Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Romney has no plan to fix the economy. He says if he wins it will boost itself. But he says he may b

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evil_Santa
Also - Keynesian economics does work on a small time-line.


Yes, it's a bandaid for when you need stitches. Thank you for saying exactly what I was saying, Keynesian economics does not work. Where did the TRILLIONS come from. Our childrens wallets that's where. It's a complete failure as a policy.




posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Evil_Santa
Also - Keynesian economics does work on a small time-line.


Yes, it's a bandaid for when you need stitches. Thank you for saying exactly what I was saying, Keynesian economics does not work. Where did the TRILLIONS come from. Our childrens wallets that's where. It's a complete failure as a policy.


So now you are saying Ronald Reagan was a failure???



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by campanionator
 


Sources and facts thanks.


OK

Well don't be angry if Mitt socks it to you



Romney proving that he is a corporatist agent

Does this suffice?



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
That in no way says the responsibility of government is to provide a pleasant life for you. The goal should be policies that advance the general welfare, which is not the same thing at all.

The government is there for you 100% being that their salaries and jobs are nascent from taxes they collect from companies and people. Remember that infrastructure is built for people not for companies to sell goods to people, or did I wake up today in the backwards dimension?? Ask yourself one simple question, where does wealth come from? My answer is blood, sweat and tears of people who work not the actual corporate entities made by lawyers, the people who run the companies. This work begets money and that money makes taxes for the system to work for the people not the corporate entities lol.


I agree, they are not mutually exclusive, in fact I believe they are inextricably tied. If you listen to what Romney says you will see he believes the same thing. When the economy recoveres your quality of life will be better. It is not about putting one before the other, it is seeing how the two are tied.

My quality of life would be better if we actually let bad companies fail, and big ones too. Talk about an opportunity to create jobs, when a big tree falls in the forest the underbrush grows to fill that spot under the sun.


Unfortunately our economy requires wealthy, middle class, and poor citizens. I have some ideas of how the US can get off of its' dependence of poor citizens, but I could be ahead of my time in that area.

Last time I checked the reason why the rich exist is because they have no morals and take advantage of people. i.e. if they payed people what their work is truly worth, there would be no poor.
edit on 23-9-2012 by Emeraldous because: changed a word for clarity



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Emeraldous
 


Your belief the rich must be immoral sort of kills any chance of having a discussion so we can just disagree. For your own enrichment look into why there must be poor people in a consumer society. Anyways have a wonderful night.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Way to cherry pick one sentence out of my entire reply. I don't feel that you're here to debate this topic, and to learn other people's opinions, so why are you here?



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Evil_Santa
 


I have posted numerous replies with sources and detailed explanations already. I'm honestly too tired to keep posting deep analysis only to have it ignored. I didn't cherry pick, I simply chose one thing I could reply to without much effort.

Here is a bit more of a reply. Regulate businesses more and they will hoard more, as they will need a buffer. The more you stick it to them the bigger buffer they need. There are no guarantees in life, but you can bet on one thing, they want to make money. Using that money will make more money, that is the only assurance you will ever get. They will invest that money in themselves which will spur the economy.

That is the problem with demand side economics, the government is forced to spur the economy, and it simply doesn't work. There are some things the government does which will provide jobs, but who pays for those jobs? WE DO! That is why they do not truly help the economy for the most part. We need jobs that MAKE taxpayers money, not COST taxpayers money. The more taxpayers there are the more we have to invest in things like our infrastructure. It ALL begins with a strong private sector.

A strong President gives them assurances nothing will be done to hamper growth, and in return they BETTER spend that money. If they trust the person assuring them, we will most likely have job growth. Obama has shown he can't be trusted.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by campanionator
 


Sources and facts thanks.

I have no clue what is in your private message to me.
You have made it clear you have nothing to add to the conversation. You have done nothing but troll. You get caught in your lies and proven wrong constantly and you simply rebut with a snarky personal attack. You cannot answer even the most basic questions about things you write.
I can only imagine any personal letter to me in private is much worse. I am not looking to be your friend and after this thread I can tell you are not looking to forward any discussion.

Save that stalking for a girl who likes it.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join