I'd like to use this opportunity to explain to Dadloff and many other long time GOP supporters exactly how this works. I've heard this question over and over again, "How are we going to pay for all this spending?" It's as if they believe that the $787 Billion is being shoveled directly into a furnace to vanish in smoke and ash forever.

Here's how it works: Money gets spent on projects, (really anything at all), but let's say for arguments sake we're talking about building a bridge. The government hires a contractor to build that bridge. That contractor in turn hires sub-contractors who in turn hires workers in all sorts of industries to build that bridge. We're talking, architects, engineers, steel workers, electricians, pavement crews, sign makers, you name it, the list goes on and on. Thousands of people. All of those thousands of people are paid a salary. In turn that salary is subject to income taxes, so right off the bat, the government directly gets back anywhere from 15 to 30 percent of what they just spent! Now, the workers walk away with the other 85-70 percent. So what do they do with that money? Put it under a mattress? No, they spend it. They spend it on housing, food, clothing, electronics, health care, entertainment, a college education etc... Most of which is subject to some sort of tax. Sales tax, property tax etc... More money back to the Government. In addition there's a growth in demand for those very products that those bridge employees can now afford to buy. So the companies making those products see growth and growth = more hiring. And again, more employees = more tax revenue, and the cycle continues. Before you know it, the money the government spent on that bridge comes back to the government and then some. (Despite the likely prospect that somewhere along the line, some contractor might skim a little off the top, or some of that money may get mismanaged. It's an unfortunate bi-product of spending like this, but even if 80% of the money is put into this system the government will still get it's money back and then some.)

On the other hand trickle down economics advocates tax cuts (the more the better), little or no spending and very little oversight so that the rich people who now have all that money can go ahead and spend their money at will on our economy. Here's the problem, we've been doing that for the past 8 years and all we have to show for it is a stock market that got bloated selling paper possibilities, a crumbling infrastructure, health care system, etc. etc. etc. and unemployment that's higher than it's been in decades. Why? BECAUSE RICH PEOPLE DON'T SPEND MONEY ON BRIDGES!!! It's a simple fact of human nature, power and greed breeds more power and greed. All those people that were the beneficiary of Bush's tax cuts spent that money inflating the stock market so that they could turn their 1 million dollars into 2 million dollars. There's very little tax revenue the government can make on that transaction. Those tax cuts actually cost a lot of money which the government doesn't get back. But maybe someone can show me how we can get everybody who gets a tax cut to use that tax cut to build a bridge.

The answer to the question at hand is this: Obama's plan will pay for itself. That's why it's an "investment". And not an investment in the stock market sense but an investment in the industry sense. A business buys a new piece of machinery, in turn they make more product which increases their TOP line. (That's the revenue line.) More Investment = More Revenue!!!

I would suggest that everybody go to www.recovery.gov and actually read the bill. The whole thing is up there for anyone to read. The investments that the bill makes is quite comprehensive. Just the incentives and money for alternative energy alone is really phenomenal. It could perhaps help in giving our country a leg up on this industry so that maybe our scientists and engineers will create products that will revolutionize the energy production. Imagine foreign countries once again turning to us for our innovative solutions. Talk about revenue.

But, hey, Perhaps I've got it wrong. Maybe the wealthy execs at Mobil would be willing to invest their tax cuts on wind energy. ??

I do have to agree with Dadloff on one thing though. Term limits. I actually believe that the president should be limited to one 6 year term. This would give them enough time to do what they would like to do, but would also prevent them from spending the whole of their first term campaigning for their second term. And congress needs to be limited too. Maybe 2 three year terms or something.

Anyway, I hope this clears up the confusion. I'd hate for all my GOP friends to keep thinking that their tax money is being sent to another galaxy on a rocket ship.

No comments:


blogger templates 3 columns | Make Money Online