|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 25, 2015 22:44:54 GMT -8
Our President has no new ideas. The collectivist ideas of the 20th Century are all he knows. Consider this . . .
If Obama was really interested in looking to the future and shaking off the past—not to mention jumpstarting economic innovation and growth—he’d do well to think about growing the supply of goods and services rather than trying always to manage the demand side.
One consistently gets the impression that Pres. Obama, as with most of those substantially left of center politically, does not understand how economies work. Further, he seems more interested in dividing the economic pie more "fairly" than in making the pie bigger.
A better way, and one that has been demonstrated for at least a couple of centuries by this time, is explained in this piece.
www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/24/to-obama-the-state-can-still-solve-every-problem.html
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by Luchador El Guerrero Azteca on Jan 26, 2015 3:19:31 GMT -8
He knows that driving us deep into debt ($18.1Trillion and counting) makes it look like we have an economy that is working. Middle class salary deflation, new middle class taxes, etc are just some of the things no one in the media is challenging him on.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 26, 2015 8:04:07 GMT -8
When you just advocate increasing taxes on any segment or number of segments of society with no real productive plan for employing those taxes in the economy, you just take away from disposable income and add to the plight of the workers. Add in the idea of spending much more than your tax increase and you also just build up the debt bomb.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jan 26, 2015 10:12:51 GMT -8
Just keep believing that 'trickle down' works.  |
|
|
|
Post by hbaztec on Jan 26, 2015 11:00:07 GMT -8
Just keep believing that 'trickle down' works. Create more supply of health care workers by getting rid if licensing requirements sounds like a great plan. Are they really that stupid? Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 26, 2015 17:55:32 GMT -8
Just keep believing that 'trickle down' works. Okay, I challenge you to define "trickle down" and be specific with details. By the way, you do know, I suppose, that only the collectivists of the Democratic Party ever use that term. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Luchador El Guerrero Azteca on Jan 26, 2015 18:15:41 GMT -8
Just keep believing that 'trickle down' works. Okay, I challenge you to define "trickle down" and be specific with details. By the way, you do know, I suppose, that only the collectivists of the Democratic Party every use that term. AzWm In this case it it'ss more like tax and spend. $18.1 Trillion. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jan 27, 2015 14:18:55 GMT -8
Just keep believing that 'trickle down' works. Okay, I challenge you to define "trickle down" and be specific with details. By the way, you do know, I suppose, that only the collectivists of the Democratic Party ever use that term. AzWm How about "supply side"? Is that better? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Jan 30, 2015 9:01:03 GMT -8
Unfortunately we have two more years of BHO's socialist misadventures. I hope Congress can reign in the spending and lower the tax rate, that will help turn things around better than the current borrow and spend madness.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jan 30, 2015 9:41:21 GMT -8
Unfortunately we have two more years of BHO's socialist misadventures. I hope Congress can reign in the spending and lower the tax rate, that will help turn things around better than the current borrow and spend madness. You mean like fighting two wars on the credit card? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Jan 30, 2015 12:28:53 GMT -8
Unfortunately we have two more years of BHO's socialist misadventures. I hope Congress can reign in the spending and lower the tax rate, that will help turn things around better than the current borrow and spend madness. You mean like fighting two wars on the credit card? Actually, more like spending a trillion dollars on an ineffective stimulus bill. Our government is way too big, too many czars and unneeded governmental departments. The wars need to be curtailed as well. If the U.S. becomes energy independent, we won't need to send our military to the Middle East every 5 years to stabilize the region's energy exports. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jan 30, 2015 14:15:50 GMT -8
Mods - This thread should be moved to the political board.
|
|
|
|
Post by Luchador El Guerrero Azteca on Jan 31, 2015 12:56:19 GMT -8
Unfortunately we have two more years of BHO's socialist misadventures. I hope Congress can reign in the spending and lower the tax rate, that will help turn things around better than the current borrow and spend madness. You mean like fighting two wars on the credit card? Well, to be fair Obama has used the "credit card" at twice the rate as Bush. Both were wrong. The last bit of fiscal responsibility was Clinton's last term, when he had to deal with the Gingrich Congress. They privately worked together very well. Obama - Boehner could and should start to emulate Clinton-Gingrich for our Nation's sake. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 8, 2015 14:07:37 GMT -8
Mods - This thread should be moved to the political board. It's hard to separate the two areas in many cases. Political decisions by the administration - - any administration - - are made based on how the pols understand the workings of a national economy. Generally, the Left favors policies that amount to dividing the wealth of a nation more fairly, according to how the Left defines fairness. The Right believes in the least amount of governmental interference consistent with the absolutely essential duties of government at all levels. Of course, the Right believes (correctly, in my view) that those essential duties are far fewer than what the Left wants government to tackle. Relative to the economies of the great powers, the greatest period economic of growth in the U.S.A. came about during a time in which the government was least involved in trying to run business. That period was basically from the end of the Civil War to about WWI. There is a lot more to be said on this subject, but at the moment duty calls me to do my chores! AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 8, 2015 15:35:38 GMT -8
I should have added something important to my description of the Right's attitude toward economics. Those who reject collectivist economics believe that the less government interferes, the more productively will businesses operate. That is a general rule, of course; there could always be exceptions. But in general a business will be much better off if it can change direction, curtail production of unpopular products, add or delete features from products, etc. if it does not have to go to the government to ask permission to make those changes.
There is another aspect to this issue that does not get enough attention. Large companies have the resources to wade through the multitude of pages of regulations that the government has promulgated. Small companies do not have those resources, and therefore it is more difficult and costly for them to comply with regulations. Dealing with government regulations is costly for the big companies, but no doubt their very size gives them an advantage which discourages smaller competitors. That no doubt discourages the entrance of new competitors into a market segment. The government should be neutral with respect to which companies succeed and which fail. One can be forgiven for thinking that the current administration does not take that attitude. Example: Solyndra.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Feb 9, 2015 10:36:44 GMT -8
Relative to the economies of the great powers, the greatest period economic of growth in the U.S.A. came about during a time in which the government was least involved in trying to run business. That period was basically from the end of the Civil War to about WWI. AzWm That would be the age of the 'Robber Barons'. That was the time when the wealth of the country was concentrated in the hands of the fewest people. We are heading in that direction right now. The time of greatest prosperity for most citizens was from 1945 to about 1980 or so. That was when education was available to most citizens and unions were still strong. Since then, the cost of education has put it out of reach of many and "real wages" have declined at the same rate as union membership. |
|
