Politics

[megamattman1]

New thread. If we could get this one issue out of the way it'd help tremendously!

So, how is the alternative policy better? I know there's gotta be some more in depth answers beyond it creates jobs. More into investment theories etc. So, specifically, how are the tax cuts helping the economy beyond inflating it? and/or how are the alternative welfare policies better? (or should I start a new one for this? I jest, but seriously!) :)

Edited January 22, 2004 by megamattman1

[Confessionator741]

not so sure what you are talking about.... expand a lil bit and i will get right back to ya....

[jrndveritatis]

So, specifically, how are the tax cuts helping the economy beyond inflating it? and/or how are the alternative welfare policies better?

The tax cuts give individuals, partnerships, and corporations more capital. This is not a false improvement to the economy, it is not based on debt. Rather, it objectively gives people more money to either spend or save as they see fit. The increased capital, when spent, helps businesses to make money or to invest in expansion. This in turn creates more opportunities for jobs. So I guess tax cuts do inflate the amount of money in people's pockets, but this is objectively advantageous to each person's ability to save or spend. That is the theory behind tax cuts.

The alternative welfare policies are better for a couple reasons, some practical and some on principle. Requiring those receiving benefits to fulfill some obligations at least to attempt to do so helps to prevent those who selfishly live off the system from doing so, even if the number of people who do so is relatively small compared to the people who need the aid. Providing incentive to get a job cannot be considered bad. But what about those who really need the help? This is where I don't really have an answer. I believe that the authors of our Constitution believed that the government should be limited in its powers. They could never imagine government providing the programs it does today, in fact they would say that it was exceeding its powers. You can see this from anyone influential in the founding of our nation: Locke, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Hamilton, Franklin, Burke, etc. So this is based on principle: government really should not be providing welfare, Medicare, prescription drugs, or even Social Security. (Note: this is the pure ideological position. Very few conservatives or Republicans in office hold this view practically.) Why does no one articulate or hold this view in Congress or even vote with this principle in mind? The programs have been established, most of them in the New Deal by FDR. How can they be ended without disaster? Many people have depended on them for years and they are now an essential part of the society and the economy. That is the problem for all political conservatives such as myself, and I really don't have the answer. But I do feel that the less the extent of government power beyond the Constitution, the better. Gradual progress towards government getting out of these areas would obviously be the only option: drastic action would be disasterous. This is why plans such as Bush's plan to allow younger workers to invest part of their paychecks into a retirement fund, while still paying some money into social security, may be the answer.

As you can see, the tax cuts seem relatively straightforward. Dealing with and reforming the social welfare system is much more complicated.

Did that help to explain anything or just confuse things even more?

Let me know what you think.

[God Conquers]

Tax cuts would not inflate the economy but help it to grow. The gov. isn't printing off new money, just not taking as much from its people.

[megamattman1]

remove this post

Edited January 22, 2004 by megamattman1

[megamattman1]

This is another somewhat complex issue. Maybe I'll convert in this too. ^_^

Tax cuts would not inflate the economy but help it to grow. The gov. isn't printing off new money, just not taking as much from its people.

That I agree with but what I mean by inflation isn't geared toward that. I mean when we are advancing ourselves and not paying off our debt, that doesn't seem good. My bottom line question is this. How can we pay off our debt?

It kinda depends on who recieves the interest from the debt. Cuz my bottom line beside economic stability is getting the wealth from the top to the bottom as much as possible within reason so as not to sever the source.

Maybe the father's had a complete capitalist ideology, I don't know. But if they did, I don't think they would know of the complexities of having 99% of the population dependant on the producing one or so percent.

I'm not sure what China's system is all about, I do know it's communism which off hand is not good, but it probably has some good points to it, such as an extent of socialism. As I said before, it's not really socialism I'm advocating, it's subdued capitalism. Having a curved tax scheme as it is now, for one. And helping the poor that really need it for things necessary. I don't think China could sustain its population (It seems like it may come down to supporting a lot of life or having a good quality of living) based on pure capitalism such as the fathers may (probably) or may not have envisioned.

To me there is no issue about government helping the poor that really really need it. That is simply decent human nature, and justified to society by a societal contract. I know it means well, but as a community, it seems silly to insist the churches take care of the situation when all we need to do is make a little dent by redirecting the wealth. (so long as dent not become crack and break which prolly is the issue) The issue I see is what to do with the able bodied who can't find work and pay down the debt. (if we could figure this out we'd be set) This is where I'm not completly sure if we should have a social contract.

It'd seem that we'd always have unemployed unless we're stimulating the economy by having deficits or by not paying down the debt. And helping the unemployed, maybe making them do community service for it, seems reasonable and perhaps even more advantageous until we get the debt down. So this is why I think the social contract may hold even here. But if this were allowed I'm even further not sure how much we should help them. Like it doesn't seem right to not allow them to have families and stuff unless their services truly warranted it. It seems harsh but what can ya do aside from supporting multiple unworking communties?

I suppose I have more issues than even I thought. All this red tape makes it hard to pay down the debt. But I don't really see anyway around it as much as I hate big government. I suppose tax cuts would be good in the future when growth is warranted. But even as of now we're "inflated" (how bout artificial?) as a false ecomoy cuz we're based on debt. Maybe the tax cut is just enough to make a spark and be an investment to the economy. But unavoidable unemployment is the only real issue is this "bad" economy and seems pretty low for a one percent of the population producing economy. And not having this unemployment would mean caused by inflation the way I'm defining it, that is by going into debt. Maybe debt isn't so bad? My bottom line question is this. How and when can we pay off our debt if not now?

Edited January 22, 2004 by megamattman1

[jrndveritatis]

My bottom line question is this. How can we pay off our debt?

Good question. The national debt is like six trillion or something. I don't really know if we will ever pay that off. However, the yearly deficit is more manageable. True, cutting taxes makes it harder to do this. Cutting programs would help, but again this causes debate on if government should have these programs.

Maybe the father's had a complete capitalist ideology, I don't know. But if they did, I don't think they would know of the complexities of having 99% of the population dependant on the producing one or so percent.

I am pretty sure that the Founding Fathers did not have a complete capitalism in mind. And I agree with you that capitalism, as advocated by Adam Smith and many libertarians is terrible. Of course socialism is even worse though, because it completely destroys the social fabric of the family and personal incentive.

So what is the alternative?

Populism is the most convincing alternative I have heard of. I just heard about it or more precisely found out exactly what it was from an article in our (gasp) conservative/Catholic school newspaper, The Irish Rover. Here is a link to the article, I would highly recommend it:

The Morality of Populism: Why and to What Extent We Must Embrace It

So as this article shows, there is an alternative to unbridled capitalism and the evils of socialism which respects fair trade yet promotes small business over gigantic corporations, which, like you said, run 99% of the economy.

A similar philosophy is called distributism. It was developed by G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, both orthodox Catholics. Populism may be an outgrowth of it or at least is somewhat similar.