TheRealMafoo said:
If you want to help the poor, or people on fixed incomes, there are two ways to do it. One is to give them money they have done nothing to earn. The other way is to increase the purchasing power of the money they do earn (or have). I am for the latter, Obama is for the former. Companies are going to make there money. If you increase there operating costs, they will just pass it on to the consumer. Also, when you spend the way Obama is spending, you cause inflation, reducing the value of your moms, and everyone else's, money. Obama plans to counter that by taking this extra money he hopes he collects, and giving it to the poor. It's about the worst economic plan one could devise. It breeds complacency, and never really works. If he does what he wants to do, it is an absolute truth that the purchasing power of the dollar will go down, while just a hopeful prediction that there will be enough money in the coffers to distribute to the poor. Do you really want to put that kind of faith in government? |
Of course if those companies want to pass the cost on to the consumers that way...well...there are historical precendents that show what to do in those circumstances. And I know that at my last job where I was working harder than anyone else there, yet I was being passed over for promtions because the supervisors wanted their kids to become the next managers, what could I really do. Take the meager scraps of pay I was being given when I was the best one there or something else?







