History will prove that Iraq was not a war of necessity.
I'm glad you put compassionate in quotes, for it was nothing of the sort...
But once again you miss my point, it's not a "if Republicans do it why can't we", it's about quit using the slogans of yesteryear, they no longer exist. The Republicans are not small government.
So if Republicans are not small government and what are Democrats? You get my meaning? There is ticket that wants to reform the Republican party and control spending. The other ticket is into redistributionism. It's clear that voting for democrats because past Republicans spent too much doesn't make sense. Are the democrats the alternative that can balance the budget? What promises will Obama have to nix in order to accomplish that?
The idea that Republicans don't include people who want small government is not true. Yes there are big government Republicans but that's what McCain and Palin want to change. Big spending republicans also reflects the American voter. Maybe they will demand more out of congress when they finally understand that bankruptcy is not good no matter what entitlements are spent on.
Wow, just wow.
Yeah when I read Symposium it was exactly what I thought. There's an entire section where a general is trying hard to screw Socrates. You have to read it to believe it. At least Plato focused on the goal of looking at love being in different levels and love of the forms being the best, the next best love of character, and the least a love of the flesh.
Man you are all over the place with this paragraph. Yes you need a job to save, but that's not what you said, I pointed out to you that you have contradicted yourself from last week.
No contradiction. I was talking about what an individual should do in regards to savings. I haven't changed my point of view on that. If the government takes more money from corporations and they layoff more people then it's harder to save when you don't have a job.
So the point is don't increase taxes on corporations. It's not difficult to understand. The government can't do much to help you but it can do a lot of harm. Let's limit the government to what it can do. Once you start with redistributionism for more equal outcomes where does it stop?
If people save while they still have a job during the recession they are doing the right thing. Even in Sweden saving can give you benefits, but if you make 30,000/year U.S. or more you will pay 70% to the government so you better like what the government gives you because if the quality is not good you will have to find savings in that 30% net pay.
At least Sweden has a lower corporate tax rate. Why do they? Because they want companies to stay. Get it?
Who has the typical attitude that government can increase our wealth? I've never met anyone who has that attitude.
Then you get into your psychoanalytical envy bullshit again...
The democratic party believes that the government is the solution to the economic problems. What do you think the Community Reinvestment Act is for? It's to have government force banks to include more risky loans to help poor people.
Envy, envy, envy! You hate my envy argument. I think envy is a HUGE part of the human psyche and should not be considered a small issue. I'm confident that everybody (including you) who succeeded at anything in their lives has seen envy in others, especially in work environments. Bullying in office workplaces are often related to envy.
I love this book. Lots of good examples:
Amazon.com: ENVY: HELMUT SCHOECK: Books
This is a good site that gives some solutions to what can trigger envy in the workplace.
The Green-Eyed Monster - Keeping Envy Out of the Workplace
Examples
Jealousy, envy common problems at workplace
The Main Drive Behind the Bully: Envy | Bully Free at Work
And then you go on to talk about how even if the middle class does get money they will just live out of their means. What does this have to do with anything? Do you want the government to come in and control the middle class spending? You aren't making sense.
Well Obama wants tax cuts for the middle class and to increase corporate taxes. Most people in the middle class don't run corporations and they have currently a low savings rate. If they spend more money (from Obama's tax cuts) instead of saving/paying down debt it won't do much. I'm only hoping that people will save money no matter what tax plan occurs. It's still possible if you have a job.
We want the productive classes to reinvest their profits and not have it taxed because that creates more job opportunities. See the Sweden example above. If you are going to do redistribution then pushing for higher corporate taxes when we want companies to be attracted to North America will kill jobs.
I want individuals to save, of course, but they need jobs first.
The reason to vote for the rich to get stuck with an increasing tax bill only sounds good if you look at individuals being envious of the rich and wanting to stick it to them.
So in summary. Keep personal taxes as they are and corporate taxes as they are. Cut spending. Then when the budget is balanced start paying down the debt. Once interest payments are starting to reduce you can lower taxes more permanently. McCain wants to lower taxes right away but he better find enough savings in government expenditures to balance the budget.
As individuals you can make a budget and map out what you want to have as a nest egg for your retirement and start following the savings plan. If people don't follow their own budgets and continue with huge debt loads they are not going to achieve the retirement they want whether Obama or McCain win. But if McCain wins you will likely get a job if you lose one (and if well educated maybe not lose your job)
Once again, where does this come from? Who is talking about forced hiring? I know one canidate that has incentitives to keep tech jobs in the US, and it's not McCain.
My point was that companies don't hire people for philanthropic reasons so you you need incentives for people to do this. Allowing companies to reinvest their profits will allow them to grow faster and hire people.
Lower corporate taxes brings it's own incentive. Higher corporate taxes will not keep jobs in the U.S.
But it doesn't happen in practice.
If they save their money it does. If they don't it doesn't. The "trickle down" is your pay cheque. What you do with your pay cheque is up to you.
Once again, a lot of words, but nothing really said. Yes, people need to save, but like you said they need a decent job in order to save. Do you know how many people are living paycheck to paycheck?
They didn't have to live pay cheque to pay cheque. Why didn't they get an education? What's the point of having training and school if people don't take advantage of it? My dad was an immigrant and had low paying jobs all his life but he controlled his expenses because he didn't have this pride related to a standard of living he felt he deserved. It wasn't fun to do the savings but it yielded a decent retirement for him and he will have an inheritance to give that his father never gave him. There are lots of budgeting tools to help you get back on your feet. Looking at the consumption you see in any mall you can tell people find money for all kinds of crap and still say they can't save. Of course they can save. They just don't want to.
But get off your savings thing, for you can't ever force people to save, focus on what we can do.
My point is that there are always opportunities to save and people are not honest about their spending habits. We can't force people to save but the necessity is there if they want a decent retirement that has some dignity.
Can you give an example of where this is happening in America or Canada?
All democracies have lobbyists that compete for tax payers money. They all vote for parties that support their funding. Why do you think McCain and Palin are scary to those people? It's their jobs. If a person has a useless job in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac they will donate money and vote for parties that protect them. If special interests get their way most of the time people who vote (and aren't part of a special interest group) feel that politicians never do what they are supposed to and follow lobbyists first. This adds to voter apathy.
Just like in all walks of life yes this is true for some. But there are also very talented folks in the middle class that didn't have the right connection. There are some born with a silver spoon, and some born without a spoon. So don't give me this crap about incentive. You honestly think some folks are going to purposely work less because they might make the next tax bracket even though they'll be making more at the end of the day? Give me a break, your grasp on economics makes my brain hurt sometimes.
Yes you can be born with a silver spoon in your mouth and that causes envy amongst people who aren't but I say that it's not the right attitude. You have to find equanimity and focus on your plan for life. Many people who are rich are extremely spoiled and not happy. That's why I like philosophy a lot, and it covers desire and know it needs to be controlled. The west has lost it's understanding of goods and their role on happiness. They used to be religious but lost it. Most people got their self-discipline from religion so when they lose it they often go into egoism and consumerism. You don't have to join a religion to find ethics but certainly reading philosophers and reflecting on your life is important.
"A life unexamined is not worth living." ~ Socrates
Prior generations were more thrifty. That has to be taught again for Western civilization to remain healthy and strong. Does anybody care about retirement anymore?