The debate "Right wing pro business economic approach is actually really bad for the economy. -History" was started by
February 22, 2016, 7:47 am.
30 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 16 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
PoliticsAsUsual posted 8 arguments, unpaidshilltrollingfortruth posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 2 arguments, Nemiroff posted 4 arguments, Daffa8799 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
xaveragexjoesx posted 1 argument, Austin7779 posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
PoliticsAsUsual, Nox, PsychDave, RyanWakefield, wmd, CMe2dey_64, unpaidshilltrollingfortruth, progressive, lawyerlady, Nemiroff, Daffa8799 and 19 visitors agree.
ProudAmerican888, jellybear, ototoxic, Austin7779, asiaphone12, Nm1995, rob5998, xaveragexjoesx and 8 visitors disagree.
thank you for correcting me there.
the vast vast vast majority of their savings are not in any savings. (perhaps off shore accounts, idk, very possible). but in the stock market.
I have very little idea what happens to money after that.
What happens to money in savings?
they do spend, but they also have savings meaning they are out of investment ideas, and giving them a tax break will only add to the savings without some sort of external change to the market.
giving money to the segment that needs to spend, regardless of your moral beliefs on handouts, will absolutely achieve the goal of stimulating the economy as the money eventually flows to those at the top, but creates waves of demand and production along the way, prompting the wealthy to invest in more businesses and jobs.
It is true. Rich people do not spend their money or invest it to create new jobs, but save their money to the bank and hope for another compound interests. Free market is good, small regulations like taxes and eliminate corporate loopholes would create good distribution of national wealth.
I am sure we all prefer that ;)
also I would rather have long term good economy instead of a fast growing which has the chance of collapsing
why are regulations bad?
closee to lazziie Faire captilism is better it's not working well because the government keeps coming in and giving away money and other things to companies even some of the Republicans are making more government regulations
except democratic administrations have routinely produced higher growth and profits.
republican administrations have not only had weaker results, they also dragged us into both the great depression and recession.
completely free market barely any regulations have worked for thousands of years giving money to failing get companies makes it worse and forcing them to do things also makes it worse the large ones might be able to survive but smaller ones it's harder
You have once again missed the arguments and made your own to counter.
We are saying that he did good things to prevent the economy from collapsing and rebuild the system. The US is recovering at a better rate than most of the world thanks in some part to his efforts. If chess is too complicated for you, how can you possibly believe you have a handle on national and international finances?
never bothered to learn chess, seems too complicated.
your arguing Obama is a weak president who can't fix things. every president in history inherited some kind of problem. Obama has just made the problem worse, added new problems, and fixed one or two things in such small amounts you can't see it. spending money, and investing is great, if you have money we have -trillions. go to a bank while in debt, after getting fired from your job and ask for a small loan of a million dollors to invest in something. would the bank give you the money?
debt is a symptom. it is not the disease. Obama added to the debt for the bail outs, the bail out is why our economy is recovering relatively fast.
he used the debt well, and money well invested.
bush added to the debt by destabilizing the middle east, something that payed off massively for private oil companies, but they don't share, and we are still paying the costs of his actions.
bad use of debt and a horrible investment.
debt is not an end all indicator. you must be horrible in chess, you seem incapable of thinking more than 1 step in front of your nose. the world is a complex place with many factors. the right wing dumb it down approach is how your leaders use and abuse you while paying off their special interests.
If I break something then make you pay for it, are you to blame for the cost? That is your argument. Bush broke the stability of the middle east, then left others to try to put it back together. Under Bush's watch, banks did stupid, risky things, then the system fell apart because of them. While the second one is not truly Bush's fault, neither is the resulting economic crash Obama's.
Obama is the worst president in history, you act as if he is one of the best, like Reagan.
ok, larger, quickly growing debt means recovering economy ok. and let's blame the pres 8 years ago for debt today. - logic.
how many times are you going to make me repeat that Obama's "slow" economic recovery is the faster recovery on the planet. good job Obama.
and we know that this debt came from bush's war, and Obama's bailouts, but when we look at a general and consistent pattern from nearly 100 years of Democrats winning for the economy and repubs messing it up, that has got to say something.
either way, the pro business, min government approach of cutting taxes and cutting spending does not foster growth, only stagnation.
btw, debt isn't necessarily bad if the money is invested well.
there are good things democrats have done, but other bad, worse things like record debt and very small economic growth. Obama is worst in both of those.
and I think we should look at an individual's plan, and see if that has been done before, see If it worked. look to see what individual has the best plan, and vote for them. I don't l like the grouping stats as much as individual analysis of someone. for this election one should look at Clinton's plans vs. trump's (maybe rubio's) plans and see whose it better. if there was another past president who fid similar things, then you can look and see how that went. for example if hilary has a spending plan similar to Obama's we can look at the debt under Obama and see how that style works.
interesting page, not all facts, but it had some points. we must take into account that if you blame rebublicans for Obama's record debt, I can do the same and blame democrats for bad republican economy.
so what will it be, the president's fault, or not?
sounds good. all I ask is that you consider it with an open mind. if Forbes is somehow biased, market watch and many other sources can verify the information as well.
ok, I'll read that site. I'll give you an answer later tonight.
hello shill, welcome to the site. I'm rather new here too. May I recommend a little bit of formatting? Breaking that up into separate paragraphs will make posts a little more pallitable.
As for your point, I agree. The private sector is excellent at efficiency, if by efficiency one is prioritizing money and bang for the buck. And all too often, that buck is hoarder by those who have control over the buck. But if your priority is the final result, even if it generates less $$, the private sector will have no interest in the project and likely sabotage it in order to reprioritize it back to the buck.
The private sector is also horrible at thinking about the long term good, perfering short term gains as they can always shift investment into other resources or areas.
Businesses are but one means of fulfilling human needs and wants, therefore we would be prudent to avoid placing the needs and wants of business,especially for profit businesses and large corporations, above that of human beings. We would be wise to whenever possible, form cooperatives and various other organizations comprised of not ''employees'' ''workers'' or ''laborers'' but of people, people whom desire more meaning and freedom in their lives and have come to realize that one way of creating meaning and gaining freedom, is by producing as many of the material products used in day to day living as possible. We can not advocate for free markets, less we first advocate for freedom . Freedom is not likely to be advanced by allowing the course of our lives to be mostly determinend by the whims of the so called free market; a free market that is, which is not free and largely controlled by the people who own the largest share of said market. Material prosperity absent an expansion of freedom is the result of nothing more than fascism, and fascism is the most abject form of poverty, since given time, the people living in such a system become hypnotized by the inherent effeciency of said system, and become oblivious to all other human values.
There are those persons whom go as far as to say that our nation should be run or governed as if it were a business. I submit to those persons that when a nation is governed as a business, then the people must become mere tools of the trade.
Well, allow me to say, I am pleased to have found this site and I hope to visit, read and comment often. I have yet to fully learn exactly how this site is structured, but in time I hope to be able navigate my way around here in such a way as to get to know you folks and have many viberent discussions with you. That said, it is very late at my location, so for now I must log out and get some rest. Good-nite to everyone !
are you saying that a drasticly different economic policy had no economic effect?
how about my links breakdown of economic effect for every president since then that shows a very clear and consistent pattern.
Where is this "History" coming from? The great depression? You do realize that his "New Deal" didn't get us out of the depression, it was WW2.
The only businesses that profit from the right wing economic policies are existing businesses that already dominate their markets. New businesses are unable to compete, and the mom and pop companies that need the most help suffer the most.