Economic Sabotage

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Stephanie, Dec 1, 2012.

  1. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,360
    enjoy ObamaNation and enjoy explaining to your children and grandchildren you had a hand in this

    Obama is burdening a generation in the name of compassion.

    SNIP:

    Republicans find themselves in the unenviable position of being forced to agree to raise taxes on those earning more than $200,000 (the actual cutoff for those Mr. Obama refers to as “millionaires and billionaires”) or risk being blamed for a tax increase on all taxpaying Americans. They will probably agree, which means it’s a politically unavoidable policy, not a good policy.

    Why does Obama insist upon raising taxes? Not because he believes it will improve the economy, and not because he believes it will increase receipts to the Treasury. The proposed taxes would bring in about $80 billion a year, a trivial number compared with our $1.3 trillion deficits. Making the books balance is (obviously) not Obama’s goal. In 2008, when it was pointed out to him that President Clinton’s cut in the capital-gains rate increased the revenue from the tax (because lower rates encouraged more transactions), Obama was unmoved. He’d still favor an increase in the capital-gains rate, he explained, for the sake of “fairness.” In another famous and revealing moment, he told Joe the Plumber that he prefers to “spread the wealth around.”

    That’s his lodestar. The Washington Post waited until the election was safely behind us to run a story by Zachary Goldfarb examining the president’s governing philosophy. “Beneath his tactical maneuvering lies a consistent and unifying principle: to use the powers of his office to shrink the growing gap between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else.” The president, the article tells us (not that we didn’t surmise this already), is determined to reduce income inequality.

    The president has “an acute awareness of recent research,” the Post continues, showing that the changing economy has increased the value of a college education and made it harder for those without a degree to succeed. Obama’s solution? “Despite budget pressures, he made a goal of having every student receive at least one year of college.”

    Is inequality a problem if prosperity is broadly shared? As John F. Kennedy observed, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” Improving the life chances of those at the bottom should be a priority. But the way to do that is to focus on education, family structure, and expanding private-sector employment, not on redistribution of income.

    True to Obama’s philosophy, we are pumping cash into the hands of students wishing to attend college. As the Wall Street Journal reports, “Nearly all student loans — 93 percent of them last year — are made directly by the government, which asks little or nothing about borrowers’ ability to repay, or about what sort of education they intend to pursue.”

    Sound familiar? It’s exactly the sort of backwards thinking that, to coin a phrase, “got us into this mess.” Politicians (most of them, but not all, Democrats) noticed that homeownership was associated with a number of social goods — steady employment, social engagement, high test scores for children — and decided that the homes were causing the other benefits. Make homeownership more broadly available by making mortgages easier to get, ran the logic, and everyone would benefit.

    We know how that turned out. But the Democrats learned all the wrong lessons from that debacle — fairy tales that they may actually believe about greedy Wall Street and rich Republicans. So now we are busy repeating our folly, inflating what Glenn Harlan Reynolds calls the “higher education bubble.”

    all of it here
    Economic Sabotage - Mona Charen - National Review Online
     
  2. zeke
    Offline

    zeke Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    8,272
    Thanks Received:
    1,111
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,868
    Steph, are you saying that if the government would just leave the taxes on the ultra rich alone, they would bring up back to full employment.......when?

    How many will they hire and when will they hire them? What do the jobs pay and what fields will they be in?

    I mean, after all the time you spend worrying about and defending the ultra rich, surely they have made you privileged to their plans to restore us to full employment with good paying jobs.

    Right stef?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    44,117
    Thanks Received:
    9,265
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +15,395
    His Presidency was built on fairy tales. His re-election built on lies.

    Forget the last four years, pay no attention to the next four.

    We are all 47%'ers.
     
  4. Oldguy
    Offline

    Oldguy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Messages:
    4,328
    Thanks Received:
    590
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +592
    Which is not the same thing as spreading the money around, is it?

    Why is that a bad thing? Are you OK with a smaller and smaller percentage of American's controlling a larger and larger share of the wealth? Why, or why not?

    What's your solution: "Tough noogies" to those who can't afford it?


    Is it broadly shared? Prove it.

    Has it lifted all boats? Prove it. Given that real median income and wages have remained static, or even fallen, for the middle and lower classes over the past 30 years or so, that's gonna be a hard position to defend.

    Yes, it should.

    Ok, but how? Government assistance? Price controls? Please explain to me just how you'd accomplish that without involving government action.

    What the hell has that got to do with it and what can government, or anybody else, do about it?

    Ok, how? Top down or bottom up?

    Please explain to me the difference between forced income redistribution and taxation in general. Are you opposed to taxes, or just the kind of redistribution we saw in the Soviet Union and which is NOT being suggested by anybody here?


    As opposed to student loans made through private banks which charged a higher rate of interest and didn't care any more about ability to pay or "sort of education" their clients had?

    In any case, do you think deciding FOR students what "sort of education" they're pursuing is a good idea? Who should decide? Banks? Government? The students themselves?


    What lessons did the Republican's learn from all that? That repeating the Bush years would somehow deliver a different outcome?
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2012
  5. Oldguy
    Offline

    Oldguy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Messages:
    4,328
    Thanks Received:
    590
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +592
    If tax cuts on the "job creators" actually resulted in more hiring, we should be swimming in jobs by now, shouldn't we?
     
  6. Plasmaball
    Offline

    Plasmaball Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    20,630
    Thanks Received:
    1,406
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,904
    Hey another empty post by stepth......
     
  7. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    42,079
    Thanks Received:
    6,123
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +20,014
    Here's an idea: Go out and start a business so you have a job if its so easy.

    How about increasing those on the receiving end of entitilements eventually will collapse the system every time. Its history and simple logic.
     
  8. Oldguy
    Offline

    Oldguy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Messages:
    4,328
    Thanks Received:
    590
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +592
    Those on the receiving end of entitlements (how do YOU define that?) spend that money, which increases demand, which increases employment, which increases tax revenues from payroll taxes.

    How does that collapse the system?
     
  9. Mac1958
    Offline

    Mac1958 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    30,211
    Thanks Received:
    6,495
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    Independent Ave.
    Ratings:
    +20,458


    That's a fair question, and I think it depends on the nature of the entitlement recipient.

    If the recipient is under retirement age, is able in mind and body, and is choosing to function as a net tax "taker" rather than as a productive contributing member of society (and "choosing" is another debate), then they are a net drag on the economy and the entitlement system.

    And if by promoting an entitlement mindset we are creating more and more of these net tax "takers", then we're placing more and more of a strain on both entitlements and the overall economy. Additionally, we're exacerbating cultural differences by antagonizing those who are choosing to be productive.

    So, it seems to me the question is how well we're minimizing the creation of this "taker" underclass. My answer is that, in the pursuit of blanket "fairness", we lower (and even avoid) expectations & standards -- and this is now a generational issue -- and make a bad situation even worse.

    .
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2012
  10. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    42,079
    Thanks Received:
    6,123
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +20,014
    Because your scenario is flawed on several points.
     

Share This Page