Values or the Economy?
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 07-10-2004 - 1:41pm |
I have also read threads that address the questioned why do people vote against their own economic interest. Why are they content to see the Republicans time and again pass legislation that benefits the corporations at the expense of the people. The answer is of course they place abortion, gay marriage and school prayer ahead of their economic interests. Therefore, Ken Lay and other corporate execs can walk away with billions and a short term in prison. It’s OK that their children and grandchildren will be paying back a national debt. It’s OK that the medicare bull gives money to the corporations at the public expense with little benefit to seniors.
I saw a article in the Washington Post –the beginning is quoted below:
Rhetoric On Values Turns Personal
Attacks Sharpen In Presidential Race
By Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, July 10, 2004; Page A01
BEAVER, W.Va., July 9 -- The growing debate over the presidential candidates' values turned personal Friday, as Sen. John F. Kerry blasted President Bush for laziness and lax pursuit of Enron Corp.'s Kenneth L. Lay, while the Bush campaign accused the new Democratic ticket of condoning a "star-studded hate-fest."
Kerry, who is trying to make values a centerpiece of his campaign, unexpectedly found himself on the defensive after he praised performers who called the president a "thug" and a killer during a Democratic fundraiser Thursday night at Radio City Music Hall in New York.
Friday's debate demonstrated not only how personal the attacks have become, but also the aggressiveness of both campaigns as they move toward their national conventions. With polls showing the two sides still running essentially even nationally, advisers to Bush and Kerry have made clear they are unwilling to cede any issue or any ground with so much at stake in such a competitive election. It also shows how values and cultural issues will play a prominent role in each party's strategy for victory, especially in the South and in rural communities.â€
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38595-2004Jul9.html
My first thought: Kerry is playing into Bush’s hand;Bush must be delighted, Kerry is diverting the issue to culture not the war or economics. What a way to loose, or is it?
There is a book out entitled “What is the matter with Kansas?" By Thomas Frank, It's "the same thing that's been the matter with America for so many years: the culture wars." In his book WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH KANSAS Frank, a native Kansan and onetime Republican, seeks to answer some broader American riddles: Why do so many of us vote against our economic interests? Where's the outrage at corporate manipulators? And whatever happened to middle-American progressivism? The questions are urgent as well as provocative. Frank answers them by examining pop conservatism -- the bestsellers, the radio talk shows, the vicious political combat -- and showing how our long culture wars have left us with an electorate far more concerned with their leaders' "values" and down-home qualities than with their stands on hard questions of policy.
A brilliant analysis -- and funny to boot -- What's the Matter with Kansas? presents a critical assessment of who we are, while telling a remarkable story of how a group of frat boys, lawyers, and CEOs came to convince a nation that they spoke on behalf of the People.
http://www.henryholt.com/holt/whatsthematter.htm
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/culturewars.html
Knowing the game should make the election more interesting.

Pages
But I do have some comments:
I remember learning that the Aryan came down from the north with the Vadas. It is interesting that I didn't consider them invaders, nor did I wonder who occupied the land. Considering it was so long ago there were no people. Which leads me to my first question: who populated India. Is there no indigenous people? This may have explained in the article but it was confusing to me. However, this may be the question in debate.
Let us ask ourselves, "What is the purpose behind for-profit corporations?" (Note, I leave out not-for-profit corporations, which have different purposes."
Answer: To make money for their owners.
Question: Corporations also "create" jobs, true?
Answer: Yes, but that is and "unintended consequence."
Let me expound on that for just a minute.
Corporations are formed to make money for the owners. A group of people, feeling that there is a profit opportunity, put their money together to form a business that is larger and more costly to form than any one of them can do with their own resources. They pool their resources and use this pool the create a business that they feel can make a higher profit for there capital than using their capital individually. Their goal is to make money for themselves.
But how does this happen?
Well, they use the capital to buy something (land, raw material, other companies stock, whatever) and try to sell the same something to another purchaser for a profit. An easy equation is A: purchase price subtracted from B: sale price and the remainer is C: profit. As an equation, it looks like this B-A=C.
However, often, in order to sell the B for a higher price, the corporation must add to A's value. This is done by processing it, or improving it in some manner. This, almost always is an expense to the corporations. And it must be figured in as part of the total cost of A. We'll label it D. So an equation looks like this B-(A+D)=C. So for an easy example, let us say that a corporation purchases some raw material for $100. It changes the raw material to another form, by labor or some other thing that is an expense, that cost the corporation $10. After having done this adding, the thing that the corporation has purchase, change and now has for sale, can be sold for $120. So the equation for our example looks like this: $120-($100+$10)=$10. Easy.
But as you can see, D is a cost that lowers C. And easy example is: $120-($100-$11)=$9.
But the stated goal of a corporation is to have as much C as possible. And in order to do that, they need to either increase B, or lower either A or D.
Jobs are an expense to a corporation. They are in the D catagory. They decrease C. So a corporation will do all it can to reduce D. Nothing wrong with that. Simple common sense. But to the worker, the corporate D is his C. And the corporation, as we have seen, must do all it can to reduce D, so its' C is it's largest.
Now corporate taxes breaks assume that if the corporation is given a tax break, another D that must be accounted for in order to increase C, the corporation will use it to increase the other D, labor. But that is not the goal of the corporation. The goal is to produce C. The argument that lower taxes breaks (a lower D) for corporation increase what they will spend on D, labor cost. But a corporation has no incentive to do so. D, no matter what type it is, is always to lower C. Try it yourself with any number you like.
So job creation, that is, an increase in D, is only an unintended consequence of a corporation, whose goal is alway to increase C.
Thus, the real argument of those who favor tax breaks, can be summed up this way:
The unintended consequence of job creation (the employee's C) by corporations will always take place if other Ds are lowered, like taxes.
And that, I summit, is A: not always true; B: and unintended intended consquence that corporation will resist as long as it can, and C: a rather inefficent way of increasing D, the employees C.
And, yes, it's very simplified, but show me that it's wrong.
Why do people vote for values rather than the economy? Because, first, they don't understand even this basic rule, and, two, they have a faith that their C, the corporate D, will increase by giving the corporation a break on its other D. That is accepted as an article of faith now, and, thus, people will vote for other issues, rather than their economic well-being. I don't believe that most people have figured out that their income and well being are exactly what a business must lower for its' well-being, and thus, the people will vote for other issues.
Somewhat like the Christian's claim to America, e.g., "This is a Christian Nation. The difference seems to be a larger number of people who observe the other religion.
My question was historical. When the Aryans migrated to India were people already there, like Europeans came to America and took over from the American Indians.
I have never heard it put quite so simply. Hope people read it. And to add another wrinkle, corporations now consider taxes as a profit center, i.e., less taxes you pay the greater your profit and this is how we get Enrons.
Edited 7/15/2004 10:59 am ET ET by hayashig
$30 an hour for a contractor that will bill an average of 30 to 35 hours a week is a pretty good living (annually between $46,800 and $54,600) in my book. I know you refered to the fact that they had to pay their self-employment tax, but they do get a portion of that back. They also get to write off a portion of their health insurance as well (if not the entire thing, depending on how they have their operation set up).
First, how come it is pretty good living for someone on $46000, but you are complaining about taxes on people making over $200,000 a year. (Double standard I think) Second, I would say the situation has deteriorated when a person making $80,000 make $45,000 for the same job.
The rule of thumb also holds true in sports. I still cannot see where an athelete is entitled to make $20,000,000 per year. I realize that they have a gift where they are better than 99.99999% of the rest of the population, but the income they make is exhorbitant, but it is what the market is willing to pay.
I dont think that the taxes on people making $200,000 should be raised (maybe by 1%) but I do feel that taxes on people making in excess of $500,000 could go up at least 2 or 3 points.
Off topic.
Were you posting before under another name? Just curious 'cause your opinions are familiar on this topic.
Pages