reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
You are a fascinating character and I'd like to see what happens if we try to extend our conversation a little further. Three issues come to mind
immediately. They may not be the most important, but it might be fun to start with them.
1.) Taxes are going down or are at all-time lows.
2.) We need to get people off welfare and food stamps, which can be done by
3.) Spending more money on infrastructure projects.
1.) Well, of course, taxes are taxes, I'd never deny that. For our purposes, a little broader definition might be useful. How about "Taxation is
the act of a government taking money or value from an individual or group of individuals, which can not be avoided?" The reason I'm going that way
is that I believe printing money, borrowing, and taxing, are all forms of taxation.
Consider the excessive printing of money. That causes inflation, meaning the money in circulation isn't worth as much any more. Everyone working in
dollars loses a bit of the value of their currency, which is transferred to D.C. A tax, in other words. When the government borrows money it
proclaims, "We will promise that our children or grandchildren will pay this debt." In essence, it's a tax on future generations. And, of course
taxation is taxation.
The single number that combines all these different taxes is "government spending." That tells you how much taxation has occurred. And everyone,
knows that the budgets under Obama, starting from the 2009 one (If you don't know why, just ask) are monuments of towering government spending. In
short, taxation, in the broad sense, is higher under Obama than anyone else could have imagined.
2.) "We need to get people off welfare." Do you really think that digging ditches, and filling holes isn't
welfare? And the idea of
taking the homeless or jobless and making them teachers in order to solve the unemployment problem is, frankly, stunning. If these people were put to
work on infrastructure, the Unions would demand their workers be hired first, and if there were any more workers needed, they would have to be paid at
Union wages with Union membership dues.
We've moved past the time when we need a hundred men to spread asphalt, or break up old roads. We have machines for that now. Those workers would
be welfare cases and everyone would know it. The only difference is that they would have to get hot and sweaty before they got their welfare
One of my favorite stories involves a salesman for heavy construction equipment, on a trip to China to make some sales. He is shown their current,
major road building project and notices that the workers are using picks and shovels to clear away a very large hill. Sensing a sale, he tells the
foreman that his company's equipment could reduce the men required for the job from 600 to 8, and could get the job done in a tenth of the time.
His host smiles at him in a condescending manner and says, "You do not understand our culture. We are very old and have learned that having men
employed is much superior to them being laid off. We have a terrible unemployment problem as it is."
The salesman looks at the Chinese with their shovels, turns to the foreman, and says, "In that case, perhaps you'd be interested in our company's
line of teaspoons."
3.) The importance of spending more money on infrastructure work. This baffles me most of all. Have you forgotten that Obama's stimulus program
choked a TRILLION dollars out of the taxpayers? There doesn't appear to be any significant result. As Obama said "It looks like there aren't any
shovel ready jobs." There aren't now either. So, what happened to the money? The estimates I've seen indicate that about 3/4 of it went to Obama
supporters. Construction unions, teacher unions, Google, environmental groups, and democrat political officials. But whoever ended up with it
didn't provide any benefits to the country. And to do the same thing again strikes me as criminally naive.