Re: Eliot Spitzer, antismoking leader, self-destructs

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:14:49 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:09:23 -0400, SkippyPB
>> <swiegand@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> That is just ridiculous.  The main thrust behind the Bush tax cuts
>>> was to spur economic growth.  Well it just didn't happen.  The
>>> draining of resources to overseas workers was going on before Bush
>>> gave the tax cuts.  It was supposed to stem the tide.  It didn't.
>
>"It didn't happen?" Twenty-four consecutive quarters of growth? Bah.
>
>>

Sure using Bush's fuzzy math.  Using real economic indicators growth
was damn near stagnent and now it is falling thanks to high energy
prices and a really bad real estate market.

>> A deficit budget is a tax.   That tax is much greater than the tax
>> cuts, meaning the nation had a tax increase.
>
>A budget deficit is NOT a tax until the money is collected. At best, it
is a 
>"future" tax. However, it could be paid for in cheaper dollars - due to 
>inflation - and not as great as it seems. Further, if the tax cut yields 
>greater wealth than the deficit, it can be thought of more as  a
profitable 
>investment, than a tax.
>

You are delusional if you think the deficit doesn't have an effect on
today's money.  Our huge deficit is the main reason the dollar has
sunk to new lows against every other major currency in the world.
Yeah, it is not a tax that was passed by the congress and signed into
law, but it has the same effect.


>Suppose the government delays taking $1 from me for five years. In that 
>time, the $1 multiplies into $10 due to increased wealth. It seems to me
the 
>economy is $9 wealthier than had the delay not taken place.
>
>The difference in thinking is this: Some believe the amount of wealth is 
>fixed and just needs to be better distributed. Others, like me, hold that

>wealth can be created. The government doesn't create wealth; it just
moves 
>money around (in some cases the government actually destroys wealth).
>
>

The government doesn't create wealth?  The stock holders and board
members of Halliburton say hello.


>>
>> And spending money overseas does not help the domestic economy.
>
>I just can't believe what I'm reading. This is madness.
>
>If my company buys raw materials from overseas for $1 and turn it into 
>something that we then sell overseas for $5, that seems to be a net of 
>$4.00. That is, $4 of wealth has been created.
>
>Let's take an extreme example: Bauxite.
>
>There isn't much easily available Bauxite in the U.S. In the interests of

>"helping the domestic economy," we could demand that only domestic
Bauxite 
>be used in the manufacture of Aluminum. But then a beer can would be more

>valuable than the equivalent weight of gold!
>
>Does anyone seriously want to plop down a $500 deposit on a six-pack of
suds 
>in pursuit of "helping the domestic economy"? 
>

Pretty bad example as bauxite has never really been available in the
US.  Countries such as Australia, Guinea, Brazil, Jamaica, India and a
few others hold most of the world's reserves.  

Regards,

          ////
         (o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"I wan' all dem kids to do what I do, to look up to me. I wan' all the
kids to
copulate me."
--  ex-Chicago Cubs outfielder Andre Dawson on being a role model
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve