For some reason most liberals don't understand that just because taxes have been spun into government "revenue" doesn't mean that they are actually making profits. Taxes ie: Government Revenue is forcibly (at risk of jail or penalty for not complying) taking money from citizens. Some taxes are necessary but living this far outside of our means and expecting people to stand by and give more is unrealistic and irresponsible.
For some reason most conservatives still buy into trickle down economics. Doing whats best for the elite in the private sector doesnt always mean doing whats best for the country.
There needs to be a balance between the private and public sectors and government needs to play a role (not an asphyxiating role) in protecting the public from the private sector going out of control and raping everyone else at their profit.
Unfortunately, Obama and Romney represent the polar extremes (to some degree the same polar extreme)and i dont think either will be able to form policy that will meet somewhere in the middle.
Romney is of the mindset that we need less govt. Thats extreme (not extreme if you are running a business whose only interest is profit). Look at the nations on the global competitiveness report put out by the world economic forum. We are ranked 7th. Ahead of us are countries like Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, and Switzerland. They all have more government involvement. The answer to our problems is clearly not less government as Romney is stating.
Likewise, Obama has an absolute aversion to private business. He should not. Cooperation from the private and public sectors is the way to go to help our economy. Unless he changes his mind frame, there is no way he will be part of the solution.
Obama has just as many right guys that he is in the pocket of. If you don't realize that then I let you do some research on George Soros and Warren Buffett. Wall Street donated TONS of money to Obama. Do you think they are against him?
I don't think there has ever or will ever be a candidate without private interests and leanings so their detractors can always say that those are the reasons they are making their decisions rather than understanding that those friends and supporters along with their experiences are more likely the reason for their decisions.
The reason you think Republicans believe in trickle down is because conservatives realize that trickle up is impossible. The government needs successful individuals and companies to keep paying in so that they have the money to redistribute. Once that ends no one gets anything so it is always trickle down no matter if it is trickling by people working or after the stream is diverted, divided, wasted and sponged up by the bureaucracy before it gets to the people with their hands out.
We still need jobs and one of the advantages we have is we have a ton of energy locked up. This might help us reduce the cost of manufacturing if we can bring the cost down, it will also lesten or dependency on foreign oil which has other problems associated with it.
There is no question we need to allocate resources more efficiently including water, power and transmission. That said natural gas is preferable to coal and oil and we should be using more of it because we have it. I would like to see the Government focus more on upgrading transmission lines, pipelines and clean water delivery then seeding an industry that is being developed by private companies around the world.
When you make more money, most people end up spending more money on goods/services that they otherwise wouldn't have purchased.
You can easily recognize this in situations where you income/cash flow has dropped. What do you do ? You start cutting back on things that "aren't essential".
First thing that gets hit normally is your entertainment budget.
- You stop going out to movies as often.
- You reduce the number of times you go out to eat, or you make changes in your choice of restaurants/menu selection.
- You stay at home and watch games on TV instead of attending them in person.
- You listen to CDs instead of going to concerts.
- You decide to invest in a lawn mower and cut the grass yourself instead of paying someone else to do it.
- You drop the cleaning service that came and cleaned your house twice per month.
- You stop having your dress shirts cleaned and pressed at the dry cleaners, and wash and iron them yourself.
- You have your oil changed every 9-12K instead of every 3-6K, or, you get the DIY kit and do it yourself.
- Instead of going to to $35 car wash done mostly by hand, you pull into the spray wash place and spray your car for $3, vacuum it for $2, then drive home real fast to try and power dry to reduce spotting.
This is just a quick partial list of changes that people make when facing a budget crunch, and guess what ? It does have a trickle down effect.
Conversely, as your income level increases relative to your lifestyle, you start to make changes in your purchasing habits commiserate with the increase.
Think about it. You get nice hefty promotion at work. What do you do ? You go out and celebrate it. You probably go to some place that you probably couldn't afford to previously, or if you go to a "normal" spot, you spend more than you normally would have. Why ? Because you can now afford to.
Trickle up means more taxes, free handouts and entitlements, all paid for by "the rich", a group growing day by day and will soon (it seems) include every houshold making at or over $100,000/year.
Trickle Up, or as it's actually called "stealing from someone who earned it, and giving it to those who did not".
It may work....who knows.....but that doesn't make it right or rightious. For example, the economy MIGHT be better off if I took half YOUR paycheck each period PK.....does that mean I should?
Taken to it's logical extreme, a system where Govt. takes 100%, and gives back (equally tio everyone) only as much as they can spend, well, that would be the "best" system, right? Every penny earned is spent, and everyone has the same, right? Regardless of effort or labor that created it.
Last edited by Warfish; 10-18-2012 at 01:36 PM.
Well human nature works this way. People that are handed a somewhat comfortable lifestyle can become unmotivated. They will often choose the easy road. This is true across the economic spectrum. People in communist Russia were not motivated to work hard or be productive because there was no reward for such behavior. The challenge for societies is to strike the right balance between a safety net/compassion and going too far as to demotivate large swaths of society effectively rendering them dependent and helpless.
We just had a lengthy thread where almost every JI Poli-Sci left-leaner defended to the death the spending on PBS.
Try finding a thread or post where liberal JI'ers promote cutting Government spending in any NON-Millitary way where specifics are given (i.e. not "end fraud and abuse platitudes).
Sorry Ken, the daily in and out of this foum shows rather clearly that left-leaners defend every program, every project, every spending as long as it funds something they like or support. I.e. pretty much everything the Govt. does other than the Millitary.
By all means, if you have a link to a specific plan (specific, not generalities and platitudes) of a Liberal politician showing what they'd cut other than the Army, please share it.
PM me and I'll send you the address you can send half your paycheck to each week, to help the economy. Thanks.Is that what happened during the golden era of American capitalism?