Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jan 9, 2005.
i'm cutting out a lot of the article's personal anecdotes.
Money is a tangible. The tax cuts were aimed at rewarding the "investor class" who make the investments that supposedly employ people. Apparantly we are now waiting upon those people to make new investments in markets that have less disposable income. Though most intelligent investors know that you don't invest markets that offer no return. And there falls the fallacy.
Rather than giving tangible spending power to those who would spend it we have given it to those who already had vast amounts of spending power. Are they in turn expected to give it away? Or will it be locked at the top?
I wonder? what happens to an economy when money stops circulating? what happens when the tangible is locked at the top?
Again, a question aimed at the majority who do not have the wealth of the minority. When is this supposed to become beneficial? The worlds wealthiest nation cannot take care of its own, at what point do the wealthiest have enough?
I may as well ask if there are limits to greed and excess? why not? are there?
How does rewarding the greedy reward you?
This system has been done and undone before, prove me wrong. Or is it just a fallacy to think that everyone can merely live well. You can take that suggestion to extremes in order to prove it wrong. But for a long time the citizens of this country benefited from a system that rewarded achievers while not neglecting those less talented who still gave their best effort. What essentially was wrong with the New Deal? didn't it take us from the Great Depression to where we are now?
The caveat of course is that the talented will always do well, but not all supporting this system are so talented and even then not all with the talented are so greedy. Is the (attainable?) satiation of the few worth the discomfort of the many?
I guess it depends of how you view society, you can't have order without suitable benefits can you? To support that point out that we have the most wealth and the highest percentage of incarcerated populous (here in the U.S.). At some point it becomes so unfair that everything falls apart, to the detriment of everyone.
While I don't agree with religion on many levels, the tenets hold true. And yet they are actually being used to support the current trend. I am beyond incredulous at this point.
Even Bush Sr. called this voodoo economics. Problem being, when the people who get the tax cuts are supposed to be spending them to create new jobs, if the economy is bad, they still hold on to it instead of spending it. As we can all see, it is not helping the economy. People can talk about #'s, and blame things on terrorism and the bubble burst, but it doesn't change the fact that people are struggling and it isn't getting better. And even with the deficit climbing ever higher, no one has the guts to tell Bush his cuts are not working.
Or even if it's circulated by making tangible purchases, as James Carville has pointed out, what good is it if it's only circulated at the top?
Which more benefits the economy...one rich guy buying a single fancy yacht or, for the same money, a hundred middle-class people buying new cars? The former will employ a few dozen people; the latter will employ hundreds.
The other factor, too, is when people are unemployed for longer periods, they simply give up looking for work, and are therefore not counted among the unemployed. So the unemployment rate goes "down", even though the problem is actually getting worse.
As to your comments about the New Deal, I sure can't argue with that. The New Deal not only brought us out of the depression but ushered in the most prosperous era in American history.
The thing is, too many Americans are intellectually lazy. Rather than figure things out for themselves, they've been swallowing the propaganda put out by the far right, which is almost always in directly opposition to the truth. According to them, the New Deal made us a welfare state, and it's the liberals (not the greedy corporations) that keep us poor.
I've been reading Thomas Franks' "What's the Matter with Kansas?", and it's a frightening depiction of a voter base which is in total denial of reality, supporting the people who hurt them most and vilifying the only people who can help them...all at the behest of the neo-con propaganda machine.
That, more than anything else, is a great argument for leaving this country. When you can't even get the people to protest their oppressors, when they're such sheep that they actually support their oppressors, then the ignorant have won...and you might as well say "F--- it," and just move on.
It's ironic, because when I was in college in the early '70s, there was the usual Communist student group warning us that this was coming to pass. And naive young man that I was, I thought they were wild-eyed lunatics. Little did I know....