tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046628493283608233.post3255327066344086936..comments2023-10-29T05:29:58.599-04:00Comments on Right-Side-of-Lowell: PoliticsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046628493283608233.post-86308595737612075882012-06-13T20:11:06.870-04:002012-06-13T20:11:06.870-04:00I think our economic problems run a lot deeper tha...I think our economic problems run a lot deeper than spend vs. retrench. If we look at our economy as a tank full of water a few decades ago, it was at full capacity. Much of the rest of the world was a much bigger tank, running half full or less. Then we decided the time had come to be a world economy, and the two tanks were linked. As in physics, the water in the tanks drifted toward equilibrium, and the water in the small tank dropped much more than that in the larger tank rose. So we had a reset in our standard of living, while others rose a bit.<br /><br />That water transfer is a reflection of our trade account deficit. That peaked at about $800 billion per year 4 years ago, and has mildly recovered to about $500 billion currently. The water is still flowing from the small tank to the big tank.<br /><br />Putting more water in the big tank will do little to raise the level if the spigot remains open. That is why tax break stimulus does not work, as much of the extra money in the hands of consumers flows through that spigot.<br /><br />Targeted spending may be blocked from that spigot and could help raise the level in the tank. But it is difficult for government to make wise decisions, especially with so many special interests competing for the money.<br /><br />I believe that the only way to preserve the water level in the smaller tank is to set tax policy that rewards work and productivity, and properly reflects the true cost of consumption whatever the source of the material being consumed.<br /><br />That is a smaller spigot to the big tank, and some productive input to the smaller one to keep pace with the drain.JoeShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12398638395224775006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046628493283608233.post-21070735153971062322012-06-13T18:01:59.342-04:002012-06-13T18:01:59.342-04:00My objection is when the joint decision to be made...My objection is when the joint decision to be made, by and between supporters of two opposing choices, is put second to defeating the preference of ones perceived opponent. This doesn't mean that we don't each contribute our best effort towards what we feel is right in your example. What it does mean is that we don't reject and oppose the ideas and merits of our opponents' case simply because they are our opponents, as has turned the Wisconsin political sewer. (And the Republicans there are no better just because they "won").<br /><br />This CAN'T be about partisanship. It has to be about good government.Craig Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09824029248081902170noreply@blogger.com