Re: Budget Deficits Lead to lower or higher GDP?
From: William F Hummel (wfhummel_at_comcast.net)
Date: 10/22/04
- Next message: Vince Hayes: "Re: The minimum wage was $8 an hour in 1968"
- Previous message: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: Amphibians threatened worldwide"
- In reply to: Igor: "Re: Budget Deficits Lead to lower or higher GDP?"
- Next in thread: Igor: "Re: Budget Deficits Lead to lower or higher GDP?"
- Reply: Igor: "Re: Budget Deficits Lead to lower or higher GDP?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:47:02 GMT
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:48:57 GMT, Igor <jjweatherby@houston.rr.com>
wrote:
>William F Hummel wrote:
>
>> Cutting back on Medicare and Social Security is like saying the US is
>> too poor to afford the same services that many other countries now
>> provide. We have enormous unused capacity in both facilities and
>> manpower. The problem is not financial, it is political -- driven
>> mainly by bad economic theory and ideologues in Congress.
>>
>No it is a decision on priorities. Do we want the same tax rate as those
>countries who provide this have. For instance GB taxes 40% of income and
>has a VAT on top of that. So they take 40% of your income then tax
>something like 17% on every good you buy. It is not a question if we are
>too poor to buy it. It is a question of are we willing to spend that
>much.
It doesn't make any sense to argue about tax levels unless you include
what the taxes do for the public. All western Europe has higher tax
levels than the US. Some of those countries have great living
conditions, better ON AVERAGE than the US.
>Being to poor to buy something is different from not believing it
>the benefit is not worth the cost. It is not saying we are too poor to
>pay. It is says that the American people do not want to pay the high
>needed for these programs. We would prefer a lower cost system which in
>turn gives better and more quick care but to fewer people.
Spoken like someone born on the sunny side of the street. It's easy
for you to say WE would prefer a lower cost system which in turn gives
better and more quick care but to fewer people -- when you are one of
those fewer people.
I am not one of the unfortunates that you would exclude from better
and quicker care, but I certainly do not accept your position of what
WE want. You need to broaden your views.
>> I agree with Akerloff that we have an increasingly serious problem
>> regarding wealth distribution. That is due in part to the Bush tax
>> agenda, which can only be fixed by getting Bush out of office and the
>> Republican majority out of Congress.
>
>Why is distribution of income a problem. Efficency nevers guarantees
>equity.
Don't conflate efficiency with a more equitable distribution of
wealth.
>The Declaration of Independence never said we guarantee
>happiness only the ability to pursue happiness.
So let's finally get around to providing the ability for all to pursue
happiness.
>In every country that
>has tried to equal out incomes per capita incomes have fallen.
I seriously doubt you have surveyed the world to determine what every
country has done. In any case, I was not proposing to drive all
incomes to equality.
But I could give you several reasons why you yourself would be better
off if there were a more equitable distribution of wealth and income.
I won't bother because I don't think you lack the vision to understand
it.
>> The greatest need however is to
>> get true reform in the electoral process. That means getting Congress
>> to respond to the average voter rather than to corporate money and the
>> private interests of the wealthy. This has little or no relation to
>> the deficit.
>>
>That means getting rid of political parties.
No. There is nothing to prevent political parties from organizing as
long as they don't depend on the financial favors of the wealthy and
big corporations.
The whole point in my proposal is to reestablish democratic rule which
was promised by our founding fathers and the Constitution. That means
getting our representatives to respond to the will of individual
voters and not to the privileged few.
I would add term limits to Congress as well as the President -- no
more than three 6-year terms for senators and six 2-year terms for
congressmen. Unfortunately that would take a Constitutional amendment
which is almost impossible to imagine, since it asks the incumbents to
terminate themselves.
Almost all of the damage done today is by the entrenched incumbents
who by virtue of seniority have gained immense power as committee and
subcommittee chairmen and "ranking members." We now have more than
90% of the incumbents being returned because of what in effect is a
positive feedback system.
- Next message: Vince Hayes: "Re: The minimum wage was $8 an hour in 1968"
- Previous message: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: Amphibians threatened worldwide"
- In reply to: Igor: "Re: Budget Deficits Lead to lower or higher GDP?"
- Next in thread: Igor: "Re: Budget Deficits Lead to lower or higher GDP?"
- Reply: Igor: "Re: Budget Deficits Lead to lower or higher GDP?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
