Ripsnort: Have you watched the economic numbers and the figures over the last year? Do you have proof its blind? I have proof its not blind. Put up or shut up.
I am not here to denigrade Bush but rather the general economic assumptions of all post-1929 administrations.
Taxes are goods that he government distracts from the private economy. Those goods are spent on government projects.
If the amount of spending is not decreased, it means that the amount of taxes confiscated from the private economy has not decreased.
The tax breaks that we got are just money. We got tax breaks, the government increased spending. But where did the resources come from? Money are not resources. They are not consumed or ised for production. Money are used to facilitate exchange of resources. It's a claim for resources.
When government creates money, it's the only entity that gets "something from nothing". It creates more claims on the same amount of resources and thus reduces the value of the existing claims.
Basically, the government stole value from a person's retirement account in order to lend it to a businessman who would temporarily give the job to the same person. Temporarily becasue the project will most likely fall since there was not enough resources to start it before and none were created and nobody was willing to extend him credit on merit untill the new money was created. Basically, a person payes for his own salary with a lot of waste involved.
It has been done by all governments. We are in a regular business cycle - somewhat influenced (but not entirely controlled) by Greenspan.
Ripsnort, employment is expence. Expense and employment are only good if they result in more value produced than spent. No private business would show increased expences as a demonstration of it's progress. Only the profits.
Your blind faith is in believing that any expence of an artificially- caused boom are bound to result in profit. It does not.
You have no basis for such opinion.
miko
