Why do liberals believe in stagnant wealth?

Question

Is it their public school educations that render them incapable of the math it takes to learn the reason why the government actually ends up with more money when it cuts taxes? Do they not understand what it means when economists say that "the economy grew" or "wealth was created"? Are they too busy teaching themselves Spanish to comprehend English-speaking historians who observe that it is neither necessary to borrow or raise taxes to fund their pet government projects? Liberals are right to criticize the "borrow-and-spend" philosophy of some RINO's, but I don't believe they understand the concept of making the pie actually change size by allowing people and businesses to keep more of their money, do you?

Answer 1

Joe, how do you expect them to answer when you did not include a PRESS 2 for Spanish with this question? Next time...

When I have more money I SPEND it on goods and services which then boost the economy.

When I am taxed and have to give so much of my income to the Government - I have less to spend and the economy slows.

Government spends it stupidly and no one wins.
We we spend OUR OWN MONEY it's a WIN WIN for everyone!

Answer 2

I personally don't have any problems with tax cuts. What I do have a problem with is, as you mentioned, tax and borrow policies which leave the federal deficit in a deplorable state. Unfortunately, we've had a credit-card conservative congress the past six years which thinks it's ok to borrow billions from China to finance our national debt while at the same time giving record breaking tax breaks to businesses (like oil companies who rake in 10 BILLION a quarter) AND magically financing a costly war with no end in sight. Ask yourself -- WHERE is this money going to come from? We either have to: 1. raise taxes 2. cut federal programs even more (and you have to cut a LOT because we are pumping more money into this war than into medicare, education, etc so this would be a drop in the bucket) 3. Develop a SANE foreign policy which doesn't involve doling out no-bid contracts with no oversight to KBR and Halliburton.

I know I’m sounding like a shrill liberal here, but screw it. The American government should never, ever trust corporations. No, not because of some cartoonish fantasy of a CEO devising new ways to poison the environment and eat babies, but because looking after our best interests isn’t their job. Their job is to make as much money as possible, period. I’m not making a moral judgement here. Getting rich isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but we shouldn’t ever expect corporations to put aside their own financial interests for ethical concerns.

Which is why it’s so damn frustrating to see this supply-side bullshit pop up again and again. It seems like a truism that businesses care more about the bottom line that anything else, but that level of common sense is absent from our government today. I’m all for capitalism and I think the stated goals behind a lot of conservative economic incentives are pretty good. Give tax breaks to corporations to reinvest in the country and help create jobs? Sounds like a great idea. Yeah, I said it, I agree with the Republicans. I just wish the Republicans agreed with the Republicans.

When a politician tells you they want to cut taxes to help jumpstart the economy, create jobs, or whetever, they’re lying to you. Yes, there are schools of economic thought that support their trickle-down theories, but these aren’t honest differences of opinion, they’re shameful lies. If they really thought their tax cuts would benefit working Americans they’d put it in writing. There’s nothing stopping politicians from making their tax cuts only apply to companies who create X number of jobs or invest a certain percentage of their profits within the U.S., but that never happens because conservative politicians are for the most part too craven to put their money where their mouth is.

Now corporations are laughing all the way to the bank with $104 billion in tax refunds

http://www.slate.com/id/2139782/

and all we can do is sit back and wonder why people still believe a word that comes out of the mouths of the corporate whores in Washington D.C. Of course, that’s just how they wanted it. It doesn’t matter whether or not we feel robbed, the getaway car escaped a year and a half ago.

Answer 3

First criticism -- You think that business allowed to make more money will create more jobs. They may, but their first goal will be keeping as much of that wealth as they can for personal use, which means that they will create as few jobs as they possibly can. And many of their jobs will be created overseas where they can make people work hideous amounts in hideous conditions and not have to pay them anywhere near appropriate wages for their work.

Second Criticism -- Yes, we understand what it means when they say, the economy grew, or wealth was created. We just happen to ask a few more questions such sa "Wealth was created for whom in particular?" Also, another flaw in the economic calculations is that it counts when money and goods have changed hands at any time, without taking into considerations why money changed hands, and what longer term economic problems might arise from it.

Say two people get into a bad car wreck that totals both of their cars and leaves one person disabled for life and with massive medical bills. Money changes hands when both parties have to get new cars. Money changes hands when the disabled person has to buy medical equipment, wheelchairs, ventilators, car upgrades made so that a paraplegic can drive, nurses hired, etc.

All this would add to the nation's economic growth as currently calculated, yet the cost to the American economy in losing a worker, having that worker on permanent disability, and maybe not ever truly being able to pay off their debt, legal bankruptcy issues would not be counted.

Also, this current philosophy fails in the long term. Because we have bought into this philosophy for decades now, and we are starting to see the results. First of all, Americans have less purchasing power now, than they did in the seventies, and that purchsaing power is decreasing continually.

The number of working poor is increasing steadily, and the number of middle class people is decreasing steadily. This "give more to the businesses" philosophy only works if the middle class have the money to buy the products those businesses are selling, and that is where it falls down. Businesses won't create more jobs than it absolutely has to, CEO's would more likely vote for raises for themselves rather than their workers, and they would use that money to cut safety standards rather than increase economic well-being.

I sat through my economics class in high-school. I understood it. I also considered it to be one long deep French Kiss to supply side economics (true supply side, not necessarily reganomics), and typical Republican views.

But consider, it makes no sense to try and lump all the classes together when you discuss the naion's wealth. Most of the wealth will be from big corporations such as Wal-Mart etc. While the rich get richer, the poor and middle classes get poorer, and the economists keep pretending like our economy is growing when its demise is drawing closer through its neglect of the poor and middle classes.

Answer 4

I don't care what their rationalization is for taking my money, I just want them to stop robbing me... That's not ethical... I can't legally rob a store so my son can have an operation so why can they rob me so some deadbeat doesn't have to work? I believe they probably did get more money to the government because of his tax cuts, but so what if they did. Federal income tax is unconstitutional

I believe that charity is much more efficient than the government because people who give to charity want to make sure the dollar they are giving away is being used wisely.

To me Bush's tax cuts meant the government stole $1500 less of the money I earned. That's pretty much all that matters. I'm ready for a tax cut that does mean that big ugly machine gets less money.

Answer 5

I don`t think you have any merit with the spending that is going on by this administration. What you don`t understand is the gap between the rich and poor is the real American people`s problem. You want to stimulate the economy give it to the little people, we will spend it faster then a corporation can hire someone. Sorry but trickle down economics is not working.

Answer 6

Well, isn't that the BIG question we've been waiting to be answered since Reagan's "voodoo" economics? We've been waiting 27 years now to see the results and all I've seen are explosion of the Fed deficit under Republicans and a widening gap between the haves and have nots.

Answer 7

The idea of taxing us for every new per project that comes along is more rooted in the attitude that we are incapable of making the "right" choices with it and that Government should decide what is best for us.

Yes folks, it has been proven out every time. When you cut taxes the Government gets MORE revenue.

Answer 8

The belief in stagnant wealth must be held onto or all of their arguments fall flat on their faces. This belief lets them trot out stories of unfairness and imaginary bogymen they think will convince to underachievers and sway the guilt ridden to their positions. Like so much Marxist theory it is a complete lie

Answer 9

Its the math. I posted a question yesterday which asked whether it was better for society to give to charity or to create jobs. The over-whelming majority of the liberals who responded did not even understand the question.

Answer 10

Hell no, liar!

Question is, why do conservatives believe in stealing from the working man and giving it to a bunch of rich right-wing prettyboys?