Raise the Hammer

Reuben >> as i see it, government involvement in the economy grew at the same time the private sector shrank -- but one did not cause the other.

Whenever government increases spending FASTER than the overall economy grows, it reduces the role of the private sector. This has to be the case, because the economy EITHER spends money in the private sector or the government sector, there is not a third sector. Furthermore, nobody forces the government to spend faster than the economy, it is a choice and a bad one at that.

>> the above statement could easily be flipped, saying that the tax rates change BECAUSE the income gap increased.

Tax rates are set by congress, but that is not the point. The point is that rich people are paying for poor people now more than they used to. The result has been an increase in lifestyles for the wealthy and stagnant wages for poor people. That's why I argue Hamilton needs less support from our rich neighbours and more of a "do it ourselves" attitude. Apparently this makes people angry, the idea of actually working for what we get/use, which ultimately makes the description of Hamilton as a BEGGAR ("a person who lives by asking for gifts") quite accurate. We want things that others work for. Tell me how this statement is incorrect.

>> If the same number of people account for an increasing share of an area's total income then of course they're going to be paying more taxes you cut-and-paste economist.

Why does this have to be the case? Is it a universal law that rich people have to subsidize less successful people's health programs, pensions, etc?

>> the main reason that government expenditures as a percentage of GDP in the states rose in 2001 was that some guys drove a few planes into a few buildings causing direct military expenditures to rise 50%

Non military spending as a percentage of GDP went up from 26.81% in 2000, to 29.88% at the end of 2008. This resulted in a smaller private sector and a slower economy. If Bill Clinton could decrease non military spending from 29.16 (Papa Bush, who also messed the economy up by increasing non military spending from 26.26% to 29.16%) in 1992 to 26.18% in 2000, there is no reason Bush II couldn't have held the line. He choose to increase government, just like his father and both of them ended up with lousy approval ratings, while Bill Clinton, who spent less on the people, ended up with high approval ratings, figure that out.