This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1Arctic-Stranger
From a recent Salon article...I chucked for a good long time reading this.
It is painful to watch John McCain, who despite his Southern ancestry is a right-wing Progressive in the mold of Theodore Roosevelt, pandering to the Southern right; it is like watching Woodrow Wilson pretend to be William Jennings Bryan.)
It is painful to watch John McCain, who despite his Southern ancestry is a right-wing Progressive in the mold of Theodore Roosevelt, pandering to the Southern right; it is like watching Woodrow Wilson pretend to be William Jennings Bryan.)
2lriley
For many southern white conservatives Arctic--Bob Barr probably fits more into their worldview. McCain's campaign seems built around defending GWB's major policy initiatives of the past 8 years.
Our real problems are economic ones--new population projections have us going from the 300 million mark in 2006 to 438 million by 2050.
http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?RepeatID=85
How long can we continue to bleed jobs, undermine the production of goods and ignore internal infastructure? Put off health care, energy and mass transit solutions? How much longer allow Health care costs, education costs and energy costs to rise without rules or regulations owing to (sometimes the manipulation of) 'market' forces? McCain's candidacy seems unaware or unconcerned about these problems. It seems to have centered mostly on fighting Islamic terrorism in the Middle East. Future presidents are going to have to face the challenge of growing population/work forces and are going to have long range vision. The trickle down economic growth ideas carried over from the Reagan years were inadequate then and will be increasingly inadequate in the future. We won't succeed in the global marketplace of the future if we can't succeed at home.
Scroll down for the population projections report dated 2-11-2008.
Our real problems are economic ones--new population projections have us going from the 300 million mark in 2006 to 438 million by 2050.
http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?RepeatID=85
How long can we continue to bleed jobs, undermine the production of goods and ignore internal infastructure? Put off health care, energy and mass transit solutions? How much longer allow Health care costs, education costs and energy costs to rise without rules or regulations owing to (sometimes the manipulation of) 'market' forces? McCain's candidacy seems unaware or unconcerned about these problems. It seems to have centered mostly on fighting Islamic terrorism in the Middle East. Future presidents are going to have to face the challenge of growing population/work forces and are going to have long range vision. The trickle down economic growth ideas carried over from the Reagan years were inadequate then and will be increasingly inadequate in the future. We won't succeed in the global marketplace of the future if we can't succeed at home.
Scroll down for the population projections report dated 2-11-2008.
3geneg
Your tax dollars flow this way in trickle down:
1) They are collected
2) They are used by the Federal Government to subsidize International (and other) corporations.
Now this is where trickle down comes in.
3) The subsidized corporations use the subsidies to transfer certain types of business overseas.
4) Your job gets cut because you make more than the guy in India or China or Malaysia or Mexico who now does what you used to do.
Yes, trickle down reaganomics works great if you are living in India or China or Malaysia or Mexico. Not so much for Americans.
Of course there is another river of taxes supporting private enterprise. (If I can support business with my tax dollars whey can't I do the same for those individuals who really need it?) Anyway, some of the subsidy (your tax dollars at work) goes down this stream:
3) Subsidies also increase the bottom line yielding capital gains for investors through increased dividends.
4) Investors take that subsidized profit and re-invest it in, wait for it, patience, patience, boom (as John Madden would say) India, China, Malaysia, Mexico.
Notice how your tax dollars are paying for the economies of India, China, Malaysia, and Mexico.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather my dues be paid to people who are going to use it to stimulate MY economy.
This is the great economic vacuum cleaner: suck money out of my pocket into the pockets of the wealthy, reverse welfare. Clinton only got rid of half the welfare.
This is how the administration can say the economy is making money while you and I find fewer and fewer dollars in our pocket and prices rising all around.
If you laff with Laffer the economy is doing just what it is supposed to do, put money in the hands of the wealthy elite to feed their own economies.
As long as there is enough oil to make one more credit card it is our responsibility and duty to max it out as quickly as possible. Our job, as a country, is to be the market for the world. We are expected to spend, spend, spend. Things are our desire. Money is the new god. Idolatry never, ever, ever leads to anything good, and we will reap the results of our idolatry. If not us, then our children and their children.
1) They are collected
2) They are used by the Federal Government to subsidize International (and other) corporations.
Now this is where trickle down comes in.
3) The subsidized corporations use the subsidies to transfer certain types of business overseas.
4) Your job gets cut because you make more than the guy in India or China or Malaysia or Mexico who now does what you used to do.
Yes, trickle down reaganomics works great if you are living in India or China or Malaysia or Mexico. Not so much for Americans.
Of course there is another river of taxes supporting private enterprise. (If I can support business with my tax dollars whey can't I do the same for those individuals who really need it?) Anyway, some of the subsidy (your tax dollars at work) goes down this stream:
3) Subsidies also increase the bottom line yielding capital gains for investors through increased dividends.
4) Investors take that subsidized profit and re-invest it in, wait for it, patience, patience, boom (as John Madden would say) India, China, Malaysia, Mexico.
Notice how your tax dollars are paying for the economies of India, China, Malaysia, and Mexico.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather my dues be paid to people who are going to use it to stimulate MY economy.
This is the great economic vacuum cleaner: suck money out of my pocket into the pockets of the wealthy, reverse welfare. Clinton only got rid of half the welfare.
This is how the administration can say the economy is making money while you and I find fewer and fewer dollars in our pocket and prices rising all around.
If you laff with Laffer the economy is doing just what it is supposed to do, put money in the hands of the wealthy elite to feed their own economies.
As long as there is enough oil to make one more credit card it is our responsibility and duty to max it out as quickly as possible. Our job, as a country, is to be the market for the world. We are expected to spend, spend, spend. Things are our desire. Money is the new god. Idolatry never, ever, ever leads to anything good, and we will reap the results of our idolatry. If not us, then our children and their children.
4lriley
What also needs is pragmatism--what works works--what doesn't doesn't. Nobel prizes for economics aside--theory can be great in and of itself but when it doesn't work in practice it's no good at all. To go further too many Americans especially the most affluent think the economy is just fine because they understand it to be working for them--it's not just the question of if it can work for me--it should work for all--that others must be lazy or something of that sort. This is still the me, me, me idea of economics. When I do say too many americans I don't mean the majority who are being squeezed by the boa constrictor of deregulated capitalism. Many things in their purest forms are poisonous. We need more of a we approach because that increase of population eventually will strangle our economy and political life if we do not adjust to it. To be honest I am not all that thrilled with Barack's movements since claiming the nomination but he is by far the better choice at the moment--the only one with potential to meet these challenges. Whether he does or not will be what I judge him on--if he wins that is as it seems increasingly likely.
McCain just seems lost--campaigning in Israel, Canada and Colombia in the last couple months--how is that going to get him elected?
McCain just seems lost--campaigning in Israel, Canada and Colombia in the last couple months--how is that going to get him elected?
