I appreciate those of you who have asked polite questions, shown genuine curiosity, rather than visceral emotional responses, and have respected my right to have an opinion that differs from yours.
asked what is is that attracts me to Mcain. It is not so much that I am attracted to McCain as I am diametrically opposed to most of Obama's
(
Read more... )
Bully! So are a ton of moderate Democrats. You might be surprised to find what a meaningless phrase this is because there is absolutely no person in American politics who believes it's good to simply waste money without doing something that improves general welfare. That latter phrase is a mandate from the Constitution.
I am pro defense spending. I am the daughter of a 30 year Navy veteran, and granddaughter and great granddughter twice over.
Bully! So are plenty of Democrats. See also Obama Beats McCain in Defense Contributions.
The economy- This is a time when we need plans that spur the growth of businesses, not inhibit them.
Business stimulus happens in a lot of ways. Economic wonks on the political right love to beat the drum of supply side economics, or the notion that loosening the taxes on businesses leads to new investment. This is actually a fairly controversial stand against demand side economics, the general Keynesian theory that the easiest way to stimulate business is to simply get consumers to do what they do best-- consume. To do that, you have to do something that raises aggregate wages or something that lightens the taxes on workers. This works because it raises demand which forces businesses to raise output, innovate products, etc. Supply side economics doesn't have much of a strong track record because it assumes that businesses are demand-creators. They're not. They meet demand capacity.
Health-care- I think Universal health care is a bad idea, in the end believe that more people are going to end up with worse health-care under a government plan.
It's possible, but regardless of that, it's shuffling deck chairs. Our health care system is already a rationing system.
By raising taxes on corporations you reduce the ability of those companies and individuals to create jobs here in the US.
See above about the myth of supply side economics.
This encourages companies to send jobs overseas.
Business tax cuts have also not stopped this. Wage arbitrage is an independent economic variable here.
Punishing companies for succeeding eliminates any incentive for growth and productivity. This is true for both corporations and on a personal level.
No, it doesn't. This is another supply side economics myth. Only with the marginal profit reaches negative will a business stop producing. There is virtually no tax structure ever considered that will do this.
Health-care professionals are already underpaid and overworked. Under a socialized plan, doctors will be paid a flat government determined rate.
No; that's only under the socialized health care system you're making up as a straw man to attack all systems.
My father is Head of Clinical Medicine for a Hospital in Lemoore. As it is now with MediCal, he is unable to prescribe medications that he knows are necessary, because MediCal won’t pay for them.
That happens all the time under private health insurance systems, too.
Ultimately, I believe in small government and self reliance with opportunity for personal and economic gain. I do not believe the rest of the world is entitled to the fruits of my labor just to “make it fair”.
No offense, but you receive welfare already. So do I. So does everyone.
It is an unfortunate reality, but prosperity cannot be legislated, it must be earned.
On the contrary, prosperity is always legislated. What do you think property rights are?
Reply
I am curious how you mean this. I know for a fact that I do not receive any regular checks, cards, or slips for products, services, or money... I receive compensation for work I do, sometimes in payment sometimes in barter, but that is not welfare. I pay for everything from my mascara to my health insurance (no, it is not through my employer).
Reply
Reply
You still haven't given a clear defense of your assertion. Show me. Don't give me pretty words.
Reply
I don't care to demonstrate further. If you're that wholly unfamiliar with the level of government welfare which shapes our market economics, there's very little more I can say.
Reply
And if it "isn't your job" to inform us lowly people, then why did you post? Don't throw things out there and expect us to swallow it whole, oherwise just go and shack up with Palin.
And, for the record, I do read the Economist... thank you very much. But, "baking" welfare into my paycheck wasn't in this last issue... was it perhaps a back issue I should check out?
I was trying to have an actual conversation, but do not think for one moment that I will be bullied by snide or a false sense of superiority.
Reply
All health care systems are rationing systems, including the one we currently have. Any proposed system may improve some features at the expense of others. That is, essentially, a shuffling of the deck chairs. You may improve some qualities at the expense of others. The question about a system of either socialized health insurance (that's really what is discussed in policy circles, not socialized medicine itself) or a truly socialized medicine system will itself create more detriments than benefits. I make no bones about it. Our current system has undesirable features. A new one will, too.
That said, my statement was in response to your comment saying that I'm practicing conspiracy theory because I believe that subsidies are a form of welfare.
And if it "isn't your job" to inform us lowly people, then why did you post?
Because I assumed the original audience, which isn't you, is more educated on the basics of the topics. So, don't say "us". That wasn't the plural-form "you".
And, for the record, I do read the Economist... thank you very much. But, "baking" welfare into my paycheck wasn't in this last issue... was it perhaps a back issue I should check out?
Hm. The article I linked you to is about how corporate welfare translates to welfare for everyone and how it's good. I guess you didn't read it. And I apologize because that's actually the San Antonio Business Journal. I misread the attribution. Either way, it's demonstrative of public policy discussions about welfare other than the entitlement programs you seem to quite mistakenly consider to constitute all of welfare.
The price of labor is absolutely set by the cost structures of employers. This includes subsidies they receive. You won't find that in The Economist because the people who write for it assume you know that already.
They likewise are happy to assume you're aware the the price you pay for most food is determined by the agricultural subsidy structure, because it is. Or that your prices for energy are broadly distorted through energy subsidies.
do not think for one moment that I will be bullied by snide or a false sense of superiority.
And do not think that I will be bullied by a mixture of aggression and ignorance.
Reply
Reply
The Hidden Welfare State: Tax Expenditures and Social Policy in the United States by Christopher Howard. I believe he's faculty at Princeton.
Reply
Leave a comment