We can not compete with poor nations since we have a higher standard of living.

Of course, we can all agree that we would choose to use that “some” amount for something other than a minimum wage hike, but it’s disingenuous to assume that they’re neglecting the war simply because they’re not focusing on it exclusively.

Glib is correct that cutting taxes is not government meddling.

After double-checking the definition of “meddle”, I’ll concede the point. I believe cutting taxes affects the economy in much the same way as the other two actions, but it doesn’t qualify as an “intrusion”, so I concede that Glib did choose his(?) words properly.

Since you also disagree with minimum wage increases there really isn’t a reason to debate that one with you.

I probably should have clarified my position.

I don’t think they are necessarily very harmful, so as far as social programs go, they’re not so bad. Especially when you consider that you only qualify to the extent that you get off your butt and work. But, given my strong libertarian leanings, I am against them in principle.

When has cutting taxes not been beneficial?

I haven’t studied the history of tax cuts, so I don’t know if there are any examples, but I did lay out the conditions under which they could prove detrimental.

We’ll probably never know, because the Democrats will almost certainly let them expire, but Bush’s tax cuts might have turned out to be an example of cuts that helped short-term, but hurt long-term. Regardless of what the Republicans say, we are accumulating debt at a rate significantly greater than we were a few years ago. A lot of the spending may be off-budget, but it is no less real.

Please, not the liberal usage of words like “probably”, “could”, and “might”. None of it is certain, or even probable, but it is definitely possible.

the Democrats have the priorities out of order.

Priorities are not so simple.

Let’s presume you decide that your family’s state of affairs compelled you to accomplish 5 tasks this month. One is extremely important and extremely time consuming. The other 4 are less important and less time consuming by several orders of magnitude.

Do you devote all of your energy towards completing the tasks in descending order of importance?

Or do you devote most of your energy toward the big task, while knocking out some of the smaller tasks along the way?

Since you also disagree with minimum wage increases there really isn’t a reason to debate that one with you.

When has cutting taxes not been beneficial? No, the war on terror is not a reason to ignore domestic issues, but the Democrats have the priorities out of order. The war on terror is a big issue that they want to run away from and put their focus on something that you have agreed is useless in the longrun.

We do agree that spending too much too fast has its consequences later on as well.

benefits of the rate cute.

Maybe I should be drinking, Glib.

The Laffer curve and its related theories show us that government spending does not have to be cut at exactly the same rate as taxes…

The only effect minimum wage will have on low income workers is mentally. They see more money in their check, … [but] [t]hey don’t see the price hikes, tax hikes, and the like all sky rocketing around them.

You’re assuming that the inflation occurs at the same rate as the pay increase. I think it’s fair to say that the income will increase with the stroke of a pen, while the resulting inflation will occur gradually over a certain period of time. During that period of time, those affected by the wage hike will indeed have an increase in purchasing power. It won’t last and it may even decrease in the beyond its original point, but the short-term impact is very real.

cutting taxes is a way to REDUCE government meddling in the economy.

Yes, it is a step in the right direction, but that doesn’t change the fact that the act of cutting taxes is a conscious attempt to alter the economy. All in all, it is an attempt that I virtually always support, but it is not always beneficial.

The Laffer curve and its related theories show us that government spending does not have to be cut at exactly the same rate as taxes, but that doesn’t mean you can cut it at any rate you please. You could easily cut taxes to an extent that blows right by the peak of the Laffer curve and into the territory where the damage from deficit spending far outweighs the benefits of the rate cut.

As I said, any change in the interaction between the private and public sectors must happen in moderation or the friction involved in the transition can outweigh whatever benefits the transition was intended to have.

Right when you characterized tax reduction as government meddling, the rest of what you say goes **Poof…evaporate**

Life must be much easier for someone who can disregard an entire argument simply because he either doesn’t agree with or understand a portion of said argument.