The speech made by the CPP representative was quite a good one and seemed to have made its way into the hearts and minds of the voters enough that the majority voted for them. They had a few good points but unfortunately the voters were only looking at the good side as presented by the speaker instead of thinking about real life outcomes and consequences. When they spoke about reducing tax cuts, sure everyone wants that. Who would not want less money to be taken away from them? Think for a second. What is the government using the money for? Is it being used to make kites? No, it is being used for us, to provide us with roads to move around, with clean and healthy living conditions, with free healthcare, with public transportation. If people are willing to give this up, then I am sure the government will be more than willing to cut taxes to a quarter of what it is now.
The amount of money the government spends for us is also one of the reasons why we have a national debt. Using automatic stabilizers is a good way to keep governments revenues and expenditures stable but then they go on the say they will increase the money supply by 3% not indicating at which point they will do it. If the economy is at its peak, a time when prices and inflation is high, doing this would make inflation and price rise, even more, something that they want to fight as they said in a later point. If they are going to create inflation, obviously they are going to have to fight it.
The Essay on Forster Response Good Point
E. M Forster is a man who knows exactly what he wants. When I read his article titled, "What I Believe" he seems like the kind of person who doesn't say something unless he has a definitive point. He responds to matters with accuracy in his thoughts and assurance in his own words. You can tell that he is an educated man by some of the references he makes to various philosophers, humanists, and ...
They spoke about reducing business cost to reduce inflation. This would have been a good point had they said how they were going to do it. Were they going to reduce taxes, or give subsidies? If they were planning on doing one of these then it was a good plan. They said they would make a drastic change but I don’t know if they would be able to keep their promise because it would be too expensive for them and it would in turn once again lead to an even bigger debt. One thing I greatly disagree on is that the armed forces are one of our foremost priorities. We haven’t been in war for almost half a century and since we have no enemies, we will probably go another half century without war so they should save their money.
They United States will always be there to help us and we will never go to war with the USA so we are pretty safe. Nowhere does the CPP talk about reducing unemployment, one of the economic goals of stability. The unemployed have the option to vote too and if this was a real election, the CPP just lost all their votes. Rewarding people who put in a lot of work and effort was a good point as it gives people an incentive to work and to produce quality products but rewarding the better worker has always been there because of competition. The speech although it may have sounded good to the ear had many flaws with it. I was even convinced that the proposals were good but after reading it over again, I don’t think I would have voted for them..
