Adam Smith on Republican Attitudes Toward The Wealthy and The Poor

[Sunshine]

oh boy...whateva

the left-Democrats dishes out other people's (taxpayers) monies at the poor and then crows, see how we care more..

Tax dollars aren't yours or anybody else's. Taxes belong to society as a whole. We vote to influence how those tax dollars are spent but that money belongs to the American civilization. I'm not a Democrat, but I see what social security has done to drastically reduce poverty among the elderly: evidence supports that. I see how medicare/medicade has done to help the health among the impoverished. As a kid I saw how government programs helped my mother feed, house, and clothe my brother and I until my mother was able to do it herself. It kept us off the streets and helped us eventually move into a house my mother was able to purchase with money she earned from her decent job. What do Republicans suggest to help poor people and those who have suffered unfortunate circumstances? Charity? It didn't work before and it doesn't work now. It helps, but on its own charity has never been enough. So what else? People get desperate and may eventually turn to crime to eat. Jailed parents don't raise their children.

That is the point right there that you just said. That Republicans and Conservatives are making.
Give them help until they can make it on their own just like your Mom did.
Instead we have whole generations of people on welfare who refuse to use it temporally and stay on the Government programs for their entire lives.
No one on the right is saying do away with how to help the poor and elderly or even the disabled.
What we are saying it has to been done differently (restructured) or else these programs will go bankrupt.

....or else WE will go bankrupt. There. That's more like it.

 

[Sunshine]

I asked YOU the question, stupid. You blather on about "The Wealthy." What do you define as wealthy? Someone who makes $50,000,000 a year - like John Kerry - or someone who makes $200,000 as in the average business owner.

And I answered with a question, so what? No reason to get personal. The OP was about Republican perceptions not mine. You might want to paint me as some communist who thinks wealth is $50k a year is all everyone should get handed to them by governement, but I'm not playing that game. I've been poor most of my life, my parents were poor most of theirs, my grandparents poor all of their lives. Not homeless but no one took vacations to Europe or was a member of a golf reort or yacht club. When something bad happened they were lucky not to end up on the street or bankrupt. John Kerry is wealthy. So is Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, the Bush Family, Herman Cain, Soros and the Hollywood "elites". My friends who run a pizza shop in Leadville, Colorado are not. Small business owners who own a $250k house, a couple of cars, work 80 hours a week, and have lots of debt as most small business owners do are not wealthy. Those that drive $100k cars, live in $1 million homes, and have their savings in offshore tax havens are wealthy. Somewhere between those two examples I would draw the line.

The poor are single parents who work so much that their children spend most of the time at daycare just so rent and bills get paid.

Then I suggest you get an education and a desire to work so you don't end up a miserable failure too.

And yet he has time to sit all day on the computer posting on chicken shit message boards. Go figure!

 

[Sunshine]

“The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.”
–Adam Smith
Scottish political economist (1723-1790)

It seems to me to reflect some on this board:

Thanks for the Adam Smith quotation, which I've added to my collection.

As to its substance; I've only recently come to understand there is a category of Americans who indeed are predisposed to worshipfully admire excessive wealth and almost instinctually rise to defend it against criticism. And what I find most interesting about it is those who seem most passionate in their reverence for greedy acquisition probably haven't a pot to piss in and will never pay themselves out of debt. This is a behavioral phenomenon I do not understand but would like to.

One possibility that occurs to me is these minimum-wage defenders of opulence simply cannot conceive of monetary amounts past the second decimal point. In fact, to them, a jarful of quarters is "hoarding," and buying a ten thousand dollar used car with cash is great wealth. And because they think of themselves as someday being able to do that they react negatively to criticism of what is real opulence, which they simply have no conception of.

No doubt. But the only ones who have the time to watch the Wealth Channel are the ones on government assistance who can sit in front of the TV all day and all night.

 

[peach174]

Working out fine.

FDR created a middle class in this country.

We have had a middle class in this country since the 1800's. It was called the Victorian Middle Class. FDR did not create it.
We have more in poverty now than we did before President Johnson's war on poverty.

The "middle class" you speak of consisted of that category of public managers, such as the constabulary, tax collectors, and others who enjoyed some nominal level of privilege for functioning to impose civil order and maintain a distance between the upper (nobility) and lower (peasant) classes. While that category of exalted lackeys may be called a "middle class" it did in no way resemble or represent what is meant by middle class in the contemporary meaning of the term.

The present-day American Middle Class began with FDR's New Deal and the Union Movement and reached its most economically successful level during the period between the late 1940s and the early 1980s when the devious introduction of Reaganomics brought about its continuing decline.

The middle class consisted of many professions.

It included doctors, lawyers, clergymen, teachers, bankers, factory owners, with shopkeepers probably considered as lower middle class. There was an increased need for teachers during the course of the 1800s as the public school system expanded, and a lot of middle class women took up teaching as a profession, it was a respectable way for single women to earn a living. This also led to an increase of educational opportunities for women, the first institutes of higher education for women in America were teacher training colleges, beginning in the 1830s. Writing was another way middle class women made a living, there were a number of very successful women novelists, and some women were successful in journalism. Nursing became a respectable occupation for middle class women from the 1850s, due to the reforms of Florence Nightingale, which raised the status of nursing as a profession. Women were also making inroads into office work and library work by the late 1800s, and a few ambitious women were making their way into medicine and law.


UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian are among those who believe the New Deal caused the Depression to persist longer than it would otherwise have, concluding in a study that the "New Deal labor and industrial policies did not lift the economy out of the Depression as President Roosevelt and his economic planners had hoped," but that the "New Deal policies are an important contributing factor to the persistence of the Great Depression." They claim that the New Deal "cartelization policies are a key factor behind the weak recovery." They say that the "abandonment of these policies coincided with the strong economic recovery of the 1940s." Cole and Ohanian claimed that FDR's policies prolonged the Depression by 7 years.
I believe these economists as do millions of us, who think that the New Deal caused the prolonged depression.
Just like today, Obama's policies are causing a weak recovery.

It was WWII that brought more people into the middle class, not FDR's polices.
The work created was to help rebuild a War torn Europe.

 

[Flopper]

We do not have 125 Trillion to pay for these large Social Programs over 75 years.
No one can fund this amount.

Where did you get this number?

Debt Clock
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

It has been around since 1989, and the installation of the first clock, was erected on 42nd Street close to Times Square.

The only social programs I see on the debt clock are current social security and medicare/medicaid. Unless you are just adding the two and multiplying by 75, I don't see how you can get 125 trillion.

Keep in mind that the cost of social security is completely covered by payroll deductions. If Congress does nothing and the trust is reduced to zero in about 20 to 25 years, the benefit payments would be reduced by about 20%, to equal the amount of the contributions. So the government wouldn't have a liability unless Congress decided to make up the loss 20%. You would have to take this into conservation.

 

[Flopper]

Tax dollars aren't yours or anybody else's. Taxes belong to society as a whole. We vote to influence how those tax dollars are spent but that money belongs to the American civilization. I'm not a Democrat, but I see what social security has done to drastically reduce poverty among the elderly: evidence supports that. I see how medicare/medicade has done to help the health among the impoverished. As a kid I saw how government programs helped my mother feed, house, and clothe my brother and I until my mother was able to do it herself. It kept us off the streets and helped us eventually move into a house my mother was able to purchase with money she earned from her decent job. What do Republicans suggest to help poor people and those who have suffered unfortunate circumstances? Charity? It didn't work before and it doesn't work now. It helps, but on its own charity has never been enough. So what else? People get desperate and may eventually turn to crime to eat. Jailed parents don't raise their children.

That is the point right there that you just said. That Republicans and Conservatives are making.
Give them help until they can make it on their own just like your Mom did.
Instead we have whole generations of people on welfare who refuse to use it temporally and stay on the Government programs for their entire lives.
No one on the right is saying do away with how to help the poor and elderly or even the disabled.
What we are saying it has to been done differently (restructured) or else these programs will go bankrupt.

....or else WE will go bankrupt. There. That's more like it.

No, we would never go bankrupt, but other bad things could happen.

 

[Rshermr]

We have had a middle class in this country since the 1800's. It was called the Victorian Middle Class. FDR did not create it.
We have more in poverty now than we did before President Johnson's war on poverty.

The "middle class" you speak of consisted of that category of public managers, such as the constabulary, tax collectors, and others who enjoyed some nominal level of privilege for functioning to impose civil order and maintain a distance between the upper (nobility) and lower (peasant) classes. While that category of exalted lackeys may be called a "middle class" it did in no way resemble or represent what is meant by middle class in the contemporary meaning of the term.

The present-day American Middle Class began with FDR's New Deal and the Union Movement and reached its most economically successful level during the period between the late 1940s and the early 1980s when the devious introduction of Reaganomics brought about its continuing decline.

The middle class consisted of many professions.

It included doctors, lawyers, clergymen, teachers, bankers, factory owners, with shopkeepers probably considered as lower middle class. There was an increased need for teachers during the course of the 1800s as the public school system expanded, and a lot of middle class women took up teaching as a profession, it was a respectable way for single women to earn a living. This also led to an increase of educational opportunities for women, the first institutes of higher education for women in America were teacher training colleges, beginning in the 1830s. Writing was another way middle class women made a living, there were a number of very successful women novelists, and some women were successful in journalism. Nursing became a respectable occupation for middle class women from the 1850s, due to the reforms of Florence Nightingale, which raised the status of nursing as a profession. Women were also making inroads into office work and library work by the late 1800s, and a few ambitious women were making their way into medicine and law.


UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian are among those who believe the New Deal caused the Depression to persist longer than it would otherwise have, concluding in a study that the "New Deal labor and industrial policies did not lift the economy out of the Depression as President Roosevelt and his economic planners had hoped," but that the "New Deal policies are an important contributing factor to the persistence of the Great Depression." They claim that the New Deal "cartelization policies are a key factor behind the weak recovery." They say that the "abandonment of these policies coincided with the strong economic recovery of the 1940s." Cole and Ohanian claimed that FDR's policies prolonged the Depression by 7 years.
I believe these economists as do millions of us, who think that the New Deal caused the prolonged depression.
Just like today, Obama's policies are causing a weak recovery.

It was WWII that brought more people into the middle class, not FDR's polices.
The work created was to help rebuild a War torn Europe.

Yes indeed. But by a ratio of at least 50 to 1, most economists do not believe for a second that fdr prolonged the depression. You picked a pair of well discredited economists, who are quoted primarily in the bat shit crazy con web sites.
Relative to what went on during the great depression, you seem to have no clue. As in the fact that the start of the great depression was in 1929, and by the time fdr became pres in march or '33, the ue rate was well over 20% from about 3% in early 1929. So, yeah, that do nothing and let the market recover was really working well. Dipshit.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I asked YOU the question, stupid. You blather on about "The Wealthy." What do you define as wealthy? Someone who makes $50,000,000 a year - like John Kerry - or someone who makes $200,000 as in the average business owner.

And I answered with a question, so what? No reason to get personal. The OP was about Republican perceptions not mine. You might want to paint me as some communist who thinks wealth is $50k a year is all everyone should get handed to them by governement, but I'm not playing that game. I've been poor most of my life, my parents were poor most of theirs, my grandparents poor all of their lives. Not homeless but no one took vacations to Europe or was a member of a golf reort or yacht club. When something bad happened they were lucky not to end up on the street or bankrupt. John Kerry is wealthy. So is Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, the Bush Family, Herman Cain, Soros and the Hollywood "elites". My friends who run a pizza shop in Leadville, Colorado are not. Small business owners who own a $250k house, a couple of cars, work 80 hours a week, and have lots of debt as most small business owners do are not wealthy. Those that drive $100k cars, live in $1 million homes, and have their savings in offshore tax havens are wealthy. Somewhere between those two examples I would draw the line.

The poor are single parents who work so much that their children spend most of the time at daycare just so rent and bills get paid.

Then I suggest you get an education and a desire to work so you don't end up a miserable failure too.

Thanks for supporting the OP. You perceive poor people as "miserable failure"s.

I served in the Marine Corps, went to CU, and have a good job. But thanks for playing!

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I asked YOU the question, stupid. You blather on about "The Wealthy." What do you define as wealthy? Someone who makes $50,000,000 a year - like John Kerry - or someone who makes $200,000 as in the average business owner.

And I answered with a question, so what? No reason to get personal. The OP was about Republican perceptions not mine. You might want to paint me as some communist who thinks wealth is $50k a year is all everyone should get handed to them by governement, but I'm not playing that game. I've been poor most of my life, my parents were poor most of theirs, my grandparents poor all of their lives. Not homeless but no one took vacations to Europe or was a member of a golf reort or yacht club. When something bad happened they were lucky not to end up on the street or bankrupt. John Kerry is wealthy. So is Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, the Bush Family, Herman Cain, Soros and the Hollywood "elites". My friends who run a pizza shop in Leadville, Colorado are not. Small business owners who own a $250k house, a couple of cars, work 80 hours a week, and have lots of debt as most small business owners do are not wealthy. Those that drive $100k cars, live in $1 million homes, and have their savings in offshore tax havens are wealthy. Somewhere between those two examples I would draw the line.

The poor are single parents who work so much that their children spend most of the time at daycare just so rent and bills get paid.

Yes
The USA is Number one in the world of single parents thanks to the ideologies of the left.

How do the "ideologies of the left" have anything to do with divorce, breakups, or spouses dying?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

How is the lefts policies helping to get the poor out of poverty working?

First of all, that is off topic. The OP isn't about progressive policies. Its about what seems to be the attitude of the right: that wealthy people deserve our highest regard and everything else they get seemingly no matter what, and that poor people are somehow lazy, ignorant, stupid, unethical, and possibly immoral. Conservatives seem to believe that poor people are only poor because they are too lazy to make more money or comfortable living on a few hundred dollars a month. That they have no personal ambition or drive to improve their quality of life, at least in a personal economic sense. Are there some who abuse welfare and other government programs? Sure, but the vast majority want to work a good job for good pay and provide for themselves and their families but face hardships which aren't easy overcome by simply working harder.

Sometimes before you get to work a good job for good pay you have to work a bad job for bad pay. Otherwise, you never get to the good job with good pay.

That's understood. But there are only so many good jobs out there. Someone's got to flip burgers, press shirts, and dig ditches. Shouldn't those jobs pay enough for a person to live decently?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

And I answered with a question, so what? No reason to get personal. The OP was about Republican perceptions not mine. You might want to paint me as some communist who thinks wealth is $50k a year is all everyone should get handed to them by governement, but I'm not playing that game. I've been poor most of my life, my parents were poor most of theirs, my grandparents poor all of their lives. Not homeless but no one took vacations to Europe or was a member of a golf reort or yacht club. When something bad happened they were lucky not to end up on the street or bankrupt. John Kerry is wealthy. So is Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, the Bush Family, Herman Cain, Soros and the Hollywood "elites". My friends who run a pizza shop in Leadville, Colorado are not. Small business owners who own a $250k house, a couple of cars, work 80 hours a week, and have lots of debt as most small business owners do are not wealthy. Those that drive $100k cars, live in $1 million homes, and have their savings in offshore tax havens are wealthy. Somewhere between those two examples I would draw the line.

The poor are single parents who work so much that their children spend most of the time at daycare just so rent and bills get paid.

Then I suggest you get an education and a desire to work so you don't end up a miserable failure too.

And yet he has time to sit all day on the computer posting on chicken shit message boards. Go figure!

Nice try, kettle or pot, whichever you want to be.

 

[peach174]

The "middle class" you speak of consisted of that category of public managers, such as the constabulary, tax collectors, and others who enjoyed some nominal level of privilege for functioning to impose civil order and maintain a distance between the upper (nobility) and lower (peasant) classes. While that category of exalted lackeys may be called a "middle class" it did in no way resemble or represent what is meant by middle class in the contemporary meaning of the term.

The present-day American Middle Class began with FDR's New Deal and the Union Movement and reached its most economically successful level during the period between the late 1940s and the early 1980s when the devious introduction of Reaganomics brought about its continuing decline.

The middle class consisted of many professions.

It included doctors, lawyers, clergymen, teachers, bankers, factory owners, with shopkeepers probably considered as lower middle class. There was an increased need for teachers during the course of the 1800s as the public school system expanded, and a lot of middle class women took up teaching as a profession, it was a respectable way for single women to earn a living. This also led to an increase of educational opportunities for women, the first institutes of higher education for women in America were teacher training colleges, beginning in the 1830s. Writing was another way middle class women made a living, there were a number of very successful women novelists, and some women were successful in journalism. Nursing became a respectable occupation for middle class women from the 1850s, due to the reforms of Florence Nightingale, which raised the status of nursing as a profession. Women were also making inroads into office work and library work by the late 1800s, and a few ambitious women were making their way into medicine and law.


UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian are among those who believe the New Deal caused the Depression to persist longer than it would otherwise have, concluding in a study that the "New Deal labor and industrial policies did not lift the economy out of the Depression as President Roosevelt and his economic planners had hoped," but that the "New Deal policies are an important contributing factor to the persistence of the Great Depression." They claim that the New Deal "cartelization policies are a key factor behind the weak recovery." They say that the "abandonment of these policies coincided with the strong economic recovery of the 1940s." Cole and Ohanian claimed that FDR's policies prolonged the Depression by 7 years.
I believe these economists as do millions of us, who think that the New Deal caused the prolonged depression.
Just like today, Obama's policies are causing a weak recovery.

It was WWII that brought more people into the middle class, not FDR's polices.
The work created was to help rebuild a War torn Europe.

Yes indeed. But by a ratio of at least 50 to 1, most economists do not believe for a second that fdr prolonged the depression. You picked a pair of well discredited economists, who are quoted primarily in the bat shit crazy con web sites.
Relative to what went on during the great depression, you seem to have no clue. As in the fact that the start of the great depression was in 1929, and by the time fdr became pres in march or '33, the ue rate was well over 20% from about 3% in early 1929. So, yeah, that do nothing and let the market recover was really working well. Dipshit.

Discredited ?
Then they should never have been consultants for the Federal Reserve.

Many Historians and economists believe that FDR's policies prolonged the great depression.

President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression.
His anti competition and pro labor polices prolonged the depression.

It was not excessive competition that caused the depression.

The crash in 1929 was because of banks giving out credit to investors and investors making the market into a short term investment rather than a long term investment.
It didn't help with the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank that helped banks to make those risky credits.

 

[Rshermr]

The middle class consisted of many professions.

It included doctors, lawyers, clergymen, teachers, bankers, factory owners, with shopkeepers probably considered as lower middle class. There was an increased need for teachers during the course of the 1800s as the public school system expanded, and a lot of middle class women took up teaching as a profession, it was a respectable way for single women to earn a living. This also led to an increase of educational opportunities for women, the first institutes of higher education for women in America were teacher training colleges, beginning in the 1830s. Writing was another way middle class women made a living, there were a number of very successful women novelists, and some women were successful in journalism. Nursing became a respectable occupation for middle class women from the 1850s, due to the reforms of Florence Nightingale, which raised the status of nursing as a profession. Women were also making inroads into office work and library work by the late 1800s, and a few ambitious women were making their way into medicine and law.


UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian are among those who believe the New Deal caused the Depression to persist longer than it would otherwise have, concluding in a study that the "New Deal labor and industrial policies did not lift the economy out of the Depression as President Roosevelt and his economic planners had hoped," but that the "New Deal policies are an important contributing factor to the persistence of the Great Depression." They claim that the New Deal "cartelization policies are a key factor behind the weak recovery." They say that the "abandonment of these policies coincided with the strong economic recovery of the 1940s." Cole and Ohanian claimed that FDR's policies prolonged the Depression by 7 years.
I believe these economists as do millions of us, who think that the New Deal caused the prolonged depression.
Just like today, Obama's policies are causing a weak recovery.

It was WWII that brought more people into the middle class, not FDR's polices.
The work created was to help rebuild a War torn Europe.

Yes indeed. But by a ratio of at least 50 to 1, most economists do not believe for a second that fdr prolonged the depression. You picked a pair of well discredited economists, who are quoted primarily in the bat shit crazy con web sites.
Relative to what went on during the great depression, you seem to have no clue. As in the fact that the start of the great depression was in 1929, and by the time fdr became pres in march or '33, the ue rate was well over 20% from about 3% in early 1929. So, yeah, that do nothing and let the market recover was really working well. Dipshit.

Discredited ?
Then they should never have been consultants for the Federal Reserve.

]

Please. Let me enjoy this moment. A con who is suggesting that working for the FED is a recommendation. Please, let me know if you have some reason to say that such credentials make a phd more capable than any other, and why.

Many Historians and economists believe that FDR's policies prolonged the great depression.

No. Only 10 of 20,000 did. The other 19,990 thought fdr's policies were supernatural. Making stupid statements about MANY of anything is rather useless. Few did in comparison with the thousands that did not.
What you should understand is that there are always bought and paid for politicians and economists. You can get many of any of these folks to go along with whatever the far right wants them to say. Like, for instance, many of those that publish in the Wall Street Journal OPED pages. Owned and run by the same guy that owns and runs FOX. And you will always find support for them in the bat shit crazy con web sites. So, how about opinions of normal, independent economists??? Damned few would sign of on these guy's views.

One of the first things that tips you off is that they throw out the jobs created by stimulus programs set up by fdr in order to make the ue rate look much higher than it was. Here are a few of those jobs;
"The government hired about 60 per cent of the unemployed in public works and conservation projects that planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York’s Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge complex, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown.

It also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers, rebuilt the country’s entire rural school system, and hired 3,000 writers, musicians, sculptors and painters, including Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock."
The right-wing New Deal conniption fit - Salon.com

The right has been pushing this nonsense for decades. Problem is, these were jobs that paid the bills for families and allowed those so employed to buy things that caused others to be hired completely outside of government stimulus jobs. And by the way, the vast majority of those getting those jobs were in private companies. But probably most important, those trying to rewrite the history of the fdr stimulus programs have waited until most of those so employed are no longer with us. Had they not waited, the agenda driven clowns writing this drivel would have had their asses kidked across the country by a whole lot of oldsters, and their spouses.

President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression.
His anti competition and pro labor polices prolonged the depression.

Now, I am sure you have an impartial source for this bit of nonsense?? Of course not. No one considered the cause of the depression to be excessive competition. There is some truth to a problem with the NRA during that time, which attempted to fix prices and wage rates, with less than great results. But overall, just another attempt at revisionism.

It was not excessive competition that caused the depression.

Yup, and no one with any import thought it did.

The crash in 1929 was because of banks giving out credit to investors and investors making the market into a short term investment rather than a long term investment.

No, me poor economic wasteland. There were many reasons for the great depression. And the crash of '29 was essentially because banks were able to do what banks tend to do. They made bad loans, and made bad decesions about when to call defaults on loans. But even before, the lack of regulation in the economy was making for a wealthy upper class, and making for a very unstable middle class. Which cause a whole lot of problems. Most notably, a lack of demand.

It didn't help with the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank that helped banks to make those risky credits.

Yup, they should not have made those risky credits. Nor those ugly vaults.
I suspect you meant risky loans. Partially a cause. But when the middle class is getting hurt financially, and can not buy what they did, then companies stop expanding. And companies can not pay their loan payments. And there is little interest in new loans. And then, next thing you know, you find bankers trying to make all they can as fast as they can. And investments go through the roof. And the stock market rises like a rocket. All based on bankers making bets with other people's money. And because, since they were not regulated, they could. And those securities were not worth their printed value, by a long shot. And the net result was 1929,

Now, since you think that those fdr stimulus programs were bad, then perhaps you are now ready to answer the question I asked you last time. In the five years prior to the March 1933 inaguration of fdr, the gov did as you believe it should have, and stayed out of the way of business. And the unemployment rate went up over 20%. Why is it that you would think anyone would believe doing as they did during that period of time would be a good idea after fdr took office? Or in other words, the definition of crazy is doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. Seems obvious that someone who expects better results is, techically, bat shit crazy.

 

[jasonnfree]

Conservative Solutions -
The free market system, competitive capitalism, and private enterprise create the greatest opportunity and the highest standard of living for all. Free markets produce more economic growth, more jobs and higher standards of living than those systems burdened by excessive government regulation.

Proof of this is where this has been applied anywhere in the World.
This ideology is exactly what has made us the wealthiest nation on Earth.
No other Nation in the world brings in 2.7 Trillion in Taxes.

School vouchers create competition and therefore encourage schools to improve performance. Vouchers will give all parents the right to choose good schools for their children, not just those who can afford private schools.
This program is working great where it has been implemented. Especially in Washington D.C. for the poor.

Oil, gas and coal are all good sources of energy and are abundant in the U.S. Oil drilling should be increased both on land and at sea. Increased domestic production creates lower prices and less dependence on other countries for oil. Support increased production of nuclear energy. Wind and solar sources will never provide plentiful, affordable sources of power. Support private ownership of gas and electric industries.

Coal pollution has been reduced by 86 to over 90% by using filters.
These filters are beginning to become even more effective through technology.
Energy plants themselves are experimenting with alternate types of cheap energy.

Support competitive, free market health care system. All Americans have access to health care. The debate is about who should pay for it. Free and low-cost government-run programs (socialized medicine) result in higher costs and everyone receiving the same poor-quality health care. Health care should remain privatized. The problem of uninsured individuals should be addressed and solved within the free market healthcare system – the government should not control healthcare.
This is working very well where it has been applied throughout the country.

Social Security must be made more efficient through privatization and/or allowing individuals to manage their own savings.

Oppose long-term welfare. Opportunities should be provided to make it possible for those in need to become self-reliant. It is far more compassionate and effective to encourage people to become self-reliant, rather than allowing them to remain dependent on the government for provisions.


Lower taxes and a smaller government with limited power will improve the standard of living for all. Lower taxes create more incentive for people to work, save, invest, and engage in entrepreneurial endeavors. Money is best spent by those who earn it, not the government.
This has worked wherever it has been applied.
It brings growth.
Higher taxes and a large Government stifles growth. Any Government that has done this does not have growth.

Sure, let's pursue increased production of nuclear energy especially after what we saw happen in fukushima.