Pres. Obama and Nancy Pelosi both claim that they embrace the free-market, support entrepreneurial endeavors and small business entering into the market, yet somehow simultaneously believe that more regulations, more stimulus, more price control, more taxation will have zero negative impact on job growth.
That's nonsense, not because of the underlying facts* but because the two halves of your statement do not intersect or contradict one another. Obama and Pelosi are pro-business (check), favor policy X (check), believe policy X won't hurt businesses (check). There's no contradiction there. To show double-think, you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are anti-business but support policies they believe will help business, or you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support policies they believe will hurt business.
Instead you're saying that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support polices that you believe will hurt business. That's a fair statement to make but it's disingenuous to couch that statement in accusations of hypocrisy.
*(Well, it's nonsense on those too, let's be clear.)
I'm not saying they're hypocrites, I'm saying that it would make more sense for a pro-free market president to avoid government stimulus, and lift taxes so that families and businesses on lower parts of the economic latter can reinvest and spend more of their own money, which grows the economy organically and freely. Government stimulus is a good way to display a short lived "growth", but it is inevitably doomed to plummet. Obviously the solution is to tax more and spend more on stimulus so they can boast of another 3.3 million job growth that costs billions and will not last. Government stimulus fails in the long run.
You couched it in language which begrudged the idea that this was an obviously hypocritical position to hold.
It isn't. Prove it is.
They are holding apparently contradictory ideas. One who advocates free market philosophies do not typically advocate an increase in the size of government spending and more government control of the economy. They hold the position because they do not want to risk everything with the financial and business community. They feel safe vehemently defending small businesses, which makes people feel more comfortable because hey, it isn't big billionaires that we all hate. Problem is attacking big business is bad for all business because it consequently affects smaller business, as well as purchasers of commodities and labor. Small businesses rely on larger companies to buy their raw materials, wholesale, IE whatever it takes to get the cheapest products for resale to stay in business and compete. If their wholesalers taxes go up, they raise their prices, which inevitably raises the cost to smaller business and all the way down to the very basic consumer. A president who supports business and the free-market would not get tangled up in stimulus spending, increased taxation, etc, etc.
That doesn't make the least bit of sense. I am honestly curious as to what you mean here, because I just can't quite wrap my head around what you are trying to suggest. Increased governmental purchases or revenue streams has nothing to do with whether you are a market economy or a command economy. At least, not unless we are talking about 100% taxation levels. Which nobody is.
Pres. Obama and Nancy Pelosi both claim that they embrace the free-market, support entrepreneurial endeavors and small business entering into the market, yet somehow simultaneously believe that more regulations, more stimulus, more price control, more taxation will have zero negative impact on job growth.
That's nonsense, not because of the underlying facts* but because the two halves of your statement do not intersect or contradict one another. Obama and Pelosi are pro-business (check), favor policy X (check), believe policy X won't hurt businesses (check). There's no contradiction there. To show double-think, you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are anti-business but support policies they believe will help business, or you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support policies they believe will hurt business.
Instead you're saying that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support polices that you believe will hurt business. That's a fair statement to make but it's disingenuous to couch that statement in accusations of hypocrisy.
*(Well, it's nonsense on those too, let's be clear.)
I'm not saying they're hypocrites, I'm saying that it would make more sense for a pro-free market president to avoid government stimulus, and lift taxes so that families and businesses on lower parts of the economic latter can reinvest and spend more of their own money, which grows the economy organically and freely. Government stimulus is a good way to display a short lived "growth", but it is inevitably doomed to plummet. Obviously the solution is to tax more and spend more on stimulus so they can boast of another 3.3 million job growth that costs billions and will not last. Government stimulus fails in the long run.
You keep saying Obama is pro-free market as if that means he is anti-any-other-solution. Obama has time and again said that he's in favor of a balance between regulation and freedom in the marketplace; it makes sense that he is for some forms of regulation but not others, that he wants to lower taxes on some businesses while raising taxes on others.
Government stimulus is only short-term growth if you hire people to break windows and then keep them from spending their wages. Otherwise you're spending on investments (infrastructure, green energy, education) and pumping up demand (that thing what the economy needs right now).
Obama's plan was and continues to be:
1. Lower taxes on middle and lower class people; increase taxes on the wealthy.
2. Use that revenue (and deficit spending) to stimulate the economy.
3. The stimulated economy grows us out of our debt and unemployment problems.
Romney's plan, on the other hand, is:
1. Lower taxes on everybody.
2. Close all loopholes, plus ones that don't exist, minus all the loopholes = revenue neutral (no deficit spending).
3. The economy grows because I said so.
Which one of those is more pro-free market? Hint: it's the one that funnels government money to people and businesses so that people buy things so that the free market can work. Hint 2: it's not the one that's made of wishes and fairydust. Hint 3: if the answer remains unclear, please reboot your computer and try again.
A. I'm don't support Romney.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"- Napoleon Bonaparte
I've said it before and I'll say it again: any sane, relatively competent man would beat Obama.
The Republican Party has not offered such a man. Or woman, as the case might be (though the Republican women are, if anything, even crazier and stupider than Republican men).
John Hunstman is Romney if he were slightly more competent and reasonable
Pres. Obama and Nancy Pelosi both claim that they embrace the free-market, support entrepreneurial endeavors and small business entering into the market, yet somehow simultaneously believe that more regulations, more stimulus, more price control, more taxation will have zero negative impact on job growth.
That's nonsense, not because of the underlying facts* but because the two halves of your statement do not intersect or contradict one another. Obama and Pelosi are pro-business (check), favor policy X (check), believe policy X won't hurt businesses (check). There's no contradiction there. To show double-think, you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are anti-business but support policies they believe will help business, or you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support policies they believe will hurt business.
Instead you're saying that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support polices that you believe will hurt business. That's a fair statement to make but it's disingenuous to couch that statement in accusations of hypocrisy.
*(Well, it's nonsense on those too, let's be clear.)
I'm not saying they're hypocrites, I'm saying that it would make more sense for a pro-free market president to avoid government stimulus, and lift taxes so that families and businesses on lower parts of the economic latter can reinvest and spend more of their own money, which grows the economy organically and freely. Government stimulus is a good way to display a short lived "growth", but it is inevitably doomed to plummet. Obviously the solution is to tax more and spend more on stimulus so they can boast of another 3.3 million job growth that costs billions and will not last. Government stimulus fails in the long run.
You keep saying Obama is pro-free market as if that means he is anti-any-other-solution. Obama has time and again said that he's in favor of a balance between regulation and freedom in the marketplace; it makes sense that he is for some forms of regulation but not others, that he wants to lower taxes on some businesses while raising taxes on others.
Government stimulus is only short-term growth if you hire people to break windows and then keep them from spending their wages. Otherwise you're spending on investments (infrastructure, green energy, education) and pumping up demand (that thing what the economy needs right now).
Obama's plan was and continues to be:
1. Lower taxes on middle and lower class people; increase taxes on the wealthy.
2. Use that revenue (and deficit spending) to stimulate the economy.
3. The stimulated economy grows us out of our debt and unemployment problems.
Romney's plan, on the other hand, is:
1. Lower taxes on everybody.
2. Close all loopholes, plus ones that don't exist, minus all the loopholes = revenue neutral (no deficit spending).
3. The economy grows because I said so.
Which one of those is more pro-free market? Hint: it's the one that funnels government money to people and businesses so that people buy things so that the free market can work. Hint 2: it's not the one that's made of wishes and fairydust. Hint 3: if the answer remains unclear, please reboot your computer and try again.
A. I'm don't support Romney.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
America really needs to find a method to curtail whenever companies punish their customers by increasing prices from government regulation. They shouldn't be able to hold their customers hostage when they feel "threatened" whenever the government refuses to give them a sloppy blowjob.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
That's not true unless we are talking about top marginal rates in excess of ~80%. [ cite ] Which we aren't. (the proposed top marginal rate would return to 39.5%) Or if we're talking about businesses engaged in non-competitive markets where they are able to extract monopoly rents. Which is its own problem that should be addressed through anti-trust regulations rather than through the tax code and hoping they behave nicely.
The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines.
Jesus what why
What the fuck
Ooh! Ooh! I know the answer to this!
The new Virginia class SSNs will be constructed at the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock facility on the James River in Guess-Which-East-Coast-Swing-State-Which-Coincidentally-Has-A-New-Class-Of-SSNs-Named-After-It?
And standing in front of an entire crowd of navy people if I remember correctly.
They clearly pulled that stupid number out of their ass for the speech, and are now stuck with it as a policy initiative because shoot first ask questions later Mitt didn't think that just maybe spending billions building new ships that no one asked for, while simultaneously promising to shrink the budget and lower the debt, might not totally mesh up down the road.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: any sane, relatively competent man would beat Obama.
The Republican Party has not offered such a man. Or woman, as the case might be (though the Republican women are, if anything, even crazier and stupider than Republican men).
John Hunstman is Romney if he were slightly more competent and reasonable
He got annihilated in the primary
Not just slightly, and also Huntsman sticks to his positions, is willing to cooperate with Democrats, and comes across as a real human being rather than a robot.
I like Huntsman, even though I disagree with a lot of his positions. I find it hard to fathom how anybody could like Romney.
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines.
Jesus what why
What the fuck
Ooh! Ooh! I know the answer to this!
The new Virginia class SSNs will be constructed at the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock facility on the James River in Guess-Which-East-Coast-Swing-State-Which-Coincidentally-Has-A-New-Class-Of-SSNs-Named-After-It?
And standing in front of an entire crowd of navy people if I remember correctly.
They clearly pulled that stupid number out of their ass for the speech, and are now stuck with it as a policy initiative because shoot first ask questions later Mitt didn't think that just maybe spending billions building new ships that no one asked for, while simultaneously promising to shrink the budget and lower the debt, might not totally mesh up down the road.
He said the exact thing in the debate and "Won" so again why wouldn't he blatantaly lie?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
To be fair, of all the things to invest defense dollars on expanding the Navy is pretty much the best thing. They are able to serve useful peace time purposes by patrolling sea lanes to help improve trade corridors and provide disaster relief to areas relatively immediately. We have more carrier groups than we need so actually expanding the fleet size is stupid, but not nearly as stupid as, say, expanding our fleet of bombers.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: any sane, relatively competent man would beat Obama.
The Republican Party has not offered such a man. Or woman, as the case might be (though the Republican women are, if anything, even crazier and stupider than Republican men).
John Hunstman is Romney if he were slightly more competent and reasonable
He got annihilated in the primary
Not just slightly, and also Huntsman sticks to his positions, is willing to cooperate with Democrats, and comes across as a real human being rather than a robot.
I like Huntsman, even though I disagree with a lot of his positions. I find it hard to fathom how anybody could like Romney.
So that's where 2002 Romney went.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines.
Jesus what why
What the fuck
Ooh! Ooh! I know the answer to this!
The new Virginia class SSNs will be constructed at the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock facility on the James River in Guess-Which-East-Coast-Swing-State-Which-Coincidentally-Has-A-New-Class-Of-SSNs-Named-After-It?
And standing in front of an entire crowd of navy people if I remember correctly.
They clearly pulled that stupid number out of their ass for the speech, and are now stuck with it as a policy initiative because shoot first ask questions later Mitt didn't think that just maybe spending billions building new ships that no one asked for, while simultaneously promising to shrink the budget and lower the debt, might not totally mesh up down the road.
No, this is a consistent Romney policy. He kept honking about it during the debates.
When a Republican says they care about the troops, this is what they mean.
The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines.
Jesus what why
What the fuck
Ooh! Ooh! I know the answer to this!
The new Virginia class SSNs will be constructed at the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock facility on the James River in Guess-Which-East-Coast-Swing-State-Which-Coincidentally-Has-A-New-Class-Of-SSNs-Named-After-It?
And standing in front of an entire crowd of navy people if I remember correctly.
They clearly pulled that stupid number out of their ass for the speech, and are now stuck with it as a policy initiative because shoot first ask questions later Mitt didn't think that just maybe spending billions building new ships that no one asked for, while simultaneously promising to shrink the budget and lower the debt, might not totally mesh up down the road.
No, this is a consistent Romney policy. He kept honking about it during the debates.
When a Republican says they care about the troops, this is what they mean.
It's fucking disgusting.
More money for the defense industry instead of better pay and provisions for the troops?
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines.
Jesus what why
What the fuck
Ooh! Ooh! I know the answer to this!
The new Virginia class SSNs will be constructed at the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock facility on the James River in Guess-Which-East-Coast-Swing-State-Which-Coincidentally-Has-A-New-Class-Of-SSNs-Named-After-It?
And standing in front of an entire crowd of navy people if I remember correctly.
They clearly pulled that stupid number out of their ass for the speech, and are now stuck with it as a policy initiative because shoot first ask questions later Mitt didn't think that just maybe spending billions building new ships that no one asked for, while simultaneously promising to shrink the budget and lower the debt, might not totally mesh up down the road.
No, this is a consistent Romney policy. He kept honking about it during the debates.
When a Republican says they care about the troops, this is what they mean.
It's fucking disgusting.
Look, caring about defense contractors is just as far more important as caring about the kids in the line of fire
I think tpm had a good writeup on it, and it came down to the fact that comparing the size of the fleet ~100 years ago, or even twenty years ago makes no sense because the force a single ship can bring to bear has increased stupendously.
Battleships and Dreadnoughts and how many men could stand in their barrels were how you measured sea power back then. Now we have a shadowy world of ??? submarines and ships that shoot missiles across continents.
Romney and his team have gone beyond regular fibbing and making shit up. Someone quantum-leaped into his body, and team Sam doesn't care what happens next.
Pres. Obama and Nancy Pelosi both claim that they embrace the free-market, support entrepreneurial endeavors and small business entering into the market, yet somehow simultaneously believe that more regulations, more stimulus, more price control, more taxation will have zero negative impact on job growth.
That's nonsense, not because of the underlying facts* but because the two halves of your statement do not intersect or contradict one another. Obama and Pelosi are pro-business (check), favor policy X (check), believe policy X won't hurt businesses (check). There's no contradiction there. To show double-think, you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are anti-business but support policies they believe will help business, or you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support policies they believe will hurt business.
Instead you're saying that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support polices that you believe will hurt business. That's a fair statement to make but it's disingenuous to couch that statement in accusations of hypocrisy.
*(Well, it's nonsense on those too, let's be clear.)
I'm not saying they're hypocrites, I'm saying that it would make more sense for a pro-free market president to avoid government stimulus, and lift taxes so that families and businesses on lower parts of the economic latter can reinvest and spend more of their own money, which grows the economy organically and freely. Government stimulus is a good way to display a short lived "growth", but it is inevitably doomed to plummet. Obviously the solution is to tax more and spend more on stimulus so they can boast of another 3.3 million job growth that costs billions and will not last. Government stimulus fails in the long run.
You couched it in language which begrudged the idea that this was an obviously hypocritical position to hold.
It isn't. Prove it is.
They are holding apparently contradictory ideas. One who advocates free market philosophies do not typically advocate an increase in the size of government spending and more government control of the economy. They hold the position because they do not want to risk everything with the financial and business community. They feel safe vehemently defending small businesses, which makes people feel more comfortable because hey, it isn't big billionaires that we all hate. Problem is attacking big business is bad for all business because it consequently affects smaller business, as well as purchasers of commodities and labor. Small businesses rely on larger companies to buy their raw materials, wholesale, IE whatever it takes to get the cheapest products for resale to stay in business and compete. If their wholesalers taxes go up, they raise their prices, which inevitably raises the cost to smaller business and all the way down to the very basic consumer. A president who supports business and the free-market would not get tangled up in stimulus spending, increased taxation, etc, etc.
Dude, not everything is a black & white situation. There's nuance on this subject. Being pro-capitalist doesn't automatically mean a person has to be anti-regulation. Same for attacking big business or the wealthy.
This is true, I support minimal regulations that are well justified to keep the ball in the court when it comes to business, and a strong government to protect people from the aggression, violence, theft, etc from other citizens. There are shades of gray, but the fact that Obama attacks big business in general and regurgitates Keynesian economics doesn't make a strong case that he supports a free market.. not to mention giving taxpayer funds to wall street corporate lobbyists. It would be like if I was running on a progressive platform and then raised taxes on the poor.
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"- Napoleon Bonaparte
The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines.
Jesus what why
What the fuck
Ooh! Ooh! I know the answer to this!
The new Virginia class SSNs will be constructed at the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock facility on the James River in Guess-Which-East-Coast-Swing-State-Which-Coincidentally-Has-A-New-Class-Of-SSNs-Named-After-It?
And standing in front of an entire crowd of navy people if I remember correctly.
They clearly pulled that stupid number out of their ass for the speech, and are now stuck with it as a policy initiative because shoot first ask questions later Mitt didn't think that just maybe spending billions building new ships that no one asked for, while simultaneously promising to shrink the budget and lower the debt, might not totally mesh up down the road.
No, this is a consistent Romney policy. He kept honking about it during the debates.
When a Republican says they care about the troops, this is what they mean.
It's fucking disgusting.
Yeah, I realize he has kept saying it. My point was that they totally pulled that number out of their ass, specifically because he was going to be talking in front of a navy audience.
And it is aggravating that he continues to get away with it. "Well Mitt, where'd you come up with those numbers?" "You're sure you didn't just happen across a story about naval build quotas and arbitrarily add 3 to each quota? Cause, I'm not seeing a lot of rhyme or reason behind this?"
The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines.
Jesus what why
What the fuck
Ooh! Ooh! I know the answer to this!
The new Virginia class SSNs will be constructed at the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock facility on the James River in Guess-Which-East-Coast-Swing-State-Which-Coincidentally-Has-A-New-Class-Of-SSNs-Named-After-It?
And standing in front of an entire crowd of navy people if I remember correctly.
They clearly pulled that stupid number out of their ass for the speech, and are now stuck with it as a policy initiative because shoot first ask questions later Mitt didn't think that just maybe spending billions building new ships that no one asked for, while simultaneously promising to shrink the budget and lower the debt, might not totally mesh up down the road.
No, this is a consistent Romney policy. He kept honking about it during the debates.
When a Republican says they care about the troops, this is what they mean.
It's fucking disgusting.
More money for the defense industry instead of better pay and provisions for the troops?
Its why Romney is Pro Military but says nothing of the Troops. Because the military is Haliburton, Boeing, Mcdonald Douglas.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
This is one of those truisms that gets tossed around to convince people who know nothing about economics. But it is absolutely ridiculous in almost every possible way. That's not how markets work. That's not how supply and demand works. That's not how real life history of corporate and top margin taxes have worked, nor corporate profits. It's not how layoffs work either. It ignores where the money from the taxes is going and the affect it has on the lower and middle class. It ignores how the cost of production works.
It's hard to write a concise refutation, and it's not worth responding against in-depth, because it's almost completely divorced from reality we actually live in. It's faith-based economics.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
+3
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Pres. Obama and Nancy Pelosi both claim that they embrace the free-market, support entrepreneurial endeavors and small business entering into the market, yet somehow simultaneously believe that more regulations, more stimulus, more price control, more taxation will have zero negative impact on job growth.
That's nonsense, not because of the underlying facts* but because the two halves of your statement do not intersect or contradict one another. Obama and Pelosi are pro-business (check), favor policy X (check), believe policy X won't hurt businesses (check). There's no contradiction there. To show double-think, you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are anti-business but support policies they believe will help business, or you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support policies they believe will hurt business.
Instead you're saying that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support polices that you believe will hurt business. That's a fair statement to make but it's disingenuous to couch that statement in accusations of hypocrisy.
*(Well, it's nonsense on those too, let's be clear.)
I'm not saying they're hypocrites, I'm saying that it would make more sense for a pro-free market president to avoid government stimulus, and lift taxes so that families and businesses on lower parts of the economic latter can reinvest and spend more of their own money, which grows the economy organically and freely. Government stimulus is a good way to display a short lived "growth", but it is inevitably doomed to plummet. Obviously the solution is to tax more and spend more on stimulus so they can boast of another 3.3 million job growth that costs billions and will not last. Government stimulus fails in the long run.
You couched it in language which begrudged the idea that this was an obviously hypocritical position to hold.
It isn't. Prove it is.
They are holding apparently contradictory ideas. One who advocates free market philosophies do not typically advocate an increase in the size of government spending and more government control of the economy. They hold the position because they do not want to risk everything with the financial and business community. They feel safe vehemently defending small businesses, which makes people feel more comfortable because hey, it isn't big billionaires that we all hate. Problem is attacking big business is bad for all business because it consequently affects smaller business, as well as purchasers of commodities and labor. Small businesses rely on larger companies to buy their raw materials, wholesale, IE whatever it takes to get the cheapest products for resale to stay in business and compete. If their wholesalers taxes go up, they raise their prices, which inevitably raises the cost to smaller business and all the way down to the very basic consumer. A president who supports business and the free-market would not get tangled up in stimulus spending, increased taxation, etc, etc.
Dude, not everything is a black & white situation. There's nuance on this subject. Being pro-capitalist doesn't automatically mean a person has to be anti-regulation. Same for attacking big business or the wealthy.
This is true, I support minimal regulations that are well justified to keep the ball in the court when it comes to business, and a strong government to protect people from the aggression, violence, theft, etc from other citizens. There are shades of gray, but the fact that Obama attacks big business in general and regurgitates Keynesian economics doesn't make a strong case that he supports a free market.. not to mention giving taxpayer funds to wall street corporate lobbyists. It would be like if I was running on a progressive platform and then raised taxes on the poor.
But Obamacare is the largest pro-business initiative since--
and economics is a science, believing in one or the other school of thought is not--
--wait, giving funds to wall street isn't supporting the market?
Pres. Obama and Nancy Pelosi both claim that they embrace the free-market, support entrepreneurial endeavors and small business entering into the market, yet somehow simultaneously believe that more regulations, more stimulus, more price control, more taxation will have zero negative impact on job growth.
That's nonsense, not because of the underlying facts* but because the two halves of your statement do not intersect or contradict one another. Obama and Pelosi are pro-business (check), favor policy X (check), believe policy X won't hurt businesses (check). There's no contradiction there. To show double-think, you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are anti-business but support policies they believe will help business, or you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support policies they believe will hurt business.
Instead you're saying that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support polices that you believe will hurt business. That's a fair statement to make but it's disingenuous to couch that statement in accusations of hypocrisy.
*(Well, it's nonsense on those too, let's be clear.)
I'm not saying they're hypocrites, I'm saying that it would make more sense for a pro-free market president to avoid government stimulus, and lift taxes so that families and businesses on lower parts of the economic latter can reinvest and spend more of their own money, which grows the economy organically and freely. Government stimulus is a good way to display a short lived "growth", but it is inevitably doomed to plummet. Obviously the solution is to tax more and spend more on stimulus so they can boast of another 3.3 million job growth that costs billions and will not last. Government stimulus fails in the long run.
You keep saying Obama is pro-free market as if that means he is anti-any-other-solution. Obama has time and again said that he's in favor of a balance between regulation and freedom in the marketplace; it makes sense that he is for some forms of regulation but not others, that he wants to lower taxes on some businesses while raising taxes on others.
Government stimulus is only short-term growth if you hire people to break windows and then keep them from spending their wages. Otherwise you're spending on investments (infrastructure, green energy, education) and pumping up demand (that thing what the economy needs right now).
Obama's plan was and continues to be:
1. Lower taxes on middle and lower class people; increase taxes on the wealthy.
2. Use that revenue (and deficit spending) to stimulate the economy.
3. The stimulated economy grows us out of our debt and unemployment problems.
Romney's plan, on the other hand, is:
1. Lower taxes on everybody.
2. Close all loopholes, plus ones that don't exist, minus all the loopholes = revenue neutral (no deficit spending).
3. The economy grows because I said so.
Which one of those is more pro-free market? Hint: it's the one that funnels government money to people and businesses so that people buy things so that the free market can work. Hint 2: it's not the one that's made of wishes and fairydust. Hint 3: if the answer remains unclear, please reboot your computer and try again.
A. I'm don't support Romney.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
America really needs to find a method to curtail whenever companies punish their customers by increasing prices from government regulation. They shouldn't be able to hold their customers hostage when they feel "threatened" whenever the government refuses to give them a sloppy blowjob.
Which would entail even more government and costs.. perhaps even the government owning the top producing industries in the country and setting price controls on everybody else below them.
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"- Napoleon Bonaparte
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines.
Jesus what why
What the fuck
Ooh! Ooh! I know the answer to this!
The new Virginia class SSNs will be constructed at the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock facility on the James River in Guess-Which-East-Coast-Swing-State-Which-Coincidentally-Has-A-New-Class-Of-SSNs-Named-After-It?
And standing in front of an entire crowd of navy people if I remember correctly.
They clearly pulled that stupid number out of their ass for the speech, and are now stuck with it as a policy initiative because shoot first ask questions later Mitt didn't think that just maybe spending billions building new ships that no one asked for, while simultaneously promising to shrink the budget and lower the debt, might not totally mesh up down the road.
No, this is a consistent Romney policy. He kept honking about it during the debates.
When a Republican says they care about the troops, this is what they mean.
It's fucking disgusting.
More money for the defense industry instead of better pay and provisions for the troops?
Yup.
I'm all for a kickass military, but that is not what's on offer. I read a thing on CNN last night, the army has thousands of tanks just chilling out in the California desert because WE'RE NOT LIKELY TO ENTER A MASSIVE FUCK-OFF WAR ANYTIME SOON.
The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines.
Jesus what why
What the fuck
Ooh! Ooh! I know the answer to this!
The new Virginia class SSNs will be constructed at the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock facility on the James River in Guess-Which-East-Coast-Swing-State-Which-Coincidentally-Has-A-New-Class-Of-SSNs-Named-After-It?
And standing in front of an entire crowd of navy people if I remember correctly.
They clearly pulled that stupid number out of their ass for the speech, and are now stuck with it as a policy initiative because shoot first ask questions later Mitt didn't think that just maybe spending billions building new ships that no one asked for, while simultaneously promising to shrink the budget and lower the debt, might not totally mesh up down the road.
No, this is a consistent Romney policy. He kept honking about it during the debates.
When a Republican says they care about the troops, this is what they mean.
It's fucking disgusting.
More money for the defense industry instead of better pay and provisions for the troops?
Yup.
I'm all for a kickass military, but that is not what's on offer. I read a thing on CNN last night, the army has thousands of tanks just chilling out in the California desert because WE'RE NOT LIKELY TO ENTER A MASSIVE FUCK-OFF WAR ANYTIME SOON.
Dumbasses.
Pretty much, though remember bills for extending veteran benefits? Dying because of GOP obstructionism. But its the Democrats that are weakening merica.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Pres. Obama and Nancy Pelosi both claim that they embrace the free-market, support entrepreneurial endeavors and small business entering into the market, yet somehow simultaneously believe that more regulations, more stimulus, more price control, more taxation will have zero negative impact on job growth.
That's nonsense, not because of the underlying facts* but because the two halves of your statement do not intersect or contradict one another. Obama and Pelosi are pro-business (check), favor policy X (check), believe policy X won't hurt businesses (check). There's no contradiction there. To show double-think, you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are anti-business but support policies they believe will help business, or you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support policies they believe will hurt business.
Instead you're saying that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support polices that you believe will hurt business. That's a fair statement to make but it's disingenuous to couch that statement in accusations of hypocrisy.
*(Well, it's nonsense on those too, let's be clear.)
I'm not saying they're hypocrites, I'm saying that it would make more sense for a pro-free market president to avoid government stimulus, and lift taxes so that families and businesses on lower parts of the economic latter can reinvest and spend more of their own money, which grows the economy organically and freely. Government stimulus is a good way to display a short lived "growth", but it is inevitably doomed to plummet. Obviously the solution is to tax more and spend more on stimulus so they can boast of another 3.3 million job growth that costs billions and will not last. Government stimulus fails in the long run.
You couched it in language which begrudged the idea that this was an obviously hypocritical position to hold.
It isn't. Prove it is.
They are holding apparently contradictory ideas. One who advocates free market philosophies do not typically advocate an increase in the size of government spending and more government control of the economy. They hold the position because they do not want to risk everything with the financial and business community. They feel safe vehemently defending small businesses, which makes people feel more comfortable because hey, it isn't big billionaires that we all hate. Problem is attacking big business is bad for all business because it consequently affects smaller business, as well as purchasers of commodities and labor. Small businesses rely on larger companies to buy their raw materials, wholesale, IE whatever it takes to get the cheapest products for resale to stay in business and compete. If their wholesalers taxes go up, they raise their prices, which inevitably raises the cost to smaller business and all the way down to the very basic consumer. A president who supports business and the free-market would not get tangled up in stimulus spending, increased taxation, etc, etc.
Dude, not everything is a black & white situation. There's nuance on this subject. Being pro-capitalist doesn't automatically mean a person has to be anti-regulation. Same for attacking big business or the wealthy.
This is true, I support minimal regulations that are well justified to keep the ball in the court when it comes to business, and a strong government to protect people from the aggression, violence, theft, etc from other citizens. There are shades of gray, but the fact that Obama attacks big business in general and regurgitates Keynesian economics doesn't make a strong case that he supports a free market.. not to mention giving taxpayer funds to wall street corporate lobbyists. It would be like if I was running on a progressive platform and then raised taxes on the poor.
But Obamacare is the largest pro-business initiative since--
and economics is a science, believing in one or the other school of thought is not--
--wait, giving funds to wall street isn't supporting the market?
ObamaCare is not free-market
Giving funds to corporate lobbyists is not free-market.
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"- Napoleon Bonaparte
Pres. Obama and Nancy Pelosi both claim that they embrace the free-market, support entrepreneurial endeavors and small business entering into the market, yet somehow simultaneously believe that more regulations, more stimulus, more price control, more taxation will have zero negative impact on job growth.
That's nonsense, not because of the underlying facts* but because the two halves of your statement do not intersect or contradict one another. Obama and Pelosi are pro-business (check), favor policy X (check), believe policy X won't hurt businesses (check). There's no contradiction there. To show double-think, you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are anti-business but support policies they believe will help business, or you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support policies they believe will hurt business.
Instead you're saying that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support polices that you believe will hurt business. That's a fair statement to make but it's disingenuous to couch that statement in accusations of hypocrisy.
*(Well, it's nonsense on those too, let's be clear.)
I'm not saying they're hypocrites, I'm saying that it would make more sense for a pro-free market president to avoid government stimulus, and lift taxes so that families and businesses on lower parts of the economic latter can reinvest and spend more of their own money, which grows the economy organically and freely. Government stimulus is a good way to display a short lived "growth", but it is inevitably doomed to plummet. Obviously the solution is to tax more and spend more on stimulus so they can boast of another 3.3 million job growth that costs billions and will not last. Government stimulus fails in the long run.
You keep saying Obama is pro-free market as if that means he is anti-any-other-solution. Obama has time and again said that he's in favor of a balance between regulation and freedom in the marketplace; it makes sense that he is for some forms of regulation but not others, that he wants to lower taxes on some businesses while raising taxes on others.
Government stimulus is only short-term growth if you hire people to break windows and then keep them from spending their wages. Otherwise you're spending on investments (infrastructure, green energy, education) and pumping up demand (that thing what the economy needs right now).
Obama's plan was and continues to be:
1. Lower taxes on middle and lower class people; increase taxes on the wealthy.
2. Use that revenue (and deficit spending) to stimulate the economy.
3. The stimulated economy grows us out of our debt and unemployment problems.
Romney's plan, on the other hand, is:
1. Lower taxes on everybody.
2. Close all loopholes, plus ones that don't exist, minus all the loopholes = revenue neutral (no deficit spending).
3. The economy grows because I said so.
Which one of those is more pro-free market? Hint: it's the one that funnels government money to people and businesses so that people buy things so that the free market can work. Hint 2: it's not the one that's made of wishes and fairydust. Hint 3: if the answer remains unclear, please reboot your computer and try again.
A. I'm don't support Romney.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
America really needs to find a method to curtail whenever companies punish their customers by increasing prices from government regulation. They shouldn't be able to hold their customers hostage when they feel "threatened" whenever the government refuses to give them a sloppy blowjob.
Which would entail even more government and costs.. perhaps even the government owning the top producing industries in the country and setting price controls on everybody else below them.
True. Except for how it wouldn't. In the slightest. Like, at all.
Increase top marginal rates and bring capital gains equivalent to wages and suddenly the marginal dollar is better spent reinvested into the company's future growth rather than cashed out as a dividend payment. Other things, too, but that alone would have a significant impact without nationalizing anybody.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines.
Jesus what why
What the fuck
Ooh! Ooh! I know the answer to this!
The new Virginia class SSNs will be constructed at the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock facility on the James River in Guess-Which-East-Coast-Swing-State-Which-Coincidentally-Has-A-New-Class-Of-SSNs-Named-After-It?
And standing in front of an entire crowd of navy people if I remember correctly.
They clearly pulled that stupid number out of their ass for the speech, and are now stuck with it as a policy initiative because shoot first ask questions later Mitt didn't think that just maybe spending billions building new ships that no one asked for, while simultaneously promising to shrink the budget and lower the debt, might not totally mesh up down the road.
No, this is a consistent Romney policy. He kept honking about it during the debates.
When a Republican says they care about the troops, this is what they mean.
It's fucking disgusting.
More money for the defense industry instead of better pay and provisions for the troops?
Yup.
I'm all for a kickass military, but that is not what's on offer. I read a thing on CNN last night, the army has thousands of tanks just chilling out in the California desert because WE'RE NOT LIKELY TO ENTER A MASSIVE FUCK-OFF WAR ANYTIME SOON.
Dumbasses.
Pretty much, though remember bills for extending veteran benefits? Dying because of GOP obstructionism. But its the Democrats that are weakening merica.
Yup. Everytime my buddies in the Army honk at me about Obama being a threat to their jobs I just shake my head.
The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines.
Jesus what why
What the fuck
Ooh! Ooh! I know the answer to this!
The new Virginia class SSNs will be constructed at the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock facility on the James River in Guess-Which-East-Coast-Swing-State-Which-Coincidentally-Has-A-New-Class-Of-SSNs-Named-After-It?
And standing in front of an entire crowd of navy people if I remember correctly.
They clearly pulled that stupid number out of their ass for the speech, and are now stuck with it as a policy initiative because shoot first ask questions later Mitt didn't think that just maybe spending billions building new ships that no one asked for, while simultaneously promising to shrink the budget and lower the debt, might not totally mesh up down the road.
No, this is a consistent Romney policy. He kept honking about it during the debates.
When a Republican says they care about the troops, this is what they mean.
It's fucking disgusting.
More money for the defense industry instead of better pay and provisions for the troops?
Yup.
I'm all for a kickass military, but that is not what's on offer. I read a thing on CNN last night, the army has thousands of tanks just chilling out in the California desert because WE'RE NOT LIKELY TO ENTER A MASSIVE FUCK-OFF WAR ANYTIME SOON.
Dumbasses.
Pretty much, though remember bills for extending veteran benefits? Dying because of GOP obstructionism. But its the Democrats that are weakening merica.
Yup. Everytime my buddies in the Army honk at me about Obama being a threat to their jobs I just shake my head.
I dunno about your buddies, but I've seen studies that show that the military as a whole is a LOT bluer than it used to be.
Pres. Obama and Nancy Pelosi both claim that they embrace the free-market, support entrepreneurial endeavors and small business entering into the market, yet somehow simultaneously believe that more regulations, more stimulus, more price control, more taxation will have zero negative impact on job growth.
That's nonsense, not because of the underlying facts* but because the two halves of your statement do not intersect or contradict one another. Obama and Pelosi are pro-business (check), favor policy X (check), believe policy X won't hurt businesses (check). There's no contradiction there. To show double-think, you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are anti-business but support policies they believe will help business, or you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support policies they believe will hurt business.
Instead you're saying that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support polices that you believe will hurt business. That's a fair statement to make but it's disingenuous to couch that statement in accusations of hypocrisy.
*(Well, it's nonsense on those too, let's be clear.)
I'm not saying they're hypocrites, I'm saying that it would make more sense for a pro-free market president to avoid government stimulus, and lift taxes so that families and businesses on lower parts of the economic latter can reinvest and spend more of their own money, which grows the economy organically and freely. Government stimulus is a good way to display a short lived "growth", but it is inevitably doomed to plummet. Obviously the solution is to tax more and spend more on stimulus so they can boast of another 3.3 million job growth that costs billions and will not last. Government stimulus fails in the long run.
You keep saying Obama is pro-free market as if that means he is anti-any-other-solution. Obama has time and again said that he's in favor of a balance between regulation and freedom in the marketplace; it makes sense that he is for some forms of regulation but not others, that he wants to lower taxes on some businesses while raising taxes on others.
Government stimulus is only short-term growth if you hire people to break windows and then keep them from spending their wages. Otherwise you're spending on investments (infrastructure, green energy, education) and pumping up demand (that thing what the economy needs right now).
Obama's plan was and continues to be:
1. Lower taxes on middle and lower class people; increase taxes on the wealthy.
2. Use that revenue (and deficit spending) to stimulate the economy.
3. The stimulated economy grows us out of our debt and unemployment problems.
Romney's plan, on the other hand, is:
1. Lower taxes on everybody.
2. Close all loopholes, plus ones that don't exist, minus all the loopholes = revenue neutral (no deficit spending).
3. The economy grows because I said so.
Which one of those is more pro-free market? Hint: it's the one that funnels government money to people and businesses so that people buy things so that the free market can work. Hint 2: it's not the one that's made of wishes and fairydust. Hint 3: if the answer remains unclear, please reboot your computer and try again.
A. I'm don't support Romney.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
America really needs to find a method to curtail whenever companies punish their customers by increasing prices from government regulation. They shouldn't be able to hold their customers hostage when they feel "threatened" whenever the government refuses to give them a sloppy blowjob.
Which would entail even more government and costs.. perhaps even the government owning the top producing industries in the country and setting price controls on everybody else below them.
True. Except for how it wouldn't. In the slightest. Like, at all.
Increase top marginal rates and bring capital gains equivalent to wages and suddenly the marginal dollar is better spent reinvested into the company's future growth rather than cashed out as a dividend payment. Other things, too, but that alone would have a significant impact without nationalizing anybody.
If the government imposes a regulation or a tax that costs the industry more revenue, what U.S law prevents them from raising the prices of the commodities they sell to other businesses or ordinary consumers?
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"- Napoleon Bonaparte
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
This is one of those truisms that gets tossed around to convince people who know nothing about economics. But it is absolutely ridiculous in almost every possible way. That's not how markets work. That's not how supply and demand works. That's not how real life history of corporate and top margin taxes have worked, nor corporate profits. It's not how layoffs work either. It ignores where the money from the taxes is going and the affect it has on the lower and middle class. It ignores how the cost of production works.
It's hard to write a concise refutation, and it's not worth responding against in-depth, because it's almost completely divorced from reality we actually live in. It's faith-based economics.
Even better, Mitt Romney, the man, already refutes it with his own actions. Rich people don't invest all their riches, they hoard most of it; usually off the financial grid (and out of the country), hidden within vast constructions of financial wizardry and paperwork. Even now, with the horrible regulations killing big business and making rich people flee the country, Mittens pays around 13%, and that's when he's purposely paying more than he needs to. That tax rate is laughable when you look at the modern history of tax rates in this country.
For every dollar I make, around 30% of it goes to the man. For every dollar MItt makes, once he makes enough to get him out my bracket, he only pays 13%, the rest goes to his pocket. And we wonder why the wealth gap keeps widening?
Dark_Side on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines.
Jesus what why
What the fuck
Ooh! Ooh! I know the answer to this!
The new Virginia class SSNs will be constructed at the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock facility on the James River in Guess-Which-East-Coast-Swing-State-Which-Coincidentally-Has-A-New-Class-Of-SSNs-Named-After-It?
And standing in front of an entire crowd of navy people if I remember correctly.
They clearly pulled that stupid number out of their ass for the speech, and are now stuck with it as a policy initiative because shoot first ask questions later Mitt didn't think that just maybe spending billions building new ships that no one asked for, while simultaneously promising to shrink the budget and lower the debt, might not totally mesh up down the road.
No, this is a consistent Romney policy. He kept honking about it during the debates.
When a Republican says they care about the troops, this is what they mean.
It's fucking disgusting.
More money for the defense industry instead of better pay and provisions for the troops?
Yup.
I'm all for a kickass military, but that is not what's on offer. I read a thing on CNN last night, the army has thousands of tanks just chilling out in the California desert because WE'RE NOT LIKELY TO ENTER A MASSIVE FUCK-OFF WAR ANYTIME SOON.
Dumbasses.
Pretty much, though remember bills for extending veteran benefits? Dying because of GOP obstructionism. But its the Democrats that are weakening merica.
Yup. Everytime my buddies in the Army honk at me about Obama being a threat to their jobs I just shake my head.
I dunno about your buddies, but I've seen studies that show that the military as a whole is a LOT bluer than it used to be.
Pres. Obama and Nancy Pelosi both claim that they embrace the free-market, support entrepreneurial endeavors and small business entering into the market, yet somehow simultaneously believe that more regulations, more stimulus, more price control, more taxation will have zero negative impact on job growth.
That's nonsense, not because of the underlying facts* but because the two halves of your statement do not intersect or contradict one another. Obama and Pelosi are pro-business (check), favor policy X (check), believe policy X won't hurt businesses (check). There's no contradiction there. To show double-think, you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are anti-business but support policies they believe will help business, or you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support policies they believe will hurt business.
Instead you're saying that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support polices that you believe will hurt business. That's a fair statement to make but it's disingenuous to couch that statement in accusations of hypocrisy.
*(Well, it's nonsense on those too, let's be clear.)
I'm not saying they're hypocrites, I'm saying that it would make more sense for a pro-free market president to avoid government stimulus, and lift taxes so that families and businesses on lower parts of the economic latter can reinvest and spend more of their own money, which grows the economy organically and freely. Government stimulus is a good way to display a short lived "growth", but it is inevitably doomed to plummet. Obviously the solution is to tax more and spend more on stimulus so they can boast of another 3.3 million job growth that costs billions and will not last. Government stimulus fails in the long run.
You couched it in language which begrudged the idea that this was an obviously hypocritical position to hold.
It isn't. Prove it is.
They are holding apparently contradictory ideas. One who advocates free market philosophies do not typically advocate an increase in the size of government spending and more government control of the economy. They hold the position because they do not want to risk everything with the financial and business community. They feel safe vehemently defending small businesses, which makes people feel more comfortable because hey, it isn't big billionaires that we all hate. Problem is attacking big business is bad for all business because it consequently affects smaller business, as well as purchasers of commodities and labor. Small businesses rely on larger companies to buy their raw materials, wholesale, IE whatever it takes to get the cheapest products for resale to stay in business and compete. If their wholesalers taxes go up, they raise their prices, which inevitably raises the cost to smaller business and all the way down to the very basic consumer. A president who supports business and the free-market would not get tangled up in stimulus spending, increased taxation, etc, etc.
Dude, not everything is a black & white situation. There's nuance on this subject. Being pro-capitalist doesn't automatically mean a person has to be anti-regulation. Same for attacking big business or the wealthy.
This is true, I support minimal regulations that are well justified to keep the ball in the court when it comes to business, and a strong government to protect people from the aggression, violence, theft, etc from other citizens. There are shades of gray, but the fact that Obama attacks big business in general and regurgitates Keynesian economics doesn't make a strong case that he supports a free market.. not to mention giving taxpayer funds to wall street corporate lobbyists. It would be like if I was running on a progressive platform and then raised taxes on the poor.
But Obamacare is the largest pro-business initiative since--
and economics is a science, believing in one or the other school of thought is not--
--wait, giving funds to wall street isn't supporting the market?
ObamaCare is not free-market
Giving funds to corporate lobbyists is not free-market.
This is... What is this. I don't even.
ObamaCare is a series of regulations designed to protect consumers and make the market more open. What is "not free-market" about opening up market places in each state so consumers can have real choices?
Pres. Obama and Nancy Pelosi both claim that they embrace the free-market, support entrepreneurial endeavors and small business entering into the market, yet somehow simultaneously believe that more regulations, more stimulus, more price control, more taxation will have zero negative impact on job growth.
That's nonsense, not because of the underlying facts* but because the two halves of your statement do not intersect or contradict one another. Obama and Pelosi are pro-business (check), favor policy X (check), believe policy X won't hurt businesses (check). There's no contradiction there. To show double-think, you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are anti-business but support policies they believe will help business, or you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support policies they believe will hurt business.
Instead you're saying that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support polices that you believe will hurt business. That's a fair statement to make but it's disingenuous to couch that statement in accusations of hypocrisy.
*(Well, it's nonsense on those too, let's be clear.)
I'm not saying they're hypocrites, I'm saying that it would make more sense for a pro-free market president to avoid government stimulus, and lift taxes so that families and businesses on lower parts of the economic latter can reinvest and spend more of their own money, which grows the economy organically and freely. Government stimulus is a good way to display a short lived "growth", but it is inevitably doomed to plummet. Obviously the solution is to tax more and spend more on stimulus so they can boast of another 3.3 million job growth that costs billions and will not last. Government stimulus fails in the long run.
You keep saying Obama is pro-free market as if that means he is anti-any-other-solution. Obama has time and again said that he's in favor of a balance between regulation and freedom in the marketplace; it makes sense that he is for some forms of regulation but not others, that he wants to lower taxes on some businesses while raising taxes on others.
Government stimulus is only short-term growth if you hire people to break windows and then keep them from spending their wages. Otherwise you're spending on investments (infrastructure, green energy, education) and pumping up demand (that thing what the economy needs right now).
Obama's plan was and continues to be:
1. Lower taxes on middle and lower class people; increase taxes on the wealthy.
2. Use that revenue (and deficit spending) to stimulate the economy.
3. The stimulated economy grows us out of our debt and unemployment problems.
Romney's plan, on the other hand, is:
1. Lower taxes on everybody.
2. Close all loopholes, plus ones that don't exist, minus all the loopholes = revenue neutral (no deficit spending).
3. The economy grows because I said so.
Which one of those is more pro-free market? Hint: it's the one that funnels government money to people and businesses so that people buy things so that the free market can work. Hint 2: it's not the one that's made of wishes and fairydust. Hint 3: if the answer remains unclear, please reboot your computer and try again.
A. I'm don't support Romney.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
America really needs to find a method to curtail whenever companies punish their customers by increasing prices from government regulation. They shouldn't be able to hold their customers hostage when they feel "threatened" whenever the government refuses to give them a sloppy blowjob.
Which would entail even more government and costs.. perhaps even the government owning the top producing industries in the country and setting price controls on everybody else below them.
True. Except for how it wouldn't. In the slightest. Like, at all.
Increase top marginal rates and bring capital gains equivalent to wages and suddenly the marginal dollar is better spent reinvested into the company's future growth rather than cashed out as a dividend payment. Other things, too, but that alone would have a significant impact without nationalizing anybody.
If the government imposes a regulation or a tax that costs the industry more revenue, what U.S law prevents them from raising the prices of the commodities they sell to other businesses or ordinary consumers?
None. Their competition in a market economy does that.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
This is one of those truisms that gets tossed around to convince people who know nothing about economics. But it is absolutely ridiculous in almost every possible way. That's not how markets work. That's not how supply and demand works. That's not how real life history of corporate and top margin taxes have worked, nor corporate profits. It's not how layoffs work either. It ignores where the money from the taxes is going and the affect it has on the lower and middle class. It ignores how the cost of production works.
It's hard to write a concise refutation, and it's not worth responding against in-depth, because it's almost completely divorced from reality we actually live in. It's faith-based economics.
So nobel prize winning economists are wrong and every person who has ever tossed this notion around is wrong. I mean, where have you obtained your knowledge that is so superior to everybody else? Do you have a business that has ever been affected by government regulations or taxation? I'm just curious.
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"- Napoleon Bonaparte
Pres. Obama and Nancy Pelosi both claim that they embrace the free-market, support entrepreneurial endeavors and small business entering into the market, yet somehow simultaneously believe that more regulations, more stimulus, more price control, more taxation will have zero negative impact on job growth.
That's nonsense, not because of the underlying facts* but because the two halves of your statement do not intersect or contradict one another. Obama and Pelosi are pro-business (check), favor policy X (check), believe policy X won't hurt businesses (check). There's no contradiction there. To show double-think, you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are anti-business but support policies they believe will help business, or you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support policies they believe will hurt business.
Instead you're saying that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support polices that you believe will hurt business. That's a fair statement to make but it's disingenuous to couch that statement in accusations of hypocrisy.
*(Well, it's nonsense on those too, let's be clear.)
I'm not saying they're hypocrites, I'm saying that it would make more sense for a pro-free market president to avoid government stimulus, and lift taxes so that families and businesses on lower parts of the economic latter can reinvest and spend more of their own money, which grows the economy organically and freely. Government stimulus is a good way to display a short lived "growth", but it is inevitably doomed to plummet. Obviously the solution is to tax more and spend more on stimulus so they can boast of another 3.3 million job growth that costs billions and will not last. Government stimulus fails in the long run.
You couched it in language which begrudged the idea that this was an obviously hypocritical position to hold.
It isn't. Prove it is.
They are holding apparently contradictory ideas. One who advocates free market philosophies do not typically advocate an increase in the size of government spending and more government control of the economy. They hold the position because they do not want to risk everything with the financial and business community. They feel safe vehemently defending small businesses, which makes people feel more comfortable because hey, it isn't big billionaires that we all hate. Problem is attacking big business is bad for all business because it consequently affects smaller business, as well as purchasers of commodities and labor. Small businesses rely on larger companies to buy their raw materials, wholesale, IE whatever it takes to get the cheapest products for resale to stay in business and compete. If their wholesalers taxes go up, they raise their prices, which inevitably raises the cost to smaller business and all the way down to the very basic consumer. A president who supports business and the free-market would not get tangled up in stimulus spending, increased taxation, etc, etc.
Dude, not everything is a black & white situation. There's nuance on this subject. Being pro-capitalist doesn't automatically mean a person has to be anti-regulation. Same for attacking big business or the wealthy.
This is true, I support minimal regulations that are well justified to keep the ball in the court when it comes to business, and a strong government to protect people from the aggression, violence, theft, etc from other citizens.
It isn't only violent criminals that can hurt citizens. When the financial sector destroyed the economy, and the housing market bubble burst, untold people were hurt on a national scale and the perpetrators not only got away unscathed legally they got bonuses for their work and able to keep their cushy jobs. America is too soft on white collar criminals.
There are shades of gray, but the fact that Obama attacks big business in general and regurgitates Keynesian economics doesn't make a strong case that he supports a free market.. not to mention giving taxpayer funds to wall street corporate lobbyists.
Obama attacks big business because they've been shits who deserve criticism, yet he still has had his hands tied in reigning them in. Yet the wealthy can't wait to bring Godwin's law the first chance they get because he's not kissing their asses 24/7. I don't like his connections to Wall Street either but that's how the game is played. Something that isn't going to change any time soon. I don't see a problem with insulting big business. They've been as much of a thorn in the nation's side as a source for good. Unfortunately too many are shitheels who aren't fit to manage a local Starbucks let alone a multinational corporation.
It would be like if I was running on a progressive platform and then raised taxes on the poor.
A progressive could do raise taxes for the middle class, though.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
This is one of those truisms that gets tossed around to convince people who know nothing about economics. But it is absolutely ridiculous in almost every possible way. That's not how markets work. That's not how supply and demand works. That's not how real life history of corporate and top margin taxes have worked, nor corporate profits. It's not how layoffs work either. It ignores where the money from the taxes is going and the affect it has on the lower and middle class. It ignores how the cost of production works.
It's hard to write a concise refutation, and it's not worth responding against in-depth, because it's almost completely divorced from reality we actually live in. It's faith-based economics.
So nobel prize winning economists are wrong and every person who has ever tossed this notion around is wrong. I mean, where have you obtained your knowledge that is so superior to everybody else? Do you have a business that has ever been affected by government regulations or taxation? I'm just curious.
You'll find nobel prizing winning economists who disagree with your assertions.
To borrow from Jed Bartlet "You have to use a little bit from everyone."
Pres. Obama and Nancy Pelosi both claim that they embrace the free-market, support entrepreneurial endeavors and small business entering into the market, yet somehow simultaneously believe that more regulations, more stimulus, more price control, more taxation will have zero negative impact on job growth.
That's nonsense, not because of the underlying facts* but because the two halves of your statement do not intersect or contradict one another. Obama and Pelosi are pro-business (check), favor policy X (check), believe policy X won't hurt businesses (check). There's no contradiction there. To show double-think, you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are anti-business but support policies they believe will help business, or you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support policies they believe will hurt business.
Instead you're saying that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support polices that you believe will hurt business. That's a fair statement to make but it's disingenuous to couch that statement in accusations of hypocrisy.
*(Well, it's nonsense on those too, let's be clear.)
I'm not saying they're hypocrites, I'm saying that it would make more sense for a pro-free market president to avoid government stimulus, and lift taxes so that families and businesses on lower parts of the economic latter can reinvest and spend more of their own money, which grows the economy organically and freely. Government stimulus is a good way to display a short lived "growth", but it is inevitably doomed to plummet. Obviously the solution is to tax more and spend more on stimulus so they can boast of another 3.3 million job growth that costs billions and will not last. Government stimulus fails in the long run.
You keep saying Obama is pro-free market as if that means he is anti-any-other-solution. Obama has time and again said that he's in favor of a balance between regulation and freedom in the marketplace; it makes sense that he is for some forms of regulation but not others, that he wants to lower taxes on some businesses while raising taxes on others.
Government stimulus is only short-term growth if you hire people to break windows and then keep them from spending their wages. Otherwise you're spending on investments (infrastructure, green energy, education) and pumping up demand (that thing what the economy needs right now).
Obama's plan was and continues to be:
1. Lower taxes on middle and lower class people; increase taxes on the wealthy.
2. Use that revenue (and deficit spending) to stimulate the economy.
3. The stimulated economy grows us out of our debt and unemployment problems.
Romney's plan, on the other hand, is:
1. Lower taxes on everybody.
2. Close all loopholes, plus ones that don't exist, minus all the loopholes = revenue neutral (no deficit spending).
3. The economy grows because I said so.
Which one of those is more pro-free market? Hint: it's the one that funnels government money to people and businesses so that people buy things so that the free market can work. Hint 2: it's not the one that's made of wishes and fairydust. Hint 3: if the answer remains unclear, please reboot your computer and try again.
A. I'm don't support Romney.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
America really needs to find a method to curtail whenever companies punish their customers by increasing prices from government regulation. They shouldn't be able to hold their customers hostage when they feel "threatened" whenever the government refuses to give them a sloppy blowjob.
Which would entail even more government and costs.. perhaps even the government owning the top producing industries in the country and setting price controls on everybody else below them.
True. Except for how it wouldn't. In the slightest. Like, at all.
Increase top marginal rates and bring capital gains equivalent to wages and suddenly the marginal dollar is better spent reinvested into the company's future growth rather than cashed out as a dividend payment. Other things, too, but that alone would have a significant impact without nationalizing anybody.
If the government imposes a regulation or a tax that costs the industry more revenue, what U.S law prevents them from raising the prices of the commodities they sell to other businesses or ordinary consumers?
None. Their competition in a market economy does that.
Exactly. When the industries are all unanimously affected, they can unanimously increase the cost of their commodities. To prevent companies from being able to do that would require more government. Responding to many posts, so I apologize if I don't get to all of yours, but it was suggested that there has to be a way in America to stop companies from being able to pass on costs of regulations to consumers. One guess off the top of my head would be to install price controls.
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"- Napoleon Bonaparte
0
Options
Andy JoeWe claim the land for the highlord!The AdirondacksRegistered Userregular
There are shades of gray, but the fact that Obama attacks big business in general and regurgitates Keynesian economics doesn't make a strong case that he supports a free market
Pres. Obama and Nancy Pelosi both claim that they embrace the free-market, support entrepreneurial endeavors and small business entering into the market, yet somehow simultaneously believe that more regulations, more stimulus, more price control, more taxation will have zero negative impact on job growth.
That's nonsense, not because of the underlying facts* but because the two halves of your statement do not intersect or contradict one another. Obama and Pelosi are pro-business (check), favor policy X (check), believe policy X won't hurt businesses (check). There's no contradiction there. To show double-think, you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are anti-business but support policies they believe will help business, or you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support policies they believe will hurt business.
Instead you're saying that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support polices that you believe will hurt business. That's a fair statement to make but it's disingenuous to couch that statement in accusations of hypocrisy.
*(Well, it's nonsense on those too, let's be clear.)
I'm not saying they're hypocrites, I'm saying that it would make more sense for a pro-free market president to avoid government stimulus, and lift taxes so that families and businesses on lower parts of the economic latter can reinvest and spend more of their own money, which grows the economy organically and freely. Government stimulus is a good way to display a short lived "growth", but it is inevitably doomed to plummet. Obviously the solution is to tax more and spend more on stimulus so they can boast of another 3.3 million job growth that costs billions and will not last. Government stimulus fails in the long run.
You couched it in language which begrudged the idea that this was an obviously hypocritical position to hold.
It isn't. Prove it is.
They are holding apparently contradictory ideas. One who advocates free market philosophies do not typically advocate an increase in the size of government spending and more government control of the economy. They hold the position because they do not want to risk everything with the financial and business community. They feel safe vehemently defending small businesses, which makes people feel more comfortable because hey, it isn't big billionaires that we all hate. Problem is attacking big business is bad for all business because it consequently affects smaller business, as well as purchasers of commodities and labor. Small businesses rely on larger companies to buy their raw materials, wholesale, IE whatever it takes to get the cheapest products for resale to stay in business and compete. If their wholesalers taxes go up, they raise their prices, which inevitably raises the cost to smaller business and all the way down to the very basic consumer. A president who supports business and the free-market would not get tangled up in stimulus spending, increased taxation, etc, etc.
Dude, not everything is a black & white situation. There's nuance on this subject. Being pro-capitalist doesn't automatically mean a person has to be anti-regulation. Same for attacking big business or the wealthy.
This is true, I support minimal regulations that are well justified to keep the ball in the court when it comes to business, and a strong government to protect people from the aggression, violence, theft, etc from other citizens. There are shades of gray, but the fact that Obama attacks big business in general and regurgitates Keynesian economics doesn't make a strong case that he supports a free market.. not to mention giving taxpayer funds to wall street corporate lobbyists. It would be like if I was running on a progressive platform and then raised taxes on the poor.
But Obamacare is the largest pro-business initiative since--
and economics is a science, believing in one or the other school of thought is not--
--wait, giving funds to wall street isn't supporting the market?
ObamaCare is not free-market
Giving funds to corporate lobbyists is not free-market.
This is... What is this. I don't even.
ObamaCare is a series of regulations designed to protect consumers and make the market more open. What is "not free-market" about opening up market places in each state so consumers can have real choices?
A government controlled health care system is not a private market.
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"- Napoleon Bonaparte
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Good thing Obamacare isn't a government controlled health system.
Posts
That doesn't make the least bit of sense. I am honestly curious as to what you mean here, because I just can't quite wrap my head around what you are trying to suggest. Increased governmental purchases or revenue streams has nothing to do with whether you are a market economy or a command economy. At least, not unless we are talking about 100% taxation levels. Which nobody is.
A. I'm don't support Romney.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
John Hunstman is Romney if he were slightly more competent and reasonable
He got annihilated in the primary
America really needs to find a method to curtail whenever companies punish their customers by increasing prices from government regulation. They shouldn't be able to hold their customers hostage when they feel "threatened" whenever the government refuses to give them a sloppy blowjob.
That's not true unless we are talking about top marginal rates in excess of ~80%. [ cite ] Which we aren't. (the proposed top marginal rate would return to 39.5%) Or if we're talking about businesses engaged in non-competitive markets where they are able to extract monopoly rents. Which is its own problem that should be addressed through anti-trust regulations rather than through the tax code and hoping they behave nicely.
And standing in front of an entire crowd of navy people if I remember correctly.
They clearly pulled that stupid number out of their ass for the speech, and are now stuck with it as a policy initiative because shoot first ask questions later Mitt didn't think that just maybe spending billions building new ships that no one asked for, while simultaneously promising to shrink the budget and lower the debt, might not totally mesh up down the road.
Not just slightly, and also Huntsman sticks to his positions, is willing to cooperate with Democrats, and comes across as a real human being rather than a robot.
I like Huntsman, even though I disagree with a lot of his positions. I find it hard to fathom how anybody could like Romney.
He said the exact thing in the debate and "Won" so again why wouldn't he blatantaly lie?
pleasepaypreacher.net
So that's where 2002 Romney went.
No, this is a consistent Romney policy. He kept honking about it during the debates.
When a Republican says they care about the troops, this is what they mean.
It's fucking disgusting.
More money for the defense industry instead of better pay and provisions for the troops?
Look, caring about defense contractors is just as far more important as caring about the kids in the line of fire
Battleships and Dreadnoughts and how many men could stand in their barrels were how you measured sea power back then. Now we have a shadowy world of ??? submarines and ships that shoot missiles across continents.
Romney and his team have gone beyond regular fibbing and making shit up. Someone quantum-leaped into his body, and team Sam doesn't care what happens next.
This is true, I support minimal regulations that are well justified to keep the ball in the court when it comes to business, and a strong government to protect people from the aggression, violence, theft, etc from other citizens. There are shades of gray, but the fact that Obama attacks big business in general and regurgitates Keynesian economics doesn't make a strong case that he supports a free market.. not to mention giving taxpayer funds to wall street corporate lobbyists. It would be like if I was running on a progressive platform and then raised taxes on the poor.
Yeah, I realize he has kept saying it. My point was that they totally pulled that number out of their ass, specifically because he was going to be talking in front of a navy audience.
And it is aggravating that he continues to get away with it. "Well Mitt, where'd you come up with those numbers?" "You're sure you didn't just happen across a story about naval build quotas and arbitrarily add 3 to each quota? Cause, I'm not seeing a lot of rhyme or reason behind this?"
Its why Romney is Pro Military but says nothing of the Troops. Because the military is Haliburton, Boeing, Mcdonald Douglas.
pleasepaypreacher.net
This is one of those truisms that gets tossed around to convince people who know nothing about economics. But it is absolutely ridiculous in almost every possible way. That's not how markets work. That's not how supply and demand works. That's not how real life history of corporate and top margin taxes have worked, nor corporate profits. It's not how layoffs work either. It ignores where the money from the taxes is going and the affect it has on the lower and middle class. It ignores how the cost of production works.
It's hard to write a concise refutation, and it's not worth responding against in-depth, because it's almost completely divorced from reality we actually live in. It's faith-based economics.
But Obamacare is the largest pro-business initiative since--
and economics is a science, believing in one or the other school of thought is not--
--wait, giving funds to wall street isn't supporting the market?
Which would entail even more government and costs.. perhaps even the government owning the top producing industries in the country and setting price controls on everybody else below them.
Yup.
I'm all for a kickass military, but that is not what's on offer. I read a thing on CNN last night, the army has thousands of tanks just chilling out in the California desert because WE'RE NOT LIKELY TO ENTER A MASSIVE FUCK-OFF WAR ANYTIME SOON.
Dumbasses.
Pretty much, though remember bills for extending veteran benefits? Dying because of GOP obstructionism. But its the Democrats that are weakening merica.
pleasepaypreacher.net
ObamaCare is not free-market
Giving funds to corporate lobbyists is not free-market.
True. Except for how it wouldn't. In the slightest. Like, at all.
Increase top marginal rates and bring capital gains equivalent to wages and suddenly the marginal dollar is better spent reinvested into the company's future growth rather than cashed out as a dividend payment. Other things, too, but that alone would have a significant impact without nationalizing anybody.
Yup. Everytime my buddies in the Army honk at me about Obama being a threat to their jobs I just shake my head.
I dunno about your buddies, but I've seen studies that show that the military as a whole is a LOT bluer than it used to be.
If the government imposes a regulation or a tax that costs the industry more revenue, what U.S law prevents them from raising the prices of the commodities they sell to other businesses or ordinary consumers?
Even better, Mitt Romney, the man, already refutes it with his own actions. Rich people don't invest all their riches, they hoard most of it; usually off the financial grid (and out of the country), hidden within vast constructions of financial wizardry and paperwork. Even now, with the horrible regulations killing big business and making rich people flee the country, Mittens pays around 13%, and that's when he's purposely paying more than he needs to. That tax rate is laughable when you look at the modern history of tax rates in this country.
For every dollar I make, around 30% of it goes to the man. For every dollar MItt makes, once he makes enough to get him out my bracket, he only pays 13%, the rest goes to his pocket. And we wonder why the wealth gap keeps widening?
So have I. But here we are.
This is... What is this. I don't even.
ObamaCare is a series of regulations designed to protect consumers and make the market more open. What is "not free-market" about opening up market places in each state so consumers can have real choices?
None. Their competition in a market economy does that.
So nobel prize winning economists are wrong and every person who has ever tossed this notion around is wrong. I mean, where have you obtained your knowledge that is so superior to everybody else? Do you have a business that has ever been affected by government regulations or taxation? I'm just curious.
It isn't only violent criminals that can hurt citizens. When the financial sector destroyed the economy, and the housing market bubble burst, untold people were hurt on a national scale and the perpetrators not only got away unscathed legally they got bonuses for their work and able to keep their cushy jobs. America is too soft on white collar criminals.
Obama attacks big business because they've been shits who deserve criticism, yet he still has had his hands tied in reigning them in. Yet the wealthy can't wait to bring Godwin's law the first chance they get because he's not kissing their asses 24/7. I don't like his connections to Wall Street either but that's how the game is played. Something that isn't going to change any time soon. I don't see a problem with insulting big business. They've been as much of a thorn in the nation's side as a source for good. Unfortunately too many are shitheels who aren't fit to manage a local Starbucks let alone a multinational corporation.
A progressive could do raise taxes for the middle class, though.
You'll find nobel prizing winning economists who disagree with your assertions.
To borrow from Jed Bartlet "You have to use a little bit from everyone."
Exactly. When the industries are all unanimously affected, they can unanimously increase the cost of their commodities. To prevent companies from being able to do that would require more government. Responding to many posts, so I apologize if I don't get to all of yours, but it was suggested that there has to be a way in America to stop companies from being able to pass on costs of regulations to consumers. One guess off the top of my head would be to install price controls.
What's wrong with Keynesian economics?
A government controlled health care system is not a private market.
For fuck's sake.