I`d suggest that presidential candidate shouldn`t be leaving things up
to interpretation, where people say, "this is what he meant." Then
other say, "no, that`s what he meant."
I totally agree. BTW, might know that one of my first posts on SN would be on political thread. :) But it`s important that folks understand the facts and what the numbers REALLY tell us.
So here`s the problem I have. The 2004 poll that Soloman noted did consist of 1000 economists. But the pollster only reported the 264 questionnaires that were completed and NOT the 736 that were incomplete for whatever reason.The Numbers
The poll asked 18 questions and covered other issues like redistribution, minimum wage laws, gun control, prostitution control, hard drug control, etc. It also listed the political party of the Economists as well as their economic profession.Of the 264 Economists
, 128 were Economic Professors, 43 worked in the Public sector, and 18 were Independent Researchers for a total of about 72%. Only 75 were in the Private sector
Of the 264 Economists only 214 listed their political affiliation. Nearly 75% indicated that they were Democrats.
In reality, the poll consisted of mostly Democrats (75%) that were not in the Public sector (72%).
So, it should come as no surprise that 71% of the Economists polled and accepted support redistribution (which also includes welfare, social security, and some sort of a progressive tax bracket) and 72% also support tighter gun control.
Over the next 4-8 years Americans will learn that a trickle up economy just doesn`t work. A capitalist society, one in which everyone has equal *opportunity*, needs people to generate wealth at the top so they can fund the jobs at the bottom so folks can buy more stuff.
I`ve already gone on longer than what I have time for, but...
The richest 1% already pay 37% of the nations income taxes. The richest 50% pay 97% of our Nation`s income taxes. The bottom 50% only pay 3%. That`s why the rich get tax cuts... because the rich are the ones paying the taxes. How can you give a tax cut to someone that pays very little taxes in the first place? How much more can you possibly shift the burden?
The answer is that you can`t. That`s why for the first time in our country`s history 40% of the people that Barack Obama`s plan will send a check to, don`t pay any income taxes. Do you breathe air? Get your freebate check!
To think that we can increase taxes on a handful of people at the top by 5-13% and ask them to carry even more weight than they`re already carrying is completely absurd and unfair.
Obama also wants to increase minimum wage to $9.50 over the next year and his energy & environment agenda will cause energy and transportation prices to skyrocket for everyone - rich or poor.
Is anyone naive enough to think that companies like Wal-mart will just eat their losses and NOT pass the added expenses on to consumers... the very people that Obama`s plan is suppose to help?
This is why 2,384 years ago, (when dinosaurs still roamed the earth according to Matt Damon) Plato argued (paraphrasing because I don`t speak Greek), "What`s good for the Individual, is not always good for the People because Individuals don`t always know what`s best for them."
Translation: "What the hell good does a $500 check do me at the end of the year if I`m paying $7 for a loaf of Wonder bread and I can`t find a job?"
hellowebguy11/11/2008 1:31 PM
for a FREE list of 20 High PR backlinks to boost your search engine rankings?
Follow me on Twitter
(nevermind my politics, though)