I love how the attitude to taxing the rich is semi religous, that if somehow you anger the gods "something" bad will happen to everyone.
People should pay according to ability to pay, US is becoming more unequal society, so one way to address this is through altering tax.
Gov spending - like consumer spending - can be positive and negative. Is it taking money from the economy to build a bubble or build in efficiency to enable more wealth generation in the future? Are consumers buying Chinese or US goods, sending jobs abroad or keeping them in US?
Someone mentioned we moved from laissez faire ... have they looked at financial regulation? Have they looked at how Gov is allied to the financial industry?
Where are the new regulations (or even old glass steagle) to correct the problems? These problems are not here since 2006-7 crisis. This is just the manifestation of the results of a crisis of regulation and morality that began at least 30 years back. It's just been getting worse since, and where is "Big" gov to deal with it? Right here making it worse of course!
Organised wealth transfer to bring unequality to the masses.
What revolution in Politics? A change in perception by the plebs is not political revolution, it's just people copping on to the con. Does that change politics? Of course not, the Wagon of Sacred Big Gov and Vested interests whores keeps on rolling until people stop it. Most are afraid or embarrassed to interfere with their betters.
Cutting entitlement's is a dangerous proposition when you have more unemployed Americans than there are job vacancies. While I'm all for stopping leeches and scroungers, it's pretty difficult to tell people they should be working without offering them some form of employment.
Ultimately not everyone on welfare can work right now. Not because they're disabled or anything, but because noones hiring. You create thousands of vacancies then we'll talk about cutting entitlements.
Jobs: lots of jobs are created by "small business". 27 or so yrs. ago 3 of my friends whom I had worked with for years got tired of working for someone else and went out on their own, opened their own company with both borrowed money and their own money. They hired me after about a year and the business is still going. I worked there for about 22 years (until I retired). The company started with three guys, one guys wife was the typist/secretary. Now the company has offices in two cities in Texas, and about 50 or 60 employees and makes money, and pays taxes. They dont' get "bailed out" by the Federal Govt. if their company fails (like banks and auto makers).
Other small companies, restaurants, donut shops, cleaners, video rentals, animal vets, trucking companies, school districts, taxi companies, water bottling companies, oil change shops, etc make up a good deal of the American economy and stand on their own feet, and employ tons of people and contribute to the countries economic base.
I really is a good piece. Now the thread wanders.
One point in the origional post (and follow on comment on the first page) is the point of "what is seen and unseen".
That is really important in economics today. Just as it was in 1848 when Bastiat wrote it.
"There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.
1.3Yet this difference is tremendous; for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa. Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come...
As with the present, think of the stimulus as immediate consequence......but what is unseen....is the latter consequence.
//no free lunch
///'borrowed debt' spending is not more of 'what we need'