Quote:
|
It is proven that money in the hands of citizens not government increases economic growth -> higher tax revenue
|
But giving to the rich doesn't always work. Trickle down, or Voodoo economics (as even Bush's father called it) doesn't work. Giving someone who has $10 million a couple hundred thousand back doesn't mean they'll spend more, it just means there's less $$ circulating in the economy.
Where was this proven? Your champion Reagan? So eventhough only a quarter of society did better (income wise) in the 80's, and eventhough we were put in massive amounts of debt, and eventhough he created a negligible number of jobs, all of which were in the government, we, society, did better? Or, are you saying that YOU did better? That's often times the conservative difference. 'Me' before anyone else. My family did much better, but his economics were still bad. Or, are you talking about the period before the great depression and stock market crash when all the capital was in the hands of the private sector?
And remember, people do not invest in the private sector unless there is consumer demand. If NO ONE is buying, would you invest in a manufacturing corporation? There needs to be a balance of both.
Where did the Cannes thing come from?
Norman,
A tax based on fees is interesting, but people in the US wouldn't buy it. And, I don't think it could produce enough to fund our goliath of a government. I agree with cutting or trimming welfare as it is now, but I believe there should be assistance given to those who are without means but who have vast potential. Problem is, we haven't found a way to find these people and distribute the aid accordingly. Social welfare is NOT bad. Our system IS. A healthy society benefits everyone, even the rich. Look at it this way, a healthy society is one where everyone has spending power; the lower classes can provide what they need for themselves, and the upper classes can invest in markets, corporation and services that help the lower classes.
My overarching point though, is that the government can't spend without having the dough to spend with.
On medical care, I believe that everyone should have medical care. It's the most basic life necessity with food and shelter. I think it's possible, it's just that bureaucracy and insurance fees and our legal system make it impossible to provide medical care at a reasonable cost to society and government. The Catch-22 is that what makes our government so effectively stable is the large bureaucracy. So, in ideology, I believe everyone should have medical care (with limitations of course, like certain types of plastic surgery, etc.), it's just that our system has bogged it down to the point of it being one of the drains on our budget.