Please explain the benefits of Romney's economic plan.

So I am a liberal who has strong reservations about deregulation and the further empowering of our elite class.

I am also very afraid that Romney's policies will broaden the large gap between rich and poor in our country, which harms us all.

SO, I would like those of you who are economic conservatives to explain how deregulation and a more powerful elite class will improve the economy, both in the short run and the long run. As a Jedi, I strive NOT to be dogmatic about my beliefs and I strive to re-evaluate my opinions in light of new information. This topic is NOT INTENDED TO BE A DEBATE, but about the benefits of economic deregulation (with focus on the deregulation Romney will pursue) and the resulting strengthening of the elite class. I want to learn what you believe, as an economic conservative, and why you believe this.

You have my sincere thanks for providing me with this information.

I would also like to thank Reacher for inspiring me to create this topic. It is really important for us all to be open to learning about all sides of a given issue, regardless of our personal feelings towards one side or another, and I realize that I have not done due diligence in learning about and understanding conservative economic beliefs.

Can you please outline the actual policies that are being discussed otherwise we are just debating whatever we think the policies are based on our own bias

Also please note everyone reading this that if it turns into a uncontrollable flame war I would urge that you either stop reading this thread if you can't control yourselves or that this thread be closed

We don't need people being ridiculous on a debate that is, from the OP, charged with bias (no offence Archaic) - maybe it's just me but what you said doesn't read as being from an objective point of view

I remember a time when we simply didn't have political debates (or similar) because of the arguments that can ensue

But yes what policies exactly are we discussing or this will get really messy really fast

BNP Paribas is significantly larger than any american bank. It's headquartered in france, where:

-Taxes are very high
-The banking sector is highly regulated.

It's the only large bank that didn't suffer from subprimes. In 2009 (or 2010?) It was the largest corporation in the world. It was asked to basically forget about greek debt, to "purchase" failed banks and other large corporations. They were making money during the crisis and still are despite this.

The whole "regulations are bad" attitude is non-sense. regulations are the middle ground between "anything goes" and prohibition. The path of "you can do it, but have to do it smart"

RE: Akkarin, If you feel that it is better that we do not discuss this, then go ahead and delete this topic.

I think that the issues of economic regulation are pretty clear to those of us in the US -- whether or not there should be governmental control on what corporations and individuals who run corporations can and cannot do. There is a conflict of interest problem between those who run corporations and the actual corporation itself, because what is good for the individual is not always good for the corporation. Hence why increasing the latitude that corporations have tends to empower the elite class, since they are the ones at the top who are receiving the benefits from deregulation.

As I said before, this topic is NOT INTENDED TO BE A DEBATE. Anything said against conservatism is not relevant -- indeed, there is no "right" or "wrong" answer, I am just asking what conservatives believe and why. I am laying out my own biases straight away so that anyone who replies can choose to critique specific liberal economic beliefs in their response; I am particularly interested in this.

I absolutely have no interest in a flame war or in debating the topic and my original post attempts to convey that debate / flaming is off topic. I just want to know what people believe, and why, because I personally find that I don't have a good grasp of it. And if I don't understand or at least am aware of the specific benefits of a position other than my own, then I really don't think my own beliefs are all that credible.

Archaic Smile wrote: RE: Akkarin, If you feel that it is better that we do not discuss this, then go ahead and delete this topic.

Well that's not my call and I probably wouldn't delete it anyway. You say something you're stuck with it being there, think before you speak and all that I wouldn't delete some of the stupid things I've said in the past lol

But that's fair enough, I understand what you mean now however it is likely to become a debate, because there is no good in just hearing the other side unless they explain the reasoning behind it

"I believe this and this and this..." - that is fine but personally I would like to know why people believe certain things, because that is much more informative hence the beginning of debate lol

But it's your topic so your call I will probably chime in to offer a few points but as long as things remain civil then any post is ok I reckon

at the risk of sounding like a pretentious bimbo, I truly believe there's a lot more to be learned by being civil and asking respectful questions about the opinions of others than to try to tout one's own opinions as the only "correct" and "logical" ways to look at things, since very often there is no "correct" way and human beings are not logical, but emotional. Gaining other perspectives instead of holding dogmatically to just one way of looking at things is really important to me, and I hope to most everyone here.

Okay I am going to hop off my soapbox now and look forward to replies. ;

I am in no way an economic conservative (in fact they usually call me a "bleeding heart liberal") but from what I understand from most conservatives that I have spoken with they believe that by lowering taxes they will fix the economy by encouraging companies to keep their manufacturing in the US. They also believe that by lowering taxes those companies will create more jobs, making more taxable dollars for both the employees and corporate businesses. Basically most of them believe that by lowering taxes for the wealthy you actually make more from taxes and that if you increase taxes these companies will leave and take their jobs with them.

Personally I don't see it. I think they have too much faith in the corporations that they fail to see, even with reduced taxes, their desire to reduce labor costs by outsourcing.

This story was sent to me to pretty much explain their views on tax policy.

"This is a very simple way to understand the tax laws:

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

the first four men, the poorest, would pay nothing;
the fifth would pay $1;
the sixth would pay $3;
the seventh would pay $7;
the eighth pays $12;
the ninth would pay $18;
and the tenth man, the richest, would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement --- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I am going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six--the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay:

as before, the first four men paid nothing;
now the fifth man also paid nothing;
the sixth man now paid $2;
the seventh paid $5;
the eighth man paid $9;
the ninth man paid $12;
leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20 reduction,' declared the sixth man, but he, pointing to the tenth. 'But he got $7!'. 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man, 'I only saved a dollar too; it's unfair that he got seven times more than me!'

'That's true,' shouted the seventh man, 'why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!.' 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison, 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were now Fifty-Two Dollars short of paying the bill. Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists, and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic."

Wait. Is this some kind of joke or does the US tax system actually work like this?

ren wrote: Wait. Is this some kind of joke or does the US tax system actually work like this?

I don't honestly know. At the very least, the article illustrates a belief that the graduated US tax system works this way.

I am not knowledgeable enough to really pick the argument apart, but I think that the article's criticism is that the government supports the poorest citizens and doesn't require them to pay taxes, but the rich must still pay something like 20%, which to Americans seems very high.