jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (30 posts)

Republicans can't run an economy.

  1. Josak profile image61
    Josakposted 3 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/9149166.gif
    Having lost the national debate on social issues, abortion, same sex marriage etc. the right has turned to the economy as it's saviors claiming that they can run economies better. Let us examine this historically.

    As we can see the fact is that conservative governments provide fewer jobs, less growth and more inequality.

    http://tlrii.typepad.com/thelisciorepor … publicans/

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I like the graph but just who was that Dem fellow?

    2. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Really, now. America has MORE debt under Obama and MORE unemployment under Obama.  Republicans can't run an economy, YEAH RIGHT!

      1. Sychophantastic profile image87
        Sychophantasticposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        More unemployment and more debt under Obama? Did you just make that up?

    3. profile image59
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      That is an interesting graph and may suggest something very different than a political party as the reason of lower growth in GDP. If you take note, the only Republican President before the Great Society is Eisenhower who insisted that the debts incurred from WWII be paid through increased taxes. Other than that every President, including the Democrat ones, served during a period of GDP growth lower than before 1952. It is a much more reasonable conclusion to say that the growth in the American economy substantially slowed after the 1960's.

      It is so entertaining when lefties refuse to acknowledge the role of the Democrat Congress in economic policy making. The very body that must pass tax laws, budgets and transfer payments is excluded from discussions of the economy. Why? Surely it isn't ignorance of how the government works.

  2. Josak profile image61
    Josakposted 3 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/9149170_f248.jpg


    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/9149171_f248.jpg

  3. Josak profile image61
    Josakposted 3 years ago

    Given these facts can we drop this pretense? Conservative economics have failed time and time again.

  4. wilderness profile image97
    wildernessposted 3 years ago

    Truth be told, politicians can't run an economy.  Party politics always interfere, with the politician then making decisions and choices based on what the party wants to see socially and politically instead of what the economy needs.

    We can see this in the ever expanding entitlement philosophy, where the economy be darned - everyone deserves the best!

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      /Republican/ politicians.

      The entitlement philosophy is just the usual unverifiable emotional bunkum

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Right.  That's why half the country receives government charity of one kind or another.  Because the entitlement philosophy operating is unverifiable, so it's OK to sponge off the neighbor.

        1. gmwilliams profile image86
          gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          America is the new GREAT ENTITLEMENT society.  There's hatred of the successful and affluent, they are viewed as evil while the poor are glorified as they are oppressed, poor things so let's help me by taking from the affluent.   It is radicalism taken to a higher, more aberrant level!  It is not asking what they  can do for America but what America CAN and WILL DO for them.  It's GIMME, GIMME, GIMMMMEEEEEEE...
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/9149639_f248.jpg

        2. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Or you know because we have a massive aging population and were hit by a massive recession and because a person working as hard as they can still often can't make enough to support their family.

          Well actually no OR about it, definitely that.

          DO we really need to do the thing where I break down those numbers and show how many are working, elderly, disabled or on veterans benefits again? we both know it's over 90%.

          Besides when you increase income inequality, reduce growth and fail to provide sufficient jobs it will lead to people needing welfare you know? SO you have no one to blame but your own dumb votes and the dumb policies we got as a consequence... But you will just blame the poor instead.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            No, I don't know that such things automatically lead to requiring charity from strangers.  It requires work and sacrifice, not charity.  A little common sense doesn't hurt, either - we all saw the recession coming, but went right on spending in most cases instead of saving up for later.

          2. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            What in the world does being elderly and living off of your life's savings have to do with charity?  Oh, you didn't save, you say?  Or working while wanting that fine house, 2 cars and a big screen with satellite?  Oh, your wants override your income you say?  Happens to all of us below the level of Bill Gates, it's just that some don't use it for a reason to demand someone else pay for them.

      2. gmwilliams profile image86
        gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        http://s1.hubimg.com/u/9149644_f248.jpg

    2. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 spot on as usual, Wilderness!

  5. cathylynn99 profile image76
    cathylynn99posted 3 years ago

    and if you live long enough, you'll receive social security and you'll be "sponging," too.

    1. profile image59
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      What a shame that money taken from me through the force of government since I started working at 16 wasn't placed in an actual interest bearing account. That account would produce more income than SS and, if I should die before retirement, be passed on to my heirs, therefore creating more wealth with in my family.

      If a private investment firm offered a plan like Social Security to its clients there would be no takers because it is a terrible investment. It would also be illegal for that firm to offer, because it is a ponzi scheme, when anyone but the US government offers it.

      Social Security is not guaranteed. The Federal Government can dissolve it at any time in favor of something better, ostensibly. Much like Medicare and Medicaid will eventually be supplanted by Obamacare.

      Social Security is a welfare plan to which all working Americans are compelled to belong without assurance, ownership, certainty or freedom to exit. What a wonderful liberal accomplishment. Thank you for reminding me how odious that system is and how much I love my retirement planner.

      1. Quilligrapher profile image88
        Quilligrapherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Howdy Retief. How are you doing today.

        What a shame you presume to lecture us about Social Security when you obviously know so little about the program. Although you are welcome to your opinions regarding its value, you do not get to fabricate and distort the details about how it functions.

        Your first statement indicates you have not gone to the Social Security web site to inform yourself about the Social Security program before attempting to post an opinion. This would account for your inaccuracy.

        How little you know: “money taken from me … wasn't placed in an actual interest bearing account.”

        Excess contributions in the SS trust funds ARE place in actual interest bearing bonds. The money is invested “in special Treasury bonds that are guaranteed by the U.S. Government. A market rate of interest is paid to the trust funds on the bonds they hold, and when those bonds reach maturity or are needed to pay benefits, the Treasury redeems them.”{1}

        Speaking from experience, I suspect the day will come when you will be glad to be part of the program.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
        {1} http://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheet … eTrust.htm

        1. profile image59
          retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

          The interest accrued is used to pay benefits, but not to me. The money taken from me is paid to another who has already retired. I do not own that accrued interest, as in an annuity or other standard investment or even government savings bonds.

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, they are placed in interest bearing accounts, with interest set by the government.  Interest far below any available anywhere else; it's just a pot for free money for the politician to buy their pork with.

          Some time ago I did a spreadsheet on what would have happened had I placed the contributions to SS in the stock market, given a 10% long term return (lower than what was actually seen).  I would be a millionaire several times over, with an income greater than I ever earned working without touching the principal.  THAT'S what your "interest bearing" account has done for us.

          1. profile image59
            retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Imagine, if every penny taken from you and your various employers from the first minute you worked for wages until the most recent one, how much would have accumulated in the most conservative IRA/Annuity/401k/403b/Thrift Savings/Payroll Savings Plan. Every penny resulting from the accumulation of interest (at rates far greater than the "market rate" of T-Bills [which have been nearly zero at various times]) would be yours, not the Social Security Administration and Congress to raid for transfer payments to others.

            Imagine how you could retire in comfort. Imagine the continued economic activity from your travel, leisure, hobby purchases, new business starts, etc.... Imagine the prosperity resulting from the plentiful jobs routinely vacated by retirees who own their own retirement funds.

            Why do lefties hate paradise and insist we all muck about with our noses in the dirt, snuffling and digging for the Federal truffles that we cultivated in the first place? Is it because they adore all those worthless bureaucrats who skim great shares of tax dollars for their ever rising compensation?

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              That's kind of what I looked at.  Given the SS statement showing all payments since I first worked, I input them into a spreadsheet and played with the return percentages.  I would have had something into the millions by now (I forget the exact number) by investing in a Vanguard mutual fund account emulation the S&P 500 at a 10% return per year.  As the actual figure was above that, long term but including the recession, it seemed a reasonable thing to do.

              Then, drawing it out at 10%, income per year would have been well over $250,000 per year; riches beyond any dreams I ever had.  Instead I get $1400 per month SS.  Our politicians really took care of their fiduciary duty to watch over my funds!

              So, why don't the politicians provide a long list of acceptable investments and require the payments to go there instead of keeping them in the government pot, available for their own use to buy votes with pork projects and free money to everyone around?

              1. profile image59
                retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                That $1400 a month isn't even the money you put in.  Your money went to someone else. It is a miserable scam and if you ran a similar retirement fund you would be locked in a federal prison.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Yep - mine is long gone.  Paid others in their retirement, bought museums and bridges to nowhere.  And lots of votes from the people happy with the new $10 million monument in their home town.

                  1. profile image59
                    retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    There is no real substitute for you getting to manage your own affairs. Why is that so impossible for some to comprehend?

  6. cathylynn99 profile image76
    cathylynn99posted 3 years ago

    i don't hate rich people. i used to be one. i never once thought my taxes should be lower, like the evil koch brothers. good rich folks like bill gates and warren buffet want to be taxed more so no one has to starve.

    1. profile image59
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Nothing stops Bill Gates and Warren Buffet from GIVING all of their wealth to the Federal Government. They complain about their taxes being too low yet still keep everything instead of restructuring their income to produce more taxes for the federal government. Hypocrites.

      Their combined income of approximately $130 Billion would run the Federal Government for 10 days, what will poor starving Americans eat after that? Poverty and hunger are not created by a lack of government spending.

  7. Josak profile image61
    Josakposted 3 years ago

    It really is so predictable conservatives avoid both the subject and the facts to whine some more about how bad those poor people are.

    Looking at the stats you guys are responsible for causing most of it, all that inequality increasing and failure to produce jobs is coming home to roost and instead of taking responsibility you blame the victims of your incompetent governance.

    Now if you'll just step out of the way maybe the we can clean up your mess.

 
working