9 out of 10 Americans completely wrong

[Foxfyre]

The working class should be fighting for government to break up the third world markets for labor. Only then will good paying labor jobs come back. Till then our working class will have to fight for scraps at the table. Why they blame the rich for this is no one's guess. It's their government who is in charge of breaking up monopolies. Not the evil rich who are funded through corporations by our very own 401k investments.

Our federal government has placed us among the most business hostile nations of the world. The only ones that are worse are those that have lost control to anarchists and warlords who prey upon the weak and some mostly European nations that have so regulated their individual worlds that their economies and societies have stagnated and are in slow but steady decay.

The more regulation, taxation, and government mandates the government puts on private enterprise, the more countries like India, South America, China, South Korea, etc. look like much more attractive environments in which to do business.

A government that protects and promotes unions that are in business for the union and doesn't give a damn about profits - a government that over regulates, comes up with more and more mandates, that increasingly punishes success and rewards incompetence and failure - is not likely to attract a lot of new opportunities for the people who will continue to suffer the consequences and won't have a lot of hope that things will turn around.

The regulations are ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is allowing goods to be produced in foreign lands and then sold here in competition with our own goods without having to be burdened by these same regulations. If we are allowed to compete on the same playing field we'll do just fine. If we have to compete with folks that work for pennies on the dollar and without any regulatory hindrance... we are screwed.

I don't see it quite that way though. I think if we make the home environment business friendly through fair taxation, taking off all the mandates and regulations that don't absolutely have to be there, and provide incentives for doing business here, and stop paying people not to work, I'm pretty sure the American work ethic would make doing business in America attractive again. It is no accident that the more government has meddled, the more of our jobs have gone away to other places. Yet we seem to have an elected body of leaders who can't figure that out. Or who don't care.

 

[RKMBrown]

Our federal government has placed us among the most business hostile nations of the world. The only ones that are worse are those that have lost control to anarchists and warlords who prey upon the weak and some mostly European nations that have so regulated their individual worlds that their economies and societies have stagnated and are in slow but steady decay.

The more regulation, taxation, and government mandates the government puts on private enterprise, the more countries like India, South America, China, South Korea, etc. look like much more attractive environments in which to do business.

A government that protects and promotes unions that are in business for the union and doesn't give a damn about profits - a government that over regulates, comes up with more and more mandates, that increasingly punishes success and rewards incompetence and failure - is not likely to attract a lot of new opportunities for the people who will continue to suffer the consequences and won't have a lot of hope that things will turn around.

The regulations are ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is allowing goods to be produced in foreign lands and then sold here in competition with our own goods without having to be burdened by these same regulations. If we are allowed to compete on the same playing field we'll do just fine. If we have to compete with folks that work for pennies on the dollar and without any regulatory hindrance... we are screwed.

I don't see it quite that way though. I think if we make the home environment business friendly through fair taxation, taking off all the mandates and regulations that don't absolutely have to be there, and provide incentives for doing business here, and stop paying people not to work, I'm pretty sure the American work ethic would make doing business in America attractive again. It is no accident that the more government has meddled, the more of our jobs have gone away to other places. Yet we seem to have an elected body of leaders who can't figure that out. Or who don't care.

Some basic and obvious regulations are needed. For example dumping poisonous materials. Some countries don't care if their corporations dump pollution in the air and water. So it's more than just fairness and relaxing the stupid regs.

Work ethic is not something that America owns exclusive rights over. That is a myth. Further the work ethic of the current generation is quite frankly abysmal for the vast majority. They were brought up to expect things be given to them and to become instantly rich after they got their degree with practically no effort.

Your point that our leaders haven't figured it out and / or don't care leaves out the third alternative that covers folks like Obama, that have figured it out and are are purposefully profiting by the selling off and burning to the ground of our assets. It's like the stock market, if you believe all investors are there to pick companies to invest in your are totally missing the folks like Obama's friend Soros that make money by betting on failure.

 

[Foxfyre]

The regulations are ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is allowing goods to be produced in foreign lands and then sold here in competition with our own goods without having to be burdened by these same regulations. If we are allowed to compete on the same playing field we'll do just fine. If we have to compete with folks that work for pennies on the dollar and without any regulatory hindrance... we are screwed.

I don't see it quite that way though. I think if we make the home environment business friendly through fair taxation, taking off all the mandates and regulations that don't absolutely have to be there, and provide incentives for doing business here, and stop paying people not to work, I'm pretty sure the American work ethic would make doing business in America attractive again. It is no accident that the more government has meddled, the more of our jobs have gone away to other places. Yet we seem to have an elected body of leaders who can't figure that out. Or who don't care.

Some basic and obvious regulations are needed. For example dumping poisonous materials. Some countries don't care if their corporations dump pollution in the air and water. So it's more than just fairness and relaxing the stupid regs.

Work ethic is not something that America owns exclusive rights over. That is a myth. Further the work ethic of the current generation is quite frankly abysmal for the vast majority. They were brought up to expect things be given to them and to become instantly rich after they got their degree with practically no effort.

Your point that our leaders haven't figured it out and / or don't care leaves out the third alternative that covers folks like Obama, that have figured it out and are are purposefully profiting by the selling off and burning to the ground of our assets. It's like the stock market, if you believe all investors are there to pick companies to invest in your are totally missing the folks like Obama's friend Soros that make money by betting on failure.

I agree that there needs to be sufficient federal regulation to secure our unalienable rights and prevent the states from doing violence to each other whether that be environmental or sociopolitical or economic violence. But that should be the extent of federal regulation on private enterprise.

Let the states then compete for people and jobs among themselves and they will settle on regulations and policy necessary for quality of life but won't be as likely to be business unfriendly. Those that are will suffer loss of jobs that go to more business friendly states. I don't have a problem with somebody having to leave California to get work. I do have a problem with American citizens having to leave their country in order to have a job.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wealth is created by working Americans

They are accumulating a smaller and smaller portion of the wealth that they create

Who is to blame?

Yes wealth is created by working Americans young, old, rich and poor. For example, Billy Gates creates a small software company from nothing in his garage, from which, in part tremendous wealth is generated for hundreds of thousands of people. As another example Apple... Another example, Google. Another example, Yahoo. Another example facebook.

Oh I'm sorry this does not fit your picture of working class people generate the wealth does it?

When do working class people switch from being wealth generators to evil scum sucking rich people? When they become successful?

Of the companies mentioned don't Yahoo, Google, and Facebook get their revenues and profits almost entirely from advertising? Is this the new version of the "American Dream"? To make it big financially by creating a new venue for advertising? One older company had used the slogan "better living through chemistry". Is the contempory equivalent of that "better living through advertising"?

Bugs the shit out of you, doesn't it?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wealth is created by working Americans

They are accumulating a smaller and smaller portion of the wealth that they create

Who is to blame?

Themselves. The savings rate is at all-time lows. Then again, maybe this is a good thing. They are much better off keeping their money in the stock market than sitting inside of a bank today.

So that their wealth can be skimmed off by the Big Boys with collusion and insider trading?
.

Oh cut the crap, Mr Non Sequitur.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wealth is created by working Americans

They are accumulating a smaller and smaller portion of the wealth that they create

Who is to blame?

For a moment, let us stipulate that what you claim is true.
The blame? Easy. That falls squarely on the shoulders of those who create it.
How is this done? Also simple. Those who live beyond their means. By spending too much of their wealth on 'wants'.
BTW, define 'working Americans'...Keep in mind that 'working' is NOT exclusive to those in blue collar occupations.
Here's an example of one of those who make a very good living yet have no 'accumulated wealth'....
I have a friend who works a lot of hours. His income is well into the six figures. He is blue collar.. Hourly. Plenty of OT..
He is married, his wife does not work. They have two young children.
His wife has a problem with poor money management. She spends on impulse.
The girls both compete in cheer leading. He told me that the schedule or travel, fees, lodging, meals and fuel will be roughly $8,000. There is also a $500 per month charge for the girls to attend tumbling and practice. That is an additional $6,000 per year.
He told me that despite his income, they have no savings.
Now, is poor money management MY problem?
Is it MY problem when someone buys too much house?
Is it MY problem is someone must have toys?
Is it MY problem is someone makes a very good living only to squander their money on trips, toys and cars?

I have a friend......

Therefore, his story applies to the whole population

To keep your agenda from drowning in its own liquid swill of bullshit, you conveniently ignored that my anecdote was just one example.
FYI, Americans are saving much less of their income than they used to.
Most of the fiscal irresponsibility in this country is of and by the middle and upper middle classes.
In fact there is an epidemic of poor fiscal decision making.
Most people who spend unwisely fall under the delusion that their employment will always be there. People who have moderately high or even high incomes run out and buy boats RV's and vehicles. They buy expensive electronics. They remodel their homes with extravagant fixtures. Al without the slightest concern of the cost. As long as they can borrow the funds from someone else and as long as they have their job, they spend like drunken sailors. Meanwhile, they have no or few investments and have less cash than is required to live for 3 months.
That is MY problem?
I should be punished for living within my means with confiscatory taxation?
I should have to agree to more intrusive government so people like YOU can be know each of us is as miserable as you?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I have a friend......

Therefore, his story applies to the whole population

Let's talk averages since that's all you care about.

The average slob has no idea what he spends his money on every month.
The average idiot spends more time planning a vacation than he does planning his retirement savings

I guess all those rich people came up with a plot to make that happen.

Was there a plot?
Maybe, maybe not

But what we got was historically low tax rates on the wealthy. Lower tax rates on capital gains than earned income. All in the name of the mythical "Supply side economics"

Yes, America
Give more money to the wealthy and you will see prosperity for all. Think of money trickling down to all Americans......Did I ever tell you the one about a poor person never giving you a job? Trust me it will work.....you just have to be patient

Guess what? It didn't work
The wealthy just kept the extra money. Why is anyone surprised

So, the million dollar question is....Why do we continue this failed policy?

What is the alternative? Your solution?
Who the fuck are you to decide what others may or may not do with their "extra income"?
Reality check. Trickle down is what we see every fucking day.
Why is it that states offer tax incentives to employers to locate there? DUH!!!!!
Google BMW Greer, SC...
10,000 jobs. High paying jobs. plus all the ancillary employment as a result.
And expansion of the GSP Airport. New homes. Larger tax base for Greer, Greenville and environs. New businesses popping up every 10 feet. People making money. People spending their money. People investing their money.
Got a problem with that?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Awwww.........

Anyone who threatens the continued redistribution of wealth from the working class to the wealthy must be a COMMIE

Yes, comrade anyone who argues for distribution of wealth by force by their government, is a communist. If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck.

Who has said anything about forcibly taking their money?

I only advocated discontinuing policies that are not working

Is "Commie" really the best you can bring to the discussion?

Which policies? To what end? What is YOUR solution?
To date you and all of the other class warfare libs have said is "these policies..."
And then.....nothing.
I think you people actually enjoy complaining.

 

[RKMBrown]

I do have a problem with American citizens having to leave their country in order to have a job.

For example, each time IBM and other high tech firms lay off it's workers they offer the better ones that they can move to dubai, brazil, china, etc. become expats. Course when they get there, the job is to train and help accelerate the offshoring of American jobs to foreign shores where the workers are a dime a dozen.

Millions of American jobs funneled over seas. What is our Government's response? Increasing the number of H1b visas, providing workers with with borrowed unemployment cash, and blaming the American worker for "lacking the proper skills to do the job." Yeah good enough to do the job for a lower rate as an ex-pat in a foreign country, but not good enough to do the job in America at American wages. Uh huh...

 

[rightwinger]

For a moment, let us stipulate that what you claim is true.
The blame? Easy. That falls squarely on the shoulders of those who create it.
How is this done? Also simple. Those who live beyond their means. By spending too much of their wealth on 'wants'.
BTW, define 'working Americans'...Keep in mind that 'working' is NOT exclusive to those in blue collar occupations.
Here's an example of one of those who make a very good living yet have no 'accumulated wealth'....
I have a friend who works a lot of hours. His income is well into the six figures. He is blue collar.. Hourly. Plenty of OT..
He is married, his wife does not work. They have two young children.
His wife has a problem with poor money management. She spends on impulse.
The girls both compete in cheer leading. He told me that the schedule or travel, fees, lodging, meals and fuel will be roughly $8,000. There is also a $500 per month charge for the girls to attend tumbling and practice. That is an additional $6,000 per year.
He told me that despite his income, they have no savings.
Now, is poor money management MY problem?
Is it MY problem when someone buys too much house?
Is it MY problem is someone must have toys?
Is it MY problem is someone makes a very good living only to squander their money on trips, toys and cars?

I have a friend......

Therefore, his story applies to the whole population

To keep your agenda from drowning in its own liquid swill of bullshit, you conveniently ignored that my anecdote was just one example.
FYI, Americans are saving much less of their income than they used to.
Most of the fiscal irresponsibility in this country is of and by the middle and upper middle classes.
In fact there is an epidemic of poor fiscal decision making.
Most people who spend unwisely fall under the delusion that their employment will always be there. People who have moderately high or even high incomes run out and buy boats RV's and vehicles. They buy expensive electronics. They remodel their homes with extravagant fixtures. Al without the slightest concern of the cost. As long as they can borrow the funds from someone else and as long as they have their job, they spend like drunken sailors. Meanwhile, they have no or few investments and have less cash than is required to live for 3 months.
That is MY problem?
I should be punished for living within my means with confiscatory taxation?
I should have to agree to more intrusive government so people like YOU can be know each of us is as miserable as you?

Yes...typical right wing tail wagging the dog

Why do people save less? Because their jobs no longer provide the luxury of having money left over. Many Americans are borrowing on their houses or going into debt to pay unexpected bills. It is a reflection of declining salaries and decreased benefits. A single hospital stay can wipe you out. Used to be a single blue collar salary could support a family.....now families struggle on two salaries

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, comrade anyone who argues for distribution of wealth by force by their government, is a communist. If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck.

Who has said anything about forcibly taking their money?

I only advocated discontinuing policies that are not working

Is "Commie" really the best you can bring to the discussion?

Which policies? To what end? What is YOUR solution?
To date you and all of the other class warfare libs have said is "these policies..."
And then.....nothing.
I think you people actually enjoy complaining.

In the 1980s this country committed itself to the god of supply side economics. Something George Bush called "voodoo economics" The idea was that if you push enough money at the top profits would "trickle down" with more jobs and higher salaries. They even sold America on the idea that every tax cut always pays for itself. What happend was the wealthy just kept the extra money and the jobs went overseas

Those policies are still in effect and being defended to the death by Republicans

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have a friend......

Therefore, his story applies to the whole population

To keep your agenda from drowning in its own liquid swill of bullshit, you conveniently ignored that my anecdote was just one example.
FYI, Americans are saving much less of their income than they used to.
Most of the fiscal irresponsibility in this country is of and by the middle and upper middle classes.
In fact there is an epidemic of poor fiscal decision making.
Most people who spend unwisely fall under the delusion that their employment will always be there. People who have moderately high or even high incomes run out and buy boats RV's and vehicles. They buy expensive electronics. They remodel their homes with extravagant fixtures. Al without the slightest concern of the cost. As long as they can borrow the funds from someone else and as long as they have their job, they spend like drunken sailors. Meanwhile, they have no or few investments and have less cash than is required to live for 3 months.
That is MY problem?
I should be punished for living within my means with confiscatory taxation?
I should have to agree to more intrusive government so people like YOU can be know each of us is as miserable as you?

Yes...typical right wing tail wagging the dog

Why do people save less? Because their jobs no longer provide the luxury of having money left over. Many Americans are borrowing on their houses or going into debt to pay unexpected bills. It is a reflection of declining salaries and decreased benefits. A single hospital stay can wipe you out. Used to be a single blue collar salary could support a family.....now families struggle on two salaries

Sorry but people were financing and refinancing their homes multiple times when the real estate bubble was blowing and do you know why?

Not to pay for unexpected expenses but to buy more shit. They would pay off credit cards used to buy shit then they would run their credit cards up to the limit again.

I saw the same scenario play out over and over when I was in the finance game.

 

[RKMBrown]

Who has said anything about forcibly taking their money?

I only advocated discontinuing policies that are not working

Is "Commie" really the best you can bring to the discussion?

Which policies? To what end? What is YOUR solution?
To date you and all of the other class warfare libs have said is "these policies..."
And then.....nothing.
I think you people actually enjoy complaining.

In the 1980s this country committed itself to the god of supply side economics. Something George Bush called "voodoo economics" The idea was that if you push enough money at the top profits would "trickle down" with more jobs and higher salaries. They even sold America on the idea that every tax cut always pays for itself. What happend was the wealthy just kept the extra money and the jobs went overseas

Those policies are still in effect and being defended to the death by Republicans

Your right. Lowering the taxes 50% for the working poor and 10% for the Rich was a horrible idea of Bush's. Voodoo... spooky... people have more of their money they can spend it on what they want. The rich invested their money and became richer. The poor bought flat screen TVs from Korea and smart phones with expensive monthly plans that they can't afford.

Your right... we should increase the taxes on the poor by 50% and the rich by 10% putting them back where they were before Bush's voodoo tax cut. That will improve the economy for the poor! Stick it to the WORKER'S WITH INCOME, THEY DON'T DESERVE THEIR INCOME! Redistribute that INCOME move it around... so people don't have to worry about paying their own bills anymore.

 

[Foxfyre]

I do have a problem with American citizens having to leave their country in order to have a job.

For example, each time IBM and other high tech firms lay off it's workers they offer the better ones that they can move to dubai, brazil, china, etc. become expats. Course when they get there, the job is to train and help accelerate the offshoring of American jobs to foreign shores where the workers are a dime a dozen.

Millions of American jobs funneled over seas. What is our Government's response? Increasing the number of H1b visas, providing workers with with borrowed unemployment cash, and blaming the American worker for "lacking the proper skills to do the job." Yeah good enough to do the job for a lower rate as an ex-pat in a foreign country, but not good enough to do the job in America at American wages. Uh huh...

Government is rarely smart, efficient, effective, productive, or compassionate over the long term. Which is why we should limit the federal government to very narrowly defined essential functions and return the money, power, and authority to the states where it was always intended to be. And THAT will return the people's attention to their state and local governments. And the people will then demand that those more local governments are populated with public servants rather than career politicians.

Currently those in high federal office, whether elected, appointed, or hired, are dependent on corporate cash to keep them in their cushy and lucrative positions. Take away their ability to benefit those corporations whether by direct cash subsidy or tax policy or regulation and you take away their ability to reward bad behavior;choices, failure, ineffectiveness, inefficiency, either from individuals or entities.

And the states, having to compete with each other for economic enterprise, jobs, and tax money, will do a much better job.

 

[rightwinger]

Which policies? To what end? What is YOUR solution?
To date you and all of the other class warfare libs have said is "these policies..."
And then.....nothing.
I think you people actually enjoy complaining.

In the 1980s this country committed itself to the god of supply side economics. Something George Bush called "voodoo economics" The idea was that if you push enough money at the top profits would "trickle down" with more jobs and higher salaries. They even sold America on the idea that every tax cut always pays for itself. What happend was the wealthy just kept the extra money and the jobs went overseas

Those policies are still in effect and being defended to the death by Republicans

Your right. Lowering the taxes 50% for the working poor and 10% for the Rich was a horrible idea of Bush's. Voodoo... spooky... people have more of their money they can spend it on what they want. The rich invested their money and became richer. The poor bought flat screen TVs from Korea and smart phones with expensive monthly plans that they can't afford.

Your right... we should increase the taxes on the poor by 50% and the rich by 10% putting them back where they were before Bush's voodoo tax cut. That will improve the economy for the poor! Stick it to the WORKER'S WITH INCOME, THEY DON'T DESERVE THEIR INCOME! Redistribute that INCOME move it around... so people don't have to worry about paying their own bills anymore.

Smoke that supply side bong!

 

[rightwinger]

I do have a problem with American citizens having to leave their country in order to have a job.

For example, each time IBM and other high tech firms lay off it's workers they offer the better ones that they can move to dubai, brazil, china, etc. become expats. Course when they get there, the job is to train and help accelerate the offshoring of American jobs to foreign shores where the workers are a dime a dozen.

Millions of American jobs funneled over seas. What is our Government's response? Increasing the number of H1b visas, providing workers with with borrowed unemployment cash, and blaming the American worker for "lacking the proper skills to do the job." Yeah good enough to do the job for a lower rate as an ex-pat in a foreign country, but not good enough to do the job in America at American wages. Uh huh...

Government is rarely smart, efficient, effective, productive, or compassionate over the long term. Which is why we should limit the federal government to very narrowly defined essential functions and return the money, power, and authority to the states where it was always intended to be. And THAT will return the people's attention to their state and local governments. And the people will then demand that those more local governments are populated with public servants rather than career politicians.

Currently those in high federal office, whether elected, appointed, or hired, are dependent on corporate cash to keep them in their cushy and lucrative positions. Take away their ability to benefit those corporations whether by direct cash subsidy or tax policy or regulation and you take away their ability to reward bad behavior;choices, failure, ineffectiveness, inefficiency, either from individuals or entities.

And the states, having to compete with each other for economic enterprise, jobs, and tax money, will do a much better job.

The states are smart, efficient, effective, productive, or compassionate over the long term?

Which state do you live in?

 

[Foxfyre]

For example, each time IBM and other high tech firms lay off it's workers they offer the better ones that they can move to dubai, brazil, china, etc. become expats. Course when they get there, the job is to train and help accelerate the offshoring of American jobs to foreign shores where the workers are a dime a dozen.

Millions of American jobs funneled over seas. What is our Government's response? Increasing the number of H1b visas, providing workers with with borrowed unemployment cash, and blaming the American worker for "lacking the proper skills to do the job." Yeah good enough to do the job for a lower rate as an ex-pat in a foreign country, but not good enough to do the job in America at American wages. Uh huh...

Government is rarely smart, efficient, effective, productive, or compassionate over the long term. Which is why we should limit the federal government to very narrowly defined essential functions and return the money, power, and authority to the states where it was always intended to be. And THAT will return the people's attention to their state and local governments. And the people will then demand that those more local governments are populated with public servants rather than career politicians.

Currently those in high federal office, whether elected, appointed, or hired, are dependent on corporate cash to keep them in their cushy and lucrative positions. Take away their ability to benefit those corporations whether by direct cash subsidy or tax policy or regulation and you take away their ability to reward bad behavior;choices, failure, ineffectiveness, inefficiency, either from individuals or entities.

And the states, having to compete with each other for economic enterprise, jobs, and tax money, will do a much better job.

The states are smart, efficient, effective, productive, or compassionate over the long term?

Which state do you live in?

I didn't say that. Maybe you could ask a question about something I actually said?

 

[ELITEofWarman8]

You people are still arguing over why it's fucking a good idea to go out and work hard and save your money and not spend it and then bitch like a little baby when you run up bills and have 3 kids you can't pay for?

 

[rightwinger]

Government is rarely smart, efficient, effective, productive, or compassionate over the long term. Which is why we should limit the federal government to very narrowly defined essential functions and return the money, power, and authority to the states where it was always intended to be. And THAT will return the people's attention to their state and local governments. And the people will then demand that those more local governments are populated with public servants rather than career politicians.

Currently those in high federal office, whether elected, appointed, or hired, are dependent on corporate cash to keep them in their cushy and lucrative positions. Take away their ability to benefit those corporations whether by direct cash subsidy or tax policy or regulation and you take away their ability to reward bad behavior;choices, failure, ineffectiveness, inefficiency, either from individuals or entities.

And the states, having to compete with each other for economic enterprise, jobs, and tax money, will do a much better job.

The states are smart, efficient, effective, productive, or compassionate over the long term?

Which state do you live in?

I didn't say that. Maybe you could ask a question about something I actually said?

Ok ....how bout this?

Currently those in high federal office, whether elected, appointed, or hired, are dependent on corporate cash to keep them in their cushy and lucrative positions. Take away their ability to benefit those corporations whether by direct cash subsidy or tax policy or regulation and you take away their ability to reward bad behavior;choices, failure, ineffectiveness, inefficiency, either from individuals or entities.


You do realize this would land a federal employee in jail don't you?

 

[Foxfyre]

The states are smart, efficient, effective, productive, or compassionate over the long term?

Which state do you live in?

I didn't say that. Maybe you could ask a question about something I actually said?

Ok ....how bout this?

Currently those in high federal office, whether elected, appointed, or hired, are dependent on corporate cash to keep them in their cushy and lucrative positions. Take away their ability to benefit those corporations whether by direct cash subsidy or tax policy or regulation and you take away their ability to reward bad behavior;choices, failure, ineffectiveness, inefficiency, either from individuals or entities.


You do realize this would land a federal employee in jail don't you?

Well so far it hasn't. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to follow the money--to know who is advocate for who, to see who is contributing campaign donations and where they are directing them. Bundling is a popular tactic of large groups and entities to get around contribution limits. So long as they keep it under $2,000 per contribution, your employer or union or whatever can make contributions to a candidate in your name, and through bundling it is unlikely that you or anybody else would notice your name on the list of contributors. Or they simply form a PAC on the side and do a lot of arm twisting to 'encourage' donations to the PAC that in turn funnels funds to a political party that will indirectly use them to benefit a particular candidate.

Did you naively think all that stimulus money going to this or that 'not quite shovel ready job' was inadvertent and well intended? Do you honestly think at least some of it was not distributed as payola to those who directly or indirectly helped Obama or others get elected?