Why government can't make sound economic decisions.

[AuSable River]

within a liberal democracy, economic policy is based on the following unsound and unsustainable tenets:

votes for money -- for example, unions, environmentalists, lower income, et al who command large centralized voting blocs lobby politicians for preferential tax and regulatory policies in exchange for guaranteed votes.

Obama is trying to woo these constituencies to gain a tiny plurality. Hence, he promises to redistribute wealth from a tiny percentage of voters (higher income voters) to a much larger pool of voters (lower income voters).

This is called tyranny of the majority and it is a favored means by which socialist, communist, totatlitarian regimes gain power within a democratic framework.

money for votes -- for example big oil, military/industrial complex, small business, et al who command large centralized sources of wealth lobby politicians for preferential tax and regulatory policies in exchange for guaranteed campaign contributions.

This is called crony capitalism and it is the favored means by which monied interests circumvent and corrupt liberal democracy.

Unfortunately, virtually every contributor on this forum has been captured by either the former or the latter.

There is an alternative though -- but first folks must recognize and acknowledge the dynamic in play that I outlined above.

Indeed, when someone's world view is exposed as a fallacy -- folks have a tendency to get very emotional and vitriolic.

We shall see.

[Samuraikoku]

Unfortunately, virtually every contributor on this forum has been captured by either the former or the latter.

I'm pretty sure nobody paid me to vote. Maybe if I had voted Cristina Kirchner...

[Alien Space Bats]

Obama is trying to woo these constituencies to gain a tiny plurality. Hence, he promises to redistribute wealth from a tiny percentage of voters (higher income voters) to a much larger pool of voters (lower income voters).

Proof please.

Unfortunately, virtually every contributor on this forum has been captured by either the former or the latter.

Proof, please.

There is an alternative though -- but first folks must recognize and acknowledge the dynamic in play that I outlined above.

Intellectually dishonest: "Accept my position a priori, and then we can discuss where things go from there."

Show us the road-map first; after all, there's nothing wrong with jumping off the crazy train if you know where it's headed, even when your chosen ideology says you've bought the Europass. Indeed, consequences are one way we judge the value of premises.

[AuSable River]

Unfortunately, virtually every contributor on this forum has been captured by either the former or the latter.

I'm pretty sure nobody paid me to vote. Maybe if I had voted Cristina Kirchner...

virtually every one of the tens of millions of Americans on food stamps, welfare, extended unemployment benefits, et al will be voting for obama.

indeed, as government spending on these regimes has increased significantly in the last 3 years -- poverty is at near record levels not seen since the early 1960's.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm pretty sure nobody paid me to vote. Maybe if I had voted Cristina Kirchner...

virtually every one of the tens of millions of Americans on food stamps, welfare, extended unemployment benefits, et al will be voting for obama.

indeed, as government spending on these regimes has increased significantly in the last 3 years -- poverty is at near record levels not seen since the early 1960's.

Causation/Correlation.

"poverty is clearly rising since the government expenditure for caring for the poor is rising, it couldnt POSSIBLY be the other way around. The government is crippling the economy."

[Samuraikoku]

I'm pretty sure nobody paid me to vote. Maybe if I had voted Cristina Kirchner...

virtually every one of the tens of millions of Americans on food stamps, welfare, extended unemployment benefits, et al will be voting for obama.

indeed, as government spending on these regimes has increased significantly in the last 3 years -- poverty is at near record levels not seen since the early 1960's.

I'm not American. That which you made is called goalpost shifting, and it's a fallacy.

Your argument, therefore, is invalid.

[Alien Space Bats]

indeed, as government spending on these regimes has increased significantly in the last 3 years -- poverty is at near record levels not seen since the early 1960's.

Inversion of cause and effect: Since these programs require poverty for eligibility, it would stand to reason that rising poverty would result in rising enrollment, not the other way around.

[Novaya Tselinoyarsk]

indeed, as government spending on these regimes has increased significantly in the last 3 years -- poverty is at near record levels not seen since the early 1960's.

I'm sure this has nothing to do with the recession going on at the moment. Nope, it's all Obama's spending.

[AuSable River]

Obama is trying to woo these constituencies to gain a tiny plurality. Hence, he promises to redistribute wealth from a tiny percentage of voters (higher income voters) to a much larger pool of voters (lower income voters).

Proof please.

Unfortunately, virtually every contributor on this forum has been captured by either the former or the latter.

Proof, please.

There is an alternative though -- but first folks must recognize and acknowledge the dynamic in play that I outlined above.

Intellectually dishonest: "Accept my position a priori, and then we can discuss where things go from there."

Show us the road-map first; after all, there's nothing wrong with jumping off the crazy train if you know where it's headed, even when your chosen ideology says you've bought the Europass. Indeed, consequences are one way we judge the value of premises.

anybody who has even a base knowledge of what is happening in politics today knows that obama favors transfers of wealth from the higher income earners ($250,000) to pay for programs to benefit lower income earners.

If you dispute this fact, then you need to increase your knowledge in the subject matter in order to understand the dynamic I presented in the OP.

[Novaya Tselinoyarsk]

anybody who has even a base knowledge of what is happening in politics today knows

I stopped reading right there because the rest of your post is built of a straw man. Basing your arguments off of "well if you knew what I know" is complete bullshit, and not even worth reading. If you want to start pointing fingers show me statistics, graphs, charts, and all the sources therefore.

Until then your finger pointing with the backing of "you should know" as your sources won't fly for anything other then useless text.

[AuSable River]

virtually every one of the tens of millions of Americans on food stamps, welfare, extended unemployment benefits, et al will be voting for obama.

indeed, as government spending on these regimes has increased significantly in the last 3 years -- poverty is at near record levels not seen since the early 1960's.

Causation/Correlation.

"poverty is clearly rising since the government expenditure for caring for the poor is rising, it couldnt POSSIBLY be the other way around. The government is crippling the economy."

1) paying people not to work by taxing the very entities that would hire them leads to increased unemployment for the following reasons -- a) companies have less capital to hire new workers and b) unemployed workers have less incentive to find work if they are getting paid not to work.

2) the same dynamic is in play in regard to government managing wealth for the following reason -- government acquires and manages wealth based on political goals that are economically unsustainable.

Empirically, wherever big govt is juxtaposed to limited govt. ---- limited govt systems have far better economic outcomes and living standards.

north korea/south korea, west germany/east germany, taiwan/communist china, USSR/USA, et al....

[AuSable River]

virtually every one of the tens of millions of Americans on food stamps, welfare, extended unemployment benefits, et al will be voting for obama.

indeed, as government spending on these regimes has increased significantly in the last 3 years -- poverty is at near record levels not seen since the early 1960's.

I'm not American. That which you made is called goalpost shifting, and it's a fallacy.

Your argument, therefore, is invalid.

My argument applies to all liberal democracies and autocrat regimes.

For example, politicians -- like everybody else -- are rational actors who act in their own self-interest.

Hence, politicians who are effective and rational act for political goals while subordinating economic goals when the two conflict.

[Alien Space Bats]

anybody who has even a base knowledge of what is happening in politics today knows that obama favors transfers of wealth from the higher income earners ($250,000) to pay for programs to benefit lower income earners.

That doesn't prove your claim.

You said this constitutes vote buying; it is contingent upon you to prove what you say is true.

You see, as a voter, I can support laws and candidates that aren't necessarily in my best interests. For example, as a white male, I would definitely benefit from discrimination against females and minorities; as a man who is married to a post-menopausal woman, I would benefit from a ban on birth control, in so far as it would reduce the amount of job competition I face from young professional women due to the interruption in their careers that unplanned childbirth would represent. And as a straight man, I would definitely benefit from the wholesale firing of gays and lesbians, as that, too, would clear out the competition, effectively helping me get and keep a job in this difficult job market.

But I don't support any of those things; so, clearly, as a voter, I can be motivated by something other than self interest.

Likewise, I can cite examples of politicians who have acted in opposition to their own political interests or those of their parties (eg, Michigan Governor Rick Synder, in vetoing this year's proposed changes to his State's Voter ID laws).

So showing that a certain group of people would benefit from a certain policy is not enough; you have to show either an intention to corrupt the electorate by any politician you accuse of such a thing, or you have to show that it is widely known that the beneficiaries of said action will reward those who took the action with their votes.

Until you do one or the other, you haven't proven your initial assertion.

[Samuraikoku]

My argument applies to all liberal democracies and autocrat regimes.

For example, politicians -- like everybody else -- are rational actors who act in their own self-interest.

Hence, politicians who are effective and rational act for political goals while subordinating economic goals when the two conflict.

No. Your argument applied to this forum, verbatim.

Unfortunately, virtually every contributor on this forum has been captured by either the former or the latter.

When I told you nobody paid me to vote, you shifted from "this forum" to "America".

virtually every one of the tens of millions of Americans on food stamps, welfare, extended unemployment benefits, et al will be voting for obama.

I'm not American. Therefore, your argument is invalid.

[AuSable River]

anybody who has even a base knowledge of what is happening in politics today knows

I stopped reading right there because the rest of your post is built of a straw man. Basing your arguments off of "well if you knew what I know" is complete bullshit, and not even worth reading. If you want to start pointing fingers show me statistics, graphs, charts, and all the sources therefore.

Until then your finger pointing with the backing of "you should know" as your sources won't fly for anything other then useless text.

I cant copy and post images, graphs, charts, et al from the public computer I am using -- so this will have to do as an example of how government has bought a large and reliable voting bloc:

enjoy,

1) those over 65, represent 12% of the population, yet possess over 55% of the wealth in the country -- no problem, they probably earned it.

2) those under 44, represent 60% of the population,yet possess only 7% of the wealth in the country -- no problem, they are just starting out.

Yet when the following statistics are presented the picture gets very grim and disturbing:

3) despite the fact that the oldest 12% possess over 55% of the wealth -- these citizens receive an average of $32,000 in federal government assistance.

4) contrast this figure with Americans under 44 who receive an average of $4,000 per person in federal government assistance.

Hence, the 'logic' in Washington is to reward the leisure class with literally trillions in largesse and punish the productive working poor. No wonder we have been mired in economic malaise. Moreover, those working class stiffs who are paying into the system are guaranteed to get short changed when/if they began receiving social security and medicare.

Yet, largely out of ignorance and ideological programming, they will vote for politicians who defend bankrupt entitlements that informed analysts know will have to be significantly gutted or face insolvency when these younger citizens reach retirement age.

Why has this dynamic occurred:



Politicians may be corrupt, economically illiterate, and destructive to the US economy, but they aren't stupid.

They know who votes and who has money.

[Politicopia Founder]

So people shouldn't vote for a government that acts in the best interests of the majority of people? That's sort of the point.

[Fartsniffage]

I cant copy and post images, graphs, charts, et al from the public computer I am using -- so this will have to do as an example of how government has bought a large and reliable voting bloc:

enjoy,

Can you not link them?

[Spartan Philidelphia]

1) those over 65, represent 12% of the population, yet possess over 55% of the wealth in the country -- no problem, they probably earned it.

2) those under 44, represent 60% of the population,yet possess only 7% of the wealth in the country -- no problem, they are just starting out.

Yet when the following statistics are presented the picture gets very grim and disturbing:

3) despite the fact that the oldest 12% possess over 55% of the wealth -- these citizens receive an average of $32,000 in federal government assistance.

4) contrast this figure with Americans under 44 who receive an average of $4,000 per person in federal government assistance.

Hence, the 'logic' in Washington is to reward the leisure class with literally trillions in largesse and punish the productive working poor. No wonder we have been mired in economic malaise. Moreover, those working class stiffs who are paying into the system are guaranteed to get short changed when/if they began receiving social security and medicare.

Yet, largely out of ignorance and ideological programming, they will vote for politicians who defend bankrupt entitlements that informed analysts know will have to be significantly gutted or face insolvency when these younger citizens reach retirement age.

Why has this dynamic occurred:



Politicians may be corrupt, economically illiterate, and destructive to the US economy, but they aren't stupid.

They know who votes and who has money.

Actually, the oldest 25% of Americans are more likely to be among the bottom 17% in terms of income than the middle 16%. However, there have been some famous cases of 1% of Americans who actually enjoy a much more luxurious life than over three-quarters of men and women, mostly blacks, Latinos, and Canadian-Americans who pay only 13% of taxes more than 78% of US Senators. If you did the math, that's more than 7 US Senators (mostly those of the Labour party) deciding that the poor are better off 99% than the leading brand.

Do some real research next time.

[AuSable River]

anybody who has even a base knowledge of what is happening in politics today knows that obama favors transfers of wealth from the higher income earners ($250,000) to pay for programs to benefit lower income earners.

That doesn't prove your claim.

You said this constitutes vote buying; it is contingent upon you to prove what you say is true.

You see, as a voter, I can support laws and candidates that aren't necessarily in my best interests. For example, as a white male, I would definitely benefit from discrimination against females and minorities; as a man who is married to a post-menopausal woman, I would benefit from a ban on birth control, in so far as it would reduce the amount of job competition I face from young professional women due to the interruption in their careers that unplanned childbirth would represent. And as a straight man, I would definitely benefit from the wholesale firing of gays and lesbians, as that, too, would clear out the competition, effectively helping me get and keep a job in this difficult job market.

But I don't support any of those things; so, clearly, as a voter, I can be motivated by something other than self interest.

Likewise, I can cite examples of politicians who have acted in opposition to their own political interests or those of their parties (eg, Michigan Governor Rick Synder, in vetoing this year's proposed changes to his State's Voter ID laws).

So showing that a certain group of people would benefit from a certain policy is not enough; you have to show either an intention to corrupt the electorate by any politician you accuse of such a thing, or you have to show that it is widely known that the beneficiaries of said action will reward those who took the action with their votes.

Until you do one or the other, you haven't proven your initial assertion.

I guarantee that if your job was directly impacted by affirmative action you would be singing a different tune. Indeed, many Americans who have been forced to the back of the bus simply because of race, religion, culture et al do not support these policies for good reason. My guess is that these policies have not significantly impacted your personal life.

and if your pro-abortion -- it is a strawman argument citing your wife's age -- abortion is largely an ideological position since a significant number of people are not involved in the process.

again, I seriously doubt that you have been negatively impacted or lost your job because of someone's lifestyle. NOnetheless, I guarantee that women who want abortions or homosexuals vote in their own self-interest in an overwhelming percentage of cases.

Indeed, by citing these examples you prove my point that people vote in their own self-interest.

over 2/3 of gays will vote for democrat candidates and the same applies for those who support abortion.

and it is no coincidence that democrat politicians tout this difference continually. of course, when economic effects are not directly felt, voters are more influenced by social issues.

In sum, your anecdotal argument does not hold water among the overwhelming propensity of voters to act in their own self-interest -- particularily when their personal economic circumstances are impacted by who gets elected in november.

[Mexican Liberation]

We shall see.

Indeed we will
When he is reelected

[Des-Bal]

The government can't make sound economic decisions because people refuse to accept that taxes are too low and that we can't afford the public services we've come to depend on. We can't accept that because candidats refuse to tell us point blank what the problem is and what steps have a legitimate chance of resolving it. They refuse to tell us that because we wouldn't vote for them if they did. Democracy fails when the citizens are ignorant and the government won't tell them as much.

[The Lone Alliance]

Why don't you get over the fact that no one cares what you teabaggers have to say, half of what you say is bullshit anyway.

You claim a government trying to act in the best interests of the people is "Vote buying" so who do you think the government should work for, the corporations or are you like the rest of the mouth breathers here thinking "The Free Market will fix it".

[AuSable River]

So people shouldn't vote for a government that acts in the best interests of the majority of people? That's sort of the point.

No, because the majority simply uses the political process to plunder the fairly gotten wealth of the minority.

Or the inverse, in which the minority wealthy few uses its money to corrupt and influence government at the expense of the honest and hardworking Main Street.

So, in answer to your question -- government shouldnt be used as a tool to plunder irrespective of whether it is by few at the expense of the many --- or the many at the expense of the few.

unfortunately, it appears that many, if not all, on this forum agree that government should still be used to plunder.

They only object when the plunder does not benefit their economic and ideological self-interest.

Or even more unfortunate, is the apparent ignorance that many have of this obvious dynamic that has been in play as government has gotten progressively larger and our economic distress has approached a survival level threat.

[Zepplien]

Indeed, why don't we all have a base tax percent of 8% for everyone, oh what was that Comrade would you agree with the Soviet tax scheme?

Unemployment benefits can be high without compromising worker efficacy, see USSR, China, North Korea (ok maybe a bad example), and various other nations that provide great services to the poor while maintaining profitability in their markets.

[Norstal]

No, but a stranger with a yellow and black flag on the internet knows more about economy than economists.