Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
The government provides services. Our economy today is more service based than it is production based. We don't have the manufacturing society that we did many decades ago.

Consumers are a vital part of the consumer economy. All businesses rely on demand, and when consumers are in weaker economic positions (as hawkgirl described herself in), they have less demand for consumer goods and services.
You just said it. The private sector is not "producing" anything.

And yet our government is thriving like never before in terms of the amount of services it provides and the amount of revenue it takes in? There has never been in history a government of this magnitude taking in and providing this many persons the amount of government services ours provides.

Bu the population as a whole is currently suffering severe unemployment. And you are asking for....and increase in taxation on the wealthy..who albeit will pass that on to everyone else.

How about we break the paradigm and go in the opposite direction? Let's not tax anyone anymore and let's get more private sector solutions.


Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
Trillions of dollars to wage wars, billions to bail out banks, and the like are not Keynsian policies. Keynsian policies are supposed to increase demand, these forms of extreme spending don't do that. It's a fallacy to lump all "spending" under the umbrella of Keynsianism.

The nation used Supply Side trickle down policies all throughout the 80's and also during the last decade, you can't claim that we are facing effects of Kensianism.
Yes...you cannot sustain an economy that both spends recklessly on war and bails out the banking industry.

Iinflating the money supply and lowering credit ratings is the dominant factor over the last 20 years is it not? Incidental "Tax breaks" on the wealthy or "supply side" is an incidental policy within a much larger structure. Keynes basic construct has NEVER been sacrificed in favor of a total supply side economy. It's still the dominant belief and it's economists have advised every POTUS since before I was born.

Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
Firing government employees raises unemployment.
So what? Unemployment currently sits at around 18% in terms of real unemployment numbers.

The Federal government is the one area that is not being affected. Have you recently read the Post article on how Washington D.C. metropolitan area have the highest median household income than anyone else in the country?

Something like 5 of the top 10 jurisdictions in America.

That is a really bad argument for trying to redirect and fix the rot in this country....that we can't reduce spending and must raise taxes or some 22 million federal employees might lose their jobs.

By the way...when the federal government employees 22 million people something has gone terribly wrong.