Trickle Up Defies Gravity

[usmbguest5318]

.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,

You have put some real thought into your post articulating the pro’s and con’s. Thank you for your efforts. Having said that, out of all that you have written I could not find your personal point of view which I am sure you have.

If you had to chose one or the other;

Trickle up

Trickle down

Which shall it be?

You may add qualifiers but the bottom line is one or the other

Which is it?

Just asking -

If you had to chose one or the other, which shall it be?

If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
-- Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow​

Seriously, dude? You're asking that question of me? What about the following failed to convince you that, given the lack of context you've provided with your question, I'm not going to answer it differently than I have?

....each approach to fiscal policy has its place. Prudent observers, as with so many things and regardless of what they might or might not know about economics, don't assume that fitting economic policy is as binarily assessed and concluded upon as does this thread's poll question. Rather, they ask when is the right time to implement and de-implement either approach to fiscal policy. The sagacity of applying supply-side and/or classical economic theory (science use of the term) is rightly seen as a temporal not qualitative choice.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Thank you for your efforts.

You're welcome.

You have put some real thought into your post

Thank you for saying so.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How about we not worry who has what and just let everyone keep more of their own money?

That is the stupedist comment I've read yet. Every economic decision affects who has what. I prefer we not give my money to plutocrats so they can take tax write-offs for private jets.

Now, how about you and your fellow dupes not turn us into a third world country?

And if we let everyone keep more of their own money what consequences will that have?

 

[Skull Pilot]

How about we not worry who has what and just let everyone keep more of their own money?

Were it as "simple" as that, there would be NO need to borrow $1.5 Trillion, while completely discarding the $20 trillion already owed and the future call for another trillion for infrastructure (including the building of a useless wall to boost Trump's ego.)

It IS as simple as that it's just that people like you don't have the will to reduce the size scope and cost of government but would rather expand them. But YOU don't want to pay more for that expansion do you

 

[Skull Pilot]

How about we not worry who has what and just let everyone keep more of their own money?

If you want to keep more of your 'own money', why don't you just skip your house and car payments for a few months?

I guess you don't know the difference between a voluntary purchase with my money and the taking of my money under threat of force do you?

And unlike you I know I can be far more responsible with my money than the fucking government can be

 

[frigidweirdo]

Now, why would you be talking about gravity? What on Earth does gravity have to do with this?

You must be standing on your head to comprehend my answer. While standing on your head ask me this question again and I will promptly give you the answer you request.

-

Ah, you're asking me to go down to your level. I don't think so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If money can't trickle up, then the Rich would never have gotten rich.

 

[Slade3200]

How about we not worry who has what and just let everyone keep more of their own money?

That is the stupedist comment I've read yet. Every economic decision affects who has what. I prefer we not give my money to plutocrats so they can take tax write-offs for private jets.

Now, how about you and your fellow dupes not turn us into a third world country?

And if we let everyone keep more of their own money what consequences will that have?

Consequences are higher deficits and larger debt. Tax cuts need to be balanced with spending cuts which means layoffs, loss of government contracts, reduced funding for military and or schools. Etc. There is plenty of fat to cut in government spending but also a lot of potential for harm. We have to be thoughtful and careful how we proceed and unfortunately right now the conversations and policy making are more partisan and dishonest than smart and thoughtful.

 

[danielpalos]

TRICKLE UP DEFIES GRAVITY

Income distribution

{1} 1,365,856 earn more than $388,000 a year

{2} 68,292,856 earn less than $70,000 a year

https://tinyurl.com/yaw8yy3g


TRICKLE DOWN
If the IRS gave tax bracket {1} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $13,665,856,000 to the economy but the rich will not add it to the economy, they will put it in the bank to do nothing


TRICKLE UP
If the IRS gave tax bracket {2} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $68,292,856,000 to the economy because they will spend it, buying new things from houses to shoes to a new car which adds to the economy making more shoes, the car to a new house.

Now ask yourself; which is best for our economy

( ) Trickle down

( ) Trickle up

Begging the question?

Healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage!

 

[nat4900]

Consequences are higher deficits and larger debt. Tax cuts need to be balanced with spending cuts which means layoffs, loss of government contracts, reduced funding for military and or schools. Etc. There is plenty of fat to cut in government spending but also a lot of potential for harm. We have to be thoughtful and careful how we proceed and unfortunately right now the conversations and policy making are more partisan and dishonest than smart and thoughtful.

These tax cuts (a scam, really) was NOT needed....The tax cuts constitute payback to wealthy donors who openly stated that if this bill was not passed, their contributions would dry up.

Corporations were SWIMMING in cash before these tax cuts and all that has changed is that our debt has grown and a few bucks as "bribes" is being handed to Americans to make them feel like they won something........unaware that those few bucks will have to be paid back by them with interest.

 

[sartre play]

If it was true, (and its not) all Republicans want all our money to go to the top( campaign spenders)war machine & ultra rich.
All Democrats want to give all our hard earned money to the poor and non citizen.
Any one really think that's the hard cold facts?
could it be a little more complex than you bad, we good,

 

[Oldstyle]

TRICKLE UP DEFIES GRAVITY

Income distribution

{1} 1,365,856 earn more than $388,000 a year

{2} 68,292,856 earn less than $70,000 a year

https://tinyurl.com/yaw8yy3g


TRICKLE DOWN
If the IRS gave tax bracket {1} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $13,665,856,000 to the economy but the rich will not add it to the economy, they will put it in the bank to do nothing


TRICKLE UP
If the IRS gave tax bracket {2} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $68,292,856,000 to the economy because they will spend it, buying new things from houses to shoes to a new car which adds to the economy making more shoes, the car to a new house.

Now ask yourself; which is best for our economy

( ) Trickle down

( ) Trickle up

For sane folks the principles are simple.
For gimme free shit beggars...not so much.
Most economists agree the primary catalyst in a robust economy is jobs / employment.
Ask yourself this...has a bottom feeder ever given you a job?

And the only thing that creates jobs is demand. Group 1 getting $1000 does nothing to demand and they are going to hire people just because they have more money. Group 2 getting $1000 will increase demand which will in turn lead to more jobs.

God, another liberal who thinks they understand why jobs are created! For about the hundredth time..."demand" does not create jobs! The anticipation of profit is what induces investment of capital in new businesses or the expansion of existing ones! You can have tons of demand...but if the product or service you're thinking of creating doesn't generate a substantial enough profit to justify risking capital...THEN IT ISN'T GOING TO BE RISKED!!!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Trickle down defies logic and reality.
This isn't gravity that we're talking about is your first failure!

Who or what group should be promoted as in what group will strengthen the economy and make America the stronger country? Now that is what we should be discussing.

Pulling the poor upwards to become a larger middle class is without question more important then throwing a few billion more at the billionaires that have never shown any desire to give more to the poor workers that work for them.

The title of this thread is bs and that is why....

 

[Oldstyle]

Trickle down defies logic and reality.
This isn't gravity that we're talking about is your first failure!

Who or what group should be promoted as in what group will strengthen the economy and make America the stronger country? Now that is what we should be discussing.

Pulling the poor upwards to become a larger middle class is without question more important then throwing a few billion more at the billionaires that have never shown any desire to give more to the poor workers that work for them.

The title of this thread is bs and that is why....

So tell me all of the things that the Obama Administration did to strengthen the Middle Class, Rocks? Quite frankly...I didn't see it! Enlighten me!

By the way...it's virtually impossible for Government to pull the poor into the Middle Class! The Middle Class was essentially created by the Free Enterprise System. Fifty years of the Government's "War on Poverty" hasn't done anything to lessen the number of poor people! It has spent trillions though!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

God, another liberal who thinks they understand why jobs are created! For about the hundredth time..."demand" does not create jobs! The anticipation of profit is what induces investment of capital in new businesses or the expansion of existing ones! You can have tons of demand...but if the product or service you're thinking of creating doesn't generate a substantial enough profit to justify risking capital...THEN IT ISN'T GOING TO BE RISKED!!!

Fuck, another Trump zealot that has no clue how a business operators. Let me help you out here, moron.

FedEx is not going to hire more people just because they are making more profit, they will only do so when demand for their service dictates them doing so.

GM is not going to hire more people just because they are making more profits, they will do so when demand for their product dictates them doing so.

Now go home and wait for the next GOP talking points email and come back and try again.

 

[Norman]

God, another liberal who thinks they understand why jobs are created! For about the hundredth time..."demand" does not create jobs! The anticipation of profit is what induces investment of capital in new businesses or the expansion of existing ones! You can have tons of demand...but if the product or service you're thinking of creating doesn't generate a substantial enough profit to justify risking capital...THEN IT ISN'T GOING TO BE RISKED!!!

Fuck, another Trump zealot that has no clue how a business operators. Let me help you out here, moron.

FedEx is not going to hire more people just because they are making more profit, they will only do so when demand for their service dictates them doing so.

GM is not going to hire more people just because they are making more profits, they will do so when demand for their product dictates them doing so.

Now go home and wait for the next GOP talking points email and come back and try again.

A other one that failed the business 101 course, and clearly has never owned or perhaps even worked in a business.

The corporations will have more money, and guess where that money is gonna go? You guessed right, to employ more Americans, and to pay more bonuses and wages to Americans

Thanks for letting me school you on reality. Even though you don't live in it, it's always a pleasure.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

God, another liberal who thinks they understand why jobs are created! For about the hundredth time..."demand" does not create jobs! The anticipation of profit is what induces investment of capital in new businesses or the expansion of existing ones! You can have tons of demand...but if the product or service you're thinking of creating doesn't generate a substantial enough profit to justify risking capital...THEN IT ISN'T GOING TO BE RISKED!!!

Fuck, another Trump zealot that has no clue how a business operators. Let me help you out here, moron.

FedEx is not going to hire more people just because they are making more profit, they will only do so when demand for their service dictates them doing so.

GM is not going to hire more people just because they are making more profits, they will do so when demand for their product dictates them doing so.

Now go home and wait for the next GOP talking points email and come back and try again.

A other one that failed the business 101 course, and clearly has never owned or perhaps even worked in a business.

The corporations will have more money, and guess where that money is gonna go? You guessed right, to employ more Americans, and to pay more bonuses and wages to Americans.

So, they are just going to give more people jobs even though they do not need them?

You really think that business hire people just because they have more money?

So, FedEx is going to hire more drivers even though they do not need them?

Are you really that stupid? Do not bother answering, we all know the answer.

Have you ever even had a job?

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[Norman]

God, another liberal who thinks they understand why jobs are created! For about the hundredth time..."demand" does not create jobs! The anticipation of profit is what induces investment of capital in new businesses or the expansion of existing ones! You can have tons of demand...but if the product or service you're thinking of creating doesn't generate a substantial enough profit to justify risking capital...THEN IT ISN'T GOING TO BE RISKED!!!

Fuck, another Trump zealot that has no clue how a business operators. Let me help you out here, moron.

FedEx is not going to hire more people just because they are making more profit, they will only do so when demand for their service dictates them doing so.

GM is not going to hire more people just because they are making more profits, they will do so when demand for their product dictates them doing so.

Now go home and wait for the next GOP talking points email and come back and try again.

A other one that failed the business 101 course, and clearly has never owned or perhaps even worked in a business.

The corporations will have more money, and guess where that money is gonna go? You guessed right, to employ more Americans, and to pay more bonuses and wages to Americans.

So, they are just going to give more people jobs even though they do not need them?

You really think that business hire people just because they have more money?

So, FedEx is going to hire more drivers even though they do not need them?

Are you really that stupid? Do not bother answering, we all know the answer.

Have you ever even had a job?

People don't need jobs? Okay, I believe I understand, you don't want people to have jobs or for America to be great. In that case, yes, the tax cuts are your worst nightmare.


Businesses use their money to expand and hire more people. That's how it works, maybe you should work in a business one day to figure it out? Maybe even have a business of your own? Not to even mention all the businesses that are going to come to USA because the lower tax. Now THAT'S good immigration, those are not democrat voters for sure.

 

[BrokeLoser]

God, another liberal who thinks they understand why jobs are created! For about the hundredth time..."demand" does not create jobs! The anticipation of profit is what induces investment of capital in new businesses or the expansion of existing ones! You can have tons of demand...but if the product or service you're thinking of creating doesn't generate a substantial enough profit to justify risking capital...THEN IT ISN'T GOING TO BE RISKED!!!

Fuck, another Trump zealot that has no clue how a business operators. Let me help you out here, moron.

FedEx is not going to hire more people just because they are making more profit, they will only do so when demand for their service dictates them doing so.

GM is not going to hire more people just because they are making more profits, they will do so when demand for their product dictates them doing so.

Now go home and wait for the next GOP talking points email and come back and try again.

WRONG...how bout I try.
As FedEx increases profitability they increase spending to gain market share...they spend on marketing, advertising and branding....increased spending in these sectors immediately creates jobs on the front end...it also generates consumer interest, sales, and demand...companies must have trained employees in place in advance and be ready to supply the increased demand on the back end.

You see, what you’re doing is pretending that companies don’t control their own destinies by spending in certain sectors at just the right times...you couldn’t be more wrong.