TooFarTampa
SoWal Insider
No comparison. I bow to her extemporaneous speaking ability, her outdoorsiness and her ability to manage 5 children while remaining sane and nicely coiffed. Even Mr. TFT jokes that he is "hot for teacher. "
And N!T ...
The Economics of Democrats
- Thread starter MattChrist Live
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
No comparison. I bow to her extemporaneous speaking ability, her outdoorsiness and her ability to manage 5 children while remaining sane and nicely coiffed. Even Mr. TFT jokes that he is "hot for teacher. "
And N!T ...
No comparison. I bow to her extemporaneous speaking ability, her outdoorsiness and her ability to manage 5 children while remaining sane and nicely coiffed. Even Mr. TFT jokes that he is "hot for teacher. "
And N!T ...
Ah, we need that Van Halen video....David Lee Roth
Ask and it shall be given: [nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5t5GukrWOU[/nomedia]Ah, we need that Van Halen video....David Lee Roth
Dunefrog, thanks for responding...
____
To clarify about the payroll tax: I believe the wealthiest Americans pay the bulk of the taxes, taxes which include what many would call the punitive payroll tax.
____
Yes, writing that all Republicans believe tax cuts solve everything is a bit unfair; but you have to admit it's a pretty big part of the GOP platform. There's nothing wrong with that-it sells. The idea of small government also sells. More precisely, the idea of efficient government sells. Sells big. Personally, If I were a McCain advisor, I would tell him to refocus the debate between "Small Government vs. Big Government" to a more defined debate of "Efficient Government vs. Inefficient Government."
_____
Actually, while this isn't exactly very popular to say, I thought President Bush's idea of privatizing Social Security was a great one. It was a pity he wasn't popular enough to garner the public's imagination with the idea (his Social Security tour at the beginning of his second term didn't go so well), then the problem might have already been solved.
______
Of course I don't believe that the fabulously wealthy want to stick it to the poor, but that doesn't mean the GOP tax policy won't end up ultimately hurting the working middle class, (not intentionally, just as a byproduct of an otherwise sound economic policy).
Why I originally posted Mr. Blinder's paper was to see who would first arrive at a point I believe very deeply in. Since no one has yet, I'll just put it out there: We need change. And not the sound-bite change Mr. Obama prescribes (although it sells too), but the change history demands. In short, we need cycles of conservative economic policies and liberal economic policies. We need to see the inequality gap widen while the rich (the upper 1% of population) keep more money in their pocketbooks to reinvest in the nation and create new jobs. Then we need to see that gap narrow and let the other 99% spend more. We can only hope that some in this population won't waste the money on "pet projects," but start small businesses. Further, we can only hope that these businesses grow and prosper.
After a few years of a smaller inequality gap, we need to see another cycle of conservative economic policies. After that, a few more years of liberal economic policies. It's natural. It's necessary. I believe it keeps our economy stable in the long run.
As Mr. Blinder attested, annual growth under Democratic Presidents was stronger than under Republican Presidents. But if one party had its way all these years, our economy would be shattered.
Finally, while nonprofit charitable organizations could help many of the nations poor and working class achieve more, it's a nice sentiment to believe that they could rely on their own government to help.
Thanks for responding, I enjoyed your posts.
____
To clarify about the payroll tax: I believe the wealthiest Americans pay the bulk of the taxes, taxes which include what many would call the punitive payroll tax.
____
Yes, writing that all Republicans believe tax cuts solve everything is a bit unfair; but you have to admit it's a pretty big part of the GOP platform. There's nothing wrong with that-it sells. The idea of small government also sells. More precisely, the idea of efficient government sells. Sells big. Personally, If I were a McCain advisor, I would tell him to refocus the debate between "Small Government vs. Big Government" to a more defined debate of "Efficient Government vs. Inefficient Government."
_____
Actually, while this isn't exactly very popular to say, I thought President Bush's idea of privatizing Social Security was a great one. It was a pity he wasn't popular enough to garner the public's imagination with the idea (his Social Security tour at the beginning of his second term didn't go so well), then the problem might have already been solved.
______
Of course I don't believe that the fabulously wealthy want to stick it to the poor, but that doesn't mean the GOP tax policy won't end up ultimately hurting the working middle class, (not intentionally, just as a byproduct of an otherwise sound economic policy).
Why I originally posted Mr. Blinder's paper was to see who would first arrive at a point I believe very deeply in. Since no one has yet, I'll just put it out there: We need change. And not the sound-bite change Mr. Obama prescribes (although it sells too), but the change history demands. In short, we need cycles of conservative economic policies and liberal economic policies. We need to see the inequality gap widen while the rich (the upper 1% of population) keep more money in their pocketbooks to reinvest in the nation and create new jobs. Then we need to see that gap narrow and let the other 99% spend more. We can only hope that some in this population won't waste the money on "pet projects," but start small businesses. Further, we can only hope that these businesses grow and prosper.
After a few years of a smaller inequality gap, we need to see another cycle of conservative economic policies. After that, a few more years of liberal economic policies. It's natural. It's necessary. I believe it keeps our economy stable in the long run.
As Mr. Blinder attested, annual growth under Democratic Presidents was stronger than under Republican Presidents. But if one party had its way all these years, our economy would be shattered.
Finally, while nonprofit charitable organizations could help many of the nations poor and working class achieve more, it's a nice sentiment to believe that they could rely on their own government to help.
Thanks for responding, I enjoyed your posts.
what a thoughtful thread matt. thanks.
Matt...you get an A+ on that paper. I am encouraged by you and the youth of America that does it's homework. The change will come through your generation, just as change as come from generations before you. When we look at both sides of that "aisle", and really see what they do, we can question both sides. IMO, Washington is a powerful phenomenon that has rested on it's ineptitude for far too long and it has forgotten they work for the people that voted them into office and not their party or special interests.
I second everything Miss Kitty said. Thoughtful posts by intelligent young people like Matt give me hope for America's (and the world's) future.
One thing this election has accomplished is bringing young people back into politics, whichever side they're on. And that's a good thing. What they lack in life experience, they make up for in their focus on the long term - the kind of world they want to raise their families in.
One thing this election has accomplished is bringing young people back into politics, whichever side they're on. And that's a good thing. What they lack in life experience, they make up for in their focus on the long term - the kind of world they want to raise their families in.
