- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 92,080
- Reaction score
- 91,142
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
There are three observations:
(1) ALL first-world democracies are generally socialized, and have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation, whereas
(2) NO first-world nations at all meet the conservative demands of zero socialism, small government, low taxes, and weak (if any) regulation. And
(3) ALL nations which DO have small governments, low taxes, and weak regulations ARE third-world nations.
If including socialist programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Head Start, free public schools and the like are (as conservative pundits claim) a sure way to the economic dustbin of history, why is it that America (and the British Commonwealth before us) started down this road eighty years ago (FDR's New Deal) and we've been the most successful nations in human history? Is it just an accident or coincidence? Or does the inclusion of such socialist programs actually contribute to a nation's economic health?
because making sure that the poor are able to participate in the economy is good for the economy, and the additional demand creates jobs. also, making sure that basic needs are met for everyone means a more stable society, which is also good for business.
like anything else (including tax cuts,) you have to find the right balance, though. dropping the top rate from 91 percent to 70 did a lot of good. however, when you start talking about cutting already historically low rates, the returns are increasingly diminishing. likewise, we might be able to solve some problems by sending everyone to college debt free and guaranteeing debt free access to health care, but making the minimum wage forty grand just isn't going to do much except result in massive inflation and a huge hit to anyone with savings. same thing with regulation. same thing with our stupidly high corporate tax rate. you have to find the balance.