[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Jim:
So you think a lack of oversight on the banks had nothing to do with the current recession? I see those specifically implicated here, and not the sole source being the 'tax cuts' ""Gov. Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top. Roll back regulations on big banks. And he says that if we do, our economy will grow and everyone will benefit." Obama continues: "But you know what? We tried that top-down approach. It's what caused the mess in the first place."

I see that all about the top-down approach, which is clearly what Bush and Romney are advocating for.... how many of Bush's former advisers are now in the background for Romney... the answer is more than a few...

This is a peculiar understanding of "top down/bottom up." Generally, when applied to current politics, top down refers to government as being the mover and shaker of society with the people following its direction and regulation, and bottom up refers to the private sector, "the people" being the creators of and driving force, with the government, in a democratic free market system republic, being merely a cohesive force with limited powers granted to it and consented by the private sector. Tax policies, whether those of Obama or Bush or Romney, would all be top down policies. Tax cuts would be government, the top, relinquishing power thus restoring it to the bottom, the people, so, would be enabling the bottom to direct and produce more. Tax raises would be the opposite, shifting power to the top, the government, and siphoning power from the bottom. In effect, lowering taxes is a bottom up approach, and raising taxes is a top down approach. This applies to on whomever the taxes are raised or lowered, the rich, middle class, or poor. Top down tinkering to favor any class is usually, if not always, divisive. The theory that cutting taxes on those who create business and the ensuing jobs is a top down decision to enable bottom up conditions to flourish. But picking the winners and losers, the "class" that benefits from policies is class warfare that divides.

The founders and their Constitution never intended for an ultimate top down system of government that would divide the people and give it the power to create the conditions of society. That was to be left to the people, bottom up. Ironically, In their view, the top WAS the people. Though societal structures as flow charts or pyramids place government on top, their Constitution was the most anti-government government document ever written. It was government ceding power from the top of the flow-chart to the bottom sectors. It was government limiting itself from the top and dispersing it to the people to govern, for the most part, themselves. It was government limiting its own power, and letting the greatest portion of powers to remain in the hands of the people who were to be, in contrast to previous notions and practices of government, the actual top of the chart. Progressive shift in politics has now given government the highest position.

How about the so called Bush Tax cuts, coupled with two wars? So far that is at 1.3 trillion, not counting the long-term care of thousands of soldiers and their families who have been injured? Even if you take out Afghanistan (which I supported fully when it began) we are still close to a trillion on Iraq alone.... Have wars ever been coupled with tax CUTS in our history before? Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM

Well, when revenues went up with the Bush tax cuts, that could pay for the wars. But even more to the point, foreign wars are the responsibility of the Federal government and its legitimate financial responsibillity. Its current massive bureacracy and the programs and regulaltions it spues forth, spending trillions of dollars, for the most part, are not legitimate, Constitutional responsibilites. And now there is only the dwindling Afghanistan war, so tax cuts, even under the pay for the war responsibility, especially if they allow the private sector to flourish better as a bottom up force thus creating more gvt. revenue, shouldn't be such a problem, and especially if the gvt. stops, or at least cuts back on, its bureaucratic spending.