The main argument against my point is that the most-economically free states are also the ones that are less crowded per square mile. Many of these states had farm lands which allowed industry to come in. In these areas, a lot of farm labor was replaced by high density employers such as distribution centers and other high density industries.
Truth is, I think there is a time for supply side economics and a time for restricting economic freedoms, sort of like raising and lowering interest rates, but I can't prove that.
Putting more money in the hands of the wealthy, in the hands of the banks, which supply side economics tries to do, does give the opportunity to go out and create new business. The problem is that with more money, many individuals don't create more business. Individuals frequently retire early.
Give businesses more money, and you can't always predict what they will do. alprova looks at the ones who don't reinvest, while you look at the ones who do. Sometimes you're right. Sometimes he's right.
TARP, in some ways was similar to supply-side economics. We supported the banks and they still don't loan despite some of them having tremendous profits over the past year.
All that being said, I think Reagan was right to try it. I think there is evidence from the study above to suggest it might actually work, but I will freely admit there are possible factors that contributed to economic growth in those states other than economic freedom.
In my opinion, I don't know if either side can truly lay claim to knowing what the truth is.
In the end, the truth can only be known if markets and motivations are transparent. Right now, so much of our economic and political propaganda on both sides are being driven by unidentified powers. I don't trust anyone who claims to know the absolute truth.
You make some good points, but overall I don't think you're exactly winning this argument. On a point by point basis alprova has out-reasoned you, even when you may be correct. The more you argue, the worse supply side economics looks.
If you own a business it must be small, because you don't really seem to understand how decisions are made at major corporations. A small businessman is concerned with personal profits and family first and uses this as a guage of whether it's appropriate to expand.
Much larger forces are at work in major corporations and big money. Perceived demand drives these industries. Companies are willing to take huge losses in profits and they can frequently afford to do this if they think the market will support them. None of my colleagues in Fortune 500 companies make decisions the way you describe.
Supply side economics, or trickle down, makes a lot of sense in theory. There is also some evidence to support that it works. You correctly argue that there were forces at work that made recovery difficult and may have limited the positive effects of supply side economics.
Getting back to the basics, in states which have the most ecnomic freedomes (more like supply side economics) per capita income grows faster and more jobs are created.
A good example of this can be found at:
whatever, mandating sex education the way you see it probably would suit many people; however, I think forcing it upon children would cause some people to pull their children from the public school system, especially here in the south.
There are many people down here who home school their kids because of religious purposes. I think we'd simply drive more kids from the school. Then the fundamentalists would further isolate their children. (I'm not trying to bash home school in general, but I think a lot of people do it out of fear of what their children will be exposed to in school.)
You and I may agree that sex education (with all consequences discussed) would be the best thing, but you have to look at all the ramifications.
In a free society, we must allow for some willful ignorance. Besides, one size does not fit all. Just because, on average, abstinence only is inferior to comprehensive sex education does not mean it's wrong for every child.
Different kids are motivated differently. With my kids, I have consistent expectations, but if I tried to motivate them all the same it would be a disaster.
I agree that comprehensive sex education is best, in general, and I'm pretty darn conservative by nature.
Can you acknowledge that there may be some kids who would do better in an abstinence program?
The problem with abstinence only programs, bookie, is that they ONLY teach abstinence. This may work for some kids and adults too, but research shows it's less successful than other programs which are more well rounded.
Abstinence is the surest way to prevent pregnancy, but for kids to understand the message we had to have very frank conversations about sex, what it is, etc. These kinds of frank discussions are often difficult for people who promote abstinence only.
Prevention of unwanted pregnancy can't be one size fits all. Few things ever are.
Public schools should be allowed to teach sex education and parents should be allowed to hold those kids out of the class, if desired.
bookie, that would give you the choice you want.
No program is perfect, but we shouldn't cling only to ones proven to be inferior.
I'm not a member of the tea party but I think what upsets some people about this cartoon is that it leaves out some good ingredients like
Love of country
As for the ingredients brewing the tea
Paranoia: yes, failed goverment policies make people paranoid about what might be coming next.
Bitterness, Fear, Anger, Cynicism, Hostility too. This should happen when we see our country heading in so many wrong directions. Our debt and spending are out of control. One thing I didn't like about Bush was how he expanded executive power. Obama has further expanded it. This is something to be feared and I don't think this is unique to the tea party.
Jingoism. That's fair. The tea party does this too much. They call democrats elitists. Probably why I'm not a member. Jingoism is present in all political parties. I think I've seen at least one group call the republicans the Party of No.
Prejudice. We all have this. There are probably some people who are truly prejudiced in the tea party but if you can't see it in other parties you're just not paying attention.
Fox News isn't always right and doesn't always give a fair shake to the opposite point of view.... kind of like this cartoon. Fox isn't always wrong, either.
I know some people who are in the tea party. They are all good people. There are some crazy people in the tea party too. The tea party is far from perfect and it is a bitter brew. Sometimes medicine is bitter. It doesn't mean it's all bad for you just because you don't like the taste.
who is YOU KNOW WHO?
I think your website is very funny. Even though most of us make comments here under a screen name, our comments are public, making them subject to public ridicule, parody and all else that goes with that.
canary and I see eye to eye on a lot of issues, but if I were running for office, I would run from canary as fast as Obama should have run from Reverend Wright.
I see a lot of people on this site make rational, polite arguments which actually have a chance of changing another person's mind.
I realize people spew venom at canary, but as a conservative I cringe at the way she delivers her message. She has no equal in spewing venom. I think anger only weakens arguments.
This site is also not an attack on canary the person. I don't know who she is. She is probably a fine member of community, a good mother.
june's website is an attack on what canary the commenter says on this site.
I think that's fair.
I also look forward to canary's response to june. Very much. I think she'll have a sense of humor about it though.
No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. - Ronald Reagan
I don't believe we should sacrifice freedom because we don't have moral courage. I am not afraid of Islam. I am afraid of what will happen to us if we start to abandon what we stand for.
What makes us different from countries which hate us is that we allow religous freedom. We should not ever try to become like those who oppose us. This means we should not try to stomp out religious freedoms at home. If we want to prove that we are Americans for freedom and liberty we should start acting like it.
I'm a little surprised by you.
You commonly use exagerration and absurdity to make your points. Why is it ok for you, but not for Clay?
Also, your post hinted at some level of support for gay veterans. What is the extent of that support? Do you have any outrage for the system that will discharge people who serve our bravely but kick them out if they acknowledge they are gay?
Perhaps you just didn't have the time to fully ellucidate.
The government had no business in bailing out AIG and Wall Street. The government has no business in bailing out BP, either. This is BPs mess. It affects a lot of people, but its BPs mess and they alone should clean it up and pay for all the damages.
I thought tin foil hats were supposed to protect from mind control?
Tea Partiers cross party lines and although largely conservative are "controlled" mainly by the constitution.
The Republicans and Democrats are so partisan that they're practically brainless anyway.