Why do liberals claim to be progressive yet support an economic system which stifles innovation?

Answer 1

It is an innovative economic system though.

Answer 2

I think this is a red herring. I don't know any liberals who are in favor of stifling "innovation." However, liberals do think we need to address the human costs that sometimes arise from innovation--massive layoffs, the need for worker retraining, impacts on the environment.

And you're dead wrong about universal health insurance. In fact, one factor that has come up again and again as to why certain entrepreneurs are reluctant to pursue their dreams is the lack of health insurance. Yea, maybe you would take the risk if you're 20 and in perfect health. The rest of us don't have that option. In fact, I gave up on my consulting business for precisely this reason. So now I only do consulting around a full-time job that does provide health insurance because I need it for myself and my kids. And I know many others who have done the same.

Answer 3

You have got to be kidding. One thing I have noticed the party of fiscal responsibility is...how do you say, out of control. I did a little reading on V.P. Cheney this morning, I'll include the link, he has a stellar record for keeping the trickle down theory in place and on the fast track. Very impressive. I mean really, how can you expect a top CEO to live on a paltry ten million a year. Let's be real! Now let's say fifty million, a hundred million, two hundred million, now were talking and this does not include their retirement packages. Thanks to Mr. Cheney and the republican controlled congress, these people are properly compensated for allowing the masses to have a job. Thank you President Bush and V.P. Cheney for your wonderful oversight of the American people. Nine top CEO's pulling out over one billion dollars from their respective companies in one year. Thank God we are giving them the largest share of the tax cuts, they need it the most. Would you want to pay taxes on 100 million every year? This is innovation?

Answer 4

trickle down does no longer artwork. 40 years have shown this. If the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy were to create jobs, then how come we lost better jobs less than Bush than any time because the entire melancholy? because client spending drives the economic equipment, how does making the poorer between us having a lot less funds make for sturdy economic coverage? the wealthy do not spend maximum of their funds, they hoard it in the economic employer, the position it does no sturdy for anybody yet them and billionaire hedge fund managers. Oh, and socialism =/= communism. they're 2 separate issues. Police and fireplace departments are socialist, as are public libraries, and interstate highways.

Answer 5

Liberals are not known for their economic policies. They are more concerned with social issues. Unfortunately, they make some issues, such as the eradication of poverty, economic when they advocate the redistribution of income through taxation.
They would be better to push for reappropriaton of current spending to education, as creating a more highly trained and educated workforce is the only solution that is viable long term.

Answer 6

How is it even possible to stifle innovation? How can an economic system, based even in part on capitalism stifle innovation?

Answer 7

Because the liberal idealist believe the answer to poverty is to give it money. The money that is given to them comes from the money earned through innovation. Therefore you are taking money from the innovators to provide for proverty.

Which essentially rewards poverty and penalizes innovation. Which in any model would prove to grow poverty and shrink innovation.

Answer 8

They are neither "liberal" nor "progressive".

These are just code-words designed to snare the unwary. These morons are, in fact, socialists at best and would create a French-style dictatorship of the bureaucracy if they had their way.

Geez, given their druthers, there'd be national standards for how to cut the hair of six-year old boys!

Answer 9

That's why people should be libertarian--we don't have to put up with conservatives' false morality, or liberals' wack wealth redistribution schemes. Since that isn't a real option in the US, I have to side with the liberals--they screw the average working american much less than the conservatives do, and usually handle the economy better as well. (At least they realize that an economy doesn't thrive without money in consumer's pockets.)

Answer 10

They believe in the nanny state;only government is wise enough to solve our problems.Even when the people vote initiatives by an overwhelming majority,they try to reverse the people's decision.Isn't that perverse in a democracy?