Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Astonishing GOP field

By: xcslewis in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Wed, 19 Oct 11 10:55 PM | 38 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix 		Msg. 06073 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 06071 by Cactus Flower)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Exactly who in government defines humanitarian aid and then who determines who qualifies for it?

Lately I have been pondering that whole Keynesian thing, taxes, deficit spending, all that. So here's a thought.

The federal government will spend around $3.7 trillion this year but only raise taxes in the amount of $2.2 trillion. So let's just whittle down the government to $1.5 trillion, print that much money and eliminate federal taxes altogether.

Think of all the time saved by accountants and lawyers, not to mention ordinary people no longer having to screw around with filing forms and tax planning.

I think $1.5 is actually too much government spending so the following year we knock it down to a trillion and the following year to $750 billion. That's less than 5% of the GDP so that would mean money growth about equal to GDP growth, so no inflation. (A sidebar, I think the economy is probably much larger than the $15 trillion estimates since a whole lot of economic activity goes unreported.)

Investments would then simply be rational economic decisions rather than political decisions and productivity and wealth would increase. A side benefit is the perpetual war machine would have to be scaled back to its proper size to defend only this country.

» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Astonishing GOP field
By: Cactus Flower in ALEA
Wed, 19 Oct 11 5:08 PM 		Msg. 06071 of 54959

I particularly liked his answers on foreign policy!

All the candidates were clapping each other on the back that they weren't going to spend money on foreign aid - to heck with them if they are poor. We don't have the money to help. We should fix our own problems first.

Okay. I can see that is a pose one might strike.

Then the question came - but what about supporting Israel? Surely this must be ruled out. We don't have the money to support other countries. They must pay their own way. Yada yada yada.

180 degrees for everyone. Of course the US will spend money on Israel. That money is sacrosanct.

Oh the hypocrisy. Suddenly the over-arching principle was that the US must support its best friend in the world with all the money it needs. No explanation why. It was just beyond question. However poor the US is, Israel has its budget secure.

Except in the case of Ron Paul. Same principle applied that he originally proposed. They should support themselves.

Pregnant moment. The other candidates - the entire room - hated him, of course. But they didn't know what to say about it. All they could do was say "we will", but not "why".

He can't win. But he was the only one who had done any real thinking of his own. The rest just flow along with whatever the Republicans they talk to are saying, without thinking whether they are being consistent.

Do I agree with him? Nope. I think humanitarian aid is well worth it for a number of reasons. I think garrisons are cheaper than wars. I think it is legitimate for the US to spend money supporting Israel if it wishes, although that wouldn't necessarily be my choice.

But I thought Paul was worthy of respect, even if I think he is wrong. For the rest, not so much. Their principle was - let's remove support for the destitute but let's support our most powerful lobby.

That's some set of admirable folks.

« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next