Howdy folks, and greetings from the great Republic of Texas! (You thought Texas was a state??? Pssshh…!)
I was a bit unsure of exactly where this, my very first post here, would be most aptly–well, posted. It’s a question of economics (“Economics Questions”…?) as they apply in actual practice on the part of the state (“Political Theory”…?) . I chose this section since I figured that it’s being titled “Political Theory” and falling under the broader heading of “Economics” made it a sufficient figurative smattering of the two…hopefully I chose correctly… [:$]
At any rate, I’ll [finally!!!] get right to my question (by the way, I should add that I’m fairly certain that I know the answer already…I’m actually most interested in a discussion of matters pertaining to and stemming from the issue in question)…isn’t the fact that, to try and “stimulate” economic growth/vitality/whatever, the government issues tax rebates (e.g., the extra rebate checks of ~$500 sent out to [most] everyone on top of their actual tax return refund check…with the stated hope that said ahem…“windfall” will in turn be spent by the recipient in order to…blahblahblah…and so on and so forth in a particularly sour, characteristically delusional, all-too-Keynesian-sounding key…) simply an admission that their commandeering of our money is economically unsound (be it more or less just as misguided in its reasoning as the theories supporting the state’s theft of our money in the first place, or otherwise…which I’m setting aside for the moment, given that it would still remain an admission of grave error, regardless)…? I mean, if letting us keep some of our own money (and, again, I won’t split hairs over whether it’s intended to be spent or saved, since the important fact is that it really wouldn’t matter since, either way, we would still be freely permitted to use it as we personally see fit) is seen as having economically positive results, then one can’t help but follow that basic logic all the way to its conclusion and suppose that letting us keep THE sum (as in, all) of our money would be sure to improve the economy practically exponentially.
(Does this seem to make sense to anyone else so far…? Just checking, because–and mind you, it certainly doesn’t occur often–but there have been two, or perhaps even three, previous occasions whereupon I was ultimately found to have been wrong/mistaken regarding something or other…so I just want to make sure this isn’t a repeat example of such egregious miscalculation on my part before trying to build anything intended to be stable on top of the concept…)
Furthermore, to hitch onto that same logic, the economic “stimulus” package can’t help but have negative consequences…after all, it is based (however [partially] indirectly…which is really only to add yet another puff of smoke to the whole mesmerizing show, I think) on funds that are gathered from us through taxation. If letting us keep more of our money has an increased positive effect on the economy than taking more of our money, then taking still yet more of our money should have an doubly increased negative economic effect. So since the stimulus bill is a program intending to spend an additional trillion-or-so dollars (by the time interest and such are added to it) on top of the trillions already collectively taken from us each and every year (not to mention the vast amount borrowed annually from foreign countries, which debt will have to be paid by us at some point), it is pretty much guaranteed to have an exponentially negative net effect on the US economy.
…and they all but come right out and say so every time they issue another economic stimulus package that deigns us worthy of a tax rebate check (which is of course the polar opposite of their current purported economic “stimulus” plan on every level and from every angle at which one could possibly observe it)!
I welcome any/all thoughts that anyone may wish to contribute on this matter…thank you…