steelincotton wrote:What’s so wrong with spreading the wealth around? Heck, I only know about 3 people who make 250K or more per year, so in my circles they are the exception, not the norm. If those 3 folks have to pay 3% more, which would be the same thing they use to pay during Clinton’s administration, I’d have no problem with that at all. The notion that the average hard working poor and struggling middle class folks are scared of “spreading the wealth around” really cracks me up! That’s a joke. Most working Americans will fair better with Obama’s economic plans over McCain’s – that’s just a fact!
For the last 8 years we’ve been giving corporate America all the breaks, i.e. tax breaks, loopholes, government issued corporate welfare (specifically to the OIL industry), etc., and where has it gotten us to? These so called wealth-providers have not trickled down to you and me from what I can tell. Ronald Reagan is dead and so are his conservative outdated fiscal theories. I’m no economist, but I like Obama’s ideas about building our economy from the ground up as opposed to the top down. Remember how McDonald’s started with a single hamburger stand, and a grill, and look where he took that. You don’t see much of that anymore do we? We better start thinking about reinvesting in our OWN country for a change, because our future as a nation begins now, not later. We have neglected our own children’s education and prosperity for corporate CEO’s profits, meanwhile our roads and bridges are collapsing, homelessness is on the rise, our jobs have been outsourced, the economy is in a crisis, and there are millions of folks without any health care at all.
As Steve mentioned previously, Social Security, Medicare, ederly housing, etc., and others like these are all great Socialist programs that work, and I for one, are glad we have them. We need to put MORE $$$ into these programs, and once we get socialized/nationalized health care like the rest of the world, we can finally put the missing pieces of the puzzle back together and become the great society we should be, but if we continue to keep doing the same things we’ve been doing for the last 8 years, and expect to see different results, that would be called insanity!
Here is the problem with spreading the wealth and trickle down theory. Trickle down theory fails because of greed (like everything else). I remember a while back in the music industry CD sales plummeted because of the popularity of MP3s. The reason MP#s got so popular is because the consumers thought the CD price was outrageous, $12 for a new CD but $16 for a new movie. Well the record companies after realizing their folly (a CD costs less than 10 cents to produce last I heard) they tried to lower their price by lowering the MSRP, but the end sellers, the Best Buys, WalMarts, etc, simply sold them at the same price as before even though they were paying less for them. So in this case trickle down failed as it never reached the end consumer. However trickle down does work when it comes to negatives. In my industry raw material prices have been going out of control. We see 1 5-15% increase every 2 months this past year on average. The suppliers margin goes down on their materials, so they charge us more to make up the difference, then we raise the prices we charge because our material cost is higher. Expenses and Cost will ALWAYS trickle down to the end consumer, savings will not, both for the same reason, greed. Although it really isn't greedy to make money on a product and the there is a minimum amount you must make a net profit to keep your business viable. Many businesses in highly competitive industries are constantly straddling that line.
I have taken a handful of economic courses, which you obviously don't know much of anything about the economy. I know the basics, which is enough to know that Obama's economic plan is a disaster in the making. Obama does make sense about building the economy from the ground up. The problem is how he plans to do it. Taxation exists to generate income for the government. That is its constitutionally expressed purpose. It does not exist to redistribute wealth. The basic precept that our economy has been built on is greater risk equals greater reward. A business owner exposses themselves to an amount of risk that most people cannot imagine. Not only is a business owner responsible for his own job and his own income, but also the income of his employees. In my industry (construction) all it takes sometimes is one bad call and you will go under. By using progressive taxation and heavily taxing businesses the government is reducing the potential reward while not changing the risk involved. If anything risk has only increased over time. If the pay off is not worth the effort then why bother? When you advance in a company to a more difficult job don't you want more pay? If you get a riskier job don't you want more pay? Would you want to move up the ladder in a company if you never got a raise for the extra effort you put in? The average CEO works over 60 hours per week. They are on a salary but most of the huge compensation numbers you see come in the form of bonuses and stock options. Companies have strived to give more incentive to make a company do better. Problem is with implementation, the theory is sound. Do some research into human resource practices and theory.
As to these statements.
We better start thinking about reinvesting in our OWN country for a change, because our future as a nation begins now, not later. We have neglected our own children’s education and prosperity for corporate CEO’s profits, meanwhile our roads and bridges are collapsing, homelessness is on the rise, our jobs have been outsourced, the economy is in a crisis, and there are millions of folks without any health care at all.
We should be reinvesting in our own country. This needs to start by becoming fiscally responsible. Deficict spending worked to help bring us out of the great depression at least partly because we didn't have much debt to begin with. Now debt is part of the problem, increasing it will only worsen the problem. Our educational system is crap because it is funded illegally in at least Ohio, it has a screwed up backwards way of doing things due to too much govt involvement, and the unions fight any attempt to reform eduction that they think will foster competition and improvement. The voucher system has been hugely successful in other countries but the US teachers unions constantly block any attempt to try that system. As to our roads and bridges that happens, then you replace them. If states handled their money better then more could be spent on roads, they have plenty. Prevailing wage rates also have a large part to do with high road costs. Homelessness is on the rise due in large part to the housing crises, which has everything to do with the socialization of the housing market through the govt creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It also has to do with our screwed up stock system and the tendency to try to extend artificially economic good times. The reason outsourcing is so popular is to avoid US taxes, to avoid US unions, and a lot of other minor reasons. In my industry union contractors are around 20% higher on average than a merit shop. As long as you go to a reputable merit shop the quality of work will be as high as the union contractors and sometimes better. The only advantage union companies have right now is prevailing wage work which they can do for much cheaper than a merit shop. For many companies getting unionized would be a death sentence. In some industries it is needed and should happen (walmart). As to health care one of the reasons health care is so expensive is that the insuarance companies have driven costs up as well as medicare and medicaid.
These is some degree of socialization to every economy that I know of. However lets not call medicare, SS, and medicaid a success yet when by 2017 they will bankrupt the US.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/25/pf/soc_ ... 2008032517 and another link about economic risks I found
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0702/S00064.htm and anothe ron social security
http://www.heritage.org/research/Social ... wm1429.cfmNow This is how I decided who to vote for...
Barack Obama on Gun Control
Click here for 11 full quotes on Gun Control OR other candidates on Gun Control OR background on Gun Control.
1.Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
2.FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
3.Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
4. Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
5. 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
6. Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
7. Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
8. Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
9. Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
10. Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
11. Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
1. indifferent 2. Compeletly disagree 3. Completely Disagree 4. Indifferent 5. Completely disagree 6. Completely Disagree (he means ONLY retired POs)
7. Agree 8. indifferent 9. indifferent 10. compeltely disagree 11. completely disagree
John McCain on Gun Control
Click here for 21 full quotes on Gun Control OR other candidates on Gun Control OR background on Gun Control.
1. I know how to use guns; but I don't own one. (Nov 2007)
2. Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
3. Don't hold gun manufacturers liable for crimes. (Sep 2007)
4. Opposes restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition types. (Sep 2007)
5. Calls for GOP "tolerance" of closing gun show loopholes. (May 2002)
6. Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks. (Aug 1999)
7. Supports ban on certain assault weapons. (Aug 1999)
8. Voted against Brady Bill & assault weapon ban. (Aug 1999)
9. Guns are a problem, but so are violent web sites & videos. (Aug 1999)
10. Punish criminals who abuse 2nd Amendment rights. (May 1999)
11. Youth Violence Prevention Act restricts guns for kids. (May 1999)
12. Repeal existing gun restrictions; penalize criminal use. (Jul 1998)
13. Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
14. Voted YES on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
15. Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
16. Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
17. Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
18. Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
19. Ban gun registration & trigger lock law in Washington DC. (Mar 2007)
20. Allow firearms in National Parks. (Feb 2008)
1. I would hope so being a vet. 2. completely agree 3. completely agree 4. indifferent 5. indifferent 6. disagree 7. indifferent 8. agree 9. completely disagree 10. completely agree 11. agree 12. agree 13. completely agree 14. completely agree 15. indifferent 16. agree 17. indifferent 18. indifferent 19. agree 20. agree
Indifferent usually means I want more info before deciding.
I did this with 5 or 6 of the issues I felt were most important. It took a few hours but was worth it. The issues with Obama's character (he says in his commercial in Ohio that he supports the second amendment but his record seems to indicate otherwise as does his association with Father Flager), with his socialist comments, and some other issues are just more reasons for me to not like him. You would think that after Hitler people would learn to look past someones words and not just accept them because they are very suave and persuasive (I am not trying to insinuate that Obama is like Hitler, merely that Hitler proved the danger a good speaker poses to a nation). A person went to Harlem to ask people about Obama (working for howard stern but the point remains). They asked if they were supporting Obama then they attributed McCain's policies, including Palin as VP as belonging to Obama, and people agreed with the policies as long as they were attributed to Obama. I have heard that most people make a decision on who they like based on a brief first impression, and then attribute their views to the candidate.
To finish off this obscenely long post, a short article from the NCPA.
Daily Policy Digest
Get the DPD in your email
Get the DPD RSS Newsfeed
Daily Policy Digest Archive
Economic Issues
October 22, 2008
FAIR TAXATION?
Barack Obama wants to raise taxes to "spread the wealth around" because that is "good for everyone." But historically, the redistribution of income punishes success and rewards sloth. Here arises a problem for Obama: he wants to spread the wealth around as if wealth and poverty and "middle-classness" were fixed categories, but they aren't. Economic and social mobility in the United States is the norm, not the exception, says columnist Mona Charon.
In fact, the National Center for Policy Analysis found that after one year, one-third of those in the bottom quintile of income had moved up, one-quarter of those in the top group had moved down and after 10 years, 60 percent of those in the bottom had moved up, with 8 percent getting all the way to the top quintile.
Moreover:
Correspondingly, 6 percent of those in the top quintile went all the way to the bottom after 10 years, and 54 percent of those at the top had moved to some lower group 10 years later.
Democrats like to talk about "the rich" as if they are a fixed group of individuals, but anecdotal evidence suggests that two-third of those on the Forbes 400 list in 1994 were no longer on the list a decade later; 80 percent of those on the list were self-made.
People tend to begin their work lives at or near the bottom quintile; while male 21-year-olds begin at the 20 percentile in overall white men's income, by age 31, they reach the 50th percentile mark, between the ages of 31 and 59, they average near the 60th quintile and when they get close to retirement, their incomes tend to fall.
We already have a steeply progressive income tax, with the top 5 percent of earners paying 60 percent of the taxes (in 2006), and the top 25 percent paying 86 percent. Redistributing wealth is not a move toward fairness, but rather a move toward socialism, says Charon.
Source: Mona Charen, "Fair Taxation?" Townhall.com, October 21, 2008; based upon: National Center for Policy Analysis.
For text:
http://townhall.com/Columnists/MonaChar ... r_taxation For NCPA study:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15262 For more on Economic Issues:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?A ... ategory=17
