DiamondDave
Army Vet
Carter.. with Obama nipping on his heels
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My two aren't even on the list....
1. Herbert Hoover- The man ignored all the warning signs that led to the Great Depression. He then mismanaged it when it did hit. Look up "Hoovervilles" on the internet.
2. Ronald Reagan- This one hurts me personally, because I believed in the man. But 30 years of "trickle down Economics have all but destroyed our country by letting Big Business rule the Republic instead of the people. I am not sure this is how he wanted it, but this is the way it happened. Ever since "Reaganomics" have been the norm, our Debt has been ever increasing, businesses keep getting richer and more powerful and our people keep losing in the deal.
Here's the thing... Much like the idea of Communism(everyone working and living for each other), the idea of "Trickle Down" only works in a perfect society with perfect people.
But in real life, People are greedy. In Communism, there will be people within the Government(that runs everything) who want more than their "Fair share" and hoard and do for themselves instead of for the collective.
Similarly, in order for "Trickle Down" to work... Trickling can't be voluntary. There are too many greedy Businessmen who chose to hoard the wealth instead of trickling down. So then the Federal Government keeps trying to get them to "trickle down" by spending money on them... lowering their tax rates, giving them big government contracts, privatizing services... None of it works... for the everyday people... it works for Big business just fine. But it puts our government in huge debt and screws the Middle Class.
Just take a look at how the deficit has exploded under the Reaganomics model. Look at the Deficit level before Reagan and after Reagan.
That is the madness of the "Trickle Down" Model. It is entirely for the benefit of the Conglomerate and has little to do with actual "trickling".
Do you think wealth is a limited commodity and I can only have some by you not having it?
That would be your first mistake.
My two aren't even on the list....
1. Herbert Hoover- The man ignored all the warning signs that led to the Great Depression. He then mismanaged it when it did hit. Look up "Hoovervilles" on the internet.
2. Ronald Reagan- This one hurts me personally, because I believed in the man. But 30 years of "trickle down Economics have all but destroyed our country by letting Big Business rule the Republic instead of the people. I am not sure this is how he wanted it, but this is the way it happened. Ever since "Reaganomics" have been the norm, our Debt has been ever increasing, businesses keep getting richer and more powerful and our people keep losing in the deal.
Here's the thing... Much like the idea of Communism(everyone working and living for each other), the idea of "Trickle Down" only works in a perfect society with perfect people.
But in real life, People are greedy. In Communism, there will be people within the Government(that runs everything) who want more than their "Fair share" and hoard and do for themselves instead of for the collective.
Similarly, in order for "Trickle Down" to work... Trickling can't be voluntary. There are too many greedy Businessmen who chose to hoard the wealth instead of trickling down. So then the Federal Government keeps trying to get them to "trickle down" by spending money on them... lowering their tax rates, giving them big government contracts, privatizing services... None of it works... for the everyday people... it works for Big business just fine. But it puts our government in huge debt and screws the Middle Class.
Just take a look at how the deficit has exploded under the Reaganomics model. Look at the Deficit level before Reagan and after Reagan.
That is the madness of the "Trickle Down" Model. It is entirely for the benefit of the Conglomerate and has little to do with actual "trickling".
Do you think wealth is a limited commodity and I can only have some by you not having it?
That would be your first mistake.
Do you think wealth is a limited commodity and I can only have some by you not having it?
That would be your first mistake.
Hey... look at the statistics of "we the people" vs. Big business. I think it speaks for itself.
My two aren't even on the list....
1. Herbert Hoover- The man ignored all the warning signs that led to the Great Depression. He then mismanaged it when it did hit. Look up "Hoovervilles" on the internet.
2. Ronald Reagan- This one hurts me personally, because I believed in the man. But 30 years of "trickle down Economics have all but destroyed our country by letting Big Business rule the Republic instead of the people. I am not sure this is how he wanted it, but this is the way it happened. Ever since "Reaganomics" have been the norm, our Debt has been ever increasing, businesses keep getting richer and more powerful and our people keep losing in the deal.
Here's the thing... Much like the idea of Communism(everyone working and living for each other), the idea of "Trickle Down" only works in a perfect society with perfect people.
But in real life, People are greedy. In Communism, there will be people within the Government(that runs everything) who want more than their "Fair share" and hoard and do for themselves instead of for the collective.
Similarly, in order for "Trickle Down" to work... Trickling can't be voluntary. There are too many greedy Businessmen who chose to hoard the wealth instead of trickling down. So then the Federal Government keeps trying to get them to "trickle down" by spending money on them... lowering their tax rates, giving them big government contracts, privatizing services... None of it works... for the everyday people... it works for Big business just fine. But it puts our government in huge debt and screws the Middle Class.
Just take a look at how the deficit has exploded under the Reaganomics model. Look at the Deficit level before Reagan and after Reagan.
That is the madness of the "Trickle Down" Model. It is entirely for the benefit of the Conglomerate and has little to do with actual "trickling".
Do you think wealth is a limited commodity and I can only have some by you not having it?
That would be your first mistake.
JFK had an economic theory that a rising tide lifts all boats
Since Reagan, the rising tide has only lifted the yachts
You're deflecting.
Do you think that wealth is a limited commodity and the only way I can have it is by you not having it?
Do you think wealth is a limited commodity and I can only have some by you not having it?
That would be your first mistake.
JFK had an economic theory that a rising tide lifts all boats
Since Reagan, the rising tide has only lifted the yachts
So JFK is now a Republican?
Do you think that wealth is a limited commodity so I can have it only if you don't?
clueless.You're deflecting.
Do you think that wealth is a limited commodity and the only way I can have it is by you not having it?
How much money is there printed at this moment in time... that's our wealth. You cannot "Create" more out of thin air. If you are collecting it, you are taking it from someone else.
If you sell something at a profit, you are taking someone else's money and adding it to yours in exchange for a product/service.
clueless.You're deflecting.
Do you think that wealth is a limited commodity and the only way I can have it is by you not having it?
How much money is there printed at this moment in time... that's our wealth. You cannot "Create" more out of thin air. If you are collecting it, you are taking it from someone else.
If you sell something at a profit, you are taking someone else's money and adding it to yours in exchange for a product/service.
Wealth is a measure of more than money. Wealth is a measure of all property.clueless.How much money is there printed at this moment in time... that's our wealth. You cannot "Create" more out of thin air. If you are collecting it, you are taking it from someone else.
If you sell something at a profit, you are taking someone else's money and adding it to yours in exchange for a product/service.
Ok... care to explain? There is limited dollars printed, so unless we print more... or take it in Yen, Rupees, Pounds Sterling, etc and add it to our pile... It's not created, it's taken.
JFK had an economic theory that a rising tide lifts all boats
Since Reagan, the rising tide has only lifted the yachts
So JFK is now a Republican?
Do you think that wealth is a limited commodity so I can have it only if you don't?
Why of course not.
But I also believe that the rules of the game can be changed to make it easier for some groups to gain and protect wealth
clueless.How much money is there printed at this moment in time... that's our wealth. You cannot "Create" more out of thin air. If you are collecting it, you are taking it from someone else.
If you sell something at a profit, you are taking someone else's money and adding it to yours in exchange for a product/service.
Ok... care to explain? There is limited dollars printed, so unless we print more... or take it in Yen, Rupees, Pounds Sterling, etc and add it to our pile... It's not created, it's taken.
I liked the other guys explanation better, Rabbi.
However, let me ask you both this question... Is that what you feel is happening now? The decline of the Middle Class, and the further impoverishment of our working poor has NOTHING to do with the huge gains that the rich has received?
I liked the other guys explanation better, Rabbi.
However, let me ask you both this question... Is that what you feel is happening now? The decline of the Middle Class, and the further impoverishment of our working poor has NOTHING to do with the huge gains that the rich has received?
Your question is based on a fallacy. The fallacy is that people are poorer. That is not so. Every class has experienced an increase in income. The wealthiest have experienced the highest rate. That is probably because their skill set is more in demand in a global economy than a machine operator's.
I said Obama because the country really didn't need a third Bush term. Many liberals here claim Obama saved the country yet it is still going downhill when you look at the country without the partisan blinders. The fact that Obama plans on spending over a billion to get re elected is also dangerous, now he is out of the closet about being the absolute most bought politician in history and yet still some cheer him on.
Over this last year I admit that I have seen an awakening on these boards from many on the left about just how bad of a President Obama is.
The stimulus is great if you dont compare it to anything (get that, anything) that it claimed it would do at the start.
I would say FDR was the worst tho.