Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (81501)	8/23/2010 3:25:13 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Economic freedom did increase the wealth of the lower classes. True, but unfortunately in the US economic freedom has been shrinking for awhile. Well at least you finally admit the disparity exists. That's at least some progress. However, the cause was not the loss of economic freedom due to the gov't. However, that came to an end under Reagan. Suddenly, the upper classes were favored over the lower classes. False. Favoring the upper classes over the lower, would in terms of taxation mean taxing the lower classes at a higher rate than those richer than them. In reality we do the opposite of that. Another way to favor the rich was to reduce the rate at which they were taxed......which is what happened starting under Reagan. We do have the government push for narrow special interests that tend to be made up of very rich people. The government bails out, subsidizes, protects from competition, or otherwise tries to help these narrow special interests, but broadly it tilts the scales against the wealthy, just not as much as you want it to do so. But that's not a loss of economic freedom. That's just another way to favor the rich......like tax cuts. The people in power have to used their power to benefit others in their class. And over the last 30 years, the people primarily in power are the Rs, the very people who claim to espouse your economic ideals. No. Its been one of tax cuts and favoring corps. over the little guy. For the last couple of decades tax rates have moved up and down, not consistently down. For that period and longer, corporations and individuals have become more regulated, and generally the government has increased its level of intervention and control, whatever the party of the president in power at the time. Then Tim, how do you explain the fact that a smaller and smaller percentage of Americans control more and more of its wealth? In the meantime, the lower classes have seen their incomes stagnate [after inflation is factored in]. Its not a loss of economic freedom. Its conservatives in this country stealing from the Treasury's coffers and everything else....except they don't have to steal it....they finesse it through political power. And yet, you have always supported the Bush tax cuts. What do you mean by "and yet". Lower taxes are one way to increase economic freedom, and reduce the shift of resources from the most efficient and productive to the most well connected (typically the poor are not well represented in either group, its more of a transfer from the rich, and maybe the middle class, to mostly rich special interests). I support it partially because its the opposite of what I'm complaining about. Its a portion of the cure, not the cause of the disease. Your version of economic freedom penalizes the little guy at the benefit the big guys. It will never be acceptable.