-------------My Friend's Comment---------------------
"So how do u plan to retire?? Healthcare after 65? Or 70 for that matter? I am taken care of through my wifes benefits, but my problem is my family and friends that are going to hit the healthcare market once they hit 65 or 70?? Based on ryans plan, the people n the plan will pay more, and with a tiny amount of social security that is given, it will go straight to the healthcare company for benefits. What about food? Clothing? Water bill? Not everybody has a family they can rely on when times get tough, where do we say we can not help them?? If I'm not mistaken, is it not n the bible to care for others n a time of need?? If I'm wrong let me know. As far as oil/gas credits, how much do u pay for gasoline n ur city?? I pay $4.29 per gallon and I'm willing to say if we can find a way to make fuel less a burden on the drivers, then money will be spent to stimulate the economy. I take u for a smart person, and always have, but when u drop the corporate tax rate, the investors go crazy and but company stock which pays the CEO's salary, and not the employees. If we can logically do something, it would be to remove all tax breaks for corporations that have a majority of their employees outside the US, and give them credits for hiring US workers to take their places, that would stimulate the economy, the money stays inside the US. If u can think of another way of stimulating the economy without removing jobs from the US because people have to earn a living wage, then by all means, please let Congress and the President."
-------------My Response---------------------
I am going to send this in a message rather than several posts because I don't feel like dealing with the word limits of comments. Your post illustrates the fundamental belief that I have about politics and philosophy. As someone who is pretty much a libertarian (small "l"), I understand clearly where Democrats and Republicans come from, how they think. I simply do not believe that they have any idea about what someone like me thinks or believes.
Before I go into policy, let me explain my fundamental, devoutly held beliefs on the theory of rights and government. I firmly believe in the Lockean view that every man is born with the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. (This same Lockean view which formed the basis for the Declaration of Independence claim that men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.")
These rights are not contingent upon the granting of government, but are a natural birthright of all mankind. Frederic Bastiat's "The Law" explains the interaction between government and mankind with natural-born rights like this. Man's rights preceded government. Government did not precede rights. In their natural state, in the absence of government, men have the rights of life, liberty, and property. They are entitled to protect these rights against those who would seek to deprive them of the same by force (murder, enslavement, theft). Rather than each man spending all of their time ensuring that their rights are not violated and they are not harmed, man formed governments and granted to governments the power and authority to protect them, their freedom, and their property. This is perhaps the most important point because government, having obtained its authority from the consent of the governed, only has that power which those who formed it had. Hence, government can only do that which those who formed it could do in its absence. If a hungry man could not walk over to his neighbor's house and take his money for the purpose of buying food, then neither can government take the neighbor's money and give it to the hungry man for the same purpose. Any other view is, logically, not based on a Lockean, natural born view of rights. If government has the power to take what belongs to one man and give it to whom it does not belong, then it is using force (the force of law) to deprive a man of his property. If any other person did the same it would be theft. Now, I know that I am somewhat of an idealistic utopian when it comes to my views on the proper role of government, but this fundamental understanding underlies all other beliefs which I have.
Now, as for my retirement, my wife and I will continue to live within our means and put aside money for retirement. We are not going to expect Social Security to be our only, or even primary, form of retirement income. My wife and I have no cable in our house, we keep our home slightly colder in the winter and warmer in the summer to cut costs. We have a small $100 TV, we drive inexpensive, fuel-efficient cars. We have the most basic cell phone plan and no texting, internet, smart phones, etc. We don't eat out too much, buy only non-name brand food, buy cheap clothes, live within our means, and put nothing on our credit cards which we could not immediately pay for. In short, my wife and I live frugal lives for the purpose of not living beyond our means and building savings.
I know that many people are not so wise and spend far too much money of the foolish frivolities of modern life. I am not no unrealistic to believe that Social Security or Medicare are going to be going away any time soon. Nevertheless, Social Security and Medicare will completely bankrupt the system if there are not reforms. By 2050, Social Security and Medicare will consume 18% of our GDP (the historical average for the past fifty years for tax revenues equal 18% of our GDP, regardless of the tax rates, including a 90% top tax rate in the '70s; see here: http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/xtotal-tax-revenue.png.pagespeed.ic.PJEixeECpG.png). That means, that without reform, every penny of federal revenue will go to those two programs and the country will not be able to afford ANYTHING ELSE. When Obama says he won't touch these programs, he is pulling an ostrich and burying his head in the sand. What Ryan's plan does is to limit the cost to the government to a "premium support" plan. Think of it this way: instead of giving the teenage girl the credit card and saying "Buy whatever you want and we'll pay for it" Ryan's plan says "Here's $10K, buy insurance." Anyone who believes that plans for that price won't exist are ignorant about the way markets work. If there are literally millions of old people with X amount of dollars in their pockets, insurance companies will ensure that there is a plan that costs X amount of dollars. Will it a be a Cadillac-style, gold-plated insurance plan? No. Will it cover the majority of seniors with adequate coverage? Yes.
As for your comment about the Bible saying we must care for others. This idea almost infuriates me. Far too many people on the left want to turn Jesus in to a socialist who believes in the government controlling the means of production and creating programs that ensures that the needy are cared for. Where in the Bible does he advocate force to accomplish the ends of which he preaches? This view of the Bible would have Jesus on the cross, speaking to John and Mary and instead of asking John to care for his mother, asking John to go around and take $5 from each of the Jews and create a program to care for his mother. Jesus told INDIVIDUALS to care for the poor; nowhere in his teaching does he advocate for forcefully taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who do not. He tells us we should love the poor and care for them, but what about those who do not wish to care for the poor? So many on the left argue that we should have the government take their money by force (the opposite of by free will) and give it to the poor. Jesus also said to be baptized. Therefore, those who do not wish to be so baptized should be forcefully taken by the government and dunked in the water in order be the type of society that Jesus wants. Such inane arguments are so logically infallible and are the same old "ends justify the means" methodology (as long as the poor are taken care of, we are fulfilling Jesus' commands, regardless of whether we are doing it in the way that he commanded us to do so). Just as we should not militarily march into other countries and force them to accept Christianity (we are commanded to take the message of Christ to the all people) for the sake of spreading his word, we should not forcefully take from those who are unwilling and give to the poor with the goal of feeding the poor. Jesus will reward those who care for the poor and punish those who do not; government has nothing to do with this.
As for oil/gas credits, I don't know if you misunderstood my point, but I only advocated for equal treatment (not special OR disparate) for the oil companies. If a local construction company buys a tractor, it is allowed to deduct/depreciate it as an expense (just as payroll is) because profit=revenue—expenses. If an oil company buys a piece of equipment, it should also be able to deduct/depreciate it. EQUAL treatment. If the price of gas goes up, such is the way of the market. The price of gas does not change my view on tax policy because I do not demonize/favor any particular industry. Besides, the "big oil" companies are almost always mid-size oil companies, the international market being controlled by large state-run oil companies. (http://www.petrostrategies.org/Links/Worlds_Largest_Oil_and_Gas_Companies_Sites.htm). Then again, why let facts and reason interfere with a little media demagoguery.
The idea that government can manage how companies spend and manage, including pay scales and profit margins, their (PRIVATELY-HELD) assets/capital and produce economic growth is flatly absurd. (By the way, government control of the means of production—capital and business—is the TEXTBOOK definition of Socialism). So much of what you understand about money and business is sadly incorrect. MONEY CANNOT LEAVE THE COUNTRY! The US dollar is good in only one country: the US. First of all, what is a dollar? A dollar is the ability to purchase a variable (ideally fixed) amount of goods and/or services within the United States. You give me a dollar for a soda, I then spend that dollar on a sandwich, the grocer then spends it on payroll, the employee then uses it to pay rent, the landlord... Get the point? If I go to South Korea and try and buy a soda for a dollar bill, he won't sell it. Why? Because he will not be able to buy anything with it. But, let's assume he does take it. Wealth has just left the country, right? Wrong. Unless South Koreans continually (ad infinitum) accept US currency, that dollar will eventually be used to purchase something from America.
Now, with that basic understanding of money (money is not wealth), let's look at the trade deficit. When we buy goods from China, we buy them with dollars. Chinese companies can only spend those dollars on American goods. To the extent we have an "trade deficit", we have a "capital surplus". It is an "accounting tautology." (http://mises.org/daily/2448). I have a trade deficit with my grocery store, but the employees of the store have a capital surplus (giving up services and receiving money). Again, wealth cannot leave the country unless we give away goods and services (think humanitarian relief).
Finally, the belief the there are no other ways to stimulate the economy besides government action is flatly refuted by all by die-hard Keynesians (even Keynes was against tax increases during economic downturns, by the way). Government extraction from the economy is what will create private sector growth. Take Bush II and Clinton. If government spending could stimulate an economy than Bush II would have been more successful as he spent WAY more than Clinton (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa543/pa543index.html). An excellent analysis of how government spending relates to economic reality can be found here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v32n3/cp32n3-1.html.
If government spending was able to boost an economy and create jobs, this chart should be much different. Rather, this chart shows that when government spends a greater percentage of GDP, unemployment is higher.
Many economists argue for government to get out of the economy as a means of stimulating economic growth (http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=224851), but that does not fit the agenda of those who believe government's job is to make our life better. Constituents want their officials to make sure that they get what they want/need. If that means taking it from those who can pay (from each according to their ability) and giving it to those who need it (to each according to their needs), Karl Marx would very much approve. I flatly refute that very thought, arguing that the purpose of government is to protect our freedom. I wouldn't want my money to be taken by a king or oligarcy, and I feel the same about it being taken by a plebiscite.
No comments:
Post a Comment