Jump to content

Romney’s voters are not moochers or victims


Recommended Posts

The idea is to require voters to have some skin in the game.

No, the idea is an elitist one in which less-moneyed citizens are inherently second class, and don't deserve a say in their own government.

This is opposition to democracy.

What you're doing again is proving that you don't actually understand what democracy is, and don't realise that it is an umbrella term under which many iterations exist.

You're the one who doesn't understand democratic principles. You're insisting to us that you don't understand...and there's no need. I genuinely believe you.

Edited by bleeding heart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Of course, someone who has no job has no interest in choices that may affect job creation. A single parent has not interest in an education system that is actually working. Yeah right.

You're looking at a snapshot in time, rather than all the relevant context. An unemployed person can still have contributed, on balance, to the tax base. Again, the problem is not an easy one to address, and I've conceded that. If I understand Shady's premise, though, and I think that I do, then I am in agreement with him that either voting rights should be more restrictively applied. Or, even better, the scope of government power should be greatly restricted so that the economy is not "democratised".

Again, this quote is perfect to address the crux of this issue:

"The state is the great fiction by which everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else."

- Frederic Bastiat

Here's another one:

When a man spends his own money to buy something for himself, he is very careful about how much he spends and how he spends it. When a man spends his own money to buy something for someone else, he is still very careful about how much he spends, but somewhat less what he spends it on. When a man spends someone else's money to buy something for himself, he is very careful about what he buys, but doesn't care at all how much he spends. And when a man spends someone else's money on someone else, he doesn’t care how much he spends or what he spends it on. And that's government for you. (P.J. O'Rourke had a more vulgar version of this in his book "Parliament of Whores")

– Milton Friedman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're looking at a snapshot in time, rather than all the relevant context. An unemployed person can still have contributed, on balance, to the tax base. Again, the problem is not an easy one to address, and I've conceded that. If I understand Shady's premise, though, and I think that I do, then I am in agreement with him that either voting rights should be more restrictively applied. Or, even better, the scope of government power should be greatly restricted so that the economy is not "democratised".

Again, this quote is perfect to address the crux of this issue:

"The state is the great fiction by which everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else."

- Frederic Bastiat

Here's another one:

When a man spends his own money to buy something for himself, he is very careful about how much he spends and how he spends it. When a man spends his own money to buy something for someone else, he is still very careful about how much he spends, but somewhat less what he spends it on. When a man spends someone else's money to buy something for himself, he is very careful about what he buys, but doesn't care at all how much he spends. And when a man spends someone else's money on someone else, he doesn’t care how much he spends or what he spends it on. And that's government for you. (P.J. O'Rourke had a more vulgar version of this in his book "Parliament of Whores")

– Milton Friedman

Interesting choices. Bastiat and Friedman. The economic models of Ronald Reagan, he of the non-sense known as trickle-down economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting choices. Bastiat and Friedman. The economic models of Ronald Reagan, he of the non-sense known as trickle-down economy.

Clearly you'd prefer quotes from Marx or Engels. I understand.

The real nonsense is your use of the fake term "trickle down economics", coined by Bush Sr. as an attempt to attack Reagan. And it failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complete nonsense. Foodstamps aren't economic stimulus. It shows how economically illiterate you are. It that were the case, everyone should be on foodstamps!!! Just think of the stimulus to the economy!! LOL.

Actually that statement there is pretty much the pinnacle of economic illiteracy. Stimulus is supposed to be a short term kick in the ass to the economy. Just because something is effective stimulus does not mean its something "everyone should be on".

The only thing that really matters in terms of stimulus is that the money will in fact enter the economy, and in the timeframe you desire. Subsidies to wage earners or the poor work pretty well because those people spend every penny they get right away. That money goes into the economy and gets spend thousands of times over again.

The problem is stimulus spending in a way you are not sure will enter the economy in your desired timeframe or at all. So for example... long term infrastructure projets might not work... giving the money to people that might invest it outside of the national economy wont work as well... or giving it to people that would save it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complete nonsense. Foodstamps aren't economic stimulus. It shows how economically illiterate you are. It that were the case, everyone should be on foodstamps!!! Just think of the stimulus to the economy!! LOL.

You'll love this, Barney Frank's economic wisdom:

Here is the Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack telling us that food stamps are a stimulus:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll love this, Barney Frank's economic wisdom:

Here is the Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack telling us that food stamps are a stimulus:

Food stamps absolutely can be stimulus. If you dont understand why then along with Shady you flat out dont know what economic stimulus is or how it works. All thats required is that new money enter the economy. In the case of food stamps the money enters the economy when a participating grocery store redeems the foodstamps and trades them to the government for money. Those stores have sold more products and realized more profit. They will spend that money on more stock which increases the sales for suppliers, and they will pay that money out in wages, which will be spent into the economy by their workers.

And once this money enters the economy it will be spent over and over and over again forever, or until its "saved" or used to pay down debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Food stamps absolutely can be stimulus. If you dont understand why then along with Shady you flat out dont know what economic stimulus is or how it works.

Kind of said when pompous blow hards come on and adamantly tell us what is or isnt stimulus or on which side of political spectrum something is.

Even a half wit knows enough not to post something (emphatically no less) without some understanding of what they speak.

Ever seen Second City's "HalfWits""?

For $50, name a green vegetable?

Red Cabbage?

Comedy gold ! (and I mean here on MLW)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually that statement there is pretty much the pinnacle of economic illiteracy. Stimulus is supposed to be a short term kick in the ass to the economy. Just because something is effective stimulus does not mean its something "everyone should be on".

The only thing that really matters in terms of stimulus is that the money will in fact enter the economy, and in the timeframe you desire. Subsidies to wage earners or the poor work pretty well because those people spend every penny they get right away. That money goes into the economy and gets spend thousands of times over again.

The problem is stimulus spending in a way you are not sure will enter the economy in your desired timeframe or at all. So for example... long term infrastructure projets might not work... giving the money to people that might invest it outside of the national economy wont work as well... or giving it to people that would save it...

Foodstamps are necessary, but it's not something that expands the economy. For instance, there's a record number of foodstamp recipients now, and the economy is barely growing. Social assistance programs aren't suppose to be stimulus programs. They're meant for people in need, and the fact that more and more people require them, is an indictment on the economic policies in place, but the current administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Foodstamps are necessary, but it's not something that expands the economy. For instance, there's a record number of foodstamp recipients now, and the economy is barely growing. Social assistance programs aren't suppose to be stimulus programs. They're meant for people in need, and the fact that more and more people require them, is an indictment on the economic policies in place, but the current administration.

Yes, they're an assistance program and are not intended as stimulus.

Nonetheless, they are stimulus. They generate economic activity by putting money directly into the economy.

Republicans have no problem grasping the idea that a tax cut for a middle-class person stimulates the economy by giving consumers more money to spend. Food stamps do exactly the same thing, and in much the same way: more consumer spending, at the expense of the government's balance sheet.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they're an assistance program and are not intended as stimulus.

Nonetheless, they are stimulus. They generate economic activity by putting money directly into the economy.

Any government spending can be thought of as stimulus.

Republicans have no problem grasping the idea that a tax cut for a middle-class person stimulates the economy by giving consumers more money to spend. Food stamps do exactly the same thing, and in much the same way: more consumer spending, at the expense of the government's balance sheet.

-k

No, it's not the exact same thing. But it's a great example of the statist way of thinking. People keeping more of their own money, the money they earn isn't akin to a government handout. That way of economic illiterate thinking speaks volumes though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any government spending can be thought of as stimulus.

It would be possible for the government to spend money in ways that don't produce any economic benefits.

No, it's not the exact same thing. But it's a great example of the statist way of thinking. People keeping more of their own money, the money they earn isn't akin to a government handout. That way of economic illiterate thinking speaks volumes though.

The difference you've highlighted is a philosophical one, not an economic one. In economic terms, they're completely equivalent. Calling one a "handout" and the other "letting people keep more of their own money" is an ideological distinction with no relevance to the economic impact of it.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Food stamps absolutely can be stimulus. If you dont understand why then along with Shady you flat out dont know what economic stimulus is or how it works. All thats required is that new money enter the economy. In the case of food stamps the money enters the economy when a participating grocery store redeems the foodstamps and trades them to the government for money. Those stores have sold more products and realized more profit. They will spend that money on more stock which increases the sales for suppliers, and they will pay that money out in wages, which will be spent into the economy by their workers.

And once this money enters the economy it will be spent over and over and over again forever, or until its "saved" or used to pay down debt.

Where do food stamps come from? Who pays for them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Foodstamps are necessary, but it's not something that expands the economy. For instance, there's a record number of foodstamp recipients now, and the economy is barely growing. Social assistance programs aren't suppose to be stimulus programs.

Roundabout way of coming to the conclusion that this....

Complete nonsense. Foodstamps aren't economic stimulus

is not something you believ is true anymore.

COngrats!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they're an assistance program and are not intended as stimulus.

Nonetheless, they are stimulus. They generate economic activity by putting money directly into the economy.

Republicans have no problem grasping the idea that a tax cut for a middle-class person stimulates the economy by giving consumers more money to spend. Food stamps do exactly the same thing, and in much the same way: more consumer spending, at the expense of the government's balance sheet.

-k

You are an economic illiterate. A "tax cut" is not the same thing as a redistributive program (combined with printing money). The former reduces the government's role in managing the economy, in other words, it reduces government's share of spending of GDP. The latter does the opposite, it increases centralisation of economic control and increases government spending's share of GDP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like all government expenses in the US, about half are paid for by taxpayers and the other half by individuals, corporations, unions, and governments who purchase US debt instruments.

Tax revenues composed about 65% of American federal spending in 2011. There's a point I want to get to, though. Economic illiterates love to throw around the term "stimulus", thinking that somehow money for programs like food stamps fall from the sky. If it's such a great "stimulus" for the economy (and it is absolutely not, no government program is), why not double it? Triple it? The same ridiculous argument can be advanced that minimum wage regulations constitute a "stimulus" (which actually increase unemployment). Or mileage-efficiency regulations for cars (which make cars more dangerous). Or even rent controls (which diminish housing supply). The government cannot "stimulate" the broader economy with spending and borrowing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do food stamps come from? Who pays for them?

If a country is running a deficit and they increased the ammount of food stamps circulated in an attempt to stimulate the economy then all that money comes from bond investors. Its really no different than tax cuts or infrastructure development in that regard. That money is brand new... it didnt come from ANYONE at least not yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...