Aside from reading hit pieces on ET and other slant sites, what do you know about economics? And wouldn't you, yourself, first need to have a clue about economics before making that determination or having that impression?
Don't try to pass yourself off as a moderate, in almost every post you have proven yourself to be a fanatical lefty.
We disagreed in a thread a few months back, but this is spot on. I've long argued that only those with skin in the game should be allowed the right to vote. In such a scenario, the current Democratic party would literally cease to exist.
And if the US had passed a law forbidding all those living off the government from voting many moons ago, what would you tell those who had survived Omaha Beach? The republican mind will never be confused with a properly functioning body part.
Wait, did you ever think that the "military industrial complex" the Left complains about so much might cease to exist if only those who foot the bill voted whether to continue or not? If all of those expenses really don't bring any benefit to those of us who don't derive our compensation from them, the programs will go away. Go ahead and defend the "military industry complex" now, so that you can then say "Well, if we have the military, we have to have X,Y,Z program that we on the Left want too!" But, OK, let's stipulate that if you have ever been shot at in the course of doing your duty as a government employee, you can vote. If it weren't for superficial thoughts which they mistakenly consider insightful, the Left wouldn't have any thoughts at all.
There are some fields the private sector simply cannot provide, such as national defense. The republicans are good at making the claim that government is bad or inefficiently run, and when elected, they do a damn good job of proving it!
The real problem is that democrats claim to be able to make the government run efficiently and then don't. At least the republicans are up-front about it, rather than overpromising and underdelivering. Do you really think that people would complain as much about the government spending so much and doing so much if its customer service were top-notch? As corporations have matured, they've gotten better at customer service, thus training people with the expectation that when you interact with someone, you will be treated well. As a result of competition, companies with poor customer service have been marginalized more and more because consumers want to be treated well. Try getting that level of service from front-line government employees. If the government functioned more like the private sector with regards to customer service, I bet a lot of the animus toward it would dissipate. But, since government employees don't have the same incentive structure as private employees, that's probably not going to happen. As always, it boils down to incentives and since a public employee has almost no incentive to treat customers well, since nearly everything is based on seniority, they won't. Since they won't, many people will have a negative attitude toward government employees and, as the number of government employees goes up in an economy, overall satisfaction with day-to-day life goes down. So, government inefficiency isn't a matter of republican incompetence, it's built in to the incentive structure. That's why I made my point earlier that government is the hideout for the mediocre. Those who exhibit any kind of excellence will go to the private sector where that excellence will be recognized immediately, not after 25 years on the job. Basic human capital allocation will always ensure that government gets the bottom part of the quality distribution. Therefore, common sense dictates that we should not give these people too much responsibility, just enough to keep them busy but not enough to do any actual damage. Then, those of us who are at the top of the quality distribution can get along with our lives with minimal interference. Yes, there are some things which are truly public goods. The problem is that the democrats define 'public goods' as "everything under the sun".
The mistake is thinking that there is a fundamental difference between Democratic politicians and Republican politicians. The common denominator is "politician", which means they have both hands out at all times. When they have to be embarrassed by their own insider trading before they'll even acknowledge it, what does anyone expect? Get an automatic pay raise unless you vote against it? Nice. First class health coverage, nice pension. There are public employees...and then there are Public Employees.
I know that socialism communism and Keynesianism don't work well in the long run I figure I know at least as much as your messiah, Odumbo.
What I understood Obama to say was that just simply getting out of the way by cutting taxes and getting rid of regulation, failed to produce a robust economy in the long run. We had quite a few years of that approach starting with Reagan and at first the economy was strong if you ignored the deficits, but in the end we paid a price for driving an economy with borrowed money. I think that's what he meant when he said "it doesn't work." If you max out your credit cards you can live high on the hog for awhile until the bills become due. That's the loose equivalent of the Federal government cutting revenues while increasing spending and making up the shortfall with borrowing. At the same time very lax regulation led to the mortgage meltdown. This is what business leaders were, and still are, asking for: low taxes and lax regulation. In Obama's opinion it didn't work, and that would be my opinion also. You and I have constraints on our spending that are not there when the government spends. We can't simply expand our money supply at will. The government can do this, but this profligate behavior shows up as inflation later. I'm all for low taxes, who isn't? But low taxes must be coupled with fiscal restraint. One should cut spending first and then cut taxes. Instead the government greatly increased spending and at the same time cut tax revenues. Thanks "voodoo" economics.