If Trickle Down Economics doesn't work, then how do you explain the love for Stimulus?

[Mac-7]

When the govt pays more than a job does, to me there's something wrong with the wages emiyers are offering.

Its the same technique drug dealers in the hood use to entrap new junkies

Give away free samples till the suckers are hooked

After that they do not merely want the drugs

Now they NEED them

On the economy, libs know that if they can get Americans used to the idea of paying them to do nothing then pretty soon they will demand it

 

[Wyatt earp]

The left loves stimulus, so long as it's driven by dementia instead of the orange man.

But the left hates trickle down. In their minds the more you take from employers the more likely employees are to get a raise. Let's call it what it is instead, they desire govt. entitlements, because that's the only other direction, and that starves a country under socialism. But the PROGS talk anyway, they do that a lot. In PROG, the less money you make the better car you drive, debt & bad decisions are personal too.

Trickle down economics is just a term. For those who think rationally it's really up & down, an exchange of money ongoing. If that shit don't work, then explain why economic stimulus is different, go!

Stimulus is the opposite of "Trickle Down". Stimulus is taking money from the rich and giving it to working class people. (Which is only sensible, since the rich stole it from them to start with). Trickle down is not taxing the rich and hoping they share some of the wealth with poor people.

They don't.

View attachment 494518

Oh really you think they got the money from the rich?


Thanks for the morning laugh.


.

 

[JWBooth]

While the analogy doesn’t quite hold up, the notions behind soaking the rich and helicopter monies are both born of economic fallacy.

 

[pknopp]

because Jesus wants poor people to starve...

But Jesus DID NOT say:

If you meet a hungry man on the road to Damascus, form a lib political action committee and petition Caesar to give him bread

Jesus taught everyone to give to the poor directly not through government

He made no qualifications as to how one helps the poor. Argue your argument if you wish but then don't argue this is a Christian nation.

 

[pknopp]

While the analogy doesn’t quite hold up, the notions behind soaking the rich and helicopter monies are both born of economic fallacy.

The government taking a portion of what they initially gave is in no way "soaking the rich".

 

[Wyatt earp]

because Jesus wants poor people to starve...

But Jesus DID NOT say:

If you meet a hungry man on the road to Damascus, form a lib political action committee and petition Caesar to give him bread

Jesus taught everyone to give to the poor directly not through government

He made no qualifications as to how one helps the poor. Argue your argument if you wish but then don't argue this is a Christian nation.

No argument, this is a Christian nation was/is/always

 

[cnm]

The programs they supported that directly gave people money is NOT trickle down.

No, it's trickle up and it always works.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The programs they supported that directly gave people money is NOT trickle down.

No, it's trickle up and it always works.

Trickle up poor

 

[pknopp]

because Jesus wants poor people to starve...

But Jesus DID NOT say:

If you meet a hungry man on the road to Damascus, form a lib political action committee and petition Caesar to give him bread

Jesus taught everyone to give to the poor directly not through government

He made no qualifications as to how one helps the poor. Argue your argument if you wish but then don't argue this is a Christian nation.

No argument, this is a Christian nation was/is/always

Of course there is a valid argument it is not. Right at the top of the list against that idea is the fact that we are constantly at war, most of which we start.

 

[pknopp]

The programs they supported that directly gave people money is NOT trickle down.

No, it's trickle up and it always works.

It works better but then there is the argument that none of it should be done.

 

[Wyatt earp]

because Jesus wants poor people to starve...

But Jesus DID NOT say:

If you meet a hungry man on the road to Damascus, form a lib political action committee and petition Caesar to give him bread

Jesus taught everyone to give to the poor directly not through government

He made no qualifications as to how one helps the poor. Argue your argument if you wish but then don't argue this is a Christian nation.

No argument, this is a Christian nation was/is/always

Of course there is a valid argument it is not. Right at the top of the list against that idea is the fact that we are constantly at war, most of which we start.

War with the devil...which side are you on?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Jesus would not like the State using His name and the plight of the Poor as vehicles for more or new taxes so that bureaucrats can get fat.

 

[Burgermeister]

The left has done a great job of equating taking less money from someone with giving them money. The right has failed miserably in calling bullshit on that. That frames up a lot of ridiculous arguments about tax policy.

Actually, the right wing has been brilliant. They've gotten stupid white people to see giving money to poor people as bad while taking money themselves as brilliant.

We spend less than 500 Billion a year on poverty relief and 2 TRILLION a year on middle class entitlements.

You just made my point. Nobody is taking money. Except the government.

 

[JWBooth]

While the analogy doesn’t quite hold up, the notions behind soaking the rich and helicopter monies are both born of economic fallacy.

The government taking a portion of what they initially gave is in no way "soaking the rich".

The government cannot give anything that it has not already taken. The fallacies remain fallacies.

 

[initforme]

Jesus would also not like the Uber wealthy raking it all in. Nowhere did he preach the virtues of being Uber rich and wanting more more more. what really must puzzle him is how poor people working their butts off vote for the wealthy to run things.

 

[Dragonlady]

In our system some people have to be poor. So we help them. It's the biggest reason for our exceptionalism. We are founded on judeo Christian values and Christ was about helping the poor first and foremost.

Right, because Jesus wants poor people to starve...

Jesus commands all Christians to feed and clothe the poor yet says nothing about having the State being involved so they can pay off their cronies, unions, and bureaucrats and then feed and clothe the poor on what is left over.

Jesus is not in charge of the government of the United States of America.

Separation of church and state.

The Constitution says that the government should work for the “general welfare” of the nation. Even the Ancient Romans had the good sense to know that in order to rule, you need to keep the “headcount” fed and happy, or they will turn on you.

Republicans have been starving working people for generations and are now shocked that working people are sick of their lies.

 

[pknopp]

While the analogy doesn’t quite hold up, the notions behind soaking the rich and helicopter monies are both born of economic fallacy.

The government taking a portion of what they initially gave is in no way "soaking the rich".

The government cannot give anything that it has not already taken. The fallacies remain fallacies.

Wrong. The Trillions that has been pumped into the markets were not taken from anyone. It's just created.

 

[pknopp]

In our system some people have to be poor. So we help them. It's the biggest reason for our exceptionalism. We are founded on judeo Christian values and Christ was about helping the poor first and foremost.

Right, because Jesus wants poor people to starve...

Jesus commands all Christians to feed and clothe the poor yet says nothing about having the State being involved so they can pay off their cronies, unions, and bureaucrats and then feed and clothe the poor on what is left over.

Jesus is not in charge of the government of the United States of America.

Separation of church and state.

The Constitution says that the government should work for the “general welfare” of the nation. Even the Ancient Romans had the good sense to know that in order to rule, you need to keep the “headcount” fed and happy, or they will turn on you.

Republicans have been starving working people for generations and are now shocked that working people are sick of their lies.

The minimum wage did not go up under Obama eight years either. It went up in 2009 but that was passed under Bush.

 

[Dragonlady]

While the analogy doesn’t quite hold up, the notions behind soaking the rich and helicopter monies are both born of economic fallacy.

The government taking a portion of what they initially gave is in no way "soaking the rich".

The government cannot give anything that it has not already taken. The fallacies remain fallacies.

The only fallacy here is the notion that taxation is “theft” of something that the taxpayer has earned solely through their own efforts. That’s a lie.

Your taxes are your share of the cost of living in a first world country. Taxes pay for the education which allows you to earn money, the roads and transportation systems you used to get to and from work, the infrastructure which powers your house, your workplace, and your leisure.

In addition it pays for the safety and security to protect intellectual property, private property rights, police fire and medical, and all of the things that make a first world country safe and livable.

You could move to a country with no taxes at all but you wouldn’t like living there. I believe you refer to them as “shit hole countries”.

So stop pretending that taxation is theft and start paying your fair share of the costs of living in a first world country.

You’re not special snowflake you’re just another Republican deadbeat.

 

[LeftofLeft]

In our system some people have to be poor. So we help them. It's the biggest reason for our exceptionalism. We are founded on judeo Christian values and Christ was about helping the poor first and foremost.

Right, because Jesus wants poor people to starve...

Jesus commands all Christians to feed and clothe the poor yet says nothing about having the State being involved so they can pay off their cronies, unions, and bureaucrats and then feed and clothe the poor on what is left over.

Jesus is not in charge of the government of the United States of America.

Separation of church and state.

The Constitution says that the government should work for the “general welfare” of the nation. Even the Ancient Romans had the good sense to know that in order to rule, you need to keep the “headcount” fed and happy, or they will turn on you.

Republicans have been starving working people for generations and are now shocked that working people are sick of their lies.

There is a clear line between general welfare and wealth redistribution towards the impossible task of eliminating wealth inequality.