Even the Right knows "Trickle-Down" doesn't work. Why keep pushing it?

[Flopper]

The wealthy became wealthier while the middle class and it's standard of living shrank.

Trickle down economics is a farce.

Is there really a problem if the middle class is shrinking because they are moving up? I guess what I am trying to say is that your government education is the only farce because you know shit about economics. Sorry, but I am fed up with people ignoring the facts about very basic economic matters.

Yes, because that means people from the bottom are not moving up. According to Aristotle, a large, prosperous middle class may mediate between rich and poor, creating the structural foundation upon which democratic political processes may operate. The prosperity of this country is tied closely to an expanding middle class. A large and stable middle class has been central to America's wealth and stability for decades; without this middle class the country's future will be in great peril.

 

[rdean]

Check out the 2002 study "Fiscal Policy, Profits and Investment" in 18 large economies by Profs. Alesina, Ardagna, Perotti and Schiantarelli. It proves that supply-side economics works. Sorry to rain on your parade.

I don't know. Anytime someone on this board has said to me, "Go read a report" they don't quote a single word out of, it always says the opposite of what they think it says. Every single time. I'm not going to go read an entire report they don't even bother to link to. It's too much work to prove someone wrong who is too lazy to actually back up their position. It shows they are not really interested.

you mean like you read everything the opposite of what it actually says?
like that pew poll you always talk about

You mean this one:

(10th paragraph from the top)
Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans.

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

----------------------------

You sure this is the one I'm wrong about? Care to show me where I "didn't get it"? Come on now, don't run off and "hide".

 

[SFC Ollie]

About the Scientist Survey

Results for the scientist survey are based on 2,533 online interviews conducted from May 1 to June 14, 2009 with members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.


Nuff said.

 

[DiveCon]

I don't know. Anytime someone on this board has said to me, "Go read a report" they don't quote a single word out of, it always says the opposite of what they think it says. Every single time. I'm not going to go read an entire report they don't even bother to link to. It's too much work to prove someone wrong who is too lazy to actually back up their position. It shows they are not really interested.

you mean like you read everything the opposite of what it actually says?
like that pew poll you always talk about

You mean this one:

(10th paragraph from the top)
Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans.

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

----------------------------

You sure this is the one I'm wrong about? Care to show me where I "didn't get it"? Come on now, don't run off and "hide".

it doesnt poll ALL scientists, moron
just a particular group of them

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The plan has been to concentrate the wealth of the nation among the top 1%. Obviously, if no one else has any money, the economy will never grow.

I'm just wondering what the plan is? What is the expected outcome?

While simultaneously lifting the poverty level. Believe it or not, when Reagan was president it was cheaper to repair TVs than to buy a new one, and only a few rich people had a computer.

Only a few rich people had computers in 80's? During the 80's, millions of low cost computers were sold such as the IBM personal computer introduced in 1981, the Radio Shack TRS-80, and Commodore 64.

Millions of low cost computers?

The Trash 80 sold for 800 bucks, the PC was twice that, and the 64 was about 600. The reason I said only a few rich people had one is not just because of the price, it also factored in the fact that they were pretty much useless unless you were a hacker or you had a business that could afford the expense. Millions of sales, if accurate, out of a world population of billions, over a decade, amounts to a few rich people, no matter how you want to try and spin it now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You mean this one:

(10th paragraph from the top)
Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans.

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

----------------------------

You sure this is the one I'm wrong about? Care to show me where I "didn't get it"? Come on now, don't run off and "hide".

You know what that poll actually shows rdean? It shows a statistically impossible lack of diversity.

It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1&ref=johntierney

You, being the bigot that you are, look at statistics that show that only 6% of scientists are Republicans and conclude that the only possible explanation is that Republicans are stupid. If I polled that same group and discovered that only 6% of them were black, or women, you would be screaming to high heaven about the lack of diversity and point out that the only possible explanation is that systemic discrimination is taking place.

I could poll MSNBC and come up with a higher percentage of Republicans than Pew found at AAAS, and that tells me, and every intelligent individual on the planet, that the poll was flawed in some way. Either that, or the AAAS consciously and deliberetly excludes Republicans.

Again I bring rdeans world crashing down around his ears.

 

[Flopper]

While simultaneously lifting the poverty level. Believe it or not, when Reagan was president it was cheaper to repair TVs than to buy a new one, and only a few rich people had a computer.

Only a few rich people had computers in 80's? During the 80's, millions of low cost computers were sold such as the IBM personal computer introduced in 1981, the Radio Shack TRS-80, and Commodore 64.

Millions of low cost computers?

The Trash 80 sold for 800 bucks, the PC was twice that, and the 64 was about 600. The reason I said only a few rich people had one is not just because of the price, it also factored in the fact that they were pretty much useless unless you were a hacker or you had a business that could afford the expense. Millions of sales, if accurate, out of a world population of billions, over a decade, amounts to a few rich people, no matter how you want to try and spin it now.

Not that it has anything to do with this thread, but there were about million Trash 80's sold mostly in 1980's. I worked for a school district in the 1986 and we had hundreds if not thousands of Trash80's and Apple II's in the classroom. There were loads of games such as Pong, Packman, and Flight Simulator. There was the Vic 20 and Commodore 64. available for just a few hundred dollars. Hundreds of thousands of these were sold in 80's, mostly at K-mart and Walmart.

 

[DiveCon]

Only a few rich people had computers in 80's? During the 80's, millions of low cost computers were sold such as the IBM personal computer introduced in 1981, the Radio Shack TRS-80, and Commodore 64.

Millions of low cost computers?

The Trash 80 sold for 800 bucks, the PC was twice that, and the 64 was about 600. The reason I said only a few rich people had one is not just because of the price, it also factored in the fact that they were pretty much useless unless you were a hacker or you had a business that could afford the expense. Millions of sales, if accurate, out of a world population of billions, over a decade, amounts to a few rich people, no matter how you want to try and spin it now.

Not that it has anything to do with this thread, but there were about million Trash 80's sold mostly in 1980's. I worked for a school district in the 1986 and we had hundreds if not thousands of Trash80's and Apple II's in the classroom. There were loads of games such as Pong, Packman, and Flight Simulator. There was the Vic 20 and Commodore 64. available for just a few hundred dollars. Hundreds of thousands of these were sold in 80's, mostly at K-mart and Walmart.

a couple hundred back in the 80's was not "cheap"

 

[SFC Ollie]

While simultaneously lifting the poverty level. Believe it or not, when Reagan was president it was cheaper to repair TVs than to buy a new one, and only a few rich people had a computer.

Only a few rich people had computers in 80's? During the 80's, millions of low cost computers were sold such as the IBM personal computer introduced in 1981, the Radio Shack TRS-80, and Commodore 64.

Millions of low cost computers?

The Trash 80 sold for 800 bucks, the PC was twice that, and the 64 was about 600. The reason I said only a few rich people had one is not just because of the price, it also factored in the fact that they were pretty much useless unless you were a hacker or you had a business that could afford the expense. Millions of sales, if accurate, out of a world population of billions, over a decade, amounts to a few rich people, no matter how you want to try and spin it now.

I worked on a Trash 80 at brigade HQs. and had a VIC20 at home.

 

[rdean]

you mean like you read everything the opposite of what it actually says?
like that pew poll you always talk about

You mean this one:

(10th paragraph from the top)
Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans.

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

----------------------------

You sure this is the one I'm wrong about? Care to show me where I "didn't get it"? Come on now, don't run off and "hide".

it doesnt poll ALL scientists, moron
just a particular group of them

Dumbfuck moron.

No poll covers EVERYONE. They are based on a sampling. The results are weighted. Scientists connected with universities and teaching were left out because they voted 12 to one for Obama and they didn't want that to skew the results.

What that actually means is that the results were vastly over stated. I'm sure the percentage is much less than 6%.

Your problem is you said I was wrong about what that poll stated. I showed you that you are either a liar or an ignorant ****, take you pick and if you were man enough to admit you were wrong or lying. Take your pick. I was right. You can't admit the results of a poll that shows Republicans are ONLY a MERE 6% of scientists.

Now this is what's funny. Why would you think it would be more that 6%? You and your cohorts assume there must be some mistake. That there must be more Republicans in science.

WHY?

WHY would you think that? You only need to read what Republicans on this board and others all over the Internet have to say about science and scientists to know if they have interest. If they did they would be Democrats. Conservative Republicanism is all about "resisting change". Science is growing knowledge. The "opposite" of "conservatism".

I get it. You think that America will see right wingers as "stupid" if it becomes widely known they have such marginal representation in the sciences. Well, too late. The entire world sees right wingers as "stupid". Every time a creationist museum is built, every time a textbook is rewritten to cover the science of mysticism, every time right wingers utter the phrase "irreducible complexity", right wingers are shouting to the world, "We are dumb, and we are NOT going to change".

Now don't you have an abortion to stop somewhere?

 

[SFC Ollie]

You mean this one:

(10th paragraph from the top)
Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans.

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

----------------------------

You sure this is the one I'm wrong about? Care to show me where I "didn't get it"? Come on now, don't run off and "hide".

it doesnt poll ALL scientists, moron
just a particular group of them

Dumbfuck moron.

No poll covers EVERYONE. They are based on a sampling. The results are weighted. Scientists connected with universities and teaching were left out because they voted 12 to one for Obama and they didn't want that to skew the results.

What that actually means is that the results were vastly over stated. I'm sure the percentage is much less than 6%.

Your problem is you said I was wrong about what that poll stated. I showed you that you are either a liar or an ignorant ****, take you pick and if you were man enough to admit you were wrong or lying. Take your pick. I was right. You can't admit the results of a poll that shows Republicans are ONLY a MERE 6% of scientists.

Now this is what's funny. Why would you think it would be more that 6%? You and your cohorts assume there must be some mistake. That there must be more Republicans in science.

WHY?

WHY would you think that? You only need to read what Republicans on this board and others all over the Internet have to say about science and scientists to know if they have interest. If they did they would be Democrats. Conservative Republicanism is all about "resisting change". Science is growing knowledge. The "opposite" of "conservatism".

I get it. You think that America will see right wingers as "stupid" if it becomes widely known they have such marginal representation in the sciences. Well, too late. The entire world sees right wingers as "stupid". Every time a creationist museum is built, every time a textbook is rewritten to cover the science of mysticism, every time right wingers utter the phrase "irreducible complexity", right wingers are shouting to the world, "We are dumb, and we are NOT going to change".

Now don't you have an abortion to stop somewhere?

rdean what part of , "all scientists do not belong to the American Association for the Advancement of Science." is so difficult for you to understand?
At best your poll proves that it is a far left leaning organization. At worst it proves that they should change their initials from AAAS to ASS. At least then you might be able to join.

 

[DiveCon]

You mean this one:



(10th paragraph from the top)
Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans.



Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

----------------------------

You sure this is the one I'm wrong about? Care to show me where I "didn't get it"? Come on now, don't run off and "hide".

it doesnt poll ALL scientists, moron
just a particular group of them

Dumbfuck moron.

No poll covers EVERYONE. They are based on a sampling. The results are weighted. Scientists connected with universities and teaching were left out because they voted 12 to one for Obama and they didn't want that to skew the results.

diipshit, to get a good cross section of scientists you would need to poll more than just members of ONE group
you do not think scientifically at all
thats why you dont understand

 

[psikeyhackr]

The suckers are supposed to BELIEVE the bullshit.

That is what makes them suckers. "All warfare is based on Deception." - Sun Tzu

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Screwing-Average-Man-Richer-Poorer/dp/0553129139]Amazon.com: The Screwing of the Average Man - How The Rich Get Richer and You Get Poorer (9780553129137): David Hapgood: Books[/ame]

psik

 

[Provocateur]

Even the Left knows "Trickle-Up" doesn't work. Why keep pushing it?

 

[impalero]

While simultaneously lifting the poverty level. Believe it or not, when Reagan was president it was cheaper to repair TVs than to buy a new one, and only a few rich people had a computer.

Only a few rich people had computers in 80's? During the 80's, millions of low cost computers were sold such as the IBM personal computer introduced in 1981, the Radio Shack TRS-80, and Commodore 64.

Millions of low cost computers?

The Trash 80 sold for 800 bucks, the PC was twice that, and the 64 was about 600. The reason I said only a few rich people had one is not just because of the price, it also factored in the fact that they were pretty much useless unless you were a hacker or you had a business that could afford the expense. Millions of sales, if accurate, out of a world population of billions, over a decade, amounts to a few rich people, no matter how you want to try and spin it now.

In order to actually compare the cost of an item today and yesterday, it should follow the same protocols

For example, it does no good and is inherently dishonest to compare a 25" Color Television made in 1960 to a 25" Color Television today.

Why? Because for one, Color TV did not come out till 1954, and even in 1960, only 1% of households owned one. While 99% own one today.

What we need is an example of something mass produced in this country then and now, where the majority owned it.

A black and white tv would be a good example, since most households had one and was the biggest seller.

So, looking at historic TV Prices:

TV Set Prices


1970

B&W: Tabletop
'70 Muntz: $65 (12")
'70 Motorola: $89 (12")
'70 Sony: $154 (12")
'77 GE: $90 (12")

B&W: Console
'77 Sears: $230 (22")
'77 Sylvania: $240 (22")
'77 Motorola: $260 (22")
'78 GE: $230 (22")

and adjusting for inflation

2010

B&W: Tabletop
'70 Muntz: $465 (12")
'70 Motorola: $637 (12")
'70 Sony: $1103 (12")
'77 GE: $644 (12")

B&W: Console
'77 Sears: $1647 (22")
'77 Sylvania: $1719 (22")
'77 Motorola: $1862 (22")
'78 GE: $1647 (22")



When comparing two products from two different era's, they should be similar in nature, mass produced as today, and range from the bottom to the top of the line as those in 1970 were.

Looking at todays prices from the bottom end to the top end of tv's available as then.

LCD TV's
'2010 Sharp: $600 (32")
'2010 Samsung: $3299 (65")
'2010 Sony : $5000 (65")
'2010 RCA: $480 (22")



Looking at today's prices, I don't see much difference between then and now, except someone is pocketing the difference and it isn't the consumer.



Also, the life expectancy of the product should be taken into account then and now.

If you shell out a $1000 dollars for a fridge now, and it dies in 2 years due to crappy quality and need to buy another, versus the older more reliable fridges, did you really save money?

 

[impalero]

Here is a listing of historic tv prices



TV Set Prices

 

[rdean]

What it really is about is greed. Greedy men can't help but ruining everything they touch. It's part of what being "greedy" is all about. It's an addiction.

 

[DiveCon]

What it really is about is greed. Greedy men can't help but ruining everything they touch. It's part of what being "greedy" is all about. It's an addiction.

yes, your own greed for something you didnt earn

 

[impalero]

What it really is about is greed. Greedy men can't help but ruining everything they touch. It's part of what being "greedy" is all about. It's an addiction.

yes, your own greed for something you didnt earn

Greed is such a simplistic term

It explains nothing, but it can be used as a tool for more power and control.

The government uses it to further their doctrines in order to expand their horizons and reaches in this globalization of the world and their 700+ military bases that provide socialistic safety and security paid by the tax payer for their financial and economic well being, and the head captains of industry lap it up through their policies.

They hold no patriotism or nationalistic pride, only insomuch as they can fill their pockets and coffers.

Lets pull back all 700+ bases, and beef up the national borders with the US National Guard and watch them cry foul.

The US Gov and Mega Corps and Investment Banks serve both the left and right.

Watch them cry foul as we pull their welfare security from them

 

[whitehall]

What works Dean? The community activist sure doesn't know. He spent my grandkids money in a couple of schemes that cost us about a trillion dollars. How many chances does he get? He called the Chamber of Commerce a sinister force. That puts him on the opposite side of capitalism. We saw Russia collapse under socialism, why keep pushing it?