If Conservatives were Right...

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2011 10:57 PM GMT
    Very interesting op-ed:

    "If conservatives were right, there would be an easy remedy for our ailing economy.

    The current conservative approach to fixing our finances relies on a simple theory: rich people and corporations are the ones who create jobs for everyone else. Therefore, in times of high unemployment, the best way to create more employment is to ensure that the wealthy become even wealthier so that they will feel comfortable spending the money on creating jobs. And in turn, that goal can be accomplished through a series of tax cuts aimed at corporations and wealthy individuals, as well as through eliminating regulations that hamper employers in their quest for maximum profit. Conservative economics also stipulates that public spending distorts the free market and thus interferes with private growth; therefore, spending on things outside of absolute necessities such as national defense should be curtailed. This applies especially to entitlement spending that does not allow the market to determine winners and losers to its full potential.

    To nobody's surprise, conservatives are proposing exactly this, though with a boldness rarely before seen. In the past, they were always more wary of exposing their true colors, presumably fearing a populist electorate that would not be too keen on eliminating programs that guaranteed a dignified retirement to fund more tax cuts for the wealthy. These were policy initiatives that either had to be chiseled at from the edges or passed more surreptitiously. The 2010 Republican wave election changed that mentality, however; Paul Ryan is openly promoting an evisceration of Medicare, while House Republicans are touting their "recovery" package as a "plan for America's job creators."

    The GOP's problem goes beyond the fact that America is not ready to accept what conservatives believe is a badly needed better medicine and might punish them at the polls for offering it; the larger inconvenience is that their ideology is demonstrably wrong.

    It goes without saying that economic growth is affected by many factors, but if higher marginal tax rates were always as strong an impediment to growth as conservatives claim, and if spending cuts were always as much an enticement to growth as they claim, the economy should be going gangbusters–especially compared to periods in American history that conservatives often dream of reliving. Much to the chagrin and total embarrassment of Reps. Darrell Issa and Lee Terry, Americans are on average paying the lowest tax rates in 60 years–lower, even, than those under the practically beatified conservative icon Ronald Reagan. Yet the economy is limping along and job growth is weak.

    If conservatives were right, these American job creators would be using their already enormous cash reserves to grow their businesses and create jobs for the rest of us. But they're not, choosing instead to plow their cash into mergers, acquisitions and divided distributions rather than hiring back laid-off workers. Similarly: if conservatives were right and drastic cuts to public spending were the solution to financial trouble, then Great Britain would be on its way to recovery after the austerity measures put in place by the Tory government. But the situation across the Atlantic is arguably worse than before.

    Low tax rates. Profits for so-called "job creators." Spending cuts. The three things that conservatives say are most necessary for achieving a healthy economy are all occurring at historic levels. If conservatives were right, there could be no way that the economic situation could be this bad on either side of the pond. But it is, and that leads to one inescapable logical conclusion: conservative economic policies are not good for job creation or the overall economy.

    Having established that conservatives are wrong, where do we go from here? "What works" seems like a reasonable alternative. And what works? Public investment in infrastructure and preparing our country for the future. It's a method with a proven track record: the much-maligned stimulus is universally agreed to have created around three million jobs. President Obama's decision to have the Treasury intervene to support "Big Three" automakers saved a staple of American industry and allowed those companies to restructure themselves to become profitable. As a result, the once-ubiquitous shouts of "Government Motors" have been silenced.

    But that doesn't change the situation in which progressives currently find themselves. Conservative solutions have been proven to be objectively inadequate, while the only solutions that have been proven to be even remotely effective are the only ones that are considered unthinkable. This is partially the result of the fact that these conservative policy nonstarters receive constant promotion on their own personal propaganda network, and the fact that we have a president who seems unwilling to tolerate too much success. But just as important is the failure to have a unified message that touts not just the contrast between conservative and progressive economic theory, but touts the shocking difference in the results of the implementations of these competing theories just within the past few years.

    If you're in a recession and you want to create jobs, progressive solutions that invest in infrastructure and put people to work are the answer. Conservative trickle-down solutions do nothing, or make the problem worse. So choose the progressive solution. And on the way, you just might get cleaner air and water, faster commutes, better schools and more livable communities. It's not really a hard decision."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2011 11:10 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidVery interesting op-ed:

    "If conservatives were right, there would be an easy remedy for our ailing economy.

    The current conservative approach to fixing our finances relies on a simple theory: rich people and corporations are the ones who create jobs for everyone else. Therefore, in times of high unemployment, the best way to create more employment is to ensure that the wealthy become even wealthier so that they will feel comfortable spending the money on creating jobs. ......

    Your op-ed writer does not consider other reasons the wealthy and corporations are not comfortable hiring at present. No use presenting them. It has previously been discussed, along with supporting polls, but that has been rejected out of hand by supporters of the Administration who only want to hear their own facts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2011 11:22 PM GMT
    The outdated model today's Conservatives use is that of the old-time capitalist who actually tried to build something tangible: a Carnegie and the steel industry, perhaps, a Rockefeller and oil. They had their flaws (very serious ones) but they did BUILD, and they created whole new industries.

    A hundred years after them today's capitalists are playing Monopoly, with paper money, accumulating wealth for the sake of wealth, but building & creating nothing tangible. That's why you see few jobs being generated, and few real capital investments.

    There are exceptions in the technology sector, and the some of the old stalwarts, the auto industry (I do love Ford) and some of the remaining Blue Chip companies. But too many have gone into the business of merely manipulating money, not making money in the true sense of producing things & jobs. And that is what has brought us down, and may kill us.

    But Republicans are getting their share, and money means they can have political power. The fate of the people is of no interest to them. The people's role is to vote as they are told, to support their Republican Masters, or to be threatened with being labeled "against us." The "us" presumably being the U.S., but in reality being the Republicans themselves.

    And here's the truth: rich people produce nothing more than already exists. Those who produce are the entrepreneurs: the Edisons, the Fords, the Gates, the Jobs. A system which rewards entrenched wealth is bound to fail. And that is what Republicans are doing, because that is the fullest teat at which they can suck.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2011 11:31 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidVery interesting op-ed:

    "If conservatives were right, there would be an easy remedy for our ailing economy.

    The current conservative approach to fixing our finances relies on a simple theory: rich people and corporations are the ones who create jobs for everyone else. Therefore, in times of high unemployment, the best way to create more employment is to ensure that the wealthy become even wealthier so that they will feel comfortable spending the money on creating jobs. ......

    Your op-ed writer does not consider other reasons the wealthy and corporations are not comfortable hiring at present. No use presenting them. It has previously been discussed, along with supporting polls, but that has been rejected out of hand by supporters of the Administration who only want to hear their own facts.


    The "uncertainty" argument? It's silly at best and ludicrous at worst. It may fire up the rubes in the Tea Party, but anyone who has ever left one job for a better one, apparently has more cajones than corporate America.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2011 11:33 PM GMT
    Can somebody tell me for whom the founders of Google, Facebook and other net entrepreneurs vote?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2011 11:37 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidVery interesting op-ed:

    "If conservatives were right, there would be an easy remedy for our ailing economy.

    The current conservative approach to fixing our finances relies on a simple theory: rich people and corporations are the ones who create jobs for everyone else. Therefore, in times of high unemployment, the best way to create more employment is to ensure that the wealthy become even wealthier so that they will feel comfortable spending the money on creating jobs. ......

    Your op-ed writer does not consider other reasons the wealthy and corporations are not comfortable hiring at present. No use presenting them. It has previously been discussed, along with supporting polls, but that has been rejected out of hand by supporters of the Administration who only want to hear their own facts.


    The "uncertainty" argument? It's silly at best and ludicrous at worst. It may fire up the rubes in the Tea Party, but anyone who has ever left one job for a better one, apparently has more cajones than corporate America.

    Supported by polls, but also the NLRB stacked with union lawyers. Best motivation for companies to move jobs abroad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2011 11:37 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    The "uncertainty" argument? It's silly at best and ludicrous at worst. It may fire up the rubes in the Tea Party, but anyone who has ever left one job for a better one, apparently has more cajones than corporate America.


    You mean the "partisan regime uncertainty"?
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1604066/

    It's not silly. My mom (who's really, REALLY conservative) predicted it would happen. She has been tightening her purse strings ever since Obama got elected...and she scolds me for spending for stuff like personal trainers. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2011 11:40 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    Christian73 said
    The "uncertainty" argument? It's silly at best and ludicrous at worst. It may fire up the rubes in the Tea Party, but anyone who has ever left one job for a better one, apparently has more cajones than corporate America.


    You mean the "partisan regime uncertainty"?
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1604066/

    It's not silly. My mom (who's really, REALLY conservative) predicted it would happen. She has been tightening her purse strings ever since Obama got elected...and she scolds me for spending for stuff like personal trainers. icon_lol.gif


    That's not uncertainty. Rather, it's an excuse for allowing partisan ideology to drive business decisions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2011 11:42 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidCan somebody tell me for whom the founders of Google, Facebook and other net entrepreneurs vote?


    California voter registration records are not public. I suspect most of them are personally rather apolitical.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2011 11:47 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidVery interesting op-ed:

    "If conservatives were right, there would be an easy remedy for our ailing economy.

    The current conservative approach to fixing our finances relies on a simple theory: rich people and corporations are the ones who create jobs for everyone else. Therefore, in times of high unemployment, the best way to create more employment is to ensure that the wealthy become even wealthier so that they will feel comfortable spending the money on creating jobs. ......

    Your op-ed writer does not consider other reasons the wealthy and corporations are not comfortable hiring at present. No use presenting them. It has previously been discussed, along with supporting polls, but that has been rejected out of hand by supporters of the Administration who only want to hear their own facts.


    The "uncertainty" argument? It's silly at best and ludicrous at worst. It may fire up the rubes in the Tea Party, but anyone who has ever left one job for a better one, apparently has more cajones than corporate America.

    Supported by polls, but also the NLRB stacked with union lawyers. Best motivation for companies to move jobs abroad.


    Ridiculous. Here's what's certain. Corporations and the rich have the lowest effective tax rate in 60 years. The past 40 years have been an orgy of deregulation of financial, environmental and occupational regulations. The Supreme Court has allowed them to spend unlimited amounts of money. And last week, class actions (the only remaining way for everyday Americans to right against corporate predation), was gutted.

    By your own standards, the money should be flowing and jobs popping up like dandelions. But there not.

    Maybe it's because 40 years of conservative economics have gutted the middle class and wiped out their purchasing power, as Walmart is now learning:

    "For marketers, the growing disconnect in the market can have big implications. Perhaps none feels it more acutely than Walmart, caught in a classic middle-class squeeze.

    The $100,000-plus households who traded down to Walmart at the beginning of the recession have been returning to their old shopping haunts. But more of Walmart's core consumers have been trading down to smaller sizes, lower-ticket items and closer locations amid rising gas prices -- all offered by dollar or drug stores. The result: Eight straight quarters of declining same-store sales for Walmart with a ninth a real possibility."

    I hate to say "I told you so..."

    [url]http://adage.com/article/news/consumer-divide-decide-marketing-s-winners-losers/228414/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20adage/homepage%20%28Advertising%20Age%20-%20Homepage%29[/url]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2011 12:17 AM GMT
    Christian73 said..By your own standards, the money should be flowing and jobs popping up like dandelions. But there not. ...

    Not by my standards. By my standards the jobs will improve when pro-job policies are put in place by the next Administration.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2011 12:55 AM GMT
    All this nonsense about tax cuts not creating jobs will be dispelled once and for all when the Bush tax cuts are due to have their effects by 2012 and beyond, as history shows:

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1643635

    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2011 3:13 AM GMT
    Where are all the Jobs those Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest among us were supposed to produce ? We've had about ten years of them, BUT WHERE ARE THE JOBS ? If the Republicans were right, then Bush's jobs creation record during his administration wouldn't have been at the bottom of the list since the Great Depression. Yet these TBaggers and Republicans have the balls to keep suggesting the same already failed policies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2011 5:44 AM GMT
    What you need to do is stop focusing on the conservatives, and blaming them for Americas failing economy, and start to demand what I Obama doing to fix it? The fact the only real change he has given America is in your pockets, you should be demanding it loudly too, because the situation now belongs to him, and Not GW Bush.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jun 27, 2011 7:56 AM GMT
    Good speech.

    If Obama loses in 2012, it will be his own fault for not getting the OP message out to the voters. I also blame him for not doing something to get jobs and money into the hands of the middle class. He had 2 years to do it, and it certainly should have had a higher priority than universal health care.

    Economic prosperity happens when the middle class spends money.

    An ever shrinking middle class, with high unemployment, kills economic prosperity because they can't afford to buy anything more than the bare necessities.

    And, putting more money in rich people's pockets doesn't create jobs. If it did, we would have had extremely low unemployment during the past 10 years, during the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. The wealthy don't create more jobs. They invest their extra money in stocks and bonds to produce more wealth for themselves.

    What really creates more jobs is the need for more goods and services. But, we don't have a need for more goods and services because the middle class is largely unemployed.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Jun 27, 2011 12:57 PM GMT
    tumblr_lkehkezf2t1qa1hylo1_500.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2011 12:59 PM GMT
    Webster666 saidGood speech.

    If Obama loses in 2012, it will be his own fault for not getting the OP message out to the voters. I also blame him for not doing something to get jobs and money into the hands of the middle class. He had 2 years to do it, and it certainly should have had a higher priority than universal health care.

    Economic prosperity happens when the middle class spends money.

    An ever shrinking middle class, with high unemployment, kills economic prosperity because they can't afford to buy anything more than the bare necessities.

    And, putting more money in rich people's pockets doesn't create jobs. If it did, we would have had extremely low unemployment during the past 10 years, during the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. The wealthy don't create more jobs. They invest their extra money in stocks and bonds to produce more wealth for themselves.

    What really creates more jobs is the need for more goods and services. But, we don't have a need for more goods and services because the middle class is largely unemployed.


    =============================================


    We sure agree on this one !!!! +++++++++++++++++++++++
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jun 27, 2011 1:10 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]socalfitness said...Supported by polls, but also the NLRB stacked with union lawyers. Best motivation for companies to move jobs abroad.[/quote]

    weren't many/most of formerly American jobs moved out of the USA during the reagan and bush GOP administrations, when federal laws allowing this to happen were relaxed?



    icon_confused.gif
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jun 27, 2011 1:12 PM GMT
    Webster666 saidGood speech.

    If Obama loses in 2012, it will be his own fault for not getting the OP message out to the voters. I also blame him for not doing something to get jobs and money into the hands of the middle class. He had 2 years to do it, and it certainly should have had a higher priority than universal health care.

    Economic prosperity happens when the middle class spends money.

    An ever shrinking middle class, with high unemployment, kills economic prosperity because they can't afford to buy anything more than the bare necessities.

    And, putting more money in rich people's pockets doesn't create jobs. If it did, we would have had extremely low unemployment during the past 10 years, during the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. The wealthy don't create more jobs. They invest their extra money in stocks and bonds to produce more wealth for themselves.

    What really creates more jobs is the need for more goods and services. But, we don't have a need for more goods and services because the middle class is largely unemployed.








    yes!!!




    Q F T
    icon_exclaim.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2011 1:38 PM GMT
    rnch saidweren't many/most of formerly American jobs moved out of the USA during the reagan and bush GOP administrations, when federal laws allowing this to happen were relaxed?

    What specific laws were relaxed to supposedly "allow" companies to move jobs abroad? Many jobs did leave during all administrations of both parties because of the cheap labor not offset by transportation costs. The policies of this current Administration, specifically the NLRB, will further motivate the trend. Specific example - Boeing. Best motivation for a company to not create jobs in right-to-work states, and those already there, to expand abroad.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jun 27, 2011 1:47 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]socalfitness said... The policies of this current Administration, specifically the NLRB, will further motivate the trend. Specific example - Boeing. Best motivation for a company to not create jobs in right-to-work states, and those already there, to expand abroad.[/quote]


    ah yes, the "typical" wealthy Republican "i've got mine/fuck you" union busting response!

    if the GOP has their way, what's left of the union supporting, tax paying middle class will be eliminated and the "workers of the world" will be earning next to nothing and buying high priced groceries at the company store.


    sometimes you selfish Republicans disgust the hell outta me!


    icon_mad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2011 2:10 PM GMT
    rnch said[quote][cite]socalfitness said... The policies of this current Administration, specifically the NLRB, will further motivate the trend. Specific example - Boeing. Best motivation for a company to not create jobs in right-to-work states, and those already there, to expand abroad.


    ah yes, the "typical" wealthy Republican "i've got mine/fuck you" union busting response!

    if the GOP has their way, what's left of the union supporting, tax paying middle class will be eliminated and the "workers of the world" will be earning next to nothing and buying high priced groceries at the company store.

    sometimes you selfish Republicans disgust the hell outta me![/quote]


    Emotions versus logic. If you read what I wrote, I commented about policies by the NLRB that ultimately hurt jobs. Jobs in South Carolina aren't as important as those elsewhere? No union jobs were lost in Washington, but that didn't matter. If you care so much about people out of work, what do you say to those in South Carolina?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2011 2:35 PM GMT
    socalfitness said No use presenting them.


    Just like, apparently, there is no use for verbs in sentences.

    Save a life: add a verb! :-)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2011 4:30 PM GMT
    A double tax for any company that moves jobs out of the country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2011 4:43 PM GMT
    ConfederateGhost saidA double tax for any company that moves jobs out of the country.

    In your dreams. icon_lol.gif
    How about just getting rid of the tax CUT for corporations to move jobs overseas first?
    http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2010/nov/21/sheldon-whitehouse/whitehouse-says-companies-get-tax-break-moving-job/