Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - National Debt: Year 2000 Increase= $18 billion, 2008 Increase= $700 Billion

aceventura3 · 01-24-2008, 12:55 PM

Looks like we agree on something, I bet it is for different reasons but we have come to the same conclusion.

Even the economist Keynes (his name is almost synonymous with the use of government spending to stimulate the economy) came to the conclusion that government spending does not have a lasting impact on economic stimulus.

Increased production of real goods and services is the only thing that will generate real economic growth. The folks in Washington can play shell games all day long with moving money around, but unless people produce more the shifting of money was a waste in terms of economic stimulus.

So you are correct. Either we pay for this today with increased taxes, nullifying the package or we pay (or our children) in the future with increased taxes - hurting future economic growth.

If the government really wants to stimulate the economy, we need tax cuts targeted to the production of goods and services. Oops, thats some supply side stuff again. I know how much you dislike that concept. But when a family takes their $1,200.00 to pay-off a credit card debt, that won't create one new job. On the other hand if you give a tax break to a small business trying to grow you may get an entity that hires people to produce valued goods and services. So you have real people making real income from producing real goods and services that other real people want to consume.

The basis is investing in the infrastructure for increasing production leads to lasting economic growth.

01-24-2008, 12:55 PM	#2 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Looks like we agree on something, I bet it is for different reasons but we have come to the same conclusion. Even the economist Keynes (his name is almost synonymous with the use of government spending to stimulate the economy) came to the conclusion that government spending does not have a lasting impact on economic stimulus. Increased production of real goods and services is the only thing that will generate real economic growth. The folks in Washington can play shell games all day long with moving money around, but unless people produce more the shifting of money was a waste in terms of economic stimulus. So you are correct. Either we pay for this today with increased taxes, nullifying the package or we pay (or our children) in the future with increased taxes - hurting future economic growth. If the government really wants to stimulate the economy, we need tax cuts targeted to the production of goods and services. Oops, thats some supply side stuff again. I know how much you dislike that concept. But when a family takes their $1,200.00 to pay-off a credit card debt, that won't create one new job. On the other hand if you give a tax break to a small business trying to grow you may get an entity that hires people to produce valued goods and services. So you have real people making real income from producing real goods and services that other real people want to consume. The basis is investing in the infrastructure for increasing production leads to lasting economic growth. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."