in bureaucratic fractionalization, and then
returned to the economy as a small fraction of it's original value.
Like $600 stimulus checks that cost $2500 in man-hours each to
produce. $1900 of that is lost to the bureaucratic maze. While $2500
in tax cuts to the same individual will produce far more in economic
stimulation than the $600 check when taxation remains high. Because
$2500 in tax cuts puts that full $2500 back into the economy, with
corresponding productivity. More dollars, and stronger dollars, in
the economy

Public spending, on the other hand does nothing to stimulate the
economy because the government is not part of the economy.
Government feeds on the economy. But the government produces
nothing. A government dollar spent does nothing to stimulate
production, so there is no increase in total domestic product, and
no increase in the value of the dollar spent. Further, a government
dollar spent requires infrastructure support of many more dollars in
bureaucratic operating costs, which come from taxation. In the end
the dollars spent are a fraction of the massive cost of bureaucracy,
and taxation on the dollars put back into the economy are incapable
of paying the cost of putting them into the economy. Fewer dollars,
and weaker dollars in the economy.

Public sector spending regardless of volume, increases nothing,
stimulates ...

read more »

I disagree. Public sector is roughly the same as private sector. I
work in the public sector, but I spend my money in the private
sector. The tax money that does not go into my pocket goes to various
places, but they are either to others who ultimately spend it (again
in the private sevctor) or it becomes something that somebody can use
or enjoy, like a freeway overpass or a public park. Moreover, a good
deal of R&D is done as a result of public funds. The money all goes
back to someone or something as tangible as if it were the private
sector.

All the money can't, Bruce. Every dollar has to support the
bureaucracy that handles it. And that cost is multiples of the
amount released. The government can't operate at zero cost. Hell the
collection of the dollar, alone, costs many times it's value.

Look at your own budgets. See where the money goes. Where
operating costs are defrayed, and the ratio of cost to dollars spent.

No one's suggesting, btw, that we curtain public projects like
infrastructure improvements. Only that spending be reigned in when
times are tight. And costs contained.






If nothing else, money spent as stimulus keeps things alive - rather
than on a permanent downward spiral - while the rest of the economy
stabilizes. Without it, the flow ceases in time of economic drought
and lots of even worse things happen. That may be worth nothing to
you, but it counts with me.


In times of economic drought, cutting taxes has worked every time
it's tried. Without fail. Even Kennedy knew that. And don't think he
wasn't fought tooth and nail on it.

Public spending costs. Cutting taxes produces economic activity
which produces more available revenue to the taxation mechanics.

It never fails. It never has failed.

The Correct Response...
 

On May 4, 10:18*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 5/4/10 11:42 , bpnjensen wrote:

On May 4, 7:29 am, "D. Peter *wrote:
On 5/4/10 09:11 , bpnjensen wrote:

On May 4, 3:05 am, "D. Peter * *wrote:
On 5/3/10 23:17 , bpnjensen wrote:

On May 3, 8:48 pm, "D. Peter * * *wrote:
On 5/3/10 18:57 , m II wrote:

D. Peter Maus wrote:

* * * Yeah, when I pay more tax than John Kerry, it makes my blood boil, too.

Would paying more tax than George Bush be different somehow?

* * * George Bush didn't run on a platform of raising my taxes.

...nor did he run on a platform of doubling our national debt.

* * *You mean the way Obama trebled it in less than 5 months? Or
increased it 10 times over the period of his first term? I mean, if
you want to have a third grade argument, we can. But you've
demonstrated too many times that you're smarter than that.

* * *The discussion, however, is that Kerry, like Obama, and
especially Biden, ran on a platform of raising taxes for us, while
doing everything he can to avoid paying his own. If he's so
determined that more taxes need to be paid, then let him lead the
way...pay more of his own money into the Treasury before he
confiscates ours. If Biden is so convinced that paying taxes is a
patriotic thing to do, then let him lead the way. Let him show us
his own patriotism and forego his exemptions. Let him and pay more,
before telling us that we must pay til it hurts as a matter of duty.

* * *If it's a matter of taking care of the less fortunate, then
donate more of his own money before redistributing ours. By his own
released records Kerry donates nothing to charity. While you and I
do, out of our own pockets. Bush and Cheney donated more out of
their own pockets...more of their own money...than all the Democrats
in Congress combined. While those same Democrats argued that we must
be more generous, and take care of the less fortunate, by raising
our taxes and redistributing that wealth, at the same time
protecting their own.

* * *Kerry, especially, makes 5-10 times what you and I do, and yet he
avoids paying his share of taxes, while arguing that you and I must
pay more. If George Bush had done the same, I'd be just as ****ed at
the double standard. But he didn't.

* * *It's laughable at how the argument, no matter the topic, always
gets pushed back to what Bush did or did not do. The truth is that
I'm no happier about Bush's Presidency than I am Obiteme's. His
administration is responsible for not one, but two lame-ass stimulus
packages that did nothing but make busywork for civil employees. It
cost the government about $2400 in man-hours to write those silly
$600 stimulus checks that did nothing to stimulate the economy.
While a simple tax cut would have boosted economic output, and in
the process increased the flow into the Treasury immediately. Bush's
administration further wrote checks on my future to bailout General
Motors, Chrysler and how many banks and Wall Street brokerages?
While letting them go to bankruptcy when bankruptcy first
threatened, would have ended the harping, and started the rebuilding
within two weeks. Instead of dragging the process out, further
depressing the economy until there was no way the banks, the auto
companies or Wall Street brokerages could recover themselves.

* * *The reality is, that Bush did precisely what he ran
against...government interference in the private sector. Had GM, for
instance, simply been allowed to fail when the issue first came up,
there would have been a bankruptcy, and another manufacturer, or
manufacturers would have swooped in and bought up the assets for
pennies, restructured the businesses, and moved on. For two weeks
there would have been a lot of nail biting, stocks would have been
depressed, and then recovery would have been well under way by the
time the housing bubble burst and the real crash occurred nearly a
year later. The economy would have strong enough to absorb the hit
without spending nearly two trillion more out of public coffers,
which created the public panic that virtually halted the economy for
more than a year.

* * *The economy is resilient. It has the ability to right itself
after a bubble burst. Had it been allowed to simply do so, as with
the crash of the 20's, the economic calamity that followed, like the
Great Depression, would have been very short lived before recovery
began. History has shown time and again, that economic downturns are
short lived except when government interferers. And that the debt
soars when the ruling party can't keep its hands to itself.

* * *So, yes, I'm furious at Bush, as well. He took a well
intentioned, and successful Presidency and ran it off the rails.

* * *But that's not what this discussion is about.

* * *You know, it's rare that Kevin and I find ourselves on the same
side of a political issue, but he's right...both parties are
abominations to the Founding Fathers' intentions, these days.

* * *There are 535 people who can be blamed for the state of the
nation. 535 people who have run for office decrying the enormous
government waste. The same 535 people who could at anytime put an
end to that waste overnight. And yet, they have not. 535 people who
have run for office decrying runaway government spending. The same
535 people who could at anytime end that runaway government spending
overnight. And yet, they have not. 535 people, every term who have
promised campaign after campaign, that there will be improvement in
government responsibility, government transparency, and government
effiency. The same 535 people, who, every term fail to fulfill those
promises, blaming the economy, the deficit, international terrorism,
tooth decay and toenail fungus.

* * *The deficit hasn't been addressed because those 535 people don't
WANT it addressed. Because it's a touchstone for their campaigns.
End the debt and they lose the issue that gave them their impetus
for election. Government waste hasn't been addressed because that
money is their pipeline to support in the civil sector. Runaway
government spending hasn't been addressed because that money is the
source of their power for that 535 people.

* * *535 people. That's all it takes to end these ills. 535 people.
Each one with the power to change things.

* * *And yet, they don't. Because they don't want to.

* * *It could be done overnight. In the dead of night. The same way
they hide their efforts from those of us who elect them. But it
doesn't happen because those 535 people con't want it to.

* * *But all of this is not the issue at topic in this discussion.

* * *The argument that we, The People, must surrender our hard-earned
productivity to the Federal Treasury being made by persons who,
themselves, exploit every opportunity to avoid their share of
taxation is an abomination unto itself.

* * *And that was the point of this discussion.

Peter - there is one issue that this argument, and many others like
it, miss entirely - it is the FLOW of money, not the amassing of
money, that keeps the economy going. *Pure private enterprise, for all
its innovation, tends to amass and concentrate money in specific
places; in some cases, like Wall Street or the banks, that amassed
money is either given to execs or squandered. *The stimulus packages,
OTOH, kept money flowing. *So what if some of it goes to public
employees? *Public employees, at the end of the day, are mostly middle-
class, mostly typical family people, and spend that money in turn at
lots of private commercial stores - whether for clothing, cars, food,
washing machines or entertainment of one kind or another. *The private
sector gets it back again...but in the meantime, someone's child not
gone hungry, sopmeone has not lost his home or been unable to afford
health care.

It's the flow that matters when the economy is tanking.

* * That's exactly right. FLOW matters. But only private sector
spending. In the private sector, each dollar spent is turned over to
create another dollar and that dollar goes back into the economy.
Further, in private sector spending each dollar spent triggers
productivity, which increases total domestic product, which
increases the value of every other dollar spent.

* * Public spending comes from taxation, which is a dollar removed
from the economy, lost in bureaucratic fractionalization, and then
returned to the economy as a small fraction of it's original value.
Like $600 stimulus checks that cost $2500 in man-hours each to
produce. $1900 of that is lost to the bureaucratic maze. While $2500
in tax cuts to the same individual will produce far more in economic
stimulation than the $600 check when taxation remains high. Because
$2500 in tax cuts puts that full $2500 back into the economy, with
corresponding productivity. More dollars, and stronger dollars, in
the economy

* * Public spending, on the other hand does nothing to stimulate the
economy because the government is not part of the economy.
Government feeds on the economy. But the government produces
nothing. A government dollar spent does nothing to stimulate
production, so there is no increase in total domestic product, and
no increase in the value of the dollar spent. Further, a government
dollar spent requires infrastructure support of many more dollars in
bureaucratic operating costs, which come from taxation. In the end
the dollars spent are a fraction of the massive cost of bureaucracy,
and taxation on the dollars put back into the economy are incapable
of paying the cost of putting them into the economy. Fewer dollars,
and weaker dollars in the economy.

* * Public sector spending regardless of volume, increases nothing,
stimulates ...

read more »

I disagree. *Public sector is roughly the same as private sector. *I
work in the public sector, but I spend my money in the private
sector. *The tax money that does not go into my pocket goes to various
places, but they are either to others who ultimately spend it (again
in the private sevctor) or it becomes something that somebody can use
or enjoy, like a freeway overpass or a public park. Moreover, a good
deal of R&D is done as a result of public funds. *The money all goes
back to someone or something as tangible as if it were the private
sector.

* *All the money can't, Bruce. Every dollar has to support the
bureaucracy that handles it. And that cost is multiples of the
amount released. The government can't operate at zero cost. Hell the
collection of the dollar, alone, costs many times it's value.

* *Look at your own budgets. See where the money goes. Where
operating costs are defrayed, and the ratio of cost to dollars spent.

* *No one's suggesting, btw, that we curtain public projects like
infrastructure improvements. Only that spending be reigned in when
times are tight. And costs contained.



If nothing else, money spent as stimulus keeps things alive - rather
than on a permanent downward spiral - while the rest of the economy
stabilizes. *Without it, the flow ceases in time of economic drought
and lots of even worse things happen. *That may be worth nothing to
you, but it counts with me.

* *In times of economic drought, cutting taxes has worked every time
it's tried. Without fail. Even Kennedy knew that. And don't think he
wasn't fought tooth and nail on it.

* *Public spending costs. Cutting taxes produces economic activity
which produces more available revenue to the taxation mechanics.

* *It never fails. It never has failed.

Peter - you act as though the money coming in to the government
disappears, but that simply does not happen. What is a bureaucracy?
It's PEOPLE. Plain, ordinary people, who spend the money after they
get it and it then leaves the bureaucracy back to the overall
economy. I admit, there may be more efficient ways to do many things
(I try to be a hard worker and efficient, even though I loathe my
job), but as long as something gets done it's nor a total waste, and
even then, the money goes back to the economy afterward. And as far
as I am concerned, I get lots of good things (some priceless) for the
relatively meager taxes I pay, and I am happy for them.

I don't recall a specific instance where cutting taxes has done the
population at large any good. Intuitively it SHOULD, and so in theory
it should work, but a lot of assumptions have to be made about what
happens to the money instead. It certainly does business a lot of
good, the stockholders who own them and the wealthy who run them.
However, you are assuming that this wealth trickles down to both the
populace (workers) and the government - I have seen no sign of this
EVER happening. If you include the loopholes that business and the
very wealthy enjoy, those tax rates are among the lowest they have
ever been (some large businesses pay practically zero each year) , and
yet while the number of billionaires rises each year, the middle class
erodes at a rapid pace and the poorer are becoming legion. Coolidge
lowered taxes dramatically in 1926, and what happened 3 years later?

http://www.gusmorino.com/pag3/greatdepression/

Then in the 1950's America's business was booming with a 80-90% tax
rate on them. Since then, the pendulum has slowly swung back, and
look at the last ten years for a near perfect parallel to what
happened 80 years ago. The only thing standing between what we are
just now going through and another Great Depression (essentially the
stoppage of the FLOW) are the stimulus funds - and I fear that even
those may not be enough, since we are not yet out of the woods and
there are plenty more derivative dominoes stacked on beds of mushy
sand out there, not just in the US but worldwide. Just as in the GD
we had far too many goods available for the people to buy (supply
exceeded demand), as well as similarly dangerous speculative
investments with no basis for the initial purchase, we now have
exactly the same thing, with no clear end on the horizon, in the
housing market - the single most significant domestic part of the
economy.

Economists may disagree, but most of the economists I have read think
the stimulus funds were necessary in the short term. I hate the
national debt as much as anyone, and I see no easy way to pay
ourselves out of it - and the obnoxous trade deficit that currently
exists is no help either. In the long term we surely should minimize
government excess as much as possible, but two years ago, almost
everyone in the elected political spectrum knew it was the right step
at the right time.

Bruce

The Correct Response...
 

bpnjensen wrote:
On May 4, 10:18 am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
[...]

Public spending costs. Cutting taxes produces economic activity
which produces more available revenue to the taxation mechanics.

It never fails. It never has failed.

Peter - you act as though the money coming in to the government
disappears, but that simply does not happen. What is a bureaucracy?
It's PEOPLE. Plain, ordinary people, who spend the money after they
get it and it then leaves the bureaucracy back to the overall
economy.
[...]



It's also absolutely true that the money taken in by the Cosa Nostra
or a burglar contributes to "the flow" in exactly the same way.

What is a burglar or a crime syndicate, after all? PEOPLE. People
who spend money in the overall economy.

The issue, in my view, isn't overall money flow.

Money is just a system of tokens representing how others value the
things that you have done; tokens that those others will happily
trade for the good things that they produce. Burglars and Mafia
lords and politicians take those good things for themselves so you
and your children can't have them. Of course, the scale of the
thefts engineered by politicians buying the votes of the morons
makes the Black Hand look like a kid's lemonade stand.


With all good wishes,



Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

The Correct Response...
 

On 5/4/10 12:46 , bpnjensen wrote:
On May 4, 10:18 am, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/4/10 11:42 , bpnjensen wrote:

On May 4, 7:29 am, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/4/10 09:11 , bpnjensen wrote:

On May 4, 3:05 am, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/3/10 23:17 , bpnjensen wrote:

On May 3, 8:48 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/3/10 18:57 , m II wrote:

D. Peter Maus wrote:

Yeah, when I pay more tax than John Kerry, it makes my blood boil, too.

Would paying more tax than George Bush be different somehow?

George Bush didn't run on a platform of raising my taxes.

...nor did he run on a platform of doubling our national debt.

You mean the way Obama trebled it in less than 5 months? Or
increased it 10 times over the period of his first term? I mean, if
you want to have a third grade argument, we can. But you've
demonstrated too many times that you're smarter than that.

The discussion, however, is that Kerry, like Obama, and
especially Biden, ran on a platform of raising taxes for us, while
doing everything he can to avoid paying his own. If he's so
determined that more taxes need to be paid, then let him lead the
way...pay more of his own money into the Treasury before he
confiscates ours. If Biden is so convinced that paying taxes is a
patriotic thing to do, then let him lead the way. Let him show us
his own patriotism and forego his exemptions. Let him and pay more,
before telling us that we must pay til it hurts as a matter of duty.

If it's a matter of taking care of the less fortunate, then
donate more of his own money before redistributing ours. By his own
released records Kerry donates nothing to charity. While you and I
do, out of our own pockets. Bush and Cheney donated more out of
their own pockets...more of their own money...than all the Democrats
in Congress combined. While those same Democrats argued that we must
be more generous, and take care of the less fortunate, by raising
our taxes and redistributing that wealth, at the same time
protecting their own.

Kerry, especially, makes 5-10 times what you and I do, and yet he
avoids paying his share of taxes, while arguing that you and I must
pay more. If George Bush had done the same, I'd be just as ****ed at
the double standard. But he didn't.

It's laughable at how the argument, no matter the topic, always
gets pushed back to what Bush did or did not do. The truth is that
I'm no happier about Bush's Presidency than I am Obiteme's. His
administration is responsible for not one, but two lame-ass stimulus
packages that did nothing but make busywork for civil employees. It
cost the government about $2400 in man-hours to write those silly
$600 stimulus checks that did nothing to stimulate the economy.
While a simple tax cut would have boosted economic output, and in
the process increased the flow into the Treasury immediately. Bush's
administration further wrote checks on my future to bailout General
Motors, Chrysler and how many banks and Wall Street brokerages?
While letting them go to bankruptcy when bankruptcy first
threatened, would have ended the harping, and started the rebuilding
within two weeks. Instead of dragging the process out, further
depressing the economy until there was no way the banks, the auto
companies or Wall Street brokerages could recover themselves.

The reality is, that Bush did precisely what he ran
against...government interference in the private sector. Had GM, for
instance, simply been allowed to fail when the issue first came up,
there would have been a bankruptcy, and another manufacturer, or
manufacturers would have swooped in and bought up the assets for
pennies, restructured the businesses, and moved on. For two weeks
there would have been a lot of nail biting, stocks would have been
depressed, and then recovery would have been well under way by the
time the housing bubble burst and the real crash occurred nearly a
year later. The economy would have strong enough to absorb the hit
without spending nearly two trillion more out of public coffers,
which created the public panic that virtually halted the economy for
more than a year.

The economy is resilient. It has the ability to right itself
after a bubble burst. Had it been allowed to simply do so, as with
the crash of the 20's, the economic calamity that followed, like the
Great Depression, would have been very short lived before recovery
began. History has shown time and again, that economic downturns are
short lived except when government interferers. And that the debt
soars when the ruling party can't keep its hands to itself.

So, yes, I'm furious at Bush, as well. He took a well
intentioned, and successful Presidency and ran it off the rails.

But that's not what this discussion is about.

You know, it's rare that Kevin and I find ourselves on the same
side of a political issue, but he's right...both parties are
abominations to the Founding Fathers' intentions, these days.

There are 535 people who can be blamed for the state of the
nation. 535 people who have run for office decrying the enormous
government waste. The same 535 people who could at anytime put an
end to that waste overnight. And yet, they have not. 535 people who
have run for office decrying runaway government spending. The same
535 people who could at anytime end that runaway government spending
overnight. And yet, they have not. 535 people, every term who have
promised campaign after campaign, that there will be improvement in
government responsibility, government transparency, and government
effiency. The same 535 people, who, every term fail to fulfill those
promises, blaming the economy, the deficit, international terrorism,
tooth decay and toenail fungus.

The deficit hasn't been addressed because those 535 people don't
WANT it addressed. Because it's a touchstone for their campaigns.
End the debt and they lose the issue that gave them their impetus
for election. Government waste hasn't been addressed because that
money is their pipeline to support in the civil sector. Runaway
government spending hasn't been addressed because that money is the
source of their power for that 535 people.

535 people. That's all it takes to end these ills. 535 people.
Each one with the power to change things.

And yet, they don't. Because they don't want to.

It could be done overnight. In the dead of night. The same way
they hide their efforts from those of us who elect them. But it
doesn't happen because those 535 people con't want it to.

But all of this is not the issue at topic in this discussion.

The argument that we, The People, must surrender our hard-earned
productivity to the Federal Treasury being made by persons who,
themselves, exploit every opportunity to avoid their share of
taxation is an abomination unto itself.

And that was the point of this discussion.

Peter - there is one issue that this argument, and many others like
it, miss entirely - it is the FLOW of money, not the amassing of
money, that keeps the economy going. Pure private enterprise, for all
its innovation, tends to amass and concentrate money in specific
places; in some cases, like Wall Street or the banks, that amassed
money is either given to execs or squandered. The stimulus packages,
OTOH, kept money flowing. So what if some of it goes to public
employees? Public employees, at the end of the day, are mostly middle-
class, mostly typical family people, and spend that money in turn at
lots of private commercial stores - whether for clothing, cars, food,
washing machines or entertainment of one kind or another. The private
sector gets it back again...but in the meantime, someone's child not
gone hungry, sopmeone has not lost his home or been unable to afford
health care.

It's the flow that matters when the economy is tanking.

That's exactly right. FLOW matters. But only private sector
spending. In the private sector, each dollar spent is turned over to
create another dollar and that dollar goes back into the economy.
Further, in private sector spending each dollar spent triggers
productivity, which increases total domestic product, which
increases the value of every other dollar spent.

Public spending comes from taxation, which is a dollar removed
from the economy, lost in bureaucratic fractionalization, and then
returned to the economy as a small fraction of it's original value.
Like $600 stimulus checks that cost $2500 in man-hours each to
produce. $1900 of that is lost to the bureaucratic maze. While $2500
in tax cuts to the same individual will produce far more in economic
stimulation than the $600 check when taxation remains high. Because
$2500 in tax cuts puts that full $2500 back into the economy, with
corresponding productivity. More dollars, and stronger dollars, in
the economy

Public spending, on the other hand does nothing to stimulate the
economy because the government is not part of the economy.
Government feeds on the economy. But the government produces
nothing. A government dollar spent does nothing to stimulate
production, so there is no increase in total domestic product, and
no increase in the value of the dollar spent. Further, a government
dollar spent requires infrastructure support of many more dollars in
bureaucratic operating costs, which come from taxation. In the end
the dollars spent are a fraction of the massive cost of bureaucracy,
and taxation on the dollars put back into the economy are incapable
of paying the cost of putting them into the economy. Fewer dollars,
and weaker dollars in the economy.

Public sector spending regardless of volume, increases nothing,
stimulates ...

read more »

I disagree. Public sector is roughly the same as private sector. I
work in the public sector, but I spend my money in the private
sector. The tax money that does not go into my pocket goes to various
places, but they are either to others who ultimately spend it (again
in the private sevctor) or it becomes something that somebody can use
or enjoy, like a freeway overpass or a public park. Moreover, a good
deal of R&D is done as a result of public funds. The money all goes
back to someone or something as tangible as if it were the private
sector.

All the money can't, Bruce. Every dollar has to support the
bureaucracy that handles it. And that cost is multiples of the
amount released. The government can't operate at zero cost. Hell the
collection of the dollar, alone, costs many times it's value.

Look at your own budgets. See where the money goes. Where
operating costs are defrayed, and the ratio of cost to dollars spent.

No one's suggesting, btw, that we curtain public projects like
infrastructure improvements. Only that spending be reigned in when
times are tight. And costs contained.



If nothing else, money spent as stimulus keeps things alive - rather
than on a permanent downward spiral - while the rest of the economy
stabilizes. Without it, the flow ceases in time of economic drought
and lots of even worse things happen. That may be worth nothing to
you, but it counts with me.

In times of economic drought, cutting taxes has worked every time
it's tried. Without fail. Even Kennedy knew that. And don't think he
wasn't fought tooth and nail on it.

Public spending costs. Cutting taxes produces economic activity
which produces more available revenue to the taxation mechanics.

It never fails. It never has failed.

Peter - you act as though the money coming in to the government
disappears, but that simply does not happen. What is a bureaucracy?
It's PEOPLE. Plain, ordinary people, who spend the money after they
get it and it then leaves the bureaucracy back to the overall
economy. I admit, there may be more efficient ways to do many things
(I try to be a hard worker and efficient, even though I loathe my
job), but as long as something gets done it's nor a total waste, and
even then, the money goes back to the economy afterward. And as far
as I am concerned, I get lots of good things (some priceless) for the
relatively meager taxes I pay, and I am happy for them.

I don't recall a specific instance where cutting taxes has done the
population at large any good. Intuitively it SHOULD, and so in theory
it should work, but a lot of assumptions have to be made about what
happens to the money instead. It certainly does business a lot of
good, the stockholders who own them and the wealthy who run them.
However, you are assuming that this wealth trickles down to both the
populace (workers) and the government - I have seen no sign of this
EVER happening. If you include the loopholes that business and the
very wealthy enjoy, those tax rates are among the lowest they have
ever been (some large businesses pay practically zero each year) , and
yet while the number of billionaires rises each year, the middle class
erodes at a rapid pace and the poorer are becoming legion. Coolidge
lowered taxes dramatically in 1926, and what happened 3 years later?

http://www.gusmorino.com/pag3/greatdepression/

Then in the 1950's America's business was booming with a 80-90% tax
rate on them. Since then, the pendulum has slowly swung back, and
look at the last ten years for a near perfect parallel to what
happened 80 years ago. The only thing standing between what we are
just now going through and another Great Depression (essentially the
stoppage of the FLOW) are the stimulus funds - and I fear that even
those may not be enough, since we are not yet out of the woods and
there are plenty more derivative dominoes stacked on beds of mushy
sand out there, not just in the US but worldwide. Just as in the GD
we had far too many goods available for the people to buy (supply
exceeded demand), as well as similarly dangerous speculative
investments with no basis for the initial purchase, we now have
exactly the same thing, with no clear end on the horizon, in the
housing market - the single most significant domestic part of the
economy.

Economists may disagree, but most of the economists I have read think
the stimulus funds were necessary in the short term. I hate the
national debt as much as anyone, and I see no easy way to pay
ourselves out of it - and the obnoxous trade deficit that currently
exists is no help either. In the long term we surely should minimize
government excess as much as possible, but two years ago, almost
everyone in the elected political spectrum knew it was the right step
at the right time.

Actually, two years ago, nearly everyone in elective office knew
it was the right step to preserve their immediate electability.




Ok. Look at it this way. And we're being optimistic here. A
dollar comes into the government. It costs, for the sake of
discussion, .10 to collect it, .02 for interest on any debt, and .02
for interest on any short term financing for deficit spending, again
in the short term. That leaves .86 for the workings of government,
salaries, spending, physical plant for government activities, and
contract work. Which goes into people's pockets. Once that dollar is
gone, another must be collected to take its place. Of which, only
..86 cents will actually make it's way to someplace useful. Why?
Because nothing is produced that could produce revenue that would
make the government self sustaining. Instead, it takes a dollar out
of the economy to fund itself. In other words, to sustain the
government's operation, it must funnel dollars out of the operation
in a continuous stream in perpetuity just to survive. Because it
produces nothing.

Layer extra spending on that, and you have a dollar that's only
..86 cents as it enters the government, but then has to be
administered before it can be spent. That administration cost is
deducted from the .86 before the remainder is spent. Optimistically,
that's another .10. Meaning of every stimulus dollar spent, two are
collected. One to fund the operation of the government, the other to
fund the stimulus spending. With only .76 reaching the end user.

By contrast, Universal Amalgamated MegaTool, Incorporated enters
existence with the intention of making East Frambesian Steel Blue
Dubisaries and accessories. And it does so with funding of investors
to capitalize the building of the business. From the capitalization,
Universal Amalgamated MegaTool hires designers, contractors and
construction workers to build it's plant. Money's already collected,
are used to defray administration costs, at .10, interest on debt,
at .02, and interest on short term financing at another .02. Leaving
..86 which is spent on building the plant. Much of which goes into
pockets of people.

So far, no difference between UAMT, Inc and the government.

But once the plant is built, things change. The company uses the
remaining capital to purchase steel, hire engineers, and begin
producing East Frambesian Steel Blue Dubisaries and accessories. The
costs of the operation, so far, are added up, amortized over a
reasonable period, and added to the cost of designing, engineering
and producing East Frambesian Steel Blue Dubisaries, and
accessories, including the cost of materials, shipping and sales.

A price is then set for each unit that covers the cost of each
Dubisary, and/or accessory, that covers administrative costs,
production costs, materials costs, mortgage on the building, and the
cost of the MBA asshole who sends out memoes bitching about the
costs. The price is set to cover these costs based on an early
volume figure of dubisaries sold, with a corresponding annual
increase in units sold for the next 5 years, along with a modest
profit. When I got into business that was 30%. Today it's more than
50%. Sometimes a lot more.

Sales begin, and now new revenue comes into the company that
defrays costs, pays salaries, and repays investors with dividends as
capitalization reserves are restored. All without a single
additional penny of capital revenue. If the company's fortunes are
bad, and sales don't supply needed revenue, prices are raised or
additional shares are sold, but the company's expenditures are
revised, the corporation is restructured and it either reverses its
fortunes or not. If not, the company fails, it's bought by Martin
Enterprises from the stockholders for pennies on the dollar and
either sold off in pieces, or relaunched with fresh capitalization,
and a new business model.

Unlike the government which simply confiscates and distributes
more funds without regard to waste, cost or and still realizing .76
for every $2 collected.

But if the fortunes are GOOD, the company beings to make a
profit. Which is reinvested back into the company, paid out into
investors's pockets as dividends, and banked as a reserve, which may
be used to attract investors, if public, or held for future
requirements if private.

In either case, Universal Amalgamated MegaTool is self
sustaining, covering its own costs of operation, and production,
while paying huge salaries, huge taxes to the government, benefits
to it's union labor force, and dividends to investors. All without
outside revenue. Turning every dollar collected in to multiple
dollars out into both the private and the public sectors.

Now, in the event of an economic downturn, a healthy Universal
Amalgamated MegaTool can trim it's fat, dip into its reserves,
manage its own investments, and sustain itself through the
recession. All the while paying out more than the dollar it takes
in. Because it produces. It creates value for every dollar that it
takes in. Every dollar it takes in it turns into additional dollars.
Which are spent, invested, and saved. While salaries and wages are
paid, costs are defrayed and efficiencies are improved all without
taking in one additional red cent in investor revenue.

The government, in the same economic downturn, can only take in
more dollars at the same ratio of $2 collected for every .76
distributed. Where as, if it simply cut taxes instead of the
circular distribution of returning taxes at the same rate,
administration and collection costs would be reduced, so
efficiencies can be improved, and that .86 figure for running the
government can be improved along with them.

Meanwhile, the taxes saved by the tax cut Universal Amalgamated
Megatool realizes can be used to improve profitability, which can
result in increased investor confidence, ongoing capitalization and
continued, self sustained creation of value in the economy through
production. While the general public with additional cash in hand
and a less threatening tax bite begins to feel confident that it can
afford, now, to regularly purchase East Frambesian Steel Blue
Dubisaries, with an ongoing purchase of new and improved accesories.

All of which, then adds to government coffers, which now, more
efficient, can spend its collected dollar at the improved rate
higher than .86 cents.

The government can then reduce its size, further increase
efficiency, and further cutting taxation, while Universal
Amalgamated MegaTool hires more workers to further production of new
accessories for East Frambesian Steel Blue Dubisaries.

Looking at the two models, the government can only take money out
of the economy at an ever inefficient rate, especially as debt
grows, and put only a fraction of the value it takes out of the
economy back into it. While the private sector company, with good
fortunes, can put more value into the economy than it takes to fuel
its production engine.

In the end, government spending does not produce economic growth,
because the government produces nothing. In the private sector,
however, spending creates jobs, income, taxation for government and
stronger economic power.

This is why the solution is then to cut taxes and let the private
sector put money into the economy.

And this has worked every time it's been tried.

The Correct Response...
 

On May 4, 11:06*am, Kevin Alfred Strom
wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:
On May 4, 10:18 am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
[...]

* *Public spending costs. Cutting taxes produces economic activity
which produces more available revenue to the taxation mechanics.

* *It never fails. It never has failed.

Peter - you act as though the money coming in to the government
disappears, but that simply does not happen. *What is a bureaucracy?
It's PEOPLE. *Plain, ordinary people, who spend the money after they
get it and it then leaves the bureaucracy back to the overall
economy.

[...]

It's also absolutely true that the money taken in by the Cosa Nostra
or a burglar contributes to "the flow" in exactly the same way.

What is a burglar or a crime syndicate, after all? PEOPLE. People
who spend money in the overall economy.

The issue, in my view, isn't overall money flow.

Money is just a system of tokens representing how others value the
things that you have done; tokens that those others will happily
trade for the good things that they produce. Burglars and Mafia
lords and politicians take those good things for themselves so you
and your children can't have them. Of course, the scale of the
thefts engineered by politicians buying the votes of the morons
makes the Black Hand look like a kid's lemonade stand.

With all good wishes,

Kevin Alfred Strom.
--http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

Kevin, I can not compare the actions of roadbuilding and maintenance,
courtroom proceedings, national park administration, game wardens,
basic scientific research, environmental protection and etc. with
those of the Cosa Nostra. I agree, some politicians do crooked things
with money, and some get rich off the government - but I personally
feel very well compensated for the taxes I pay.

Bruce

The Correct Response...
 

On 5/4/10 13:47 , bpnjensen wrote:
On May 4, 11:06 am, Kevin Alfred
wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:
On May 4, 10:18 am, "D. Peter wrote:
[...]

Public spending costs. Cutting taxes produces economic activity
which produces more available revenue to the taxation mechanics.

It never fails. It never has failed.

Peter - you act as though the money coming in to the government
disappears, but that simply does not happen. What is a bureaucracy?
It's PEOPLE. Plain, ordinary people, who spend the money after they
get it and it then leaves the bureaucracy back to the overall
economy.

[...]

It's also absolutely true that the money taken in by the Cosa Nostra
or a burglar contributes to "the flow" in exactly the same way.

What is a burglar or a crime syndicate, after all? PEOPLE. People
who spend money in the overall economy.

The issue, in my view, isn't overall money flow.

Money is just a system of tokens representing how others value the
things that you have done; tokens that those others will happily
trade for the good things that they produce. Burglars and Mafia
lords and politicians take those good things for themselves so you
and your children can't have them. Of course, the scale of the
thefts engineered by politicians buying the votes of the morons
makes the Black Hand look like a kid's lemonade stand.

With all good wishes,

Kevin Alfred Strom.
--http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

Kevin, I can not compare the actions of roadbuilding and maintenance,
courtroom proceedings, national park administration, game wardens,
basic scientific research, environmental protection and etc. with
those of the Cosa Nostra. I agree, some politicians do crooked things
with money, and some get rich off the government - but I personally
feel very well compensated for the taxes I pay.

Bruce



Then you should try Illinois. :)

The Correct Response...
 

On May 4, 11:51*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 5/4/10 13:47 , bpnjensen wrote:





On May 4, 11:06 am, Kevin Alfred
wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:
On May 4, 10:18 am, "D. Peter *wrote:
[...]

* * Public spending costs. Cutting taxes produces economic activity
which produces more available revenue to the taxation mechanics.

* * It never fails. It never has failed.

Peter - you act as though the money coming in to the government
disappears, but that simply does not happen. *What is a bureaucracy?
It's PEOPLE. *Plain, ordinary people, who spend the money after they
get it and it then leaves the bureaucracy back to the overall
economy.

[...]

It's also absolutely true that the money taken in by the Cosa Nostra
or a burglar contributes to "the flow" in exactly the same way.

What is a burglar or a crime syndicate, after all? PEOPLE. People
who spend money in the overall economy.

The issue, in my view, isn't overall money flow.

Money is just a system of tokens representing how others value the
things that you have done; tokens that those others will happily
trade for the good things that they produce. Burglars and Mafia
lords and politicians take those good things for themselves so you
and your children can't have them. Of course, the scale of the
thefts engineered by politicians buying the votes of the morons
makes the Black Hand look like a kid's lemonade stand.

With all good wishes,

Kevin Alfred Strom.
--http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

Kevin, I can not compare the actions of roadbuilding and maintenance,
courtroom proceedings, national park administration, game wardens,
basic scientific research, environmental protection and etc. with
those of the Cosa Nostra. *I agree, some politicians do crooked things
with money, and some get rich off the government - but I personally
feel very well compensated for the taxes I pay.

Bruce

* *Then you should try Illinois. :)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LOL! I don't California is any better in that regard.

The Correct Response...
 

On May 4, 11:43*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 5/4/10 12:46 , bpnjensen wrote:

On May 4, 10:18 am, "D. Peter *wrote:
On 5/4/10 11:42 , bpnjensen wrote:

On May 4, 7:29 am, "D. Peter * *wrote:
On 5/4/10 09:11 , bpnjensen wrote:

On May 4, 3:05 am, "D. Peter * * *wrote:
On 5/3/10 23:17 , bpnjensen wrote:

On May 3, 8:48 pm, "D. Peter * * * *wrote:
On 5/3/10 18:57 , m II wrote:

D. Peter Maus wrote:

* * * *Yeah, when I pay more tax than John Kerry, it makes my blood boil, too.

Would paying more tax than George Bush be different somehow?

* * * *George Bush didn't run on a platform of raising my taxes.

...nor did he run on a platform of doubling our national debt.

* * * You mean the way Obama trebled it in less than 5 months? Or
increased it 10 times over the period of his first term? I mean, if
you want to have a third grade argument, we can. But you've
demonstrated too many times that you're smarter than that.

* * * The discussion, however, is that Kerry, like Obama, and
especially Biden, ran on a platform of raising taxes for us, while
doing everything he can to avoid paying his own. If he's so
determined that more taxes need to be paid, then let him lead the
way...pay more of his own money into the Treasury before he
confiscates ours. If Biden is so convinced that paying taxes is a
patriotic thing to do, then let him lead the way. Let him show us
his own patriotism and forego his exemptions. Let him and pay more,
before telling us that we must pay til it hurts as a matter of duty.

* * * If it's a matter of taking care of the less fortunate, then
donate more of his own money before redistributing ours. By his own
released records Kerry donates nothing to charity. While you and I
do, out of our own pockets. Bush and Cheney donated more out of
their own pockets...more of their own money...than all the Democrats
in Congress combined. While those same Democrats argued that we must
be more generous, and take care of the less fortunate, by raising
our taxes and redistributing that wealth, at the same time
protecting their own.

* * * Kerry, especially, makes 5-10 times what you and I do, and yet he
avoids paying his share of taxes, while arguing that you and I must
pay more. If George Bush had done the same, I'd be just as ****ed at
the double standard. But he didn't.

* * * It's laughable at how the argument, no matter the topic, always
gets pushed back to what Bush did or did not do. The truth is that
I'm no happier about Bush's Presidency than I am Obiteme's. His
administration is responsible for not one, but two lame-ass stimulus
packages that did nothing but make busywork for civil employees. It
cost the government about $2400 in man-hours to write those silly
$600 stimulus checks that did nothing to stimulate the economy.
While a simple tax cut would have boosted economic output, and in
the process increased the flow into the Treasury immediately. Bush's
administration further wrote checks on my future to bailout General
Motors, Chrysler and how many banks and Wall Street brokerages?
While letting them go to bankruptcy when bankruptcy first
threatened, would have ended the harping, and started the rebuilding
within two weeks. Instead of dragging the process out, further
depressing the economy until there was no way the banks, the auto
companies or Wall Street brokerages could recover themselves.

* * * The reality is, that Bush did precisely what he ran
against...government interference in the private sector. Had GM, for
instance, simply been allowed to fail when the issue first came up,
there would have been a bankruptcy, and another manufacturer, or
manufacturers would have swooped in and bought up the assets for
pennies, restructured the businesses, and moved on. For two weeks
there would have been a lot of nail biting, stocks would have been
depressed, and then recovery would have been well under way by the
time the housing bubble burst and the real crash occurred nearly a
year later. The economy would have strong enough to absorb the hit
without spending nearly two trillion more out of public coffers,
which created the public panic that virtually halted the economy for
more than a year.

* * * The economy is resilient. It has the ability to right itself
after a bubble burst. Had it been allowed to simply do so, as with
the crash of the 20's, the economic calamity that followed, like the
Great Depression, would have been very short lived before recovery
began. History has shown time and again, that economic downturns are
short lived except when government interferers. And that the debt
soars when the ruling party can't keep its hands to itself.

* * * So, yes, I'm furious at Bush, as well. He took a well
intentioned, and successful Presidency and ran it off the rails.

* * * But that's not what this discussion is about.

* * * You know, it's rare that Kevin and I find ourselves on the same
side of a political issue, but he's right...both parties are
abominations to the Founding Fathers' intentions, these days.

* * * There are 535 people who can be blamed for the state of the
nation. 535 people who have run for office decrying the enormous
government waste. The same 535 people who could at anytime put an
end to that waste overnight. And yet, they have not. 535 people who
have run for office decrying runaway government spending. The same
535 people who could at anytime end that runaway government spending
overnight. And yet, they have not. 535 people, every term who have
promised campaign after campaign, that there will be improvement in
government responsibility, government transparency, and government
effiency. The same 535 people, who, every term fail to fulfill those
promises, blaming the economy, the deficit, international terrorism,
tooth decay and toenail fungus.

* * * The deficit hasn't been addressed because those 535 people don't
WANT it addressed. Because it's a touchstone for their campaigns.
End the debt and they lose the issue that gave them their impetus
for election. Government waste hasn't been addressed because that
money is their pipeline to support in the civil sector. Runaway
government spending hasn't been addressed because that money is the
source of their power for that 535 people.

* * * 535 people. That's all it takes to end these ills. 535 people.
Each one with the power to change things.

* * * And yet, they don't. Because they don't want to.

* * * It could be done overnight. In the dead of night. The same way
they hide their efforts from those of us who elect them. But it
doesn't happen because those 535 people con't want it to.

* * * But all of this is not the issue at topic in this discussion.

* * * The argument that we, The People, must surrender our hard-earned
productivity to the Federal Treasury being made by persons who,
themselves, exploit every opportunity to avoid their share of
taxation is an abomination unto itself.

* * * And that was the point of this discussion.

Peter - there is one issue that this argument, and many others like
it, miss entirely - it is the FLOW of money, not the amassing of
money, that keeps the economy going. *Pure private enterprise, for all
its innovation, tends to amass and concentrate money in specific
places; in some cases, like Wall Street or the banks, that amassed
money is either given to execs or squandered. *The stimulus packages,
OTOH, kept money flowing. *So what if some of it goes to public
employees? *Public employees, at the end of the day, are mostly middle-
class, mostly typical family people, and spend that money in turn at
lots of private commercial stores - whether for clothing, cars, food,
washing machines or entertainment of one kind or another. *The private
sector gets it back again...but in the meantime, someone's child not
gone hungry, sopmeone has not lost his home or been unable to afford
health care.

It's the flow that matters when the economy is tanking.

* * *That's exactly right. FLOW matters. But only private sector
spending. In the private sector, each dollar spent is turned over to
create another dollar and that dollar goes back into the economy.
Further, in private sector spending each dollar spent triggers
productivity, which increases total domestic product, which
increases the value of every other dollar spent.

* * *Public spending comes from taxation, which is a dollar removed
from the economy, lost in bureaucratic fractionalization, and then
returned to the economy as a small fraction of it's original value.
Like $600 stimulus checks that cost $2500 in man-hours each to
produce. $1900 of that is lost to the bureaucratic maze. While $2500
in tax cuts to the same individual will produce far more in economic
stimulation than the $600 check when taxation remains high. Because
$2500 in tax cuts puts that full $2500 back into the economy, with
corresponding productivity. More dollars, and stronger dollars, in
the economy

* * *Public spending, on the other hand does nothing to stimulate the
economy because the government is not part of the economy.
Government feeds on the economy. But the government produces
nothing. A government dollar spent does nothing to stimulate
production, so there is no increase in total domestic product, and
no increase in the value of the dollar spent. Further, a government
dollar spent requires infrastructure support of many more dollars in
bureaucratic operating costs, which come from taxation. In the end
the dollars spent are a fraction of the massive cost of bureaucracy,
and taxation on the dollars put back into the economy are incapable
of paying the cost of putting them into the economy. Fewer dollars,
and weaker dollars in the economy.

* * *Public sector spending regardless of volume, increases nothing,
stimulates ...

read more »

I disagree. *Public sector is roughly the same as private sector. *I
work in the public sector, but I spend my money in the private
sector. *The tax money that does not go into my pocket goes to various
places, but they are either to others who ultimately spend it (again
in the private sevctor) or it becomes something that somebody can use
or enjoy, like a freeway overpass or a public park. Moreover, a good
deal of R&D is done as a result of public funds. *The money all goes
back to someone or something as tangible as if it were the private
sector.

* * All the money can't, Bruce. Every dollar has to support the
bureaucracy that handles it. And that cost is multiples of the
amount released. The government can't operate at zero cost. Hell the
collection of the dollar, alone, costs many times it's value.

* * Look at your own budgets. See where the money goes. Where
operating costs are defrayed, and the ratio of cost to dollars spent.

* * No one's suggesting, btw, that we curtain public projects like
infrastructure improvements. Only that spending be reigned in when
times are tight. And costs contained.

If nothing else, money spent as stimulus keeps things alive - rather
than on a permanent downward spiral - while the rest of the economy
stabilizes. *Without it, the flow ceases in time of economic drought
and lots of even worse things happen. *That may be worth nothing to
you, but it counts with me.

* * In times of economic drought, cutting taxes has worked every time
it's tried. Without fail. Even Kennedy knew that. And don't think he
wasn't fought tooth and nail on it.

* * Public spending costs. Cutting taxes produces economic activity
which produces more available revenue to the taxation mechanics.

* * It never fails. It never has failed.

Peter - you act as though the money coming in to the government
disappears, but that simply does not happen. *What is a bureaucracy?
It's PEOPLE. *Plain, ordinary people, who spend the money after they
get it and it then leaves the bureaucracy back to the overall
economy. *I admit, there may be more efficient ways to do many things
(I try to be a hard worker and efficient, even though I loathe my
job), but as long as something gets done it's nor a total waste, and
even then, the money goes back to the economy afterward. *And as far
as I am concerned, I get lots of good things (some priceless) for the
relatively meager taxes I pay, and I am happy for them.

I don't recall a specific instance where cutting taxes has done the
population at large any good. *Intuitively it SHOULD, and so in theory
it should work, but a lot of assumptions have to be made about what
happens to the money instead. *It certainly does business a lot of
good, the stockholders who own them and the wealthy who run them.
However, you are assuming that this wealth trickles down to both the
populace (workers) and the government - I have seen no sign of this
EVER happening. *If you include the loopholes that business and the
very wealthy enjoy, those tax rates are among the lowest they have
ever been (some large businesses pay practically zero each year) , and
yet while the number of billionaires rises each year, the middle class
erodes at a rapid pace and the poorer are becoming legion. *Coolidge
lowered taxes dramatically in 1926, and what happened 3 years later?

http://www.gusmorino.com/pag3/greatdepression/

Then in the 1950's America's business was booming with a 80-90% tax
rate on them. *Since then, the pendulum has slowly swung back, and
look at the last ten years for a near perfect parallel to what
happened 80 years ago. *The only thing standing between what we are
just now going through and another Great Depression (essentially the
stoppage of the FLOW) are the stimulus funds - and I fear that even
those may not be enough, since we are not yet out of the woods and
there are plenty more derivative dominoes stacked on beds of mushy
sand out there, not just in the US but worldwide. *Just as in the GD
we had far too many goods available for the people to buy (supply
exceeded demand), as well as similarly dangerous speculative
investments with no basis for the initial purchase, we now have
exactly the same thing, with no clear end on the horizon, in the
housing market - the single most significant domestic part of the
economy.

Economists may disagree, but most of the economists I have read think
the stimulus funds were necessary in the short term. *I hate the
national debt as much as anyone, and I see no easy way to pay
ourselves out of it - and the obnoxous trade deficit that currently
exists is no help either. *In the long term we surely should minimize
government excess as much as possible, but two years ago, almost
everyone in the elected political spectrum knew it was the right step
at the right time.

* *Actually, two years ago, nearly everyone in elective office knew
it was the right step to preserve their immediate electability.

* *Ok. Look at it this way. And we're being optimistic here. A
dollar comes into the government. It costs, for the sake of
discussion, .10 to collect it, .02 for interest on any debt, and .02
for interest on any short term financing for deficit spending, again
in the short term. That leaves .86 for the workings of government,
salaries, spending, physical plant for government activities, and
contract work. Which goes into people's pockets. Once that dollar is
gone, another must be collected to take its place. Of which, only
.86 cents will actually make it's way to someplace useful. Why?
Because nothing is produced that could produce revenue that would
make the government self sustaining. Instead, it takes a dollar out
of the economy to fund itself. In other words, to sustain the
government's operation, it must funnel dollars out of the operation
in a continuous stream in perpetuity just to survive. Because it
produces nothing.

* *Layer extra spending on that, and you have a dollar that's only
.86 cents as it enters the government, but then has to be
administered before it can be spent. That administration cost is
deducted from the .86 before the remainder is spent. Optimistically,
that's another .10. Meaning of every stimulus dollar spent, two are
collected. One to fund the operation of the government, the other to
fund the stimulus spending. With only .76 reaching the end user.

* *By contrast, Universal Amalgamated MegaTool, Incorporated enters
existence with the intention of making East Frambesian Steel Blue
Dubisaries and accessories. And it does so with funding of investors
to capitalize the building of the business. From the capitalization,
Universal Amalgamated MegaTool hires designers, contractors and
construction workers to build it's plant. Money's already collected,
are used to defray administration costs, at .10, interest on debt,
at .02, and interest on short term financing at another .02. Leaving
.86 which is spent on building the plant. Much of which goes into
pockets of people.

* *So far, no difference between UAMT, Inc and the government.

* *But once the plant is built, things change. The company uses the
remaining capital to purchase steel, hire engineers, and begin
producing East Frambesian Steel Blue Dubisaries and accessories. The
costs of the operation, so far, are added up, amortized over a
reasonable period, and added to the cost of designing, engineering
and producing East Frambesian Steel Blue Dubisaries, and
accessories, including the cost of materials, shipping and sales.

* *A price is then set for each unit that covers the cost of each
Dubisary, and/or accessory, that covers administrative costs,
production costs, materials costs, mortgage on the building, and the
cost of the MBA asshole who sends out memoes bitching about the
costs. The price is set to cover these costs based on an early
volume figure of dubisaries sold, with a corresponding annual
increase in units sold for the next 5 years, along with a modest
profit. When I got into business that was 30%. Today it's more than
50%. Sometimes a lot more.

* *Sales begin, and now new revenue comes into the company that
defrays costs, pays salaries, and repays investors with dividends as
capitalization reserves are restored. All without a single
additional penny of capital revenue. If the company's fortunes are
bad, and sales don't supply needed revenue, prices are raised or
additional shares are sold, but the company's expenditures are
revised, the corporation is restructured and it either reverses its
fortunes or not. If not, the company fails, it's bought by Martin
Enterprises from the stockholders for pennies on the dollar and
either sold off in pieces, or relaunched with fresh capitalization,
and a new business model.

* *Unlike the government which simply confiscates and distributes
more funds without regard to waste, cost or and still realizing .76
for every $2 collected.

* *But if the fortunes are GOOD, the company beings to make a
profit. Which is reinvested back into the company, paid out into
investors's pockets as dividends, and banked as a reserve, which may
be used to attract investors, if public, or held for future
requirements if private.

* *In either case, Universal Amalgamated MegaTool is self
sustaining, covering its own costs of operation, and production,
while paying huge salaries, huge taxes to the government, benefits
to it's union labor force, and dividends to investors. All without
outside revenue. Turning every dollar collected in to multiple
dollars out into both the private and the public sectors.

* *Now, in the event of an economic downturn, a healthy Universal
Amalgamated MegaTool can trim it's fat, dip into its reserves,
manage its own investments, and sustain itself through the
recession. All the while paying out more than the dollar it takes
in. Because it produces. It creates value for every dollar that it
takes in. Every dollar it takes in it turns into additional dollars.
Which are spent, invested, and saved. While salaries and wages are
paid, costs are defrayed and efficiencies are improved all without
taking in one additional red cent in investor revenue.

* *The government, in the same economic downturn, can only take in
more dollars at the same ratio of $2 collected for every .76
distributed. Where as, if it simply cut taxes instead of the
circular distribution of returning taxes at the same rate,
administration and collection costs would be reduced, so
efficiencies can be improved, and that .86 figure for running the
government can be improved along with them.

* *Meanwhile, the taxes saved by the tax cut Universal Amalgamated
Megatool realizes can be used to improve profitability, which can
result in increased investor confidence, ongoing capitalization and
continued, self sustained *creation of value in the economy through
production. While the general public with additional cash in hand
and a less threatening tax bite begins to feel confident that it can
afford, now, to regularly purchase East Frambesian Steel Blue
Dubisaries, with an ongoing purchase of new and improved accesories.

* *All of which, then adds to government coffers, which now, more
efficient, can spend its collected dollar at the improved rate
higher than .86 cents.

* *The government can then reduce its size, further increase
efficiency, and further cutting taxation, while Universal
Amalgamated MegaTool hires more workers to further production of new
accessories for East Frambesian Steel Blue Dubisaries.

* *Looking at the two models, the government can only take money out
of the economy at an ever inefficient rate, especially as debt
grows, and put only a fraction of the value it takes out of the
economy back into it. While the private sector company, with good
fortunes, can put more value into the economy than it takes to fuel
its production engine.

* *In the end, government spending does not produce economic growth,
because the government produces nothing. In the private sector,
however, spending creates jobs, income, taxation for government and
stronger economic power.

* *This is why the solution is then to cut taxes and let the private
sector put money into the economy.

* *And this has worked every time it's been tried.

Like I said - those business tax cuts help business, but by and large
wind up remaining with the wealthy and providing little benefit to the
vast majority of Americans. Corporations are designed to do one
thing only - to amass and concentrate wealth. In other words, greed.
The fact that they do something to get there is only a means to an
end. Greed does not usually propel an economy into a healthy state,
and surely has done nothing of the kind in 21st century America. Tax
cuts for business are a shell game.

Bruce

The Correct Response...
 

On 5/4/10 15:03 , bpnjensen wrote:
On May 4, 11:43 am, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/4/10 12:46 , bpnjensen wrote:

On May 4, 10:18 am, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/4/10 11:42 , bpnjensen wrote:

On May 4, 7:29 am, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/4/10 09:11 , bpnjensen wrote:

On May 4, 3:05 am, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/3/10 23:17 , bpnjensen wrote:

On May 3, 8:48 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/3/10 18:57 , m II wrote:

D. Peter Maus wrote:

Yeah, when I pay more tax than John Kerry, it makes my blood boil, too.

Would paying more tax than George Bush be different somehow?

George Bush didn't run on a platform of raising my taxes.

...nor did he run on a platform of doubling our national debt.

You mean the way Obama trebled it in less than 5 months? Or
increased it 10 times over the period of his first term? I mean, if
you want to have a third grade argument, we can. But you've
demonstrated too many times that you're smarter than that.

The discussion, however, is that Kerry, like Obama, and
especially Biden, ran on a platform of raising taxes for us, while
doing everything he can to avoid paying his own. If he's so
determined that more taxes need to be paid, then let him lead the
way...pay more of his own money into the Treasury before he
confiscates ours. If Biden is so convinced that paying taxes is a
patriotic thing to do, then let him lead the way. Let him show us
his own patriotism and forego his exemptions. Let him and pay more,
before telling us that we must pay til it hurts as a matter of duty.

If it's a matter of taking care of the less fortunate, then
donate more of his own money before redistributing ours. By his own
released records Kerry donates nothing to charity. While you and I
do, out of our own pockets. Bush and Cheney donated more out of
their own pockets...more of their own money...than all the Democrats
in Congress combined. While those same Democrats argued that we must
be more generous, and take care of the less fortunate, by raising
our taxes and redistributing that wealth, at the same time
protecting their own.

Kerry, especially, makes 5-10 times what you and I do, and yet he
avoids paying his share of taxes, while arguing that you and I must
pay more. If George Bush had done the same, I'd be just as ****ed at
the double standard. But he didn't.

It's laughable at how the argument, no matter the topic, always
gets pushed back to what Bush did or did not do. The truth is that
I'm no happier about Bush's Presidency than I am Obiteme's. His
administration is responsible for not one, but two lame-ass stimulus
packages that did nothing but make busywork for civil employees. It
cost the government about $2400 in man-hours to write those silly
$600 stimulus checks that did nothing to stimulate the economy.
While a simple tax cut would have boosted economic output, and in
the process increased the flow into the Treasury immediately. Bush's
administration further wrote checks on my future to bailout General
Motors, Chrysler and how many banks and Wall Street brokerages?
While letting them go to bankruptcy when bankruptcy first
threatened, would have ended the harping, and started the rebuilding
within two weeks. Instead of dragging the process out, further
depressing the economy until there was no way the banks, the auto
companies or Wall Street brokerages could recover themselves.

The reality is, that Bush did precisely what he ran
against...government interference in the private sector. Had GM, for
instance, simply been allowed to fail when the issue first came up,
there would have been a bankruptcy, and another manufacturer, or
manufacturers would have swooped in and bought up the assets for
pennies, restructured the businesses, and moved on. For two weeks
there would have been a lot of nail biting, stocks would have been
depressed, and then recovery would have been well under way by the
time the housing bubble burst and the real crash occurred nearly a
year later. The economy would have strong enough to absorb the hit
without spending nearly two trillion more out of public coffers,
which created the public panic that virtually halted the economy for
more than a year.

The economy is resilient. It has the ability to right itself
after a bubble burst. Had it been allowed to simply do so, as with
the crash of the 20's, the economic calamity that followed, like the
Great Depression, would have been very short lived before recovery
began. History has shown time and again, that economic downturns are
short lived except when government interferers. And that the debt
soars when the ruling party can't keep its hands to itself.

So, yes, I'm furious at Bush, as well. He took a well
intentioned, and successful Presidency and ran it off the rails.

But that's not what this discussion is about.

You know, it's rare that Kevin and I find ourselves on the same
side of a political issue, but he's right...both parties are
abominations to the Founding Fathers' intentions, these days.

There are 535 people who can be blamed for the state of the
nation. 535 people who have run for office decrying the enormous
government waste. The same 535 people who could at anytime put an
end to that waste overnight. And yet, they have not. 535 people who
have run for office decrying runaway government spending. The same
535 people who could at anytime end that runaway government spending
overnight. And yet, they have not. 535 people, every term who have
promised campaign after campaign, that there will be improvement in
government responsibility, government transparency, and government
effiency. The same 535 people, who, every term fail to fulfill those
promises, blaming the economy, the deficit, international terrorism,
tooth decay and toenail fungus.

The deficit hasn't been addressed because those 535 people don't
WANT it addressed. Because it's a touchstone for their campaigns.
End the debt and they lose the issue that gave them their impetus
for election. Government waste hasn't been addressed because that
money is their pipeline to support in the civil sector. Runaway
government spending hasn't been addressed because that money is the
source of their power for that 535 people.

535 people. That's all it takes to end these ills. 535 people.
Each one with the power to change things.

And yet, they don't. Because they don't want to.

It could be done overnight. In the dead of night. The same way
they hide their efforts from those of us who elect them. But it
doesn't happen because those 535 people con't want it to.

But all of this is not the issue at topic in this discussion.

The argument that we, The People, must surrender our hard-earned
productivity to the Federal Treasury being made by persons who,
themselves, exploit every opportunity to avoid their share of
taxation is an abomination unto itself.

And that was the point of this discussion.

Peter - there is one issue that this argument, and many others like
it, miss entirely - it is the FLOW of money, not the amassing of
money, that keeps the economy going. Pure private enterprise, for all
its innovation, tends to amass and concentrate money in specific
places; in some cases, like Wall Street or the banks, that amassed
money is either given to execs or squandered. The stimulus packages,
OTOH, kept money flowing. So what if some of it goes to public
employees? Public employees, at the end of the day, are mostly middle-
class, mostly typical family people, and spend that money in turn at
lots of private commercial stores - whether for clothing, cars, food,
washing machines or entertainment of one kind or another. The private
sector gets it back again...but in the meantime, someone's child not
gone hungry, sopmeone has not lost his home or been unable to afford
health care.

It's the flow that matters when the economy is tanking.

That's exactly right. FLOW matters. But only private sector
spending. In the private sector, each dollar spent is turned over to
create another dollar and that dollar goes back into the economy.
Further, in private sector spending each dollar spent triggers
productivity, which increases total domestic product, which
increases the value of every other dollar spent.

Public spending comes from taxation, which is a dollar removed
from the economy, lost in bureaucratic fractionalization, and then
returned to the economy as a small fraction of it's original value.
Like $600 stimulus checks that cost $2500 in man-hours each to
produce. $1900 of that is lost to the bureaucratic maze. While $2500
in tax cuts to the same individual will produce far more in economic
stimulation than the $600 check when taxation remains high. Because
$2500 in tax cuts puts that full $2500 back into the economy, with
corresponding productivity. More dollars, and stronger dollars, in
the economy

Public spending, on the other hand does nothing to stimulate the
economy because the government is not part of the economy.
Government feeds on the economy. But the government produces
nothing. A government dollar spent does nothing to stimulate
production, so there is no increase in total domestic product, and
no increase in the value of the dollar spent. Further, a government
dollar spent requires infrastructure support of many more dollars in
bureaucratic operating costs, which come from taxation. In the end
the dollars spent are a fraction of the massive cost of bureaucracy,
and taxation on the dollars put back into the economy are incapable
of paying the cost of putting them into the economy. Fewer dollars,
and weaker dollars in the economy.

Public sector spending regardless of volume, increases nothing,
stimulates ...

read more »

I disagree. Public sector is roughly the same as private sector. I
work in the public sector, but I spend my money in the private
sector. The tax money that does not go into my pocket goes to various
places, but they are either to others who ultimately spend it (again
in the private sevctor) or it becomes something that somebody can use
or enjoy, like a freeway overpass or a public park. Moreover, a good
deal of R&D is done as a result of public funds. The money all goes
back to someone or something as tangible as if it were the private
sector.

All the money can't, Bruce. Every dollar has to support the
bureaucracy that handles it. And that cost is multiples of the
amount released. The government can't operate at zero cost. Hell the
collection of the dollar, alone, costs many times it's value.

Look at your own budgets. See where the money goes. Where
operating costs are defrayed, and the ratio of cost to dollars spent.

No one's suggesting, btw, that we curtain public projects like
infrastructure improvements. Only that spending be reigned in when
times are tight. And costs contained.

If nothing else, money spent as stimulus keeps things alive - rather
than on a permanent downward spiral - while the rest of the economy
stabilizes. Without it, the flow ceases in time of economic drought
and lots of even worse things happen. That may be worth nothing to
you, but it counts with me.

In times of economic drought, cutting taxes has worked every time
it's tried. Without fail. Even Kennedy knew that. And don't think he
wasn't fought tooth and nail on it.

Public spending costs. Cutting taxes produces economic activity
which produces more available revenue to the taxation mechanics.

It never fails. It never has failed.

Peter - you act as though the money coming in to the government
disappears, but that simply does not happen. What is a bureaucracy?
It's PEOPLE. Plain, ordinary people, who spend the money after they
get it and it then leaves the bureaucracy back to the overall
economy. I admit, there may be more efficient ways to do many things
(I try to be a hard worker and efficient, even though I loathe my
job), but as long as something gets done it's nor a total waste, and
even then, the money goes back to the economy afterward. And as far
as I am concerned, I get lots of good things (some priceless) for the
relatively meager taxes I pay, and I am happy for them.

I don't recall a specific instance where cutting taxes has done the
population at large any good. Intuitively it SHOULD, and so in theory
it should work, but a lot of assumptions have to be made about what
happens to the money instead. It certainly does business a lot of
good, the stockholders who own them and the wealthy who run them.
However, you are assuming that this wealth trickles down to both the
populace (workers) and the government - I have seen no sign of this
EVER happening. If you include the loopholes that business and the
very wealthy enjoy, those tax rates are among the lowest they have
ever been (some large businesses pay practically zero each year) , and
yet while the number of billionaires rises each year, the middle class
erodes at a rapid pace and the poorer are becoming legion. Coolidge
lowered taxes dramatically in 1926, and what happened 3 years later?

http://www.gusmorino.com/pag3/greatdepression/

Then in the 1950's America's business was booming with a 80-90% tax
rate on them. Since then, the pendulum has slowly swung back, and
look at the last ten years for a near perfect parallel to what
happened 80 years ago. The only thing standing between what we are
just now going through and another Great Depression (essentially the
stoppage of the FLOW) are the stimulus funds - and I fear that even
those may not be enough, since we are not yet out of the woods and
there are plenty more derivative dominoes stacked on beds of mushy
sand out there, not just in the US but worldwide. Just as in the GD
we had far too many goods available for the people to buy (supply
exceeded demand), as well as similarly dangerous speculative
investments with no basis for the initial purchase, we now have
exactly the same thing, with no clear end on the horizon, in the
housing market - the single most significant domestic part of the
economy.

Economists may disagree, but most of the economists I have read think
the stimulus funds were necessary in the short term. I hate the
national debt as much as anyone, and I see no easy way to pay
ourselves out of it - and the obnoxous trade deficit that currently
exists is no help either. In the long term we surely should minimize
government excess as much as possible, but two years ago, almost
everyone in the elected political spectrum knew it was the right step
at the right time.

Actually, two years ago, nearly everyone in elective office knew
it was the right step to preserve their immediate electability.

Ok. Look at it this way. And we're being optimistic here. A
dollar comes into the government. It costs, for the sake of
discussion, .10 to collect it, .02 for interest on any debt, and .02
for interest on any short term financing for deficit spending, again
in the short term. That leaves .86 for the workings of government,
salaries, spending, physical plant for government activities, and
contract work. Which goes into people's pockets. Once that dollar is
gone, another must be collected to take its place. Of which, only
.86 cents will actually make it's way to someplace useful. Why?
Because nothing is produced that could produce revenue that would
make the government self sustaining. Instead, it takes a dollar out
of the economy to fund itself. In other words, to sustain the
government's operation, it must funnel dollars out of the operation
in a continuous stream in perpetuity just to survive. Because it
produces nothing.

Layer extra spending on that, and you have a dollar that's only
.86 cents as it enters the government, but then has to be
administered before it can be spent. That administration cost is
deducted from the .86 before the remainder is spent. Optimistically,
that's another .10. Meaning of every stimulus dollar spent, two are
collected. One to fund the operation of the government, the other to
fund the stimulus spending. With only .76 reaching the end user.

By contrast, Universal Amalgamated MegaTool, Incorporated enters
existence with the intention of making East Frambesian Steel Blue
Dubisaries and accessories. And it does so with funding of investors
to capitalize the building of the business. From the capitalization,
Universal Amalgamated MegaTool hires designers, contractors and
construction workers to build it's plant. Money's already collected,
are used to defray administration costs, at .10, interest on debt,
at .02, and interest on short term financing at another .02. Leaving
.86 which is spent on building the plant. Much of which goes into
pockets of people.

So far, no difference between UAMT, Inc and the government.

But once the plant is built, things change. The company uses the
remaining capital to purchase steel, hire engineers, and begin
producing East Frambesian Steel Blue Dubisaries and accessories. The
costs of the operation, so far, are added up, amortized over a
reasonable period, and added to the cost of designing, engineering
and producing East Frambesian Steel Blue Dubisaries, and
accessories, including the cost of materials, shipping and sales.

A price is then set for each unit that covers the cost of each
Dubisary, and/or accessory, that covers administrative costs,
production costs, materials costs, mortgage on the building, and the
cost of the MBA asshole who sends out memoes bitching about the
costs. The price is set to cover these costs based on an early
volume figure of dubisaries sold, with a corresponding annual
increase in units sold for the next 5 years, along with a modest
profit. When I got into business that was 30%. Today it's more than
50%. Sometimes a lot more.

Sales begin, and now new revenue comes into the company that
defrays costs, pays salaries, and repays investors with dividends as
capitalization reserves are restored. All without a single
additional penny of capital revenue. If the company's fortunes are
bad, and sales don't supply needed revenue, prices are raised or
additional shares are sold, but the company's expenditures are
revised, the corporation is restructured and it either reverses its
fortunes or not. If not, the company fails, it's bought by Martin
Enterprises from the stockholders for pennies on the dollar and
either sold off in pieces, or relaunched with fresh capitalization,
and a new business model.

Unlike the government which simply confiscates and distributes
more funds without regard to waste, cost or and still realizing .76
for every $2 collected.

But if the fortunes are GOOD, the company beings to make a
profit. Which is reinvested back into the company, paid out into
investors's pockets as dividends, and banked as a reserve, which may
be used to attract investors, if public, or held for future
requirements if private.

In either case, Universal Amalgamated MegaTool is self
sustaining, covering its own costs of operation, and production,
while paying huge salaries, huge taxes to the government, benefits
to it's union labor force, and dividends to investors. All without
outside revenue. Turning every dollar collected in to multiple
dollars out into both the private and the public sectors.

Now, in the event of an economic downturn, a healthy Universal
Amalgamated MegaTool can trim it's fat, dip into its reserves,
manage its own investments, and sustain itself through the
recession. All the while paying out more than the dollar it takes
in. Because it produces. It creates value for every dollar that it
takes in. Every dollar it takes in it turns into additional dollars.
Which are spent, invested, and saved. While salaries and wages are
paid, costs are defrayed and efficiencies are improved all without
taking in one additional red cent in investor revenue.

The government, in the same economic downturn, can only take in
more dollars at the same ratio of $2 collected for every .76
distributed. Where as, if it simply cut taxes instead of the
circular distribution of returning taxes at the same rate,
administration and collection costs would be reduced, so
efficiencies can be improved, and that .86 figure for running the
government can be improved along with them.

Meanwhile, the taxes saved by the tax cut Universal Amalgamated
Megatool realizes can be used to improve profitability, which can
result in increased investor confidence, ongoing capitalization and
continued, self sustained creation of value in the economy through
production. While the general public with additional cash in hand
and a less threatening tax bite begins to feel confident that it can
afford, now, to regularly purchase East Frambesian Steel Blue
Dubisaries, with an ongoing purchase of new and improved accesories.

All of which, then adds to government coffers, which now, more
efficient, can spend its collected dollar at the improved rate
higher than .86 cents.

The government can then reduce its size, further increase
efficiency, and further cutting taxation, while Universal
Amalgamated MegaTool hires more workers to further production of new
accessories for East Frambesian Steel Blue Dubisaries.

Looking at the two models, the government can only take money out
of the economy at an ever inefficient rate, especially as debt
grows, and put only a fraction of the value it takes out of the
economy back into it. While the private sector company, with good
fortunes, can put more value into the economy than it takes to fuel
its production engine.

In the end, government spending does not produce economic growth,
because the government produces nothing. In the private sector,
however, spending creates jobs, income, taxation for government and
stronger economic power.

This is why the solution is then to cut taxes and let the private
sector put money into the economy.

And this has worked every time it's been tried.

Like I said - those business tax cuts help business, but by and large
wind up remaining with the wealthy and providing little benefit to the
vast majority of Americans. Corporations are designed to do one
thing only - to amass and concentrate wealth. In other words, greed.
The fact that they do something to get there is only a means to an
end. Greed does not usually propel an economy into a healthy state,
and surely has done nothing of the kind in 21st century America. Tax
cuts for business are a shell game.

Bruce


That's why you cut the tax rates for individuals. Businesses
don't pay taxes. People do. Businesses simply pass them along to the
end customer. But if you cut taxes on individuals, you stimulate
business. Because you stimulate private sector spending. You
stimulate flow and you generate value in the economy. Every dollar
creates more dollars.

Government spending doesn't do that.

The Correct Response...
 

retrogrouch wrote:
On Tue, 04 May 2010 09:29:19 -0500, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

Public spending comes from taxation, which is a dollar removed
from the economy, lost in bureaucratic fractionalization, and then
returned to the economy as a small fraction of it's original value.
Like $600 stimulus checks that cost $2500 in man-hours each to
produce.


You don't really believe that nonsense do you? DO you just make it up
or are you repeating someone else's ridiculous lies without
questioning them?

WLS-AM will do that to a person.