Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #161
Wry has no integrity when it comes to politics, Foxfyre. He just looks at one side of the coin and swears there isn't another side.
You got that wrong (I'm not surprised); I'm neither blind nor myopic, the problem with your side of the coin is no one on this message board or running for office is able to articulate how cutting taxes, cutting regulations and cutting government actually creates jobs.
Please, in some detail explain the process, your side of the coin. I promise to read it and respond. That said I'm rewiring the garage and will check in between breaks - unless Murphy is in town.
We saw jobs created under JFK, under Reagan, under Clinton, and under George W. Bush when certain taxes were reduced and certain regulations were eased. Under Reagan and under Clinton and under George H.W. Bush we saw job creation stall and struggle when taxes were increased--and only when taxes were reduced did the job creation really take off.
It's all there on the record. All you have to do is look it up.
Currently we have American businesses sitting on an estimated 3 to 5 trillion dollars in venture capital locally and parked overseas because of the uncertainty in the current USA financial picture. They don't know what the tax structure is going to be, they don't know how much of the capital the government will claim if they put it back into operation, and they don't know what regulations are going to be or how those will affect their businesses. They simply are not going to risk all that they have until those uncertainties are removed.
Every dollar that the government does not confiscate and swallow up in the bureaucracy is a dollar that is available to save so that there is money for others to borrow, or that is availabe to invest so that businesses can start up or existing businesses and expand and grow meaning there will be more jobs. A second grader has enough math skills to see how smaller government makes more money available to grow private commerce and industry that hires people and increases their wages and benefits. Private sector jobs take nothing out of the economy and multiply the wealth. Government jobs take more money out of the economy than they will ever to be able to put back in.
Cause and effect is never easy to ascertain so easily. It's kinda funny that such clarity is assumed when the precursor events and variables - both dependent and independent are so different.
It's your right to believe what you want, I simply find such 'reasoning' unconvincing.
Your privacy argument is simple sophistry, sounds good to true believers but the evidence isn't in your post to support 'your' argument. You suggest that public employees provide no value to the economy and in a sense are little more than welfare recipients.
How do you put a value on a soldier, sailor, coast guardsman, marine or airman? A border guard, a U.S. Attorney, an FBI agent, NASA scientists, the U.S. Dept. of Public Health?
How do you put a value on local officials? Police, fire, EMT's, Probation, Parole, Social Service, Senior Centers, Playgrounds, Parks, Street Cleaners, etc. etc.
Or do you suppose it would be better to make these jobs for profit, and allow a corporation to hire these same people pay them less and provide stockholders - who in fact provide no labor - income?
Just a little food for thought, if you or others are so inclined. IMO this entire plan (to privatize) benefits only the very wealthy at an enormous cost to the hoi polloi and is not what America is or should be about.