If Only We All Worked as Hard as Mitt Romney

Okay, so I’ve been trying to figure something out for a while now. It involves fiscally conservative economics, so it isn’t exactly clear and straight forward, but I’m trying really hard to understand it. Okay.

Fiscally conservative republican: Trickle down economics works. We let millionaire business owners  have the money (lower tax rates, tax cuts, etc.). They will use this money to create jobs. Poor people will work these jobs, take money from the rich guy in the form of a reasonable paycheck, then those people aren’t poor anymore.

That’s how it works, right? Okay, now let’s look at all the assumptions on which this reasoning relies.

1) Rich guy with  money creates jobs with the money they have.

2) Rich guy creates enough jobs to support a healthy economy.

3) Rich guy pays poor guy enough to support his family.

Those are the three I can think of right now. Now, let’s look at some things.

As we’ve seen recently, rich guys don’t always use their money to create jobs. Let’s look at Mitt Romney for example, since he is such a successful businessman and all.

1) Mitt Romney made money by eliminating jobs.

2) Some of Mitt Romney’s money is hanging out in the Cayman Islands, some of it is chilling is Switzerland…well  if we played “Where in the World is Mitt Romney’s Money?” we could pretty much name a country and be right. Point: his money is NOT in America creating American jobs.

3) He is paying around 14% on taxes. John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and other rich guys pay similar tax rates. Although their bracket would likely require them to pay at least  30% (that is totally a guess) if it weren’t for tax laws written by and for rich white guys, they are only giving around half of that back to their government. Giving less money to government, government sponsored programs cannot afford to hire as many people, there are fewer jobs. And although apparently Republicans hate the government now, it is a pretty great job provider.

4) Although republicans desperately cling to the ideal concept that a person’s pay and the person’s value in society are correlated, it’s just wrong. You need somebody to work in McDonald’s just as much as you need somebody to represent you in the Senate. You know that’s true. People who work at McDonald’s or Wal-Mart or convenience stores or factories often times make minimum wage or very little more than that. If you’ve ever tried to survive on minimum wage, let alone support a family on it, it is certainly tricky. You have to make decisions: feed your kids or save for college. Buy your kids clothes or a savings bond for their birthday? I don’t know about you, but busting ass just to barely survive doesn’t exactly sound like the American Dream.

5) Let’s just pretend that “trickle down economics” is an actual thing that works. What kinds of jobs are created? Do they require college education? Who can afford college education? If you can, you’re going to owe thousands and thousands of dollars when you’re done. Let’s hope those rich white guys created some jobs!!

Let’s not forget that most of the trickle-down supporters also believe that minorities and poor people have the same opportunities that rich white dudes do. That’s a whole new, equally infuriating subject. Let’s get back on track.

So, now that we’ve thought about it a little bit, I come to my real question: If trickle down economics is a real thing, then whose fault is it that there are so many unemployed people? I know, I know, most unemployed people are just lazy and don’t want to work, but there are actually some unemployed people who are actively searching for a job. Shouldn’t one of those rich white guys have created a job? Shouldn’t their hard earned money have gone into creating businesses for which American citizens can work? Since they’re so wise and rich, shouldn’t they have been the ones ensuring that us dumb little poor people have a place to earn a paycheck?

I feel that it is illogical for a person to believe that 1)trickle-down economics is a good idea and also 2) poor people are singularly responsible for their poverty. I feel like there is a modus ponens out there somewhere that could prove that these ideas are contradictory. Unfortunately, I only took Logic 111 so I’m still waiting for somebody to logically prove it for me.

Love you, bye!


2 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Rusty Southwick
    Jan 29, 2012 @ 02:46:07

    I tend to agree in the sense that I believe politicians continually overstate the case, acting as if plans that have worked at various times are airtight and guaranteed to work to the point of resolving all major problems associated with that area. Thus, their message resembles propaganda because they need to sell and in the process embellish.

    From a purely logical standpoint, you do make a good argument there. I liken it to how there are so many in government on both sides of the aisle who seem to know what’s best for the economy, but only in retrospect. Leading up to the problems, they’re pretty much surprised like the rest of us. Even the pundits, the political experts, know more as Monday morning quarterbacks after the fact. In an ideal world, they would all admit that they’re mostly guessing. Unfortunately, hindsight doesn’t count. It would be better to prevent these problems before we get too deep in them.


  2. Trackback: Money is a harsh mistress. | My Life In Color

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: