Republican positions have no basis in reality

It isn't designed to trickle down to people who are camping in a park in DC.

I have seen homosexual men marry women, have a child or two and then go back to their perverted live styles and the children are basket cases of confusion and pain.

Please give your computer to a poor black kid so that he can sell it for crack. Before you post again get a consensus of one hundred people. You look like an individual to me and I doubt that the run of the mill porn would hard core enough for you.

You just said that businesses aren't spending when you talked and trickledown which is it?? Those companies are holding their cash because they don't know what is going to happen on taxes.

I played tennis just about every day one summer while a friend was on unemployment. The advantages of unemployment are that they pay no tax, they don't have the expensive of day care, fuel, food and vehicle wear and tear so going to work when they can play with the kids and watch TV for almost as much as they were getting home with after 40 hours of work and 10 or more hours in traffic doesn't feel that bad.

We do have population growth and in spite of the liberal horde killing millions of babies our population will keep growing. I don't know where you live but if you look a Europe you will see that their decresed population ideology will soon result in a islamo Europe.

So you think that China would play nice if we put our weapons down? What a fool.

The hell of a lot may end up in hell but in any case I don't see the republican ideology as much about religion as it is about morals. I don't see anything approaching morality in killing babies, perverted life styles and holding blacks in the leg irons of government dependence.

Do you have a quote from even a drunken republican??

Again, I have missed that plank of the Republican platform so you are dreaming and or looking at the subject through hate filled eyes.

So much for the liberal lie that they are the compassionate ones.

Sure you could go on making things up for days but it wouldn't make one word that you have posted true.

 

Well, we can just thank God that liberals have no emotion. Negative or positive. They're just little automatons going about their business, pragmatically and rationally.

 

tell that to Obama's buddies Jamie Dimon and LLoyd Blankfein, they think it's working great.


the only idiots are the ones who think the democrats are different

 

Democrats only put down the rich and businesses that exploit workers for their own personal gain and excesses.

sure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/...671253.html#s120737&title=Lloyd_Blankfein_CEO

Sure, lets put as much pollutants and carcinogens into the air and water as possible so more people can get sick with respiratory ailments or cancers down the road. That'll cause medical costs to rise, cost insurance companies more money (at least the ones who don't decide to deny insurance to those with pre-existing conditions); of course the funeral industry will make out like bandits.

Republicans are for jobs? sure jobs that pay minimum wage (or even less if they can somehow eliminate the national minimum wage laws.

You seem to give the impression that unions are only about money for their members with the sole goal to put businesses into bankruptcy. How ignorant on your part. Its not just about money; its about working conditions in the workplace, benefits so you can stay healthy, a mechanism to resolve disputes in the workplace, safety and health so that no one comes to work and dies or gets sick from the job, being able to work a 40 hour week if you so choose so your not forced to work 7 days per week for the rest of your life.

Basically Republicans don't want any rules in the workplace, they want to owners to have total control without any checks and balances so that employees can be exploited and abused with no legal recourse. Its mindsets like the republican party that give rise to revolutions in other countries. Fortunately we still have some laws left in this country that give working people a shred of hope.,

 

Trickle-down economics has no basis in reality because it is more conducive to an industrial revolution type economy, when suppliers, not consumers determined how wealth is multiplied. Nowadays, wealth multiplies based upon consumer spending, as it is the most important component of GDP. While investment spending as a percentage of RGDP is 86%, consumer spending is 108%.

 

You need to study a bit of history. Will be good for you.

It is incredible how Conservative are ignorant in history.

 

When you think about religious zealotry, it is very similar.

All a preacher does is talk about hell and (*)(*)(*)(*)ation unless you do as the bible says.

Why wouldn't Republicans/conservatives use the same tactics that seem to work so well on their brothers and sisters in arms?

 

That is not what I said. Republicans believe that the legalization of gay marriage will somehow destroy hetero marriages.

 

"Trickle down" is a cartoon portrayal of the undeniable fact that wealth cycles in an economy. Thus, when you tax someone you don't only tax that person but everyone that will make use of that wealth after him.

Economic controllers also make much of changes to income tax rates, ignoring other factors such as deductions, leniency of tax avoidance laws, levels of borrowing, state and local tax rates, tariffs, excise taxes, payroll taxes, inflation, etc. When you look at the more relevant statistic of total government revenue as a percent of GDP, you find that it has only risen steadily over the years. Thus, the economic burden of the state has grown, not shrunk. Regulations have also only expanded over the years. The claim that we've been living under some laissez-faire regime for thirty years is a left-statist fantasy.

Since the whole point of marriage is to regulate (through social custom and contract) the bearing and raising of children, I don't see why same-sex couples would want to marry, except to ape heterosexuals in a bid for assimilation. At any rate, this issue is a waste of time. The state shouldn't be any more involved in marriage than in baptism.

What is society? Only individuals interacting with each other. It has no holistic existence beyond the minds of individuals. Furthermore, the state is an anti-society institution because it is based on violence and any true society is based on voluntary relationships between individuals.

The more the state parasitically sucks out of the productive economy, the less wealth the productive economy has left over. Of course, the state spends it back into the economy, but it spends it inefficiently. Whereas in a free economy resources are allocated according the demands of consumers, statism allocates resources according the whims of the rulers of the coercive monopoly.

Largesse creates a tendency in some people to mooch off the largesse, when they could work for themselves. It's probably more of an unconscious tendency towards laxity in seeking self-sufficiency, rather than a conscious "I'm just gonna live off the charity" choice, but it's there. It's therefore important to be discriminating in one's generosity, ensuring it goes to those who are truly down on their luck. Since the state is a coercive monopoly, it is as inefficient in this matter as it is in everything else.

Thus, it is no surprise that the poverty rate in the US ceased declining precisely when LBJ began his "war on poverty." Like most statist programs, it had the opposite effect of it's stated intention.

We don't need civilization; we could all be cavemen again. But who wants to? I prefer a rising standard of living and fail to see how this in "unsustainable," since it is economic growth that gives us greater ability to manage our environment.

This Galbraithian argument appears to be an implicit admittance that socialism fails to generate wealth. The socialists originally claimed that socialism would best capitalism in making everyone richer. Once it became obvious that it makes everyone poorer, I guess some of them changed their argument to this following: "Socialism does make us poorer, but that's a good thing! It's better for the moss and snails!"

True. The gargantuan US military-industrial complex is a boondoggle, as is Washington's self-proclaimed "policeman of the world" status. They spend money on bases in first-world countries like Germany and weapons systems to fight the Soviets. Anyone who claims to be a budget hawk but nonetheless refuses to cut a penny from the Pentagon is either a moron or a liar.

I don't think whether it can "function" or not says anything about whether God or an extra-material reality exists.

None of them are free. They're all dominated by violence monopolies.

True.

 

This is a weirdly mechanistic way of looking at the economy, which is a simply the totality of individuals engaging in acts of voluntary trade with each other. All wealth cycles throughout the whole economy. It can't be divided into self-contained boxes It's secondary where you tax because it draws wealth from the whole economy. Worrying about taxing investments versus consumption or "the rich" versus "the poor" is much like worrying about how to rearrange the water in a bathtub.

 

No. The biggest problem black people in America have today is that there aren't enough jobs in America. It's the same problem everyone else has.

Yes. Without poor people to spend money on what those jobs and factories produce, there is no job and no factory.

We are not suffering from an overabundance of environmental regulation. Jobs are not going overseas because of environmental standards, they're going overseas because poor people are more desperate on other continents and they're willing to accept a much crappier deal, including a lack of environmental standards that will give them all cancer later on. The solution is not to give our own workers cancer!

Republicans are not for jobs! Republicans are for whatever helps the wealthiest people in America, and that's high unemployment and a high misery index among the people of America. It's short term and it's stupid, but that's why everyone thinks republicans are nuts, because they're throwing their own people under the train so that rich people can ride the rails to China on the corpses of American workers.

Don't judge them by their words, judge them by their actions. Seriously -- what have republicans done for conservatism lately? NOTHING!!! They just attack liberals, which in the real world doesn't help conservatives in the slightest.

 

It's not upwards or downwards, if such a hierarchy even exists. Since the economy is based on acts of mutual trade, any flow of wealth in one direction must be accompanied by an equivalent flow of wealth in the opposite direction. So, yes, cutting taxing on the rich helps the poor. Cutting taxes on the poor helps the rich. Cutting taxes on anyone helps everyone. Isn't the harmony of the market wonderful?

I wonder if any proponents of free market economics has ever actually used the term "trickle down." It's one of the those terms only critics of the free market ever use, like "the invisible hand," which was used by Adam Smith and ever after by people mocking Adam Smith.

 

You got it. They are no longer a real, governing alternative. We are now officially a one party state to anyone who has the ability to think critically.

 

Hitler thought the same thing. The preservation of the Nazi State and the Aryan race were far more important than individual rights to him. A similar analogy can be made about every oppressive government in the history of mankind.

"Society" is a group. It's not a real thing; a group is just an abstract concept. The only thing that are real are individuals. You are perpetuating the same mindset that leads to government declaring corporations (groups) to be people (individuals). How Republican of you.

This all goes back to the idea that individuals must sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the greater number (the state, society, the corporation, or any other abstract group). That is the nature of Collectivism, and why it is dangerous. Individualism is the only path to true freedom.

Depends on the business. If it's a business that is getting government subsidies then obviously you are right - that statement is completely false. Many times government spending goes directly into the pockets of the biggest businesses and banks in the country (in the form of bailouts or other subsidies), which VERY MUCH allows them to spend. Republicans support this welfare for the rich, which means you are completely wrong in saying that Republicans make this claim.

But as far as businesses that don't benefit from government subsidies or other privileges, that statement is completely true. Where do you think government gets its purchasing power? It can't just create it out of thin air. It takes it from the private sector.

Spoken like a true statist. First of all, you are perpetuating the lie that both economic growth and population increases are unsustainable. There is absolutely zero basis for either of these claims. Secondly, assuming we somehow lived in your fantasy utopia of a world where population never increases, why on Earth would we not want economic growth? Do you think it would be a good thing if our standard of living remained constant and we never had any technological advancement? You sound like a Pope or King from midieval times telling their peasant subjects that they shouldn't worry about their standard of living because they have the afterlife to look forward to. Are you religious or something?

 

Correct. In a free market economy, wealth cycles. However, that does not mean that wealth multiplies at the same rate under one economic policy than another. Supply side economics is simply not conducive to the type of economy that we are in. If wealth trickles down, it is not multiplying, but dividing. This is why the supply side approach of business tax cuts and or cuts in business regulations do not benefit the aggregate economy. A tax cut that spurs growth is one that effects the entire economy. A proper cut in regulations is one that increases investment spending, consumption, and net exports.

 

The Republican establishment that dominates a good bit of the mainstream media certainly discusses these issues and makes a big deal out of them. The idea is to keep people from thinking about economics.

 

However, we have heard of these positions, and the only place we have heard them is from republicans.

 

You appear to be looking at everything through the prism of some diagram in a macroeconomics textbook. I don't know what you're talking about to talk about wealth multiplying or dividing. New wealth is created through production and allocated according to consumer demand. The problem with having the state allocate it is that it's not allocated according to consumer demand.

 

Wealth multiplies in an economy, AbsoluteVoluntarist. What I am describing is known as the multiplier effect, or increases in spending lead to increases in national income and consumption greater than the initial amount spent. Ergo, the initial wealth multiplies. This is what leads to economic growth. Wealth cycles through the economy, as you stated, but as it does so, it multiplies in regards to the initial amount spent.

 

I see no evidence for a magic multiplier, but whether or no, it says nothing about wealth being distributed by a competitive market based on consumer demand or by a coercive money based on political whim.

 

How on earth can that be a lie? Nothing can increase forever except maybe space and time itself- to think any differently is not only ignorant but very foolish.

I have no problem with the standard of living staying constant as long as it's a quality standard of living, and do you really believe there could never be any technological advances without conspicuous consumption? If that were true we would all have jet cars and space ships from how much "growth" we've had over the last hundred years.

 

This is so wrong, for many reasons. Rent is a good example, all the money goes to the owner, none of it "trickles down" to the renter. Also much of our economy is rigged by the wealthy to hurt everyone else for their gain.