So you see your "proper" socio-economic principals are Keynesian,
Yes, I happen to believe that the Keynesian system is the best.
which is about as fundamentally flawed a system as there has ever been.
Few economists would agree with you. Some would say that Keynsian is flawed, and would prefer a system like Hayek promotes, but even they would not agree that Keynsian is "as fundamentally flawed as there has ever been." I think most economists would agree that serfdom from Medieval Europe was far more flawed, and could probably name 3-4 more systems off the top of their head worse than anything we have today, including socialism.
Let's look at your criticisms:
See: A Giant National Debt for the sake of Liquidity
,
Liquidity is not part of Keynsian economics. I have no idea where you got the idea that it was.
WW2 emergency taxation still in effect,
Um, no. Tax rates during and immediately after WW2 were up to 98%. The most recent hike was up to 35%, about which conservatives pitched a royal fit. In case you did as poorly in your math class as you did in economics, 35 does not equal 98.
The Federal Reserve Bank printing money out of thin air to reduce the value of the dollar.
If the Federal Reserve Bank prints money, yes, it reduces the value of the dollar. That is why the FRB does not want to print money willy-nilly. Printing money for no reason is not part of Keynesian economy, and anyone who says otherwise has not done their homework. Again, the printing of money is not part of Keynsian economy.
Apparently you are unfamilar with Economics or have no experience in this field.
This is called "projection" and is actually a topic studied in Psychology. We could delve into that next if you like.
Had you payed attention in class you might have picked up information on Fredrick Hayek.
I am familiar with Mr. Hayek and his economic models. His model is one of many I refer to when I say they look great on paper, but in practice, they just have not worked.
Having Booms and busts in an economy is not a good thing.
It's all a matter of degree. Ups and downs in an economy is not only necessary, it's inevitable. What you want is to have the means to ride those ups and downs. When does an "up" become a "boom"? When does a "down" become a "bust"? I think the Occupy 99% would call a bust what the 1% would call it a ripple. Economists do not have a definition for "boom" or "bust."
Prudent spending, a free market economy, and low taxes enable the highest quality of life for an economy's participants.
In theory. Again, it looks great on paper, but in practice, it just doesn't work that way. We've tried it that way, and it just doesn't play out. Unfortunately, the only thing the free market economy allows is lowest-common-denominator goods. It's rather sad, what that says about human nature, but facts are stubborn things, and that's what they have proven, time and time again.
If Money is good for paying off all debts public and private why wouldn't it be good enough to pay my doctor.
Who says it isn't? Now you're just making things up. Keynsians have never advocated the elimination of money. That's just wacky.
What we need is to stop printing money, spending money as if "shovel ready" stimulus actually did anything, strengthen the dollar, lower the minimum wage, lower tax rates and allow free enterprise to grow.
You're right on a, b, and c. Unfortunately, e, f, and g will weaken the dollar, so your desires are at cross-purposes. If you want to strengthen the dollar, you need to raise taxes, not lower them.
Again, nice idea, on paper.
Redistribution, high taxes, free-healthcare, all strain the free economy, much like adding weight to a car will not make it accelerate faster but will in fact slow it down.
This is an excellent example. There are some things that will weigh down a car, and you need to jetison them. The engine is not one of those things. Education, health care, social programs like that are like an engine. You can dump them, and your economy might take off for a few years, but within a generation it will sputter and die, and you will be left with nothing. Refusing to put money into an economy is like refusing to put gas into your car, arguing that you want to keep it as light as possible. What do you expect the car to run on, unicorn farts?
I have no problem with cutting waste from government. By all means, let's stop this mindless war in the middle east. We do still need to support those who have fought in the past, because not to do so is entirely unjust, but let's not incur any more future costs than we already have. Let's stop corporate welfare. I don't think corporations should be given huge piles of money when we can't even afford to fund schools. Now, I haven't looked at the federal budget closely for several years, so I don't know all the specifics that are spent. That's why I elect people to do that for me. It's their job to see that my tax dollars are spent as efficiently as possible.
It's my job to give them those tax dollars. It's the price I pay for living in a civilized society. And the higher the price tag, the more civilized the society.
It's sad that so many US citizens seem to content to live so uncivilized.
At least they {Swedes} in part understand that low corporate taxes means less strain the business and a more free economy. I wish the US didn't have the HIGHEST corporate tax rate in the world.
You are actually correct here. A better way to put it is, when you get down to it, any corporate tax always gets passed on to the people, either in the form of sales tax or employment.
Enough for now. I'm talking my boy for a walk to enjoy the sunshine.