The best way to get good information on a MB is to give stupid advice.

LOL!

Like I said..there's ALWAYS someone ready to give advice!

I stand ready to serve!!

That's what having a discussion forum is all about, no?

Sure it is! Just think how smart we keep on making Tigger!

Wow!! You've been reading different threads than I have!!

Excellent post there Tigger but, as you may have suspected, very misguided and wrong. Please, let me clarify some of the points on which you seem to have your head where the sun don’t shine!
1. Republican (party) politics do not represent the way we should go forward in this country. Generally speaking if you put a Democrat and a Republican in the same room and tasked them with resolving any particular issue you would end up with comparable results achieved through different strategies. Both political parties are interested – first, last and in between – with achieving then maintaining political power. Such IS NOT in the best interests of the American people.

America does not function efficiently or effectively when the citizens are subjected to political rule. We are a people who have chosen to remain free from the bonds of political tyranny and we garner our strength from the creation opportunity for ALL citizens to achieve whatever they may be capable and willing to achieve. Such freedom requires enactment and enforcement of law but also requires the people to be free from political meddling.

Political power stems from the brokering of favors and, by necessity, creates “classes” of citizens. The American ideal is that a society can exist and thrive most effectively when “classes” are disposed with and station is determined by the merits of one’s actions and decisions. The role of government in such a society is only to ensure that the “playing field” stays level. Generally speaking, government should play the part of “Umpire” rather than “manager”.

2. “Trickle down” economics is a misnomer. The idea that industry created wealth “trickles down” to a community is a one sided way of looking at the economic equation. No industry can produce wealth without willing investment by consumers. Those who oppose “big business” use the “trickle down” term to describe an inequity of compensation between the producer and the consumer. Such a description is wholly inaccurate. In any exchange each party offers something of value to the other and, when the perceived value of each offer is equal, an exchange happens.
If you give the guy at McDonalds $5 for a hamburger you evidently felt that the exchange was “fair” at some point. If, after eating the hamburger, you find that you’re left with a wrapper and the guy at McDonalds still has your $5 then you are suffering from “buyer’s remorse”. The idea of “trickle down” or “trickle up” economics only looks at the monetary component of the exchange and leaves out the “value” component.

If, for example, the purchase of that $5 hamburger provide you with the energy to work another 3 hours and complete a task for which you are compensated $100 while the guy at McDonalds took the $5 you gave him and paid his cook for an hour of work in which no other hamburgers were sold then who got the better part of the exchange?

In fact, if we want to look merely at “compensation” with regard to “trickling” then the “trickle up” model should be shunned by all “big business” opponents because whatever compensation is provided at the consumer level inevitably serves to provide wealth to the producer level every time a consumption exchange takes place.

3. With regard to tax breaks for corporations we are, once again, only looking at part of the equation. Politics, the brokering of favors and taxes go hand in hand. If, for example a law is enacted which causes an employer to incur additional expenses it is not unusual for the politician to then extend a “tax break” as a favor to that corporation. Not all tax breaks are designed to generate jobs nor is it reasonable to assume that all tax breaks actually save the corporation money. The biggest “tax breaks” we hear of usually involve methods of depreciation and, in order to utilize these “breaks” the corporation must invest in equipment. Buying more or newer equipment doesn’t necessarily produce more jobs but it does keep the job market active thus preserving jobs.

4. Your rant about “rich people” is just grousing. If a rich person decides to purchase a million dollar yacht then jobs ARE produced or preserved. Furthermore, I see no suggestions that the “rich” pay no taxes. I do see many suggestions that when the rich are forced to pay excessive taxes that they take steps to curtail their wealth generation. In fact, it isn’t just “the rich” that take such steps when they feel the tax pinch. The conservative approach to taxation IS NOT that the rich should pay no taxes but IS that taxation should not exceed that which is necessary to subsidize the public works which promote the general welfare of the country.

5. With regard to international relations you may, if you pull your head out of the sand, find that what some people call “arrogance” others call “self defense”. Whacking a hornets’ nest might not always be the best plan but when the other options for ridding the community of that nest are forbidden one must still get rid of the danger somehow.

6. Haliburton? Haven’t we done this already? If the jobs that needed to be completed could have been done effectively and efficiently by other companies then those other companies should have had, as a minimum, the opportunity to compete for the contracts. Do you happen to have a list of the other companies that could have undertaken these infrastructure projects without needing a massive (and expensive) upgrade in capability?


7. I’m just going to ignore the “scandal” section because it involves such things as throwing stones and glass houses…..it isn’t even worth discussing. Washington DC is awash in sanctimonious filth and even Hercules would be hard pressed to find a river substantial enough to wash that mess from the stables.

See, now you are educated….again!

You get an "A" on that one Luther!!

One addendum for Tig's benefit. I'd say that "trickle down" in the Reagan era was a valid concept and America thrived. It's different now because of our anti-American trade agreements from NAFTA to GAAT. Trickle down still works, the problem is that the jobs and wealth are trickling down into China and India where before cutting taxes on the wealthy really did mean more money for the rest of us in this country.

Wow! It works! Thanks guys.