DescentBB

Quote, Bash:
--------------
"Most Republican special interests can be summed up as pro-business, which is generally positive for all Americans. On the Dem side, special interests often take the form of pro-group, which can be summed up as benefitting a limited number of Americans."
------------

First I'd appreciate some elaboration from Bush, (er, I mean, Bash) on what interests in particular he is referring to on both sides.

It sounds like your 'pro business helps everyone' is alluding to trickle down economics (more commonly known as Supply Side, even criticized by one of Bush's top economic advisors, Mankiw, who conveniently edited out his portion of his academic textbook on economics that criticized supply side economics after joining the bush team).

There is no evidence that supply side economics has ever worked either or under Reagan or Bush. Feel free to bring up some numbers, some charts, and have a nice economic discussion with me about this. Bush's tax cut cannot be tracked to any upturn in the economy beyond normal business cycle fluctuations, much like we cannot give clinton the credit for the 90s bull years.

I think I can make a very reasonable argument that being 'pro consumer' actually helps everyone the most, and more directly. For example, give every american $1000, and a greater proportion of the money spent will be directly infused into the american economy. The poorer the person, the more disposable income is spent. Rich people do tend to save and invest more, but a greater proportion of their income also flies out of the country in the form of imported products. Additionally, the hardest thing in starting a new business is gauging demand. A demand side cut gives perfect information as to what consumers want, while with a supply side cut we may end up funding junk like the Segway.

Take the same amount of money, and give it to a corporation in the form of corporate welfare (which politicians on both sides seem to love, rather than the free market system they claim to adhere to), and you aren't going to get nearly the same widely beneficial effect as simply giving an across the board cut.

It's an illusion that giving a demand side cut, or supporting the average consumer rather than being giving in to *pro business* interests isn't pro business, or pro entrepreneurship. People will follow the dollar. Businesses need the average person to buy their products. The most natural form of economics is *trickle up*. If you give $1000 to everyone, you can be sure most of it will go back to rich people, because they are the business owners everyone gives their money to!

If a business is succeeding, people will copy the model and start more. If someone has a new idea, what greater way to help that idea than to have consumers that actually have the money to buy it? If a profitable idea for a new business exists, it will start. It will be funded. The rich don't need MORE money to start new businesses. If I am a billionare or millionare, getting a hundred thousand back will have zero bearing on whether or not I will start a business that I believe will reap me millions of dollars.

I can see creating a special fund for people starting small businesses, but large businesses don't need the welfare. As a small business owner myself, it's very very hard to get by.



Now, I'm not really sure how being 'pro business' helps everyone. As far as I can tell, some of 'pro business' special interests bush has helped include relaxing environmental regulations on business, which actually hurts all of us in the form of pollution.

I'm perfectly open to the idea that the Democrats are ripe with special interests that aren't for the good of the whole--that's pretty much the definition of *special interests*
But to say all the republican special interests help us all is downright silly and one sided.

I'm not against tax cuts, either. But I believe if tax cuts are to occur, (and I believe business is excessively taxed, especially hear in california, my sales are cut in the USA because so many people live in california, and in online sales an extra 8.25% kills the sale) we must have equal offsets in spending. It is simple checkbook balancing.


Your thoughts?

birdseye

Just a quick thought, I'll revisit the main question later.
You seem to think a $1000 gift to a rich man will result in more money spent on imported goods than the same $1000 given to a poor man.
If you go, just as an example, to WalMart, and look at the 'made in china' label on everything you'll find a poor mans dollar being spent on imports is just as likely!

Doesn't the percentage of money that trickles down from a poor man buying imported Nike's, Levi's, wiper blades, paper products, cookware, Maybeline makeup, etc. deserve the same criticism as a rich mans purchase of imported french wine, italian marble and Porche automobiles?

I don't think the supply side / demand side question actually has anything to do with bash's point. It's not really relevant.

Bash's point was that Republican special-interests tend to be pro-business -- which, I suppose, you could take to be a supply-side point, though I don't think he meant it that way. What he contrasted it with was Democratic special-interests, which tend to be pro-small-group. That has nothing to do with "demand side" and everything to do with "limited appeal". Trying to re-cast it as an economics question isn't really fair to his position.

To further expand, a democratic main stay program was the welfare system. This was money doled out to recipients, who over time, thought that it was a way of life. This money was supplied sided to people who gave back nothing in the way of productivity or tax revenue.
This I think is what Bash was refering to in his post as "benefitting a limited group".

On the corporate "welfare" side of the equation, corporations are tax payers. Any money back is from money already paid in. Tax breaks may be inducements to expand or locate in a community where the corporation will hire from the local population and circulate money into the community via wages and perhaps using local small business to supply items for the corporations use.

Whether you use labels like supply side or voodoo economics, corporations and small business are what keep America running. Welfare recipients do not.

people make or break a business. not the other way around.

Lothar nailed it. Pro-business special interests, such as your example of relaxing regulations on energy exploration in wilderness areas, would benefit all Americans in that it would lessen our dependency on foreign energy, create more domestic jobs, etc. Pro-group special interests are often narrowly defined to help a limited number of Americans (gay rights, minority quotas, etc). The Dem party has far more pro-group special interests. That was my point about the difficulty facing all Dem candidates.

The Dems have reached out to many diverse groups to increase their power base. Often these groups have competing agendas. The Sierra Club's recent in-fighting comes to mind with it's dual minded constituents as a good example of these conflicting interests existing even within a single special interest group. One side seeks to limit population as a strategy to protect the environment and the other side not being able to reconcile that with its pro-immigrant rights and the desire for relaxing immigration rules. That was the distinction I was making between the types of special interest groups found in each political party's constituents and I believe it's much easier for the Republicans than the Democrats to get their respective special interest groups all singing in harmony. Dem groups are more zero sum; for one of their groups to *win*, often another group has to give something up. Quotas is the best example of this.

Really, the point I was making in the other thread was trying to be fair to Kerry regarding all the accusations of flip-flopping. When your base is a hodgepodge of often competing special interests, the vulnerability to being seen as contradicting yourself is much higher as you try to herd all these various groups into a single cause (ie defeating Bush). Each group will go along only so far before they want definitive pledges that there's going to be some quid pro quo down the line in exchange for their loyalty. The danger is that as soon as you make a definitive pledge to one, another group that you want on your side is going to see that as an abandonment.

Specifically and recently, Kerry made a soundbite about *Benedict Arnold Companies* a theme during the Dem primary. It sounded good to union voters. He was playing to the age-old workers vs. owners game. But now he knows he has to reach out to managers for the votes he needs to win and many business owners view outsourcing as necessary to surival and success of their business. As a result, if you read John's latest redefinition of what a Benedict Arnold Company is, he has recast it in ways very different than the impression he presented to union workers. The impression he left with workers is he would stop the practice across the board and protect the American worker, but the impression he's hoping business owners will buy is that he would only stop egregious violations that could be shown as simply a tax dodge. So which one is it, John, someone's going to lose, either workers or owners, but he's trying to pull off this fandance and not saying definitively who will be the loser, hoping he can mumble his way into the Whitehouse before he clarifies who is going to get bitten in the azz.

With Kerry, I just don't know where he stands on so many issues because he's intentionally trying to be vague, hoping each group will interpret that at being pro-them.

Now contrast that to Bush. He's been very upfront on where he stands on pro-group special interests. He's against them. He has been pretty consistent in his messages. We all know he doesn't believe in gay marriage, we all know he doesn't believe in quotas, we all know he's for laisez faire regarding how business owners handle outsourcing, etc. down the line. Sure, some special interests are going to lose but I think the consistent theme with Bush is he chooses and clearly communicates that he is for issues that he sees will benenfit the greatest number of Americans (or seen conversely, will harm the least number of Americans), as well as not to interfere with market dynamics or artificially impose restrictions that will hobble America's ability to compete globally.

In my mind, it comes down to this: If you want America to continue in its dominant position in the world, vote Bush; if you want America to slowly devolve to the status of just another kid on the block, vote Kerry.

yeah you're right bash. Bush is right too the point with the average American. We're all screwed because we don't make millions of dollars in oil money. We don't all own corporations, having massive holding companies at our fingertips, outsource tons of jobs and HQ to avoid paying income taxes, wow you're right, I feel so good to know that my president is looking out for my benefit.

Z, why do you even bother posting? You never discuss anything. It's always sarcasm, defeatism, negativity and despair. A better question might be why do you continue sucking oxygen if the world is such an evil oppressive place and it's everyone else's fault that you're miserable?

I wasn't being sarcastic. You have to agree that Bush is pure big business. I'm the little guy, I got absolutely nothing in my taxes. Furthermore, I didn't want anything. I would rather pay taxes to have a strong country than to get an extra 50 bucks a year to blow on booze. I hate welfare abuse, the system is sound but it is not regulated correctly. I pose a similar question to you bash.

Why do you feel the Republican party is perfect? I know the Democrats have tons of bad things about them. I don't like Kerry that much at all. I feel he is the lesser of evils and would like to see him in office. You on the other hand, seem to feel as if your party can do no wrong. Anything, and I mean anything they say, you jump to. If they came on the tv or radio and said the sky was red, you'd be spouting it out to everyone that the sky was never blue and it was liberals fault.

you're cute when you get angry bash.

I'm cute all the time.