Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver concerning OrphanWorksActof 2008

[Matthew Copple]

On 8/13/08 10:56 PM, "Jim Herrmann" <kclug at itdepends.com> wrote:

> What has busted the budget is an illegal war entered into using known lies
> by an administration that should be tried in the Hague for war crimes and
> crimes against humanity.  Eliminate the war spending, which is borrowed from
> China, and you eliminate about half of the deficit.  Eliminate another 20%
> of a military budget that is larger than all the rest of the world combined,
> and we have a balanced budget.  Unfortunately, the next president, Obama,
> has been doing a bunch of sabre rattling about Afghanistan.  That won't be
> cheap.  So, I don't hold out much hope for that 20% reduction I'm talking
> about, but at least he'll get us out of Iraq soon.

Naturally, Medicare and Social Security wouldn't have anything to do with
the deficit, right? Why make hard decisions when you can sit comfortably in
the armchair and blame everything on a nasty little war?

> 
> Plus, Obama's campaign is running Linux severs!  :-)  Mandatory Linux
> content.
> 
> Plus, Jon, the economics you are espousing is supply side, aka trickle down,
> aka voodoo economics.  That's been proven, twice now, that it doesn't work.
> Raising the taxes on the people who have more money than anyone needs does
> not hurt the macro economy.  Cutting taxes on the wealthy just let's them be
> richer.  It doesn't generate more GDP.  Putting more of the rich people's
> money in the hands of the poor and middle class generate GDP, and thus
> jobs.  Supply side economics is about to die, at least for awhile, thank
> goodness.  The second gilded age is about to come to an end.

I would laugh if it weren't apparent you weren't serious. Cutting taxes
doesn't generate GDP? Huh?

GNP (Gross NATIONAL product) is the dollar value of all goods and services
purchased in the national economy. It includes buying cereal, buying cars,
and interest payments. Whether a wealthy person buys a BMW, or invests the
money in a mutual fund, he or she is contributing to GNP. The only way he or
she does not contribute to GDP is if he or she buries the money in the
backyard.

A dollar is a dollar, no matter who spends it, as long as it gets spent
somewhere. For example, if a wealthy person puts his money in a savings
account, that money is immediately loaned out by the banking institution.
That loan generates interest -- and hence, contributes to GNP. The loan
itself will be used for some economic purpose -- no one borrows money just
to bury it in the backyard -- and it will also contribute to GNP.

It is just ignorant to believe that just because someone has more money than
you do, they must not be contributing to the economy. Heck, even dying
contributes to the GNP (someone has to pay for the funeral).

Matthew Copple