Ask Me Help Desk - Obama admits big government doesn't work

There is NO school of economics that justifies tax cuts for the 'trickle down' effect. Let me make it very simple for you. Conservatives believe that money in the private sector is more productive than money in the government's hands. Therefore money in the public sector should be limited ;taxes and government spending minimalized as much as possible. That is the policies of Hayek ,and Friedman ,and Laffer among others.
Your policies by contrast guarantee statist capitalism with all the cronyism you decry . In fact ,I would say that it is Keynesian economics that is really a so called 'trickle down ' theory . The Leviathan takes wealth from producers and trickles a small portion of it through their patronage machine to give a small percentage back to 'the Public' in the form of payoffs .

I said nothing of tax cuts. But the redeeming quality of Reagan was being flexible with raising revenues in times of needs. We are no longer flexible and the time in need is NOW.

A vigorous society has to be flexible and not stuck in the ideology divide. We are all capitalist, but to keep it strictly in the hands of a few capitalist does us no good. LOL, even Reagan raised taxes, and grew government, and had deficit spending during economic downturns.

He didn't try to shrink government so small the country wouldn't grow and expand to meet the needs of a few. I can't believe I am defending a conservative president's fiscal policy to a conservative!!!!!!

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

Conservatives believe that money in the private sector is more productive than money in the government's hands.

If what you believe is true, we ought to be at FULL EMPLOYMENT. The private sector has TONS and TONS of money. But, it ain't trickling down.

What are they DOING with their cash??? They're buying their own stock back. That doesn't create jobs. It keeps the CEO's salary high, because he's paid in stock.

excon

yeah the buy back puts cash in the hands of the investors . Thanks for proving my point. What will the investors do ? They will use the money in the economy .

Quote:

What will the investors do ? They will use the money in the economy .

The chinese economy.

The option would be more expensive consumer products . Do you really think there would be a thriving textile industry in the US if foreign imports were banned ? No way. The fact is that the US has had a history of textile protectionism and it did nothing to save American textile jobs. For years we've had import quotas ,antidumping restrictions,safeguard mechanisms, carve outs, and rules of origin in trade agreements and “Buy American” provisions written into legislation . The same is true in most industries where we compete in the globe . At least Clete's argument to protect strategic industries makes a degree of sense. Protectionism beyond safety measures punishes the consumer .

Well you pretty much just proved that big corp sucks in wealth and holds on to it by spending as little as possible, usually outside the US.

Quote:

At least Clete's argument to protect strategic industries makes a degree of sense. Protectionism beyond safety measures punishes the consumer

Well thank you for that backhanded accolade Tom I didn't think anyone reads what I write. I have never denied we want a strong private sector but when the private sectors idea of investment is to do it some place else it is time to take stock and say this open borders policy for goods isn't working. Those who are making money in our economies are importing goods at rediculously low prices and gouging profits under the disguise of enterprise. You say money in thier hands provides a general benefit from which the majority will benefit through investment and employment. Look around, it isn't happening because that economic model is outdated. the consequence of freeing the slaves is the slave owners looked elsewhere for those they could exploit, it took a long time but it happened

IN 50 years of asking this question, a Gallup poll shows more Americans than ever - 72% - see “big government” as our biggest threat:

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gal...lfbphys0qq.png

I'm in that group, along with 56% of Democrats.

Since you've lost control of your government to big corp that ship has sailed and cannot be fixed.

Yes, big government and big business are an inseparable partnership.

Then why do lib/progressive statists think they can keep big government without the influence of big business ?

It has nothing to do with "lib/progressives". Both parties are at fault - this you need to realize. It's non-partisan.

Why can't they work together and be effective and FAIR instead of just self serving selectively?

Quote:

It has nothing to do with "lib/progressives". Both parties are at fault - this you need to realize. It's non-partisan.

Assuming again.

Quote:

Why can't they work together and be effective and FAIR instead of just self serving selectively?

Why can't government be fair? The IRS targeting conservatives, DOJ carving out millions for community organizers when it should go to the taxpayers, giving people with more a handout while taking everything back from poor people?

Quote:

Assuming again.

Assuming what? It's what he posted. Did I stutter?

No, I understood this quite clearly.

Quote:

Both parties are at fault - this you need to realize. It's non-partisan.

unfortunately there are big statist Repubics too .Schmucks like Speaker Bonehead and Paul Ryan ,and John McCain ,who , in the spirit of "compromise "(aka sellout ),would stab disabled Vets in the back

99% of them are like that.

and the rest are the conservatives /TP

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Then why do lib/progressive statists think they can keep big government without the influence of big business ?

They might think that, but they are wrong.

I don't think doing what's good for business at the expense of working class Americans with policies that make them poorer is a good position for republicans to take.

I mean if you want to cut social welfare programs and not cut corporate welfare programs then most would agree that's an unfair stance to take. Especially when you protect job creators and label working poor people as lazy takers and argue they deserve no help or relief after a recession, and big business has done great recovering and hoarding.

You take pensions for people who have worked, subsidies big business labor costs and then argue for no minimum wage increase, and swear extending unemployment for workers who are seeking jobs that aren't there don't deserve a dime. How can you even say redistribution of the wealth is bad and at the same time most of the wealth goes to fewer people?

Go ahead give big business more, and take from the ones who have nothing, and gotten nothing, and can expect nothing. Who are the real takers here Tom?

How you can keep griping about policies that make us poorer while Obama is making me and many others poorer is beyond me.

Well said by the guy who takes prevailing wage benefits while doing nothing to get them. Go ask your boss why he hasn't given you a raise and go ask the insurance company why they can't cut your premiums.

All big business has to do is blame government/Obama for jacking up the prices, and you haters go yeah, yeah, and they run to the bank with more of your money like they have always done. Go tell Ted to quite costing you money, and send some to you. Why you haven't is beyond me.

Excuse me, I do Ok for myself when the government isn't busy making my insurance cost more, keeping the economy stagnant, doing all it can to make energy prices skyrocket, raising taxes and fees, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Who are the real takers here Tom?

The government of course . You still try to disconnect the Dems from the government polices ,and place total blame on the Repubics (who I've already admitted share some of the blame ...especially the inside the beltway statist Repubics). You think the Dems are the champions of the down-trodden when at best ;all they do is sing the right chorus while in fact either doing nothing to fix it ,or enacting laws which have unintended consequences of doing the opposite.Good intentions don't get it done..

The song you guys sing is against all the things we want, higher minimum wage, unemployment insurance, and a jobs bill that partners government with or without big business.

Cruz, Rubio, Paul, lead the chorus of just say NO!! What's there intentions?

Quote:

The song you guys sing is against all the things we want, higher minimum wage, unemployment insurance, and a jobs bill that partners government with or without big business.

Cruz, Rubio, Paul, lead the chorus of just say NO!! What's there intentions?

Of course its against things you want, which is total government dependence. But here's a scoop for you and your constant union apologies, Scott Walker's Public Employee Union reform has led to decertification of more than 70 teacher's unions.

Seems more and more workers are rejecting unions that gouge them and the taxpayers to fatten their own wallets and engage in liberal political activism instead of looking after their interests.

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, well paid teachers and well paid factory workers aren't fertile ground for union's any more.. It's kinda hard, as you know, to support the WELL PAID.

So, that's why they're organizing the fast food workers. They're the garment workers of today. To ME, they're NOT hard to support. You??? Nahhhh... You LIKE that they make $7.25/hr.

excon

Bless your heart, you really think the unions are actually trying to help these people.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

Bless your heart, you really think the unions are actually trying to help these people.

Do you think I wanna HELP my employees when I hire them??? Altruistic, I AIN'T.

Bless your heart too, Steve.

excon

Unions helped you get the wages and benefits you have now without YOU lifting a finger, or spending a dime.

Quote:

Unions helped you get the wages and benefits you have now without YOU lifting a finger, or spending a dime.

And that means I should bow to their political agenda? I don't think so, and apparently a lot more union think the same way hence the WI votes. The unions just see a way to try and build up their dwindling membership by hooking in fast food workers so they can pad their wallets again and fund their radical politics.

So it's was okay for YOU to benefit from unions helping workers, but fast food workers should not have that benefit?

What do you call a guy that bad mouth's somebody that helped them for NO CHARGE?

Quote:

So it's was okay for YOU to benefit from unions helping workers, but fast food workers should not have that benefit?

Who's stopping them from unionizing? Not me. Good luck with that.

Quote:

What do you call a guy that bad mouth's somebody that helped them for NO CHARGE?

A liberal.

Welcome aboard :D