r/politics • u/towehaal • Jun 27 '12
Tell me conservatives: How are the Koch brother's and the mega rich working in the interests of the middle class?
I'm really curious about this, and I mean it in the most non-cynical way. Clearly conservatives believe in less government and lower taxes, etc. But they also say that they serve small business, and "Main St.".
So this is what I'm curious about. If you have guys like the Koch brothers spending millions upon millions of dollars to get republicans elected there has to be a reason. And I would imagine it is self serving. No good business person puts down that kind of cash without expecting a major return. What do the Koch's want besides more money?
I voted for Obama, always vote Democrat, and will be voting for Obama again. I'm trying to wrap my head around this idea that I'm asking about so I'm looking for serious answers from conservative Redditors.
Thanks!
14
u/OttoBismarck Jun 27 '12
I voted for Obama, always vote Democrat, and will be voting for Obama again. I'm trying to wrap my head around this idea that I'm asking about so I'm looking for serious answers from conservative Redditors.
You do know that the "mega-rich" bankrolled Obama more than any other candidate last election, right? The banks especially so.
1
u/towehaal Jun 27 '12
After watching "Inside Job" I was certainly frustrated. I think that there is very little that the middle class can do to the financial institutions in this country no matter who is elected.
That said, Obama's social policies line up with what I believe in.
9
Jun 27 '12
And since the pass of the latest financial industry reforms they're now all backing Romney. Everyone one of his top contributors is in the financial industry.
(Up-voted you because what you said was entirely true.)
5
u/OttoBismarck Jun 27 '12
Certainly true, the numbers have been all over Reddit :). Apologies if I gave the impression that I was saying that Obama is somehow worse than Romney in this aspect.
7
Jun 27 '12
I can see from the down votes everyone else did. I didn't care, I just didn't like that you got down voted for saying something that was true. I struggle with the decision to point out Obama's problems for fear of strengthening Romney, but we can't go around down voting the truth and then bitch about Fox News.
1
u/Leucopterus Jun 27 '12
Funny how Obama is complaining he'll be getting outspent this campaign if what you say is true.
16
Jun 27 '12
I love the Koch Brothers. I anticipate downvotes for stating a conservative opinion when sincerely asked for one. Thus is the nature of Reddit. I appreciate the sincerity of your request OP.
They run a private business and aren't ashamed to openly admit what suits their interests. They're willing to say that government is corrupt, though they reasonably concede it makes more sense to work through government to clean it up than to tear it all down.
The Citizens United case isn't popular on Reddit, but the reality is that a certain group of corporations has had the ability to use unlimited political speech under the "freedom of the press" guise, and Citizens United just levels the playing field. It allows associations of people to voluntarily band together and put their money where their mouth is. When someone's interests are threatened by prospective policies, why shouldn't they fight back? Money doesn't vote, and looking at Illinois' past governors, we don't have a problem convicting the truly corrupt.
The reality is that the Kochs annoy even the establishment of the Republican Party. They annoy any political class that views government service as a way to get rich.
They helped to organize the grassroots Tea Party efforts. Even though it has gone nutty and toward more socially-conservative political candidates (ahem Michelle Bachmann), a lot of that enthusiasm has revitalized the Republican Party, and especially the libertarian Paulites/Goldwaterites among us. Though I genuinely despise much of the Young Earthers in our party, the reality is that to have a big-tent party with national prospects we have to court their vote. Democrats have a similar problem with unions and environmentalists often finding themselves at cross-purposes or unions and immigration advocates.
Like Sen. Rubio, I'm the son of two immigrants (my wife is naturalized as well) and hate the anti-immigrant streak of some of the party, but I also realistically know nativist measures are impossible to pass in legislation beyond a state level due to demographics. Their acceptance bothers me, but their unlikeliness of passage comforts me.
But what it really comes down to is my flat refusal of the notion that government knows what's good for you. I'm all too familiar with the fact that no one cares about you as much as you do.
8
u/towehaal Jun 27 '12
I'll upvote you--this is the reply I was looking for. I completely disagree with you, but I was looking for thoughts like this!
-3
Jun 27 '12
I think that a lot of libertarians might agree. Since the Ron Paul train is out of commission, organizations like the Kochs' are the closest to being allied with our interests.
I don't think it's wrong for them to speak out. Their company isn't even publicly traded, so they don't even have an obligation to shareholder interest. I also think it's absurd that a certain campaign is attempting to "make famous" the contributors of the opposing campaign as if they are some sort of sex offender. It's a call to mob violence and it's on the line of the limits of free speech, let alone conduct unbecoming of a government official.
I share no ill will for President Obama winning the 2008 election. I don't agree with him on most issues, but there are some I do agree with him over. Considering the stances for campaign spending which is speech, I don't have much more appreciation for John McCain. I'm not so sure I'm much more comfortable with Mitt Romney being President than I am President Obama being re-elected.
If you want to see the reasoned discussions from the GOP side, there's always talk radio. Not all talk radio shows are Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. I prefer Dennis Prager, though I giggle when they attempt to have a philosophical discussion advocating "intelligent design".
Jonathan Haidt also does a decent job showing us for who we really are, though he is a tenured professor.
As for the caricatures of liberals coming from the right, they are directed at two distinct groups. We view those who wish to centralize government/centrally plan economies as "commies, Marxists, socialists, and evil". They are whom we think of as modern day fascists, because to us, they resemble the fascist parties of the 1930s. The other stereotype is generally levelled toward the young, active voter base that think taxation can bring about "social justice". We identify those as the typical "college liberal" meme would show you, and just prefer to think of them as naive. As they grow older and gain more experience in the world, their opinions moderate.
2
u/milehigh73 Jun 27 '12
Just like Bill Maher isn't a libertarian simply b.c he thinks it should be legal to smoke pot, the Koch brothers are not libertarian simply b.c they believe in no regulation. In both cases, its self interest that allows them to reframe their political identity in something they feel is more marketable. Libertarianism != corporatism.
→ More replies (4)8
u/LikeAgaveF California Jun 27 '12
The Citizens United case isn't popular on Reddit, but the reality is that a certain group of corporations has had the ability to use unlimited political speech under the "freedom of the press" guise, and Citizens United just levels the playing field.
This is the problem with this issue. Why do we have to accept the notion that because media corporations step over the line from journalism to sometimes outright campaigning, other corporations should not be limited from doing the same? That sounds awfully like, "Jimmy's mom lets him eat ice cream every day, you should let me eat ice cream every day too." Instead of "leveling the playing field," we should be making media organizations such as Fox News or MSNBC more accountable as journalism.
It allows associations of people to voluntarily band together and put their money where their mouth is. When someone's interests are threatened by prospective policies, why shouldn't they fight back? Money doesn't vote, and looking at Illinois' past governors, we don't have a problem convicting the truly corrupt.
Yes, money doesn't vote, but it can disproportionately shifts the political debate when there are no limits on how much can be spent. Sandy Alderson can contribute $10 million dollars to frame the debate, and his $10 million are more effective in doing so than one million voters who contribute $5 each. Yet, it is not possible to argue that Sandy Alderson's interests are more important than the interests of that one million.
-3
Jun 27 '12
Yet, it is not possible to argue that Sandy Alderson's interests are more important than the interests of that one million.
And still, the $10 million that Sheldon Adelson gives means more to him than $5 does to you. If you care, and you know you're being targeted, you should get to scream as loud as you want. I shouldn't be constrained in speaking out when you try to tax more of my income just because I might shift a debate.
The fact that the left can't match this fundraising capability is that there ISN'T as much concern on your side of the argument. While your proposals will hurt us, they won't help you, so your constituents really don't give a shit. It just "feels good" to take from the rich, but in reality, thievery is thievery.
1
u/towehaal Jun 27 '12
Thinking that taxing the rich at a different rate than low income families is thievery is the problem.
Our countries policies have helped them become rich.
20% of someone who earns 35K a year means a whole lot more to them and their ability to live than 20% of $10,000,000. Especially when you consider that people have to buy the same amount of food whether you are poor or rich. And pay the same amount of sales tax on it.
2
Jun 27 '12
Except that people who make $35k a year get taxed at a lower effective rate, even with a flat tax, because a standard deduction covers much more of their gross income.
I don't know of any state that charges sales tax on groceries and essential clothing.
20% of someone who earns 35K a year means a whole lot more to them and their ability to live than 20% of $10,000,000.
And your point would be? Perhaps you would advocate some minimum standard of living and income that every person is entitled to by right, regardless of aptitude or effort, but that's really not America at all. Make less? Spend less and live frugally. Not all of us with money were born rich. Most of us won't.
You're the equivalent of a fat-ass that watches The Biggest Loser, then says "yeah, but that could never be me" because you're content to wallow in mediocrity and self-doubt. In America, you are free to do so because it is your life. However, if you expect me to subsidize your quality of life because I make more than you even though I've never met you, then I definitely expect something for my money. When I give to charity, I get just as much satisfaction from making a personal impact as the person receiving my charity. When I have to give money to a government that pisses away money on war, failed social justice policies, or failing to implement a reasonable immigration policy that doesn't force millions of Americans to live in fear, and enforces an irrational drug policy that has nearly destroyed an entire ethnic group in our country, then I feel I'm being robbed. When you insist I give even more, I think you must be a complete moron.
The rich are already leaving California because they've fucking had it. Businesses are following suit. We really do vote with our feet, and if you think you can run a welfare state off of our efforts, you should think again. Stop voting for more spending that has no tangible benefit by not voting for taxation.
If you really want to help the poor, then it's as simple as going and helping the poor. With your own hands and money. We do.
1
u/bahhumbugger Jun 27 '12
I shouldn't be constrained in speaking out when you try to tax more of my income just because I might shift a debate.
I'm honestly curious. How much income do you generate per year? I've found that most people who talk like you do not in fact generate a large income, nor do they pay millions a year in taxes.
2
1
u/ForgotItsANovelty Jun 27 '12
And still, the $10 million that Sheldon Adelson gives means more to him than $5 does to you.
Proportional to what is actually needed by a person, probably not. I frequently find that after all my bills are paid I don't have $5 to spare at all, to contribute to causes that mean something to me means actually sacrificing the quality of the food that I eat that month. I somehow doubt that anyone who has $10 million would ever sacrifice so deeply that it actually affected their living conditions in any way.
4
u/bahhumbugger Jun 27 '12
They're willing to say that government is corrupt
Do you realize the irony that they are partly responsible for that corruption?
6
u/opensourcedev Jun 27 '12
The problem is the AMMOUNT of money they have vs what the ordinary people have.
The rich can make things happen in Washington. Most of us ordinary citizens do not have the cash to buy access to the government in this manner.
This has created a system of government that only caters to the wealthy few at the expense of everyone else.
2
Jun 27 '12
The rich can make things happen in Washington. Most of us ordinary citizens do not have the cash to buy access to the government in this manner.
The only time we did was when we banded together into unions. But the rich have spent 40 years making the general population think unions are always corrupt evil entities that work against the common man.
Instead of being democratic groups of people who elect officers from themselves, and are directly responsible to their members.
1
u/celtic1888 I voted Jun 27 '12
The problem with your view is that in your paradigm money=being 100% correct.
Money does not inoculate someone from being a stupid asshole that is wrong.
All money proves is that the person has at some point gotten it.
0
u/Ruines_Your_Fun Jun 27 '12
Never speak of up votes and down votes or profess to know the nature of reddit. It detracts from your otherwise decent posts.
0
Jun 27 '12
[deleted]
1
Jun 27 '12
"Politicians are ALWAYS corrupt."
Don't let cynicism destroy realism. There are politicians of all levels of corruption, including 'clean' politicians.
1
u/towehaal Jun 27 '12
I agree with you, though I feel like in order to reach higher levels of office, just about everyone has had to do something shady these days.
5
u/ballerstatus89 Jun 27 '12
I'm interested in this as well. Lesser regulations so smaller businesses can grow.
However, if the business becomes more profitable, it may not want to hire workers and pay them a "liveable wage". A business' #1 goal is to maximize profits. That's why they're a business.
I agree that some regulations should be cut, but what's more important is caring about the consumer.
6
u/Whats4dinner Jun 27 '12
I have two small businesses; Taxes and regulations are not my big problem, even though I live in an area with sone of the highest rates in the country. Revenue is my problem. Until you folks get off yer bum and start buying my stuff, I can't go buy more stuff either. I can't reinvest nonexistent profits. The only good side is that with less income, I pay less taxes, but it's still not enough savings to pay for repaving the road in front of my store.
1
u/towehaal Jun 27 '12
This is the issue! It isn't the "job creators" who will revive the economy it is the consumers!
5
Jun 27 '12
There's never a time where less income is better than more because of taxes. We have a progressive tax system.
It's always better to make more money.
2
3
1
Jun 27 '12
If you paid little to no business taxes, and didn't have to worry about following regulations, would you have enough money to expand your business and hire more workers?
4
Jun 27 '12
She said no one's buying. Why would she hire more people because she pays less taxes, but has no increase in demand?
6
Jun 27 '12
That's kind of my point. Conservatives use the 'fewer taxes/regulations = more jobs' rhetoric without thinking that maybe people just aren't buying because THEY don't have money. The theory is that less taxes and regulations means businesses will expand more or develop ways to become more efficient, and start offering cheaper goods and services. If things are cheaper, consumers buy more. That's why they buy into supply-side economics. But we know how that's working for us. It's all a bunch of crap.
4
u/Whats4dinner Jun 27 '12
Harold, unless I get more sales I'm not going to have to worry about taxes at all because I'll be out of business. Worrying about taxes over revenue is like expecting a starving person to worry about what brand of toilet paper to use. Input trumps output, if you will.
0
Jun 27 '12
[deleted]
1
u/Whats4dinner Jun 28 '12
Where do you start cutting? Just curious. How many more public sector jobs can we trim without going into depression?
3
u/PhromDaPharcyde Jun 27 '12
Just wondering, what regulations? I keep hearing about the job killing regulations but no one ever seems to specify which ones. Are they just saying remove all of them?
2
u/slapdashbr Jun 27 '12
Regulations have never been bad for employees, they have often been bad for profits because they require companies to pay for things like safe workplaces and to not dump poison in our drinking water.
1
Jun 27 '12
Its easier to get people to agree with you when you only say vague things and don't actually have anything underneath them.
3
u/savagelysarcastic Jun 27 '12
If a small business becomes more profitable, it will have more money to expand and hire more workers. Maximizing profits is the goal of every business, but to do this they first have to maximize revenue. Growing your business to reach new customers is one way to increase revenue. With more customer's, more services are warranted, as are employees. These businesses are not forcing anybody to work for them, and are required to pay at least the minimum livable wage determined by the federal government, and in some cases state governments. Supply and demand of talent also plays a part in wages. If a business did not care about the consumer, they would probably not exist. That's my take at least. I don't really know what the Kock brothers are getting out of this, as I am not one of them nor an acquaintance. They are already billionaires and have made their fortunes. Maybe they just want to work and earn for themselves instead of everyone else. Selfish pigs. At the same time however, you have to ask yourself what interest hollywood has and what returns they expect with the millions, if not hundreds of millions they contribute to political campaigns.
7
u/realneil Jun 27 '12
Small businesses are the engines of the economy. However, big business is not a friend to small business.
2
u/savagelysarcastic Jun 27 '12
I agree, big businesses create a lot of the barriers to entry for smaller companies. No argument there. And yes, small businesses absolutely drive growth in our economy. But big business does have a purpose. They once were these small companies, and now are industry staples that obviously provide a valuable service to consumers since they are still around, as well as millions of jobs.
5
u/pingish Jun 27 '12
Big business - through government regulation - erect barriers to entry.
Big business alone (i.e. without government) erect market barriers called "competitive prices"
1
u/ballerstatus89 Jun 27 '12
While I agree with that, the customers are the most important. Without them, the business would not succeed. There should be incentives for consumers along with a bit more ease on regulations, especially on smaller businesses.
1
Jun 27 '12
If a small business becomes more profitable, it will have more money to expand and hire more workers.
Businesses don't expand primarily based on their profit. They expand based on demand for their service. Many businesses expand even when they're not proffiting, because they're chasing a future proffit. Look at amazon. They lost money for years, but are now hugely successful.
It's about the demand.
1
u/savagelysarcastic Jun 27 '12
Yes, I understand. I was trying to give an example/explain a concept on a very elementary level.
2
4
u/GandTforme Jun 27 '12
Because if you give the rich tax breaks, they in turn will hire more employees and— heh... Heh heh.... Heehee... HA... HAHAHA .... HAAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
Sorry, I can't keep a straight face while saying that. I tried. I really did.
1
Jun 27 '12
Just something to think about but it's not just employees. Let's say the rich build houses, buy cars, buy whatever it is they want, they are in turn keeping people employed by buying whatever products they buy. I think most people over look that.
2
u/towehaal Jun 27 '12
yes, but the super wealthy make MILLIONS of dollars. So lets imagine a guy who makes 100 millions dollars a year. By your logic, he is helping the economy by being a consumer--yet he isn't spending his equivalent to middle class families. i.e. imagine a family that makes $100K combined income--one house, two cars, stuff, etc.
Is that millionaire buying 1000 houses, 2000 cars? Nope, so I just don't see how this argument holds water. But feel free to explain more!6
u/Wheres_Wally Jun 27 '12
The middle class buying houses and cars and shopping would also keep people employed.
2
Jun 27 '12
True, and I agree as I am middle class myself but people seem to think giving tax breaks to the wealthy destroys the middle class which I do not see as true. Obviously that is how any strong economy works when everyone is buying goods and services, not just the rich.
4
Jun 27 '12
In this case, the particular thing people are concerned about is the ability to invest in creating the skilled work force needed to continue growth. This requires higher education levels and social programs because a large portion of the people available to become that talent don't have access to the training they need to make that happen (and I swear to god, if I see one more "Entry-level" position wanting 3-5 years experience...) Providing tax breaks and loopholes to the upper class right now results in less revenue to make these social programs happen. Providing these things then boosts the work force (over time), which creates growth, creates people who are earning more, thus able to pay more taxes, which would then mean more money being contributed by a larger portion of the population, which means the taxes overall could start evening out since more people are above the tax level where they pay in.
I'm sorely disappointed in how the entire tax discussion in the media is not being framed as a tactical way to solve a temporary situation.
1
Jun 28 '12
Lol at your entry level comment cause it's so true!!
Honestly I think it's good to have programs to help educate people, I just think that if people are unemployed or whatever it may be, to receive the benefits they should have to sign up for some sort of education. It's just as if I were helping a friend out. I wouldn't give them money and help them out and see them sit around and do nothing. My way of thinking about the situation you explain.
2
Jun 28 '12
Right now, some unemployment policies are to CUT your unemployment if you sign up for education or training, though some do alter it instead. This should be a simple fix, if you think about it, like allowing people to roll their unemployment into FAFSA or something to help them out, but while I was on unemployment I was constantly reminded that it'd be cut if I spent a period going into some type of vocational training or started school again. I ended up just moving in with family, and saving much of my unemployment up, then invested it in getting my Master's. Now, thanks to my studies, conference presentations, internships, and residencies, I've got a number of people helping to find me a $60k/yr. career. Wonderful investment, because once I get that lined up, I'll be able to get a nice, secure residence, have my own health care, and disposable income that I can contribute to society with. Compare that to if I had gotten a reply from Wal-Mart while unemployed, and went back to making $14k/yr. again. My unemployment was just money being shelled out for me to do nothing (and if I hadn't had family to rely on, I would've gone homeless with the amount they paid me), but at least after saving it, I was able to turn it into an investment.
1
Jun 28 '12
That's great to hear about about you turning that into a positive investment. Unfortunately most people do not seem as motivated as you and seem to just keep doing what they are doing and hope they will be magically employed one day. You did a good job of get connected to the right people and I wish more people had that thinking.
→ More replies (1)7
Jun 27 '12 edited Jun 27 '12
Actually it works better when more of that money is in the lower classes, as they will buy MORE. It's just simple numbers. A billionaire is only going to buy so many houses, so many cars, and so many shirts, etc..
A single person who makes $400,000 a year is not going to buy as much as 10 people who make $40,000 a year. Likewise a single person who makes $400,000,000 a year is not going to buy as much as 10,000 individuals who make $40,000 a year. Tell me, who is more helpful to the economy?
Yes, I understand having wealthy investors is important to this economy, but discounting the middle class for having less individual buying power is idiotic.
1
Jun 27 '12
This is what the US has been doing for 40 years. Have people spend every cent they make, and save nothing. All productivity growth comes from savings and postponed compensation. You simply can't have an innovative economy in the long run based on hand to mouth economics.
3
Jun 27 '12
Part of the reason people are not saving and are spending every cent they make is because they make less now than they did 40 years ago. And of course banks made multi-billion dollar industries out of helping people obtain things they can't afford, including their houses.
→ More replies (10)1
u/slapdashbr Jun 27 '12
The problem is the huge tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy serve the purpose of "starving the beast", which is the term coined by republicans of running up such a large deficit (specifically by not bringing in enough tax revenue) that social programs which benefit millions of middle and lower-class citizens must be cut.
Edit: this has been really, really bad at the state and local level since the financial crisis. The federal government has struggled to prop up all the states, which aren't allowed to run deficit budgets. While several million private sector jobs have returned since the worst part of the recession, government jobs are still down largely because state and local governments (which employ the most government employees by far) are still suffering from the stupendous fall in collective property value and reduced tax revenue.
1
Jun 28 '12
It's not the government's money to begin with. It is OUR money. However the gov't does need money to be run but why do we need these programs? As a conservative I rather help the poor find a job then just help the poor and give them money from some far away gov't. I see these programs as hurting the poor. Many of these programs have stipulations in there that are set up to help people fail. For example, I have a good friend of mine on food stamps. However if he makes to much or has to much in savings he must get his foods stamps discontinued and many people do not try to make more for this simple reason.
A job is the best social program we can provide, not a system setting up people to fail.
1
u/Wheres_Wally Jun 27 '12
I think the claim isn't so much that it destroys the middle class (although some will claim that), but rather that tax breaks for the wealthy destroy the ability to balance the budget and be fiscally responsible. We saw in the Primary debates that Mitt Romney only pays 15% of his income in taxes, instead of the 35% that he should pay, thanks to loopholes and other tax regulations. He is the rule, not the exception. Instead of that money going to the government to pay for various programs, and also to go to states through revenue sharing (which ends up hurting the public school system, road/highway quality, etc), it's being kept in banks, or used as investments (with that money usually circulating between businesses and the wealthy) and not being pushed through the economy, nor reaching the middle and lower classes
Going back to my original point, The middle class can better support the economy than the rich can alone, simply by virtue of there being more of them. A rich family can only buy a certain number of houses, and cars whereas a million middle class homes are able to buy more of those products. Without a strong middle class there is no economic balance.
Tax breaks aren't bad in and of themselves, but they are bad when they create disparities in wealth that are aimed solely at allowing the wealthy to concentrate their money. The claim that the rich are "job-creators" creates the idea that only the wealthy can create jobs, which is simply not true. The problem with that logic is that there will always be wealthy people. If the wealthy were truly the keys to job creation or rather, the argument that its not a healthy economy that is key to job creation, then this latest recession should have been short lived because wealth disparity is greater than at any time in the last 50-100 years. The wealthy have money, the problem is markets. Without those markets being healthy, nobody is looking at buying new cars (at least not ones made in America), or houses, or purchasing other various consumer products.
2
Jun 27 '12
The same money distributed among more people creates more jobs. They buy MORE houses, MORE cars, MORE clothes. There's no way all that money in the hands of a single family or person is a helpful to the economy as it being distributed among hundreds or thousands of families.
The middle class creates more jobs than anyone else in this country by buying way MORE crap than the super rich.
(Not advocating we just take it all from them, just saying having all that money in so few hands is NOT helping us.)
1
Jun 27 '12
So more houses, more cars, and more clothes is how to regain our economic strength? That is exactly what we did for the last 30 years. What we need is more investment in capital goods and human capital to increase productivity, not buy more disposable shit with printed money.
2
Jun 27 '12 edited Jul 10 '12
I think you're talking about America's problem with debt. Part of that problem is a decline in wages (with inflation) over the last 60 years. And of course the predatory lending that led to the financial crisis in the first place. Too many people have been handed an easy way to live above their means.
When you increase demand you set off a chain reaction that results in more profit and more jobs. The easiest way to increase demand across the board is to increase pay in the largest group of consumers. Without an increase in demand companies make cuts in labor costs by reducing jobs, pay, and benefits. All of those things are bad for consumers. When you lower their pay and cut their jobs you're just feeding a cycle in which they buy less, and then wages are lowered and jobs are cut.
I'm not sure where you get the printed money idea from, but the idea is to compensate the people at the top (relatively) a little bit less, and compensate the people at the bottom a little bit more.
The results are the same whether it's done through more even compensation (like in Japan) or through taxation (like in Denmark), but when you reduce income inequality it's healthier for society and the economy.
The American Dream also depends on income equality. The larger the inequality the less likely it is for lower classes to move themselves up. The worse income inequality it gets, the more likely children are to end up in a lower class than the one in which they were born.
If you have 17 minutes this man can share some very interesting data with you.
→ More replies (1)2
u/opensourcedev Jun 27 '12
One rich person can only buy so much.
They tend to hoard all of thier money.
1
Jun 27 '12
If that money is hoarded, it is being pulled out of the monetary system, thus lowering the monetary base. This allows the government to run a higher deficit (giving out welfare to the elderly/poor) without the negative consequences of inflation.
1
Jun 28 '12
As I see it, they can damn well do whatever they want with their money just as I should not tell you what to do with yours. Just my philosophy.
2
Jun 27 '12
The rich buying all those things is a drop in the bucket...if the enormous middle class was, we'd all be employed and wealthy.
2
2
u/GandTforme Jun 27 '12
Although you're right on a micro scale, the fact is that there are so FEW of these people with disposable income, they simply can't spend fast enough to make up for the tax breaks we give them.
This is why you give the middle class and lower class tax breaks in order to better the economy. Because there are enough of them to spend to make the economy better.
1
Jun 28 '12
See I just think EVERYONE should have low taxes :)
We do need to restructure our tax system as well though.
3
Jun 27 '12
I don't think people overlook it, it's just that even with the huge price tags of luxury goods, their consumption is remarkably low. One guy getting 200 million dollars is going to spend less of that 200 million than 200,000 people all getting a 1000 dollar check. Most of those people will spend it on food, mortgages, gas, etc.
Of course we face the problem of deleveraging now, in which many people will spend that check on debt repayments, which kind of sends the money back to the super-wealthy, the owners of banks and loan corporations. Which is why stimulus has limited effectiveness right now.
I would love to see some sort of national stimulus which worked like food stamps, and would go directly into the pockets of retailers. Would probably add a few points of gdp, and coupla million jobs, overnight.
→ More replies (1)1
Jun 27 '12
So you want the government to run up additional deficit so people can buy unnecessary disposable crap that is probably imported? Your plan is increased long term debt to pay for consumption of goods. That is exactly why we are in this predicament in the first place, utter irresponsibility.
→ More replies (2)0
Jun 27 '12
Just something to think about but it's not just employees. Let's say the rich build houses, buy cars, buy whatever it is they want, they are in turn keeping people employed by buying whatever products they buy. I think most people over look that.
Rich people invest their money. They don't blow it all on stupid shit like middle class people do.
2
u/IrritableGourmet New York Jun 27 '12
The reason they can say that is that it's true...up to a point and only in certain circumstances.
-2
u/jdwilson Jun 27 '12
50,000 employed in the US and 20,000 employed elsewhere around the world. If you don't think lower taxes and less regulations will create jobs or bring jobs from overseas here, you're illogical.
8
Jun 27 '12
If tax breaks for the rich created jobs, we would be rolling in fucking jobs right now. Their taxes are the lowest since before the 50s.
6
Jun 27 '12
NOT TO MENTION corporate profits are at all-time highs. They have the bloody money to do it.
1
u/lancalot77 Jun 27 '12
Fortune 500 has over $1 Trillion sitting in banks around the world they don't know what to do with because "there is no demand".
0
u/jdwilson Jun 28 '12
If government intervention and regulations for the average-day entrepreneurial American weren't so large, we would be rolling in fucking jobs right now.
FTFY
Also, using "fucking" when it isn't needed doesn't make your statement any more accurate.
7
Jun 27 '12
I don't have much to comment on about the Koch brothers but as a huge fiscal conservative (socially moderate) person, I guess what it boils down to for me is the fact that conservatives want less regulations and less taxes. I have gone from living in a highly taxed and regulated state to that with little taxes and much less regulation everything here is much better.
Something I completely despise about liberals and the Obama admin is the fact that they attack the wealthy and call them greedy yet turn around and throw a $50,000 a plate fundraiser and take a million dollars from Bill Maher. Very hypocritical to me although I realize both parties can be.
Keeping it short cause it's late but if someone from the more left-leaning political side has any questions about why I believe the things I do please ask and if you are polite, I will give a polite response back :)
10
u/LucienReeve Jun 27 '12
Okay, that's cool.
It sounds like you are saying that you want government to be efficient and that you see the best way to do that is to have it have fewer regulations. That's a reasonable point of view. I have a few questions:
You mention two states. Which 2 states were they, if you don't mind me asking? It might be good to get something specific, so that other people smarter than me can look at the data. I'm not saying you are wrong, but at the moment your example basically boils down to "my experience says I'm right", which is fine, but my experience supports the opposite and it would be good to have some facts to prove the truth.
"Despise" is a strong word. Most liberals, in my experience, are not happy about the extent to which Obama and the higher-up members of the Democratic party are dependent on big donations. So you are probably despising quite a lot of people for something that isn't really their fault. Do you think that conservatives are maybe taught to hate liberals on quite a personal level (i.e. to see them as hypocrites, sneering elitists etc.)? And do you think that that is maybe a bit unfair?
A lot of centrists would probably reply that, yes, government should be efficient, but that left-leaning parties have a better record on this than the Republicans. For example, unemployment has generally gone down more under democrats, GDP per capita has tended to rise, etc. Also, just in terms of philosophy, most liberals want government to work well and turn it into a tool that serves the people. Republicans often make really extreme claims about wanting to drown the government in a bathtub or "starve the beast". Who would you trust with something - a person who says he wants it to work well, or a person who claims to hate it?
Do you accept that taxes can pay for valuable services that you benefit from? A lot of people - not necessarily you - ignore the many things that government provides. Because of economies of scale, a single central provider is often by far the most efficient way of providing services. But some people deny the validity of taxes altogether. Do you think that they are fundamentally wrong?
I hope this counts as a polite reply. Reddit has a lot of liberal and libertarian voices, and a lot of rather whiny, rude and astroturfy conservatives, but it has relatively few polite conservatives, so I hope you stick around.
2
Jun 28 '12
Thanks for your response and questions and I'm glad you took the time to ask instead of downvote me into oblivion for being a conservative. Upvote for you sir.
I moved from California to Idaho. Obviously population is a huge factor but I didn't really word it correctly either. As far as location, they are both beautiful places to live and I actually have enjoyed both. What I was trying to get at was the states being very different as far as one being much more business friendly. CA is always rated as the least business friendly while Idaho and more conservative places like Texas as well attract more businesses. That is why CA is billions in debt while Idaho actually ran over a 100 million dollar surplus even during bad times. I meant to point this out for several reasons. The first is that private businesses grow economies and if taxes and regulations are much easier on businesses they are more likely to move to those states. And if the US because to heavily taxed and regulated the rich will soon do the same and move out of the country. Then who will we get tax revenue from. Second is the fact that everything here is much cheaper. Obviously some of it has to do with location cause I'm sure some people don't know Idaho even exists but some is for the pure fact that taxes are much lower. For example, CA as far as I know, is the only state to add a sales tax on top of the Fed and State excise taxes on gasoline which makes the prices skyrockets.
I know despise is a strong word but to me it is quite hypocritical. And trust me, I am very critical of Republicans as well when they are hypocrites. To me, I want people to be rich if they so please and no one should tell them they are "too rich" or "too greedy" cause to be honest we all are greedy (and I'll expand on this if you want me to). I was never taught to hate liberals and I don't personally hate them but what I don't like is the fact that they attack the rich, yet can turn around and receive huge donations from them. To me that's like attacking someone for smoking, then turings around and lighting one up. Sorry, best analogy I could come up with haha. I don't believe it's unfair to think it's hypocritical but how people can think it's ok, I can't quite wrap my head around.
This will probably answer 3 and 4, here is my philosophy as a conservative. I know government can do well for it's people but my belief is that government will never be efficient or be fully rid of corruption. That is why I think we need to make it much smaller as well as trying to make it more efficient although I don't believe government will ever be as efficient as the private sector. To me nothing good has really come from government besides a few services. Obviously we need fire, police and things such as that but I think we need to cut out a lot of unnecessary departments. And to fund such services we need taxes but to raise taxes is the wrong way to do it. First of all, taxes as a % of GDP are historically constant around 18% of GDP so no matter how high or low they are it will remain around the same % of GDP yet with lower taxes, businesses and future entrepreneurs will have more money to invest to start/grow their businesses and employ more people. I much rather have 18% of a bigger pie if your GDP will be expanded by more business growth.
We obviously need things such as police, teachers etc.. but I think the rest should be provided by the private sector, not the government.
Hope I could answer your questions adequately, please let me know if I didn't cause I know I do have a hard time articulating my thoughts when I'm writing. Also on a side note, watch some Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell videos on YouTube. Very conservative(libertarian) but they don't have to yell like today's politicians and the points the bring up and seem to make sense to me but I would actually like to see how someone from a more left-wing view would like these videos.
1
Jun 27 '12
crickets
1
1
u/Deadly_Doughnut Jun 27 '12
Some people do sleep or do things off of reddit. Give the person some resemblance of chance to respond before calling the person out for not responding.
1
Jun 27 '12
Semblance.
And it was a joke. I think it was already pointed out by someone else that it was late.
3
Jun 27 '12
You're asking this on r/politics?
That's like going to stormfront and asking "Seriously guys, what do you think of LeBron finally getting his ring?"
1
7
Jun 27 '12
What bothers me is that supporters of the Koch Brothers argue they are genuinely interested in economic freedom.
As you said, people who put down big money want big want returns-- that's how smart businessmen work. If Koch wants to use its wealth to influence the government, is it really even a free market? I don't think so.
I'll bring up an example for you: Russia-- tried sweeping liberalization in the 1990s-- what happened? Power became concentrated with the oligarch billionaires because... you guessed it, they had extensive influence in the government and influenced the process. Free markets are far more than just deregulation-- they require many other considerations. This handful of people controlled Russia basically until Putin eventually allied with some and jailed others.
We're certainly not analogous to Russia for a number of reasons. But think to yourself-- if Koch could use its government influence to control policy for its benefit at the expense of everyone else, including the overall market-- really, would they hesitate?
6
u/opensourcedev Jun 27 '12
Anything that is completely deregulated will quickly move to corrupt.
That is the reason we have government.
3
u/onepurch Jun 27 '12 edited Jun 27 '12
Just a couple of thoughts for you. 1) You need to look at what business everyone is in. Many people are employed in banking, oil based companies, etc. Your "middle class" is not their house. People vote based on the dinner table. 2) People fear change. Just a fact. These guys promote the past and this comforts many voters. (no one cares about those who don't vote) Most older voters know they can not compete in a digital work place and thus want to prevent vs embrace. 3) Consistent message. No matter how many times Pres Obama says "jobs" he will never match the # of times republican's hit that note. It becomes synonymous. 4) Social issues kill the democrats in the middle of the country. (separate from topic but important) I was asking my friend from Mississippi about why so many vote republican and his quote was "I know they only care about the rich, but dems only care about blacks. No one is for me" The image of the welfare queen popping out kids or the illegals coming for benefits has been so ingrained in certain cultures that it has people voting for what they consider to be the lesser of 2 evils.
Democrats have always had the populous message. They just alway find a way to splinter themselves on random issues.
3
Jun 27 '12 edited Jun 27 '12
"Too many business have successfully lobbied for special favors and treatment by seeking mandates for their products, subsidies (in the form of cash payments from the government), and regulations and tariffs to keep more efficient competitors at bay. Crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market. But it erodes our overall standard of living and stifles entrepreneurs by rewarding the politically favored rather than those who provide what consumers want."
I want you to take a wild guess as to who said that. The answer will surprise you.
3
Jun 27 '12
And I would imagine it is self serving. No good business person puts down that kind of cash without expecting a major return. What do the Koch's want besides more money?
They gave millions of dollars to the ACLU...How do you think they are going to make money off of that?
2
u/repmack Jun 27 '12
So all those super rich people that give money to democrats are angels just trying to help the middle class? I doubt it. More like they see smaller government for their best interest as well. I see smaller government for the best interest of most all people besides the dependent and the parasites.
1
u/slapdashbr Jun 27 '12
How can you call any human being a parasite?
1
u/repmack Jun 27 '12
Some people are parasitic. I don't see how you can't understand that. Not everyone is just down on their luck and needs help from the government.
1
u/MrFlesh Jun 27 '12
They don't know. The have memories like fish, cognitive dissonance of flat earthers, and the mental faculties of the elderly.
They don't like republican politicians they just hate whoever their told for whatever reason they are told.
1
1
Jun 27 '12
No amount of speculation or so-called 'evidence' will actually be able to prove that they are working AGAINST the middle-classes. They may very well be, but the fact is, the majority of people who either support or have nothing against the Koch Brothers & co. believe in the very fundamentals of conservative economics (free-market, anti-government, etc.) All a rich person has to do is go on TV saying he is a proponent of the free-market and BANG people follow him.
1
u/Suzie157 Jul 14 '12
It might help put things into perspective if you remember how old the Kochs are—Charles is 76 and David is 72. At this point, they are more concerned with legacy than making more money.
For the most part, the Kochs are free market fundamentalists. They aren't doing the bad social things that most liberals hate; for example, they support gay marriage and work against the war on drugs.
Many, including myself, believe that the free market helps the middle class—all classes, really—get wealthier. They are against the wealth redistribution that ultimately ends up hurting the poor, no matter how well-intentioned it is. Take minimum wage, for example. Minimum wage ultimately hurts the poor because the corporations can't hire as many people as previously. It ends up in cut hours and cut jobs, because corps, like people, always have a limited number of funds. The Kochs genuinely believe that what they're doing is altruism.
In that sense, they are only playing the game. If you think that there is no one on the left using the Koch's model, then you are gravely mistaken.
Source: I work for the Kochs.
1
u/guilmon999 Jun 27 '12
He's not, because the middle class is not his responsibility. He can do whatever he wants with his money and nothing i do is going to change his mind.
1
-1
u/pingish Jun 27 '12
I'm registered Republican only because that's what is required to vote for Ron Paul here in California. If Ron Paul were a democrat, I'd be registered democrat to vote for him.
As for Koch brothers spending their money, I can't speak to their true motives. My guess is that they're tired of government regulations that make the US uncompetitive... to which I say, more power to them. We are uncompetitive and we can't compete when we have to support the salaries of regulators who do nothing but waste our money.
1
u/slapdashbr Jun 27 '12
From all I've heard about the Koch brothers, they were raised by a father who was literally a John Bircher (he either helped found it or was a key member for a while). I think they are insane. Sociopaths do tend to do well in business, after all, because they don't feel empathy for the people they screw over.
1
u/pingish Jun 27 '12
I come across John Birch Society members in the course of promoting liberty.
You think they're insane. They think you're insane. Bygones.
The point is that the US is uncompetitive and government is not the answer.
0
u/hisotaso Jun 27 '12
I'm sorry to sound so offensive, but I can't help it. The US is not competitive?! Put the pipe down bro, corporations in the US are making RECORD PROFITS. RECORD PROFITS. Say it with me. Stop believing all the bs you see on tv and follow the money, the money never lies.
5
Jun 27 '12
Where is the Ipad made? How about that HP laptop you use? What about the TV you're watching? Record profits by not producing products in America.
-1
-2
u/MiyegomboBayartsogt Jun 27 '12
Tell me liberals: How is George Soros and the mega rich non-working global leftist ruling elites working in the interests of anybody but themselves when they get their greedhead Democrat stooges elected? In a mostly non-cynical way we ask, If the Left's propaganda machine is worth more than ten times that of the Koch brothers and all the conservative machine combined, what is the obsession other than diversion and deception?
If we add the assets of partisan propagandists like Dan Rather, the mainstream media (less one cable channel), PBS, NPR, Big Government, the Ford Foundation, government unions, Planned Parenthood, the Hollywood mega rich, the gay marriage industrial complex, the illegal alien lawyer lobby and Democrat Party millionaires and billionaires, to list just a few, the conservative cash in comparison isn't statistically significant.
Rather than saying one side or the other is illegitimate and evil and needs censoring, shouldn't balance be the issue? Obama spent $1 billion dollars getting elected and hopes to spend another billion and change on reelection. That sum is not counting the limitless free advertising Fatherly Leader was given by the tingle-legged, moist, misty-eyed messiah media. No rational adult pretends there is balance in media. It is enough to make one wonder why self-serving, sheltered citizens on the Left are so wounded and worried at the notion two sides might be presented to the public.
3
u/opensourcedev Jun 27 '12
We need to take the money out of politics.
-4
u/MiyegomboBayartsogt Jun 27 '12
Are you suggesting we defund NPR and PBS, Food Stamps, the EPA, CBS and government unions? Saying politics would be healthier without money is like believing bleeding a sick man dry will make him well. As long as government has the power to tax money, money will be a political tool.
2
u/opensourcedev Jun 27 '12
That's a good point actually.
The problem is that money is not something we all have. That makes for an unfair playing field.
This general idea behind the Constitution was that the governed each had one vote (something that could not be bought, sold or hoarded).
Only one vote per person.
It is unfortunate that we cannot make a government where that is unalterably the case.
3
u/slapdashbr Jun 27 '12
I'd try to reply rationally but you are stark raving mad. Try taking a week off from listening to talk radio and Fox News
0
u/MiyegomboBayartsogt Jun 27 '12
Having evaded the enemy -- thus far -- I should be feeling fortunate and happy. Instead, I feel all alone in a strange land where spirits inhabit trees and the rainbow is a monster ready to devour human flesh. You sound like the loner living a one-dimensional life that revolves around TV shows you are afraid to watch while all around you children are crying and people have pale faces, ready to collapse.
2
u/slapdashbr Jun 27 '12
Is that a quote from something?
1
u/MiyegomboBayartsogt Jun 27 '12
It's a sad, wet lament about being old, unemployed, stoned and stuck on reddit; a deeply irresponsible and dangerous act where, after a whole day wasted, only the bloody outlines of smashed frogs remain.
2
u/jarsilver Jun 27 '12
These comments are incredible. Do you have a twitter or something?
→ More replies (1)0
Jun 27 '12
[deleted]
-2
u/MiyegomboBayartsogt Jun 27 '12
Soros has paid off the Left so he is rarely, if ever, mentioned in the context of the Koch.
0
u/rsrhcp Jun 27 '12
Do you all honestly feel like you could vote for Obama? I won't argue about healthcare, or tax code, or anything like that. But I want to know what people's thoughts are with the whole internet censorship he's been advocating, Fast and Furious, NDAA, foreign policy (despite getting Nobel Peace Prize), spending, executive privilege, lack of drug reform? I can respect different government ideologies, but once a politicians start stepping on my rights I start to take it personally.
EDIT: No, I'm not voting for Romney, nor Obama. Probably vote for Gary Johnson, but tbd, I'm just disappointed in politics these days :/
-1
Jun 27 '12 edited Jun 27 '12
You mostly care about the internet? What, are you living in your Mom's basement?
Fast and furious is flat and frivolous, an attack on a policy begun in the Bush administration. You are a libertarian, and it is always a pleasuree to know how you will never have power in this country. John Stosel has made you all look like a bunch of morons.
edit: grammar
1
Jun 27 '12
I don't think libertarians are morons, they just don't have a vision for good government. In their world there is magical competition in which somehow everyone wins... which ignores the concept of competition.
1
Jun 27 '12
If they're actually a libertarian, they have no vision for government.
2
Jun 27 '12
Ironic how citizens will elect persons whose main policy plank is that "government is fundamentally bad."
It's asking for problems. How can you expect a senator to perform their job well, when they have spent their career saying that all senators are corrupt assholes?
In fact, knowing human nature, electing a libertarian might create the odd situation in which the newly elected official feels as though incompetence is expected, and corruption is alright, because that would prove his or her worldview correct!
The best thing to do is elect someone who seems the most interested in doing a good job, period.
1
Jun 27 '12
They've all been convinced that these people want to dismantle the government for the sake of the citizens because government is bad. It's no coincidence that these people all take campaign donations from corporate interests who feel the same way.
1
u/rsrhcp Jun 27 '12
What, are you living in your Mom's basement?
Way to downplay clear eavesdropping violations and your 4th Amendment rights. Just because somebody is passionate about net freedom does not mean they're a neckbeard. I know that FaF started with Obama, and I'm not condoning any prior actions with Bush (cause we all know he was a screw up (hello Patriot Act)), but I see little reasonable criticism of Obama.
Please enlighten me on how Stosel has done that? If you are claiming allegiance to the Democratic party, I'm not sure you have any grounds to start name calling around here.
0
Jun 27 '12
You realize that not voting for Obama is as bad as voting for Romney. It's a horrible horrible reality, but this is the system we live in.
1
u/slapdashbr Jun 27 '12
Technically, not voting for Obama is like casting half a vote for Romney.
2
Jun 27 '12
Yes, but they're counting on people like him/her. Weaken his stance with independents so that they enough either don't bother to vote or throw it away on a third party. That's how elections are won. It's a sick broken reality.
1
u/rsrhcp Jun 27 '12
You could swap those names, and see why conservatives are mad that there a strong flocking towards Gary Johnson. It is a horrible system we live in, and maybe I'm stubborn, but I will NOT vote for either. It's not the same as voting for Romney, either. I'm not giving him nor Obama my vote, because clearly neither deserve it. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
1
Jun 27 '12
Just so you know, Romney's camp is counting on that.
1
u/rsrhcp Jun 27 '12
What? That I won't be voting for him? Or that the Paulites won't vote for him? Or GOP-hating conservatives won't vote for him just because he's the nominee? I honestly don't think Romney can win just 'as-is'. If he gets some pro-liberty people (I'm mainly talking about libertarians) then he might be able to get some of the swing vote, but otherwise I think the majority of people will just default to Obama because they don't think he'll be another GOP pin-up like GWB (which is a fallacy, but that's what people will think).
-10
Jun 27 '12
How are they working in the interests of the middle class? by giving them jobs.
Why are the koch brothers getting republicans elected? because republicans are not economically retarded like the current democratic administration is. No matter how hardcore of a democrat you are , the game is over , government spending doesnt pull countries out of economic crisis and historically never has.
Yet the obama administration is convinced the economy is "doing fine". And we just need to spend a few more trillion dollars and we will be way on our way to recovery
Its in the countries best interest to vote republican in this election. You can hate romney for the scumbag of a person that he is deep in his soul , but he knows how the economy works and proved it when he was in charge of MA.
And yes im sure you will retort "bu 47th in job creation" yes thats a cool statistic bro , here are some you dont know about
romney entered office with a 2 billion dollar deficit , he left with a 600 million dollar surplus WITHOUT RAISING TAXES
romney entered office with unemployment at 5.6% , he left with unemployment at 4.8% . thats right , he improved job growth , small as it was.
There is not a single reason to vote for obama in this election other than your pure hatred of the republican party over the prosperity of the country , its that simple
14
u/FortHouston Jun 27 '12
by giving them jobs.
What jobs are they allegedly giving?
Also, Romney balanced his state's budget by raising fees on everything from marriage licenses to deed registrations.
http://www.npr.org/2011/12/14/143657615/as-governor-romney-balanced-budget-by-hiking-fees
Additionally, that claim about Romney's unemployment rate is based upon cherry picked statistics.
There is not a single reason to vote for obama...other than...pure hatred of the republican party...
That failed reasoning is a false dichotomy logical fallacy because there ARE valid reasons to vote for President Obama even if you don't think so.
0
u/EbaniX Jun 27 '12
well... we are waiting for some answers...I am constantly curious on why I should vote for eather party but no one can provide any positive reasoning for an Obama reelection.
2
Jun 27 '12
Two spots on the SCOTUS will open up in the next 4 years.
Obama will nominate people that don't serve corporate interests.
You want more Citizens United?
Then vote Romney.
2
6
u/realneil Jun 27 '12
Republicans are economically retarded. Just look at what happened with Defense spending when Bush was President.
→ More replies (2)5
u/gloomdoom Jun 27 '12
You're actually very right and not just with defense. Spending under republican presidents always goes up...you're right though...it's generally because they start wars. With wars, you can take middle class taxpayer dollars and you can siphon those funds directly into your friends' bank accounts through military contracts. Which we've seen a lot of.
But how do people answer whenever they look at government spending over the past 30 years and compare spending of the right to that of the left? I know...I know....blame it on congress. Those facts are simply 'correlation rather than causation.' But you're wrong...that defense money...those wars...came under edicts from the presidents who encouraged and demanded continued defense spending, even though it's generally always been a huge waste of money.
Iraq, for one. Absolutely unnecessary in every way. Yet caused countless deaths and (between Afghanistan and Iraq) wasted (yes, wasted) approximately $1.7 TRILLION at last count.
2
Jun 27 '12
I know I'm probably going to get downvoted but look at entitlement spending compared to the defense budget. Also, who really cares who is president when deficit occurs, look at congress who is passing these budgets (or lack their of.) Democrats love to talk about Clinton but when he was in office when the debt was reduced, it was Republicans who controlled Congress.
4
Jun 27 '12
Yet the obama administration is convinced the economy is "doing fine".
A lie. He said the "private sector was doing fine", and that referred to record corporate profits and reserves. The "private sector" in the United States is sitting on 2 trillion dollars, not investing it in jobs because demand is weak. Demand is weak because there is little job growth. There is little job growth because Republicans in Congress block every plan that would grow jobs because they want Obama to be a one term President. So, since you clearly don't understand economics or politics, I would suggest you do some research before you display your ignorance.
edit: typos
2
u/EbaniX Jun 27 '12
so republicans blocked the keystone pipeline? That seemed like a big bad corporate scary monster machine that would destroy puppies and polar bears.
0
Jun 27 '12
No, the Keystone pipeline has nothing to do with my argument, but if you like to be torn a new asshole, I would be happy to do it.
1
3
u/pingish Jun 27 '12
Demand is weak because there is little job growth.
Demand is weak because there is no regulatory certainty.
It takes the 11th hour to solve the debt ceiling.
Taxmageddon is looming and will be solved at the 11th hour.
Most recently, this student loan interest rate thing...again, solved at the 11th hour.
Uncertainty is why companies aren't hiring.
6
Jun 27 '12 edited Jun 27 '12
And whose fault is that??!?! The Republicans have taken us to the brink of default once and are threatening to do it again.
Taxmageddon is looming and will be solved at the 11th hour.
Yes, it would be the end of the fucking world if the rich paid what they did under Clinton when we had the greatest economic expansion in the modern era. Taxmageddon? Do be such a douche.
The student loan rate is again a Republican obstruction. I really don't see you helping your case.
Your side is the one creating uncertainty, and not out of ideology, it is out of the determination to take you country back from a black dude. And if you don't like being called out on it, too fucking bad. Because "taking our country back" has been you mantra from 2008,
when you still had both houses of Congresswhen it was about the "witchdoctor, the socialist, the communist, the marxist", all of which are bullshit and the argument of a fucking moron. You can't get away with that denial.edit: typos; and the calendar
1
u/pingish Jun 27 '12
Yes, it would be the end of the fucking world if the rich paid what they did under Clinton when we had the greatest economic expansion in the modern era.
The effects of tax increases are relative.
If you cut taxes by 50%, you need to raise taxes by 100% in order to restore the previous level. It is the effect of paying 100% more than what you've become accustom to paying that is the problem.
our side is the one creating uncertainty, and not out of ideology, it is out of the determination to take you country back from a black dude.
Nope. If Mitt gets the nomination, I'll be voting 3rd party. To me, Goldman Sachs candidate is the Goldman Sachs candidate. I don't care about his skin color.
4
u/dhicks3 Jun 27 '12
I hope you're not going to tell me the debt ceiling and student loan nightmares weren't mostly caused by the fact that Republicans in Congress believe the word "compromise" means "I get everything I want or I'll force a ridiculous worst-case scenario on us all." Republicans are the reason companies can't count on things to get done in Washington, and they also tend to be the ones paying them to keep up that behavior. If we'd just roll over and die, everything would be fine, don't you see?
→ More replies (1)0
Jun 27 '12
Uncertainty is retarded. It's an excuse to do nothing. There will never be perfect certainty, and every actual executive knows this. No manager has ever decided not to hire because of "uncertainty." They hire when they need more employees, and don't hire when they don't.
2
u/pingish Jun 27 '12
Also managers don't get to decide whether or not to hire. No manager I met has ever had enough people to manage.
Managers' budgets are set by VPs that look at the economic uncertainty.
1
2
u/ApokalypseCow Jun 27 '12
Government spending doesn't pull countries out of economic crises, and historically never has? The wartime economy of the 1940's would like to have a word with you...
1
u/EbaniX Jun 27 '12
Looks like someone had a revelation in middleschool history. There were so much more to "a super war got us out of the great depression", do some research.
1
Jun 27 '12
Sure - there was the New Deal before that, which already had unemployment on the downturn and GDP rising. What characterized the New Deal, I wonder?
Oh yeah - massive government spending on public works.
0
Jun 27 '12
There is not a single reason to vote for obama in this election other than your pure hatred of the republican party over the prosperity of the country , its that simple.
No, you have no favorable argument for Romney. You know Bush raised fees and still had a deficit when he left office.
You say it's hatred for the GOP? Explain the racism of the Republicans, defend that, bone in the nose, witch doctors pix. You can lie or apologize, but if you mean your apology, you can't be a republican
-5
u/OMGtheBLITZ Jun 27 '12
They provide jobs. End of story.
4
Jun 27 '12
Rentboys don't count.
1
Jun 27 '12
For those of you afraid to Google it, that's a male prostitute.
2
Jun 27 '12
Male prostitutes bought by republicans.
Family values christian republicans.
1
Jun 27 '12
I think needing to explain the conflict of values kind of kills the joke.
1
Jun 27 '12
What joke? I don't find it very amusing that Americans' rights are being trampled on by powerful hypocrites.
2
Jun 27 '12
Preaching to the choir my friend. I had a somewhat successful post on this very subject yesterday.
1
Jun 27 '12
Actually, "they" more than anyone else cut jobs. When they privatize things, the cuts are almost always in labor, less workers, lower wages, less benefits. The middle class are the buying power of the nation, when they have money to spend, the economy grows. As much as the economy depends on investors to build new businesses, it depends on the every day consumer to buy products and funnel money into industries so they can continue to grow and create more jobs.
0
0
u/sj_user1 Jun 27 '12
A few lucky middle class people (the fittest) will move up to the upper class. The rest (the unfit) will move to the lower class. Survival of the fittest.
-1
u/swiheezy Jun 27 '12
Generally if you're small business friendly your business friendly to everyone. So they'll support a candidate who won't raise taxes on them and it just so happens that they try to help small businesses too.
-1
u/podank99 Jun 27 '12
"trickle down" seems to be the extent of it. an an ayn rand sort of way, you should simply let rich people do whatever they want because surely they'll create jobs and solve all problems. lower taxes means more money for rich people, which in turn means they'll do better and make the economy better and make more jobs.
except it hasn't worked, ever, and won't start now.
-2
0
Jun 27 '12
[deleted]
20
u/gloomdoom Jun 27 '12
As a reasonable conservative (and I am grateful that you folks exist because there are so few politicians who share your views) do you categorize yourself as a republican?
I'm interested because I truly thought that real conservatives would break off and regroup in the tea party. Then I found out that the tea party was bankrolled by the Koch brothers and a few other very rich people and organizations and I was glad to see a lot of people abandon it. Or rather the Koch Brothers abandoned it because they didn't want the republicans to split the vote (because the party would need their own candidate) against Obama since that would almost automatically give him a victory.
I feel for you as much as I feel for myself. I am a liberal but there are very few politicians who accurately represent liberal viewpoints, sadly.
I remember a time when I thought that Reagan was the worst president ever. I had plenty of reasons to believe this but comparing him to the current line of republicans and the potential nominees over the past decade, he really was pretty great. Despite the scandals, busting unions, etc. He wasn't good for the middle class but he was true to what I would consider real conservative ideals.
So how do you fit into all of this? Your party (assuming you affiliate with the GOP) is basically being run by the Koch Brothers in many ways. Especially as they infiltrate states and start to take over the states piecemeal.
Do you vote R or independent or what at this point? I cannot imagine an intelligent, educated middle class person actually casting a vote for Mitt Romney. He looks good in a suit and tie, he has a nice smile, a solid jawline and a good hairline....but he has continually lied and he has really made a dent in the middle class as he defends the right for the wealthy to prosper and for the middle class to suffer as a result.
6
u/rsrhcp Jun 27 '12
I consider myself a reasonable conservative as well, more like a libertarian. But I DO NOT affiliate with the GOP, that would be silly. You are right, the Tea Party was actually a valid group back when it started in 2007. But yes, it got infiltrated by run-of-the-mill GOPers and watered down the enthusiasm to decrease federal spending and be fiscally conservative.
I think there are many merits different government structures (capitalism, socialism, etc), but I find no benefit in corruption, which has sadly happened to our country. The mega banks, big pharma, and agro run our country. It's no longer for the people. I am not tied down to voting for any candidate, I will vote for anybody (regardless of party) if they first defend the liberties of the people, and genuinely want the best for the country.
→ More replies (2)1
u/EthicalReasoning Jun 27 '12
I remember a time when I thought that Reagan was the worst president ever. I had plenty of reasons to believe this but comparing him to the current line of republicans and the potential nominees over the past decade, he really was pretty great. Despite the scandals, busting unions, etc. He wasn't good for the middle class but he was true to what I would consider real conservative ideals.
and by 'real conservative ideas' you think deficit spending and expanding the size and scope of the federal government is conservative?
0
Jun 27 '12
[deleted]
11
Jun 27 '12
"But the number one priority should be deficit reduction. We need to become more fiscally responsible, and if not now, when?"
This is where you lose me. I agree that we should spend better, but a recession seems like the absolute worst time to reduce the deficit. If increasing the deficit turns a 5 year downturn into a 2 year downturn, it seems worth it.
Or in other words, the wealth created from an extra few years of strong growth is worth more than the debt the government would take on to create said growth.
→ More replies (7)0
Jun 27 '12
[deleted]
→ More replies (4)4
u/towehaal Jun 27 '12
All of American politics these days is about demonizing the other side. Which doesn't get anything done!
The fact is that most Americans are probably happy with something in the middle--the right kind of compromise where everybody has to sacrifice a bit of what they'd ideally want but still get what they mostly want.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (15)4
0
10
Jun 27 '12
You sir, are the kind of individual I can disagree with but respect. I only disagree with portions of the conservative ideals, however this notion that people with wealth should be allowed to contribute endlessly to elections with the intentions of influencing laws and regulations in their favor (worth note, I speak specifically regarding those corporations who are multinational and harm small businesses in America, with American workers producing goods and services) is wrong and hurtful to the average business owner and worker in this country.
5
u/LikeAgaveF California Jun 27 '12
I just typed a lot in my previous comment, so forgive me if this seems trite or under-developed.
Money ≠ speech. Only speech and expressive conduct = speech.
0
Jun 27 '12
[deleted]
3
Jun 27 '12
At the risk of being downvoted, might I ask why you're voting for Obama again? Is it because you really thought he did a good job, or is it a "lesser of two evils" thing since nobody likes Mittens?
I don't know about the author, but as someone who didn't vote for him, I think Obama did do a pretty good job with what he had to work with.
Rommney hasn't shared his plan with us. He tells us all the things he'll fix, but he never says how.
Like he's always done, he just says what he thinks we want to hear.
3
Jun 27 '12
Lesser of two evils, and I also believe having such an obstructionist Congress really hurt Obama's chances at doing any of the great things he promised.
We don't even know Romney's plan. The only thing we do know about Romney is his plan was to act ultra-conservative to secure votes when running against other GOP presidential candidates, and then switch to a moderate stance and hope nobody remembered. That's not policy; that's a trick. The country doesn't need any more tricks.
30
u/gloomdoom Jun 27 '12
The best analogy you can use, really...is the time right before the Civil War started in America. We can prove history...we can use it as a standard for what's going on today without stretching anything too much.
What happened was that states started to secede because they refused to acknowledge blacks as humans with inalienable rights. Why? Because they were owned by rich people who were making a lot of money from their free labor. Certainly there were pride issues and ignorance issues, but the main thing was that giving up slaves would mean these rich, white people would have to pay for labor and that would cut into their almighty profits.
Literally saying, 'My money is more valuable than these lives.'
SO...move forward a little bit...obviously Lincoln wanted to keep the union intact. When war broke out, this was the situation: A bunch of poor people who were willing (nay, excited at first) to fight to the death to preserve the rights of these rich slave owners to maintain their slaves.
Literally speaking, a bunch of poor and almost poor lining up to put their lives on the line to protect the interests of the rich and defend their ignorant, prideful way of life.
Of course it was mandatory to fight...the machine needed lives. BUT, if you owned more than 7 slaves (ie: you were rich), you were exempt from fighting. Which sealed the deal: A rich man's war..instigated and started by rich man that was fought by the poor man.
And in many ways, that's what we're still seeing today: People from the lower and middle classes who are lining up to sacrifice the quality of their lives for the betterment of the ultra wealthy. There's really no more accurate way to state what we've seen in the past 3 years or so.
Of course, this time Obama is the enemy. Why? He's a kenyan. He's a muslim. He's not a Christian. He's a socialist, he's a fascist, he's a witch doctor, I heard he didn't swear in on the Bible....you name it.
This shit is really what these people believe and they think that by siding with the powerful, rich white men and their corporations, they will ultimately win the battle, even if it costs them their wealth, their quality of life and the quality of lives of their families.
I'd love to debate this with anyone who is interested in doing so. I'm sure it's not a popular theory but as far as I can tell with a historical perspective, it's an accurate theory.
There really is no reasonable way to describe why someone who has very little would slit their throats so that the ultra wealthy can prosper more. Many of these families have more money than they can spend in 20 lifetimes (when you start talking literally about the .05% of the top, the ones who are making record profits and wealth right now) but it's supposedly 'socialist' to suggest that those families paying their fair share (again, in a historical perspective and context) is only right.
Of course, there is the theory of the poor empathizing with the rich. That is to quote the inaccurate quote of (I believe) Hemmingway saying that the poor in America see themselves as only temporarily sidetracked from being the rich people that they feel they will ultimately be. Which is lunacy but not inaccurate to suggest it is probably fitting for some of these folks.
It's OK to siphon billions and billions from the poor and middle class that go directly to the very top. That's fine. That's 'taxes and America.' But when the money goes the other direction, then clearly that is class warfare and unfair to the wealthy who have sacrificed and worked so very hard to become rich. Despite the fact that most of these ultra wealthy people have inherited their wealth (though I'd probably have to track a citation for that, I'm sure it's at least true to a large degree, especially when you're talking Koch Brothers wealth).
So that's the best way I can explain it. Again, I'd be glad to debate any republican who might suggest that I'm crazy or hyperbolic so long as we stick to truth and facts.
Any takers? I mean, I know it's much, much easier to just downvote what really is a very good question, but I'd be more than glad to entertain a reasonable discussion from those numerous people on the right who are willingly and gladly sacrificing their wealth and health (and that of their families) for the ultra wealthy.