|
Boy, John D., way to resurrect a post.
Look, I thunked, and you're missing some things I said:
1. If we go with your theory that the money is not the government's so it can't be called a "cost," then we subvert ALL taxes ever. I'll say that if you are taking this position, that's fine, but you just lost the army, the roads, and the police protection we all enjoy.
The point is simple: if the gov't took in X% of the people's income last year, and takes in less than X% this year it *is* a cost in that some services must end or the gov't must borrow money.
2. Mr. Greenspan, who is without a doubt a great man, let himself get caught up in that bubble a bit as well. But, if you believe in his pre-cognition, beware the "home market" bubble he's been mentioning for 6 months.
3. The capitalist vs. socialist argument is simple: there is no distinction. It's not a comparrison of the USA and other countries. It's a simple note that "If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...."
The systems are without a doubt quite similar. I don't care whether you call the USA "capitalism" and Norway [edit]"socialist"[edit] the only real difference is in the *amount* by which the government mixes its money with the private sector. Call the economic system what you will, but there's no real difference.
If you cite public health care, I'll point out that that's just one of several services. I can dream up lots of government money programs our gov't dishes out that those countries don't. This is a difference without a distinction.
[ 01-31-2003, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]
__________________
 
|