|
|
| Message Boards | Web Services | Museum | Vanity |
|
|
| Current Identity: No Identity (change | exit) |
| |
Democrats or Republicans, Who
has Better Policies?
By Brandon Fisher
February 5, 2004 |
| |
Recently, I read an email from
someone that claimed NOT to be a Democrat because of
"liberal spending" and "What does welfare do
for me?" and "the budget and economics."
I would like to respond, and answer their questions.
Please use the message board below the article to offer your
feedback as well.
"What does welfare do for me?"
Yeah, that's a selfish republican thought if I've ever heard
one. The answer to the question though is that it has a
smoothing effect on our economy. As much as republicans
hate to face it, there are times when there aren't
enough jobs for everyone in each class of job (i.e. minimum
wage, lower income, middle, etc.). It's a law
of economics that there will NEVER be zero percent
unemployment, even if everyone *wants* to work. With
this said, are we just supposed to let these other people (as well
as their children) starve and die just because we got the job
FIRST? Seems a little selfish, doesn't it?
Now that I've explained the "feel good" reason to
have welfare, here is the economic reason. Programs such
as welfare and unemployment compensation (which is basically
welfare subsidized by employers), help keep the economy from
falling too far when it's on a down cycle. The cause of
a down cycle (and in extreme cases recession and depression),
it's not because money doesn't exist, it's because people
aren't spending money. The "velocity" of money
(as it's called in the world of economics) slows to a trickle.
This can only happen when the "rich" have most of
the money. Why is that? Because if the poor had
money, they would have to spend it. The
poor cannot afford to hang on to their money. So how do
you get money flowing through the economy again? You
inject it to those who have no choice but to
spend the money. Who is that? The people with no,
or low paying jobs. If you have a bad economy, and you
give the rich some more money, just what are they going to buy
to get the economy going? Nothing! They're not
going to invest it because they can't count on anyone to
purchase goods, and they're not going to buy stuff themselves
because they have everything they need/want (if they didn't
they would have bought it), and they're uncertain as to when
the economy is going to come back. But those with little
money and out of work have no choice but to spend it. If
you inject money into the economy where it must
be spent, then and only then can the economy get back on
track.
That is what welfare does for me, you, and anyone else
that has a job and a decent income.
Affirmative Action
So, the writer of this email believes that it's not good
to implement programs that will ensure a particular segment of
our population is not left behind? And don't say
"quotas" because there is no mention of quotas in
the affirmative action program, that is just one way that some
particular companies have chosen to ensure
nondiscriminatory hiring practices. As someone who runs
their own company, selfishly I wish there were not an
affirmative action program because I feel that if my
competitors only want to hire from a certain segment of the
population while I'm hiring from the entire population, it
gives me an advantage -- and affirmative action takes that
advantage away from me. However, looking at it
objectively, affirmative action is clearly good for our
society and our economy. When there is a segment of our
population being left behind solely because of their race
and/or gender, it creates a void in our economy that the rest
of the economy has to pay for. It's just bad for our
economy to let that happen.
Abortion
There is a spectrum of valid arguments and beliefs as
to when life begins. Republicans believe that the
government has a right to impose on a woman, a single belief
as to when life begins. The woman has no choice because
the government imposed the government's
subjective belief on her -- that was probably won by a vote of
51 to 49. Does that seem right? It does to
Republicans.
"...liberal spending on social programs..."
That cracks me up. That's a very shortsighted viewpoint
that unfortunately a lot of people in our country believe.
The fact is that republicans like to spend just
as much as democrats. And if you need any evidence
to support that, just look at the latest budget from the
current Republican administration that came out a week ago.
For the first time in a long time, we have a republican
controlled administration, house of representatives, AND
senate... And it's the most inflated out of control
spending package this country has ever seen. And it
doesn't even include the additional cost of the war on terror
and the rebuilding of Iraq (there was a separate package
passed for that). Unlike the Reagan years when the
deficit got out of control (isn't that interesting, the first
time in our history that our country ran a deficit was with a
REPUBLICAN in office), there is no democratic control of the
house or reps or the senate to blame it on. The record
is VERY clear on this, republicans spend on "pork"
just as much as democrats do, they just do a better job of saying
that they don't support spending on
"pork" when they get on Crossfire or Meet the Press.
Ok, what if our country has a big debt load, but a
budget surplus one year? What do we do with the surplus?
Democrats say "pay down this Republican debt" and
republicans say "we're taxed too much, lets lower
taxes." Hey, I want to pay less taxes just as much
as the next person. However, the interest on the
country's debt is nearly 30% of the entire budget!!!
That means, $0.30 on every tax dollar is flushed down the
drain! It doesn't do anything for us now or going
forward! Why not use the surplus to pay down that debt
so that a tax dollar can go so much further and we can afford
to rebuild Iraq, and fight terror, and defend our borders and
THEN lower taxes? This is just responsible fiscal
policy. If you had so much credit card debt that the
interest alone on that credit card debt used up 30% of your
annual income, would you not make it a higher priority to pay
off that debt than to give money to your friends that already
have a lot of money?
Not the Republicans. The Republicans decided to give you
and I 300 bucks and give people like Donald Trump and their
other CEO buddies millions of dollars. And then they
blame the increased debt on the war on terrorism and the Iraqi
war/liberation/reconstruction!?! Uhhh Wha!?! No
wonder it took our economy three years to start recovering
(it's not back, by the way, like our politically spinning
president likes to say). It will probably be another
three years, at this rate, before it's back to where it was
when Clinton was in office.
Republicans always talk a good game when it comes to the
budget and economics. "We should lower taxes and
spend less!" they SAY. But history as
shown that the foundation of their economic principles -- that
is, to inject more money to the people that already have it,
while still proposing just as much government spending as the
democrats -- have only failed. This is a non debatable
fact! It's not even debating a theory. It's been
tried, and it failed miserably. Just ask our current
President's father. He paid for Reagan's use of this
policy by losing the presidency to the then Governor of
Arkansas!!! |
| |
| We'd like to hear what you have
to say as well. Please use the forum below to provide
your input into this debate. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
