add ridiculous, smart ass conclusions, in an effort to avoid being forced to agree, to the the list of left debate tactics.Dilbert_X wrote:
Then all taxes are fine, since the money gets recycled into the economy.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
At least this money gets back into the economy with people who work for a living.Dilbert_X wrote:
defense contractors
Defense spending is also an open pipe, but apparently it doesn't matter since it 'gets back into the economy'.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
not all of it. N.Y.C. Housing projects is like burning it, so is Welfare and the National Endowment for the Arts. The list is endless, like an open pipe.Dilbert_X wrote:
Then all taxes are fine, since the money gets recycled into the economy.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
At least this money gets back into the economy with people who work for a living.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
He's right though, the taxes do go back into the economy. It's especially evident when during a recession the Goverment will increase building projects, to increase labor participation rates and lower unemployment. Because during a recession you're not going to see big businesses increase spending.lowing wrote:
add ridiculous, smart ass conclusions, in an effort to avoid being forced to agree, to the the list of left debate tactics.Dilbert_X wrote:
Then all taxes are fine, since the money gets recycled into the economy.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
At least this money gets back into the economy with people who work for a living.
It's basic Keynesian economics, really.
Taxes should be used for the operational needs of the govt. They should not be used to finance the worthless, and lazy. It is not the govts. job to redistribute some elses money away from the earner toward someone that did not earn it. Taxes that do flow through the economy should be benefiting the producing class alone, the ones that are part of the cycle. Not the ones along for the free ride in the current.AussieReaper wrote:
He's right though, the taxes do go back into the economy. It's especially evident when during a recession the Goverment will increase building projects, to increase labor participation rates and lower unemployment. Because during a recession you're not going to see big businesses increase spending.lowing wrote:
add ridiculous, smart ass conclusions, in an effort to avoid being forced to agree, to the the list of left debate tactics.Dilbert_X wrote:
Then all taxes are fine, since the money gets recycled into the economy.
It's basic Keynesian economics, really.
Last edited by lowing (2011-01-16 14:54:03)
I don't think you read what I posted.lowing wrote:
Taxes should be used for the operational needs of the govt. They should not be used to finance the worthless, and lazy. It is not the govts. job to redistribute some elses money away from the earner toward someone that did not earn it. Taxes that do flow through the economy should be benefiting the producing class alone, the ones that are part of the cycle. Not the ones along for the free ride in the current.AussieReaper wrote:
He's right though, the taxes do go back into the economy. It's especially evident when during a recession the Goverment will increase building projects, to increase labor participation rates and lower unemployment. Because during a recession you're not going to see big businesses increase spending.lowing wrote:
add ridiculous, smart ass conclusions, in an effort to avoid being forced to agree, to the the list of left debate tactics.
It's basic Keynesian economics, really.
You do know how fiscal and monetary policy works, yeah?
If taxes are to be used solely for the operational needs of the government, the economy will be extremely unstable. You'll have no price stability, lower employment, and poor economic growth.
But as I said, with your reply it doesn't even look like you read my post.
no it wouldn't, private enterprise fuels the economy. the govt. does not generate income therefore it does not contribute to the economy., business does, the cycles starts there, not with the govt.AussieReaper wrote:
I don't think you read what I posted.lowing wrote:
Taxes should be used for the operational needs of the govt. They should not be used to finance the worthless, and lazy. It is not the govts. job to redistribute some elses money away from the earner toward someone that did not earn it. Taxes that do flow through the economy should be benefiting the producing class alone, the ones that are part of the cycle. Not the ones along for the free ride in the current.AussieReaper wrote:
He's right though, the taxes do go back into the economy. It's especially evident when during a recession the Goverment will increase building projects, to increase labor participation rates and lower unemployment. Because during a recession you're not going to see big businesses increase spending.
It's basic Keynesian economics, really.
You do know how fiscal and monetary policy works, yeah?
If taxes are to be used solely for the operational needs of the government, the economy will be extremely unstable. You'll have no price stability, lower employment, and poor economic growth.
But as I said, with your reply it doesn't even look like you read my post.
govt. involvement stalls the economy it does not drive it.
So you don't know how fascal and monetary policy works. Fair enough.lowing wrote:
no it wouldn't, private enterprise fuels the economy. the govt. does not generate income therefore it does not contribute to the economy., business does, the cycles starts there, not with the govt.AussieReaper wrote:
I don't think you read what I posted.lowing wrote:
Taxes should be used for the operational needs of the govt. They should not be used to finance the worthless, and lazy. It is not the govts. job to redistribute some elses money away from the earner toward someone that did not earn it. Taxes that do flow through the economy should be benefiting the producing class alone, the ones that are part of the cycle. Not the ones along for the free ride in the current.
You do know how fiscal and monetary policy works, yeah?
If taxes are to be used solely for the operational needs of the government, the economy will be extremely unstable. You'll have no price stability, lower employment, and poor economic growth.
But as I said, with your reply it doesn't even look like you read my post.
govt. involvement stalls the economy it does not drive it.
I'll give you a pretty basic example of how the government can generate income. Building roads and schools. That employs laborers. Those laborers now have an income and buy goods and services. And there you go, money in the economy.
How exactly does that stall the economy?
so you don't know how a govt. functions, fair enough. I will give you a pretty basic example as to how the govt. produces nothing. The govt. does not build shit. The govt. is a customer, it hires contractors to do the building. Every piece of equipment in use by the govt. was R and D'ed and produced by businesses not by the govt. Those paychecks that get cycled through the economy are issued by the businesses the govt. hires, not by the govt. The govt .is taking money form the producing class and spending it, they are not generating it.AussieReaper wrote:
So you don't know how fascal and monetary policy works. Fair enough.lowing wrote:
no it wouldn't, private enterprise fuels the economy. the govt. does not generate income therefore it does not contribute to the economy., business does, the cycles starts there, not with the govt.AussieReaper wrote:
I don't think you read what I posted.
You do know how fiscal and monetary policy works, yeah?
If taxes are to be used solely for the operational needs of the government, the economy will be extremely unstable. You'll have no price stability, lower employment, and poor economic growth.
But as I said, with your reply it doesn't even look like you read my post.
govt. involvement stalls the economy it does not drive it.
I'll give you a pretty basic example of how the government can generate income. Building roads and schools. That employs laborers. Those laborers now have an income and buy goods and services. And there you go, money in the economy.
How exactly does that stall the economy?
Last edited by lowing (2011-01-16 15:18:22)
Like NASA?lowing wrote:
so you don't know how a govt. functions, fair enough. I will give you a pretty basic example as to how the govt. produces nothing. The govt. does not build shit. The govt. is a customer, it hires contractors to do the building. Every piece of equipment in use by the govt. was R and D'ed and produced by businesses not by the govt. Those paychecks that get cycled through the economy are issued by the businesses the govt. hires, not by the govt.AussieReaper wrote:
So you don't know how fascal and monetary policy works. Fair enough.lowing wrote:
no it wouldn't, private enterprise fuels the economy. the govt. does not generate income therefore it does not contribute to the economy., business does, the cycles starts there, not with the govt.
govt. involvement stalls the economy it does not drive it.
I'll give you a pretty basic example of how the government can generate income. Building roads and schools. That employs laborers. Those laborers now have an income and buy goods and services. And there you go, money in the economy.
How exactly does that stall the economy?
tAussieReaper wrote:
Like NASA?lowing wrote:
so you don't know how a govt. functions, fair enough. I will give you a pretty basic example as to how the govt. produces nothing. The govt. does not build shit. The govt. is a customer, it hires contractors to do the building. Every piece of equipment in use by the govt. was R and D'ed and produced by businesses not by the govt. Those paychecks that get cycled through the economy are issued by the businesses the govt. hires, not by the govt.AussieReaper wrote:
So you don't know how fascal and monetary policy works. Fair enough.
I'll give you a pretty basic example of how the government can generate income. Building roads and schools. That employs laborers. Those laborers now have an income and buy goods and services. And there you go, money in the economy.
How exactly does that stall the economy?
you might wanna do your research, every space vehicle, every piece of life support equipment, every rocket was built by contractors HIRED by the govt. to produce them. Again the govt. does not generate wealth, it takes it, and spends it. It produces or builds nothing.
The government prints money itself.lowing wrote:
tAussieReaper wrote:
Like NASA?lowing wrote:
so you don't know how a govt. functions, fair enough. I will give you a pretty basic example as to how the govt. produces nothing. The govt. does not build shit. The govt. is a customer, it hires contractors to do the building. Every piece of equipment in use by the govt. was R and D'ed and produced by businesses not by the govt. Those paychecks that get cycled through the economy are issued by the businesses the govt. hires, not by the govt.
you might wanna do your research, every space vehicle, every piece of life support equipment, every rocket was built by contractors HIRED by the govt. to produce them. Again the govt. does not generate wealth, it takes it, and spends it. It produces or builds nothing.
just saying......
You understand that providing an income to those contractors is going to stimulate the economy, lower unemployment, increase the buying power of those contractors in the marketplace, etc? That's how the economy is stimulated.lowing wrote:
tAussieReaper wrote:
Like NASA?lowing wrote:
so you don't know how a govt. functions, fair enough. I will give you a pretty basic example as to how the govt. produces nothing. The govt. does not build shit. The govt. is a customer, it hires contractors to do the building. Every piece of equipment in use by the govt. was R and D'ed and produced by businesses not by the govt. Those paychecks that get cycled through the economy are issued by the businesses the govt. hires, not by the govt.
you might wanna do your research, every space vehicle, every piece of life support equipment, every rocket was built by contractors HIRED by the govt. to produce them. Again the govt. does not generate wealth, it takes it, and spends it. It produces or builds nothing.
Saying the government produces or builds nothing is clearly false when the example of NASA should be pretty straight forward. NASA has built a few things you may have heard of. And the research NASA conducts is a huge benefit to businesses around the world.
I suppose by your reasoning though that was all the work of contractors who just got together one day and said "well we might as well get paid for building this stuff, let's ask the government..."
nope, the companies already existed, already producing shit, already employs people. The govt. set guidlines for the latest widget, and several companies bid on the project. THey do so with the background already in place to produce what the customer wants.AussieReaper wrote:
You understand that providing an income to those contractors is going to stimulate the economy, lower unemployment, increase the buying power of those contractors in the marketplace, etc? That's how the economy is stimulated.lowing wrote:
tAussieReaper wrote:
Like NASA?
you might wanna do your research, every space vehicle, every piece of life support equipment, every rocket was built by contractors HIRED by the govt. to produce them. Again the govt. does not generate wealth, it takes it, and spends it. It produces or builds nothing.
Saying the government produces or builds nothing is clearly false when the example of NASA should be pretty straight forward. NASA has built a few things you may have heard of. And the research NASA conducts is a huge benefit to businesses around the world.
I suppose by your reasoning though that was all the work of contractors who just got together one day and said "well we might as well get paid for building this stuff, let's ask the government..."
My point has always been the govt. takes money from earners and redistribute it, that it does not generate wealth, or EARN. It takes.
The govt. is a customer, you simply can not deny that. All the money you claim the govt. earns, is IN FACT spent by taking it FROM the earners.
roads, etc is a function of govt, therefore the money spent from the earners is a necessity IE taxes. Money spent on bullshit social programs was not earned by the govt. It was earned by the producing class, then redistributed by the govt. The govt. does not produce any thing it does not generate wealth. It is a customer hiring companies that do produce.
Yes, when the govt. hires a contractor to build the next generation spacecraft, it does put people to work. However, it is not the govt. that does this, the company that spent money on building a factory ( which put people to work), R and D ( which put people to work) and then producing ( which put people to work) all in an effort to sell to customers. The wealth is generated in the private sector, NOT the govt.
lowing you are nuts dude. go walk around northern virginia. those people wouldnt have those jobs and their million dollar homes without the govt.
who do they work for?11 Bravo wrote:
lowing you are nuts dude. go walk around northern virginia. those people wouldnt have those jobs and their million dollar homes without the govt.
private companies who without the govt would not even be anywhere near the size they are.lowing wrote:
who do they work for?11 Bravo wrote:
lowing you are nuts dude. go walk around northern virginia. those people wouldnt have those jobs and their million dollar homes without the govt.
Ahh so they work for private companies. Private companies that were hired by the govt. to fullfil a function of the govt., provide for national defense.11 Bravo wrote:
private companies who without the govt would not even be anywhere near the size they are.lowing wrote:
who do they work for?11 Bravo wrote:
lowing you are nuts dude. go walk around northern virginia. those people wouldnt have those jobs and their million dollar homes without the govt.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Last edited by lowing (2011-01-16 15:53:50)
without the govt...no companylowing wrote:
Ahh so they work for private companies. Private companies that were hired by the govt. to fullfil a function of the govt. provide for national defense.11 Bravo wrote:
private companies who without the govt would not even be anywhere near the size they are.lowing wrote:
who do they work for?
Thank you for agreeing with me.
You're talking about the Army right?lowing wrote:
Taxes should be used for the operational needs of the govt. They should not be used to finance the worthless, and lazy.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
trolololololDilbert_X wrote:
You're talking about the Army right?lowing wrote:
Taxes should be used for the operational needs of the govt. They should not be used to finance the worthless, and lazy.
Without the company there would be no national defense, therefore no govt.11 Bravo wrote:
without the govt...no companylowing wrote:
Ahh so they work for private companies. Private companies that were hired by the govt. to fullfil a function of the govt. provide for national defense.11 Bravo wrote:
private companies who without the govt would not even be anywhere near the size they are.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
We must first agree that the govt. does not PRODUCE wealth. It takes wealth. can we agree on this point?
Unless it is issuing government bonds.lowing wrote:
Without the company there would be no national defense, therefore no govt.11 Bravo wrote:
without the govt...no companylowing wrote:
Ahh so they work for private companies. Private companies that were hired by the govt. to fullfil a function of the govt. provide for national defense.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
We must first agree that the govt. does not PRODUCE wealth. It takes wealth. can we agree on this point?
Lotta_Drool wrote:
The government prints money itself.
just saying......
no he is talking about the ship builders hired by the govt. to build its war ships.Dilbert_X wrote:
You're talking about the Army right?lowing wrote:
Taxes should be used for the operational needs of the govt. They should not be used to finance the worthless, and lazy.
c'mon aussie, lets stick to the context of the argument. You claim the govt. produces, that it generates wealth. I have shown you that it does not.AussieReaper wrote:
Unless it is issuing government bonds.lowing wrote:
Without the company there would be no national defense, therefore no govt.11 Bravo wrote:
without the govt...no company
We must first agree that the govt. does not PRODUCE wealth. It takes wealth. can we agree on this point?Lotta_Drool wrote:
The government prints money itself.
just saying......
i dunno the people in northern virginia are pretty damn wealthylowing wrote:
Without the company there would be no national defense, therefore no govt.11 Bravo wrote:
without the govt...no companylowing wrote:
Ahh so they work for private companies. Private companies that were hired by the govt. to fullfil a function of the govt. provide for national defense.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
We must first agree that the govt. does not PRODUCE wealth. It takes wealth. can we agree on this point?