But despite the mass of empirical and mathematical evidence that this is true, left-tards still insist that the state and federal governments need to raise taxes to balance the budget. Read and laugh.
Much of the conservative commentariat have written that the government should lower taxes, but with the deficits that we are running, and the stagnation that our economy is facing, I don't see this as a viable solution.At times it is tiresome, if exceedingly easy, to continue smashing up intellectual terd like this time and time again. Moreover, the above statement not only betrays the logic presented above, but makes the egregious implication that lowering taxes should not be the response to an economic stagnation. She elaborates further.
While many insist that we have to lower taxes, the hard reality of it all is that we cannot afford to, our economy cannot afford to. People have stopped spending, so the government has to take their savings and spend it for them to stimulate the economy.... What most conservatives don't take into account is that the money taken by taxes doesn't vanish without being put into some goal. You may have guessed it, I am a government employee, and my money is just as good at stimulating the economy as the money of the cashier at McDonalds or that of any other private sector job.Her vicious rant turned from being a laughable but somewhat coherent argument into downright self-parody. One wonders what mental disease made her write that. She makes 4 errors in 4 sentences. Lets examine them one by one.
1. While many insist that we have to lower taxes, the hard reality of it all is that we cannot afford to,
Raising taxes will only work in the short-term, as the productive sector will suffer and the reckless policies will still be extant to drain the system. Lowering taxes and reducing spending for everyone is the only viable option at this point. It may hurt for some people, but what pain it will induce is vastly preferable to the inevitable consequences of the current projectile.
2. our economy cannot afford to.
Of course it can.
3. What most conservatives don't take into account is that the money taken by taxes doesn't vanish without being put into some goal.
Quite possibly true to some extent. Although nobody would be foolish enough to deny it if directly asked, many make this assumption while making an argument. However, the relevant point is not that government money isn't used, but rather that it isn't used productively or based out of necessity.
When presented with no internal motivation or external impetus to do well, it is highly improbable that I will put in anything beyond minimal effort and that I will reach neither my productive nor creative potential. Left-libs can learn alot from their own experiences.
4. You may have guessed it, I am a government employee, and my money is just as good at stimulating the economy as the money of the cashier at McDonalds or that of any other private sector job.
She commits an error here by confusing a single aspect of a transaction for the whole circular flow. Her spending - and saving - may very well be just as economically stimulating as anybody else's, but the salient point is that where and how the money was acquired differs in that her's was a result of paper-pushing whereas the other's was a result of providing a service that was genuinely desired. The economic cost of her job is one not only of malinvestment, but one of opportunity; because she pushes papers, she cannot do any of the other billions of jobs that would be vastly more societally riching than the one she is doing now.
You know, out of all my critics in the various intellectual fields I fence in, religion, economics, feminism, decline and fall, it has to be the ones that fall into the left side of the politics debate that are the most stupid, and perhaps most unrewarding in demolishing.