Quote:
Originally Posted by scbelle
Well, just for starters, the theory of trickle-down economics might look good on paper, but just like in science, what actually arrives at the bottom is pretty meager compared to what gets left at the top. Republicans have tried their best to stimulate corporate growth, but at the same time, they have stimulated corporate greed. So businesses are always looking for ways to cut corners and make more money for their shareholders. That might mean closing businesses here and taking jobs overseas, leaving communities open to economic hardship.
On the Democratic side, welfare is a big, fat mess. The people who have worked all their lives don't want some crappy handout from the government. They have too much pride for that, and rightfully so. Unfortunately for all the rhetoric for bringing people up, what's happened is that welfare as is tends to keep people down.
Both parties share blame for NAFTA and not making sure there were proper labor insurances.
IN this most recent administration, our hands have been tied and we can't really afford the programs we have. Yet our president finds it necessary to pay trillions of dollars to a war that is stupid (Iraq, not Afghanistan). China owns our asses and our children's children's asses. It is a very sad state of affairs. The money is going out the window, and so is the political capital. There hasn't been sufficient time or energy paid to the home front, either. So people are suffering.
You'll have to forgive my slight rambling... I'm posting after my normal bedtime hours.
|
So is it your theory that if we provide these people with the opportunity to vote in their economic self-interest, they may be less likely to vote based on faith, the 2nd Amendment, etc...? I think that is what many people find condescending.
I think a lot of your points are valid, but I'm not sure what the solutions are (especially considering that I think I know which way you're going to vote).
I think your statements on Iraq are slightly petty, ("yet our president...") as if there is an easy solution to this situation that he is refusing to accept.
Another interesting dilemma I see was prompted by your reference to China (this isn't really about what you said). Considering their burgeoning economy, how would someone on the left propose that we continue to compete, while also pursuing climate change remedies? Increased environmental regulation is certainly something that could impact the very voters Obama was referring to.
Threaded Mode
