Angela Isaacs shared this image on facebook. See the exchange below.J R Fibonacci Hunn First, I am not really familiar with the subject of this whole graphic and most of it does not appear to be what I consider worthy of national attention. Next, I do not think of the GOP often, but when I do, I do not expect them to be focused on “providing jobs.” (#6 on the graphic) Is that their platform? I thought they were about promoting a business climate in which private businesses naturally have incentives to create jobs?
For sake of argument, I’d like to see an economic stimulus package like this: end (or reduce) the income tax that penalizes productivity and install a national sales tax. That way the filthy rich folks like Justin Beiber and Michael Jordan (or anyone who inherits large amounts of wealth) cannot use tax law loopholes to avoid paying any federal taxes.
Here’s an idea: create a climate in which companies are so optimistic for profits (like because of reduced income taxes) that they compete for the best employees by offering higher wages. That is what has happened in the nursing profession, right?
In contrast, I am not aware of any nation creating a healthy middle class just by raising the minimum wage several percent. If a political party is seriously interested in promoting the overall welfare of the middle class (and the entire population), then reducing the tax burden on businesses and “middle America” seems to me like an uncontroversial step.
Intel, one of the many large employers in Arizona, recently expanded to Malaysia (and closed various American sites). Why? Because they believe it will be good for their business (and thus for their stockholders).
If the US created an environment that attracted a net in-flow of foreign investment (like happened in the 1990s as the global high-tech “capital” shifted from Tokyo, Japan to Silicon Valley, California), then that extra wealth would still eventually be subject to sales taxes. That kind of thing should be the target- if “what is best for America” is the mutual interest of all the politicians.
Why are people getting huge tax breaks to own a second or third home when 1 in 7 homes in the US are empty with millions homeless? It makes sense that people would do the things that reduce their taxes, so I am not criticizing Michael Jordan for having several multi-million dollar homes (including at least one in the mountains of AZ that he visits some summers). If he pays some tax lawyer or CPA $50,000 to save him $600,000 in federal taxes, then he is just a smart guy.
My take is that there is no real interest on the part of the media or the politicians to find simple, uncontroversial, logical policy changes that promote the interests of the US middle class. If there was, then there would be less antagonism and more unity. Radical but simple changes could get serious attention, like simplifying income tax laws and taxing spending instead of productivity.
J R Fibonacci Hunn John, first, if you are saying that progressivism is eventually suicidal for a nation, I understand that perspective. Also, if you are saying that you do not expect any major party candidate (like Rand Paul) to do anything but promote more of the same old “progressivism,” that makes sense, too. Maybe a strong “third-party” could begin to advance a wave of “simple, common-sense” politics.
First, (beofre I would expect any big-scale political shift) I think that what we can do is to stop getting caught up in the sensational media circus of the current two-party drama. In particular, people who are willing to turn off mainstream news can focus less on the celebrity of various politicians and focus more on policies and practices. They can talk to each other instead of about each other.
One thing I find remarkable is the lack of comprehension by most people that I talk to of the realities of international economic trends. Many people credit Bill Clinton individually with generating the high-tech boom in California. That would make more sense if it had not started prior to his election.
Many people continue to focus on politics more than economics. They want political solutions to the fact that worldwide a huge wave of baby-boomers are retiring (and the predictable economic issues that come from all of those folks selling their retirement investments – like stocks and excess real estate- and paying off their excess debt rather than getting more mortgages). The new policies in the US since the 2007 global stock market extreme have simply hidden the immense transition happening globally. The shift is more clear in the economies of many other nations. However, it seems to me that the media’s indoctrination of the masses in the US has been much more effective than apprently in various other parts of the world where people may be less emotionally invested in the media circus.
John Mihelic Yup. exactly what I’m saying. The machinery in Washington is way too big and far gone. Much like a goliath corporation that government says is evil and must be dismantled when it gets too big because it can’t serve the general welfare, so the same rules must apply to Washington. Yet, those in power will always make themselves the exception to the rule of law they say everyone else must follow (G-d complex). Sowing the seeds of a dictatorship in the making? So, anyone who says give us more $ (higher taxes or asset seizure under some BS collective good) or creating class warfare to justify their actions is no less evil then those they call evil. In fact, more evil.
What will the dismantling of the establishment power in Washington look like? Who knows. Maybe it could be a third party. I doubt it though because one thing I’m certain about is it will not happen within Washington or those self anointed intellectual egghead elite (beware of those in robes)dumbasses who say, ‘we’ve figured it out from the mistakes of the past generations. it’s different times that call for different measures. just gives us more money and power for the collective good’. Someone please tell me how stupid you must be to think that by giving them more $ & power will solve the problems.
if that’s not the most asinine, hypocritical solution. It amazes me that the general public doesn’t see this propaganda, brain washing. Maybe it’s because in every human being is a couch potato not wanting to be accountable and responsible for their life or fellow man. It’s easier to blame. It’s a drug. I’m guilty of that.
I run away fast from anyone that professes they are the ones to save society from itself. History has proven that collectivism before individual rights and freedom never ends well. Dictatorships thrive on collectivism ideology to take more $ and power from the individual and put it in the hands of a few.
Progressivism is communism ideology doing it the ole fascistic (political correctness) way. Using as their pawns (Trojan horse) the children, the sick or elderly or some other minority group to divide people so they may forward their hidden agenda for more power & $ by creating a crisis within that very minority group they’re claiming to help so they may exact their revenge on those who oppose their ideology. Then in a perverse and bizarre way those minorities embrace those very politicians that put them on their knees. If you disagree with us, we’ll shame you and make you the villain.
Wow, great point on how boomer retirees draining their investments to fund their living expenses will syphon money out of markets. Coupled with bad entrepreneurial and economic growth policies will cause shocks we’re not planning for.
J R Fibonacci Hunn John, people may be powerfully programmed to focus on what is wrong and further on who is wrong (which group or individual). I get what you are saying about progressivism and I am more familiar with the term “creeping socialism.” However, arguing against it may be like arguing against the tide or arguing against summertime. So what?
Since 2003, one of my primary goals in my publications has been to emphasize the simple realities of global economic trends and the simple things that people can do to adapt to what is happening. Here is a 2005 article of mine in which I focus on issues like fuel markets, why prices had been rising since 1999, and what that implied for the future of the US and Europe.
By 2008, only a few years after this article, the price of a single gallon of diesel exceeded $11 in the UK and Germany. People like me who foresaw that coming (and foresaw the $4 gallons in the US) also foresaw the natural consequences of spiking fuel prices. (I used the term “the DominOil Effect” in a 2004 publication of mine to detail the exact sequence of events that developed by 2007. In 2006, I even published a video explaining why many financial institutions- including in the US- would be facing bankruptcy within a few years.)
We know the “almost certain future.” We are not interested in arguing. We are interested in adapting.
If people are “caught up” in circuses of sensationalism, I tend to discount them as potential correspondents. Maybe a few people reading this will message me with curiosity and courage (rather than “who else to blame for why we are sitting around and blaming them”).
On worshiping the focus on the latest sensationalist media circus