QuoteReplyTopic: Something I don't understand about Pres. Obama Posted: 10-Feb-2009 at 13:47
Hello Bey
The US never had a real left wing or even center party. All American parties espoused right wing politics, some to the extreme some to the center but always within the right wing spectrum.
The second point is that you contradict yourself. People naturally will vote for the people who serve them, this is in the end the real meaning of democracy. You have no right calling a guy who votes for his interests "brainwashed" because the guy chose what is good for him. Individualism is at the base of the American social contract if one would use this term liberally. I don't need to vote left wing because the poor will get more benifits, I will vote right wing so I could get more benifits and so on.
The third point is about small business. Actually small business were one of the major benefactors of the tax cuts of GWB. Small business thrived in the US in the last decade and many start ups especially in technology turned into massive corporations because of the healthy business climate in the US. Expamnsion in big business actually helps expand small businesses too. The current trend in big business is to subcontract and small businesses direcly benifit from subcontracts. For example GM only assembles cars but the rest of the car parts are produced by small and medium size businesses. The reasn for increased bankruptcy are totally different than what you think.
People naturally will vote for the people who serve them,
No they don't.
this is in the end the real meaning of democracy.
No it is not.
You have no right calling a guy who votes for his interests "brainwashed" because the guy chose what is good for him.
They are not voting in their own interest, because they are 'brainwashed'. That's the whole point.
Individualism is at the base of the American social contract if one would use this term liberally.
'Individualism' is a myth created to brainwash the poor.
I don't need to vote left wing because the poor will get more benifits, I will vote right wing so I could get more benifits and so on.
By writing this you are proving my point. Because 'you' (as you wrote 'I') are actually poor, but you are voting so that the rich get the benefits. This is because you believe that you are either rich or you will soon be rich. In fact you are not rich and your wealth has been shrinking for 30 years. That's why you are brainwashed.
For the top 10% or so of income earners, you are right, they are voting in their own interest, but for the remining 80% or so of Americans, you are wrong. Their interests are the same as the poor they are conditioned to hate.
Why do I think that the last US president with a grasp of economics was Richard Nixon?
Because it's true? Television inaugarated an era where US presidents ceased to be selected on the basis of their merit as adminstrators and became media personalities.
h. The North has become Democratic, and the South Republican, where 100 years ago it was the reverse.
Are American western states like California, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Nevada etc. divided along south/north lines or they are seen as sepperate block?
As a matter of opinion, I would categorize the "northwest," Oregon and Washington, as Northern states.
California, as is so often the case, is harder to understand. Northern California tends more toward left-leaning attitudes and politics, and southern California more toward those that are right-leaning. Some large areas of suburban LA, and some of the agricultural areas are more conservative and attract Republican votes.
Interior western states like Idaho and Utah and Nevada are something of an enigma to me. Utah is Mormon dominated and is usually very conservative in attitude. Nevada is rather strange, the only large population center being Las Vegas, which is like a mortal sin theme park. Idaho = ? Someone needs to enighten me on such a remote place.
Is there some kind of North vs South geographical factor? I really don't know....maybe it is the heat.
Why do I think that the last US president with a grasp of economics was Richard Nixon?
Because it's true? Television inaugarated an era where US presidents ceased to be selected on the basis of their merit as adminstrators and became media personalities.
Could you please explain to me why people will not vote for thier own best interest?
What is left to explain? People are conditioned into a mindset that causes them to vote against their own interests. Mind you, they are not doing this consciously, they believe they are in fact voting for their best interests. The lower classes are lured in with conservative social policies (anti-gay rights, anti-abortion, anti-prostitution etc.) and end up voting for an economic system that will keep them earning 10 dollars an hour, without being able to afford adequate health care or higher education for their children.
Could you please explain to me why people will not vote for thier own best interest?
Mind you I live in a country where there is no democracy.
Al-Jassas
people vote in short term ways. It will normally be 'whats in in for me' and stuff that makes sense for themselves but little for the greater good. People prefer tax cuts and hand outs over strategic nation building stuff, until one day the networks are that bad they want both. Throw in three key messages and snazzy catch phrases and democracy has been dumbed down into a instant snack.
Could you please explain to me why people will not vote for thier own best interest?
Mind you I live in a country where there is no democracy.
Al-Jassas
people vote in short term ways. It will normally be 'whats in in for me' and stuff that makes sense for themselves but little for the greater good. People prefer tax cuts and hand outs over strategic nation building stuff, until one day the networks are that bad they want both. Throw in three key messages and snazzy catch phrases and democracy has been dumbed down into a instant snack.
Leo,
I doubt that what you say has ever been much different since representative government became established. Mostly it has been magnified because of the overwhelming influence of first, television network news, and now 24 hour competing television hype.
Politics in the abstract is admirable when it works: it allows a concensus outlet for competing-interest pressures. However, in detail, it is about who gets the stuff, and who gets off giving out the stuff.
"Strategic nation building" is way beyond the interest or the available time to even consider it for 99% of the people who can vote. Unfortunately, that is why so much policy has to be made "deep" in the structure of administration. Too few can understand the imperatives, and it is nearly impossible to put an explanation to them that will fly politically.
A university education is hardly a determinant as to how one votes. Mostly it is self interest that determines how one votes.
Well, actually no it isn't. It is perceived self-interest that determines how one votes, and perception is affected by the information you receive. It's controlling that information (whether from the pulpit, the press, or the schoolroom) that Bey refers to as 'brainwashing', I presume.
On the whole, hugher education helps match perception to reality, but not all that reliably.
There's no way on earth that the effect of the Reagan or Bush administrations was in the best interests of the US people.
The Republican Party, in the last 40 years, has cultivated the votes of Southern, white voters of fundamenatalist persuasion, probably counting on demographics (South and West) to solidify political influence.
'Cultivating the votes' doesn't just mean promising people what they think they want, it includes propagandising to affect what they think they want, and the priorities they give things.
The Repubs had a preponderance of university educated voters before that, but since then, not as much. The North has become Democratic, and the South Republican, where 100 years ago it was the reverse.
Apart from the phenomenon with big cities that Bey noted. New York for example has been Democratic since the two-party system came into being.
Not that the controlling people in the NY Democratic party had the best interests of the people in mind.
The US never had a real left wing or even center party. All American parties espoused right wing politics, some to the extreme some to the center but always within the right wing spectrum.
The second point is that you contradict yourself. People naturally will vote for the people who serve them, this is in the end the real meaning of democracy. You have no right calling a guy who votes for his interests "brainwashed" because the guy chose what is good for him.
Bey is calling the guy who votes for what is bad for him 'brainwashed'. He pointed out that some people, even well educated, vote Republican because it is in their interests personally to do so. Halliburrton shareholders aren't the ones being 'brainwashed'. People who vote Republican because they are scared 'the gays will take over' are brainwashed.
Individualism is at the base of the American social contract if one would use this term liberally. I don't need to vote left wing because the poor will get more benifits, I will vote right wing so I could get more benifits and so on.
Only because they have been brainwashed into not recognising they are the poor - or could become so at any time, just because they fall ill.
Pretty well all Americans talk and think of themselves as 'middle-class'. That's why politicians go on about helping the 'middle class'. But the 'middle class' in the US today is Marx's proletariat. Which is why the wealth of the middle class has been declining for thirty years.
The third point is about small business. Actually small business were one of the major benefactors of the tax cuts of GWB.
Only because big coporations don't pay any taxes worth mentioning.
Small business thrived in the US in the last decade and many start ups especially in technology turned into massive corporations because of the healthy business climate in the US.
They did that on the back of an immense boom in spurious credit. How many of them failed? And are failing right now? Because the illusion of prosperity was a facade.
Expamnsion in big business actually helps expand small businesses too. The current trend in big business is to subcontract and small businesses direcly benifit from subcontracts. For example GM only assembles cars but the rest of the car parts are produced by small and medium size businesses. The reasn for increased bankruptcy are totally different than what you think.
Could you please explain to me why people will not vote for thier own best interest?
Mind you I live in a country where there is no democracy.
Al-Jassas
people vote in short term ways. It will normally be 'whats in in for me' and stuff that makes sense for themselves but little for the greater good. People prefer tax cuts and hand outs over strategic nation building stuff, until one day the networks are that bad they want both.
Sue they vote for 'tax cuts' because it sounds good. The reality is that tax cuts don't benefit the mass of people at all (especially when accompanied by cuts in government spending). They benefit the people with the highest incomes most.
The illusion here is that tax cuts for the rich 'trickle down' in benefits to the whole economy. They don't. They just increase the savings of the rich. Sending the price of old masters through the roof doesn't benefit anybody except the owners - who tend to be the rich anyway - and the dealers, who are only a tiny minority and also tend to be wealthy anyway.
Throw in three key messages and snazzy catch phrases and democracy has been dumbed down into a instant snack.
gcle 2003, wrote above concerning middle class tax cuts;
"Only because big coporations don't pay any taxes worth mentioning."
Since gcle--- is no longer posting at this site, this post is directed to others.
So, without fear of an answer by gcle--, I would suggest that he would feel more comfortable if "Big Business" was more heavily taxed! I would also suppose that he would feel this would be of help to Middle Class Americans!
If any other current respondents to this site are familar with the posts and attitude of gcle---, maybe you can either tell me that I have made the wrong suppositions or the correct ones?
Assuming my suppostions are correct, I would just like to point out that if a nation decides it can support certain groups of people based in a large part upon the taxes collected from "Big Business", then you hardly know anything about economics!
The reality is that no matter what the tax rate for "Big Business" might be set, "Big Business" pays absolutely "NO TAX" in any event!
Thank about that?
Why do you suppose I make such a statement?
It is simple! For any business, taxes are merely a "Cost of Doing Business!" (CODB), they may be "indirect", but costs they are! And costs they are listed under when doing the bookkeeping! Note, I am only providing a quick and easy way to understand this, but in essence "Profit", or "Net Profit" is determined after the CODB are subtracted.
Of course, if this business actually produces a product that requires manufacture, etc., and one that is in any manner also in direct competition with other manufactures of a like or similar procuct, then the business must also remain competitive in its pricing!
Now here we enter a very tangible area whereby the success or failure of the business is predicated. In most areas, the business remains competitive, even with a great tax burden, only when its employees can become more effective in the production of the product, while reducing costs in other areas or at least holding costs in a level status.
This is a manner of increasing the "productivity" level of the employees, either thru wage restrictions, or via machinery that displaces workers, or other methods, etc. (One may notice that American "productivity" has been amongst the highest of any industralized nation in the world for a long time!)
Again, simplfying things, if the Big Business receives a new tax burdern of 10% of its Gross Profit, it can in the right conditions merely raise the price of its product by the same 10% and remain OK!
But, that is just an example in the simplist manner to confirm my statement that NO Big Business actually pays any taxes, the cost of taxes is much like the cost of raw material, and labor, etc., it is ultimately passed on to the consumer!
The problem is, that these taxes of they become too onerous, can quite quickly make the cost of thier product or service become too expensive for those desiring the product. Rising taxation creates rising prices, which creates inflation, job loss, reduction in the products quality, deferring to cheaper imports, etc.!
Suddenly the taxes being collected by government plumment, and they by necessity decide that only higher taxes will replenish the coffers! ETc.
You see, it becomes a round robin of increases, failures, and recession or depression, etc.! Jobs, are sent to overseas corporations where taxes are low, as are wages, etc.! You see much the same thing happening in the USA for the last 30 years or so, whereby a business is given a 10 year tax free status just for building a factory in some American State, over another one! (some of these businesses are foreign owned1)
Sometimes, you might even notice that these same companies move to another state giving them tax free status for another ten years!
You see, competition costs!
More socialist nations like France, England, Germany or name one, actually do not tax "Big Business" they give these industries capital, in the form of subsidies! They know that these businesses cannot compete in the world without help! I.e., their overhead or costs are too high! Unions resist pay cuts or even pay stabalization and the reduction of other benefits! But, you can see just what is happening in some of these nations today!
So, just how does a nation get out of a financial crisis? Default, soon to happen to Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc.! Or do we all endure a period of rampant inflation, but control of costs of labor, etc.! Fixed debts based upon a currency like the Dollar, can be easily be paid off if one is depreciating the value of that Dollar or Euro, etc.! Rampant inflation can take care of the debt! Wages will not be linked to the inflation rate however! Making costs, (CODB) less! The rich, will all go to precious metals, but just like FDR, ownership will be made illegal! Lifestyles will be forced to change! Bicycles and motor bikes will become predominate,as will busses, and trains! Distant enclaves of homes and businesses will fold,no more surburban living!
Guns will be outlawed and confiscation begun! Every night will be a "martial law" night! Costs of goods and services will be controlled. Re-education and building camps will be developed! Inneficient or single home status will be crushed! Energy efficiency will dominate every life!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum