State Of The Union

[DuncanONeil]

Maybe not politics, but Government.
The basic point is the Government does not produce anything, although it does consume. On the basis of that it spends and others make money from their neighbors.
The attempts of this Government to "boost" the economy can be considered smoke and mirrors. Virtually all that has gone out has gone to social service groups or local governments, as a one time income. Even if they used this money for new hires, government jobs, who pays for it next year? The locals from an increase in taxes. Or the feds have to increase taxes, or the deficit, to fund it again.
The issue revolves around the fact that a business produces a product that creates income, a Government does not, hence any of its spending does not create income.
Now here comes the challenge, you claim this is a dichotomy and yet expect me to provide evidence that it is true. You have made a claim without any refutation. Therefore the original statements still stand.
You posit that I; "seem to support the idea that tax cuts generate wealth for governments yet you can't support the idea that governments spending money to drive the economy generate wealth for governments". It should be clear that both of these can not be true. When business has excess revenue it can do all of the things I mention previously. When the Government takes that money business can do none of those things. Therefore only one instance can create an increase in revenue to the Government. Past practice has shown that Government can not control, what can be called nothing else, its greed for money. The worst example was when Congress began to raid the Social Security Trust Fund. Which I believe is going red this year!
Deficit spending is what they tried in the 30s! Took 30 years and a World War to fix that solution. My parents lived through that I do not desire to emulate them!

"ALSO PROVIDE A SOURCE FOR YOUR ARGUMENT"
Which argument? And what facts are you challenging?

So basically according to you when business spends money it creates work for people and when government spends money it doesn't. You have presented no evidence at all for this false dichotomy. You seem to support the idea that tax cuts generate wealth for governments yet you can't support the idea that governments spending money to drive the economy generate wealth for governments. Interesting. Seeing as you don't advocate deficit spending in a recession I'll just be happy you don't have a career in politics. ALSO PROVIDE A SOURCE FOR YOUR ARGUMENT.

[SadisticNature]

Not only do you continue to argue your point without a single source, but you now expect me to source my challenge to your argument when you won't source either your arguments or your challenges to my arguments in this or other threads. This is a ridiculous double standard.

Furthermore you hold: The original statement stands. The original statement fails to stand because it contains a bunch of unsourced, unproven claims.

As for economic growth:

Even one time income for social service groups does create income for other businesses. Grocery stores make money because welfare recipients spend money there. Government workers spend their money on various goods in their communities, etc. In fact, in many cases the government can create faster cycling of money because it can distribute wealth into ways that encourage spending rather than saving, and spending drives economic growth at a faster rate than investment or savings do. The rate of money changing hands is a primary economic driver.

Taxes->Government->Social Security Recipients->Businesses providing essentials
is a rather quick turnover that drives a lot of economic spending.

Maybe not politics, but Government.
The basic point is the Government does not produce anything, although it does consume. On the basis of that it spends and others make money from their neighbors.
The attempts of this Government to "boost" the economy can be considered smoke and mirrors. Virtually all that has gone out has gone to social service groups or local governments, as a one time income. Even if they used this money for new hires, government jobs, who pays for it next year? The locals from an increase in taxes. Or the feds have to increase taxes, or the deficit, to fund it again.
The issue revolves around the fact that a business produces a product that creates income, a Government does not, hence any of its spending does not create income.
Now here comes the challenge, you claim this is a dichotomy and yet expect me to provide evidence that it is true. You have made a claim without any refutation. Therefore the original statements still stand.
You posit that I; "seem to support the idea that tax cuts generate wealth for governments yet you can't support the idea that governments spending money to drive the economy generate wealth for governments". It should be clear that both of these can not be true. When business has excess revenue it can do all of the things I mention previously. When the Government takes that money business can do none of those things. Therefore only one instance can create an increase in revenue to the Government. Past practice has shown that Government can not control, what can be called nothing else, its greed for money. The worst example was when Congress began to raid the Social Security Trust Fund. Which I believe is going red this year!
Deficit spending is what they tried in the 30s! Took 30 years and a World War to fix that solution. My parents lived through that I do not desire to emulate them!

"ALSO PROVIDE A SOURCE FOR YOUR ARGUMENT"
Which argument? And what facts are you challenging?

[DuncanONeil]

I made a specific request that was ignored. Something I also consider a deflection technique of the left. Used until the original argument is lost and it becomes about the argument rather than the point.
What in heavens name are you talking about?

Government largesse will not, repeat not result in economic growth. The grants for welfare are the modern equivalent of; "give a man a fish". You feed him until the "fish: is gone than he returns for more of your "fish". Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life. Further, as your diagram shows, your economic model begins with taxes going to the Government. This money is money that is not available to GROW the economy. It provides for stagnation at best. And tends to lead to a situation where the Taxes begin to decrease. Such a decrease leaves the Government with two choices; increase taxes, (which increase the downward trend) or cut benefits (which does nothing for the economy at all.
As far as encouraging spending. Examine the "stimulus" money, most of which has yet to reach outside Washington, and you will see it did two things. Buy a single project or provide for a continuing project where future spending must come from the states. And all of the jobs are in the government ranks. The "stimulus: is only stimulating government!
True the economy seems to be based on spending but investment and saving are more durable than spending as the increase more than spending. To increase the economy by spending requires a steady increase in spending, that requires a steady increase in funding. Where is that funding to come from? Investment creates future funds!

Not only do you continue to argue your point without a single source, but you now expect me to source my challenge to your argument when you won't source either your arguments or your challenges to my arguments in this or other threads. This is a ridiculous double standard.

Furthermore you hold: The original statement stands. The original statement fails to stand because it contains a bunch of unsourced, unproven claims.

As for economic growth:

Even one time income for social service groups does create income for other businesses. Grocery stores make money because welfare recipients spend money there. Government workers spend their money on various goods in their communities, etc. In fact, in many cases the government can create faster cycling of money because it can distribute wealth into ways that encourage spending rather than saving, and spending drives economic growth at a faster rate than investment or savings do. The rate of money changing hands is a primary economic driver.

Taxes->Government->Social Security Recipients->Businesses providing essentials
is a rather quick turnover that drives a lot of economic spending.