What's good for business is good for everyone.
superstaniam said 03/17, 11:49 AM
The most prosperous times in terms of statistical economic rise for our country came under pro-business presidential administrations. The 1920s and the 1950s both saw huge surpluses in the economy. Basic goods were more available to more people. Technological innovations developed at rapid pace giving newer and better products to people. There were more products to be produced, making more jobs. Taxes on business were low, so they had more revenue to grow. Granted there are natural times of economic slow down, but generally booming business makes for more affluency in society. Doesn't it make sense to promote private business in free markets for a thriving economy? Why would we ever consider socialization? Look what socialism did for Eastern Europe. Look what free markets and free society have done for the U.S. As much as people may complain, we've got it pretty good compared to the rest of the world. Let's stick to what works and keep business free of government interference that does anything other than regulate for safety.
Mason112 said 03/23, 11:36 AM
That is simply not the case. Over the past couple of years we have seen that Conservative governments are in favor of Big business. They give big businesses tax breaks at the expense of social programs that assist those in need. By that I mean low income families, single parent households, homeless population and the aging pensioners in the country. In the 1980s, we saw Reaganomics favor big businesses at the expense of social programs for the poor. We also saw a recession in the late 80s under Bush Administration. Jobs were lost, the economy was slow the people suffered as a result. Under the current Bush Administration, we see big business outsource jobs outside the country at the expense of the American people. Under the Pro Big Business Bush Administration, we have seen cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Education and Social Welfare programs at the cost to the people. Under this Administration we have seen thousands of jobs shipped overseas. The economy has suffered record loses. We have seen a record number of mortgage forclosures in the last year. In conclusion, I disagree with the notion, what's good for business is good for everyone.
superstaniam said 03/24, 10:19 AM
Economic advancement is never painless. With the great strides made in the economy, there are natural periods of corrections within the markets. These are made worse when the government props up business. We needed to allow the correction two years ago, but the Feds saw differently and now we're experiencing the effects of a delayed correction. There's no use trying to prop up businesses that are doomed to fail (i.e. American manufacturing that is lo-tech). Let's play to our strengths, innovation and research. That said, I think the argument that Mason makes that the cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Education and Social Welfare programs have come at the costs of the people is bogus. Who is this costing? Honestly? I think when we don't overspend, that costs less. That seems like a reasonable assertion. Take a logic class Mason. I think the cuts to the bottom line are the responsible things to do. They're not popular or easy, but if you don't have the money to pay for it, you have to trim the fat. Ultimately though those businesses make the money that pays the taxes, that funds the social welfare pipe dream of people like Mason.
Mason112 said 03/26, 05:53 PM
If you consider making cuts that help the low income families, children, the elderly gaining access to Health Care, Education, Medicaid and other Social Programs to improve their quality of as trimming the fat then there is something fundamentally wrong. A government whether federal, state or municipal should do its best effort to benefit the interests of its people. Most business work efficiently by keeping costs low. They keep wages low to maximize profits. Take a Multinational conglomerate like McDonalds. With the cost of living increasing at an alarming rate in the United States, the minimum wage is becoming harder to sustain an individial from meeting his or her physiological needs as well as supporting their dependents. The needs of the people are taking a back seat to the special interests of Big Business. The people need more than the table scraps the government hand out. The Administration needs to set its priorities straight and get its objectives in the right focus and pay attention to the needs of the people.
superstaniam said 03/27, 11:39 AM
Where does the money that funds these programs you're wanting "untrimmed" originate? It comes out of the working tax-payers' pockets. Where do we get our money from? The businesses we work in. Let's use simple reasoning. Business makes no money = Unable to pay workers = No one to tax = No money for government to give out. Frankly you didn't say anything about Mickey D's. Follow through in your arguments, answer the questions, think about them and one day you too might realize that someone has to make money for you to use the computer you typed your "response" on. What's unreasonable about my logic trail? This seems to be a very simple concept some people refuse to acknowledge. I mean yeah...minimum wage is tough to make a living off of. There's a reason you're being paid the minimum though. The way to make more money is to make your services more valuable, another easy concept. I want to help the poor in our country as well, but living in a state who's number one source of income is transfer payments (i.e. gov checks) will open your eyes to the reality that it's hard to effect change by handing out money with no accountability.
Mason112 said 03/31, 09:48 PM
The essential goal of business is to make a profit with the least amount of expense. Included in those expenses are the wages or salaries big businesses pay their employees. You see large conglomerates like Nike shipping its coorporations abroad to Singapore via sweatr shops because they can pay non Americans lower wages while their work longer hours. The company maximizes its profit while costing an eligible American a possible source of employment. Which comes back to the statement what is good for business is good for the people. A government cannot fully work at the benefit of business because it becomes a detriment to social programs intended for the people they govern. A governments primary resource are its people, we must not forget that obvious fact. We must also remember that the money a government has does not only come from businesses but also from its natural resources such as gold, silver, timber, oil as well as fossil fuels which are in limited supply. The funds acquired from the many sources must be allocated to both the public and private sectors accordingly. We must remember that the people include children and the elderly who are not in the workforce.
Comments
Add Your Comment
The premise of this argument requires that all men are in the same business. They are not.
FLIPSIDE | 03/17/08
Report Offensive Comment
This is what we get for voting the stupid to lead the blind. Thanks a lot Washington D.C.
NA | 03/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
Everyone doesn't have to be in the same business. Money is made by business, who pay workers, who spend money, the money gets circulated. When business is good, more money gets moving in our economy. That's what we get for letting you vote NA, more socialistic ignorance.
superstaniam | 03/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
so is this guy going to post a rebuttal or let everyone down here try and save him?
superstaniam | 03/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
I don't think anybody can save him. There is no debate against pure and simple economics.
ShawnF | 03/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
Of course big business care about the all people that work for it. That's why during economic downturns the lowest level employees get laid off and the board never changes (CEOS get huge severance packages). The problem is there has never been a true socialist system in play, we only see the bastardization of socialism by despots and his ruling class. Then to make it less appealing American media destroys any positive by providing its bias to make Democracy sound like the best economic system ever. America is a plutocracy. Democrats and Republicans haven't and will not change anything because the widening gap between rich and poor keeps them in power. We are in the throws of chaos because no one put a stop to our countries unholy matrimony with oil and now because world demand is up and supply hasn't increased, prices for oil and by proxy everything else increase. The governments answer to increasing prices? Economic stimulus package ($600 per person?) and printing more money (borrowing from the federal reserve: a private business that is America owes a lot of money towards). The rich have played their hand so well that now they have so much more than the majority who are massively in debt. The real change is coming, and the people aren't going to be stepped on by greedy politicians forever. Good thing Bush trumped up Homeland Security and FEMA and now he has the patriot act to keep us from revolting.
AhavahOlam | 03/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
Shawn, how does deregulation help the average American? When tax credits are given to businesses that hire overseas, when union and safety standards are lowered. All you do is sit here and say the liberal don't understand economics and that we are just appealing to the under educated to get votes. Well, when a liberal candidate says we need to increase the tax rates for companies that hire over seas to keep jobs here, we don't understand economics? When we say we need a universal healthcare system so businesses will no longer have to bear the burden of providing their employees with health insurance saving billions, we don't understand economics? When we want to have reasonable regulation on safety standards for employees and consumers which build public trust in our financial world that will have more money being put into the economy, we don't understand economics? Finally, when every major conservative supported President Bush, until his policies started to affect you as they were going to affect everyone, so now they come against him saying he wasn't a 'real' conservative is just bogus, he was one and he will always be one.
base89 | 03/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
Even Bush Sr called Reaganomics voodoo economics. You give all the money to the top and it tends to stay at the top. You provide breaks for the poor and working class... That money is spent before the check arrives. Spending is what spurs the economy. We can all agree Walmart is a corporation doing quite well, but it is terrible for the American worker (and other companies who wish to do business with them). Do some research on Vlassic or Rubbermaid to see what I mean.
Eveas | 03/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
As for health care...since my opponent is loathe to post any kind of rebuttal... Why not: Use A Free Market, Federalist Approach To Make Quality, Affordable Health Insurance Available To Every American Deregulate State Markets. Encourage states to eliminate the cumbersome insurance regulations that drive costs up and providers out of the market. Fix The Tax Code. Level the playing field by making all health care expenses tax deductible, eliminating the special treatment afforded employer-provided health plans. Stop The Free-Riders. Use some of the money currently spent on providing expensive "free care" for the uninsured at emergency rooms to instead help the truly needy buy private insurance. Reform The Medical Liability System. Institute federal caps on non-economic and punitive damage awards to eliminate frivolous lawsuits and bring an end to the practice of defensive medicine. Promote Innovation In Medicaid. Give states flexibility to spend their Medicaid dollars in whatever way they find most efficient and effective. Bring Health Care Into The 21st Century. Improve quality and enhance transparency by introducing the same competitive forces that drive innovation in other sectors of the economy.
superstaniam | 03/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
We are using a free market system, and that is why insurance is not affordable, since a company that can make it's money by making their product more expensive will do so, Americans need insurance, and most will try their best to have it, some simply cannot afford it. Lowering regulations will only lower standards of care, and quality as prices increase. Relying on a deregulated free-market has not proved beneficial to the public.
base89 | 03/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
Why is Mason winning? He hasn't even made his first argument yet. I voted for superstaniam just to even things up.
yngster | 03/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
Indeed, why is Mason getting votes? I thought this was a debate site, after all. Besides, superstaniam at least came with an argument and some examples as to why he is right. Unless Mason comes back with the same or better, he shouldn't be winning like this.
J.A.B.C. | 03/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
Ohavolam?....revolution?....sounds like a commie-socialist freak to me.....will you revolution make a blood bath of the rich or anyone opposing your ideas....that seems to be the trend in socialist "people's" revolutions (i.e. China, USSR, Cambodia, Vietnam, Iran, A host of African countries, Nicaragua, the list is endless)....
superstaniam | 03/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
Indeed, why is superstaniam getting votes? I thought this was a debate site, after all...http://www.elephant-donkey.com/elephantdonkey/show/6081
Hadrian | 03/27/08
Report Offensive Comment
hey it's hadrian...the guy who's afraid of a real debate...
superstaniam | 03/28/08
Report Offensive Comment
y'know sometimes i wish it wasn't true that what's good for business is good for everyone, but hej i also wish for a free ticket to travel the world all expenses included, like that's going to happen
MorgMcA | 03/31/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Photos: The Hajj Goes High-Tech
Advances in infrastructure and security improve the experience of Islam's holiest pilgrimage
( )
Athens in Flames
A massive student protest against proposed government reforms of state universities developed into major rioting in the streets of the Greek capital following the shooting of a teenage boy by riot police.
(Louisa Gouliamaki / AFP / Getty)
See this is where liberals and conservatives disagree. But ask any economist and they will tell you less regulation on trade and business is always better than over-regulation. But this doesn't appeal to a lot of people, because they see liberal values as a aim to help the "economically challenged". So to speak frankly, liberal candidates speak of a fix all in every aspect of life to appeal to the less educated voter who doesn't understand economics. Thus you get the mass vote turnouts for "change", when a lot of people do not understand the consequences of those changes, or the reality of actually making them happen. Just like minimum wage, aimed to help workers. Before minimum wage, African Americans had the lowest unemployment rate- after the highest. Just another liberal misunderstanding of economics. Hillary wants $8.00/hr minimum wage, this= 2,000,000 lost jobs. And for everybody who is going to throw the George Bush example in my face, he is not a conservative!
ShawnF | 03/17/08
Report Offensive Comment