Germany’s Chancellor Gets It, Too Bad Obama Doesn’t

  •  March 30, 2009

Angela Merkel isn’t having any of this “better living through more government” nonsense that’s all the rage these days both in America and in the international community. And it looks like Spain isn’t having any of it either.

GORDON BROWN’S carefully laid plans for a G20 deal on worldwide tax cuts have been scuppered by an eve-of-summit ambush by European leaders.
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, last night led the assault on the prime minister’s “global new deal” for a $2 trillion-plus fiscal stimulus to end the recession.
“I will not let anyone tell me that we must spend more money,” she said.
The Spanish finance minister, Pedro Solbes, also dismissed new cash being pledged at Thursday’s London summit.

Government spending more money means, inevitably, more taxes. More taxes means less profitability and income for businesses and citizens. Less profitability and income means fewer jobs and less economic growth.
This really isn’t rocket science.

Tags: , ,


«
»
  • http://www.newsy.com/videos/obama_faces_battle_at_g20/ Rosa

    If greedy govt wants to spend more of our money on wasteful social programs, it should have to do that by supporting economic growth, not by killing it with punitive taxation and regulation.  Of course, wasteful social spending tends to increase the number of dependent people, which also impacts future economic growth by shrinking the population of achievers.

    You are ignoring the self-interested actions of citizens and corporations who can individually make greater gains by saving rather than investing, exporting jobs, and speculating on failure. If there is one thing we can agree on its that the government is eager and willing to spend money. Spending on social programs relieves some of the pressure on individuals who can use the funds to pay back into the system. How do we know that they will pay? They are obligated to because of growing debt. The govt.is accepting risk because they expect payment in the long-run. You also mention the 1980 recession, but you ignore that Reagan also increased govt. spending through defense spending. Tax cuts for the wealthy do little for the middle class who are the majority of consumers while decreasing the cost of living through social programs gives middle class workers more incentives to spend on consumer goods. The middle class are more reliable spenders

  • http://firstconservative.com/blog MAS1916

    Is this the smartest administration in history? One thinks not. They are absolutely ignorant of history.

    Doesn’t Merkel come from the former DDR? (that is communist East Germany for you Democrats out there.) She knows of what she speaks! Obama’s economic poicies are a disaster.

  • http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/ Reaganite Republican

    Merkel is not just a sensible conservative in the left-leaning EU, but she grew up in the DDR- communist East Germany. So she knows a thing or two about the folly of socialism.

    Contrast this to Obama- who never experienced it, but decided it was real cool anyway from all the crap Saul Alinsky and his Marxist-professor mentors filled his (stoned) head with- Now we all get to be the guinea pigs in his harebrained experiments, great.

  • robert108

    And why is maximizing govt tax revenue a goal anyway?

    It’s not, it’s a side effect of the positive effect tax rate cuts have on the creation of wealth. If greedy govt wants to spend more of our money on wasteful social programs, it should have to do that by supporting economic growth, not by killing it with punitive taxation and regulation. Of course, wasteful social spending tends to increase the number of dependent people, which also impacts future economic growth by shrinking the population of achievers. If you’re worried about the govt collecting too much revenue due to tax rate cuts, just cut back on govt spending. That would also be good for favoring economic growth.
    So-called “Keynesian economics” is bunk. It doesn’t work.

  • SigFan

    Ironic that some of the most socialist countries are starting to get it while we keep slip-slidin’ away. Heard a report on Friday that France, Sweden and Russia have all expressed concern that the US is becomning too socialistic. The reporter speculated that this was because they all realize how dependent the rest of the world has become on the US economy being strong and how much they all depend on the US to be the military force to back them up if needed.

  • robert108

    In a closed economy, one can predict the multiplier effect of govt. spending.

    More Keynesian bullshit. You also have to subtract the loss of income and revenue due to the confiscation of the money from the more productive elements of the economy. Trying to create real economic growth by redistributing money is like trying to make the shallow end of the pool deeper by taking water out of the deep end, and pouring it in the shallow end. You don’t increase the amount of water. Increasing govt spending by inflating the economy is likewise counter productive, since you weaken the value of the money by the same measure as you increase the number of dollars.
    The only way to create economic growth is to apply capital to labor and raw materials at a profit.
    Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

  • robert108

    Ironic that some of the most socialist countries are starting to get it while we keep slip-slidin’ away.

    I don’t think it’s ironic; I think it’s totally logical. Those countries have been under the heel of socialism for generations, and know quite well how much of a failure it is. We are so used to the natural prosperity of “free people making free choices” that we don’t realize how unique we are. It would be great if we just kept doing what has always worked, while cleansing our system of the social engineering and market rigging that has crept in, but in electing a Marxist as President, we apparently have to learn the error of socialism firsthand.
    Hopefully, after we run this guy out of Washington, we will never make the same mistake again.

  • Hannitized

    Bat exhibits, slight of hand. Thinks nobody noticed.

    Lance, Can you think of an instance when massive Keynesian deficit spending by a central government has actually had the sort of long term stimulative effect on economic growth that it was supposed to?

    AV, Can you come up with an instance when tax rate cuts, particularly cuts in business and cap gains taxes, have NOT had a stimulative effect on the economy,and coincidentally, increased revenues from those same taxes?

    See that different set of standards for tax breaks? Bat want’s “long term” benefits for stimulus, whatever he means by that; and no specific term type of benefit for tax breaks.

    And while your at it AV, maybe you can explain why penicillin has never resolved the AIDS epidemic as well. I mean, since were playing compare different situations to different remedies and all.

    BatOne, ever the cheap slight-of-hand-magician, in his own mind.

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

    Bat One: I’m sure every single economist, on the political left or right, acknowledges that tax-rate cuts have a stimulative effect. The issue is that the Laffer Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Laffer-Curve.svg) is too idealized to have useful predictive qualities. And why is maximizing govt tax revenue a goal anyway? It may well be that the optimum is higher than you’d like. Tax revenue should correlate to what the populace, via democratic means, desires in expenditure.

    Lance: The argument in favor of increased spending instead of tax-rate reductions during recessions is that game theory predicts many individuals will act to the detriment of the economy as a whole.

    If we are given tax-breaks, due to job-insecurity and other factors, we’ll tend to save rather than spend. Businesses will be reluctant to invest, even though increased savings reduce the cost of credit, if they don’t think people will buy, hence a lower multiplier effect for tax-rate reductions.

    But either method will have a low-multiplier if only one govt tries a stimulus package in a globalized economy. I’m sure the shrewder govts are hoping that the US stimulus package will be enough to drag the world out of recession, since it is the mightiest economy, while not having to spend much themselves.

  • Bat One

    AV,

    I “cherry-picked” nothing. If you can share a period of US history in which GDP growth was above 4% with inflation under 2% for longer than 4 or 5 years, please do so. I avoided the WWII period only because obviously war production artificially inflates GDP (no pun intended).

    My point was that Obama’s budget is based on projections that have no relation to the real world, either in the long term growth or the low rate of inflation. Both of which will have direct effect on the federal deficit and interest rates down the road.

    This,

    You see, you free-market, supply-side types don’t understand the difference between speculation and long-term investment.

    is horseshit, on several levels, not to mention an unwarranted personl insult. This,

    Bush increased spending and reduced taxes, yet the economy still imploded. I guess incompetence can defeat even solid economic theory.

    is something I might expect from Dino, but not from someone who purports to understand economics. Perhaps you could expand on this and expand to include exactly what particular manifestation of Mr. Bush’s “incompetence” you’re referring to, and specifically how his policies caused the economy to “implode.”

  • robert108

    So, the Chancellor of Germany is less of a Nazi than the President of the United States? Incredible!

  • Bat One

    Since we seem to have two individuals here who actually know something about the subject, I wonder…

    Lance, Can you think of an instance when massive Keynesian deficit spending by a central government has actually had the sort of long term stimulative effect on economic growth that it was supposed to?

    AV, Can you come up with an instance when tax rate cuts, particularly cuts in business and cap gains taxes, have NOT had a stimulative effect on the economy,and coincidentally, increased revenues from those same taxes ?

  • Bat One

    Trying to change the subject again? You stuck yourself in the middle of a conversation that was obviously beyond your comprehension, objecting to my choice of words. And now, when called on to back up your pointless criticism and demonstrate that you actually know what you’re talking about, on your own terms, you squirm and flounder.

    Why not just admit it? Fact is, you are simply incapable of an intelligent discussion of economic policy, past or present. You may not be generally as vile as Dino, but your not any more knowledgeable either.

  • Bat One

    Lance,

    You obviously know whereof you speak. Which makes the conversation well worth while, regardless of whether or not we all agree. Don’t be a stranger.

  • Bat One

    H,

    O-Tay, Kid. Its probably above your intellectual pay grade, but how about YOU provide an example of economic stimulus provided by massive Keynesian deficit spending. Period.

    Or, if you’re not quite up to that, how about an example of tax rate cuts, particularly cap gains and business taxes, that have NOT had the stimulative effect. Period.

    The reason for the use of the words “long-term” was because the Obama budget projects a GDP growth rate of between 4 and 5% starting next year and continuing for the next ten years, and an inflation rate of “less than 2%” for that same ten year period. A projection which clearly requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

    The longest post WWII period with that kind of GDP growth and that low an inflation rate was the 5 years from 1962 thru 1966. Not surprisingly, this was the period immediately after the JFK tax rate cuts took effect!!!

    (By 1966, LBJ’s “Guns ‘n’ Butter” spending spree had kicked in and inflation rose from less than 1.5% t over 3%.

    As I’ve already stated, I think both projections are unadulterated bullshit, But if you think that holding Obama to his promises and projections is somehow unfair, or perhaps too complex for you, we can drop the phrase… for now.

  • Hannitized

    You can attack those of us people who question Obama’s “progressive” policies, but you are unable to defend those policies by showing that they have been effective any time in the past.

    I don’t have any problem criticizing his efforts. In fact I had in the previous post. The problem I have is with people who purport to know his policies and incorrectly label them and instead offer a counter proposal that has no historical success in its application to the type of crisis that exists today.

  • sc

    The whole problem with government spendings is that government doesn’t have any efficiency standards to live by. Also government isn’t spending their money.

  • Hannitized

    Bat,

    Please provide an example when tax cuts provided effective measure against a credit crisis.

  • Hannitized

    I see Bat has no examples of when tax cuts had an effective measure against a credit crisis of the likes we are seeing today.

    But, of course you see, he wants us to describe an example of when Keynesian politics were effective during a crisis that has never existed before in history.

    Makes perfect sense.

    Slight of hand. Smoke and mirrors.

  • Hannitized

    Bat has failed to address the original post, where the smoke and mirrors were revealed.

    To suggest, even implicitly, that the 2003 tax rate cuts should have anticipated the 2008 “credit crisis” and subsequent recession borders on dementia.

    Bat, can you make up your mind. Why do you keep going on and on about the tax cuts and their supposed effects, if you are not arguing for their use, today.

    If the tax cuts in 2003 DID not prevent the credit crisis of today, then why are you hassling me for my comments that Bush did nothing to prevent the disaster that he handed over to Obama?

    I first said he did “little”, little being the tax cuts….but “nothing” to prevent the crisis he handed to Obama. To use the term “little” is not “berating”, if my argument was about doing “nothing” for the credit crisis.

    Here is how you argued against my point.

    Bush spent 8 years saying very little about Iraq, his pet war, and little doing anything to help the economy. He just avoided doing anything because he knew he didn’t know shit about how to fix things.

    AND…

    Thank you for proving my point that the only thing Bush did was the same ol, same ol. He didn’t do anything different for fear of breaking it. His inability to lead and resolve the problem before it got worse is why we are in this situation.

    If you are wearing a suit that is losing its stitching, you re-stitch it, you don’t keep on going on business as usual, less you want to run around in a sleeveless jacket.

    To berate the proven stimulative effect of tax rate cuts is to, conveniently, ignore history. As I’ve noted, four previous presidents cut tax rates to stimulate economic growth… in JFK’s words, “get this country moving again.” And in each case, the economy responded with increased economic growth. – BatOne

    And..

    Yet tax rate cuts, which have been shown to have exactly the sort of stimulative effect that a recession calls for, those you berate as “same ol’ same ol’.” – BatOne

    So for what ever reason you are on your high horse about lifting up his tax cuts, which you now admit did nothing to help or prevent the credit crisis.

    So what is your answer to Obama’s stimulus?? Tax credits. What did they do the first time to prevent the crisis? Nothing. What will they do this time to save the crisis? Little, if nothing at all.

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

    Lance: It’s not quite like the daft supply-side argument since stimulus money is supposed to be short-term, but tax-breaks advocated by supply-siders are meant to be permanent.

    Stimulus money is borrowed to prevent/reverse a drop in demand, and tapers off once the economy recovers. Yes, I do concede that it works better in theory, but it seems that is mostly due to failures in implementation by politicians and other bureaucrats.

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

    This really isn’t rocket science. — Rob

    That’s pretty funny. You show that you have no grasp of macroeconomics, then you finish with that comment. You should get an education to prevent yourself from espousing such foolish opinions.

    While I agree that govt. spending can lead to more tax revenue, it is because the economy is larger, therefore more total income, therefore, for a given tax-rate, more revenue.

    In a closed economy, one can predict the multiplier effect of govt. spending. International trade means that the US cannot be considered a closed economy, but the globe as a whole can, hence the need for a global stimulus package.

  • robert108

    H: No sleight of hand involved, despite your attempt at lying smear. Tax rate cuts produce both long and short term benefits, while Keynesian redistribution fails in any time frame. It can’t create real economic growth, because it doesn’t do what is required to create economic growth: Applying capital to both labor and raw materials to produce a profit.

  • Bat One

    Well, let’s see. Hannitized can’t provide an example of when tax rates cuts didn’t work to stimulate economic growth, nor an example of when huge Keynesian deficit spending has been effective… but supports Obama’s wishful policy anyway.

    Meanwhile, AV can’t come up with a period of sustained economic growth to match the five years immediately after JFK’s tax rate cuts.

    No surprises here!

  • robert108

    Lance: The effect of tax rate reductions takes place at the microeconomic level, where our economy actually operates. If you’re stuck on macroeconomics, you’re stuck with seeing things from the point of view of a command economy. The strength and success of our economy comes from it being a demand economy.

  • robert108

    And I use the term “invest” very loosely in reference to the government.

    The govt doesn’t “invest”; it spends. Investment requires the taking of risk to make a profit. Forced redistribution isn’t investment, it’s theft.

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

    Also Bat One, this recession is new territory. I don’t think anyone believes anyone else’s projections. Maybe Obama just is trying to sound positive because negativity won’t encourage people to spend?

  • SigFan

    I don’t think it’s ironic; I think it’s totally logical.

    Agreed – I think this is just another example of familiarity breeding contempt. When you have been around something for so long most humans start to take things for granted. I think Americans have had it so good for so long that they have no frame of reference for just how good it is (or was if things keep going in the current direction) here. Although there were times in my life that traveling all over the world was trying, I am thankful that I gained some exposure to just about every other major country in the world and spent enough time in them to understand what their politics/ideology wrought. All I can say is that there were many times when I got off of a plane back here that I was tempted to kneel down kiss the ground in gratitude.

  • Lance

    Lance: The effect of tax rate reductions takes place at the microeconomic level, where our economy actually operates. If you’re stuck on macroeconomics, you’re stuck with seeing things from the point of view of a command economy. The strength and success of our economy comes from it being a demand economy.

    robert108: The micro data that I am familiar with suggest that households are more likely to consume if a permanent tax cut is enacted vice a temporary one. On a macro level this is reflected in an increase in MPC. If you can point me to some data that are contrary, please enlighten me.

  • Hannitized

    To berate the proven stimulative effect of tax rate cuts is to, conveniently, ignore history. As I’ve noted, four previous presidents cut tax rates to stimulate economic growth… in JFK’s words, “get this country moving again.” And in each case, the economy responded with increased economic growth. – BatOne

    Further, the Vietnam war escalated in 1967, which bailed out the global economic crisis we were about to face. No long term relevance can be associated to the Tax credits.

  • Lance

    Lance, Can you think of an instance when massive Keynesian deficit spending by a central government has actually had the sort of long term stimulative effect on economic growth that it was supposed to?

    Nope, not a single instance. Like I said, government spending only boosts GDP in theoretical models…not in reality. Reality of how it works can be observed by comparing FDR New Deal vs. Reaganomics. Reaganomics was a huge success…New Deal, not so much.

  • http://www.willisms.com/ Zsa Zsa

    No wonder Obama is taking so many people along with him. He needs supporters.

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

    Bat One: I notice you cherry picked a period from before financial markets were unshackled, i.e. the dismantling of the Bretton-Woods system. Coincidence? The post-war period, probably the most socialist period of US history, was probably the most effective at increasing the nation’s wealth too. (Except during that extreme govt spending program, often called WWII.)

    You see, you free-market, supply-side types don’t understand the difference between speculation and long-term investment. Speculation exploded following Nixon’s scrapping of Bretton-Woods. Real investment didn’t.

    Also, Bush increased spending and reduced taxes, yet the economy still imploded. I guess incompetence can defeat even solid economic theory.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 Dino2

    The post-war period, probably the most socialist period of US history, was probably the most effective at increasing the nation’s wealth too.

    Smartest thing said in this thread.

  • Lance

    I guess I misunderstood what you were getting at. I completely agree with “Individual investment is the heart and soul of our economy.”

    By temporary, I was implying a $600 rebate check vice a reduction in tax rate. People are more likely to use the rebate check to pay down existing debt or put it in the bank than spend it on items that affect GDP. With a decrease in tax rate, people keep more of the pay that they earn and are more likely to spend it on durables, and other items that affect GDP. I guess I wasn’t clear.

    Oh, and I acknowledge that you are absolutely right on my “government investing” gaffe that you called me out on. Mondays are rough for me ;)

  • robert108

    robert108: The micro data that I am familiar with suggest that households are more likely to consume if a permanent tax cut is enacted vice a temporary one.

    Non-responsive, since I made no comment on this issue. It’s not just about consumption, either. Individual investment is the heart and soul of our economy.
    Again, everything is “temporary”, isn’t it? As one famous economist said: “In the long run, we are all dead.”

    It should be obvious that tax rate cuts generate more prosperity the longer they are in effect. Duh.

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

    The economy imploded because our credit markets were over extended thanks to government pressure to loan indiscriminately. — Rob

    Not quite what happened. The Fed kept the borrowing rate very low for a long time and there was poor govt regulation of financial markets. These are two of many factors that caused credit markets to become over-extended. A classic free-market failure. Bush’s advisors should have known better.

    CEPR predicted this in 2003 .

  • robert108

    Also Bat One, this recession is new territory.

    Another false statement. There have been several worse recessions, especially before Obama started destroying wealth and piling up the debt. You’re either a liar, or too stupid to check your facts, AV.

  • Lance

    While I agree that govt. spending can lead to more tax revenue, it is because the economy is larger, therefore more total income, therefore, for a given tax-rate, more revenue.

    I believe Rob was referring to the fact that tax RATES will inevitably have to go up in order to recapture all the money that is being spent. Even with an expanding economy, increased tax rates will be necessary to pay the enormous interest rates owed on all our debt. Your economic model works in theory, but in dynamic application it fails. This is the same reason that you can’t use supply side inputs to accurately predict short term responses. In theory it works beautifully, but in application it is useless.

  • Lance

    Angry Vertebrate: First of all, the “stimulus” and budget are NOT temporary. They spend money well into the next 10 years, when the economy will have recovered. This will actually hurt the economy. If you don’t believe me, just check the report by the Congressional Budget Office.

    The argument against tax breaks is that they only work if people perceive them as permanent (hence, why the Bush refund checks failed). Furthermore, if people keep their money, some of it will be saved vice the government spending it for them. While I acknowledge all of that to be true, even if people saved 50% of the money they were allowed to keep, it would still have a more of an effect on the economy than the Porkulus Bill (see also 1980 recession). Granted I haven’t read the entire bill (although neither has anyone in Congress), in the portions I have read, I saw NOTHING that would stimulate the economy or create jobs (temporary work…yes, jobs….no). It’s all kickbacks that stipulate union workers. As you know, when unwarranted wage demands increase, it sets the stage for a supply shock leading to stagflation.

    While I disagree with you, I do commend you on having some knowledge of economics and presenting an argument, rather than just slurring obscenities like Dino.

  • robert108

    You are ignoring the self-interested actions of citizens and corporations who can individually make greater gains by saving rather than investing, exporting jobs, and speculating on failure.

    Wrong! Free people making free choices are the foundation of our prosperity. All govt takes from the private sector is lost to the prosperity-generating sector of our society.
    Saving is good, and is a form of investment, btw; something you should have learned in beginning econ. Exporting jobs is what happens when the govt imposes punitive taxation and regulation on business, and George Soros has made tens of billions by speculating on failure. It’s not the American way, unless greedy govt makes failure an attractive option, which it has done for thirty years in both the home finance market and the oil market.

  • Lance

    Oh, and tax reductions are observed in the aggregate demand curve shifting to the right (increased GDP). In theory it don’t move as much as government spending but we know that’s not the case in reality, mainly because the government can’t invest the money as wisely as the people who actually earn it. The aggregate supply curve is only affected by workforce, resources, technology, and man hours, not tax rates.

  • sayanything-5371

    While I agree that govt. spending can lead to more tax revenue, it is because the economy is larger, therefore more total income, therefore, for a given tax-rate, more revenue.
    In a closed economy, one can predict the multiplier effect of govt. spending. International trade means that the US cannot be considered a closed economy, but the globe as a whole can, hence the need for a global stimulus package.

    You are total idiot. Governments have no wealth and create no wealth. Government can only take money from someone and give it to someone else. In order to get money from the government, it has to be taken form someone else.

    If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you will always have Paul’s support. This is how democrats get elected.

  • Lance

    I meant “doesn’t”. And I use the term “invest” very loosely in reference to the government.

  • Hannitized

    the Chancellor of Germany is less of a Nazi than the President of the United States?

    ODS.

  • Bat One

    …he wants us to describe an example of when Keynesian politics were effective during a crisis that has never existed before in history.

    Sorry, Kid, but you’re wrong again. I’d be perfectly willing to settle for any example of when Keynesian deficit spending (not politics, Dumbass!) has actually been effective in stimulating economic growth.

    Of course, if you can’t provide even a single instance when it has been effective in a lesser crisis, or a more modest recession why would anyone with any sense believe it would work in a “crisis that never existed before”… hmm?

    Can’t do it, can you? You can attack those of us people who question Obama’s “progressive” policies, but you are unable to defend those policies by showing that they have been effective any time in the past.

  • Bat One

    I don’t think anyone believes anyone else’s projections. Maybe Obama just is trying to sound positive because negativity won’t encourage people to spend?

    AV,

    Laying aside the question of whether or not encouraging people to spend is good policy under the circumstances, you are apparently content to excuse Obama’s obviously bogus projections simply on the basis that no one believes anyone else’s projections? That would be a pitifully lame excuse under any circumstances, but then who else’s projections are you referring to as being unreliable, anyway? Who else prepares and submits a budget to Congress? And doesn’t the Chief Executive whose ame appears on that budget have an obligation to at least try to get it right? Or are those sorts of responsibilities only applicable for conservatives, not for rookie leftwing naifs?

  • Hannitized
  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Merkel is not just a sensible conservative in the left-leaning EU, but she grew up in the DDR- communist East Germany. So she knows a thing or two about the folly of socialism.

    I’m not sure I’d call her a conservative, but she’s certainly got her head on straighter than a lot of EU leaders.

    Also, Bush increased spending and reduced taxes, yet the economy still imploded. I guess incompetence can defeat even solid economic theory.

    You draw an incorrect conclusion from the correlation of an imploded economy and the Bush tax cuts/Bush spending hikes.

    The economy imploded because our credit markets were over extended thanks to government pressure to loan indiscriminately.

    It’s a bit amazing to see you make such blithe statements with so little concern for accuracy. Or reality.

  • http://suitepotato.blogspot.com/ sayanything-4808

    r108:

    And why is maximizing govt tax revenue a goal anyway?

    It’s not, it’s a side effect of the positive effect tax rate cuts have on the creation of wealth. If greedy govt wants to spend more of our money on wasteful social programs, it should have to do that by supporting economic growth, not by killing it with punitive taxation and regulation. Of course, wasteful social spending tends to increase the number of dependent people, which also impacts future economic growth by shrinking the population of achievers.

    And conversely, maximizing economic growth increases prosperity and opportunity which decreases dependency which obviates much of the need for social spending which obviates the need for the political class.

    Re-read my sig. They don’t want a man to know to fish, they want a man to rely on them always. The minute you don’t need them is the minute their world crumbles because they’ve wrapped their lives almost entirely around the empowerment by others depending on their largess at still others’ expense. So we should not be surprised that their ways are completely opposite what the populace thrives best on: freedom and self-sufficiency. I know who I’d rather empower.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development