Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
The GOP, without fail, always acts in the interest of the rich and powerful. As does the Tea Party, regardless of what you've been told.
|
it is not "what I am told", I do my own homework, I see with my own eyes, I have my own experiences. Often what Democrats say is good for people, really is not. What is fair is an even playing field - give everyone an equal opportunity to succeed.
Quote:
|
What, you think lowering taxes is anti-corporate?
|
Lowering taxes is pro-growth. Growth benefits everyone.
You are in California, right? What is the deal with Ca. politicians going to Texas to try to understand how Texas grew jobs while Ca. lost over 1 million jobs? They don't need a special trip, they could just ask the employers who left the state! We have been through this many times, the answers won't change.
Quote:
|
And when is the last time you were at a Tea Party rally where they talked about tackling loopholes in the tax code or completely ending subsidies to big oil?
|
I have never heard anything specific. But, I think Palin could craft an energy policy that is reasonable and fair to the consumer. In Alaska she went up against big oil interests for the people in her state and won.
Quote:
|
I've been to 5 Tea Party protests now (and I have pictures to prove it), and their message is clear: lower the already low taxes, don't raise taxes on the rich, end Social Security and Medicare, and some of the most vague language in existence about lowering the deficit. And then there's the social stuff no one wants to admit, like gay marriage, abortion, and such.
|
I agree that some of the people giving speeches get carried away with over the top rhetoric. It is far more interesting to talk to regular people at these events or go to small group meetings.
Quote:
|
And as a small business owner, I could afford to pay a bit more.
|
Do it. I am sure you have the address to the US Treasury Dept. There is a movement of "rich" people who say they should pay more - I don't get it. if they want to pay more, send a check. If they want to do more - donate to charity. Why do they (you) need Washington for that?
Quote:
|
You would have let America's core financial institutions fail? While I understand why this is in principle, are you aware of the consequences?
|
Businesses fail all the time. Consolidations occur all the time. It is the nature of competitive markets. Just like the process of evolution, the consequences are good, we end up with better and stronger companies.
Also, it is in you "system" do you end up with companies making excessive profits. In a truly competitive market excessive profits get eliminated by new entrants putting pressure on prices.
Quote:
|
The market is as open as it wants to be already. You assume that somehow if the 'government' were to take a step back, healthcare providers would simply cover people with preexisting conditions or wouldn't suddenly drop insurance for people who suddenly get sick or injured. History would prove you wrong in that. As someone who was born with a cardiovascular defect, I have to say the private system is, to use your words, a joke.
|
Life insurance is pretty competitive, and anyone wanting a policy can buy one. Also, I I buy a policy on a child, that policy can be maintained for life regardless of medical condition. Also, a policy could be purchased that allows for face value increases. The premiums would be relatively small.
But, I will say one more time - give us one extreme or the other. Single payer all the way, or free market. I have a preference, but I could live with either and be happy with it. So, your points fall flat with me on this issue because I am more liberal than most liberals or I am more conservative than most conservatives - I don't get lost in the details of this compromises pluses and minuses or that compromises pluses and minuses.
---------- Post added at 09:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by silent_jay
Better than before when they made cars no one wanted, let's see, same car, done for two different 'divisions' (Chevy/Pontiac), different plastic, different badge, same piece of shit underneath, now that was too bad for the consumers.
|
BMW is growing and is optimistic.
Quote:
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, the world’s largest maker of luxury cars, expects “significant” sales increases in the first half of this year on demand in Asia and the U.S. for 5- and 6-Series models.
“We see definite growth in emerging markets,” Chief Financial Friedrich Eichiner said yesterday in Cape Town, South Africa. “Double-digit growth in China is expected, but also in countries like Brazil, Korea and in Russia there should be significant growth. We see the U.S. market coming back.”
|
BMW Expects `Significant' First-Half Sales Increase, Led by Chinese Growth - Bloomberg
Why do you think that is?
Quote:
|
As for Tesla, you keep bringing them up like they're one of the big name manufacturers of the world, when in reality, they aren't, they make a very specific car for a specific type of person.
|
The point is - why not give Telsa billions in subsidies rather than GM? Why does the government get to pick? Again, workers can work for Telsa just like they work for GM, etc., so why is a subsidy going to GM more effective than a subsidy would be going to Telsa or any other car company. My preference is - don't give any of them subsidies, let them compete on an even playing field.