Corporations are not rich people, they are anybody who happens to own shares in that stock. So, pension funds, 401ks, henche, anyone.
+1; everyone made fun of the "corporations are people too" thing, but it's true - when you blame, tax, hurt corporations, you're really hurting the people who own shares. And not all of them are even rich, someone can have an extra $1,000 that they invested, and that's the only savings they have (granted, not the best saving/investment strategy, but plenty of people don't have good strategies).
i agree with you that its not the best solution but the govt also has to come up with a way to raise new revenue to go along with thier cuts in order to balance the budget
I thought that for a while, too. In other words, it's not fair to tax rich people more (which is what happens right now, richer people pay the lion's share of all taxes, which is what gets left out when democrats talk about these things and try to turn public opinion against rich people), but we don't have a choice, because we have to cover our budget.
Then I realized that although that's partially true, what really needs to happen is that we need to remove wasteful spending from the budget, instead of raising taxes. It's a proven fact that the longer people get unemployment benefits, the longer they stay out of work. I'm not saying to eliminate benefits entirely, but they should be strictly a short-term thing. Other entitelment programs need to be trimmed down considerably, too. For many people, it doesn't pay to work - in other words, if you don't work (or make very little money), you get more value in benefits than if you earned more - even $10-20,000 more. That doesn't encourage a growth economy.
to claim one money policy is better than the other is insane. Both parties can twist the numbers around to prove theirs is better with ease.Unless you have a phd in economics your opinion is worthless
Actually, there's an old saying along the lines of "some things are so stupid only someone with a PhD could believe them. Some things are obvious to everyone, and studies have clearly show things. For example, in regards to studies showing that increasing unemployment benefits increases the length of time people stay out of work, everyone agrees to those studies. However, liberals will claim that allowing more time out of work eventually will create a more stable economy, because people have more time to search for a job that suits them best. That may be true - but there's no evidence for it. So they're explaining a fact with an opinion.
Take another example - Obama's encouragement of unemployed people to sue prospective employers if they don't get a job because they're unemployed. That just encourages frivolous lawsuits.
You don't have to have a PhD to see the obvious.
Topic Wiki
