New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Simple question...

Can you have economic growth where there are a lot of VERY rich people getting even more rich, while the majority of people don't?
 
GordonGecko said:
Can you have economic growth where there are a lot of VERY rich people getting even more rich, while the majority of people don't?
Click to expand...

I think you could argue about that once the economy is growing. But, with an economy growing (well) below trend, the idea that the President's first priority is redistribution is (in my view) a clear indication of his ideological underpinnings (do I need to spell it out?).
 
Cerulean Mutt said:
I guess everything is black or white for you, eh?
Click to expand...

This is certainly a black or white proposition - Mr. President, is your main priority getting the American economy to grow or is it to make sure wealth is redistributed more equitably? Like I said, it's a pretty simple question...
 
Lukey said:
I think you could argue about that once the economy is growing. But, with an economy growing (well) below trend, the idea that the President's first priority is redistribution is (in my view) a clear indication of his ideological underpinnings (do I need to spell it out?).
Click to expand...

Actually I'm arguing HISTORY....in the 1890s (the "good ol' days" for you), we HAD economic growth.

And all the wealth was concentrated in a FEW hands while the majority lived in or near poverty.
 
GordonGecko said:
Actually I'm arguing HISTORY....in the 1890s (the "good ol' days" for you), we HAD economic growth.

And all the wealth was concentrated in a FEW hands while the majority lived in or near poverty.
Click to expand...

Obama isn't running against Grover Cleveland. He's not running for President of 1890's America. He's running for re-election in 2012 when the economy has been growing below trend since he was elected in 2008. And you are arguing that he should NOT make economic growth his main priority, even with $1 trillion + budget deficits as far as the eye can see - but rather that wealth be re-distributed to make outcomes more equitable. Do you think he will be able to defend that stance in a debate with Romney?
 
Lukey said:
Do you think he will be able to defend that stance in a debate with Romney?
Click to expand...

Gee, I don't know, Lukey. That'd be tough against a guy who said he "wasn't concerned about the poor"....likes to make $10,000 bets.....thinks $375,000 in speaking fees "isn't a lot of money".....has offshore bank accounts.....and "enjoys firing people".

Real tough. :)
 
Lukey said:
President Barack Obama has made income inequality the focus of his re-election campaign.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/14edd8fc-71c4-11e1-b853-00144feab49a.html#axzz1pq1wIM3G

Is this the "focus" of a "capitalist?" I would think economic growth would be the "focus" of a capitalist running for President. What do you all think?
Click to expand...

Yes, economic growth for EVERYONE should be the focus of a capatalist.

Oligarchs focus mainly on the few with policies like "trickle down" economics or some ish like that.

Please smack a kkkon lip

Thx
 
GordonGecko said:
Gee, I don't know, Lukey. That'd be tough against a guy who said he "wasn't concerned about the poor"....likes to make $10,000 bets.....thinks $375,000 in speaking fees "isn't a lot of money".....has offshore bank accounts.....and "enjoys firing people".

Real tough. :)
Click to expand...

I think the average American cares more about whether their kids will be able to find good jobs than they do about punishing Romney for being successful. I guess we'll see...
 
Lukey said:
I think the average American cares more about whether their kids will be able to find good jobs than they do about punishing Romney for being successful. I guess we'll see...
Click to expand...

And I'm sure they have your utter faith that a guy like Romney "really cares" about those kids finding a job.....and not just lining the pockets of his buddies with more tax cuts.

I'm SURE of it. :)
 
Yeah....what a dumb strategy. Appeal to the 99.5% with a stupid concept like "fairness" when the other party wants to give tax breaks to the .5% and pump up the homeless and hungry index.

What could he be thinking? It's un-American to care about struggling people....patriotic to bury one's nose in the butts of the wealthiest.
 
Lukey said:
I think the average American cares more about whether their kids will be able to find good jobs than they do about punishing Romney for being successful. I guess we'll see...
Click to expand...

People wont take kindly to Romney s kind of corporate raiding "Success" while supporting the offshoring of American jobs.

The conservative god in waiting is already gimped k?

Thx
 
zzigzzag said:
Yeah....what a dumb strategy. Appeal to the 99.5% with a stupid concept like "fairness" when the other party wants to give tax breaks to the .5% and pump up the homeless and hungry index.

What could he be thinking? It's un-American to care about struggling people....patriotic to bury one's nose in the butts of the wealthiest.
Click to expand...

Mitt Romney: "...I'm not concerned about the very poor..."
 
GordonGecko said:
And I'm sure they have your utter faith that a guy like Romney "really cares" about those kids finding a job.....and not just lining the pockets of his buddies with more tax cuts.

I'm SURE of it. :)
Click to expand...

Well it's not like we don't have three plus years of Obama economic policies to measure. I'm sure you are correct that people will ignore all that piss poor economic performance because the President promises to double down on the anti-capitalist policies that produced it. I'm sure your guy has nothing to worry about...
 
zzigzzag said:
Yeah....what a dumb strategy. Appeal to the 99.5% with a stupid concept like "fairness" when the other party wants to give tax breaks to the .5% and pump up the homeless and hungry index.

What could he be thinking? It's un-American to care about struggling people....patriotic to bury one's nose in the butts of the wealthiest.
Click to expand...

So, is his focus a "Capitalist" one or not? See, you forgot to answer the question...
 
Didn't say that, Lukey....just that he's got a lot LESS to worry about now that the GOP is going to nominate a guy who HALF the time is defending his health care reform in MA that is IDENTICAL to the President's.....and the other HALF sounding like a CARTOON of a "Rich Republican Out-of-Touch Elitist".

Seriously....if you did a PARODY of a Republican running for President in some "liberal Hollywood political comedy".....the studio heads would say a "Mitt Romney" character was "too over-the-top and unbelievable".

ROFLMAO
 
GordonGecko said:
Didn't say that, Lukey....just that he's got a lot LESS to worry about now that the GOP is going to nominate a guy who HALF the time is defending his health care reform in MA that is IDENTICAL to the President's.....and the other HALF sounding like a CARTOON of a "Rich Republican Out-of-Touch Elitist".

Seriously....if you did a PARODY of a Republican running for President in some "liberal Hollywood political comedy".....the studio heads would say a "Mitt Romney" character was "too over-the-top and unbelievable".

ROFLMAO
Click to expand...

So, I guess the question is, can a parody of a capitalist beat a sincere Marxist? I say yes, especially if the economy continues to grow below trend through the summer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top