The Republican economics are wrong

[whitehall]

Redistributing confiscated money through government programs is the opposite of economic growth.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

...by giving money to the poor to consume more they create a demand...

You can't take money out of the economy, run it through a government bureaucracy, then redistribute it to poor people and call that stimulus. That's akin to me robbing the local grocery store of their till, handing that money to a local bum and when he goes to buy beer, calling that stimulative. It doesn't work that way.

You have fallen victim to the fallacy of breaking windows. Look it up.

this is the very heart of liberalism. When government spends our money it is magical money that multiplies , but when we spend our own hard earned money to support ourselves and our families its not magical, it doesn't multiply, and its not stimulative at all.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Democrats have been fighting a "War on Poverty" for 3 generation now and we have more poor people than ever. That's a Fail

The Communist Peoples Republic of Vietnam has rejected Democrats Redisrtibutive Economics in favor of Free Enterprise and in a few short years, not generations, they went from having to import 1 million tons of rice annually to now being the second largest EXPORTER of rice on the planet. That's a success

Maybe you Libs can tell the Vietnamese that they're wrong and government knows best?

Actually when Democrats where in power poverty went from 50% to 12%, then the GOP took control and poverty went from 12% to 14%/

What?

 

[Uncensored2008]

typical treasonous Marxist brainwashing from a liberal. Why not tell us the great crimes that Gates, Jobs, and Ford committed??

Let me guess, Gates made PC software possible and affordable, Jobs made the Iphone possible and affordable, and Ford made the car possible and affordable. Oh, and they employed 10's of millions!!


The liberal says, lets hang them all!!!!

The left loved Jobs. He was extremely rich, insanely greedy, completely unethical and absolutely judgmental. Besides, he put Algore on the Apple BOD. Al said that Google causes global warming.

Google Causes Global Warming? » GroovyGreen.com – Start Today :: Save Tomorrow

 

[peach174]

Democrats have been fighting a "War on Poverty" for 3 generation now and we have more poor people than ever. That's a Fail

The Communist Peoples Republic of Vietnam has rejected Democrats Redisrtibutive Economics in favor of Free Enterprise and in a few short years, not generations, they went from having to import 1 million tons of rice annually to now being the second largest EXPORTER of rice on the planet. That's a success

Maybe you Libs can tell the Vietnamese that they're wrong and government knows best?

Actually when Democrats where in power poverty went from 50% to 12%, then the GOP took control and poverty went from 12% to 14%/

What?

Just ignore him, starcraftzzz is a troll.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Actually when Democrats where in power poverty went from 50% to 12%, then the GOP took control and poverty went from 12% to 14%/

What?

Just ignore him, starcraftzzz is a troll.

Star seemingly has the brain power of a liberal; that's true but can can you tell me which liberal here is better, if anyone. I find them all the same. In one way or the other they merely support more and more welfare and have no growth plan.

 

[peach174]

What?

Just ignore him, starcraftzzz is a troll.

Star seemingly has the brain power of a liberal; that's true but can can you tell me which liberal here is better, if anyone. I find them all the same. In one way or the other they merely support more and more welfare and have no growth plan.

At least most of the libs here have some pretty decent debates and are not trolls.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Just ignore him, starcraftzzz is a troll.

Star seemingly has the brain power of a liberal; that's true but can can you tell me which liberal here is better, if anyone. I find them all the same. In one way or the other they merely support more and more welfare and have no growth plan.

At least most of the libs here have some pretty decent debates and are not trolls.

don't you know that everyone you don't like on the net is a troll? Please don't use the word anymore. It identifies you as a child who is impressed by the first insult word you have learned.

If a liberal ever made a good point in a debate please tell us what it was or admit such a thing never happened.

 

[peach174]

Star seemingly has the brain power of a liberal; that's true but can can you tell me which liberal here is better, if anyone. I find them all the same. In one way or the other they merely support more and more welfare and have no growth plan.

At least most of the libs here have some pretty decent debates and are not trolls.

don't you know that everyone you don't like on the net is a troll? Please don't use the word anymore. It identifies you as a child who is impressed by the first insult word you have learned.

If a liberal ever made a good point in a debate please tell us what it was or admit such a thing never happened.

This is the first time I have ever called someone on this board a troll.
And no, not everyone you don't like on the net is a troll.

Troll

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

Noun
A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them.


It's a matter of opinion if some are or are not making a good point.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

At least most of the libs here have some pretty decent debates and are not trolls.

don't you know that everyone you don't like on the net is a troll? Please don't use the word anymore. It identifies you as a child who is impressed by the first insult word you have learned.

If a liberal ever made a good point in a debate please tell us what it was or admit such a thing never happened.

This is the first time I have ever called someone on this board a troll.
And no, not everyone you don't like on the net is a troll.

Troll

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

Noun
A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them.


It's a matter of opinion if some are or are not making a good point.

and can you present to us even one good point that a liberal has made
in debate here as you claimed? I can see why you want to split hairs on the meaning of trolls. Substance is tough for a liberal isn't it?

 

[peach174]

don't you know that everyone you don't like on the net is a troll? Please don't use the word anymore. It identifies you as a child who is impressed by the first insult word you have learned.

If a liberal ever made a good point in a debate please tell us what it was or admit such a thing never happened.

This is the first time I have ever called someone on this board a troll.
And no, not everyone you don't like on the net is a troll.

Troll

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

Noun
A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them.


It's a matter of opinion if some are or are not making a good point.

and can you present to us even one good point that a liberal has made
in debate here as you claimed? I can see why you want to split hairs on the meaning of trolls. Substance is tough for a liberal isn't it?

Do you think I'm a liberal?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Do you think I'm a liberal?

Toro has engaged me in some excellent discussions.

For the record.

 

[peach174]

Bodedicca and I had a very good one in the religious forum. We went for about 3 days back and forth.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Do you think I'm a liberal?

you said liberals have made some good points in debates here. I asked you 4 times to present an example. You have been afraid try to
support your statement that a liberal made a good point.

That must tell you something about liberalism?

 

[tererun]

Democrats have been fighting a "War on Poverty" for 3 generation now and we have more poor people than ever. That's a Fail

The Communist Peoples Republic of Vietnam has rejected Democrats Redisrtibutive Economics in favor of Free Enterprise and in a few short years, not generations, they went from having to import 1 million tons of rice annually to now being the second largest EXPORTER of rice on the planet. That's a success

Maybe you Libs can tell the Vietnamese that they're wrong and government knows best?

Well the democrats are wrong in how they do it. The republicans are very good at pointing out democratic weak points without actually fixing anything. That is probably because they are all on the side of money.

Very simply you are wrong because if you only give money to a few people you only have a few people to spend it. If you give it to a lot of people then you have an economy. You can't change that reality. This is why focussing on the needs of the people on the bottom of society creates more jobs and happenings. It is the concept of a nuclear bomb vs. a pinpoint high density laser. If you want to make the economy explode you have to stimulate the masses to spend. If you want the economy to focus on something you have to focus money on that specific object. The opposite is being done and all that does is make very rich people with a really poor class.

 

[tererun]

I am amazed by your twisted reasoning.

Yeah, you are going to have a hard time poking holes in it.

First of all, nobody gives rich people money.

Bo, that is not true. We give out money in grants, investments, loans, and many other ways a rich person can ask the government for money to do what they are thinking. I am not saying the idea is entirely wrong, it does stimulate advances in the high end of business. Certain concepts can only be done on a grand scale.

Rich people give money to everyone else.

At their whimsy. They do not just go out and give money to everyone, they get things for their money, that is the economy.

Nobody gets a job from a poor person.

Actually this could not be more untrue. A large part of our workforce is in the business of food productions because people need to eat. A poor person who buys food is making a job. They create a need, and that need will be filled by workers. That is the whole idea of trade by money is that the demand created by consumption will make jobs. You need consumers to consume, and poor people are the most likely to consume in mass quantities if given money.

Rich people create most of the jobs in the US.

A need for the product created those jobs. the rich did not just conjure up work to do, they were just filling a demand in society.

Although 30% of millionaires have inherited their fortune, they still must earn money or they will go broke. Even if they just put their money in the bank, they will be paid interest and the money that they deposit will be loaned out to people who are not rich. These loans make it possible for people to buy cars, homes and businesses all of which create jobs.

Really, go broke? Let us say I have a million dollars. I want to live for 20 more years on that money. I give myself 50k per year. Who cannot live on 50k per year? The rich people that is who. That is not because they start eating more, but rather because they spend more. The people you are defending live way beyond this amount of spending, but they are not consuming more.

Think of it this way. I have 10 apples. I am in the schoolyard and want to have a hole dug. Now I can take these ten apples and give them as payment to one person to dig a hole, and I find the strongest guy to do it, or I give ten people one apple and have ten people dig a hole. In this situation it is also likely that people will work together to get over obstacles like big rocks and I have done more towards my goal with 10 workers instead of one. I admit it does not always work this way, but in most cases it does.

Also, studies show that most lottery winners lose all of their winnings within 5 years. This is because most of them do not know how to manage money. Spending all of their money does little good for them or for the economy because once the money is gone, it is gone.

Think about that waste for a second. You are absolutely right. Why is it with the example before of living on 50k a year so hard? That is because they are spending more on brand names. There are people making due with 12k a year or less. There are a whole lot of people doing it. That guy making 50k is buying what he wants. The lower people are not because they cannot afford it. When you give them money they buy what they need to survive

If we taxed all of the rich people 100%. There will be no more rich people, there will be no more jobs and no more money to lend.

What are you talking about here? Where did I say we should tax the rich 100 percent? I never said that. That is not even in the realm of this argument because it is so absurd. The only reason to bring it up is for a bad association between me and taxing people 100 percent which I never supported in my wildest drams. That is something a four year old would say.

 

[tererun]

First of all, I doubt whether these two purses cost the same.

Considering the advancements in manufacturing that we have it really is not that expensive. If you were a manufacturer you would know that the costs for making the items we see on the shelves in stores really cost less than a cent to make. I know because I have seen it and the costs. They are made mainly by machines and cost virtually nothing. Why there is such a markup is because they have to build the stores. When you are buying the product you are not just getting something you want, you are also supporting the way it came to you.

this is a paradigm shift in the way our society works.

The more expensive purse probably is real leather instead of plastic, for instance, which I’m sure requires not only more labor but more skilled labor. But that aside, let’s see where this goes. The Walmart purse is made in a low-wage factory, and is sold by a minimum wage employee. End of the story.

Actually hand made things are there for artistic purposes. Functionally the walmart purse performs it's job as it was designed. If you think about it you would have to have the walmart purse break almost immediately for it's value to not be acheived. That is why a specialist still exists alongside a mass producer.

The Coach purse, on the other hand, supports a more skilled production force; intense marketing campaigns, which support designers, videographers, television and print production people; not only high-end sales employees (who earn a living wage) at upscale department stores, but also at Coach’s mall stores. It’s not all just additional profit, although the margins probably are higher. See, consumption is not just about the product, but also the product support, which we also consume. Which jobs do we want? More Walmart/McDonalds type jobs? Which is likely to produce more US jobs? Low skill production jobs are supported by the $10 purse, and those are going to China or other low-wage countries in droves.

Those are not more skilled jobs. That is just advertising. You need a base, and you are not focussing on that.

Your approach assumes we want to reduce ourselves to the lowest common denominator. We didn’t become the richest nation on the planet by accepting that fate. We became the richest nation on the planet by not accepting less than we could achieve, by aiming higher, and in the process raising the lowest common denominator to a new level.

Not at all, I do like excellence, and I think achievements are great. What I am saying is that if you are trying to stimulate the economy with money you give it to the poor because they will spend it and consume.

 

[editec]

All human wealth is the end product of human labor.

Whether that "labor" is intellectual or phsycial, doesn't matter, the wealth was created by labor.

Telling yourself that wealth is created ONLY by the wealthy is a delusional conceit of demented rich people and the TOOLS that love them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

you said liberals have made some good points in debates here. I asked you 4 times to present an example. You have been afraid try to
support your statement that a liberal made a good point.

That must tell you something about liberalism?

NYCaribeener made some valid points about censorship tactics by some religious colleges.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Teterun:

Your reasoning is flawed and your conclusions are faulty. Here is why;

______________

A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker’s shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Two hundred and fifty dollars? That will be quite a sun. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $250 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $250 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor.

Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $250 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace the window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window and $250 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.

The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business. No new “employment” has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye.

The Broken Window Fallacy