Sunday, March 01, 2009
Doesn't Matter What Party You Are
Since the government isn't under the restraint of a business( i.e. risks, demand/ supply), it's hard to imagine how resources are used and what output is produced.
The NY Times article, "Liberal Groups Are Flexing New Muscle in Lobby Wars", writes about the collaborative teamwork of liberal lobbyists,Giant,and Exelon power company.
Deluded as this sounds, a large, mid- atlantic, supermarket chain and power company form an alliance with Liberal lobbyists who support the goal of big corporation reduction.If the reasons for political parties is to have sides perhaps political parties have more in common than voters or citizens expect when they vote by party.
Voters seem to believe that there are little to no risks associated with the support of public avenues( i.e. education and health care) that can harm the quantity supplied or the price through government control. These voters may not see the real risks or costs of the government. Benefits of these public avenues according to voters outweigh the costs of taxes and cohersion, but what about the costs of large ammounts of income and authority in one top heavy system? These risks that government deal with are authority rights ( i.e. voter confidence/electibility) instead of the market system's demand and supply that businesses would otherwise face. Parties shouldn't matter because, in insignifigant terms, those that are elected into the platform only act in the platform's interest until they are in the postion of power that they wanted. The more important reason why parties shouldn't matter is that the elected leader for the platform are the ones already have their own ideas from the platform, that change more so through the persuasion of lobbyists.
If cuts and spending occur there should be speculation about who recieves these cuts and spending when a government has different types of incentives ( printing money, taxes)that businesses cannot nor should possess. Also how much control can a president have with the approval of congress?
The NY Times article, "Liberal Groups Are Flexing New Muscle in Lobby Wars", writes about the collaborative teamwork of liberal lobbyists,Giant,and Exelon power company.
Deluded as this sounds, a large, mid- atlantic, supermarket chain and power company form an alliance with Liberal lobbyists who support the goal of big corporation reduction.If the reasons for political parties is to have sides perhaps political parties have more in common than voters or citizens expect when they vote by party.
Voters seem to believe that there are little to no risks associated with the support of public avenues( i.e. education and health care) that can harm the quantity supplied or the price through government control. These voters may not see the real risks or costs of the government. Benefits of these public avenues according to voters outweigh the costs of taxes and cohersion, but what about the costs of large ammounts of income and authority in one top heavy system? These risks that government deal with are authority rights ( i.e. voter confidence/electibility) instead of the market system's demand and supply that businesses would otherwise face. Parties shouldn't matter because, in insignifigant terms, those that are elected into the platform only act in the platform's interest until they are in the postion of power that they wanted. The more important reason why parties shouldn't matter is that the elected leader for the platform are the ones already have their own ideas from the platform, that change more so through the persuasion of lobbyists.
If cuts and spending occur there should be speculation about who recieves these cuts and spending when a government has different types of incentives ( printing money, taxes)that businesses cannot nor should possess. Also how much control can a president have with the approval of congress?
