[From Rick Marken (01.03.01.1340)]
Kenny Kitzke (01.03.01.1400)--
I am sure if _you_ were actually wrong in anything you
said in your posts, you would admit it and apologize
rather than accusing Bush of being wrong. Right?
Of course.
Our elections are determined by election law, including the
Electoral College for selecting the president, not by the
popular vote or what you perceive constitutes a democratic
determination.
The electors are supposed to be selected by popular vote;
that is what I was referring to as "democratically". The
Florida presidential electors were not selected democratically
in the 2000 election. Therefore, the president was not
elected democratically.
Me:
[Rubin] said what I would have said: most of the tax cut is
going to people who _can't_ spend the money usefully (for
consumption or investment).>
Kenny:
You must though think that the Congress _will_ spend that
money usefully (for consumption or investment), right?
Yes. All Congress does, ultimately, is transfer money from
taxpayers (or holders of government debt) to lower and
middle income consumers. It is redistributing wealth. I
consider that very useful, particularly when the transfer
is of progressively taxed income to lower and middle income
families.
Any proof you could cite here?
One proof is the economic boom of the mid to late eighties.
This boom followed a recession created, in part, by Reagan's
tax cut (the other part due to excessively high Fed interest
rates). But Reagan went on a huge government spending spree
(spending for Defense) that was paid for mainly by borrowing
rather than taxation. The government transferred this money
mainly to middle class engineers (like me;-) working in the
Defense industry. This allowed increased consumption and,
thus, the production boom of the eighties. When the cold
war was "won" and Defense (government) spending (re-
distribution) declined, we got the recession of the
early 1990s.
I serve producers and work with their decision makers daily.
Not one has as much capital as they want...Most are cutting
back right now on previously planned capital investment
projects because of the economic downturn.
I'm sure that some people could use more capital right now; but
others have more than they need (as indicated by the increasing
level of unspent corporate profits). But if you are right then
a tax cut will increase investment and get the economy going.
Historically there is no evidence that this happens as a result
of a tax cut. But maybe this time.
The current economic "downturn" is almost certainly a result
of the series of Fed interest rate hikes that occurred in the
second half of 2000. These hikes also produced the expected
increase in the inflation rate during the same period. The
hikes stopped at the end of 2000 and the inflation rate
stopped rising (indeed, has been decreasing) since then (as
predicted by leakage theory).
Since the Fed has actually cut interest rates through the
first quarter of 2001 I expect to see growth in GNP pick up
again this quarter (the slow growth measures come from the
end of 2000). In other words, the economy seems to be doing as
well as it was at the beginning of 2000. The main reason for
any recent "downturn" in the economy is the action of the
Fed itself. Taxes have not suddenly caused the economy to go
south; and reducing taxes will certainly not improve the
economy (according to leakage theory). But if the economy
booms after the tax cut (and there is no government borrowing
to support increased Federal spending) I will definitely
have to revise my model of how the economy works.
If the purpose of life was mostly about money, its flow and
leakage, everyone would be interested in your model, including
me. It seems like about 6 billion other (human control systems)
are interested in something else, perhaps in controlling some
higher level perceptions than how much money they possess?
Money is simply a symbol the represents a claim on goods and
services. Life is about money to the extent that it is about
the things money represents, which is everything, including
higher order perceptions (eg., clergymen have to eat too so
they have to be paid). People need money for the food and
shelter that they cannot produce themselves. A certain
minimum level of money is, therefore, needed just to be able
to get what is needed for proper nutrition, physical comfort
and safety.
One in five (1 in 5!!) children in the USA live in households
that do not have enough money to buy adequate food and shelter.
These children live in poverty. This, to me, is a crime against
humanity because it is completely unnecessary (the child poverty
level is no more than 5% in nearly all other civilized countries;
still too high but heck of a lot better than the US).
There is no question that the crime of child poverty cannot be
stopped by letting the rich keep more of "their money". When
people paid no income taxes at all the child poverty rate in the
US was just as bad -- indeed worse -- than it is now. So to
have leaders in the US -- a country with the lowest tax rates
of any Western industrialized nation and BY FAR the highest
child poverty rate -- fighting to reduce taxes while completely
ignoring what they might be able to do about child poverty
with the anticipated surplus, is, to me, criminal.
Best regards
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com