Forums: Discussions for entrepreneurs and small business.

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...

<rant>

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?"

</rant>


-------------------------

Click here for a FREE list of 20 High PR backlinks to boost your search engine rankings?
-
Follow me on Twitter (nevermind my politics, though)

Wealth redistribution is theft...? Now that`s funny I guess you don`t support your current tax systems, medicaid, medicare, etc...Social capitalism is the way to go

Well, we`ve had arguments about this now for more than 25 years, going all the way back to Reagan. Lots of people made a joke of "Reagan-omics," and went on about the failure of "trickle-down" economics.

What`s nice about the 2008 election is that it`s definitive. There`s no question now who manages and even might control Congress completely. If the Democrats pass the magic 60 in the Senate, it looks like they`ll also have a fillibuster-proof vote there.

Then we`ll get a chance to experience true socialism, unfettered by controls or prevention. The dream will come true for everyone who believes in the beneficent government, "caring and compassionate" government agencies, and the superiority of government-managed healthcare and markets.

There isn`t anymore an "other side" to the argument. The people have spoken, and a majority voted for what comes next. Too many people have said, "Oh, well, let`s just wait and see." They believe in the promises, visions, and panaceas the modern Democratic party has promoted.

"We`ll muddle through it, somehow, but let`s wait and see." That`s the rallying cry that goes along with "change." For decades, many people have prevented all those hopes and dreams from taking place. And now, we really do get to "wait and see."

People like FunKnight will get a chance to wait and see, laugh and point, and celebrate that social capitalism is the way to go. We won`t have to rely on imagination, analysis, trend projections, and reasoned cause-and-effect.

Life will be paradise. The Workers will at last be liberated. The Rich will be "corrected," and the country will become a paradise. At least we`ll wait and see.

The only real question remaining is this: supposing it turns out to be wrong? What if social capitalism doesn`t work? What if redistribution and government management doesn`t work? How simple will it be then to have a "do-over?" What happens if we irrevocably change things, and can`t go back to the way things "used to be?" Then what?

I guess we`ll wait and see. And muddle through somehow. And hope for the best. And (insert favorite platitude here....)

Kruschev said it best****
The only real question remaining is this: supposing it turns out to be wrong? What if social capitalism doesn`t work? What if redistribution and government management doesn`t work? How simple will it be then to have a "do-over?" What happens if we irrevocably change things, and can`t go back to the way things "used to be?" Then what?
****
No worries. These questions were answered long before
Obama came along.

Karl Marx said that Socialism is the necessary step between
Capitalism and Communism.

Vladimir Lenin said that the way to crush the bourgeoisie
is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and
inflation.

But I think Kruschev said it best.


-------------------------

Click here for a FREE list of 20 High PR backlinks to boost your search engine rankings?
-
Follow me on Twitter (nevermind my politics, though)

I truly believe that the future of our economy is small businesses and the importance of minority, women and veteran-owned businesses.  To learn more about obtaining certifications for these businesses and how to leverage such certifications to secure business opportunities with government entities and Corporate America, check out a FREE 60-page interactive entrepreneur guide at our website.

The founders were very clear about the government having very limited roles in the daily lives of the people and business.  That is why congress can`t for example establish a national religion, though symbols of our Judeo-Christian tradition displays anywhere, even courts should not be a problem, and that is why most of the money should be with the states, and the cities and the citizen, not the Feds.  They and all government etc... should have a budget, an emergency fund and live by it, strictly. As I get older, I realize how crucial budgets, emergency funds and sticking to budgets is.  I am truly concerned that we will end up an unproductive socialist, nearly communist state if we keep up with unconditional bailouts etc...

I don`t want to get off on a tangent from the discussion that
Soloman started, but...

I don`t think we`ll ever see Communism in America. There`s
too many well-informed people that "cling to their guns and
religion" that`ll stop it from going that far.

Unfortunately, because of the stark contrast in ideologies in
America today, we`ll slide right into Anarchy if we keep heading
in the direction we`re going in.

Then, the new leader will decide what America becomes.


-------------------------

Click here for a FREE list of 20 High PR backlinks to boost your search engine rankings?
-
Follow me on Twitter (nevermind my politics, though)

Nah, it won`t be called "Dependence Day," it`ll be called "Entitlement Day."

Y`know that GMC "Jimmy" that sort of symbolizes Detroit? They`ll change that name to the GMC Gimme.