OPP Newsletter

maitreya

What is wrong with you posters? You'll write 30 pages on total nonsense but have nothing to say about this?

Oldguy Loc: Deep east Texas Big Thicket country

Ok, I'll give it a go. Go back and read how the figures are gotten and then take a look at the last paragraph (The empirical evidence says that we can reduce ine******y and bolster the middle class by putting people back to work. But that will take government action. And government action is the one thing we don’t seem to have.) Seems pretty self evident to me and until we can change our leaders attitudes about destroying the middle class nothing is going to change.

maitreya

Holy s**t! I congratulate you, sir. Began to wonder if anyone cared. Yes, more jobs, and good ones. Hope you agree that supply-side economics have not done the job. Anyone still pushing them should not be elected. Other suggestions?

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

Where and when did you see anyone using supply side economics? Where and when did you see government action directly improve job opportunities?

maitreya

The last 30 years in the United States? The multi-trillion dollar tax cuts were intended to help "job creators", which is supply side in its essence. Not only did they not deliver, the biggest ones actually gave us the worst jobs growth ever recorded. Government action could not only produce public sector jobs, but increase demand by providing incentives to consumers and small businesses. Likewise, investments in public services (infrastructure, education, law enforcement) are necessary to insure peak productivity. The government can also stifle demand the same way, obviously.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

The last 30 years had the worst jobs growth - are you serious? Are you really suggesting that the American standard of living is lower now than 30 years ago?
As to your term "investments" - taking money from taxpayers by use of force is better than businesses recieving funds from people willingly is better? When they take money from taxpayers, do they not stifle the ability of people to buy, thereby suppresssing the very demand you want them to encourage. The real difference would seem whether people get to decide for themselves how to "invest" in what works for them, or if bureaucrats use the funds forced from them for what these elites decide the people should have (after, or course, taking large chunks of the revenues for themselves).

jpatrickham

Oh! That income e******y. Is that the one where Government Workers ( Predominantly Liberal) make a much higher wage than an non Governmental worker. One more thing, U.N.? U.N.? U.N.? If I had to use the United Nations to even get a weather report, I would receive how blatantly criminal Israel was.

maitreya

Yes, I am serious.
Job creation was indeed the worst in 2000-2009 (see also US department of Labor), the glory years of ss economics. I'm not suggesting the standard of living is a lower, that's a different issue -- technology has advanced, after all, and that helps. If it hadn't, we'd be quite a bit more screwed. And yes, too heavy a tax does crush demand, particularly t***saction taxes. Taxes are now the lowest in living memory, generally speaking. They were far higher in the Eisenhower years, yet we grew quite healthily.

These elite bureaucrats are the people you elect to pay for things that should not be handled by the private sector. Why not the private sector, you ask? Firstly, projects that require lengthy research but provide insufficient profit will not be pursued. Got a friend, works for the NSF, works on countermeasure for p******cs and bio-warfare. No way I'd k**l his paycheck. Secondly is security. You don't want to turn your military or anything like it over to the private sector. Ever. Thirdly, if politicians don't spend the money wisely (and everyone has their own definition of wisely), you can v**e them out. Fourthly, if businesses engage in unfair or even criminal practices, some agency must exist to reign them in. (Our government hasn't done this very well lately).

The constitution specifically grants the government the power to levy taxes, and for good reason. No patriot should be adverse to upkeep for his country, though I note many get to weasel out despite copious funds. They are moochers, at best.