Friday, November 18, 2011

Paul Ryan: Making Sense on the Economy and Why OWS is Wrong

Rep. Paul Ryan
Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin shares some economic wisdom in an interview with the American Enterprise Institute.  He explains well why "wealth redistribution" only makes people poorer, destroys opportunity and increases misery.

His solution to poverty and unemployment:
...our answer is upward mobility — not begrudging people who become successful, but making it easier for people to find success, to bring those rungs of the economic ladder within reach of people who’ve never scaled it before. Grow the pie versus redistribute slices of a shrinking pie. That’s what our society has always prided itself on. That’s the American system we’ve had. … It would be a shame to get rid of it and transform it into a social democracy model like you have in Europe, which simply means bitter austerity and shared misery.
On why redistribution is not the answer to poverty:
I’m just saying look at the complete picture. And the complete picture is that our transfer programs should be aimed at the people who need them, not people who don’t. Our tax system should not have as its primary, guiding principle redistribution. It should have growth as its primary principle so you can accelerate mobility. When you have a tax system aimed at redistribution and narrowing disparities, you end up slowing down growth and slowing down mobility.
 On government "fixing" income disparity:
As a person in government, I don’t see it as my job to try and micromanage the outcome of people’s lives. I see it as trying to advance the premise of equality of opportunity and getting people as much opportunity to improve themselves as possible. … The whole premise of this argument is wrong. The economy is not a zero-sum system. One man’s gain does not necessarily come at another man’s loss. … Wealth is created. Steve Jobs started Apple in his garage not by taking from somebody else but by creating and inventing something. Wealth and growth are organic and don’t necessarily come from somebody else’s loss.
On Barack Obama's "class warfare" strategy for reelection:
There’s far more anxiety in society because the economy is so bad. … It’s easier to find a scapegoat than address the root causes of these problems. But obviously [President Barack Obama] is banking his reelection on this tact. … He doesn’t have a good record to run on. The results are abysmal. He’s clearly not going to triangulate like Bill Clinton because … he’s far more ideological than Bill Clinton was. … So all he’s got left is to take all the anxiety that is building in America and try and tap into it and channel it toward class resentment. These are powerful emotions — fear, envy, anxiety, resentment — very powerful emotions but dark emotions. They are extremely divisive. But it seems to me that’s the plan.
 Ryan imparts a lot of insight and wisdom.  Read the whole interview here.

7 comments:

RSS Ronald Reagan said...

Is it too soon to start advocating for Ryan on the V.P. slot? (I'd also be happy with Rand Paul.)

Stogie Jr said...

I think Ryan is a better choice for Prez, only if he were running. He is far better then tired old choices we have now!

Lauren G. said...

You are pretty much missing the point of the protests; it is an anti corruption movement. They (rightly) claim that the corporations have huge lobbies and contribute tremendous amounts to campaigns of politicians thus the corporations are controlling the governments policies because no one is going to bite the hand that feeds them. You can find examples of this in the food, energy, pharmaceutical and other sectors as they dictate policy which regulates how they sell their products- a huge conflict of interest! Also the Glass-Steigel act should have never been repealed (it separates the banking arm from investment arm of a bank) and many other qualms about bank regulation (or lack thereof). The privately owned federal reserve bank is also in need of some severe auditing. So no one is advocating redistributing wealth as such, just a government which creates policies in the interest of people, not corporations. The idea of true democracy and a true form of capitalism (not CORPORATISM we see today) is as American as apple pie, which is why we all need to be getting behind this movement!

Stogie said...

Lauren, no, it is an anti-work, the world-owes-me-a-living kind of protest. It is largely backed by communist and socialist groups. It is anti-capitalist, not merely anti-corporation.

You greatly exaggerate the power of corporations; yes, the large ones have lobbyists, and lobbyists are not a bad thing. Lobbying is merely communication with Congress, particularly about how proposed legislation will impact an industry and why such legislation is opposed or supported. Corporations do not "dictate" to Congress and they do not control government policies -- this is just a leftist excuse (like man-made global warming) to grab control of the means of production, a key leftist and communist goal.

In short, you address a non-existent problem with no statistics or specifics to back it up.

Joel Rutledge said...

Fallacy: The wealthy all got that way by working harder. Fact: The system allows some people to make incedible amounts of profit off of one good idea, a lucky trend in some specific area of the economy, or a loophole in the laws regulating business. Some got rich by working harder, others got lucky. But, in either case, they didn't do it by themselves. They owe a debt (based in simple gratitude) to the system that provided the opportunity. Fallacy: The Democratic stand on economics calls for "redistribution". Fact: Wealth that rightfully belongs to the middle and lower classes has been "distributed" to those who were already wealthiest, by the combination of shady business and shady poliltics.

Joel Rutledge said...

Fallacy: The wealthy all got that way by working harder. Fact: The system allows some people to make incedible amounts of profit off of one good idea, a lucky trend in some specific area of the economy, or a loophole in the laws regulating business. Some got rich by working harder, others got lucky. But, in either case, they didn't do it by themselves. They owe a debt (based in simple gratitude) to the system that provided the opportunity. Fallacy: The Democratic stand on economics calls for "redistribution". Fact: Wealth that rightfully belongs to the middle and lower classes has been "distributed" to those who were already wealthiest, by the combination of shady business and shady poliltics.

Stogie Chomper said...

Joel, you wouldn't know a "fact" if it bit you in the ass. Whether someone gets rich with one good idea, or by working hard, or by winning the lotto, the money is his. He has no moral imperative to share it with the parasitical class who are only too happy to help themselves to another's pocketbook. As "gratitude to the system," they already pay enormous taxes (the rich pay over 80% of all taxes in the US); plus, their successful businesses employ people who in turn pay more taxes. Your arguments are merely rationalizations for theft.