Thomas Paine? He was a "tea bagger" that wrote a pamphlet he called 'Common Sense'. It is not like he was a wealth of knowledge on the subject of taxation. He supported taxation, never went into details. (ie: tax structure). BTW he also believed that an employer already paid taxes & employees paying taxes is double-taxation. Yet he supported the concept. James Madison was almost an extreme liberal. Just because they were alive at the foundation of our nation does not make them conservative and/or great thinkers. Madison had some progressive ideas on property ownership and resulting taxation ...that is about it. However he did not develop those until he almost lost his families estate do to tax issues.
Now, with an 18% rate ...if I make 100k, I will pay about 18k in Federal taxes. If you make a mil ...you will pay 180k. Simple math tells you who pays more. There is absolutely no need for anyone to pay a higher rate than another ...for ANY reason, aside from punitive measures. (ie: illegally acquired funds, or poor business practices). It is simply does not promote capitalism. It is nothing short of Feudalism. So why is it you have no issue with one person paying a higher tax rate than another, but you do have an issue with tax breaks? Both are equally unfair. Tax breaks can serve a purpose in building the foundation of an economy, or as a reward. The issue is that they do not require distribution of the funds in many cases. For example ...a donation. Simply put, it is an individual's duty to support the government, not the other way around.
As to war, there have been many more wars other than WWII, so do not use it as your sole guide to war time economies. I would stop short of saying that people are working to support the war effort. People at home are working to fill a void left by those workers that went off to war (took another job). This is what stimulates the economy. Prior to 1900, the US did not have much of a military. Men banned together to defeat invading armies, then went back home to the fields. Prior to WWI, most women lost their estates when their husbands, and hands, went off to war and were killed. Women (as a whole in the US) did not work prior to WWII; neither were they in the military. Their husbands stopped working at the mill, and instead went to work fighting. Yes, being a soldier is (and always has been) a job. So most of the WWII expansion of the work force came as a result of these wives taking jobs they have never had before. So, the war becomes the recipient of this expansion (or economic growth) ...it simply absorbs the excess. The issue was when the soldiers came home, they had no jobs to come home to, when they were "laid off" by the US military. Women became empowered and did not give up these jobs that their male counterparts previously held. Being brand new employees, the average wage was less than those of their male predecessors, so the companies did not mind keeping them. The government paid for businesses to retool for the resources needed to fight the war, but two issues:
1. Most businesses had to stop producing what they had before the war, so this was a loss of product and resulting capital. In other words, the profits made because of the war only covered this up. The burden shifted to the government.
2. The government did not pay to have the shops re-tooled back to the way they were prior to the war. Nor were these businesses reimbursed for the profits lost from #1 above.
Of course it would be unpatriotic to think that the government should have to pay for the loss in economic growth. However, it does not mean that the resulting depression would be any less.
Of course, a slow economy by definition means people are not spending. However increased government spending will never act as a catalyst for anything but larger government. (I guess you could try to force them to hire more people with it, but good luck). Where as lack of government spending will always act as fuel. It acts as fuel for the reduction in size. The only way government spending can stimulate the economy is to pay it directly to it's citizens ...aka welfare. At this point the government is powerless to ensure the money is spent ...this is the foundation of supply-side economics. Now they could also give this increase in spending directly to businesses, but since there is no direct dollars to give, they can only decrease the businesses tax requirements.
You are right, but only to a point, on our government being an insurance carrier. Your term "insurance business" is more accurate. You act as though medical coverage (or health care) is some sort of entitlement? This could be the fundamental difference between us. I completely disagree, and that is not what medicare was designed for ...that is what it has become. People die ...it is a fact of life. As to your infant rates, that is just a sob story. Even the United Nations (which hates the US) has us ranked 34th in the world at 6.47%. That is quite good, and it is because we are a welfare state that we are even that high. Prior to welfare, our infant rate was over 39% ...which was actually still quite fantastic for the time. Why? Because we had advances in medicine acting as a catalyst to stimulate fair pricing.
Use aspirin as an example. In the history of medicine, no other drug has done more to heal and save lives than simple aspirin. Yet the battle that aspirin caused is legendary. Most everyone wanted it to be regulated as a drug. Yet, without regulation, a bottle of 500 has a price of about .79. Why should any common drug cost any more? Yet it did cost much more prior to 1915, when it was first available without a prescription. So why is it that the drug cost so much more in Britain (including Canada)? Regulations. The US medical community has improved beyond aspirin because of this.
We have to analyze our beliefs objectively and not just listen to the echoes of others who agree with us. And yes it is sometimes painful to read the truth especially when it challenges what we would prefer to believe.
Great statement!! The reason that I posted in the first place is because both sides on this issue are guilty. My beliefs, Lecter's, and yours can all be wrong ...or right. I will never agree to anything being controlled by the government for non-punitive measures. I expect everything to paid for in full and fair. Now if you feel that many things in today's economy are unfair (and the government should step in) ...now we are on the same page; but changing the foundation of our economy is not the solution.
