You want to talk about all the Republicans who were engulfed in scandal and suddenly had a "D" under their names on Fox News? Or how about the times they misspelled Obama with an "S." Guess which letter they omitted. Both news networks are pretty one-sided, but at least MSNBC doesn't make things up.
Before you try to pretend you understand what God wants, learn the ramifications of an idea being unfalsifiable.
Republicans are crazy because they form their social policies on a work of fiction written several thousand years ago and retranslated half-a-dozen times. Economic stances are split 50-50 on who's right, IMO.
'The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.
You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.
During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.
Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.'
latimes.com
Every time we spend three weeks talking about Jeremiah Wright, that's just the media doing it's job; but the secong we talk about death threats and health care riots sprung by large corporations, that's the doggone liberal media playing favorites again. To you guys, reality has a left-wing bias.
A broader point; people talk about Socialism like it's the most horrible idea in the world. However, the free market does have it's shortcomings. For example, left unabated, the free market allows for monopolies which charge a price higher than equilibrium. The marginal cost to produce another good is less than the demand for that additional good. In a competitive market, this additional good would be produced and the GDP would increase. In a monopoly, these unsold, unproduced goods (unless you allow for price discrimination, which most firms don't/can't) account for a significant deadweight loss. It is the government's job to allow for enough competition to eliminate this loss and increase the GDP.
Personally, I think the goal of our society should be to maximize utility, not the GDP. To do this, we can invoke the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns, which states that the more of a good you have, the less an additional unit of that good will mean to you. For example, if you had no coke and I offered you a can of coke, you'd prolly take it. If you already had ten cans of coke, and I offered you a coke, the cost of admitting you want something from me is now greater than the benefit of the coke, and you would probably decline. More to the point, if you and Bill Gates saw $5 on the sidewalk, who do you think would get to it first? $5 = $5, but it provides you a greater benefit than it provides Bill Gates, since he already has so many $'s. If Bill Gates could get $5, but you could only get $1, you would still prolly reach it first. $1 means more to you than $5 means to rich Bill. You see, society is happier when you take money from the rich and give it to the poor, even if you accrue some deadweight loss through taxes in the process. Obviously there is a limit, since the effort required to attain extra money has an associated cost, but to say, "everybody should just fend for themselves" is folly.
Personally, I find that the hardest jobs have the lowest wages/hour, so that whole hard work = success thing is a bunch of baloney, IMO. You're either born smart/lucky or you make $10/hour cutting grass.
You guys did get the minimum wage thing right, at least. Whn the cost of producing goods increases, the point at which it costs less to produce an additional good than people want to pay for it is pushed back, so less goods are produced. This will result in a higher price and some layoffs, so the people the Dems are trying to benefit with this wage hike are actually way worse off, since they're now unemployed and everything around them costs more. To me, the minimum wage should not be a wage you can live off of. It's much less damaging to the economy to tax the business owners and buy food stamps for those earning minimum wage. Same deadweight loss, same higher price, but at least you aren't laying people off.
I took Econ 3 years ago, so what I'm feeding you now is really just the basics.
) adamantly supporting this ridiculous proposition. It makes me physically sick to think about, tbh.