I've been looking for years for a pretty decent summary of how conservative economics destroyed America, and I think I've found one. This is a special request to all of my right-wing followers: tell me how and where this guy is wrong. (Link inside.)
Please wake up. Neither big party are middle class supporters! They play their roles while THEY both are stealing us blind and blaming the other. They are golf buddies and own the same damn stocks.
Believe me, I don't support either party. But thinking that "conservative" equals "Republican" or vice versa is a profound mistake. Conservative economics isn't a party thing -- it's a 'people who don't realize they're being wholly duped' thing.
Libertarians, Republicans, Constitution, it doesn't matter what party they're in -- if they honestly believe in trickle-down economics, in encouraging growth via tax cuts, and in deregulation, they're hurting the country.
While I share the author's perspective generally, I wish the piece were better sourced, e.g., with reference to specific studies demonstrating the correlations he posits along his timeline, and reference to specific laws, etc. with attendant numbers
Just in my highly "Liberal Opinion" the average man is not prepared or willing to make the sacrifices needed to run big business profitably. Gov has not ever demonstrated other wise.
Huge blind spot in that guy's thinking. He starts with the assumption that post WW2 America was the norm. He is wrong. It was a time in history where for the first time a modern industrial civilization had absolutely no competition.
He then continues to naively state that conservative economics is what destroyed that perfect utopia, when it was, in fact, the introduction of competition from the rest of the world, followed by decreased demand for American goods and services.
The competition from the rest of the world was a result of the rest of the world rebuilding their destroyed infrastructure and industry, not as a result of any conservative economic program.
You're both right. Protectionism was the norm until NAFTA. Today, selective protectionism tends to favor only entrenched interests. If you're going to undo protectionist laws in the name of "competition," it's a bit disingenuous to oppose it when it
The fact that Clinton signed it doesn't make it liberal economic policy. Just like Obama has made some very significant concessions to conservative folks, Clinton did, too. Just he was white, so they actually acknowledged him for it.
LOL! It was ratified by almost a democrat super majority in the senate! And Clinton didn't have to make ANY concessions until the Republicans took congress in 1995! Which in part led to the tech boom of the late 90's!
And "He was white, so they actually acknowledge him for it." Playing the race card so pathetically? Your rationale credibility has just dropped right through the floor.
Maybe you don't understand how competition in the free market place works. Cheaper labor overseas is our competition and we actually reinforce companies leaving by raising their taxes. This government does not get competition!
Before free trade agreements existed, companies had plenty of incentive to keep jobs in America, even when corporate taxes spiked (like when Reagan delivered the highest corporate tax hike in American history.) The problem is free trade, not taxes.
I don't have time to research every individual fact he writes. If you want to make an argument by handing me a link, you can expect me to counter by handing you another one.
Conservative economics has given both you and I the highest standard of living of any nation in the world. Now with Obama and the Democrats in control for the last 6 years our economy is floundering and we are awash in debt.
Sorry, Glock. The standard of living in America has declined since conservative economics took over. That was in 1980, more or less. In 1980, the OECD reported America as having the best standard of living in the world. Today, we're sixth.
Before that, there was a liberal majority in most areas of Federal government from the end of the Great Depression right up until we invented trickle-down theory and started deregulating. tinyurl.com/ny86479
duey, that chart is essentially useless, because quality of life is a relative measurement. That chart doesn't show how the rest of the world was faring during that time frame, so it's meaningless.
It was Obama and the Democrats who borrowed 785 BILLION DOLLARS from the Chinese for a Stimulus that failed to fix the economy. Talk about increasing the debt....and our children will be paying for it in 30 years. Stop drinking the liberal KOOL AID.
No one ignored a damned thing. If you knew the history of the Tea Party and the reality of how it was started you would understand people were getting sick of all the debt. Then we elect a guy that said it was unpatriotic and UnAmerican that turned
out to be a huge liar. Any President would have borrowed big to get out of going into a depression the difference was it wouldn't have been spent on welfare it would have been spent on infrastructure. Creating jobs instead of paying people to stay
Duey, I'm well aware of the history of the Tea Party. My mother is one of the first wave of recruits. I'm aware of it's actual history, and I'm aware of what they claim is their history. But being funded by Americans for Prosperty is strangely not
Show of Hands
Comments: Add Comment