In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...
“A market economy is to economics what democracy is to government: a decent, if flawed, choice among many bad alternatives.” -- Charles Wheelan, "Naked Economics"
Comments
Also, a BOOYAH! Hell ya!
The Bush tax cuts prevented the real estate bubble and the resulting Depression that we're in today
It was too good to be true...
Problem with this video: what Johnson does NOT say is that he wants to replace all of those taxes with the "Fair Tax" consumption tax, supposedly revenue neutral.
It may or may not be, but I had the same concern as to why he didn't give the rest of his usual spiel and say what he was going to do instead.
And Johnson's "fair tax" is regressive no matter how you slice it. On a percentage basis, higher-income people tend to spend less of their income than lower-income people.
And your question "But what good is income without spending it?" is silly. Did you ever hear of investing?
You should look a little closer before you claim that the Fair Tax "is regressive no matter how you slice it." Although this graph does rise less steeply above a million dollars, there is no way it can be described as anything other than progressive.
And your question, "Did you ever hear of investing?" is even sillier. You look at the surface of things, but rarely follow through to consider their consequences.
It would be impossible to invest money if nobody was going to spend that money.
See how that works anonone?