1 - 10 Next
In response to:

D.C. Cannot Save America. Hollywood Can.

evan43 Wrote: Nov 09, 2012 4:49 PM
I'd love to see a true conservative run for office. Not some tea party idiot who tries to undermine government through the filibuster. But a true patriot who will fight for small government. Someone who understands that we can't fight gov't spending with one hand and then promote gov't legislation of morality with other. Someone who will stay out of our economic lives AND private lives. Someone who won't cater to religious fanatics for the vote.
In response to:

D.C. Cannot Save America. Hollywood Can.

evan43 Wrote: Nov 09, 2012 4:43 PM
It's quite simple. If fiscal conservatives want the youth vote, we need to get on the right side of history and learn to embrace a more socially liberal perspective. There's a core hypocrisy in our message that government should stay out of our economic lives but tell people who they can and cannot marry. We can't have both.
In response to:

Trickle Down and Tax Cuts

evan43 Wrote: Oct 03, 2012 5:50 PM
Paying the workers too little does not result in poor quality. If the labor supply exceeds demand, the natural price of labor is driven down, meaning the assembly line will keep going even if the workers are not making a living wage. So what do you do when the laws of supply and demand are not providing living wages to the majority of workers?
In response to:

Trickle Down and Tax Cuts

evan43 Wrote: Oct 03, 2012 5:22 PM
Yes, in the 20s the rich paid a higher percentage of the pie with lower taxes rates but this is only because lower taxes on the wealthy spurs economic growth in a fashion that results in MASSIVE income inequality. Tax the rich less, economy grows, but not in the way that works for everyone. So yes, revenue may go up, but only because the rich pay more because they make WAY more while middle and low class incomes remain stagnant. http://oneutah.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/income_share_chart.gif
In response to:

Trickle Down and Tax Cuts

evan43 Wrote: Oct 03, 2012 5:20 PM
Yes, in the 20s the rich paid a higher percentage of the pie with lower taxes rates but this is only because lower taxes on the wealthy spurs economic growth in a fashion that results in MASSIVE income inequality. Tax the rich less, economy grows, but not in the way that works for everyone. So yes, revenue may go up, but only because the rich pay more because they make WAY more while middle and low class incomes remain stagnant. http://oneutah.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/income_share_chart.gif
In response to:

Surviving the Humanist Hurricane

evan43 Wrote: Sep 24, 2012 6:19 PM
inkling - Let's say you own a restaurant. You hire a manager, cooks, servers, a host. But let's say the demand for labor for servers is below a living wage. Your business will fail without the server, but the server cannot survive on a server's salary. So, you say, it's the fault of the server, for she should be more ambitious. She, too, can be an owner. Okay, sure, you're right. But can all the servers become owners? Obviously not. And even if they could, then business would fail, for who would serve?
As we move into the 21st century, the negative correlation between a strong economy and egalitarianism will grow stronger (globalization, technology). A thriving market no longer necessitates US employment and living wages. It's that simple. The issue of retarding economic growth through government spending may be an issue, but it's besides the point. There are larger issues at play. Even with small government, are we really expecting the market to grow the economic pie ad infinitum and provide the most for the most people for 1000 years? There's nothing a president can do. Redistribution may be a misguided knee-jerk reaction to an economy that doesn't work for the people, but it is far from the cause of the real issues of our world.
Agreed - govt spending often entails economic damage but in certain cases can have a worthwhile societal benefit. But we can't agree to this and then deny that an unimpeded economy may cause a societal detriment. Where people differ is what societal detriments are worthwhile for an unimpeded economy and vice versa. Sure, a perfect market economy will thrive when you have a small but strong investor class and large consumer class. But is this the type of society that we want? And what happens when people get old? Do only those who can afford it get healthcare? Maybe, maybe not. That's more of a philosophical question.
In terms of spending, I agree that Obama spending is WAY too high. Government is inefficient and bloated, no doubt. But you say that Obama has spent "vastly" more than Bush. So does one's policies become "socialist" at some point in that vastness? What is the actual number spending figure one has to hit in order to qualify as a socialist? All I'm saying is that the whole ideological divide is not consistent with the reality that when it comes to actual numbers, these parties are basically the same while claiming to be diametrically different.
I stand corrected on the repeal issue. Here's the bracket from 1985: $0 - $3,540 0% $3,540 - $5,720 11% $5,720 - $7,910 12% $7,910 - $12,390 14% $12,390 - $16,650 16% $16,650 - $21,020 18% $21,020 - $25,600 22% $25,600 - $31,120 25% $31,120 - $36,630 28% $36,630 - $47,670 33% $47,670 - $62,450 38% $62,450 - $89,090 42% $89,090 - $113,860 45% $113,860 - $169,020 49% $169,020 - and over 50% You're better off today, friend.
1 - 10 Next