PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on April 21, 2016, 07:02:12 AM
-
I keep hearing liberals say how good the economy is.
The stock market is up and unemployment is down they say.
Ok, the economy is fine for me. Things look good for me. So I should believe them, shouldn't I.
But there are fewer people working than ever. Wages have stagnated.
Too many people can't survive without government assistance. I see these as bad things.
But I'm a conservative so I don't care about poor people (at least that's what I read in the paper).
And aren't liberals the one's that are supposed to worry about the poor people? Then why do they keep singing the praises of an economy that squashes the life and respectability out of poor people?
You can't fix a problem until you admit there is a problem. Government Assistance (or as I call them; government dis-incentive programs) are not fixing anything. They merely permit the poor to exist slightly above squalor, but if those poor people try to improve, they lose all that assistance. Most can't or wont' take that risk.
Liberals even admit that things like raising the minimum wage will hurt the very poorest because they will be put of reach of any job. Why is that ok with them?
Huge corporations (Apple, IBM, Google, GE etc) have trillions of dollars off-shore that they wold have to pay 40% taxes on if they repatriate that money. So they don't. Why would liberals prefer that money to stay out of our economy rather than allowing those corporations to keep it if they bring it back?
I think I have the emotional capability of being a liberal if they could bring logic and practicality to the table. A rich economy can take care of the poor. But a government that tries to drive a wedge between the rich and the poor is going to see a great divide between the rich and the poor. Which is EXACTLY what we have today.
-
I keep hearing liberals say how good the economy is.
The stock market is up and unemployment is down they say.
Ok, the economy is fine for me. Things look good for me. So I should believe them, shouldn't I.
But there are fewer people working than ever. Wages have stagnated.
Too many people can't survive without government assistance. I see these as bad things.
But I'm a conservative so I don't care about poor people (at least that's what I read in the paper).
And aren't liberals the one's that are supposed to worry about the poor people? Then why do they keep singing the praises of an economy that squashes the life and respectability out of poor people?
You can't fix a problem until you admit there is a problem. Government Assistance (or as I call them; government dis-incentive programs) are not fixing anything. They merely permit the poor to exist slightly above squalor, but if those poor people try to improve, they lose all that assistance. Most can't or wont' take that risk.
Liberals even admit that things like raising the minimum wage will hurt the very poorest because they will be put of reach of any job. Why is that ok with them?
Huge corporations (Apple, IBM, Google, GE etc) have trillions of dollars off-shore that they wold have to pay 40% taxes on if they repatriate that money. So they don't. Why would liberals prefer that money to stay out of our economy rather than allowing those corporations to keep it if they bring it back?
I think I have the emotional capability of being a liberal if they could bring logic and practicality to the table. A rich economy can take care of the poor. But a government that tries to drive a wedge between the rich and the poor is going to see a great divide between the rich and the poor. Which is EXACTLY what we have today.
Well said. "A rising tide lifts all boats" was a term that was ridiculed by the left when Reagan said it.
But the left's bloodhound-like obsession with class warfare is nothing new.
35 years ago, Margaret Thatcher, in a 1990 debate with a Liberal Democrat in the House of Commons who asked about the gap between the wealthy and the needy, said:
"What the honorable member is saying is that he would rather the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. So long as the gap is smaller, they would rather have the poor poorer. You do not create wealth and opportunity that way. You do not create a property-owning democracy that way."
-
Ask first what their definition of "good" is. Then you'll get your answer.
-
Money doesn't filter down, it's drawn up.
-
Money doesn't filter down, it's drawn up.
That's ridiculous.
-
The Federal government is lying about both the unemployment rate, and the inflation rate. This economy sucks. Liberals believe it is good because they believe the government's, and media's lies.
-
Money doesn't filter down, it's drawn up.
For the most part, that is a croc.
It might do that when you get the government involved. But in a free market, money flows both ways. When the government levies taxes on the wealthy, they tend to move their money in ways that reduce that tax burden.
I have had employees turn down raises, promotions and even overtime because it would effect their government benefits.
-
I never knew a poor person that created a job.
-
I never knew a poor person that created a job.
however, any person (poor or not) can work and earn money.
also, note that anyone can choose to become self-employed (which is in fact creating at least one job)