11-05-2008, 04:05 PM
Admin Wrote:I'd actually like to read your reasoning for moving the money supply around. In fact, I'm going to have to go ahead and say that I am extremely eager for the rationale. I promise I'll retort with more than "you're wrong".
It's totally from a macro stand point, but it's how I look at the picture. I'm not very good at explaining my views about the economy, but I'll try.
I don't mind you telling me how I'm wrong.
I look at it like this: For the past eight years, the Rep tax setup has been in place. It's more fair because those who earn more money get to keep more of the money that they've earned. I agree with that in trying to keep everything "fair". A flat tax would be fair, but I don't think it works in the best interest of the economy as a whole.
There is obviously a limited size to the money supply (considering that if we continuously printed more money we would decrease the spending power of a dollar, blah blah blah - insert more economic rhetoric). If the people that are earning massive amounts of money are paying the same percentage of their income as the lower earners, they are keeping a good bit of the money supply out of circulation (I say that because these people spend a lot of money, but they also SAVE a LOT of money). taking this money out of circulation slows business in general (I know that it helps the business to an extent on the securities side of things, but I'm talking about where business truly keeps things rolling: retail, services, etc.).
If we (being the higher earners) give a portion of our income back to the lower earners, they tend to spend more than they tend to save. This allows business to continue to thrive, and will in turn help us earn more in the future. Right now, many of the top earners in the country aren't making as much money because their industries aren't earning as much. If we can give a portion of our income to the lower earners, it will not only help us out in the future to earn even more money, but it will help those in need out right now. Sometimes an extra $500 to someone who makes very little is more valuable than $10,000 to someone who earns quite a bit. I'm not naive to think that there aren't people out there that take advantage of the system, but there are plenty of people out there who take the government help and use it to genuinely help their family survive. I'm willing to give a portion of my money to help these people.
I see it as a cyclical thing. You can't keep a Rep in the office for too long, and you can't keep a Dem in office for too long. You need to continuously move the money supply from one demographic to the other.
Keep in mind that I'm still very young, and I don't know all the ins and outs of politics. This is, however, how I look at the big picture. There are tons of smaller issues that I see differently.
Does this explanation make sense?