Why are conservatives so happy to pay for corporate welfare?
The only jobs that corporate tax cuts create, are jobs overseas. Look at the historical record. The corporate welfare economy has lead to a larger and larger portion of our population being unable to find work, while wages and salaries diminish. It is amazing that conservatives are always willing to keep repeating their mistake, and doing what has been proven not to work.
Why is the liberal media okay with corporate censorship?
The liberal media, in the sense of somewhat to the left side of liberalism, is okay with corporate censorship because they are liberal in the sense of liberalism the ideology, just like the conservative media.As liberals, they support capitalism, with some relatively minor quibblingExactly how unlimited should the ability of capital to act in its interest?Right-leaning liberals like Republicans generally advocate for few if any legal limits and left-leaning liberals like Democrats advocate for some legal limits.What sorts of corporate actions do we cheer about?The Blue Team cheers when Youtube bans gun demos and Infowars. The Red Team cheers* when Youtube demonetizes videos about LGBTQ issues or Facebook takes down nude images.And when media companies do things liberals don’t like, liberals act through the market. They use a different Facebook or YouTube or Google or contact advertisers. They write angry letters about positive coverage of the gays and global warming and cancel their newspaper subscriptions.Either way, the fundamental right of media corporations to seek profit, including by suppressing the speech of their users, is not just “okay” but actively defended.*I don’t actually know if the Red Team cheers about these specific things; I don’t really keep up with their team news and I don’t get the team newsletters. I tried searching “The Blaze” for social media news that Team Red is happy about and got the impression that they’re just generally not happy about anything.
Do Republicans use Democrats' concern for the welfare of those who aren't rich against them?
I think the question is a bit presumptuous, don't you? The question assumes that Democrats are concerned about the welfare of those who aren't rich. Perhaps some people who vote Democrat naively do so under the belief that is what their vote gets, but the truth is probably less 'welfare' driven.If you look at party funding, the same rich people seem to be funding both parties. The same types of companies, the same types of SIGs, etc, have their funding footprints all over both parties. Take the final version of Obamacare (Republican) / Affordable Care Act (Democrat), with its stripped down provisions and consumer protections / pricing controls-1) Benefits insurance companies (jury is still out but most of the country's MAJOR insurers are reporting healthy growth in 2014 and a positive outlook for this year). 2) Benefits large medical corporations / networks (because they can now charge all services against the marked up rates that insurance companies pay).3) Benefits political parties (because conservatives are so mad the Constitution was violated / they're being stolen from / death camps, and liberals are so mad that anyone could believe that everyone isn't entitled to pay more for healthcare and insurance in America), thus driving voter turnout and political expenditure.Voila! Fewer and fewer Americans want to label themselves as being one party or another, and I'm guessing that's because the extremists that tend to run both leave a bit of a foul taste in their constituents' mouths.
Who do you think will win the 2012 American presidential election? (and why)?
In my opinion i hope Romney wins. here's why: -I think America is very separated as a nation right now -whether you're pro gay marriage, pro life, or pro choice i really don't think this is relatively important in the next election because i personally believe we should be working to making America become debt free and focused on fixing the economy...plus no social issue is going to be passed in congress with it being so mixed opinionated. -If you like obamacare or not...i believe it should definitely should have not been passed, at least not at this time, with it adding tons of more debt in a economic crisis....plus Obama clearly lied to the American people saying it would not be a tax-when that was the only reason it was in fact deemed constitutional. -I want a president that will at least try to fix the damn economy...i mean all obama has done is add more and more and more debt to America....Now is not the time to try to advocate a healthcare law that half the population is against and adds debt. -In my opinion Obama is a great talker, but to me i feel like all he does is straight up lie to the American people and deceives them ... I feel like he'll say anything to get re-elected (not that Romney won't either) -Overall, American needs a president that is focused on fixing the economy. We don't need to be debating social issues or putting in a new healthcare system, rather coming up with new solutions to fixing the economy. Obama has failed in every aspect in fixing the economy...As i see it, Romney is a successful businessman and therefore will at least have a better shot at fixing the economy.
Why aren't Americans more angry at the GOP’s recent tax bill? From afar, the bill seems to be an extraction of wealth with no benefit in growth, jobs, or investment.
How could you possibly cut taxes and not see more investment? How could you cut corporate taxes and not see more growth of corporations and a resulting increase in employment?There are plenty of problems with the Tax Reform bill but I dont think some of the issues you are raising are even possible.Edit: Alright, I’m getting a bunch of comments that seem to assume I support the tax cuts. I do not. Increased economic growth will not fully mitigate the loss in tax revenue. There’s a name for the idea that it will and it is Voodoo Economics.Further, if the official unemployment numbers are to be believed then we are already near full employment. Meaning that additional stimulus isn’t going to have quite the effect it would’ve during the GFC.Of course, the issue with that idea is that a portion of job seekers during the GFC may have just stopped looking for jobs and turned to either disability or unofficial employment. So the actual unemployment rate may be higher and the economy of the US may still need stimulus.