Trickle-Down Success

[CrusaderFrank]

Of course I wrote that, but it has nothing to do with the tripe you've been posting lately in this thread. That this indicates envy or hatred or any of the other bullshit you're attributing to me is something no rational person could deduce; all of that is delusional and a sign of mental illness. I really suggest seeing a doctor.

It has nothing to do with your reflexive hatred of Reagan and the "Wealthy"?

Really?

 

[Dragon]

Of course I wrote that, but it has nothing to do with the tripe you've been posting lately in this thread. That this indicates envy or hatred or any of the other bullshit you're attributing to me is something no rational person could deduce; all of that is delusional and a sign of mental illness. I really suggest seeing a doctor.

It has nothing to do with your reflexive hatred of Reagan and the "Wealthy"?

Really?

Since I have no reflexive hatred of either one, yes, really.

 

[PoliticalChic]

From the OP:
"...a prosperous merchant...."


Do you know what 'prosperous' means?

Yes, but apparently you don't. It is not synonymous with "wealthy." A lot of people are "prosperous" who fall far short of "wealthy." A middle-class person living a comfortable lifestyle, but by no means a millionaire, would be considered "prosperous."

Note also that while some small subset of merchants may be wealthy, craftsmen almost never are.

" A lot of people..."

"... while some small subset..."

"...almost never..."

Those examples of escapy-terminology, plus the fact that I provided the definition of 'prosperous' in post # 10 which includes 'wealth and success..." doom your argument.

I see a supposed liberal clumsily making a mealy-mouthed admission of blunder, and an embarrassed retreat.

I accept that you are linguistically challenged, as well as possessed of an impoverished personality.
Further, you show the lack of judgement that propels you to continue make a clearly erroneous argument.


But even with all of the flaws you have revealed in this thread, have no fear that this will lower my level of respect for you.
No, it is not possible for it to be lower.

 

[Dragon]

Let's cut to the chase, P.C.

The term "trickle-down economics" (which is a derogatory term, of course, the advocates of this policy don't usually use it) was invented during the Reagan era to describe the supply-side economic philosophy that mostly governed his administration. So:

1) Granted that Reagan's income tax cuts and restructuring gave a nonzero tax reduction to most tax payers, the biggest cuts by far went to the wealthiest taxpayers. Correct?

2) The tax cut by the Roman emperor that you referenced went to merchants and craftsmen. The richest people in the Roman empire at the time were land-wealthy aristocrats, not merchants or craftsmen. Correct?

Therefore, the tax cut by the Roman emperor was different in a fundamental way from anything that has been called "trickle-down economics" in a modern context. The latter cut taxes primarily for the richest people. The former did not.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's cut to the chase, P.C.

The term "trickle-down economics" (which is a derogatory term, of course, the advocates of this policy don't usually use it) was invented during the Reagan era to describe the supply-side economic philosophy that mostly governed his administration. So:

1) Granted that Reagan's income tax cuts and restructuring gave a nonzero tax reduction to most tax payers, the biggest cuts by far went to the wealthiest taxpayers. Correct?

2) The tax cut by the Roman emperor that you referenced went to merchants and craftsmen. The richest people in the Roman empire at the time were land-wealthy aristocrats, not merchants or craftsmen. Correct?

Therefore, the tax cut by the Roman emperor was different in a fundamental way from anything that has been called "trickle-down economics" in a modern context. The latter cut taxes primarily for the richest people. The former did not.

According to the movie "Caligula", the richest people in Rome were the pimps

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's cut to the chase, P.C.

The term "trickle-down economics" (which is a derogatory term, of course, the advocates of this policy don't usually use it) was invented during the Reagan era to describe the supply-side economic philosophy that mostly governed his administration. So:

1) Granted that Reagan's income tax cuts and restructuring gave a nonzero tax reduction to most tax payers, the biggest cuts by far went to the wealthiest taxpayers. Correct?

2) The tax cut by the Roman emperor that you referenced went to merchants and craftsmen. The richest people in the Roman empire at the time were land-wealthy aristocrats, not merchants or craftsmen. Correct?

Therefore, the tax cut by the Roman emperor was different in a fundamental way from anything that has been called "trickle-down economics" in a modern context. The latter cut taxes primarily for the richest people. The former did not.

Still begging?

You'd like to change the OP?
No...you can't.
With your inadvertent aid, the OP has been proven to be correct.
The same can hardly be said of your post.....

But you can post your own OP.
In the future, remember you should only open your mouth to change feet.

 

[Dragon]

You'd like to change the OP?

"In the first documented exercise of what would come to be called trickle-down economics"

No need to change anything. That's what I just demonstrated to be wrong. And you cannot legitimately respond to that only by saying 'neener-neener no you didn't." Which is all you're saying here.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Again: "... tax breaks or other economic benefits provided by government to businesses and the wealthy..."

Craftsmen and merchants were not "the wealthy" in the Roman economy. The nobility were. Hence, this was not trickle-down economics.

Theres no use in talking with Politcalchic, she doesn't think for herself all she can do is copy and paste. She [probably has an IQ of 70

 

[starcraftzzz]

Let's cut to the chase, P.C.

The term "trickle-down economics" (which is a derogatory term, of course, the advocates of this policy don't usually use it) was invented during the Reagan era to describe the supply-side economic philosophy that mostly governed his administration. So:

1) Granted that Reagan's income tax cuts and restructuring gave a nonzero tax reduction to most tax payers, the biggest cuts by far went to the wealthiest taxpayers. Correct?

2) The tax cut by the Roman emperor that you referenced went to merchants and craftsmen. The richest people in the Roman empire at the time were land-wealthy aristocrats, not merchants or craftsmen. Correct?

Therefore, the tax cut by the Roman emperor was different in a fundamental way from anything that has been called "trickle-down economics" in a modern context. The latter cut taxes primarily for the richest people. The former did not.

Still begging?

You'd like to change the OP?
No...you can't.
With your inadvertent aid, the OP has been proven to be correct.
The same can hardly be said of your post.....

But you can post your own OP.
In the future, remember you should only open your mouth to change feet.

He already proved you wrong, you're just to stubborn and stupid to realize it. Perhaps you deny reality because you're to pathetic to accept that your world view is based on ignorance

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You'd like to change the OP?

"In the first documented exercise of what would come to be called trickle-down economics"

No need to change anything. That's what I just demonstrated to be wrong. And you cannot legitimately respond to that only by saying 'neener-neener no you didn't." Which is all you're saying here.

Your fundamental misunderstanding of "trickle down" economics does not make PC wrong

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Again: "... tax breaks or other economic benefits provided by government to businesses and the wealthy..."

Craftsmen and merchants were not "the wealthy" in the Roman economy. The nobility were. Hence, this was not trickle-down economics.

Theres no use in talking with Politcalchic, she doesn't think for herself all she can do is copy and paste. She [probably has an IQ of 70

That means a lot coming from someone who can't find Rome on a globe

 

[PoliticalChic]

Again: "... tax breaks or other economic benefits provided by government to businesses and the wealthy..."

Craftsmen and merchants were not "the wealthy" in the Roman economy. The nobility were. Hence, this was not trickle-down economics.

Theres no use in talking with Politcalchic, she doesn't think for herself all she can do is copy and paste. She [probably has an IQ of 70

Step off, gnat.

 

[Jroc]

It’s actually supply side economics..."Trickle-Down" is a liberal term used to discredit Reagan, plus it's an incorrect description of Reagan's policies, which implies trickle down from the top. This is not true. Maybe trickle out?

 

[Dragon]

It’s actually supply side economics..."Trickle-Down" is a liberal term used to discredit Reagan, plus it's an incorrect description of Reagan's policies, which implies trickle down from the top. This is not true. Maybe trickle out?

You are correct that the term "trickle-down" is derogatory (as I already pointed out), but incorrect that it does not accurately (if somewhat nastily) describe the idea: give more money to those who already have a lot, and they will invest it in ventures that create jobs, thus allowing the wealth to "trickle down" to the less-wealthy.

That's also the idea behind "supply-side" economics: provide more to the investors at the top of the tree, thereby boosting the production side of the economy.

By giving a tax break to the middle class, though, the Emperor was actually practicing "demand-side" economics.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It’s actually supply side economics..."Trickle-Down" is a liberal term used to discredit Reagan, plus it's an incorrect description of Reagan's policies, which implies trickle down from the top. This is not true. Maybe trickle out?

The point of both the OP, and Reagan's policies, is that an understanding of human nature is involved in the policy, i.e., that folks will work harder if they get to keep more of the fruits of their labor.

Thus, Rosen writes: "...a prosperous merchant would pay even more in fees than the treasury lost in taxes."

 

[Dragon]

The point of both the OP, and Reagan's policies, is that an understanding of human nature is involved in the policy, i.e., that folks will work harder if they get to keep more of the fruits of their labor.

Wrong. The idea was not that they will work harder, but that they will invest more. In fact, if you want to encourage people to work harder, the benefits should go to the class that works, not the class that invests, and the best way to do that is through a wage increase rather than a tax cut.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Those who cannot remember the past score poorly on history exams

AND think that Rome operated under a Feudalistic European Monarchy......

 

[kaz]

I can see that an understanding of the term 'wealthy' is the source of the problem....
"...the empire’s most productive classes, its craftsmen and merchants, ...a prosperous merchant..."

Exactly. I do not (mis)understand the term "wealthy" to be synonymous with the term "productive."

Trickle-down economics was not based on cutting taxes on the "most productive." It was based on cutting taxes on the wealthy. "Most productive" was purely a bit of right-wing rhetoric devoid of truth. The Emperor's tax cut, while it actually did favor the "productive" -- the REAL productive -- did not favor the wealthy, as trickle-down economics does.

You really hate rich people, don't you? You're willing to choke the golden goose, destroy our economy and lose your own job just to fuck them. Hate is more powerful then love with many, many people unfortunately.

 

[Jroc]

It’s actually supply side economics..."Trickle-Down" is a liberal term used to discredit Reagan, plus it's an incorrect description of Reagan's policies, which implies trickle down from the top. This is not true. Maybe trickle out?

You are correct that the term "trickle-down" is derogatory (as I already pointed out), but incorrect that it does not accurately (if somewhat nastily) describe the idea: give more money to those who already have a lot, and they will invest it in ventures that create jobs, thus allowing the wealth to "trickle down" to the less-wealthy.

That's also the idea behind "supply-side" economics: provide more to the investors at the top of the tree, thereby boosting the production side of the economy.

By giving a tax break to the middle class, though, the Emperor was actually practicing "demand-side" economics.

Wrong.... Letting people keep more of their money letting small business use their money to expand and hire people is supply side. That’s why I say "trickle out" not down

 

[Uncensored2008]

I can see that you are struggling to be relevant, and appear to be going down for the 'third time....'
....so allow me to push you under for good.

From the OP:
"...a prosperous merchant...."


Do you know what 'prosperous' means?
You do?

Good boy!

So....you'd subscribe to the following:
pros·per·ous/ˈpräspərəs/
Adjective:
Successful in material terms; flourishing financially.
Bringing wealth and success.


See what happens when you don’t send that e-mail chain letter to seven people?

I'm still trying to get around just what Dragon thinks Roman nobility was? Does he have a fantasy of the Feudal Lords of Medieval France and Norway in ancient Rome?

The boy is REALLY confused. No wonder he's a communist....