Why is the president held accountable for the economy?
I know this sounds silly but much of the economy is outside of the president's control. Of course any president wants the economy to do good, especially when up for re-election. But, unless the president is doing nothing at all or making the situation much worse (like Herbert Hoover or maybe Jimmy Carter) then isn't blaming the president for the economy like blaming the weatherman when it rains or our parents if we have a genetic link to a disease?
Why is the president held accountable for the economy?
Because the President is the top guy and "the buck stops here". But seriously, it's a combination of candidate's empty promises, public perception, and past convention. When candidates are running for the Presidency, they will say all kinds of things like great ideas they have and stuff to reduce unemployment rate and make sure everyone has great job. Well, so from campaigning already the candidate will be on hook to deliver his/her promise. Public perception - everyone believes President is the most powerful person in USA so surely s/he can whatever it takes to make economy better. Past convention - It was Ronald Reagan who famously said, "are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" If you think about it, that's nonsense and illogical. There are many things that can happen that will make you worse off - illness, accidents, crimes, loved ones' death... so the President is responsible for all of that? But voters bought that, and now that has become the golden yardstick for every subsequent President.
Why should we pay taxes to the government?
Okay let me say why you shouldWhy should government spend money on defence, army and navy? Why they are buying equipment that cost billions of dollars? And protect us every single minute?Why should government lay roads and tracks for trains?Why should government build hospitals, schools, enterprises?Why should government subsidizing through various scheme?Why should government have pension scheme, child care scheme, education scheme etc? Why should not corporate do this 100%? Why govt is doing this?Why should government borrow funds? For what purpose they are using this money? Why should it pay by itself?Why should government help through funds when there is natural disaster happens?Why should government introduce startup india, make in india, promoting entrepreneurship why can't private company do this?Why should government give loan waiver for farmers? So who will pay the money to banks?Why should government offer jobs through its public enterprises?Why should government have reservation system? In all most all the field?If there is no reservation most of the poor people will die poor. One set of people would be neglected. One generation will die without opportunity. Do you think corporate will take care of them?Government creates opportunity for every single human being.Think.!More points are not written by me.Government doesn't take your money. Some way it reaches you more than what you have paid as tax.
Are we all PUPPETS controlled by the government's financial strings?
They control the prices of everything...and we react (exactly the way they want us to) Gas prices... When they're low, we travel...when they're high we stay home and conserve. Airlines...good deals, we fly...high costs and crappy service...we're grounded. Homes...interest rates down, we buy and sell...interest rates up...we stay put. Food...plentiful, we get fat....overpriced, we cut back...grow our own. For living in a FREE country, the government sure leads us around by the nose. Sometimes I feel like a puppet with them pulling all the strings. What do you think?
What's your view on Bernie Sander's comment that "It is not just a coincidence that 46% of all new income is going to the top 1%. That is the result of an economy that is rigged in favor of the wealthy."?
I think it's the result of something much deeper than that.We had a kind of Middle Class golden age when America had large amounts of good paying manufacturing jobs that enabled one person to support a family.Then we became a service oriented instead of a manufacturing/goods oriented economy and the agecof needing two incomes to support a household came with it.Now we have fewer and fewer good-paying, middle class jobs and for most the idea of getting ahead (or even staying afloat) on a single income is entirely gone and even with two incomes it's often difficult.Globalization, technological advances, and a number of other factors have made it a different economic world, and even if the wealthy have managed to carve out a few beneficial breaks in the tax code for themselves, those massive, fundamental changes in the economic world haven't come about because they have 'rigged the system.’I suspect Senator Sanders knows this, as do other politicians. I suspect Republicans know that just lowering taxes isn't going to fix the problems, and that Democrats know that just raising taxes and starting new redistribution programs isn't either … but they all feel they have to say 'I can do something that will make it all better' in order to get elected.Personally, I'm still waiting for the leader willing to say that the world has changed, and we (politicians) have to stop pretending that we know what to do about it.Not a great campaign slogan. But pretending to know the answer never leads to really figuring out how to solve the problem.
Why do people still think that trickle down economics works, even though there is no evidence for it?
Because they are either uninformed, delusional, or crooked.Trickle-down economics is a theory that says benefits for the wealthy trickle down to everyone else. These benefits are usually tax cuts on businesses, high-income earners, capital gains and dividends.It doesn’t work.According to research by the International Monetary Fund shows that giving tax cuts to the poor appears to have a dramatic effect:A 1% increase in income for the bottom 25% results in a 0.38% increase in GDP.Meanwhile, the same increase for the top 20% results in a 0.08% decrease in GDP growth.If you give $1,000 to someone making $30,000 a year, they’re going to spend it, increasing demand and raising GDP. Someone making $1 million a year is barely going to notice $1,000, much less spend it at Wal-Mart.Reagan cut the top rate from 70% to 28% and cut corporate taxes from 46% to 40%. As a result, between 1980 and 2005, after-tax household income rose 6 percent for the bottom fifth. That sounds great until you see what happened for the top fifth: Their income increased by 80 percent. The top 1 percent saw their income triple. Instead of trickling down, it appears that prosperity trickles up.It also almost tripled the federal debt, from $997 billion in 1981 to $2.85 trillion in 1989.Tax benefits for the middle and bottom increase growth and income. Tax cuts for the rich do little for GDP, while expanding both the deficit and income inequality.The current GOP tax plan, even with their own growth estimates, will add one trillion dollars to the deficit.Then what happens?Republicans are secretly fine with this, because it gives them a reason to cut social programs: Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, social security, and so on. They’ve been trying to undo the New Deal and The Great Society (LBJ’s creation of Medicare) for decades. Exploding the deficit with tax giveaways to the rich, gives them a sinister way to do it.
As an American conservative who is in favor of small government, deregulation and low taxes, do you really trust the private sector to self-regulate?
I am not an American but agree with American conservatives on most of the things.My support for deregulation came from my distrust over a group of so-called elites living in a capital probably many miles away from the business they are actually regulating. It is almost destined that more will find such broad regulation plans not fitting their actual needs as compared to those being satisfied. In history, over-regulation of government has caused shortages and famines incomparable in scale to the imagined disaster caused by an unregulated economy.Moreover, government power is easy to be given but always hard to be taken back. Had the private sector failed to self-regulate even in proclamations only, it will be extremely easy for the seating politicians to convince people from granting them more power to regulate the economy. A government already holding full control of the economy, however, can never be convinced by tongue to give up its power, not to mention by force. As a person who values prudence, I already find more concerns required for irreversible decisions.
Conservative Arguments and Liberal Arguments?
I can only share with you the reasons I am conservative: I don't believe in abortion I don't like having alot of government involvement in my life I hate paying alot of taxes I have no problem with guns I believe in traditional values and the nuclear family I don't believe in social programs as always being permanent I think we deserve to keep more of our money being allowed to decide how to help others with it.
Can a Conservative please explain the "Liberal Agenda" to me?
I'm a liberal. I understand my own beliefs. But I would like to know what Conservatives believe is so wrong with the Liberal point of view. Points will be awarded to the person whose comments is the most eloquent, not whether I agree with you or not.