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

[thereisnospoon]

Massive New TAXES , SPENDING, Deficits, Quantitative "Easing" , and Centrally Planned Stimulus by civil servants is what America needs...

For Growth !!!!!!!!!! Lmfao

Who has levied "massive new taxes"?

And the reason the Fed had to go to QE was because Congress wouldn't do its job....

and I'm gonna guess the closest you have ever come to studying economics is reading the account information on your checks....

Hey genius.. QE was put into place by the Obama administration for the sole purpose of protecting Obama's legacy....No sitting POTUS wants to be remembered for the stock market crash.....QE over one trillion dollars of money the treasury DID NOT have, but the federal reserve printed to prop up the financial markets.
Once again, a liberal like Obama who knows nothing of finances, economy or the ebb and flow of markets, is convinced that government is the answer to everything.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Kennedy family is a shadow of what it was.

But the Gates family and the Walton family and the Lauder family and the Duncan family and the Cox family and the Pritzker family and the Koch family and the Jobs family and the Wozniak family are all doing fabulously better than they were 50 years ago.

Need I continue?

Need I?

God bless America and capitalism.

And? Your point?

 

[thereisnospoon]

But the Gates family and the Walton family and the Lauder family and the Duncan family and the Cox family and the Pritzker family and the Koch family and the Jobs family and the Wozniak family are all doing fabulously better than they were 50 years ago.

Wealth is not finite. It is INFINITE. Wealth is created through individual talent, skill, labor, creativity, invention, investment, etc.

In the left-wing socialist's mind, wealth is finite and too much of it is being held by too few at the top. They fail to understand new wealth can be generated.

SPOT ON....
.Now the Keyensian theory libs will be on the warpath..This will be amusing stuff.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's a bit Fact Intensive....
Do you have anything I can fit on this bumper sticker?

Tax Cuts = Debt

Confiscatory taxes= Higher debt

 

[The Derp]

Confiscatory taxes= Higher debt

How so? If you raise taxes, you raise tax revenue which reduces deficits. It's what happened when Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and Obama let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy at the end of 2012.

 

[Boss]

So we have Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism, Democratic Socialism. It's all ultimately the same thing.

They're not the same as Marxism. If they were you would be able to use the knowledge you gained from reading Marx and show exactly how they are. The question I posed has left you stymied, which indicates you haven't a clue. But that won't cause you pause, just continue to believe regardless if you understand it or not. Just like everyone else.

All Socialism is essentially the same ideology. It promotes collectivism over the individual. It the idea that societies are stronger and better when centrally governed as a collective body as opposed to free individual enterprise and private property ownership. There are any number of variations but they all ultimately follow the same ideology.

You can read Das Kapital and Communist Manifesto and it all sounds very familiar. They are chock-full of the modern progressive agenda. From each according to ability, to each according to need. (Although, that's actually from his Critique of the Gotha.) Public ownership, price controls, wealth redistribution, etc. It follows the very tenets of Marxism down the line but again, Socialists are quite accustomed to claiming their views aren't the same as Marxism. You can't blame them, it's tough to run from a history of 150 million skeletons.

So now, I fully understand what you're trying to do here to stymie me. Several times you've challenged me to prove something is "exactly" Marxist. That's kinda tough because Marxism in of itself is a Socialist Utopian dream world that doesn't exist outside the mind. You can almost always pick and parse your way to the point of saying something wasn't "exactly" Marxism.

It's ALL Marxist! Same ideology, different labels. And everywhere across this globe where the latest and greatest incarnation of Socialism is tried, it FAILS!

 

[Tehon]

So we have Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism, Democratic Socialism. It's all ultimately the same thing.

They're not the same as Marxism. If they were you would be able to use the knowledge you gained from reading Marx and show exactly how they are. The question I posed has left you stymied, which indicates you haven't a clue. But that won't cause you pause, just continue to believe regardless if you understand it or not. Just like everyone else.

All Socialism is essentially the same ideology. It promotes collectivism over the individual. It the idea that societies are stronger and better when centrally governed as a collective body as opposed to free individual enterprise and private property ownership. There are any number of variations but they all ultimately follow the same ideology.

You can read Das Kapital and Communist Manifesto and it all sounds very familiar. They are chock-full of the modern progressive agenda. From each according to ability, to each according to need. (Although, that's actually from his Critique of the Gotha.) Public ownership, price controls, wealth redistribution, etc. It follows the very tenets of Marxism down the line but again, Socialists are quite accustomed to claiming their views aren't the same as Marxism. You can't blame them, it's tough to run from a history of 150 million skeletons.

So now, I fully understand what you're trying to do here to stymie me. Several times you've challenged me to prove something is "exactly" Marxist. That's kinda tough because Marxism in of itself is a Socialist Utopian dream world that doesn't exist outside the mind. You can almost always pick and parse your way to the point of saying something wasn't "exactly" Marxism.

It's ALL Marxist! Same ideology, different labels. And everywhere across this globe where the latest and greatest incarnation of Socialism is tried, it FAILS!

Your problem is that you don't understand the basics of Marxism.
Socialism as advocated by Marx was very specific. It meant the emancipation of the actual producers of commodities. The workers who sell their labor as a commodity at a discounted price. Which "socialist" country has brought this about? None that I am aware. Which substituted the government for the private and left the exploitation of the worker in place? All of them? Yet you conflate the varying systems with Marxism when not one brought about the most basic principle espoused by Marx.

Marx was very clear in his thoughts about government redistribution. He called it vulgar. It does not end the exploitation of the worker and actually enables the capitalist system to continue. And I challenge you to show in Marx's literature where he discusses price control. I do this not to block the conversation from progressing but instead in an attempt to keep the conversation grounded in reality. Otherwise there is no point in continuing with it.

You claim to have read Marx, you have yet to show you read him in a language that you understand.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cutting taxes and regulations works every time it's done.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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 mortgage and car loan rates were that high wasn't because of Carter, it was because of Nixonian Fed Policy that jacked up interest rates. The Fed would lower interest rates through 1982. Reagan's first four years went from bad situation to utter disaster. His tax cuts, signed into law in August 1981 did not produce any of the jobs or growth promised, as the US entered a recession and stayed in one for close to a year. Unemployment, which was hovering around 7% for much of the first half of 1981, would start growing the same month Reagan's tax cuts were signed into law, and then proceeded to grow over the first 12 months of them being in effect, bringing unemployment to a post-WWII record of 10.8% by December 1982. What turned the economy around wasn't anything Reagan did, but rather the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates and Congress increasing spending...as much as 10% in 1983 alone. Nothing Reagan did caused the economy to grow, but he did plenty to hamstring it...whether it was by raising taxes on the middle class in 1982, forcing consumers to go into debt, and deregulating the housing and banking industry to give us the S&L Crisis which, until the Bush Mortgage Bubble popped, was the largest taxpayer-funded bailout of all time.

Your personal anecdotes notwithstanding, the average middle class worker saw their pay stagnate during Reagan, while seeing their household debt increase.

Trickle-down doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work.

Nothing Reagan did caused the economy to grow, but he did plenty to hamstring it..

Cutting taxes and reducing regulation made the economy soar.

whether it was by raising taxes on the middle class in 1982

Tell me more about these fictional middle class tax hikes.
Post their tax rates before and after Reagan hiked them. LOL!

 

[danielpalos]

So we have Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism, Democratic Socialism. It's all ultimately the same thing.

They're not the same as Marxism. If they were you would be able to use the knowledge you gained from reading Marx and show exactly how they are. The question I posed has left you stymied, which indicates you haven't a clue. But that won't cause you pause, just continue to believe regardless if you understand it or not. Just like everyone else.

All Socialism is essentially the same ideology. It promotes collectivism over the individual. It the idea that societies are stronger and better when centrally governed as a collective body as opposed to free individual enterprise and private property ownership. There are any number of variations but they all ultimately follow the same ideology.

Thank you for finally recognizing a simple, self-evident Truth, regarding "what is", Socialism: Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.

 

[danielpalos]

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

Social morals for free are all that is required for Commune of Heaven on Earth.

Can the right wing describe how an, Anarcho-Capitalism of Heaven on Earth, would work