False. You will hear very few conservatives arguing consistently for free markets. In fact, outside of Ron Paul and one or two other members of Congress, there aren't any consistent proponents of a free market economy in Washington at the present.I agree. The free market is a good basis for an economy, but it is not a panacea and it must be regulated to be fair -- and to be most effective. Conservatives make the free market into a dogma. (Even the slightest tampering with the free market is BAD!!!)
Paul Krugman is not a particularly good person to mention as an authority, but the Laffer curve is pretty silly, although there are points at which raising marginal tax rates would actually lower the tax receipts. Of course, lowering taxes in order to try to raise the amount of money the government takes in is stupid, anyway. If you are a true fiscal conservative, you should be cutting taxes, cutting spending, and balancing the budget.Actually, it's greater bullshit than the previous. Paul Krugman wrote that Arthur Laffer's theory utterly failed peer review. Trickle-down economic policy was the result of a successful propaganda campaign in the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal. George H.W. Bush called it "voodoo economics " until he lost the 1980 primaries and he drank the conservative kool-aid. Trickle-down theory was an excellent excuse for cutting taxes on the very rich, that's all.
Spending money is better than saving or investing it? Since when? Investing your money is one of the best things you can do, for both yourself and the rest of society. That's how we get long-term economic growth: through new businesses and expansion and technological innovation. It's also why our corporate income tax rates are outrageous in the United States (the second-highest in the industrialized world, in fact; we tax corporations at the same rate we tax individual millionaires, which no one else really does).The thing with trickle-down is that the very rich do not dispose of extra money the way the rest of us do. They might buy another house or a jet or give it to Harvard, but they save or invest the rest. Lower-income people tend to spend extra money, which in turn is spent. All that circulation is better for the economy overall.
This doesn't even make sense. What are you trying to say here?Conservatives will say, "What about investment?" Sure, it's a good thing, but the fact remains that giving the many a little more has a greater impact than giving the few a lot more. And the money tends to trickle back up anyway.
Nice attitude. :steam: What if someone turned it around and said, "What are civil rights for, except to make minorities stop complaining?" Economic freedom and social freedom are interrelated parts, and you can't smoke-and-mirror your way to a good economy by taking half (or more) of the country's GDP through taxes and then throwing it around.I agree, and I think it is at least as much a political issue as an economic issue. Kurt Vonnegut once responded to criticisms that social programs were just pissing money away, saying "What is money for, if not to piss away?" Heh.