I would choose the Rory Party because they are the closest equivalents to the Republican Party in the United States and they stress tax cuts for the rich and more privatization of social services. The tax cuts would be very useful to me as a citizen of Grande Brittney, because I am inheriting a lot of money, and I want don’t want to pay such high inheritance
Another reason why Conservatives won is that in there manifesto they promised to stabilise the cost of living which would close the gap between rich and poor and double everyone’s standard of living. This was helped by Labour being identified with the working class rather than the nation as a whole. This was a problem as 40% of manual workers now considered themselves middle class so the Labour policies for the unemployed and working class no longer appealed to them, instead they believed that the Conservative party was going to help them to continue to move up the social ladder. A third reason that the
To increase their taxes would be appropriate and this would be stream lining taxes at a time when the economy needs a boost. The Keynesian economists would look at government spending as a means for the government to stop the little growth the economy has had and is to have. The government spending would make it so the people would not have the money to spend within the states and they would have to go without needs and desires. This in turn would be the money that could be used within the economy.
If we do not buy imported goods then they will not buy ours and without export revenue and foreign investments we would not be able to function financially. When exports increase so does the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). GDP is the dollar amount of all goods and services produced within the United States. When the GDP is high it signifies that our economy is healthy and stable. When companies can produce more due to demand they are able to hire more workers, which can lower the unemployment rate.
Reducing taxes is the best way to facilitate the creation of actual wealth and have the economy reach its growth potential. Wanna-be central planners and welfare-state bureaucrats cannot compete with the progress and material improvement that a rapidly growing free-market economy offers. Bush’s tax cut may have flaws, but being too big or too radical is not one of them. This economy needs a tax cut, the bigger and sooner the better. The president’s plan is both politically possible and a practical starting point and I believe Americans would be well served by its enactment.
His stance is that Americans should take notice of “the realities of outsourced manufacturing, financialization of the economy, and growing income disparity.” He does not propose any action against the rich, but instead provides information that demonstrates his negative thoughts towards the 1% richest Americans. Mike Lofgren’s ideology and stance about the wealthiest citizens is something I have in common with him. This article has provided me more inspiration to change the state of America’s economy in a positive manner, at least positive for the 99%. His statistics have provided me with insight about how truly unethical the United States’ government is, and while reading this article inspires the reader to take action against such dishonest
The size of campaign donations has become so large that donors certainly expect some kind of payback. A manufacturers’ association will not give $100 000 away just as a gesture of good will; it expects to see its concerns favorably addressed in Congress. And what is good for a particular group of manufacturers may well be bad for the wider public interest. For example, protective tariffs (import taxes) on foreign competitors may raise prices for consumers. Weaker health and safety rules may be bad for
Stossel on his points for where responsibility in America should and shouldn’t lie. Government needs less responsibility while individuals need more. Businesses and the market need more attention and cash flow while government spending needs less. And in the end, it all falls into our laps as Americans and is our duty. We need to revert back to the roots the Founding Fathers planted and minimize the role of the government and maximize the role and responsibility on the individual.
As time progresses, we notice that monetary value has become a main concept in American societies. But should money be the center of our lives? Americans’ admiration for wealth has locked them in a closet of luxury and, as a result, blinded them from their morals and other values in life. In his book, Money and Class in America, Lewis Lapham states that Americans are driven by money and envision it as “the currency of the soul.” Unfortunately, we Americans do validate Lapham's statement by allowing our money to show our success and happiness, therefore granting the rights to show out ignorance. Because of our love for monetary means, Americans tend to flaunt their wealth to quite an extreme, which further proves that we have been “deflected by the pursuit of money,” according to
By raising the minimum wage to $8, the government thinks that poverty will go down and the quality of living will go up. But, with the increase in pay comes the increase demand for skilled workers. The skilled workers are not the ones in poverty right now. The more skilled worker would replace the unskilled workers, who are likely to take the minimum wage job in the first place, if the minimum wage were to go up. This would defeat the whole purpose of the idea to eradicate poverty.