Quote:
Originally Posted by Sally Jo
VK-- I read Krugman's column all the time, on a different web site. You keep emphasizing that he is a Nobel prize winner, which he is, however, that prize has become very politicized. Krugman mentions that in the last two years politicians with Reagan idealogy dismantled all financial regulations. the democrats have been in control of congress since January of 2007. The Democrats are the ones who insisted the banks give loans to risky home buyers. He is upset with people being against the "public option." Why, when 85% of the people are happy with their health care we are going to destroy the whole system and start over. The 47 milion of uninsured is an inflated number. A Nevada congresswoman admittted it was more like 10 million.
I just lovit--- My point with Reagan's policy as compared to Obama's is that you don't raise taxes when you are in a recession. Reagan doubled revenue, unfortunately, the Democrat congress spent even more. Seven of his eight proposed budgets called for less spending. They were DOA when they hit congress. As for the rich getting richer if they get it honestly I don't have a problem. The middle class has gained, also, according to the article. People move in and out of financial levels all the time.
|
Sally Jo, I too quote a Nobel Prize winning economist, Milton Friedman, who is very conservative. It just goes to show that one can find support for their argument in Nobel Prize winners, whether liberal or conservative. I personally believe Friedman to be right and Krugman wrong.
I also feel that it was the move to a centrist position by the republicans, trying to placate the liberals drumming about how "life's not fair for people with low income and no credit" that cause the housing debacle. Conservatives caved in, relaxed the lending rules, and opened the floodgate of poor lending practices. Now we see that the Republicans SHOULD NOT HAVE appeased the Democrats in relaxing the banking rules that resulted in a huge amount of bad loans.
The 85% of Americans who have health care benefits DON'T want the government to create a new, expensive, health care system for the 15%. Yes maybe they would like to see health care costs be brought under control, but they don't want their (health care) baby thrown out with the bath water to do it.
Your Reagan VS Obama point is right on.
Lastly. There seems to be this liberal ideology that people of wealth always achieved their wealth on the backs of poor and middle class workers and should be taxed to death, because they don't deserve to have done so well. Liberals want to play Robin Hood and "take from the rich and give to the poor", for their viewpoint is that they have to make life "fair" for everyone. Life isn't fair! Bill Gates grew his wealth from personal sacrifice, hard work, superior intelligence and business sense, so he should be penalized with confiscatory tax rates to appease a liberal social agenda? All of us receive from life what we put into it. The wealthy have only their own personally derived obligation to help their fellow man and most do spread the wealth. Mr Gates has given away billions of his own money to the people HE wants to support. It's not our right to tax (take) his money away from him to provide for someone else s social agenda.