Comments on: Money, money, money

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 05:03:10 +0000

Of course it can’t be expunged, it is a perpetual motion device.

By: Zhombre

Zhombre — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:12:51 +0000

Funny thing about liberal guilt; it never gets expunged.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 20:52:49 +0000

The people who feel guilty that they have money and therefore seek to be redeemed by supporting laws that redistribute wealth, are people who themselves aren’t letting go of their money. So it is a double guilt, once guilty for being wealthy, second time guilty for not wanting to let that wealth go. Mohammed Atta and Co faced the same dilemma when they visited Los Vegas. Once sinned for being in America, twice sinned for liking being in America.

They’re willing to do a lot, and make you pay a lot, to expunge their guilt.

By: mamapajamas

mamapajamas — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:54:08 +0000

NYT: “One reason the run-up in taxes looks good is because the past five years looked so bad. Revenues are up, but they have lagged well behind economic growth.”

Only people with their heads completely buried in the sand could possibly think that the last five years have been “bad”. We had a stable economy in spite of an attack that struck at the heart of Wall Street, two wars, and several major natural disasters in the country. 9/11 alone, according to information put out by CNN, ripped $3 trillion (yes, that’s trillion with a “t”) out of our economy in stock losses alone when the market opened again the following week.

The fact that we did NOT go into a major depression is GREAT news, not “bad”. But that would be giving too much credit to the idea of tax rate decreases. Can’t let all those rich people get too much money, you know! They might actually start hiring people, and where would the Welfare State be then?

By: mamapajamas

mamapajamas — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:48:08 +0000

You know what REALLY amazes me? The same people who scream and moan about “the government” (aka; the Bush Administration) are the same people who want the government to gain control of the nation’s economy, at which the government has long proven itself to be completely incompetent.

If they would actually spend ten minutes thinking about that paradox… well, never mind. Who expects them to think, come to think of it?

By: Bookworm

Bookworm — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:40:55 +0000

JJ: I did actually know that it was WWII that got the economic engine going. FDR’s welfare wasn’t an economic engine, but it was certainly different from and better than modern welfare. While the economy may not have gotten a jump start, people were getting much needed money (and I don’t think anyone doubts the need for cash infusions during the depression). The important thing, to my mind, was that this money wasn’t a handout — instead, they had to work for it and the government (i.e., the people), received something in return, in the form of those infrastructure improvements (especially those beautiful dams they built). Welfare, yes. But at least it wasn’t pure redistribution of wealth, in the something for nothing category.

By: JJ

JJ — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:24:45 +0000

One of the many dirty little truths that don’t get published, (surprise, surprise) by the way, is that as a matter of historical economic fact FDR’s alphabet soup of programs did absolutely zilch to pull the country out of the Depression - World War II did that. The greatest and most successful public works program - by far - was the US Military.

But, as noted, he did create the entitlement mentality with which we will - apparently - have to live forever. The big accomplishment was inserting government into areas of life where it has absolutely no shred of constitutional legitimacy to be, and we’re stuck with it.

As to the NY Timees being surprised - hell, they were surprised when Saint JFDK cut the top rate from 70% in 1963 - and revenues went up (he was the first supply-sider); they were surprised when Reagan re-proved the thesis that cutting rates results in more revenue; and they’ve now been shocked and awed for two years running when GW Bush has proved it yet again.

When you cut rates you raise revenues!!! Period!!! How many times does it have to be proved before the Times gets it?

But we all know the answer to that one - the Times doesn’t wish to get it; so they never shall.

By: Zhombre

Zhombre — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:30:02 +0000

It is “an inconvenient truth” to the NYT that if the government reduces taxes, tax revenues actually increase, due to increased economic activity. Liberals aren’t really that interested in raising revenue; raising revenue is merely a side effect to the real project: redistribution of wealth. The assumption is that wealth is zero sum game; concentrations of wealth are inherently evil, and the purpose of taxation is to take from the rich and give to the poor, or on approved social pursuits, such as saving caribou, distributing condoms, or funding the arts, via a large, unionized government bureaucracy that votes Democratic. The idea that the primary purpose of taxation is to put money in the Treasury, and not to implement social engineering schemes, and the idea that lesser tax rates might actually encourage creation of wealth, are quite cumbersome and border on heresy.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:29:41 +0000

Actually change “undesperate” to “desperate”.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:28:42 +0000

I don’t think the good old days were all that good. What they were were “undesperate”, so to speak. Good solutions and desperate solutions only come during bad times. Since this is the good times, decadence and decay has set in, making it seem like the good old days were actually better. However, their problems had better solutions because their problems were bigger and more deadly. It was a matter of survival.