Conservatives Know Best

[Sublimating]

I could never understand why conservatives preach personal responsibility for every day Americans meanwhile intervening (bailing out) on behalf of banks, savings and loans, corporations and even other countries. We are told to face the consequences of our bad investments and decisions but giant corps like Bears and Sterns well...they get bailed out. Meanwhile Joe and Jan average American prepare to loose their home because of their bad choices or predatory loans. No doubt conservatives argue that we need to help our financial institutions because they are vital to our economy...and the the housing industry isn't?
If you're gona preach personal accountability then you need to make it apply to every one not just everyday Americans. If your going to call democrats socialist and preach against the redistribution of wealth try not to time your sermon simultaneously with a stimulus package that redistributes (wealth)145 billion American dollars.
Typical conservative hypocrisy... only they know when it's ok to do what they tell others not to.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Two wrongs do not make a right.

The adminstration in office is not a conservative, he is a neocon.

The policy of bailing out corporations is unconstituional using taxpayers money, and youll notice the trouble that was taken to create the FDIC for banks. Conservatives would have let the bank fail, as its not really a BANK in any sense of the term, it was an investment and securities firm.

The policy of bailing out INDIVIDUALs is unconstitutional also, using taxpayers money.

Neither the government(Fed, State, or local), the majority(the people), or the monied intrests(the banks and corporations) have the RIGHT to steal from others to balance their books, to bail out THEIR bad decisions, or for any other purpose except to provide for the minimum required to operate government.

They have done ALL of the above at one time or another, and ALL times were unconstitutional.

Let us not say "do more wrongs more evenly", but instead say "stop doing wrong", and put teeth behind the words, enforcement of individual rights and Constitutitonal Law behind the promise.

It is OUR right and obligation to maintain our government, to prevent it from stepping out of line, consolidating power, using abject force against its own or other nations people.

At this we have failed thus far, and must stop it from continuing.

[Deadshot]

Os, I think you have a point. Now here's my problem...if our only two choices are personal welfare or corporate welfare, why do Conservatives consistently vote for the later?

McCain isn't going to change this. He may not be a full neocon, but on this matter he's all neocon.

So if your choices are the status quo versus the Dems taking money from Corps to give it to individuals, how do you justify your stance.

You speak as though there is a third and fourth options, there are not and have not been since Perot. Yet Conservatives consistently ally themselves with and vote for NeoCons.

If you realize your party is FUBAR and you understand what Sub is describing in the original post is wrong, why will you and many like you vote for more of the same in McCain?

[PatrickHenry]

If you realize your party is FUBAR and you understand what Sub is describing in the original post is wrong, why will you and many like you vote for more of the same in McCain?
I don't think you'll see Os voting for McCain...

[Deadshot]

Not what I'm arguing PH. I'm saying that Os KNOWS and KNEW that McCain, Bush II, Bush I and Reagan were all for one sort of "Welfare" but not another. He freely admits that he likes neither, yet he - and many other Conservatives - ally themselves with a Party that is fine with Corporate Welfare on a grandiose scale!

IMHO, I think things like this are what are tearing the GOP apart. I don't believe that people like Os, who's best label is as a "Fiscal Conservative", can stomach a party that is overtly NeoCon (Bush) nor one that inches to the middle (McCain). Yet they rail upon the Left time and time again.

I'm simply pointing out the problem with Os's explanation above. He makes it sound like there is a third, neither NeoCon nor Liberal, choice. That simlpy isn't true. Ergo you have Conservatives like Os putting down Obama and Clinton when they feel just as bad about McCain.

A good analogy would be that we can either eat out at Taco Bell or McDonalds and most of us are voting one way or another and then someone comes crashing in yelling about how Taco Bell sucks. We all turn to him and say "Do you really like Micky Dee's?" and his answer is "Hell No!" You see the problem? Don't bitch about the choices for either side unless you have a solution to the problem.

Sub's original post was in the context of todays Lib vs. Con fight. Not in the context of what we wish it could be, but what it IS. Your choice is more personal welfare or more corporate welfare. One cannot degrade personal welfare and say corporate welfare is wrong to. There are ONLY TWO choices, one must choose one or the other. God knows I wish there was a third choice and I agree with much of Os's statement. But that's a dream world. So pick a side...we're at war damn it!:fight:

[4Reaganomics]

There wouldn't be a need for corporate welfare if they weren't faced with a ridiculously high tax burden. They are producing and are punished when they produce more, and thus have a hard time making it sometimes.

I too am against corporate welfare, but you have to give corporations a fighting chance.

Open up the markets, let them learn from their mistakes, and production will soar.

I am against most welfare on both sides of the aisle, and I am also against the amount of Tax that is often the cause for it.

[Deadshot]

But 4Reagan, you speak of something that has no third option!

Either you are DEM and you have personal welfare.

or you are REP and you have corporate welfare.

There is no third option where taxes are lowered all around and ALL welfare stops.

again, we're at war - pick a side!

[4Reaganomics]

I refuse to pick a side. I am not going to make the concession of what is right in order to join a gang. What is economically sound is what is economically sound. If no party sees that, then we should really look into a third party candidate who does.

[Deadshot]

Baby I'm all good with Dat!

You prove just what I think is going to happen throughout the country in regards to the GOP. You guys have NO ONE to vote for! There is no true "Reagan-like" GOP candidate. If Bush could run again, God forbid, he would be the NeoCon/Corp. welfare/no Fiscal responsibility candidate; McCain is the same as Bush except drop the NeoCon and replace it with "Far Left in the GOP party"; and the other candidates are Dems!

I love it.:ecstatic: I love it:evil: I LUUUUVVVV IT!!!!:nana:

Most Conservatives, especially Fiscal Conservative and Religious Conservatives HAVE NO CANDIDATE!!!! WHOPPEEEE

[4Reaganomics]

This is true, there is no Reagan. In the end though, I think most people who identify themselves as conservatives will most likely unite and vote collectively against socialism.

It is sad that the party only has something to vote against and not to vote for.

This lesser of two evils nonsense needs to stop

[Wndrtch]

I could never understand why conservatives preach personal responsibility for every day Americans meanwhile intervening (bailing out) on behalf of banks, savings and loans, corporations and even other countries. We are told to face the consequences of our bad investments and decisions but giant corps like Bears and Sterns well...they get bailed out. Meanwhile Joe and Jan average American prepare to loose their home because of their bad choices or predatory loans. No doubt conservatives argue that we need to help our financial institutions because they are vital to our economy...and the the housing industry isn't?
If you're gona preach personal accountability then you need to make it apply to every one not just everyday Americans. If your going to call democrats socialist and preach against the redistribution of wealth try not to time your sermon simultaneously with a stimulus package that redistributes (wealth)145 billion American dollars.
Typical conservative hypocrisy... only they know when it's ok to do what they tell others not to.


We call it "common sense".

Letting a significant portion of the banking industry (or any other uber-huge industry) collapse will hurt all people in the US, wereas if you, an individual, do something stupid and cause problems, only you and your immediate family is potentially harmed. A Government cannot take care of every individual's problems, but can effect the common-good.

[Deadshot]

So you are fine with the Rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer?

How compassionate. Let's go sip our Scotch out on the Verannda while the U.S. government bails us out of our stupid mistakes and we continue to live the high life..oh wait, let's go back inside there's a poor person over there who wasn't smart enough to know that the bigger the fuckup the better you're taken care of!

[Osborn F. Enready]

Deadshot said:
Os, I think you have a point. Now here's my problem...if our only two choices are personal welfare or corporate welfare, why do Conservatives consistently vote for the later?

Conservatives don't, neocons do, corrupted politicians do.

For example, the FDIC. Look at what was done to create the FDIC for banking institutions. Did this happen for airlines? No. Did this happen for car manufacturers? No. Did this happen for any of the corporate welfare that exists? No.

It is not constitutional.

By the same token, it is not constitutional to redistribute wealth to individuals who are suffering by the results of their own poor decisions. In cases of fraud, where individuals were VICTIMS of fraudulent corporations (retirement issues such as GM, FORD, CHRYSLER, DOLAR JARVIS, ETC, where the retirees were basicly screwed as the company broke its contractual agreements.) there can be a matter of economic penalty for the fraudulent perpetrator in a judicial case.

Deadshot said:
McCain isn't going to change this. He may not be a full neocon, but on this matter he's all neocon.

No disagreement. McCain is part of the problem, just as Obama and Clinton are. Obama and Clinton want welfare for "selected income groups" just like McCain and the neocons are, they just select different income groups for the prize.

They are ALL breaking the law, they are ALL guilty of "sanctioning this" without protest and appeal to the people of the United States for attention.

This is why the choice between a supposed "lesser of two evils" is fictitious and ill intentioned to the highest degree. They are equal evils, and to seperate them, either party, by this form of bias is like splitting a hair in thousands of strands.

Both parties vote consistently to disregard Constitutional spheres of power, and in fact, every president since its enactment has voted to MAINTAIN the power to disregard the Constitution by claiming there is necessity to maintain the "War and Emergency Powers Act". They maintain the necessity for executive order privlidge, when it is directly against the seperation of powers.

They do it plainly and in the open, so much so, the bulk of the people don't even realize the grievous illegality of the entire events.

Deadshot said:
So if your choices are the status quo versus the Dems taking money from Corps to give it to individuals, how do you justify your stance.

I don't.

I don't support either, democrats or republicans. I only supported Ron Paul because he IS a true conservative, HE DOES value individual rights equally among all CITIZENS, he RECOGNIZES the problems with our fiat currency, our federal banking, our egregious and outrageous foreign policy treaties and entangling alliances.

(If you notice, both democrats and republican "establishment" candidates, reviled Paul equally. Pauls own party nicknamed him "Dr. No", due to his refusal to sign any bill that he saw a clear violation or infringment of constitutional process or sphere of authrority.)

Deadshot said:
You speak as though there is a third and fourth options, there are not and have not been since Perot.

You couldn't be more wrong. There are 70 OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED political parties besides the democrats and republicans. Libertarians are the third largest political party, and growing exponentially, followed by Greens and Independents.

The reason it is so hard, nearly impossible for a third party to mount an effective campaign is DIRECTLY due to republican and democrat gerrymandering, restricting and unreasonably changing ballot access laws, manipulating vote count methods and oversight, and impeding a verifiable voting system with instant runoff voting.

Deadshot said:
Yet Conservatives consistently ally themselves with and vote for NeoCons.

You speak for conservatives by name only, in other words, the current SEATED administration, and those of the past 8 years. The Republican party, much like the Democratic party has been fragmenting for decades and both share little with their title, which is namesake only for "P.R." purposes and name recognition.

Deadshot said:
If you realize your party is FUBAR and you understand what Sub is describing in the original post is wrong, why will you and many like you vote for more of the same in McCain?

I am not voting McCain, or Obama, or Clinton. I will be voting third party most likely since Paul didn't get the nomination. I ask YOU the same question......

If you know BOTH parties are violating the Law of the Land, why would you be compelled to vote for either party?

I am not a partisan, and would turn my back on any party that veered from the core principles in our foundational law, BOR and Constitution. The Libertarian Party has not done this, so I often support their candidates.

People must be willing to ALLOW a peaceful revolution, before they are thrust into a violent one. The way to be thrust into a violent one, is to keep voting for the same partisan agendas over and over, and expecting something different.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Benjamin Franklin

[Sublimating]

This is true, there is no Reagan. In the end though, I think most people who identify themselves as conservatives will most likely unite and vote collectively against socialism.

It is sad that the party only has something to vote against and not to vote for.

This lesser of two evils nonsense needs to stop


I have noticed what appears to be a near NEED to refer to democrats as Socialist. My understanding of Socialism is that it's a social organization wherein property and income are subject to social control rather than individual determination. Correct me if I'm wrong but how does taxing different income groups or taxing people more amount to Socialism? I see no difference in what the parties do. Both parties tax and redistribute wealth they just give it to different people. Can someone explain this to me?

[Scribbler1]

[color=#0000FF]Os, I think you have a point. Now here's my problem...if our only two choices are personal welfare or corporate welfare, why do Conservatives consistently vote for the later?Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they PUT the politicians in office?

[Troubadour]

There wouldn't be a need for corporate welfare if they weren't faced with a ridiculously high tax burden.


The lowest in decades, and our economy is collapsing.


They are producing


The American people are producing, in exchange for less money and fewer benefits.


and are punished when they produce more


Preposterous right-wing fantasy. Individual taxpayers subsidize business in every way imaginable: Americans pay for the cars their Republican executive bosses drive, the planes they ride, the cocktails they sip while socializing at the country club, the hotel rooms they cheat on their 4th wives in, all itemized as "business expenses."


and thus have a hard time making it sometimes.


It is definitively impossible to lose money due to a profit tax.


I too am against corporate welfare


Except when you're not. :grrrr:


but you have to give corporations a fighting chance.


No, we don't. Corporations are granted charters under the explicit condition that their business serves the public interest - in other words, they are tolerated, and permitted to exist with the understanding that they can both prosper financially and benefit society in general. There is no corporate "right to exist," and certainly none that would involve subsidies from taxpayers. That's fascism.


Open up the markets, let them learn from their mistakes, and production will soar.


The markets are open. Banking underwent vast deregulation, and Bear Stearns benefited greatly from it - but now that they've found themselves in an untenable position, they ran home to mommy and were instantly accommodated with no questions asked. Rich people floating by on our dime. On ***MY*** dime. And you're outraged when your taxpayer money buys food and housing for a poor family. :sick:


I am against most welfare on both sides of the aisle, and I am also against the amount of Tax that is often the cause for it.


Just can the charade. You know very well taxes have nothing to do with corporate welfare - they use their wealth to buy politicians, and get their way while the American people fall behind. They buy politicians who lower their taxes at every turn, fill the code with loopholes that help only them and do nothing for the economy, and then when revenues fall short they just cut programs that don't have any corporate backing - programs that merely help people, who don't matter in a fascist economy.

[4Reaganomics]

I am in complete awe of your savvy towards economic policy.

If someone would have told me years ago that regulations and taxation leads to a better economy I could have skipped this whole burden of going to a world class institution everyday and just shot you an e-mail.

You could have said listen, I know that our founding fathers spoke of Liberty, and that no better system than supply side has been suggested to date , but this whole protectionism, high taxation, punishing corporations, and welfare for individuals thing works out really well.

I would have said really, wow, that was easy. Now where do I get to put Dr. in front of my name and become a professor or a Chief Economist somewhere

[Troubadour]

I am in complete awe of your savvy towards economic policy.


Common sense is pretty awe-inspiring beside trickle-down voodoo gibberish, isn't it? There is nothing more Python-esque than watching a bunch of rich old Republican men solemnly informing America that the key to prosperity is to give rich old Republican men more money. Well, in that same spirit, I've decided to invent my own economic ideology - I call it Meconomics (that's "mee-co-nomics"). In this bold new economic vision - which I will promote, like conservatives have done, by founding think tanks whose sole purpose is obfuscation and sophistry - I will prove beyond the shadow of a Fox News report that the key to American prosperity in perpetuity is to give ME money. That's right, just me. Americans will prosper under this system because, if I so choose, I'll invest some of the money back into the economy and it may or may not benefit others. Sound like a plan?


If someone would have told me years ago that regulations and taxation leads to a better economy I could have skipped this whole burden of going to a world class institution everyday and just shot you an e-mail.


Did this "world-class institution" teach history and economics, or was it one of those independent study programs where you make your own curriculum? I've never met a single Republican/conservative tax-complainer who didn't, upon hearing the word "externality," run in the opposite direction as if the word involved military service. This is like an entire chapter of any econ 101 textbook written after 1940, and yet every single self-appointed "economist" of the right I've ever encountered has squirmed in silent, desperate confusion as if the concept were part of some threatening alien language. Conservatives just plain make things up to get what they want - that's all the right's nonsensical, pseudo-scientific religious beliefs on economics are about.


You could have said listen, I know that our founding fathers spoke of Liberty, and that no better system than supply side has been suggested to date , but this whole protectionism, high taxation, punishing corporations, and welfare for individuals thing works out really well.


You can caulk as many buzzwords, euphemisms, and deranged Orwellian characterizations into your straw men as you please, it won't make Pinocchio a real boy. "No better system"? Trickle-down is not a "system," it's corporations controlling and looting the government while Americans watch helplessly as their economy disintegrates. When the United States actually had a system, we had the best living standards on Earth, and tax rates at the upper level that approached 70%.

[4Reaganomics]

How does a 70% corporate tax help growth?

Which economic system are you in support of?

In terms of externalities, there are many transactions in which those who aren't involved become very much affected. For instance, when you raise corporate taxes, you could very well cause a job loss when firms decide to shut down. Externalities are quite common, and I don't understand how this is a defense against cutting taxes for corporations and individuals and relieving them of the burden that they face and the punishment they endure when they produce more.

I guess the opportunity cost would be pretty low, at most we'd be giving up some government revenue, a good deal of which we would make back from economic growth and an expanded tax base.



But I guess you are in favor of a centrists running the entire economy and giving people no incentive to work while taxing corporations to the point where they cannot survive. I'm pretty sure this is not considered a successful theory by today's standards.

Write your name on it and inform economists of what they are unaware of, you might get rich

or laughed at

[Osborn F. Enready]

I am betting on laughed at..... ;)

[PostmodernProphet]

I could never understand why conservatives preach personal responsibility for every day Americans meanwhile intervening (bailing out) on behalf of banks, savings and loans, corporations and even other countries. We are told to face the consequences of our bad investments and decisions but giant corps like Bears and Sterns well...they get bailed out. Meanwhile Joe and Jan average American prepare to loose their home because of their bad choices or predatory loans. No doubt conservatives argue that we need to help our financial institutions because they are vital to our economy...and the the housing industry isn't?
If you're gona preach personal accountability then you need to make it apply to every one not just everyday Americans. If your going to call democrats socialist and preach against the redistribution of wealth try not to time your sermon simultaneously with a stimulus package that redistributes (wealth)145 billion American dollars.
Typical conservative hypocrisy... only they know when it's ok to do what they tell others not to.


Well, I'm going to stick my neck out and partially agree with you.....I don't know at what point we crossed the line from supporting free market capitalism into the realm of government sponsored corporate greed, but I believe we truly have arrived.....

I'm not sure which is worse, the government blocking the market or the government manipulating it with perks and bonuses.....

[Wndrtch]

So you are fine with the Rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer?

And WHY are the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer?

Because "The Rich" typically have drive, motivation, creativity, and tenacity. "The poor" don't.

How compassionate. Let's go sip our Scotch out on the Verannda while the U.S. government bails us out of our stupid mistakes and we continue to live the high life..oh wait, let's go back inside there's a poor person over there who wasn't smart enough to know that the bigger the fuckup the better you're taken care of!

So, it's "The Rich"'s fault that you asked for a home loan you can't pay for? I guess that can be one more to add above. "The Rich" don't over extend themselves on loans they can't pay back.

"The poor" already have their bail-out. It's called 'Welfare" and has been in place for 40 years, and you already cyphon 1/2 of the rich's income to pay for it, which you won't have if you let the banking industry tank.

Dude, you have to think this stuff thru a bit more.

[Elrathin]

"The Rich" don't over extend themselves on loans they can't pay back.

Really? If they don't, then why do we have corporate welfare to bail them out when they make lousy decisions?

[Wndrtch]

"The Rich" don't over extend themselves on loans they can't pay back.

Really? If they don't, then why do we have corporate welfare to bail them out when they make lousy decisions?


My comment you quoted, is in reference to individual people, not corporations. But that's ok, I can respond to it just the same.

Ready?

Because corporations/businesses employ people and pay them money for their time and expertise, which is fundamental to our economy. Without corporations/businesses, everybody would be "The Poor", and you'd be spending 18 hours a day farming to feed your family.

But that's OK. In Utopia, you can get away with hating "The Man", and rob him blind to pay for "The Lazy".

[Elrathin]

So it's ok to steal money from everyone to help corporations, but not welfare for individuals.

And they say Conservatives aren't socialists LOL.

[4Reaganomics]

T and P had a good post on how the bailout of Bear Stearns actually helped everyone, and not just the investment house itself. In some cases corporate welfare does help everyone when the firm is on the verge of collapse in the short run.

In the long run all welfare policy is bad though, coporate and individual.

That is why I am saying we should reduce everyone's tax burden and let them keep more of what they earn, don't bail anyone out, and let them learn from their mistakes.

[Elrathin]

T and P had a good post on how the bailout of Bear Stearns actually helped everyone, and not just the investment house itself. In some cases corporate welfare does help everyone when the firm is on the verge of collapse in the short run.


And in some cases welfare does help those individuals as well.

I've said time and time again I don't believe in generations on welfare, but I don't believe in throwing away the entire system either.

The difference is I am not arguing to get rid of welfare like most conservatives are. That's why I bring up corporate welfare since obviously some conservatives DO believe in socialist policies at times to help corporations.

And just like individual welfare can be abused, there are also times corporate welfare is also being abused.

[4Reaganomics]

The point is that both welfare for individuals and for corporations is completely unnecessary. If we allow them to produce, tax them way less, and make it easier for them to get by then we wouldn't need any type of welfare.

Sometimes we need to make an example out or corporations and let them fail, so that in the long run people will see where that particular firm went wrong and they will not repeat the process.

As for individual welfare, my signature says it all

and that is one of the biggest problems in today's society and economy

[piratemonkey]

Because "The Rich" typically have drive, motivation, creativity, and tenacity. "The poor" don't.


If this were always , or even mostly true, then conservative philosophy would make sense.
Unfortunately, it isn't.

The 9 out of 10 of richest people I know were born into their weath. 1/10 is self-made.

The poorest people I know are poor because they have crippling, debilitating or fatal diseases. 50% of all personal bankruptcies are due to health-related reasons.

[Wndrtch]

Because "The Rich" typically have drive, motivation, creativity, and tenacity. "The poor" don't.


If this were always , or even mostly true, then conservative philosophy would make sense.
Unfortunately, it isn't.

The 9 out of 10 of richest people I know were born into their weath. 1/10 is self-made.

Please provide stats/links for support.

Assuming that to be true....

At some point, someone had to earn that money the first time, to be handed down, right? And, if gen#2, 3, etc..don't add to that inherited money, it dissapears in a few generations.

If you take a piece out of the pie every day, and don't put any pieces back in, you run out of pie.

The poorest people I know are poor because they have crippling, debilitating or fatal diseases. 50% of all personal bankruptcies are due to health-related reasons.

Again, please provide the stat or link for the 50% medical hardship claim. It seems a bit hi.

[piratemonkey]

The 9 out of 10 of richest people I know were born into their weath. 1/10 is self-made.

Please provide stats/links for support.

I can't. That's personal anecdote I gave you. But I'd be willing to bet you don't have stats/links to support your side of that particular point either.


Assuming that to be true....

At some point, someone had to earn that money the first time, to be handed down, right? And, if gen#2, 3, etc..don't add to that inherited money, it dissapears in a few generations.

You just made my argument. For every 1 person that actually earns their money, at least two more generations of non-ambitious, non-workers benefit. Even by your conservative example, that's a 2:1 ratio.


Again, please provide the stat or link for the 50% medical hardship claim. It seems a bit hi.

no worries on this one:
Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs.

The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children.

The study was done by the Harvard Law School and the Harvard Medical School.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

[Sublimating]

We call it "common sense".

Letting a significant portion of the banking industry (or any other uber-huge industry) collapse will hurt all people in the US, wereas if you, an individual, do something stupid and cause problems, only you and your immediate family is potentially harmed. A Government cannot take care of every individual's problems, but can effect the common-good.

Yea...well perhaps common sense would be to just look at the thousands of Americans in foreclosures as one big corporation so as to justify bailing them out if thats what it takes to make conservatives feel good about helping everyday Americans.

Conservatives remind me of what I hate most about politicians. They think they can define reality for everyday people. It's like the man who walks in on his wife stark naked with another man and she says "It's not what you think" The hell it isn't! We are and have been under conservative leadership for nearly a decade and things F#&KING SUCK! period. Stop telling me "it's not what you think".

How convenient to be able to throw Bush under the bus by saying he's not a conservative. He's a neocon he's this he's that yada yada yada... do you think all these little tittles matter to average people just trying to get by?
This crap only flies in political forums regular people just know that they are struggling and you are giving their money to big companies. Bush was a conservative when you voted for him..twice. Bush, McCain and the like... this is what passes as a conservative now AND THEIR CORPORATE WELFARE HYPOCRITICAL LEADERSHIP SUCKS!

[Troubadour]

How does a 70% corporate tax help growth?


The 70% was roughly the upper-income rate for individual taxes: Top corporate taxes at the height of American prosperity were somewhat smaller, but usually ranged between 40% and 50%. How does that help growth? Well, first of all, growth is not the main objective - higher living standards are the objective, and growth is pursued only to the finite extent that it benefits them. Reasonable tax rates accomplish this by funding public infrastructure and services, and correcting for externalities.


Which economic system are you in support of?


The one that made America into the most prosperous, shining example economic empowerment in the history of the world: Unionized industries, mobile goods with immobile capital (i.e., actual free trade, not corporate anarchy), a thorough system of services, and massive public commitment to education, science, technology, and infrastructure. To that I would merely add universal healthcare, and various pet projects to encourage more broad-based business ownership.


In terms of externalities, there are many transactions in which those who aren't involved become very much affected. For instance, when you raise corporate taxes, you could very well cause a job loss when firms decide to shut down.


I repeat: It is not possible for a <100% tax that is a function of profit to cause business failure. I told you this before and you simply ignored it. Perhaps you can care to enlighten us heathens out here in Logic Land about how a <100% tax on a quantity defined as a positive value can result in a negative value. Or has the Cato Institute overturned the sign conventions of arithmetic?

Aside from the fact that your example is fictional, you're also way off in Bizarro World focusing on government-related externalities in an environment where the vast, overwhelming majority are imposed by business on the average citizen. Employees are forced to subsidize their own employers, effectively paying their own paychecks at a substantial premium, and one would have to be George W. Bush to not recognize the unsustainability of that. This is a recipe for a Hoover spiral.


Externalities are quite common and I don't understand how this is a defense against cutting taxes for corporations and individuals and relieving them of the burden that they face and the punishment they endure when they produce more.


In other words, after all your bluster, you admit not understanding the basic concept of an external cost. When businesses refuse to provide living wages and/or decent benefits, they are imposing the cost of maintaining their workforce on to the workforce itself - in other words, they are not actually paying for what they get. It would be like if I leased a car, but expected the car company to pay for my gas. And the only reason they are able to impose these costs externally is lack of competition: In the vast majority of job sectors, employees outnumber employers so greatly that there is a virtual monopsony, and employers try to maintain this situation with union-busting tactics and by allying with Republicans. This allows them to essentially dictate the wages of most of their employees, paying only the amount that maximizes their profits without accounting for the economic needs of the employee. Ultimately this system is harmful to everyone including employers, but because most economic decisions are made on a short-run basis, and the harm is universal rather than to an individual company, it's difficult to justify living wages and decent benefits to a corporate board that only sees immediate costs.

There are many ways to compensate for this phenomenon, some tried and others more avant garde, and any can be approached in multiple combinations: (1)Negotiating parity laws - i.e., the requirement that businesses must negotiate with employee blocs accounting for roughly equivalent market proportion. This allows the marketplace to work for average people and not just against them. Concerns about the choice of the employee are allayed by allowing them choice of representation - i.e., they can join (or even form) low-bid unions, and can always personally reject offers their representatives accept. (2)Profit taxation to compensate for externalities. Now, this requires that the money taxed actually be spent correcting the specific external costs that are imposed, so it's a little tricky but tends to work in general short of straw-man-level absurdities. (3)Living wage laws, indexed on inflation and the state of local economies. While more complicated than profit taxation, it addresses the most important externalities directly, and produces correspondingly higher living standards. (4)Robust public services and infrastructure. This also directly accounts for externalities, and is the second half of the profit-taxation method. I don't pretend to know which combination would be optimal, but I lean intuitively toward 1,2,4. However, unlike conservatives, I'm perfectly willing to change my mind in light of new information.


I guess the opportunity cost would be pretty low, at most we'd be giving up some government revenue, a good deal of which we would make back from economic growth and an expanded tax base.


You say this as an article of faith, even while the reality all around you says otherwise. Tax cut after tax cut after tax cut, and our economy is disintegrating - and you're still spouting the line that tax cuts = economic growth. You're talking religion, not economics. Well, I'm an atheist, and on this planet the laws of physics cannot be circumvented by invoking Ronald Reagan.

[Wndrtch]

Conservatives remind me of what I hate most about politicians. They think they can define reality for everyday people. It's like the man who walks in on his wife stark naked with another man and she says "It's not what you think" The hell it isn't!

LOL!, I love you too! :love: So much for uniting the country.

We are and have been under conservative leadership for nearly a decade and things F#&KING SUCK! period. Stop telling me "it's not what you think".

LOL #2...!

Ok, so you hate Cons, because "They think they can define reality for everyday people", then you declare "things F#&KING SUCK period.", which is defining reality for everyday people!

No wonder you're so worked up. I would too, if I hated myself that much!

How convenient to be able to throw Bush under the bus by saying he's not a conservative. He's a neocon he's this he's that yada yada yada... do you think all these little tittles matter to average people just trying to get by?

No, they don't matter, as evident by the fact that average people elected him twice, over "Lurch" and "Egor". You Lefties certainly employed "sandbox" tactics by calling him names for years, and he was still elected. So obviously, names don't matter to average people.

This crap only flies in political forums regular people just know that they are struggling and you are giving their money to big companies. Bush was a conservative when you voted for him..twice. Bush, McCain and the like... this is what passes as a conservative now AND THEIR CORPORATE WELFARE HYPOCRITICAL LEADERSHIP SUCKS!

LOL #3!

Giving their money to big companies? Well gee, if Lefty pols didn't confiscate average people's money in the first place, then no Righty pol would be able to give it away to evil companies that hire average people, now would they. It's just one huge viscious cricle.

So, I guess you're now going to be for lower taxes, so pols can't give your money away to people you don't approve of. Of course, that is a founding principal of Conservatism, so....

[Troubadour]

drtch]
Giving their money to big companies? Well gee, if Lefty pols didn't confiscate average people's money in the first place...


They don't and never have, and that's what Republicans are constantly complaining about. As soon as a Republican takes an office, they immediately set about "remedying" the situation by robbing average people with fee hikes and other stealth taxes that won't insense their rich fundraisers.

[Sublimating]

You have me all wrong Troubadour I am far from a lefty. Unlike many here I don't drink the cool-aid. I don't hate Cons. More like I don't like politicians.

You need to read the post, I said "Conservatives remind me of what I hate most about politicians."

then you declare "things F#&KING SUCK period.", which is defining reality for everyday people!

Ah... no that's called observing reality. Read a paper, watch the news, look at the economy, buy some gas, lol

if Lefty pols didn't confiscate average people's money in the first place, then no Righty pol would be able to give it away

Yea one party takes my money the other party takes more of my money...hmm looks like they are both taking my money. So overall your statement is kinda silly but I see where you're headed with this

Both parties piss me off...right now I'm on the cons...put the cool-aid down man!

[Sublimating]

Sorry...not you Troubadour I meant Wndrtch..put the cool-aid down man!

[4Reaganomics]

Apparently you don't recover some of the lost revenue when you cut taxes due to economic growth

I appreciate your point of view Troub. I guess growth isn't the objective for you and you would like to go the way of France.

I like continued growth, and I think growth signs are one of the major measures of an economy. AS you grow, living standards will improve.

But people have to earn it, you expect people to be given high living standards by corporations automatically

Trample the constitution all that you want, claim high taxation on business and protectionism through unions is why were here

when the reality is that everything that you describe is essential the negation of liberty, the opposition to he true reasons we are here

There are reasons why America is the baddest boy on the block and why France is an old cowardly lady crippled up in a corner, open up a history book and check them out

maybe you'll see what people can really produce and accomplish when given the liberty that they were guaranteed by the men who died for this country to be formed

and for the men who defend that right today


I support liberty and constitutional principles, you support socialist type practices that are the absolute negation of what our country was founded on