Quote:
Originally posted by Rudey
Economically none of what you said is right. A bubble burst - when a bubble is created there are jobs being held and money being made that shouldn't be. The system corrected itself.
I'm sorry but this puts me in a position of basically sitting here and going through a lot of material just to try and educate you.
The fact is that the Economy is largely what determines elections. The economy is also generally not controlled by presidents. Dole had a hard time convincing the country that Clinton's economic measures were bad and Kerry is having an incredibly difficult time doing the same with Bush.
-Rudey
|
If you would refer back to my original post, I did say that I do have an understanding of the cyclical nature of the economy. And yes, I do know that the economy is generally what determines elections - "It's the economy, stupid."
However, that being said, there are policies that, depending on the political stance of the President, take a higher priority. For Democrats, it's raising taxes and increasing the role of the government in the activities of it's constituents. For Republicans, it's generally the opposite - cut taxes and decrease regulations for large industries.
For Bush, those policies are identical almost Ronald Reagan's.
They believe that the state cannot improve the lot of the disadvantaged poor by education and welfare programs financed through taxation. Their solution is to massively to decrease the taxation and regulation of corporations and of the rich, replacing progressive taxation wherever possible with low flat rates. The role of the state in the provision of education and welfare is reduced and replaced as much as possible by private charity.
The idea is that leaving matters to "market forces" releases the constraints on entrepreneurs and generates new wealth, the benefits of which "trickle down" to the poor and improve their lot. Which of course, does not really work.
You dont need to educate me. I'm doing fine on my own.
Threaded Mode