[QUOTE=Algher]
Small Government - check. Tell me how the Democrats want to reduce the size of the government, please.
Lower taxes - check. Tell me how the Democrats want to keep tax burdens low.
I do not support the Republicans any more, and have not for a few years. Now - do the Democrats have something that could interest me and get my support?
[/QUOTE]
Small govt.: Pay Go is one way that worked for us - not spending beyond our means will help reduce the size of govt. debt. BTW - I don’t want bigger gov’t or smaller gov’t. I want properly scaled gov’t, and if you have a growing economy (or a shrinking one) and either a growing or shrinking population, I want gov’t that accommodates it.
Another point is sometimes the gov’t can be used as a temporary economic engine to spur growth and increase tax revenue without raising taxes. There is some talk about Dems investing in rebuilding our infrastructure such as roads and bridges etc. This would create new jobs, create tax revenue from new or higher wage earners as well as the companies who will pay taxes out of their higher profits. But yes it’s going to cost some money. However simply rolling back taxes to Clinton era levels on the highest earning 2% of taxpayers can get that ball rolling.
While no one likes paying taxes you can’t run a country without them. I think Republicans miss the point in that taxes are an investment in the country and that what really counts. Whatever the tax rate, is how EFFICIENT gov’t spending is what we mostly need to be attuned to. When investments are paying off, (which is less likely when one is trying to cut spending wholesale despite any financial successes) isn’t it reasonable to invest a bit more?
Sometimes it make us buckets of money. There are figures showing that for every dollar spent on the GI Bill after WWII, at its peak that dollar came back into the public sector as a $6 to $8 dollar return due to higher wages by vets getting college degrees or buying homes and starting businesses from gov’t loans. The Apollo program at its peak brought similar returns from spin-off technologies such as what became MRI and CAT SCAN machines, computer hardware miniaturization and improved software development, the all-weather tire, the athletic shoe capitalized on by Nike and Addidas (modeled by research after the moon boots the astronauts wore) and on and on. We’re likely still making money off of that program, aren’t we? What about investments in education, the interstate highway system, rural electrification, the Internet, all brought to you by your tax dollar?
Unless you are in that highest tax bracket there is a lot of GOP hand wringing about everyone paying higher taxes. This is disingenuous as liberals in general understand that our economy runs on demand, not the smoke and mirrors of surplus side economics which has once again in the last few years shown to have only a short term impact. Otherwise we wouldn’t be in recession, or damn near it again after 5 years time. Demand means giving the middle class the greatest spending power, not the capitalists. Capitalism does just fine, thank you very much, when wages are good and people can save and spend on big ticket items, afford a better standard of living including luxuries and money spent on charities, hobbies, and investments.
In fact, to Dems it is making a lot sense to lower taxes on most of the middle class because if you give 98% of the people more money to spend it will be a lot more direct investment into our economy than what will be spent by fat cats who already have everything they need and will likely be investing in euros or gold or likewise over the next couple of years. Much more importantly is that it also makes sense to help boost wages, such as by raising the minimum wage which will be enough to affect at least a couple wage tiers above the low end. Or raising wages by creating new jobs for a while (and I believe in sunsets to keep it from getting out of hand) that create more competition. Or sometimes business regulation can also create more competition if the regulations are those that level the overall playing field so that small businesses compete more effectively against megacorps.
Short term losses of profits from higher wages are counteracted from that very first friday that higher wages go into effect to negate the higher expenses. Businesses will try in the short run to keep from passing excessive price hikes along to consumers for the sake of competition and good business sense (not scaring customers away). While consumers on the other hand are likely to spend immediately and/or start tackling their debts for greater spending power in the long run. The same tax rate with higher wages is a win-win for me and the gov’t. We pay out more but still take more home. And higher wages with steady tax rates can even make lowering tax rates very attractive to all if gov’t spending is reduced significantly over time.
The average folk will put their money back into economy. Approximately 300,000 taxpayers own about half the wealth in this country. Why not simply make them responsible for half the taxes? When someone like Warren Buffet say he’s been averaging about 17% paid out to the gov’t, less than his secretary pays, that clearly isn’t happening. Let the other 100 million or so pay at a lower or steady rate and they’ll invest en masse, through sales and stocks, into the businesses that 300,000 own. Those on top will do just fine. In fact, they’ll still be worth way more than the rest of us.