Quote:True. But, naturally, the 'real world' cannot be framed for simplicity's sake. It's okay for an ECON 101 textbook to provide a graphs and charts where they isolate one variable "and hold everything else constant" in order to help students understand basics. Not very viable for politicians playing with real money and real issues. In other words, I'm questioning his "health care reform or low taxes, take your pick" mantra. It doesn't have to be that way.
All this said, that's exactly how George Bush is going to frame his call for a massive, massive tax cut. Our economic future is at stake, he will say.
Yet, the CBO says the tax cuts being considered in Washington will have very little effect on the U.S. economy. And I believe the CBO.
Quote:BINGO. You just, in a roundabout way, proved my point. Why force those who believe a government project is a waste, pay? If you and I want to help pay for Jupiter moon experiments, then let's send in a check to help fund it. But if someone else doesn't, they shouldn't have to. Maybe they believe their hard-earned income is better suited for material inside their home (food, clothing, phone bill, cable TV, etc) rather than on hot water algae. If the Jupiter moon project goes belly up, then it proves there was no market to support it.
There is merit to this argument.
On the other hand, if the science in this country is only going to be limited to the applied sciences that market forces will pay for, then I've got to think we as Americans lose something.
It seems likely that market forces would not have paid to lift the Hubble Space Telescope into orbit. One can argue the entire space program is a waste of money. I've heard arguments from both the right and left on this, and some of the logic makes sense. The shuttle program has never really worked out as envisioned. I concede that.
But how does one put a price on the knowledge human kind gained from the presence of the Hubble Space Telescope? It is difficult to put into dollars and cents, but certainly there is a value to better understanding the history and composition of the universe.
And some of this pure science does lead to applied science.
Quote:Read up on the ideological platforms. Considering libertarians support the legalization of marijuana, legal prostitution, and gay marriages, I highly doubt their problem with this expenditure is because a pornographer is involved.
I know where the libertarians are coming from, but the wording is clearly pandering to those who would have such a problem.
Quote:Since when did the US Government get into the business of Third World health care? And some may have a different perspective over whether $170 million is "inexpensive"....
Our government supplies billions to Israel. In that context, $170 million doesn't look so large.
Foreign aid is a reality, for diplomatic and political reasons. And, in fact, U.S. government foreign aid, on a per capita basis, is much lower than that of other industrialized countries.
Quote:Before I go on, remember that it isn't an 'all or nothing' game. US charities and private donations are massive and unmatched around the world. So it's not that it's $170 millon or nothin'.
I'm not ready to assume that American charity blows the doors of the rest of the world off. Again, look at how we do on a per capita basis in terms of government aid.
But, more to the point, I think the evidence shows that charity, alone, is not enough -- certainly not at home, and the same lesson can be aborbed when considering aid abroad. Leaving charity to market forces means people will starve. If we took away all domestic social welfare programs, private charity could never fill the gap.
Quote:And while you have no problem with footing the bill, do you speak for everyone? Recall that some conservatives in the US are - for some reason or another - against birth control. You and I disagree with their position, but why should their money be thrown into a overseas fund they are vehemently against?
Shall we give religous zealots a veto on every program that might help help people?
I have a problem with this. No one is strapping a Southern Baptist into a chair and forcing him to wear a condom (kinky as that might sound). All that is being done here is to supply condoms to people who would like to use them, something that very clearly could save lives.
The same objection is raised when it comes to allowing Medicaid to pay for abortions, and I have the same problem with a religious veto used in this scenario.
This religious veto, after all, could be turned on its head. Example: Most people in New York attend public schools. Yet the state has long required local school districts to supply transportation to children attending parochial schools. For the non Catholics in our community, isn't this objectionable?
And the same relgious veto could be exercised in the school vouchers debate.
Now, don't get me wrong, New York's school bus policy has long been established as constitutional and I believe school vouchers are also established as constitutional. But that's not the issue. Medicaid abortions are also constitutional.
Quote:Well, who would be "letting"? Since the 18th century, friends, family, relatives, private charities, and/or religious affiliations have been the primary source of helping each other out. And it worked quite well, too.
I'm not sure I'm ready to return to the 18th century. I just don't accept the idea that private charity could possible fill the gap that would be created if government social programs were eliminated. I wish I had a study handy that backed me up -- I have read of such studies -- but I don't.
Quote:As for the 90s expansion, much of it had to do with Greenspan's lowering interest rates and massivly inflating the money supply (in which people got fat and happy on phony money). But that's a whole topic for another day.
I accept Greenspan's management of interest rates was perhaps the single biggest factor in the expansion. (I'm not sure how you get "massively inflating the money supply," though. I'm not an economist, but I do know that interest rates have remained low in post World War II terms). But, if you accept that too, then can't you also accept that hiking taxes on income over $200,000 was mostly irrelevant to the economy?
I firmly believe that it was. Other forces -- such as the Federal Reserve System -- were far more important to the state of the economy that the tax hikes of Bush the 41st and Clinton.
So, too, would be the tax cuts proposed by Bush the 43rd.
In the context of the Fed, tax hikes or cuts are almost irrelevant to the economy. I believe this.
<!--EDIT|RochesterFalcon|Apr 28 2003, 08:23 AM-->