Lol, this sort of shit never fails to make me giggle. People saying things like, "The Republicans are trying to help us get out of this economic hole and the Democrats are trying to destroy the country so they can rebuild it in their communist image," or, "The Democrats are trying to help the people and the Republicans are only in it to screw everyone for their own personal gain."
If you've allowed one of the major political parties in this country to convince you that one side is pure and correct and noble and the other side is purely corrupt and definitively incorrect, congratulations: your thick coat of natural wool will keep you sufficiently warm in nearly any climate.
Neither side is correct on every issue. But it seems the Republicans continue to get it wrong on the most important issue of all, the economy. We simply cannot allow for the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place to continue on and bankrupt this country.
If they came up with new ideas, Id listen, but theyre regurgitating the same "CUT TAXES ON THE RICH" nonsense.
When I got into debt, I cut back on my expenses and then got a second job. More revenue AND less expenses fixed my cashflow problems.
Theres simply no way we are going to fix the economic problems inherent in our system unless we do BOTH. Not one, not the other, but BOTH.
In all fairness, I haven't seen a lot of Republican proposals to lower taxes on the rich in the last few years. I've heard proposals to refrain from raising their taxes, but not any to cut them further. You might consider this a small difference, but it must be noted.
Also, your analogy isn't one that applies here. Our economy can't be summed up in a single entity with a singular amount of debt and expenses and a singular amount of money kinda statement. With your personal finances, you are the only person truly involved. All debt and all bills are -your- debt and -your- bills, and all revenue is -your- revenue. In our economy, everybody's got their own debt, bills, and revenue, and we are not all encompassed by "the government". Therefore, giving the government more revenue to help the economy isn't the same as giving you more revenue to help your personal finances. . . its infinitely more complex.
Also, with your personal finances, you're allowed to make hard, selfish decisions when its necessary to pull yourself out of a money hole. I'm willing to bet that when you're broke, you aren't out dropping significant portions of your rent money into United Way collection boxes and deciding to go on expensive vacations cuz, hell, you -deserve- it, nevermind the price. The government is not so singularly focused -or- chastened. Government officials (on both sides of the isle, not just Republicans) are beholden to various special interest groups and voting blocks. They don't have the same leeway to look at a corporate welfare agenda that provides kickbacks toward campaign funds for their party, or at a public give-away program that helps sway a large voting demographic, and say, "Sorry. We ain't got the money for that shit right now." We have to keep in mind that government officials are just people like us, and, like us, are generally creatures of self-interest. Putting more revenue in their hands won't ensure a better economy, it'll ensure that they have to tell less of their special interest buddies that they're too broke to give 'em more stuff.
Regardless of whether demand side or supply side arguments hold any merit, you're also making the -BIG- assumption that if the government had more revenue they'd put it to good use. I know it sounds cliche, but Solyndra's a good example. The president's economic advisers knew exactly when Solyndra was going to go under, based on its business model. Nevertheless, billions were given to this company simply because they're a green technology company and that's a big part of the current Democrat agenda (some people argue that it's because they're the president's bundlers, and I'm not convinced that some of the motives here weren't nefarious, but for the sake of this argument we'll assume it was all 100% above board). The argument you keep hearing in the news is that, even though the government knew this investment would fail it was still a good thing to throw money at because we need to further green technology. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but only a portion of that money (if any at all) actually went into R&D for Solyndra, but a very significant amount of it went to expenses related to the financially sub-par manufacturing of their product, and a significant portion of that money went into the pockets of the company's executives. If the ultimate purpose here was furthering solar technology, could that money not have been put to infinitely better use by, I don't know, maybe hiring some scientists at NASA specifically for solar power R&D? You know how much research they could have gotten done for a few bil? Neither do I, but I'm willing to bet everything I own that it would have yielded more advancement in solar technology than throwing all of that money at a VERIFIED financial black hole.
This is the sort of bullshit decision the government makes with their revenue, so I'm sorry. . . for my money, the jury's still out on whether or not the Democrat solutions to the economy are any better than the Republican ones.
