, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

If people choose not to spend, its their decision. Taking that money by force will lead to even less spending. So basically your solution is for the government to take all.

Uh, no. Nice strawman there, buddy. 

I'll make you repeat this many times, so maybe eventually it will penetrate that thick skull of yours that government taxation and regulation is what brought us this crisis in the first place and that more tax and more government, like you are proposing, will only make the problem worse. We are headed for a triple dip, dispite of all the government spending.

Reality suggests that you're the one with the thick skull. I've stated many times that HERE IN THE US we've been doing exactly what you've been advocating since St. Ronald was the POTUS, and we now have the worst wealth imbalance since 1929.

I can only assume that when you * and moan about taxes being too high, you're NOT doing so about the US. It's safe to assume that you've been complaining about your home country of the Netherlands. Am I right? If that's the case, then don't assume what you think is the case in the Netherlands applies here. It doesn't. Besides, you're even wrong about the Netherlands:

http://247wallst.com/2012/05/22/the-happiest-countries-in-the-world-2/3/

3. Netherlands
> Life satisfaction score: 7.5
> Employment rate: 75% (3rd highest)
> Self-reported good health: 77% (11th highest)
> Employees working long hours: 0.68% (2nd lowest)
> Disposable income: $25,740 (13th highest)
> Educational attainment: 73% (15th lowest)
> Life expectancy: 80.8 (14th highest)

The Dutch government is heavily involved in internal economic affairs, playing a "significant role ... pertaining to almost every aspect of economic activity," according to the U.S. Department of State. Of those employed, only 0.68% work longer than 50 hours a week � the second-lowest percentage among those surveyed. By contrast, 10.86% of U.S. workers eclipse the 50 hour mark. The Dutch also rank among the top 15 in self-reported good health, life expectancy and disposable income.

It seems that you're the only one b1tching and moaning about the government over there.

*snip*

I agree. We have many worker protection schemes here in Holland. It's very expensive to hire a person, minimum wage, and it takes years or a bucketload of money to fire somebody.

So you agree that corporate losses should be socialized? Is that what you're agreeing with? Because it sure doesn't sound like you're agreeing with any kind of regulation to prevent companies from becoming "too big to fail" in the first place.

What I'm saying is that if companies, like banks, become too big to fail, you force them to break up, just as you would force monopolies to break up. That's done with MORE regulation, not less of it.

Do you honestly think that Citibank, Bank of America, and JP Morgan Chase grew "too big to fail" because there were regulations preventing them from firing their employees?

What are you smoking? I'd like to have some of it.

I also agree that large coorperations should not deserve special treatment. But you are twofaced in this issue. It's government regulations that enaable these coorperations to take the economy hostage. It's their companies the extra tax gets spent in.

So you can't be for the one and against the other.

Regulations can be written to provide no special treatment, just like laws can be written to only take away freedom or laws can be written to only give freedom. I'm FOR laws that protect personal freedom, and I'm AGAINST laws that take away personal freedom. I'm FOR just wars, and I'm AGAINST unjust wars. See how I can be FOR some things that government is capable of doing while AGAINST other things?

Regulations are a product of the people that write the laws. Purge the corporatists from Congress (and there are many from both sides of the aisle) and you won't have regulations that are seemingly written by Exxon themselves.

Why does it seem like you have this "throw the baby out with the bath water" attitude about anything related to the government and taxes unless you think it directly benefits you?

You're fine with your government taking responsibility for building roads in your country, but you seemingly want them to be built by magic with no tax contributions from you.