In an ideal Keynesian or Marxist world, where the proletariat can thrive at the expense of corporations, your theory might work ... Welcome to the world of transnational corporations, that are owned by the people for the people, where the means of production are located where it is financially best for the corporation.

I was never saying that any tax cut was bad, but the thing people have to understand (and stop listening to politicians who are trying to get elected) is that not all taxes are created equal; many taxes, like corporate taxes and capital gains taxes, do far more damage than other taxes because they take the money away from the people who are good at creating new jobs and new money.

Between now and 50 years Japan will be nothing anymore.. our kids will probably never understand why there were so many Japan freaks before;.

I know what Supply Side economis are.

It's just that they've been a huge failure in this country. Your very first Wikipedia link admits as much.

If the Wall Street Journal can't get behind a repiblican fiscal policy you've got a serious problem. The best way to fix the economy is to start at home first. In otherwords fix government spending.

Neither Kensyian or Supply Side economics really work so much as you need a balance between them, the current balance is way to far towards supply side.

That's a lot of rhetoric there HappySquirrel. I'm not saying that corporations are "The Man" and that we need to stick it to him, but at the same time they're not AS beneficial to or [edit: driven by] the rank and file as you seem to be alleging. And I am not as naive.

Kasz I never had a doubt you knew what Supply Side economics are. It was directed at Final-Fan.

"In 2003, the Wall Street Journal declared the debate over supply-side economics to have ended "with a whimper" after extensive modeling performed by the Congressional Budget Office failed to support the most extreme claims of supply-side policies."

I assure you my biggest problem with the government is government spending as well. 

Also on a seprate note did you get a chance to read Greenspan's article?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/edbdbcf6-f360-11dc-b6bc-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1 

Not so much Government spending so much as wasteful government spending. Well and deficit spending.

There are a number of departments i'd just outright close if I were in control. Like the department of education.

Some things only the government can do for what ever reason do to the inherent risks involved.

For example the VA hospital's healthcare is some of the best in the country due to it's focus on preventitive medicine and the computerization of files which greatly reduce screw ups.

Preventitive medicine not being covered by a lot of insurance despite the fact that it saves money and better extends lives and computerization of files not happening at private hospitals for fear of lawsuits and justifying an expense now that won't make back their money until a few years down the line.

Also the fact that since VA doctors aren't competeing instead of the "Brick walls" between doctors and HMO's and the like, VA doctors are encouraged to share opinions with each other and their patients leading to better healthcare.

Despite the advantages of computerized hospitals almost none of them are bothering to carry through, and the "brick wall" factor is one I can't find a way around myself.

I believe Bush was planning to suggest congress offer private hospitals tax credits of some sort to computerize their records. Not sure how that legislation went though.

That was something that would be helpful though ironically cause the loss of jobs.

Keep government spending slow... but never be afraid to flex government muscle to push corporate sectors towards things good for the common good that they aren't willing to do. Run a surplus so you can take the "risks" like that for the welfare of the people.

Basically run the country how Warren Buffet runs his investments.  The government should only invest in programs where they have a sustainable competitive advantage at doing things better and keep some money freed up to jump on oppurtunities(or Crisis) that require money.

I'd like to note for the record that I'm also somewhat familiar with the topics kenzomatic linked to -- though not as familiar as some of you guys, I'm sure -- and in fact I had read that very passage in Wikipedia earlier today.

I pretty much agree with that. I'll asume you were exaguration about education. It needs to stay in the gov. I think it needs major reform but as you said if you ran it like Warren Buffet or just a bussiness, it would be a step in the right direction.

Also I love Warren Buffet but he is a little crazy, Supports Hillary, lives in a log cabin. JK

My big thing is investing more money into NASA, as it puts a ton of money back into the economy and pushes a lot of our technology (the money it puts back in is through the technologies developed and spin-offs)

Well not really. I think government should stay with the government... but the State Government.

The Department of Education doesn't really do much except hamstring state governments. It wouldn't exist right now if Reagan had his way. Bush should of got rid of it since it was a key value of the republican party back then.

It was even one of Bob Dole's planks during his presidential bid.

It costs us like 50+ Billion a year and does basically nothing but cut checks, threaten people and waste resources to make sure states comply with their blackmail that often just makes education worse.