Wait. That's not entirely true.
Liberals' ignorance of economics is something I take for granted. Mind you, not all liberals are economic morons. But far too many of them are, particularly many of those in government. That ignorance has also spread among far too many of the rank and file liberals. You know the ones I mean.
Rather than wasting time going trying to describe this in detail, let me show you how at least one of them thinks.
The comment below was in response to this Jonah Goldberg op-ed piece in USA Today that asked the question “How much taxation is too much?”
At first I thought this commenter was being sarcastic. But then I realized he was serious. It also shows how much of a moron he is, at least when it comes to economics and who pays taxes and how much they pay. This guy has bought the “rich-are-bad/greedy/thieving-people-who-steal-from-the-poor-and-pay-no-taxes” canard hook, line, and sinker.
The problem is that that we liberals are SMARTER than conservatives and realize that in a society we HAVE to pay some sort of remuneration to the government for them to do things that private citizens cannot do or afford to do themselves.
Such as building roads, building bridges, fixing those two things, building numerous other things that I could go on for HOURS and not get them all, as well as fund an Army for our defense (though we don't need a STANDING army with nuclear weapons now).
Taxes do not 'choke growth'. If they did, the periods where taxes were the highest wouldn't be the periods of the most growth in our economy... guess what, THEY ARE!
Clinton: higher taxes, MUCH higher growth, people making sometimes 2 times what they used to make.
Bush the 1st: No growth.
Bush the 2nd: No growth.
Ronald Reagan: No growth really (yes, look at the FACTS, he didn't have any real growth except with what the GOVERNMENT was spending).
Need I keep going on?
Yes, taxes at too high of a level can 'choke growth'.... however, we are nowhere damned well NEAR that on businesses! Hell, most of them only pay about 5% in taxes a year after all their deductions.
No, the problem is not high taxes.... the problem is LACK of high minimum wage laws, LACK of job protection laws (no firing without a very good reason), LACK of numerous other things, including an extremely HIGH tax rate on people make over 10 million a year, even on 'investments'.
Right now, more and more money is being concentrated in the hands of the super-rich and businesses, to the detriment of the poor and middle class. It's time for that to stop, and for the Republicans and conservatives to realize that their 'capitalistic dream' has turned into a predatory capitalistic nightmare, and that we need to SWING THE BAR back towards some socialism and citizen protection.
But the biggest clue this guy just doesn't get it it his pronouncements about minimum wage, job protection, and taxing the rich.
First, I have to ask what he means by a lack of high minimum wage laws? Does he really think that if minimum wage is raised even higher than it is that it will somehow solve one of the problems of the working poor or those working entry level jobs? Obviously he does. But if he looks at what happened after the last three minimum wage boosts he'd see the number of minimum wage jobs went down as business owners found they couldn't justify hiring the same number of people as they might have otherwise. The very people the higher minimum wage was supposed to help had just the opposite effect. Strike one.
...the problem is LACK of high minimum wage laws, LACK of job protection laws (no firing without a very good reason), LACK of numerous other things, including an extremely HIGH tax rate on people make over 10 million a year, even on 'investments'.
Second, what kind of 'job protection laws' is he thinking about? Does this moron think that laws like those in France will somehow solve unemployment? Perhaps he should ask the French how well it's worked out for them. With laws making it very difficult to lay off workers, particularly when there's no work, businesses are reluctant to hire. Instead, they try to make do with the employees they already have or outsource the work elsewhere. Unemployment remains high in general and is even higher for the younger members of French society. The very people the job protection laws were supposed to help had just the opposite effect. Strike two.
Third, what does he mean by 'extremely high tax rate' on the rich? Does he mean 90%? 95%? 98%? In the end it doesn't matter because if the taxes are high enough the rich will leave, taking their money, and the jobs that money provides with them. All one needs to do is look at the UK during the 1970's, when the so-called 'wealth tax' was 98%. Those making enough to be taxed at that rate didn't stand for it. They pulled up stakes, took their money and their companies out of the UK, and the British economy collapsed. High tax rates are an effective incentive to stop the economic activity being taxed. As Chief Supreme Court Justice John Marshall warned us, “The power to tax is the power to destroy.” The revenue extremely high taxes were supposed collect had just the opposite effect. Strike three.
This guy also has also got to start use Google considering he rewrote the economic history of the past 30 years, giving President Clinton credit for the work of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush while downplaying the economic growth during most of George W. Bush's time in office. (He conveniently forgot the little disturbance on 9/11/2001 and the economic bubble created during the last couple of years of Clinton's time in office that burst in February 2001 - the so-called “dot-com” debacle – less than a month after Bush took office. Millions lost their jobs when the dot-com companies employing them collapsed. Millions saw their investments in Internet companies disappear overnight.)
What saved Clinton was the 1994 mid-term elections. The GOP took control of Congress and forced him to move to the right economically, allowing the economy to continue the growth started during the Reagan Administration.
Unfortunately the viewpoint expressed by the commenter reflect the beliefs of far too many rank-and-file liberals. And contrary to his beliefs, liberals are not smarter than conservatives. Both have their share of idiots. But fiscal conservatives don't suffer from the economic delusions afflicting liberals.
I could spend another few thousand words explaining why this guy is wrong and why he's an idiot, but I've got better things to do than trying to correct this economic mental defective.