|
|
#11
03-07-2005, 03:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: U.S. economic collapse looming for 2005?
[ QUOTE ]
What's wrong with raising taxes and redistributing income? [/ QUOTE ] Nothing is wrong with them as an option. Pushing this agenda is a surefire way to lose most elections these days. In order to win on this agenda the Democrats have to convince the electorate to change their views on this. If you can't convince the electorate that this agenda is desirable then the Democrats have to change their agenda if they want to win. Simple really. Hillery gets it. [ QUOTE ] I support both. [/ QUOTE ] I know. I don't as you know. [ QUOTE ] That's why I'm a Democrat. [/ QUOTE ] I know this as well. 
|
|
#12
03-07-2005, 03:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: U.S. economic collapse looming for 2005?
You're right it is refreshing and I give Dead a lot of credit for being honest about it. Also I note that Dead stated that the "center" in American political thought has moved farther to the right than where the Democrats are. FWIW I'm not sure the leadership of the Democratic party recognizes this.
|
|
#13
03-07-2005, 05:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: U.S. economic collapse looming for 2005?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] What's wrong with raising taxes and redistributing income? [/ QUOTE ] Nothing is wrong with them as an option. Pushing this agenda is a surefire way to lose most elections these days. In order to win on this agenda the Democrats have to convince the electorate to change their views on this. [/ QUOTE ] I don't believe the Dems will be able to do this. Most of America wants to 'get theirs', and they see that as meaning getting a home (or nicer home), making more money, and living better. Most of America doesn't see 'getting theirs' by raising taxes; they want to be taking home more money. Most Americans aren't dependent on government largesse/largesse of others. So the Dems catering/pandering to the bloc of voters who are trying to play catch up on the backs of others just isn't going to work very well, because that bloc is too small. Also, a platform of raising taxes is just going to alienate (to varying extents) most Americans who are trying to better their lots in life. Funny how the Dems in Congress don't seem to realize this, but then why would they: they aren't trying to get ahead in the same way as most of the rest of America. I think the politicians who want to raise taxes are just out of touch with what most of America wants, and I think that that probably includes a big slice of, if not even most, registered Democrats. I mean, seriously, from a personal advantage standpoint, who the hell would want to raise taxes if they are living at least a borderline middle-class existence. It's just an asinine concept if you are trying to get ahead or better your lot in life. And most people aren't so poor that the class-warfare concept appeals to them if they have to pay any more on their taxes too. I think those who don't have to produce much of anything: politicians, many academics, and the extraordinarily wealthy are those who are most likely to favor tax increases. I guess they might be seen as the ones who also typically live the most insular existences. Joe Six-Pack wants a bigger TV, Soccer Mom Mary wants a better car and a nicer home, and Eddie Executive wants more whatever. Most people in the above categories aren't going to vote for across-the-board tax increases even if they personally would bear a lesser partial burden of the increases. Simply put they want more out of life and tax increases are going to make that harder for them to get, and they know it. Why more of the politicians don't 'get' this yet is rather amazing to me.
|
|
#16
03-07-2005, 09:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: U.S. economic collapse looming for 2005?
You may be right about what Joe Sixpack wants--but that doesn't speak to what economic policy may be best for the country in the long term.
Neither party knows what that economic policy is--we don't have enough data or models to show us what the world economy and the US economy are going to do. But a lefty argument that wealth should be spread out shouldn't be rejected out of hand. There's some historical evidence to back it up.
|
|
#18
03-08-2005, 04:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Put your money where your mouth is
I could debate the economics, but alas I don't think that is the debate you want. You are using your political biases to form you conclusions and THEN trying to grasp for evidence. This is how I read that article:
Mr. Greenspan, a brilliant man and federal chairman for over 20 years, reappointed during that tenure by your great hero president Clinton, has met in a dark smoky room with George Bush in order to secretely arrange the downfall of the American economic system. What motivates this? I'm not really sure. You seem to imply pure evil as the only purpose. Well it reads to much like a wacky conspiracy theory to me. Anyway, if this is truly what you believe is happening then put your money where your mouth is. Take out a big loan and short futures on the SP500. After all, you won't let us save social security because of the scary market. If you really think the market is going to perform that badly over the next ten years then act on it. TALK IS CHEAP!
|
|
#19
03-10-2005, 02:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: U.S. economic collapse looming for 2005?
In my opinion the Idaho Observer should stick to showing front page pictures of potatoes instead of discussing economics in 2005 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
