Quote:
Originally Posted by Copes
General question for discussion, since we're on this route. Not related particularly to this budget.
What results in more spending? A large government which employs many, providing more lower-class and middle-class jobs OR a small government with low cost to operate, allowing for reduced taxes to businesses and citizens, and ultimately more money in the pockets of any working individual?
|
Keep in mind our reality: we exist in a globalised economy.
Small government = people are not going to get the services they need. Even though taxes are reduced for businesses, those businesses often invest outside of the country. With reduced public services and increased private services, the costs of most things goes up -- so in the end the average citizen is NOT saving money. Instead, more of the money is going to private businesses.
This is not sustainable in the long-term. Eventually, personal debt becomes overwhelming for the average citizen, and then private businesses complain that no one in spending... so they stop investing... they begin firing employees... this triggers a recession.
Capitalism must always be accompanied by at least a modest presence of socialism. If not, the money is eventually monopolised upward, and the system burns itself out. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer.
While CEO's of businesses may complain that socialised companies keep commidity prices low (which is good for the consumer), it also forces the CEO to accept a slightly lower pay than the outrageously high income the CEO would award himself/herself if that public presence was not there.
In America, people privately own hospitals and get rich off of human suffering. That notion is incredibly fucking disgusting.
In America, many people cannot afford the extremely high cost of healthcare.
That is why I view America as a morally bankrupt nation.