Originally posted by MrFatBooty
Yeah that's it, I've been manipulated by the evil liberal's charisma and charm and don't think about the issues whatsoever which is why I like the guy. I don't read the news or pay attention to current events or even know the slightest bit about public policy whatsoever that the only reason I like Clinton is because he boned an intern in the oval office and smoked bud when he was a teenager.
It's more that since I think basically every single policy ever devised by the Republican party is bad, so I'll take the alternative that is most likely to get elected and keep a Republican out of office.
As far as raising taxes are concerned, I personally believe in not bankrupting the government. When the government is doing well financially, it increases spending on the private sector. Those companies that contract to the government hire consulting firms and buy computer equipment. Then they have to get a company like IBM to come in and get everything running with all the other stuff. IBM buys chipsets from companies like Intel, Motorola and AMD, and those companies go to accounting firms and e-commerce providers to keep their sales networks as efficient as possible. All of this creates more cashflow throughout the economy and all these companies hire more employees. The public can then recoup any extra money they paid in taxes by investing in the stock of these companies that are doing well as a result of the government not plunging itself further into debt. Trickle-down economics work, but not by just lowering taxes for corporate entities. You have to give them work which encourages further spending to finish the project.
Handing money to the taxpayer in the short term doesn't help the economy, but since the Republican party endorses the concept of "no way are my tax dollars aren't going to be spent on helping out poor people" they in the process always run up a huge national deficit. What it gets spent on should be a peripheral issue especially when in a good economy fostered by a government that is not running up billions of dollars of debt every month the taxpayers are able to earn back more money through investments. The economy is one of those "big picture" situations and cutting off one of its main sources of well-being screws everybody over.
Why is it that billionaires like Warren Buffett and George Soros are so vehemently opposed to Republican economic policies? Warren Buffett issued a press release saying that with the new Bush tax cut and a few accounting tricks combined with some philanthropy, he is now only paying a 3% tax rate. Yet he would rather pay more taxes and have a strong economy in which he is able to make more money through investments.
As for nationalizing health care, that is obviously not the intent. I don't think anybody wants to create a system that will mimic Canada or the UK. But, do you have any idea how much something like an emergency room visit and 1-day hospital stay can cost? Easily $5-10 thousand dollars. How is the family making $24k a year before taxes whose kid breaks his leg on a swing set going to pay for that without some kind of assistance?
My dad happens to be the CEO of a managed care consulting firm so I'm at least reasonably well accquainted with how the system works and the fact of the matter is that health care is ridiculously expensive and unless you're well above the national median income and have really good health insurance, you probably can't pay for the medical expenses that you're going to incur. Just because someone doesn't make $60k a year doesn't mean that they shouldn't have access to the health care system as me, the son of a CEO of a company in the health care industry.
I feel like this is the mid 80's all over again with the young Republicans. Seems to me like it's driven by greed, selfishness, a fixation on the military when we're supposedly at peace, and clinging to conservative Christian morality when we're supposedly a secular state.
Yeah, all those ideas were put in my head because I saw Clinton play the saxophone on MTV.
ok