[SeekAndFind]

Paul Abrams of Huffington Post just posted a critique of DeMint’s above statement here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/demints-statement-only-an_b_2239470.html

Anybody care to respond to this?

EXCERPT:

Perhaps the most amusing phrase is, “this isn’t rocket science,” although apparently for Mr. DeMint it is. In the very same sentence when he talks about taxes ‘taking money out of the economy,’ he turns right around and chastises politicians for spending it!

And where, pray tell, does rocket-scientist DeMint think this money is spent? On Newt Gingrich’s moon colony?

Let me help him out. We just need him to concentrate for a moment, because this is a tough one, even for a rocket-scientist. That money is spent IN THE ECONOMY, stupid.

Perhaps we need to do this at the first grade level. Since DeMint has been in Congress for so long, he must have experienced at least one round of military base closings.

OK, Jimmy, here is the question: Why does every Member of Congress who has a military base in his district, and every Senator with a military base in his state, do everything they can to prevent the base in her district/his state from being closed?

Here’s a clue: It is the same reason that Paul Ryan (R-WI) writes letters to the administration asking for stimulus funds.

Here’s another clue: It is the same reason defense contractors are worried about cuts in defense spending.

Here’s another clue: It is the same reason that Jon Kyl (R-AZ) got so hot under the collar when Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood suggested that, if he did not like the stimulus, perhaps LaHood ought not to send money to Arizona for selected projects.

I do not want to help you cheat on your test, but the answer is a four-letter word, beginning with “j”, ending with “s”, with the middle two letters also serving as an abbreviation for a doctor who delivers babies.

Not rocket science. Indeed.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

I agree wholeheartedly:

“Jobs”.

[plain talk]

In the very same sentence when he talks about taxes ‘taking money out of the economy,’ he turns right around and chastises politicians for spending it!

I don't even understand his point. It's clear that he doesn't even understand the basics of dinner table level economics. Will he even acknowledge that taking money from people means they spend less money which generate tax revenues. we really have to go back to square 1 with these people.

[Perdogg]

People here on FR were just trashing him last week. Mark Levin was whinning about him back in Septemeber, now he is smitten again.

I think he is great, but he is not interested in sticking around after 2016, at least not right now.

[Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America]

Forget any protest in Washington.. The news media needs to be confronted FIRST. They are 0bama's front line and until they're EXPOSED FOR WHAT THEY ARE AND WHO THEY'RE WORKING FOR, nothing will change.

FUCBS, FUNBC, FUABC.. They, along with CNN, MSNBC, and most websites are WHORES for 0bama. We need to track WHO George Soros has funded and is funding. ARGH!!!!

[jupiterbob]

It really is fairly simple which explains why the libtard at HuffPo doesn’t get it. No one says that the government won’t spend the money collected in tax revenues. The point is, who is a better investor, the private sector or the government? I contend that government almost always spends money on things that the private sector finds unworthy of investing in.

If that premise is accurate, then by definition, taking $1 dollar out of the private sector through taxation to be spent by the government will, on a net basis, reduce economic activity.

Take the $800B stimulus package. It is claimed that the stimulus “created” between 1-3 million jobs. That means that every job created cost between $267k-$800k. Hardly a bargain!

So, the point is not whether the gov’t will spend the money; rather, who will create more economic activity with it? I say, let the private, free market do what it does best — allocate scarce capital to productive investments rather than let the gov’t flush it!

[aquila48]

“Anybody care to respond to this?”

Try this from Miltie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrg1CArkuNc&feature=plcp

Bottom line is that yes the money gets spent either way, but there’s a couple key differences...

1. who gets to spend the money (the producer or the taker?) This has “moral hazard” aspects that are very detrimental to both the economy and society in general (rewards and punishes the wrong behaviors)
2. how effectively is that money spent. This is addressed by another Miltie video - the four types of money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RDMdc5r5z8