This has become the great dividing point in the Election of 2008. Where do you come down?
Monday, October 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Gary Sutton Show
For over sixteen years, Gary has broadcasted on Newsradio 910 WSBA. You can tune in to Gary's show between 9am and 12 noon every weekday on 910 WSBA.
The show is streamed live from the 910 WSBA website for internet users.
You can call in to the show on weekdays between 9AM and 12 noon at (800) 357-0910.
14 comments:
America better wake up the wolf in sheeps clothing is among us. We will see the demise of all we worked for if this goes further
Sorry, guys, but in my estimation the initial premise is all wrong,
as it was also wrong on the radio show this morning 8-9.
This election is a condemnation and repudiation of the very failed policies of the CheneyBush administration. The fact that the economy, world wide, is in the crapper, is potentially an outgrowth of those failed policies which advocated unrestricted speculation and risk-taking both in the diplomatic sphere and the financial.
The failure to honor regulations that by creating sensible boundaries hold in check the worst excesses has lead to a most disastrous outcome.
Regulations such as the primacy of international boundary rights, the laws against pre-emptive war, SEC oversight of mergers, acquisitions, and transactions in general----were conveniently ignored and trashed during the last 8 years. Some of it started earlier------but the bulk of it, and the most egregious parts of it can be levied at the hands of Cheney/Bush.
This election isn't about a redistribution of wealth------your premise is wrong-----it is about setting a new course for the nation toward more ethical behavior, and re-establishing those boundaries that make life safer for everyone.
McCain represents the same policies we've had. Obama represents some possibility to restore America's dignity.
In a country in which 75% of the people believe it was a mistake to invade Iraq----it is Obama in a landslide.
We already have redistribution of wealth in this country. It's redistributed upward for the most part. Corporate America would completely collapse if the nanny state stopped subsidizing it. More of your tax dollars go to corporate welfare than to social welfare.
But instead lets talk about how the poor use government to steal from the rich, yeah that's how it works. All those lobbyists in D.C. being paid 6 figure salaries to tout the interests of the less fortunate and secure funds for social programs.
Bush gave us the bailout-now the government owns part of the banks & insurance companies. Bush protects the big corporations that get tax breaks for investing in new plants and employees in other countries. Isn't this socialism. McCain supports these as well. Bob Barr differs with Bush/McCain/Obama/ socialism
What we are talking about is a really the notion of a Progressive Tax. It has been around for years and the notion of Wealth Redistribution is merely a political ploy in this election to divert attention from talking about what ails us currently and how to fix it.
Nothing wrong with discussing alternative notions such as a flat tax which some like Ron Paul have suggested.
Even the early framers of Capitalism such as Adam Smith agreed with a Progressive Tax.
Check also the nations of the world - similar thing with a progressive tax.
Some look at this as a further step towards socialism, but in looking at the current situation where the government is conrolling more and more of what used to be private interests, there is effectively no difference in support for either major candidate or the President himself.
Instead of this read "Spread the Tax Hooey!"
at FactCheck.org that just was published.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/spread_the_tax_hooey.html
where does this notion comes from that America promises success in any way? America has always been about winners AND losers. Those who have and those who have more. There is nothing wrong with this. This Obama cat cant really have all these supporters because they are good people, its because they are greedy people who think they can "get mines" from that Marxist instead of taking some fortitude and risk, a bit of saving and doing with out, and trying to achieve upward economic mobility by capitalistic ways instead of having the fed come in and make a level field. You want some help? Try getting some one to put some protection on US labor, not processesed raw materials or commodities but manufacturing. It is not protectionism... it is national security. Niether candidate will even get close to this issue, just like immigration.
Some choice.
The idea that government should choose who the winners will be and who the losers will be is anathema to the whole principle of free choice, isn't it? Progressive taxes? Repudiation of the Bush-Cheyney policies? Come on.
The ultimate job of government is to get out of the way so that individual initiative can have a chance to realize goals if pursued by the individual. It is, or was, based on a society that believed in independence and work. The only "fairness" that we worried about was to try as much as possible to have a level playing field for all in this country.
I do believe that there must be stricter regulation and oversight for situations that we have seen in this financial crises. When power and wealth are abused, especially in a way that takes all of us with them, there must be safeguards in our system of freedoms. People make bad choices, and illegal choices. They must be held accountable.
Having said that, what is progressive about any tax? Government produces no money, but takes it from those that do, then make them pay progressively more than those who don't???? What is progressive about that? How does that provide greater incentive for people to create wealth in this country? How does a 35% corporate tax keep business in this country when every other industrialized country offers less of a strain on earnings? Senator Obama is right in the sense that wealth is built "from the ground up." When you start at ground level, don't you want to achieve higher status financially. What a goal to look forward to when you know that your efforts will lead to a "progressive tax." How is that progressive for success?
Lessen the tax confiscation, tighten the spending, and find an equitable way to provide tax cuts for 100% of citizens in this country; not just 95%. If you nwant to create a nanny state of dependency where we whine for fairness defined as what I can get, I believe we go opposite the very tenets on which we were founded.
Gary,
Progressive tax increases consumption and stimulates weak demand, which in turn grows the economy. Many of those recieving tax cuts under the Bush Adm. have so much money, they don't know what to do with it.
We dont have to pay the rich first, we have just been led to believe that this is the only way to grow the economy. In reality investment capital only accounts for 10% of GDP. 70% is consumption, that's the driving force. Put money in the hands of people who will spend it.
Gary, since you were a history teacher, read Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.
Or, perhaps you think he is just a bunch of nonsense in the grand scheme of Americn economics ??
No way Adam Smith would want is name attached in any way to American "capitalism". Some of his principles run in direct contrast to the United States version of capitalism.
Some might even think they are reading Marx when they read Smith's ideas about "dignity of labor."
Guess people want to write their own version of history. Wealth of Nations is the conerstone of modern economics.
Talk about revisionists - look no further.
You've read Wealth of Nations? What's Adam Smith's take on cheap labor? How does that compare with our economy today? The only nations on earth that function as pure capitalist states are in the
3rd world? The US economy is what would be described as "state subsidized capitalism." That is not the kind of capitalism discussed by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations. You're mistaken if you believe otherwise.
That's right ken. What would Smith know about the economy today?
He lived before the age of maufacturing, ie the industrial revolution. International trade then was mainly limited to lightly processed and raw commodities except for military items.
Besides who cares about Smith? What should be on peoples minds is the fact that Obama is a Marxist-Period. Is that what we really want? These young people seem to think so.
Post a Comment