>
Two problems with that statement. First, you're only looking at one side of the equation. You're ignoring the cost and damage to the economy that government spending does. I don't just mean by crowding out other, more efficient solutions, but the literal taxation and inflation that government uses to get the money in the first place inhibits economic growth. Both actions reduce the "bottom line" for consumers and companies and thus reduce the funds they have available when deciding to make capital purchases- whether it is a house or a car or sending kids to college or building a plant to create more jobs. All of the money government takes prevents those things from happening.This is ignoring the fact that government spending results in a ton of net-positives. The government might tax your bottom line, making it harder for you to buy a Lexus (and send an extra $10K overseas), but those taxes build roads, provide social security and medicare, fund our military, etc.
Obviously government spending must ultimately come from the pocketbooks of the people, but the fact is that government spending is a necessity. Giving 100% of everyone's money to the government would be a very bad thing, but giving no money to the government would be at least as bad. So somewhere in the middle is an appropriate amount of taxation. Claiming that taxation and inflation "inhibits economic growth" as a blanket fact is patently untrue.
> The second is that you're ignoring that much of that "investment" is actually spent on activities that are themselves net-harmful to the economy. Such as the overzealous regulators that shut businesses down, the agencies that spend their time inhibiting efficient running of businesses, or even make it impossible to operate your plant safely because government regulations don't allow the use of the latest safety equipment (only what was on the market at the time the regulation was created) or FDA examiners that drive costs thru the roof, and prevent access to drugs for dying people because the drugs are "experimental" and might kill them in 20 years (though their disease will get them a lot sooner) etc. Much of the money government spends is on programs that make people less safe and more on topic, undermine economic growth with no real benefit other than providing good political jobs to hand out.
So if we get rid of regulations the economy will improve? Some regulations are obviously a net negative, but most of our regulations were put in place to address known problems. Why would deregulating drugs help us? Clearly the drug companies are making plenty of money, and yet they are the ones arguing in favor of deregulation. If they are in favor of deregulation, surely they expect to make more money in the absence of regulation. Do you think that implies a drop in costs? Perhaps it implies a decrease in safety testing instead? We did a lot of deregulating banks, and that worked out really well. Please tell me why you think businesses would bother to be safer if OSHA was eliminated. There was a time when we didn't regulate workplace safety. We enacted laws specifically because in the absence of regulation, workplaces are less safe. When workplace safety is not required, more people die. When fire codes are not required, building burn down more often. The libertarian ideal ignores the fact that regulations were largely enacted to fix very real problems.
> The entire history of the USA supports it.
It most certainly does not. The wealth gap at its present is far larger than it historically has been in the US. Yet we don't see a sailing economy. On the other hand, after WWII taxes were obscene, yet the economy boomed.
> The error you're making here is that you think that letting people keep their money only helps the rich. IF you take all of the incomes of the bottom %50 of the populace and you compare it to the incomes of the tope %50 of the populace, there are a lot more people in the lower half and they make a lot more money. Not squandering that money benefits them a whole lot more than it does the rich.
This doesn't even make sense. There are not more people in the bottom 50% than in the top 50%. There are equal amounts in both halves. And the bottom half certainly doesn't make more money. That's why it's the bottom half.
> Frankly, the economics are not really up for debate. They don't support your side. The slogans about "rich people getting rich" are just rationalizations for theft.
Strangely, something like 80% of economists disagree with you.
> That theft, actually, hurts poor people more than it does rich people. Rich people are insulated, the poor are not.
Not at all true. Poor people pay no or nearly no tax. Middle-class people pay less tax. With respect to corporate tax holidays, not a lot of poor or middle class people see any income from that.
> Bush's original Tax cut proposed reducing taxes for poor people by %50, IIRC, and the reduction for the richest was around %2. After the democrats managed to "compromise" it, what got passed reduced taxes for the poorest by %20. Why weren't the democrats in favor of the large tax cut for the poor?
Probably because the poor don't actually pay any significant federal income tax. Many of them actually get tax credits.
Also because your information is incorrect. Bush's tax cuts brought the top tax bracket down by about 5%.
> And even still, even though every way you measure it-- dollar terms or percentage terms-- these tax cuts helped the poor more than the rich, ever since they've been passed, democrats have been calling them "tax cuts for the rich".
The tax cuts were moronic regardless of who they helped the most.
> Frankly, from an economics perspective, lower regulation, lower taxes, lower inflation, no matter how unevenly applied, helps the poor. It always does, it always will, and in fact it has to-- the primary way you get rich is by improving the lives of the poor.
This is delusional. You don't get rich by improving the lives of the poor. You get rich by getting a lot of money. You can do that by starting a profitable company, inheriting a lot of money, trafficking drugs, stealing money from others, and any number of other ways. Some ways that you could get rich will help the poor. Other ways will not.
> I don't understand why democrats constantly support policies that hurt the poor, are constantly trying to raise their taxes (While always, of course, claiming to only want to tax the rich) but they do.
I'm not a republican, so, put down that assumption I've just studied economics. What the politicians tell you about economics is designed to serve their interests, not yours.
I don't understand how anyone, Republican or otherwise, can look at what's happened in our country over the past decade and come to the conclusion that deregulation and lower taxes are beneficial. Look at the unemployment rate. Look at the federal deficit and debt. Exactly how have Bush's tax cuts helped most people?