From: John Galt on
dr_jeff wrote:
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered
>> tax RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather
>> than taking money from us to give it too others. Why does the
>> government never learn from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush
>> got the Congress to lower tax RATES, the income to the US Treasury
>> when UP. BO and the Dim Congress prefer to spend money we do not
>> have to try to get the same result, not so smart. Did they not TAKE
>> Economics 101, or are they just stupid?
> Yet Bush left the country with the biggest deficit and national debt in
> history.

Yes, but tax receipts indeed increased under the lower rates. Receipts
are only one side of the equation.

> The big difference is that Bush was not spending the money of people
> paying taxes, he was spending future taxes.

Yes. But if Bush pioneered this practice, the current guy is perfecting it.


>> "John Galt" <kady101(a)> wrote in message
>> news:rZ1Im.129356$Jp1.97376(a)
>>> alt.politics.bush wrote:
>>>> On Nov 3, 4:49 pm, "God'sLittleAnus" <perryneh...(a)> wrote:
>>>>> Digest
>>>>> The Washington Post
>>>>> Tuesday, November 3, 2009
>>>>> "U.S. investment likely lost, GAO says"
>>>>> TAXPAYERS are unlikely to recover their full investment in General
>>>>> Motors or Chrysler, U.S. government investigators said Monday in the
>>>>> latest review to cast doubts that the government will recoup the $80
>>>>> billion it poured into the two automakers.
>>>>> The Government Accountability Office concluded that General Motors and
>>>>> Chrysler likely will not be valuable enough for the Treasury
>>>>> Department to break even on its investment in the two auto companies
>>>>> that went through bankruptcy earlier this year.
>>>>> The GAO also revealed that the Obama administration is closely
>>>>> scrutinizing the finances of GM and Chrysler and has set some
>>>>> requirements on production even though it has said it will maintain a
>>>>> hands-off approach on the automakers' daily operations.
>>>>> To recover the loans Treasury gave Chrysler and GM to keep them
>>>>> afloat, the automakers would have to reach valuations they did not
>>>>> approach even when they were healthier.
>>>>> GM spokesman Greg Martin said "if we get our job done, the government
>>>>> has an excellent chance of getting a return on its investment."
>>>>> Chrysler declined to comment.
>>>>> -- Associated Press
>>>> What value do you put on keeping the economy running?
>>> Are you seriously suggesting that there were no alternatives to the
>>> government investing in the automakers?
>>> JG
From: Day Brown on
John Galt wrote:
> Food stamps are the most effective way.
There is another.

> That's correct, but you're not going to reboot consumer spending in that
> fashion. This is a consumer led downturn, it doesn't reverse until the
> consumer's personal balance sheets are unwound and back in order. They
> have tons of debt to pay off before they start spending again.

Machiavelli said oligarchs always corrupt republics until they have all
the money and the masses are so broke they no longer have anything to
loose in a revolution. Which is why Solon, in setting up the Athenian
democracy, burned all the mortgages.

He also banned slavery so that the large landowners would no long have a
source of cheap labor to work the fields. Thus, land ownership fell back
into the hands of those competent enuf to work it themselves.

For similar reasons, the counties in my neck of Ozark woods SECEEDED
from the Confederate government in Little Rock. They were not going to
fight to protect the property rights of landed estates and slave owners.

Whether we like it or not, when the consumer class feels poor enuf, they
will find the leadership to seize the assets of the rich to rebalance
the books. And when the masses again feel they have some investment in
the system to protect and hand down to their kids, then they will be far
more energetic in developing the resources and assets to do so.

And whether we like it or not, cosumer/workers will form coops to buy,
at wholesale the same as corporations, whatever their members need, and
sell what they produce into the global market with a far lower cost of