The Failure Of “Trickle Down”, and The Generation That Understands This

[danielpalos]

I don't have to believe anything. I just have to notice a middleclass that used to be strong, that disappeared after the Reagan Administration.

Well, let's take a quick look at what happened to the middle class...

View attachment 132543
As you can see, since 1967 the middle income families have been declining. But where are they going? The lower income families are also declining slightly over the same time. Which group is increasing? That's where your middle class is disappearing to!

You see, the problem that Socialists have with trying to refute our free market capitalist system is, it just fucking produces wealthy people! Our system creates more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. So that has to somehow be turned into a "problem" that needs a Socialist to fix! If only free market capitalism could kill 150 million people like Socialism, they wouldn't have such trouble knocking it down. But instead, it just keeps churning out rich people! DAMMIT!

Apples and oranges. The right wing enjoys fallacies of false Cause. What you claim happened during political turmoil.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Yes, thank god they obstructed the socialist asshole. Should have done more really.

They obstructed at the expense of the economy.

Bullshit. Obama was out to kill business with regulations and EOs.

The evidence of which is?


See, Ice......this shit you have been told to believe?

It's shit.....

What do you play stupid on purpose?


Look at the biggest one Obama care.

.

And where might we see the effect of this bidness killin'?

 

[Boss]

You think a family making $75,000 in 2009 constitutes an upper class income? Really?

Kind of depends on where you live to be honest but $75k isn't what I would consider blue collar middle class in 2009.

The chart isn't intended to define middle class. It's simply a snapshot of mobility. This is something Socialists can't comprehend. In a Socialist society there isn't any real mobility, everyone remains relatively the same throughout their lives... they are born into the working class or the ruling class and that's where they stay. In OUR system, you can be in any class you want to be in... FREEDOM lets you do that. So there is natural mobility happening and those with less are always in pursuit of more.

 

[task0778]

I don't think Obama was out to kill business, but for political reasons he was more interested in higher taxes on business and investments and adding too many regulations that increased the costs of compliance enough to where the business climate WAS damaged. You see it in the poor economic growth over his administration once the recession was over and the fact that over the past several years more business closed up than started up. Companies moved some of their operations overseas and kept their profits over there instead of bringing them home.

As a typical left-winger, Obama's focus was on more revenue and gov't spending which would lead to economic growth and more help to the lower income people, that's why he implemented the policies he did. Don't know that he intentionally wanted to hurt business but that was the result. Bigger and more intrusive gov't is not the answer and never will be.

 

[Boss]

I don't think Obama was out to kill business, but for political reasons he was more interested in higher taxes on business and investments and adding too many regulations that increased the costs of compliance enough to where the business climate WAS damaged. You see it in the poor economic growth over his administration once the recession was over and the fact that over the past several years more business closed up than started up. Companies moved some of their operations overseas and kept their profits over there instead of bringing them home.

As a typical left-winger, Obama's focus was on more revenue and gov't spending which would lead to economic growth and more help to the lower income people, that's why he implemented the policies he did. Don't know that he intentionally wanted to hurt business but that was the result. Bigger and more intrusive gov't is not the answer and never will be.

What you fail to understand about Socialism is that it has to destroy free market capitalist systems so that the socialist system can be installed. Now, if a Socialist (like Obama) came out and said... we're going to destroy free market capitalist systems so that we can implement Socialism, no one would go for that.... they'd not be able to get elected. So they mask their true agenda and objectives with platitudes and glorious talk about the new day ahead. All the while, implementing regulations and reforms to further burden the free market capitalist systems in anticipation of their demise. Obama very much hoped to destroy businesses but he had to do it in a way that seemed like he didn't. Nothing Obama did helped the poor. There are more poor people today than before Obama took office. More Americans on food stamps than any time in our history.

Under the Obama administration, Congress enacted an average of 2,200 new regulations on business and industry per session. We've never had so much government regulation in such a period, even under FDR. You don't think he was trying to intentionally hurt business? You're a dupe.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

.
It has become a regular habit for some media contributors to blame millennials for the death of many businesses and other profitable institutions. This blame focuses on millennials because they refuse to spend there limited incomes to benefit the billionaires and other corporate fat cats.

The American people have listened to conservatives tout the benefits of Reagan’s snake oil known as “Trickle Down” for the last four decades. Reliable numbers charting the success of Reagan’s snake oil have proven consistently, that during these years, the wealthiest top 0.1% (that’s one tenth of one percent) have flourished beyond all expectations.

Unfortunately, those same reliable numbers prove the bottom 90%, and especially the lowest half of American families haven’t fared well, at all.

But, in the years when Reagan first started selling his snake oil, in younger, baby boomer families, both spouses began working, so the negative impact of his trickle-down-snake-oil was slow to be noticed by the masses. The generation that fought in WWII and produced the baby-boomers were already established financially, so they too were also slow to notice as their buying power decreased.

The WWII generation did have one advantage (if you can call it that) over the baby boomers they bore. The WWII generation lived through the Great Depression. Their families were forced to learn to make do with less, appreciate the value of money, and live within their limited means.

This was not the case with the “boomers”. As conservative policies slowly began to strangle wages, destroy unions, and create an environment hostile to working people, easy credit became available to provide the money needed by the boomers to buy the trappings of middle class, which were rapidly becoming more and more expensive.

Living expenses, whether for necessities or luxuries, increased at a rate much more quickly than incomes. The bubble burst in the middle of 2008, the final year of Dubya’s tax-cuts-for-the-very-rich, and borrow-money-for-two-needless-wars administration.

During the initial months of the Great Republican Recession, countless baby boomers lost their jobs, homes, cars, life savings, retirement accounts, etc. The following years of slow economic recovery resulting from the congressional Republicans many efforts to make Obama a one-term-president, saw economic conditions so bad, many of these boomers would never recover.

All this financial tragedy had little effect on the wealthiest top 0.1%, but it was a lesson to the millennial generation. Like their grandparents during the Great Depression, they watched while their parents [boomers] struggled financially. Savings ran out, as did long-term unemployment benefits, and eventually, the income from part-time jobs was barely enough to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads.

This generation-wide experience forced most millennials to develop a financial mindset that is currently being blamed for the dying retail industry, the slowing restaurant business, the bind being felt by automakers, unimpressive sales of new homes, and the loss of many jobs.

But blaming all this on millennials is Bullsh!t.

Unlike the suckers who believe in Reagan’s snake oil, these young people refuse to spend their meager incomes on the billionaires' over-priced crap. The same over-priced crap their boomer parents went deeply into debt to own, so as to live the middle class lifestyle, which was beyond the financial means of most.

No, the blame for the economic catastrophe of Reagan’s snake oil falls squarely on the suckers in the baby boomer generation. For four decades, they happily handed the vast majority of the wealth to the top 0.1%, in the mistaken belief the billionaires’ massive profits from ever-rising prices, substantial Republican tax cuts, the outsourcing these tax cuts helped finance, and the stagnant wages enjoyed by low and middle income families would finally be trickled down upon them.

That ain’t happened yet, and millennials know it never will. They understand they must live for the moment, and the few enjoyable experiences they are able to afford. Fu*k the businesses that are dying. The millennials are not to blame for the CEO baby boomers who were too stupid to understand Reagan’s snake oil would eventually cause their worlds to come crashing down around them.

Millennials can read the handwriting on the wall. They know Reagan’s “Trickle Down” snake oil is a scam to keep wealth moving upward, and always has been. They can also understand that, until the stupid, conservative baby boomers die out, there is little they can do to help themselves. The stupid members of the boomer generation still have too much power. “Trickle Down” will continue, for now.

'Psychologically scarred' millennials are killing dozens of industries — and it's their parents' fault

_______________________________________________________________________________________



View attachment 131176


.

Excellent OP and absolutely perfect cartoon.

Perfect.



.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Tehon]

You think a family making $75,000 in 2009 constitutes an upper class income? Really?

Kind of depends on where you live to be honest but $75k isn't what I would consider blue collar middle class in 2009.

The chart isn't intended to define middle class. It's simply a snapshot of mobility. This is something Socialists can't comprehend. In a Socialist society there isn't any real mobility, everyone remains relatively the same throughout their lives... they are born into the working class or the ruling class and that's where they stay. In OUR system, you can be in any class you want to be in... FREEDOM lets you do that. So there is natural mobility happening and those with less are always in pursuit of more.

Your chart doesn't show any mobility. You aren't even willing to say that a family earning $75,000 in 2009 is an upper class income. Obviously you know better.

There is no ruling class in a socialist society. That is the realization of true freedom.

 

[Boss]

Your chart doesn't show any mobility. You aren't even willing to say that a family earning $75,000 in 2009 is an upper class income. Obviously you know better.

There is no ruling class in a socialist society. That is the realization of true freedom.

Well yes, the chart certainly does show mobility, that's it's intent and purpose. Do you not know what is meant by "mobility" or something? It means moving from one thing to another thing. In this case, moving from "middle income" to "upper income" ...and yes, $75k is not a typical "middle" income. Whether you want to use a median average or a mean average, $75k is well above that. Now you can say $75k is still "middle class" and I won't argue that point but the purpose of the chart wasn't to define what is middle class. You are trying to distract from the point the chart is making in order to argue a point it was never making.

In doing so, you reveal yet another problem we have with your entire War on Wealth agenda... you can't fucking define where middle class ends and upper class begins. You can just arbitrarily draw the lines wherever you need to in the moment and jump around at will whenever it's convenient. It's just another platitude that means nothing.

We don't have CLASSES in America. That's an invention of the Socialists to engage in class warfare. This is because, in Europe and Asia, where Socialism cut it's teeth, that's how Socialism had to be sold to the masses. In those countries, people were born into their class and remained in that class their entire life. The hopeless state of their inherited class is what fostered enthusiasm for this new idea of Utopian Socialism. We don't have a need for that here because we have free enterprise and a free market system which allows free individuals to achieve any level of wealth they desire. You're not confined to a class here, you can be in any class you want to be in. BUT.... Socialists can't promote Socialism if the people realize they're not victims of class with no hope. That's why we hear the term "middle class" and "working class" in the modern lexicon.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I started my career within 2 weeks of Reagan taking office. I came from a lower middle class family with no money and lots of debt. Mortgage interest rates were 18% car loans were over 20% thanks to Carternomics. 8 years later I was kicking ass and taking names thanks to the turnaround Reagan brought about. Call it whatever you want, Reaganomics worked for anyone willing to work.

The reason you believe that is the same as the reason for your success.

At that exact same time, and thanks to one of the most crooked and corrupt presidents in our history, pensions were gutted, people were forced into early retirement - everything people had worked for disappeared overnight. Reagan also made it legal to cut benefits like sick time, overtime, earned vacation, and so on. Companies cut hours to fewer than 40 a week and POOF! Your bennies were gone.

That made room for younger, less qualified workers to be hired at much lower pay. The companies saved money by screwing over their employees.

Before that, both employers and employees were loyal to each other. There were apprentice positions where the younger worker could train and work their way up. They needed each other, and wages, usually guaranteed by unions, had been high enough for women to maintain homes and children to go college. Dad retired with a gold watch, a pension and Social Security.

Now, entry level jobs go to desperate adults, single or married, with or without kids, and illegals.

Look at slaughterhouses. Ghastly work but the meat was inspected and the workers were considered middle class. Now those jobs go to illegals.

But the important thing is that Ronnie RayGun enriched the 1% and turned the US into a debtor nation who buys everything from other countries.

Something else he set into motion was selling the US off, bits and pieces at a time, to other countries. That was disastrous for US workers because foreign workers were brought in to take US jobs. This also led to a massive change in our media - before Reagan the FCC had bipartisan control. It was illegal for any type of media to be bought by foreign interests. Also illegal was for any one company to own more than one media or type of media. Watch the really comprehensive documentary, Orwell Rolls In His Grave to see how we gave up our own media and gave control to foreigners.

There's more to this but if you gullible fools keep voting against your own country for much longer, there won't be anything left.


.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Luddly Neddite]

'Trickle Down'

The practice of taking money from the middle class and letting it 'trickle down' to those addicted to / stuck depending on Govt Provided Social programs designed to help the poor survive but never improve their status to the point they can someday get off of those Programs, such as Food Stamps, Welfare, etc...

These programs are designed to keep people dependent on the federal govt and the politicians who promise to keep that money coming...as long as you vote for them.

THAT'S the real 'Trickle Down' in this country....

Not even close.

There's no where near the corruption or welfare fraud in low income families as there is in big corporations.

You RWNJs know this is true but you like gittin' yer hate on for poor families, especially since they're elderly, children, vets, military, handicapped.

IOW, the people you hate.

Most are white but you just love telling yourself they're black.


[emoji90]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Tehon]

Whether you want to use a median average or a mean average, $75k is well above that.

The mean average for 2009 was 75,000.

Now you can say $75k is still "middle class" and I won't argue that point but the purpose of the chart wasn't to define what is middle class. You are trying to distract from the point the chart is making in order to argue a point it was never making.

But it did define middle class. And you used it to show upward mobility to an upper class that the chart also defined. If you include incomes up to 100k to define middle income your graph charts differently and your point becomes less clear. Up to 150k and even more so.

Also one needs to take into account the rise in dual income households over much of the same time frame shown in the chart. Many families have had to work twice as hard to keep up and or get ahead.

 

[TheDude]

What I've always "enjoyed" about liberals is when it comes to the "trickle down" concept, they classically play the victim helpless role. It's Reagan's fault your dispositions are unsatisfactory, and it's Reagan's fault subsequent POUS lacked the balls etc. to make any changes. On topic, Clinton did raise taxes on the wealthy. He was able to do so because of the results of REAGANOMICS and the web. Do you even understand what I'm talking about?

While liberals are supposed to have expanded heads, like many topics, trickle-down demonstrates many are simpletons and weak.

 

[Boss]

The mean average for 2009 was 75,000.

Well the MEDIAN average was around $50k

But it did define middle class.

No, it defined "middle income families" and used $25-75k as a benchmark. "Middle class" is arbitrary and subjective, depending largely on mitigating circumstances such as location and cost of living.

Also one needs to take into account the rise in dual income households over much of the same time frame shown in the chart. Many families have had to work twice as hard to keep up and or get ahead.

No denying that. From 1967 we have changed culturally. Many more women are in the workforce, a good number of them are the chief breadwinners. A family may have several jobs. I know a couple who have five jobs between them.

The point of the chart is to show what happened to the middle income families since 1967 and we can see for ourselves, they became "upper income" families.

 

[deanrd]

It's all very simple to fix. We just need educated Americans who will demand our elected officials enact the measures which will put us back on the road to prosperity.

Unfortunately, the propaganda outlets of both sides of the political spectrum have spent the last two decades dumbing down the electorate to the point of deep delusions, willful ignorance, and mind boggling stupidity.

The solutions are:

1. Ban tax expenditures. These are an annual $1.4 trillion transfer of wealth up the food chain, and the single biggest reason our tax rates are as high as they are. The national debt is not caused by evil rich people not having higher tax rates. Nor is it caused by darkies on food stamps. It is caused by tax expenditures.

2. Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility age to 70, and index the age to 9 percent of the population going forward. We are living decades longer than our ancestors who created Social Security. Common sense demands we work longer.

3. Our military spending is at levels we have not seen since World War II, when adjusted for inflation. We are not engaged in a World War and should spend accordingly. Long before Trump came along, I have been saying our allies need to pick up their fair share of our common defense. They look down their noses at us for not spending as much on a social safety net as they do, all the while depending on us to defend them out of our pockets. Let's see how snooty they are, and how strong their social safety nets are, when they have to pick up their own defense tab.

How many companies want 69 year old workers? Screw them over and then give them a pittance based on last year's income. Republicans are so f*cking heartless. Truly mean spirited people.

 

[g5000]

It's all very simple to fix. We just need educated Americans who will demand our elected officials enact the measures which will put us back on the road to prosperity.

Unfortunately, the propaganda outlets of both sides of the political spectrum have spent the last two decades dumbing down the electorate to the point of deep delusions, willful ignorance, and mind boggling stupidity.

The solutions are:

1. Ban tax expenditures. These are an annual $1.4 trillion transfer of wealth up the food chain, and the single biggest reason our tax rates are as high as they are. The national debt is not caused by evil rich people not having higher tax rates. Nor is it caused by darkies on food stamps. It is caused by tax expenditures.

2. Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility age to 70, and index the age to 9 percent of the population going forward. We are living decades longer than our ancestors who created Social Security. Common sense demands we work longer.

3. Our military spending is at levels we have not seen since World War II, when adjusted for inflation. We are not engaged in a World War and should spend accordingly. Long before Trump came along, I have been saying our allies need to pick up their fair share of our common defense. They look down their noses at us for not spending as much on a social safety net as they do, all the while depending on us to defend them out of our pockets. Let's see how snooty they are, and how strong their social safety nets are, when they have to pick up their own defense tab.

How many companies want 69 year old workers? Screw them over and then give them a pittance based on last year's income. Republicans are so f*cking heartless. Truly mean spirited people.

In what kind of shape do you think a 64 year old was in 1935? That's when Social Security was created.

The 69 year old of today is far, far healthier than the 64 year old of 1935. The average life expectancy back then was 60, and only 5.4% of the population was over the age of 65. Social Security was insurance. It was not meant for everyone to collect. It was intended for those who beat the odds.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors who created Social Security. If we are living longer, we should be working longer. Common damned sense.

Today, nearly 15% of Americans are over the age of 65. That's more than the entire population of Canada.

A child born today will live past 100. That is clearly an unsustainable trend. You would have people living off Social Security for more than a third of their lives!

It is people like you who are the truly mean spirited people. You want to retire and live off the hard work of a smaller and smaller percentage of the population for decades longer than you should.

 

[g5000]

US population over 65: 46 million

Population of Canada: 36 million

So we have way, way more people on single payer health insurance than Canada does!

And that's not even counting Medicaid and S-CHIP.

 

[Nia88]

I started my career within 2 weeks of Reagan taking office. I came from a lower middle class family with no money and lots of debt. Mortgage interest rates were 18% car loans were over 20% thanks to Carternomics. 8 years later I was kicking ass and taking names thanks to the turnaround Reagan brought about. Call it whatever you want, Reaganomics worked for anyone willing to work.

It worked for while but those economic decisions made in the 80's is what's effecting our economy today. Baby boomers had a good time in the 80s and 90s, but unfortunately their children are the ones suffering now. Reagananomics contributed to the wage gap we have today. Cooperation and the wealthy the have gotten richer while middle class and working class have gotten poorer.

Working hard isn't the issue. Americans are working more hours than ecerw, but taking home less pay. We had trickle down economics under bush and the economy tanked.

Trickling only works when you are in the %1

Cooperations have been given lots of tax breaks and what did they do? Kept the extra money and shipped the jobs overseas or cut their workforce.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

We need to double the social security tax, for the common good !!!! Lmfao

 

[Boss]

How many companies want 69 year old workers? Screw them over and then give them a pittance based on last year's income. Republicans are so f*cking heartless. Truly mean spirited people.

You're reacting on sheer emotion and nothing else. For the past 80+ years, we've poured trillions of tax dollars into programs to solve all these emotive circumstances you come up with. We don't seem to ever have enough money to deliver Utopia. There's always 69 year olds who can't find a job... kids who can't afford college... sick people with no health care... on and on and on!

You think Republicans are "heartless" because they don't want to continue doing what hasn't worked. In your mind, the ONLY solution to the emotive problems you find is to have government take from the wealthy and give to the needy. Socialism!

Even though you are shown history that Socialism fails repeatedly, you can't disabuse yourself of the notion. At some point, you need to grow up and stop making decisions based on your emotions. Then you will start to understand we're never going to solve ALL the problems. Utopia is a fairy tale.

In America, if someone feels their pay is not adequate for the work they do, they are FREE to go do something else or seek better pay. If no one wants to pay what you feel you're worth, be your own boss! Again, we have that freedom here. Once you've turned your freedom over to the State, you'll do what they tell you to do and you won't complain. If you do complain or can't be productive, they shoot you in the head.

Here's the thing about Conservatism, even Liberal Progressives benefit from Conservative philosophy. All of these emotional "problems" you're conjuring up are better taken care of by a healthy and vibrant capitalist economy that is flourishing.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't think Obama was out to kill business, but for political reasons he was more interested in higher taxes on business and investments and adding too many regulations that increased the costs of compliance enough to where the business climate WAS damaged. You see it in the poor economic growth over his administration once the recession was over and the fact that over the past several years more business closed up than started up. Companies moved some of their operations overseas and kept their profits over there instead of bringing them home.

As a typical left-winger, Obama's focus was on more revenue and gov't spending which would lead to economic growth and more help to the lower income people, that's why he implemented the policies he did. Don't know that he intentionally wanted to hurt business but that was the result. Bigger and more intrusive gov't is not the answer and never will be.

What you fail to understand about Socialism is that it has to destroy free market capitalist systems so that the socialist system can be installed. Now, if a Socialist (like Obama) came out and said... we're going to destroy free market capitalist systems so that we can implement Socialism, no one would go for that.... they'd not be able to get elected. So they mask their true agenda and objectives with platitudes and glorious talk about the new day ahead. All the while, implementing regulations and reforms to further burden the free market capitalist systems in anticipation of their demise. Obama very much hoped to destroy businesses but he had to do it in a way that seemed like he didn't. Nothing Obama did helped the poor. There are more poor people today than before Obama took office. More Americans on food stamps than any time in our history.

Under the Obama administration, Congress enacted an average of 2,200 new regulations on business and industry per session. We've never had so much government regulation in such a period, even under FDR. You don't think he was trying to intentionally hurt business? You're a dupe.

Socialism merely enables Capitalism to flourish via Nurture, not Nature.