Otherwise vote for the real American John McCain.

They will create jobs and invest that money. Yeah, but why would they hire more people unless they can sell more product. Where will they invest that money?

The only way they can make more money is if they sell more product. The only way they can sell more product is if people have the money to buy more product.

Third grade arithmetic has gotten me this far.

What am I missing?

Jose

Now yes, McCain, ONCE in his career did indeed propose some regulation. This, of course after being involved in the Keating 5 and voting for the Phil Graham bill in 1999 that directly lead to the problems we’re having now. And who controlled all 3 branches of the government in 2005? The Republicans. They shelved discussion on that bill themselves.

As far as redistribution of wealth, we’re seeing that right now as the gap between the haves and the have nots has been widening ever since Bush came into office. Again, this is because of a concerted policy to enhance corporate profits at the expense of the vast majority of Americans. This isn’t some hypothetical “looking through a crystal ball” ideological discussion. This has disputably happened. And it’s not market forces that has done it.

And if you want to talk about “recognizing his party” Eisenhower would be shamed of the Republicans of today. You want to talk about socialism? Massive subsidies to already-profitable corporations constricting competition and squelching competition is the very worst sort of socialism. It doesn’t create new jobs. It creates massive economic bubbles that look great for stockholders in the short-term but are disaster (as we’re seeing right now,) in the long-term.

Now, as far as Obama, you’re spouting distorted half-truths. Yes, Obama has gotten the 2nd most amount of money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but, as records show, those are INDIVIDUAL contributions from employees. Now, as Obama has broken every record there is regarding individual contributions, do you really think it’s unusual that he’s gotten a lot of money (from individual contributions,) from just about every industry you could name? Additionally, the $160,000 he got from those institutions is a tiny drop in the bucket when compared to his overall fundraising. Do you honestly think he feels specifically beholden to them?

Now look at McCain. His campaign manager was a lobbyist for Fannie Mae. In fact, his entire campaign is made up of lobbyists. This is a man deeply involved in the Keating 5 who only barely escaped censure by the Senate.

As far as the kindergarten bill you mention, I’m frankly disappointed in you. That topic has been universally panned as a dishonest and reprehensible attack. You might want to look at the record you mention and read the bill itself. It specifically mentions age-appropriate content and instruction on how to avoid “stranger danger.” I had thought that law and order and protecting children from predators would be a non-partisan issue, but I guess not. Disgusting.

Now, turning to Carter, it cannot be denied that Carter was deeply flawed. He was a horrible delagator and was slow to respond to pressing issues. On the other hand, if we had listened to the man about energy policy, we’d be in far better shape to this day on that front.

As far as this shift to the left you mention, I find that utterly simplistic. Remember, during the golden era of the 50’s we saw the highest marginal tax rates in the countries history. We also saw massive public works projects such as the national highway system. And you can rest assured that Eisenhower would never have thought a decrease in taxes during a time of war leading to massive debt was a good idea. He, and any rational person, would certainly not approve of a President who has done more borrowing from foreign countries (especially China) than all previous presidential administrations combined. And I certainly saw no reduction in spending under the Republicans when they controlled all 3 branches of the government. In fact, we saw the most massive increase in the size of government since the Great Depression. . .and almost all of that increase in expenditure ended up in the pockets of the very people we’re bailing out right now.

And what are the Republicans planning on doing? They want that $700 billion dollars to go to wall street with no oversight. That’s written into the language of their proposal. No judicial review. No assurances that that money isn’t going to end up as golden parachutes for all the incompetents that brought us to this crisis.

Simply put, you has to take a step back and really look at what the Republican party has become, because it has completely failed in it’s responsibilities and in holding true to the best elements of conservatism.

You use “liberal” as a slur. I do not do the same for conservatives. Conservative philosophy is always needed, so long as it is true. I know you won’t admit it, but Liberals are necessary too. A single party state of just conservatives would be a nightmare (likewise with just liberals.) A healthy back and forth debate with both checking and balancing the other and finding common ground is the only healthy track towards responsible government.

And I’m sorry, the Republicans do NOT look like the Dems at all. While they’ve sloughed of their fiscal responsibility, their priorities are still radically different from the Democrats who themselves are actually the party that has trended more towards the middle in the last decade. The Democrats’ foreign policy is decidedly more conservative than the Republicans (just ask George Will.) Buckley would be spinning in his grave at the current Republican leadership. And don’t forget that the last President to balance the budget was Clinton, though I admit that an adversarial Congress shares that laudable achievement. But again, Clinton was not hesitant with the veto pen.

Finally, regarding health care, I myself an leery of nationalizing it. On the other hand, doing nothing is worse, and McCain’s proposal is simply disastrous. You DO realize that McCain’s plan calls for the commencement of taxing health benefits, don’t you?

As for “there is no prominent American politician in position to take power who proposes anything close to “an economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class.”’ – really? Have you ever heard of the supreme court ruling for “eminent domain” and what do you think “equal redistribution of wealth” even means? That would be taking money from those who have more and giving it to those who have less to even out the playing field. You don’t think Democrats want an exploitative ruling class? They may be against the rich, but they love BIG GOVERNMENT and they adore money going into their pockets from earmarks and lobbyists and anybody who’s going to give it, willingly or unwillingly. I read Obama’s (Audacity) book cover to cover and every single chapter includes several proposals on how to expand government and to add more and more government programs. Not to mention, Biden is saying that paying taxes is what makes you patriotic. Guess Al Franken is about as un-patriotic as you get, then.

I don’t know you, obviously, but it’s pretty clear that you’re blinded by love for liberalism and unable to see how things really are. I don’t claim that the Republican party is perfect – they have fallen somewhat into this trap of “the government has to help out” BS and expanded government more than they ever have before, but believe me, you elect a Democrat into office and taxes will spike and the government will be doing everything, from giving you free healthcare to teaching your kindergarteners about sex (and yes that bill DID exist and yes Obama WAS a proponent and it’s completely on the record so Democrats might want to look it up before they cry lies) to telling you what they’re going to do with the money you earned. It may sound nice to have government being Big Daddy, but it sure cuts down on freedom.

Oh, and just to clarify, I never said Clinton was a socialist. He did want to socialize medicine, which is a BAD idea. I don’t think anybody in the government considers themselves socialist, but I do think that many many democrats buy into socialist ideals. Government provided medicine. Re-distribution of wealth. Forcing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make the housing market more “fair” by lending to those with less means (leading up to the disastrous events of the last year). Much like they have no idea what their own religion believes (Catholicism, Joe and Nancy? is anti-abortion, and always always has been) they have no idea that their government policies are bad and will destroy the economy and reduce the freedoms of people. In the interest of making life “fair,” democrats have a strong tendency to take away freedom and make life much more miserable.

I don’t know how old you are, so I don’t know if you’ll remember ol’ Jimmy Carter as president, but if you recall, after the country had a taste of him, they were dying for Reagan. If Obama becomes president, in four years, you’ll see the most conservative candidate you ever met trounce a liberal in a landslide. The difference in parties is that Republicans are sliding more into the moderate category, while the Democrats are careening further and further left. That’s really the problem, because the more the Republicans look like Democrats, the worse off this country is.

JFK wouldn’t even recognize his party today.

It can even be argued that the current emphasis by the right wing is actually closer to socialism than what is proposed by pragmatic center-left politicians. We subsidize and bail out the top time and time again when they already have all the advantaged. Why do we do this? Because of the false, in practice, idea that those at the top will pull everyone up with them. It simply does not happen that way.

The reason why bottom-up works is because the money will find it’s way to the top ANYWAY. Those with ability and passion will get theirs anyway. It’ll just pass through a few more hands, getting more use, along the way. And when that happens, the economy is far far more robust AND far more proof against fluctuations because fewer people are on the edge.

Furthermore, you’re using hypotheticals (OBAMA will over regulate!) to argue against the reality of what is happening right now!

Now, I would propose that, by and large, the GOP of today are NOT, in fact, small government free marketers. As we have seen, they are more interested in gaming the system for the few to the detriment of us all. They’ve sold a bill of goods to the American people and it’s a big fat lemon.

And again, you want to slap labels on things as if that is in itself an argument. The GOP strategy of painting the Democrats as socialistic boogeymen has influenced people to vote against their own interests for far too long. Enough.

Was Clinton really a socialist? Read Obama’s economic papers closely. The man is CLEARLY not a socialist. In fact, there is no prominent American politician in position to take power who proposes anything close to “an economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class.”

What a fantastic way to voice both our opinions .

I don’t disagree that sometimes the rich get preferential treatment, but I absolutely disagree that a bottom up economy would ever work. The people who are on the bottom who have fantastic ideas and are amazing innovators will definitely make their way from the bottom to the top, but by borrowing the dollars of those on top. Therefore, even though the innovation may be on the bottom, the funding comes from the top. Really, I believe in a hybrid of the two; in fact, I don’t believe any classist BS, the beauty of captialism and the free market is that people who do start small can achieve so much. However, they do need to appreciate that the funds they use to originate a business come from the people in the country of means. Money doesn’t grow in banks, it’s deposited there.

Obviously, a market entirely free of regulation won’t work, and I don’t advocate that. However, unlike Barack Obama, I would never propose to OVERregulate businesses until they cannot function. I think that the problem that democrats have is the ever increasing itch to not only regulate the free market, but to also take OVER businesses and make them government run. That, sir, is not capitalism.

The free market may be an unachievable ideal (as is any philosophy, economic or otherwise), but the more controlling policies the liberals in government push through, the further we slide from free market and the closer we slide to socialism, “an ‘economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class. …”‘

Ah yes, but socialism worked SO WELL for all those other countries…

Make no mistake, I believe wholeheartedly in Capitalism. I just believe that it flows from the bottom up rather than from the top down.

Competition, innovation and hard work are absolutely the keystones of Capitalism and a healthy economy. The problem is that those with great wealth and power are able to use their influence to get favorable treatment from the government in a multitude of ways that go beyond the worthiness of their business model and the quality of their product. This hurts the Free Market. Therefore, much like government, I believe strongly in checks and balances. Without these checks and balances those who already have great wealth and power are able to continually gather together a greater and greater slice of the pie.

And it’s not just the last eight years that show the failure of supply side economics. The 1930s and the late 1980s-early 1990s also show clearly what happens when necessary regulations are removed or ignored. But it is also true that regulations can often be too burdensome. A fine balance must always be struck. It’s not a black and white issue. That’s why free debate is always needed, and labeling something that you disagree with as “socialism” or simply “not capitalism” isn’t helpful.

The Free Market is indeed a wonderful thing, but to suggest what we have now or what either of the parties propose is actually a free market is naive. In fact, a Free Market is an unreachable ideal as outside influences tugging this way and that will always intrude, and calculating all costs in an objective and comprehensive way is an impossibility (for example, cleanup of dangerous materials can be calculated, but how does one calculate all the costs — in health, property values, damage to agriculture and so on — of NOT cleaning up dangerous materials?) There are simply too many variables. So again, while a truly Free Market is an elusive thing that no politician or economist can ever really quantify — and just “letting it be” is a path that has lead to disaster many times in history.

I appreciate where you’re coming from, but I don’t think the policies you adhere to are the way to achieve what you want.

You’re choosing to overlook a lot in your assessment of the last 8 years. For example, 9-11. For example, companies like Enron who were lying during the Clinton years and discovered during Bush’s. The dot com crash. For example, that beloved concept liberals espouse and immediately accomplished when they took the senate in ‘06 – raising the minimum wage (which immediately drove up costs for everyone and lost many Americans jobs when their employers couldn’t afford to employ as many people.). For example, the extraordinary rise in the cost of gas, driving ever upward the costs of everything that has to be moved or grown to be sold, not to mention the cost of plastics. You say that trickle down economics doesn’t work because the last eight years hasn’t shown a boom; that would be correct if there were not many many factors playing into the economy’s decline that you choose to turn a blind eye on. If the democratic congress would have voted on some form of an energy bill instead of jaunting off for a vacation, maybe we’d be on track to a better economy. If democrats did not constantly bow to the highly radical factions of environmentalists and block the drilling and refining of American oil, we would never be in this economical crunch. That’s what liberals love to do, though, create a problem and then blame it on someone else and say they’ll fix it with more government. If I wanted to live in Russia, I’d freakin’ move there. I believe in America, and capitalism, and the free market. I believe that when you say “For the vast majority of Americans, Obama’s taxes are less.” you’re sticking your hand in someone else’s pocket, and you don’t have the right to do that. But whatever, you have your opinion, I have mine, and we both think each other are wrong. Guess we’ll find out in November what the country thinks.

Just to quickly sum up a couple flaws in your logic: Simplistically, no, hiring a new employee doesn’t automatically cause the demand for the product to rise. It just increases the output and service of the company and makes more products available at a lower price to more people. You also say, “Your customers having money to spend and an interest in your product and your business not having the capability to service all customers who would like to use your good or service does.” Again, think this through. Your customers of course need money, so therefore they need jobs. You can provide those if you’re succeeding and making money and not paying always huger amounts of your profits to the government. An interest in your product is usually generated by advertising, and again, that costs money and you can afford more advertising if you’re not taxed to death (an increase in purchasing ads will also generate jobs and revenue in another private sector job in the process.) As for “your business not having the capability to service all customers who would like to use your good or service does” — um, that’s where the companies who really want to succeed (and what of them do not?) will – oh right, hire more employees.

Capitalism works, very well in fact. Of course, you wouldn’t want to acknowledge that fact nor follow a logical progression because then all the democrat proposed programs might start looking like bureacratic inneffecient ways to accomplish the same thing the far-superior free market does. Then how would you win elections?

I understand that you are confident in what you believe, I just disagree strongly.