What is the economic goal of Liberals?

Question

At what point will you say we have arrived econimically? When everyone makes exactly the same amount? Because that would only be about 35k each, and our economy would be in a complete standstill. The stock market would crash, and the economy that relies on capitalization would fail. We would not be able to afford the government we have, and so do not think government will provide.

Answer 1

The US now has a negative savings rate and we rely on foreign investors and corporations for our capitalization. Over the last 30 years we have seen incomes become increasing unequal and the saving and investment rate steadily decline. The evidence suggest that more equality would increase savings and investment not decrease it. That is why people who defend the increasing inequality now talk about incentives instead of investment as they did before the mid 80's.

Answer 2

At this point in history, a liberal, or any rational person, should have one economic goal.

Enough jobs for people that want them, at a wage that will allow for the basic dignities of life.

Everything has become very costly at the same time as workers earn much less. There was a time when the basics (rent/mortgage, food, health) took less than a third of a person's paycheck. They now can easily consume the entire check.

Facing this simple economic truth is where this particular 'liberal' would like to see our leaders go. We are not all millionaires; ordinary people deserve to be able to purchase the basics of life without going into debt.

No, everyone should not make the same amount; but people should make the same amount for the same amount of work.

Right now we pay our CEO's a preposterous 500 times what an ordinary worker makes.

This makes it impossible for companies to be profitable without ripping off their basic workers. It has led to a lot of layoffs, outsourcing and downsizing of workforce expectations.

Facing these simple and obvious truths is what I require out of any political person I will vote for.

It is why Edwards would be more likely to get my vote than Hillary, because he brings it up all the time, and she avoids the subject like the plague.

_____________

mecha ric above is the victim of propaganda. No: we don't want to take your money away from you. We just don't want the inequities to be so extreme they damage day to day society. Which is the situation we have now.

Answer 3

Paying down our national debt and not becoming a debtor nation to MEXICO. I am not a person for High taxes, because I know that will just lead to economic stagnation just look at Europe, but spending more money than you receive in income is just as bad. Better regulations on the credit industry. It is still sad that a credit card company asks for only 15 bucks a month for people who are in debt several thousands of dollars. Cut subsidies to oil companies. Regulate the Health insurance industry better it is sad to see companies have double digit increases in profits yet need to charge higher premuims each year to pay their ceo's bigger bonuses.

Answer 4

it does seem that way. I have always believed using relative poverty as a measure of poverty is very wrong. It should not be a bad thing for the average income to go up especially if the average of the poorest income goes up but that has been happening. More people are in "poverty" even though their incomes and purchasing power has increased.

Answer 5

You are correct. The only people that would be allowed to keep their monies would be the liberals themselves...think about it - they all tout redistribution of wealth, but no one single demlib has given any of their own money away.