re: Want Proof Tax Cuts Don't Stimulate the Economy? Look at Kansas

Wouldn't 40-60 years of Chicago and Detroit democratic policies debunk all this?

quote:

---

Reagan tripled the debt and Bush...enuf said.

---

What about Obama?

quote:

---

The better question is "What does the worker need that they can't attain for themselves?"

---

It's certainly the more precise question.

quote:

---

It's abhorrent and insulting to constantly go around thinking we have to something for someone all the time.

---

That's not exactly where I was going. We're looking through the lens of government, so the focus is what can the government do (or stop doing) that will improve the current condition for the American middle class (the more general Americans applies here too)?

quote:

---

Our biggest impediment isn't lack of government assistance.

---

I agree.

quote:

---

Our biggest impediment is a culture that has not only embraced, but has marched on to demanding dependence on a dwindling number of "the rich" to do something for them.

---

This is where you lose me.

The impediment from my POV is an ineffective government that wastes so much of its revenue in bureaucracy. Big organizations are inherently inefficient and there isn't one bigger than the Federal Government. The drain of complex tax codes, overly strict and pointless regulation, and the miles of administrative red tape is a drain on productivity and every American's pocketbook. So much waste and we tax corporations higher than most other countries. It's a formula for the wealthy hording and the middle class to get squeezed.

People wanting help is just a symptom of the drain of ineffective governance,the pressures of globalization on the blue collar worker, and tech replacing jobs with machines IMHO.

Cruiserhog is a liar.

Reagan tripled revenue to the federal coffers.

The Dems in the house saw a chance to spend more since revenue was increased. Also, Carter created more government programs like the Education Department that had to be paid for starting under the Reagan administration.

Goffy commies can't admit that JFK and Reagan lowered taxes and raised revenue because it undermines their communistic values.

God I despise idiots.

quote:

---

Thats precisely my point. We're asking what our government can do us, not what we can do for ourselves.

---

That's a separate and very important question. I was assuming the discussion was in what ways the government hampers the environment for the average worker.

quote:

---

Government is bureaucracy. They are not separable.

---

Yes. The point is the scale makes it more useless as it gets more expansive.

quote:

---

But you haven't answered the question I've posed. Surely you have some ideas.

---

Ideas, sure. Quality is still questionable.

The worker needs a reduction of the cost of becoming an entrepreneur. The physical capital of doing it has never been easier. There's still the cost of taxation and regulations on all ends that make it riskier. This is where the government can help by lowering the barriers of entry they create.

It's going to take a different model in the 21st century than working in a factory to cut out a decent living. The worker has to understand that and take more risks and start businesses to exploit the growing demand for specialized goods. I do think the safety net has a place in eliminating the catastrophic risk in failure, but that's mostly in place already. (We can argue the effectiveness of the programs all night. It's really just a side point to the discussion)

I agree the onus is really on the individual to adapt to the new economic reality. A government that doesn't continually make it more difficult is useful in that regard.

ETA: We're basically in agreement except for the issue of the plebs asking for more from the rich. It's only an issue because we're still in the figuring out stage of globalization and all of our new tech. Now just getting a handout isn't a solution, but it slowly erodes as people figure out how to make the shift in the economy work for them.

quote:

---

Sure, but more people with disposable income to spend on things allows for the expansion of old markets and markets for new goods and services.

---

Interesting choice of words. If the "middle class" is doing so poorly, how could they ever consider their income to be "disposable"? And ultimately that is the problem.

quote:

---

They should focus on spending their disposable income on items/services (stocks/house/education/ect) that will actually increase their wealth as compared to a third car or four 60 inch TVs.

---

Nah. I hold no judgements about what someone spend their own money on. I don't care if they spend it all on hookers and blow then waste the rest of it. But... statistically... increases in consumer income has only led to increases in consumer spending. We are not a culture of savers. Nor investors.

And I don't mean strictly financials like stocks and bonds as investments. Good tools, education, apprenticeship, a work truck, could all be productive assets if applied correctly.

You see immigrants do this a lot. Messicans come over, they don't go shopping at Macy's hoping to improve the economy, so they can get rich. They $1500 buy beat up 3/4ton pickups that can carry and tow isht with. That a f*cking STELLAR investment. An asset.

quote:

---

I'm going at the side of more consumers leads to more opportunities for someone to invest in a business to meet the demand.

---

You're presuming two things. One demand is driven primarily by income, and that its infinite.

Here is quick example. I have a decent TV. Nothing special. I have plenty of money to go buy a new, better, bigger TV. My wife wouldn't even mind. But... I'm not rushing out to buy a TV. Because... There's not a damn thing wrong with the one I've got. I can't watch two at the same time. So why would I replace it... Even if I had $1,000,000 in my pocket?

I have about, maybe 10 shirts. If we have a good year, will I buy 10 more? Nope. I'll keep the same ones until my wife makes me throw them out because they have holes in them.

And that applies to a lot of consumer type goods. Especially at lower income levels. If we give a marginally better salary to a minimum wage worker.... Will he invest in another's business? Probably not. Will she buy something she can use to create/provide/serve others and earn a higher income? Probably not.

It's far more likely the differential income will be spent at a common retailer. Good for those corporate share holders, but we haven't done a damn thing for the workers' future.

Too much rambling. Others?

quote:

---

That's a separate and very important question.

---

Its not a separate question. Scroll back I. This thread to see those claiming the middle class is crippled because government doesn't take enough from the rich.

Instead of using guns (like an honorable thief), many are trying to employ government as a method of theft -- instead of helping themselves.

Certainly not true in all cases. But demonstrably true in a growing number. That is something we should all fear. Certainly more scary than terrorism is my book.

quote:

---

The point is the scale makes it more useless as it gets more expansive.

---

Troof. But in a country of 300 million people, a government tasked to provide basic personal necessities for everyone -- cannot possibly be small.

quote:

---

The worker needs a reduction of the cost of becoming an entrepreneur. The physical capital of doing it has never been easier. There's still the cost of taxation and regulations on all ends that make it riskier. This is where the government can help by lowering the barriers of entry they create.

---

Troof.

quote:

---

It's going to take a different model in the 21st century than working in a factory to cut out a decent living. The worker has to understand that and take more risks and start businesses to exploit the growing demand for specialized goods.

---

AB-SOO-LOOTLY! I think a lot of it starts with education. Our education was designed to create compliant, monolithic, and thoughtless workers to do simple but repetitive tasks. Those days are lol over. But our educational model... persists ( and gets more expensive by the year ).

quote:

---

I do think the safety net has a place in eliminating the catastrophic risk in failure

---

I do disagree. If there is no fear of failure, you get a lot more unsuccessful ideas. A good tip I got when.starting out... "When you find hurdles, understand that those hurdles kept others from trying. They didn't try, they didn't fail. They also didn't succeed."

I'm sure someone famous said it, but I don't know who...

quote:

---

Why would someone produce something if he knew nobody had money to buy it?

---

Barring a currency collapse, we'll have a time when nobody has any money.

As for creating and innovating based on speculation... That happens EVERY FREAKIN day.

quote:

---

If there is no fear of failure, you get a lot more unsuccessful ideas.

---

I get where you're coming from. I'm not suggesting no risk of failure. Losing your business you put your soul into is a hell of a downside. The bankruptcy is too. With zero stopgap, too few will try a new ideach because the downside risk is so great. It's a question of to what degree imo. Too cushy a net and investment will be waisted because there's no cost. Too meager and you'll keep good ideas on the sidelines.

This is the area I expected us to differ.

quote:

---

Quite frankly, we don't educate kids about calculated and measured risks. At all. There is no class for that until you hit graduate level economics. How many highschool kids can calculate the NPV of a bond? Almost none if reckon. It's too difficult for them. They can do it. We simply don't teach risk-reward.

---

Yup.

Our education system fails in many places, but that's probably one the of greatest failings. The majority of us are financially illiterate.