A simple question for Republican voters on Mitt Romney

[Craig234]

I already partially addressed that. But the liberal argument against the Bush tax cuts isn't predicated directly on its harming the economy, but rather on the basis of fairness and the indirect impact that the tax cuts have by creating deficits that Republicans want to fix through spending cuts.

Also, shifting the wealth to the top as the Bush borrowed tax cuts do puts money being hoarded at the top and driving up the prices of things they own, making ownership less available to more people and reducing the productivity in the economy, which reduces growth... fewer entrepeneurs, fless money with consumers to buy, etc.

That's why plutocracies with wealth concentrated don't make as much wealth.

 

[tweaker2]

I said Republicans should find deficits bad for the economy. That doesn't mean others will. There's a valid argument against fiscal austerity during weak economic times -- it has likely just sent the UK into a recession, for example.

Personally, I want to see the deficit and debt be dealt with. But it shouldn't solely be on the backs of the poor and middle class as Republicans want. Your so-called presidential candidate wants to further cut taxes for the very rich, and also expand military spending at a time when we already spend more than the next ten nations combined.

How much sense does that make?

Republicans only care about deficits when it is politically expedient. When they had full power over government, they wasted money like drunken sailors. They only decided to start their "tea parties" when the dark-skinned Muslim Kenyan got in office.

If the Republicans were really serious about the deficit, they would cut reasonable deals with the Democrats rather than falling over each other to kiss Grover Norquist's ring.

I can see where it's advatageous for the Repubs to use the huge deficits that got created under Bush as a diversion from their own failings, where they're now claiming that the folks that broke the system (them) is better qualified to fix it. LOL

The Repubs just keep ignoring the fact that their "Grand Grab at the Treasury" under Bush blew up in their faces and now want us to blame it all on Obama somehow?

Well, I have to say it worked in 2010, ergo the freak'in mess of a government we have at the moment, but let's hope folks have wised up to this flim flam job the Repubs are relaunching again.

 

[Craig234]

Conservatives: can only handle deficits are always bad, embracing the poverty caused as a result in recession; MAYBE ok for war

Republicans: deficits bad if cutting spending on people, ok for corrupt spending

Keynesians (including the policies of Republicans recovering from recessions): deficits are a tool for spurring economic recovery, should avoid in the 'up' cycle

Obama: cut the debt in the long term, need deficits for the short term in economic crisis

 

[tweaker2]

Also, shifting the wealth to the top as the Bush borrowed tax cuts do puts money being hoarded at the top and driving up the prices of things they own, making ownership less available to more people and reducing the productivity in the economy, which reduces growth... fewer entrepeneurs, fless money with consumers to buy, etc.

That's why plutocracies with wealth concentrated don't make as much wealth.

Agreed. Just look at any third world "democracy in name only" as a perfect example.

But hey, to the ultra-rich Americans trying to keep up with the Saudi sheiks, it's a global war on egos and somebody has to make the sacrifices necessary for the "USA" to stay ahead of the pack.

 

[Craig234]

Agreed. Just look at any third world "democracy in name only" as a perfect example.

But hey, to the ultra-rich Americans trying to keep up with the Saudi sheiks, it's a global war on egos and somebody has to make the sacrifices necessary for the "USA" to stay ahead of the pack.

Some wealthy appreciate the benefits, moral and economic, of broad wealth, some don't.

I'm reminded a bit of the case of Johnson & Johnson, the huge corporation; they have a logo on their products about 'a family owned company' like it's some mom and pop shop.

A son in the family got concerned about concentrated wealth in the US, and made a documentary and pointed the camera at his own family for part of it. He documented an annual(?) family meeting where they'd get together for their 'wealth manager' to do a presentation to the family about how all their assets were making money.

He seemed like a pretty manipulative type, representing many such wealthy families, and a totally myopic pro-wealth advocate, to the point or pushing the family that direction.

He was shamelessly totally unconcerned about how anyone in society was doing except his clients - they didn't have to be 'evil robber barons', he took care of that.

 

[Incorruptible]

Conservatives: can only handle deficits are always bad, embracing the poverty caused as a result in recession; MAYBE ok for war

Republicans: deficits bad if cutting spending on people, ok for corrupt spending

Keynesians (including the policies of Republicans recovering from recessions): deficits are a tool for spurring economic recovery, should avoid in the 'up' cycle

Obama: cut the debt in the long term, need deficits for the short term in economic crisis

Stimulus spending doesn't work, they will only make the problem worse

 

[cybrsage]

Are you a professional pollster?

No, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Yes, my life is entirely better now than 4 years ago.

Good, you are part of the minority, but I wish everyone could say what you said. Sadly, most cannot.

I don't see how anyone would not see that as better

I suppose you do not realize unemployment is still very high - and much higher than what Obama promised if he spend close to a TRILLION dollars to keep it low. Since you do not realize that unemployment is still very high, it makes sense that you don't see how anyone would not see things are better now.

but there does seem to be a pretty strong cult-like faith on the right that pushes the same bullshit you're shitting out of your mouth all day.

Woah woah, stop projecting your failings onto me.

 

[cybrsage]

Stimulus spending doesn't work, they will only make the problem worse

It works in the short term, but fails in the long term.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Well, I have to say it worked in 2010, ergo the freak'in mess of a government we have at the moment, but let's hope folks have wised up to this flim flam job the Repubs are relaunching again.

Don't worry. They haven't.

Good, you are part of the minority, but I wish everyone could say what you said. Sadly, most cannot.

No, he's part of the majority. The minority would be those who benefit from a full-fledged depression, which there's a very good chance we'd be in right now if McCain had taken office.

I suppose you do not realize unemployment is still very high - and much higher than what Obama promised if he spend close to a TRILLION dollars to keep it low.

I suppose you don't realize that unemployment is higher than Obama promised because at that time nobody knew just how deep the recession was.

I suppose you don't realize that unemployment would be much lower if government jobs had grown as much during Obama's first term as they did during Bush's.

I suppose you don't realize that Romney has not presented a SINGLE viable plan for improving the situation, and that he has a history of not caring about jobs at all.

Or maybe you do realize these things.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I suppose you don't realize that unemployment would be much lower if government jobs had grown as much during Obama's first term as they did during Bush's.

If government hired everyone then there would be no unemployment. I suppose you realize that.

The problem is that both parties miss the point, hardly surprising. The Reps live in some bizarre world where things go from those with money to those who have none. The equally strange Dem construct seems to be to tax it (it being the thing of the moment) as if that does anything. We had a thread which addressed "killing the neighbors cow", which is an old folk tale about one rich man and a poor one. A wish was granted to the poor one with the giver thinking he'd ask for good things for himself. Instead he wanted revenge and asked that the prize cow of the wealthy man be struck down. We have a similar philosophy where people believe that we ought to be taxing the rich. Never mind that people are out of jobs, overseas outsourcing, unfavorable business conditions, etc. Kill the damn cow. Give it all to government and... What? People get a check? A job? No, because there isn't any sustainable strategy. One could say that they aren't mutually exclusive, but you could fool just about everyone if that's the case. Their is an adversarial attitude which pervades politics and therefore the entire economy.

People are as dumb as a box of rocks if they believe either side has the right answer to long term problems.

Unless someone can argue differently, government should be a facilitator who effectively works to allow private sector job growth. That can be in targeted tax breaks, economic development zones, a whole host of things. Legislation which holds corporations to a higher standard of accountability to a greater number of shareholders, a reformation of boardroom cronyism so that those shareholders have a say in corporate compensation etc.

If those in charge see they will make out better by providing jobs here at decent wages then you'll have more jobs. Taking their stuff out of spite? Does it feel good to know their cows are dead while you are out of work?

 

[Acanthus]

Funny, because with everything else equal, I'd vote for Romney for the same reason you mentioned. We're just about 1 justice short of the SC deciding that guns are too dangerous for people to own or that I should subsidize the contraceptive and abortion expenses of some skank.

Just a side note, but would you rather the skank pop out some kids and draw welfare for 17 years?

 

[Matt1970]

Also, shifting the wealth to the top as the Bush borrowed tax cuts do puts money being hoarded at the top and driving up the prices of things they own, making ownership less available to more people and reducing the productivity in the economy, which reduces growth... fewer entrepeneurs, fless money with consumers to buy, etc.

That's why plutocracies with wealth concentrated don't make as much wealth.

You have pulled a lot of imaginary shit out of your ass on this forum but that ranks at the top. To summarize, the rich get rich just so they can drive the price up on the stuff they buy (Mansions, luxurious cars, personal jets) and keep it out of the hands of the middle class.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You have pulled a lot of imaginary shit out of your ass on this forum but that ranks at the top. To summarize, the rich get rich just so they can drive the price up on the stuff they buy (Mansions, luxurious cars, personal jets) and keep it out of the hands of the middle class.

A more reasonable view is that the unencumbered, that is those who have effectively removed themselves from the normal controls which others have placed upon them, will generally use that power to improve their situation. A real world example is my company and their bonus policy which required a certain level of profitability. When the execs learned that they weren't going to get bonuses because of this they changed the rules to be based solely on controllable expenses. Once they did that they slashed the workforce and those who remained were put to part time where possible eliminating as many benefits as they could and reduced payment to others. They made out big and everyone else lost.

On the other hand Craig and his ilk have "the solution" which is to tax those people. So they in return will cut more so they have more to take. Craig and his government doesn't do anything to improve our condition but he does promise to get even. Sort of.

 

[alzan]

Do explain why cutting taxes to the rich led to the housing bubble?

You were talking about factors that crashed the economy; and that it was the bad housing loans that caused the crash. I pointed out that a lot of factors caused the crash, including the unfunded Bush tax cuts. With less available government funds due to unfunded tax cuts there was a lessened ability to restructure bad loans into more manageable loans. More manageable loans would have led to a much smaller foreclosure rate. This and other factors would have made the crash less severe.

 

[Matt1970]

With less available government funds due to unfunded tax cuts there was a lessened ability to restructure bad loans into more manageable loans.

The Government was never going to step in and take over bad loans even if there were an additional 100 Billion in the till each year.

 

[manimal]

It works in the short term, but fails in the long term.

Exactly. In the short term-read recession- you run deficits to keep aggregate demand up- then when out of the recession- you roll back spending and pay off that debt.

 

[Matt1970]

Exactly. In the short term-read recession- you run deficits to keep aggregate demand up- then when out of the recession- you roll back spending and pay off that debt.

BS. We have Deficit spending of 5 Trillion in the last 3 years all in the name of the recession. Being generous with the numbers, 10 million people have lost thier jobs due to the recession. That means we have spent $500,000 for every unemployed person. That equals Fail. We would have been better off to just give that money to every person umemployed.