A Conspiracy Theory that makes more sense than Bush and Big Oil

[cch5432]

You may call this outrageous, but it has more merit than the thought that Bush is profiting off of these high oil prices. How about this- The Democrats want to keep the poor in poverty.

 

They support higher taxes that lower prices and hinder investment spending. Since investment spending is often the cornerstone of economic growth, our country has less innovation, entrepreneurship, new factories and research and development. Why is it that our poor are better off than the rest of the world's middle class? Because we are incredibly advanced in terms of technology, medical products and pharmaceutical drugs, etc. What does welfare do? Raises taxes (on everyone) and inherently makes prices higher.

 

They don't reserve there attempts to keep the poor in their state to just America. Democrats love using the word "sweatshops" and "fair trade" to keep foreign countries poor. Child labor was not outlawed in the U.S until the 1930's, and I can assure you that the standard of living in the US was much higher in the 1930's here than it is now in developing countries. Often times, when child labor is banned (or countries that employ children are forced to move out or close), the children must resort to prostitution or begging, because often their families rely on their income. Public schooling simply isn't available in these countries, and it won't be until the total income in the country is higher. It is a normal good.

 

"Fair trade" hurts America and other countries. In America, often times tariffs and quotas eliminate jobs (i.e., tariffs in the sugar industry saved American sugar jobs but eliminate many more jobs in the American candy industry- and FWIW I am not saying that total jobs in the economy go down) Also, how is that countries get rich? When foreign countries build factories and create jobs in other economies? The country has the availability for loanable funds, which can be used by firms for investment spending, and furthermore allow the workers to obtain knowledge capital, which can only spread (see the Bangladesh clothing industry)

 

The Democrats need the poor vote. Is this theory alive and well? Who knows. But at least it is backed up by fact, and it is more than just a shallow, hollow statement.

[lynks66]

You may call this outrageous, but it has more merit than the thought that Bush is profiting off of these high oil prices. How about this- The Democrats want to keep the poor in poverty.

 

They support higher taxes that lower prices and hinder investment spending. Since investment spending is often the cornerstone of economic growth, our country has less innovation, entrepreneurship, new factories and research and development. Why is it that our poor are better off than the rest of the world's middle class? Because we are incredibly advanced in terms of technology, medical products and pharmaceutical drugs, etc. What does welfare do? Raises taxes (on everyone) and inherently makes prices higher.

 

They don't reserve there attempts to keep the poor in their state to just America. Democrats love using the word "sweatshops" and "fair trade" to keep foreign countries poor. Child labor was not outlawed in the U.S until the 1930's, and I can assure you that the standard of living in the US was much higher in the 1930's here than it is now in developing countries. Often times, when child labor is banned (or countries that employ children are forced to move out or close), the children must resort to prostitution or begging, because often their families rely on their income. Public schooling simply isn't available in these countries, and it won't be until the total income in the country is higher. It is a normal good.

 

"Fair trade" hurts America and other countries. In America, often times tariffs and quotas eliminate jobs (i.e., tariffs in the sugar industry saved American sugar jobs but eliminate many more jobs in the American candy industry- and FWIW I am not saying that total jobs in the economy go down) Also, how is that countries get rich? When foreign countries build factories and create jobs in other economies? The country has the availability for loanable funds, which can be used by firms for investment spending, and furthermore allow the workers to obtain knowledge capital, which can only spread (see the Bangladesh clothing industry)

 

The Democrats need the poor vote. Is this theory alive and well? Who knows. But at least it is backed up by fact, and it is more than just a shallow, hollow statement.

 

 

I feel this does have some merit.

[H]

Just a question. Assuming your theory was true, how long would the Democrats stay in power if their deliberate policies made it impossible for people to move out of poverty? Preserving the status quo (if the status quo for some people is poverty) or pushing more people down into poverty doesn't seem like a plausible and sustainable strategy for remaining in political office in a democracy.

 

I generally agree with more conservative principles against reliance on the government for income, however the GOP isn't on the ropes right now because of some brilliantly-executed secret Democratic strategy to hold people into poverty. The GOP is about to take a November beating because it has badly lost its way and has abandoned its time-honored principles of smaller government, the judicious use of military power, and fiscal responsibility.

[Hasbeen]

While I don't buy into any conspiracy theory, recent circumstances in my life have made me realize just how hard it is for an average person to take advantage of any type financial windfall. Local, state, and federal governments are set up to grab a large enough share that a minor shift in one's financial wellbeing is extremely difficult to achieve. In other words, what appears to be at least somewhat lifechanging is little more than treading water after taxes.

[oldrambler]

cch5432 I believe that this theory may be pretty close to the truth. I don't know if it is or not but I can believe it. Especially when imo there are no (or very few) TRUE Democrats in office in Washington anymore, the way far left liberal agenda has taken over the Demcratic party. (and I come from a family of democrats that do not go along with most of this way out there liberal junk) Boxer, Pelosi, Clinton's, T. Kennedy, Gore, (now Obama), Schumer, Byrd, Kerry and several others imo are a disgrace top what the Real Democratic Party once stood for.

 

JMO and I have certainly repated that statement in several threads on this forum in the past and stated my reasons for it so I apologize and will try and not do it anymore.

[halfback20]

I think one could just as easily say that Republicans need poor people to stay poor as well.

 

Either way, I think most conspiracy theories are junk, this one included.

[thegooch]

cch5432 I believe that this theory may be pretty close to the truth. I don't know if it is or not but I can believe it. Especially when imo there are no (or very few) TRUE Democrats in office in Washington anymore, the way far left liberal agenda has taken over the Demcratic party. (and I come from a family of democrats that do not go along with most of this way out there liberal junk) Boxer, Pelosi, Clinton's, T. Kennedy, Gore, (now Obama), Schumer, Byrd, Kerry and several others imo are a disgrace top what the Real Democratic Party once stood for.

 

JMO and I have certainly repated that statement in several threads on this forum in the past and stated my reasons for it so I apologize and will try and not do it anymore.

 

 

And what may I ask did your Democratic Party Stand for??

[bugatti]

While I do not agree with the mass consipracy behind it all, it is naive to think both parties do not like keeping the votes of particular segments of the population in their pocket.

[cch5432]

Just a question. Assuming your theory was true, how long would the Democrats stay in power if their deliberate policies made it impossible for people to move out of poverty? Preserving the status quo (if the status quo for some people is poverty) or pushing more people down into poverty doesn't seem like a plausible and sustainable strategy for remaining in political office in a democracy.

 

I generally agree with more conservative principles against reliance on the government for income, however the GOP isn't on the ropes right now because of some brilliantly-executed secret Democratic strategy to hold people into poverty. The GOP is about to take a November beating because it has badly lost its way and has abandoned its time-honored principles of smaller government, the judicious use of military power, and fiscal responsibility.

This isn't about the GOP.

 

The reason why the Democrats can keep the poor vote is because their policies seem, on the surface, to be aiding the poor, but overall they hurt them.

I think one could just as easily say that Republicans need poor people to stay poor as well.

 

Either way, I think most conspiracy theories are junk, this one included.

Obviously, your being sarcastic. I give a well-drawn explanation of my "theory", and you come back with a one-liner- just as I criticized in my first post. You back that statement up, and I'll retract my statement.

 

To be honest, I don't think that the Democrat party leaders sit in a room and say "How can we keep the poor in poverty?" But it makes me sick that their policies are retroactive to helping the poor, yet Conservatives are lampooned for not caring.

[halfback20]

This isn't about the GOP.

 

The reason why the Democrats can keep the poor vote is because their policies seem, on the surface, to be aiding the poor, but overall they hurt them.

 

Obviously, your being sarcastic. I give a well-drawn explanation of my "theory", and you come back with a one-liner- just as I criticized in my first post. You back that statement up, and I'll retract my statement.

 

To be honest, I don't think that the Democrat party leaders sit in a room and say "How can we keep the poor in poverty?" But it makes me sick that their policies are retroactive to helping the poor, yet Conservatives are lampooned for not caring.

 

 

Many believe that the republicans represent those who are wealthy. They favor tax breaks for the rich and they believe in the "trickle down" approach, correct? My point is that most people believe, whether it is true or not, that Republicans support the rich. The rich, need the poor, to be rich. Therefore the rich people in the republican party or in any party for that matter, benefit from keeping the poor where they are financially.

 

Everyone thinks they can achieve the "American dream" in this country but in reality there is not a very good success rate for poor people. I believe 1% of Americans own around 40% of the nations wealth. And I believe 10% owns 50% of the nations wealth. Basically, the majority of the wealth in this country is possessed by few people. Those who are poor are more than likely going to remain poor, and that's exactly how the rich want it to be.

 

 

I'm not sure if any of that makes sense. I typed it really quickly :lol:. I'm currently supposed to be substitute teaching, but instead I'm surfing BGP.

[H]

This isn't about the GOP.

 

The reason why the Democrats can keep the poor vote is because their policies seem, on the surface, to be aiding the poor, but overall they hurt them.

 

 

OK, I can accept that as a theory. However, I come back to the idea that at the end of the day, the incumbent party will always be evaluated against the question of, "are you better off than you were X years ago?" If the incumbents are Democrats and the answer to that question is no, they are going to have a tough time making the case that they deserve a vote, regardless of what their policies seem like on the surface. The clamor for "change" will trump even the most carefully-crafted image of the incumbent party.

[halfback20]

One thing that bothers me is that the poverty line is around $12-13K for a family, right? No one could live off of that. However, people who are close to that and might be over by $5-6K are still fairly poor yet they are not eligible for the benefits that the "poor" are. Therefore, no President or administration wants to raise the poverty line due to the fact that it will make it look like poverty severely increased during that term. Kind of stupid isn't it?

[75center]

One thing that bothers me is that the poverty line is around $12-13K for a family, right? No one could live off of that. However, people who are close to that and might be over by $5-6K are still fairly poor yet they are not eligible for the benefits that the "poor" are. Therefore, no President or administration wants to raise the poverty line due to the fact that it will make it look like poverty severely increased during that term. Kind of stupid isn't it?

 

Not sure what benefits they would not be eligible for at $18-20K. For instance, a family of 4 with over $27,000 earned income would be eligible for the federal free lunch program and in addition to paying no federal taxes would receive around $2,700 in earned income tax credits. I'm sure there are other benefit programs they would participate in. Those are just 2 I work with regularly. Now childless couples are a whole different matter.

[Habib]

You may call this outrageous, but it has more merit than the thought that Bush is profiting off of these high oil prices. How about this- The Democrats want to keep the poor in poverty.

 

They support higher taxes that lower prices and hinder investment spending. Since investment spending is often the cornerstone of economic growth, our country has less innovation, entrepreneurship, new factories and research and development. Why is it that our poor are better off than the rest of the world's middle class? Because we are incredibly advanced in terms of technology, medical products and pharmaceutical drugs, etc. What does welfare do? Raises taxes (on everyone) and inherently makes prices higher.

 

They don't reserve there attempts to keep the poor in their state to just America. Democrats love using the word "sweatshops" and "fair trade" to keep foreign countries poor. Child labor was not outlawed in the U.S until the 1930's, and I can assure you that the standard of living in the US was much higher in the 1930's here than it is now in developing countries. Often times, when child labor is banned (or countries that employ children are forced to move out or close), the children must resort to prostitution or begging, because often their families rely on their income. Public schooling simply isn't available in these countries, and it won't be until the total income in the country is higher. It is a normal good.

 

"Fair trade" hurts America and other countries. In America, often times tariffs and quotas eliminate jobs (i.e., tariffs in the sugar industry saved American sugar jobs but eliminate many more jobs in the American candy industry- and FWIW I am not saying that total jobs in the economy go down) Also, how is that countries get rich? When foreign countries build factories and create jobs in other economies? The country has the availability for loanable funds, which can be used by firms for investment spending, and furthermore allow the workers to obtain knowledge capital, which can only spread (see the Bangladesh clothing industry)

 

The Democrats need the poor vote. Is this theory alive and well? Who knows. But at least it is backed up by fact, and it is more than just a shallow, hollow statement.

 

1 - If this were true, then can the success of the Democratic Party during and after Franklin Roosevelt be explained? Many lifelong Democrats were created because of his social programs and their perceived success. It wasn't until the economic malaise of Carter that the Democratic Party saw itself severely weakened.

 

2 - What about looking at the parties of the left in other developed countries who have implemented social programs into a market economy? France's was recently defeated in an election because of the economy and the promise of reform by the conservative Sarkozy. Yet Germany has a strong economy even with social programs.

 

You can also look to the developing world, where social programs are - what I would consider - very necessary to their success. Without them, a simple bump in the global economy results in millions thrown back into poverty.

 

3 - I think you may be underestimating working conditions here in the early century. Also, the poor working conditions in developing countries are often bad when they first enter the market. These conditions are made better either through workers in those countries demanding better conditions or public outcry in the developed countries. Look at the sweatshop fiasco with Nike in Asia, after public outcry dealt them a blow to their bottom line, huge reforms were undertaken to ensure better working conditions and to restore consumer confidence.

 

4 - What do you mean by "fair trade?" Are you talking about fair trade certified products, like coffee, or trade agreements that require unrealistically high standards?

[oldrambler]

 

To be honest, I don't think that the Democrat party leaders sit in a room and say "How can we keep the poor in poverty?" But it makes me sick that their policies are retroactive to helping the poor, yet Conservatives are lampooned for not caring.

 

:thumb: Well said.