"Philosophizing" With Old Friends

Today I received an email from an old high school friend who I used to love to "philosophize" with.

My friend seems to identify with Romney's economic positions, and sent me a well written reponse to a question from one of his friends:   

Why would people, especially conservatives, expect the president to help them get or keep a job? Do they not understand capitalism? i understand, but don't agree with, the liberal view of job creation through federal programs, but I thought that personal responsibility and achievement was a fundamental tenant of conservatism...

My friend had a great response, which I won't publish, because I don't have his consent, but it was an exchange which helped me clarify my thoughts, so I thought I would share my response to him:

In general, I agree with your logic.  I also agree with the moral argument that it is immoral to take another man's wealth by force.  Government should not be used to redistribute wealth without the consent of the governed. It is not only immoral, but inefficient.  Any job the government "creates" is by definition a transfer payment.  Someone else's taxes are footing the bill. (This does not mean those job's are not often valuable and necessary.)  The thing is, the government does redistribute wealth and employ people. It has for years, regardless of which party was in power.

My issue is this:  we do not have, and have not had a Capitalist economy for a very long time.  We have a sort of hybrid economy.  It has become a mix of, Socialism (state confiscating capital from individuals and corporations and redistributing it), Fascism (government supported industry), & Capitalism (yes, much free enterprise has survived). 

http://econmom.blogspot.com/2011/10/anger-at-wall-street.html

When I hear the Republicans speak of how they are for a "free" economy, I can only think of the devastation (via bubbles - tech, housing etc.) that Greenspan's manipulation of interest rates (the price of money, if you will - a form of government price controls) has caused.  Democrats are not alone in favoring certain industries over others. (farming & oil)  Hank Paulson basically wrote TARP, which was essentially a government guarantee of the investment banking industry.  These "Capitalists" were given a blank check by the Treasury to use trading equities in the stock market.  This is where their subsequent "profits" have come from. (The ones they used to "repay" TARP.)  When the moral underpinnings of Capitalism are sacrificed in order to gain government favor, the Republicans undercut their case for lower taxes.  They cannot have their cake and eat it too.

Think about it:  How can we have a free economy if the price of money itself is set by the government?  This will remain the same if Obama or Romney wins the election. 

I also disagree with the Democrats that "Capitalism" caused the crisis we are still enduring.  How could it have when that is not what we had?

Our Government (both parties are responsible) has created an unsustainable system, similar to that in Europe, where an aging population and government payments are making our fiscal situation perilous.  

This is where the pragmatist in me kicks in.  See, if we cut entitlements as drastically as needs to be done without raising taxes on the very rich at all, the entire system may collapse.  The poor, by definition, cannot pay for the gap, they have no money.  As many as 47% of Americans pay no income tax.  It simply isn't politically feasible to cut entitlements to these people, and raise their taxes at the same time...which is what would need to be done to close the gap if tax rates for the rich don't go up.  It sucks, but it is sort of like this:  if the very wealthy want to keep the system we have (the one in which they have created their wealth), they are going to have to pay more in taxes, at least temporarily.  I cannot imagine what the masses will do to the system if their entitlements are cut without increased taxes on the very wealthy. (I am not saying this is "right", but it is what it is.)  The messed up hybrid system we have created over the last 90 years has brought us here.

We witnessed the Socialist victories in France, Spain, and Greece a few months back.   I fear if we don't come to some compromise (a balanced approach between entitlement cuts and tax increases for the very wealthy) that the very system that has helped create that wealth will cease to exist.  Real Socialists will gain power and you will think Obama looks like Reagan compared to them.  Any Capitalism that remains in the system will indeed be eliminated in such an environment, and I don't want to see this happen.

I just think Romney and Obama are not that different.  I wouldn't have said that four years ago, but Obama's governance has been much more middle of the road than his rhetoric. (Perhaps because of the Republican congress - some times divided government is the best moderator of all.)

All that said, I am concerned with the Republican party's stance on religious issues.  I want the government out of the bedroom as much as I want it out of my wallet.  At this point I am not sure which party to be more afraid of.

So what's an independent to do?