| Notes | Book |
I don't care much for the policies of the GW Bush administration, but I do support the tax cuts. It's true that they are benefit the rich more than the poor. But repealing the tax cuts is not the cure. We should have more tax cuts; only this time they should benefit the poor more than the rich. I know that's not likely to happen. The republicans claim they want to lower taxes. Then when they get into power, taxes do go down, but mostly for the rich. The lives of poor people get a lot harder. The democrats claim they want to raise taxes on the rich, but they get into power and then raise taxes for everyone. The lives of the rich people who are not associated with the democrats get a lot harder. Taxes keep going up and up, but that's not enough for the government. It also borrows money from anyone who will loan it.
Rich people oppose taxes, and the poor people support them. Is this because both groups are acting according to their rational self interest, or is it because people who see forcible taxation as a means of getting along tend to become poor because they endorse the crime of robbery/taxation and carry this attitude over into other aspects of their lifestyle and relationships. People who endorse crime are criminals, and crime doesn't pay. Do people who oppose taxation have a tendency to be more prosperous because they are more fair and balanced in their attitudes?
Despite the above paragraph, I think our society is organized by the rich for the benefit of the rich. The poor don't get a fair shake. That doesn't mean I think either poor or rich people are perfect, but they are different, and both are needed for the society to function. It's not that we don't need the rich, it's that we need a system that makes sure the rich are the most competent, honest, and socially responsible. Now it's too easy to get rich by being corrupt.
Everyone is an anarchist when it comes time to pay taxes, but it is hard to remember that when you are cashing a government check.
It is true that the Bush administration is putting money in one of our pockets with a tax cut while taking it out of the other by running a huge deficit, and the “bushists” are taking out more than they are putting in. This may not be a bad thing.
The more irresponsible the government's financial policy gets, the sooner the financial house of cards will collapse. After that happens, the government will no longer be able to afford all the cops, jails, lawyers, armies, etc that exact such a heavy toll from the civilian economy, and that the rest of us find so irritating and oppressive. The more deficits, and the larger deficits the government creates, the sooner the crash will come.
Of course the government could avoid all this by going on a diet, paying off the debt, and giving up dreams of world domination and total control of all aspects of the lives of its subjects. But that presupposes a government that is at least somewhat rational and socially responsible. But since the government is a criminal organization, supported by a criminal majority of the population, responsible behavior is not to be expected.
Criminals can't escape punishment forever, even if they run the jails. Criminal behavior is foolish and shortsighted because it doesn't pass the “What if everyone did it?” test. When an entire society is composed of criminals, then there is no one to do the work, and the society collapses. Collapse seems to usually occur before that point, actually. Predicting when it will occur is very difficult, but most will agree that it will eventually happen.
So if we're going to have both tax cuts and increased government spending, let's go for it and get the craziness over with as soon a possible.