Sowell: The 'Trickle-Down' Lie

[eflatminor]

Those rich folks are much better off with their money than us working folks

How about you earn your money and others earn theirs, and what anyone spends it on is up to their voluntary choices. Hey, there's a unique concept!

Or do you feel somehow entitled to other people's money?

When are the rich going to pay for their trillion dollar wars, and the banker bailouts, and the number of other things done for the rich.

Finally! A reasonable example of money being taken from workers (and everyone) for the benefit of the wealthy. Thank you!

Now, as you'll notice that redistribution of wealth did NOT happen in the private sector. It occurred only through the force of government...the very thing I stand against.

These other idiots around here calling what they see as inadequate compensation in their jobs as money "taken" from them are sadly misguided. ONLY government can legally "take" from one and give to another, which is exactly what happened with the bank bail outs.

So, will you continue to support the central planners from either party that support forced redistribution? I hope not.

As to who will pay for that meddling, the answer is not the "rich", but everyone of future generations. What you've uncovered is the evil of the Federal Reserve, who ensures that the wars, entitlement programs and bail outs don't have to be paid for by the current politicians and their voters...they simply force that debt on to those yet born. Here's hoping you stand against those central planners that support the Fed.

 

[eflatminor]

You really want to know?

The employers

The same employers who pay wages that their workers are incapable of supporting themselves. The same employers who expect the taxpayer to provide food and low cost housing so their employees can continue to work for them

Oh...my...God. You collectivists really are dumb as a rock. I'm stunned at the ignorance.

Employment is VOLUNTARY. If you don't like what you're being paid, you can seek employment elsewhere. That's not "taking" anything! Taking is something done by force dumbshit.

Regarding taxpayer imposed entitlements, am I to take it that you're now against that kind of redistribution? Perhaps there is hope after all...

Yes it is

Workers who make substandard wages can "volunteer" because the taxpayers help pay his apartment and food stamps.

Great! Let's stop those entitlements. There is hope after all!

Of course, you do realize that those entitlements...that redistribution...is undertaken by government, NOT the private sector. Kind of throws a wrench in your theory of executives taking from workers. It's government that does that..the very government you support. Oh the irony!

 

[eflatminor]

TOM Sowell is himself a "Trickle-downer" except he calls it "Supply-side" economics.

Why did you capitalize "Tom"?

 

[Truthmatters]

How about you earn your money and others earn theirs, and what anyone spends it on is up to their voluntary choices. Hey, there's a unique concept!

Or do you feel somehow entitled to other people's money?

Hey ain't that an interesting thought. Does that mean that the corporate executive feels he is entitled to his employees money thereby justifying the moving of jobs for American workers off shore? Where those workers get paid very little.

The employer owns the job not the employee. If those employees were compensated for their time then they got their money. If the wage structure and political environment is better in another country an employer has every right to move his operation

And the executive gets a big bonus from the cutting or eliminating of wages for American workers.

Again the jobs are owned by the company if the company can be more efficient with less employees they have every right to down size

How come those executives feel that they need to take the workers pay?

They are not taking anyone's pay. Laborers sell their labor to a company. When the company no longer wishes to buy that labor they don't have to.

Tell me if you decide not to shop at Supermarket A and instead shop at Supermarket B are you taking Supermarket A's money ?

note the big IF.


I guess he wants it to go all the way back to slavery.

"hey they get fed so why should they complain"

 

[Truthmatters]

they really do think the CEO can pick wether to pay people or not for their services


they are that heartless and stupid

 

[R.D.]

TOM Sowell is himself a "Trickle-downer" except he calls it "Supply-side" economics.

Why did you capitalize "Tom"?

Good catch.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

And so yesterday, Barry gets up in front of a crowd of supposedly 'jobless' Americans and he is campaigning once again for another social gimme. In his speech to extend jobless benefits (I thought the Democratic position was that the economy was recovering under Barry?) he advised that if you extend the jobless benefits, those folks out of a job could turn up their heat and buy groceries. Then the heating supply company and the grocer could afford to hire more employees, thereby addressing unemployment as well. WHAT?!?!?!?

And the 'trickle down' theory of economics is what again?

I thought that the left had already declared the theory of 'trickle down' economics as completely and utterly wrong. So what is Barry talking about here? If we follow what the left espouses regarding economics, then the affect of spending this money on unemployment benefits is absolutely, positively ZERO. It will have zero or at the very least negligible affects on unemployment.

Barry just can't help it. I mean the guy opens his mouth and crap rolls out onto the floor and it smells like a stable.

 

[rightwinger]

And so yesterday, Barry gets up in front of a crowd of supposedly 'jobless' Americans and he is campaigning once again for another social gimme. In his speech to extend jobless benefits (I thought the Democratic position was that the economy was recovering under Barry?) he advised that if you extend the jobless benefits, those folks out of a job could turn up their heat and buy groceries. Then the heating supply company and the grocer could afford to hire more employees, thereby addressing unemployment as well. WHAT?!?!?!?

And the 'trickle down' theory of economics is what again?

I thought that the left had already declared the theory of 'trickle down' economics as completely and utterly wrong. So what is Barry talking about here? If we follow what the left espouses regarding economics, then the affect of spending this money on unemployment benefits is absolutely, positively ZERO. It will have zero or at the very least negligible affects on unemployment.

Barry just can't help it. I mean the guy opens his mouth and crap rolls out onto the floor and it smells like a stable.

That looks like "trickle up " economics

Consumer based

 

[edthecynic]

And so yesterday, Barry gets up in front of a crowd of supposedly 'jobless' Americans and he is campaigning once again for another social gimme. In his speech to extend jobless benefits (I thought the Democratic position was that the economy was recovering under Barry?) he advised that if you extend the jobless benefits, those folks out of a job could turn up their heat and buy groceries. Then the heating supply company and the grocer could afford to hire more employees, thereby addressing unemployment as well. WHAT?!?!?!?

And the 'trickle down' theory of economics is what again?

I thought that the left had already declared the theory of 'trickle down' economics as completely and utterly wrong. So what is Barry talking about here? If we follow what the left espouses regarding economics, then the affect of spending this money on unemployment benefits is absolutely, positively ZERO. It will have zero or at the very least negligible affects on unemployment.

Barry just can't help it. I mean the guy opens his mouth and crap rolls out onto the floor and it smells like a stable.

You have it ass backwards as usual. Obama is talking about Demand-sided economics, trickle-down is supply-sided economics.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

And so yesterday, Barry gets up in front of a crowd of supposedly 'jobless' Americans and he is campaigning once again for another social gimme. In his speech to extend jobless benefits (I thought the Democratic position was that the economy was recovering under Barry?) he advised that if you extend the jobless benefits, those folks out of a job could turn up their heat and buy groceries. Then the heating supply company and the grocer could afford to hire more employees, thereby addressing unemployment as well. WHAT?!?!?!?

And the 'trickle down' theory of economics is what again?

I thought that the left had already declared the theory of 'trickle down' economics as completely and utterly wrong. So what is Barry talking about here? If we follow what the left espouses regarding economics, then the affect of spending this money on unemployment benefits is absolutely, positively ZERO. It will have zero or at the very least negligible affects on unemployment.

Barry just can't help it. I mean the guy opens his mouth and crap rolls out onto the floor and it smells like a stable.

You have it ass backwards as usual. Obama is talking about Demand-sided economics, trickle-down is supply-sided economics.

So, the difference is that we give money directly to the grocer and the utilities, that is 'trickle down.' That money somehow doesn't get to anyone else? But we give it to a person, they spend it at the grocer and the utility and that is 'demand side' economics?

Does not the grocer and the utility spend the money they receive, regardless of how they receive it? Or, based on what you're saying, the grocer and the utility get the money first and they just somehow hoard it? Am I the only one who doesn't see how completely illogical the equation is here?

When I owned my business, I didn't care if the money came in the form of tax rebates or from a customer, I spent it. I didn't keep that I got from tax rebates or refunds in a pile and keep it separate. Ridiculous.

 

[edthecynic]

And so yesterday, Barry gets up in front of a crowd of supposedly 'jobless' Americans and he is campaigning once again for another social gimme. In his speech to extend jobless benefits (I thought the Democratic position was that the economy was recovering under Barry?) he advised that if you extend the jobless benefits, those folks out of a job could turn up their heat and buy groceries. Then the heating supply company and the grocer could afford to hire more employees, thereby addressing unemployment as well. WHAT?!?!?!?

And the 'trickle down' theory of economics is what again?

I thought that the left had already declared the theory of 'trickle down' economics as completely and utterly wrong. So what is Barry talking about here? If we follow what the left espouses regarding economics, then the affect of spending this money on unemployment benefits is absolutely, positively ZERO. It will have zero or at the very least negligible affects on unemployment.

Barry just can't help it. I mean the guy opens his mouth and crap rolls out onto the floor and it smells like a stable.

You have it ass backwards as usual. Obama is talking about Demand-sided economics, trickle-down is supply-sided economics.

So, the difference is that we give money directly to the grocer and the utilities, that is 'trickle down.' That money somehow doesn't get to anyone else? But we give it to a person, they spend it at the grocer and the utility and that is 'demand side' economics?

Does not the grocer and the utility spend the money they receive, regardless of how they receive it? Or, based on what you're saying, the grocer and the utility get the money first and they just somehow hoard it? Am I the only one who doesn't see how completely illogical the equation is here?

When I owned my business, I didn't care if the money came in the form of tax rebates or from a customer, I spent it. I didn't keep that I got from tax rebates or refunds in a pile and keep it separate. Ridiculous.

They may spend it but not on restocking what they sold!!! If the money is given to the consumer and the consumer buys groceries, the grocer has to replace his stock to sell more. That new stock has to be produced creating jobs. The grocer, as you stated, in turn spends his profit creating demand also. So giving money to the consumer creates multiple demands, whereas giving the money directly to the grocer creates less demand.

 

[Spiderman]

Hey ain't that an interesting thought. Does that mean that the corporate executive feels he is entitled to his employees money thereby justifying the moving of jobs for American workers off shore? Where those workers get paid very little.

The employer owns the job not the employee. If those employees were compensated for their time then they got their money. If the wage structure and political environment is better in another country an employer has every right to move his operation



Again the jobs are owned by the company if the company can be more efficient with less employees they have every right to down size

How come those executives feel that they need to take the workers pay?

They are not taking anyone's pay. Laborers sell their labor to a company. When the company no longer wishes to buy that labor they don't have to.

Tell me if you decide not to shop at Supermarket A and instead shop at Supermarket B are you taking Supermarket A's money ?

note the big IF.


I guess he wants it to go all the way back to slavery.

"hey they get fed so why should they complain"

How many people in this day and age work for a week and never get paid?

Damn few I would say.

If I own a business and I decide to move to a place where it is more favorable to do business I will tell my employees that a date in the near future is their last day and will pay them what they are due before I close the doors and move.

How is that taking their money?

 

[Spiderman]

they really do think the CEO can pick wether to pay people or not for their services


they are that heartless and stupid

Not really.

Try opening a business and then don't pay your people and see what happens.

FYI you'll be forced to pay them.

 

[Truthmatters]

The employer owns the job not the employee. If those employees were compensated for their time then they got their money. If the wage structure and political environment is better in another country an employer has every right to move his operation



Again the jobs are owned by the company if the company can be more efficient with less employees they have every right to down size



They are not taking anyone's pay. Laborers sell their labor to a company. When the company no longer wishes to buy that labor they don't have to.

Tell me if you decide not to shop at Supermarket A and instead shop at Supermarket B are you taking Supermarket A's money ?

note the big IF.


I guess he wants it to go all the way back to slavery.

"hey they get fed so why should they complain"

How many people in this day and age work for a week and never get paid?

Damn few I would say.

If I own a business and I decide to move to a place where it is more favorable to do business I will tell my employees that a date in the near future is their last day and will pay them what they are due before I close the doors and move.

How is that taking their money?

a job is a contract.

what you seek to do is to make one person in this contract WAY MORE POWERFUL in their negociations.

WHY?????

 

[Truthmatters]

they really do think the CEO can pick wether to pay people or not for their services


they are that heartless and stupid

Not really.

Try opening a business and then don't pay your people and see what happens.

FYI you'll be forced to pay them.

Hmmmmm


who would have the power to enforce such a thing?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Those rich folks are much better off with their money than us working folks

How about you earn your money and others earn theirs, and what anyone spends it on is up to their voluntary choices. Hey, there's a unique concept!

Or do you feel somehow entitled to other people's money?

Hey ain't that an interesting thought. Does that mean that the corporate executive feels he is entitled to his employees money thereby justifying the moving of jobs for American workers off shore? Where those workers get paid very little.

And the executive gets a big bonus from the cutting or eliminating of wages for American workers.

How come those executives feel that they need to take the workers pay?

Gee, maybe because the coporation is privately owned and therefore how they contract workers is their busiess. How the pay the CEO or other executives is there business. How they pay the workers is their business. If the workers do not like it, they have options. Plenty of options. What they do not have, is the right o use the force of government to confiscate what doesn't belong to them because they believe they are entitled to it.

Real rocket science, that.

 

[Spiderman]

note the big IF.


I guess he wants it to go all the way back to slavery.

"hey they get fed so why should they complain"

How many people in this day and age work for a week and never get paid?

Damn few I would say.

If I own a business and I decide to move to a place where it is more favorable to do business I will tell my employees that a date in the near future is their last day and will pay them what they are due before I close the doors and move.

How is that taking their money?

a job is a contract.

Not really. Even if I have a written contract there are ways in that contract to terminate it.
If I hire you with no written contract do you really believe you have a job for life with me?

The business owner is the one who owns the job. The employees agree to sell their time and skill for money. If the business owner no longer needs the time and skill of his workers he is perfectly justified in terminating their employment.

what you seek to do is to make one person in this contract WAY MORE POWERFUL in their negociations.

WHY?????

SInce when is this about negotiations?

This is about the claim that when a business moves offshore thay the business owner is taking the employees money.

He's not.

 

[Immanuel]

Working folks aren't entitled to their money?

You guys make it so obvious

Who is taking working folk's money? Specifically please. I can cite an example. Can you?

You really want to know?

The employers

The same employers who pay wages that their workers are incapable of supporting themselves. The same employers who expect the taxpayer to provide food and low cost housing so their employees can continue to work for them

So, let me get this straight. It is the fault of the owner of the local fast food restaurant or Walmart, that landlords charge $1000 per month for an apartment, cell phone companies charge upwards of $50 a month, cable tv goes for $60 a month, a nice car runs $300 to $500 a month, and don't forget the must have internet connection; therefore fast food and Walmart must pay its employees top notch wages. Sorry, but that is not the way I see it. If the employee wants those "necessities", then he/she needs to earn them. Choose to work at Walmart... Don't expect to have everything you think you deserve. It really is as simple as that!

Immie

 

[rightwinger]

Who is taking working folk's money? Specifically please. I can cite an example. Can you?

You really want to know?

The employers

The same employers who pay wages that their workers are incapable of supporting themselves. The same employers who expect the taxpayer to provide food and low cost housing so their employees can continue to work for them

So, let me get this straight. It is the fault of the owner of the local fast food restaurant or Walmart, that landlords charge $1000 per month for an apartment, cell phone companies charge upwards of $50 a month, cable tv goes for $60 a month, a nice car runs $300 to $500 a month, and don't forget the must have internet connection; therefore fast food and Walmart must pay its employees top notch wages. Sorry, but that is not the way I see it. If the employee wants those "necessities", then he/she needs to earn them. Choose to work at Walmart... Don't expect to have everything you think you deserve. It really is as simple as that!

Immie

Yes...it is their fault

They have given up on paying a wage that keeps pace with the cost of living. Instead, they have transferred that burden onto the taxpayers

 

[Immanuel]

You really want to know?

The employers

The same employers who pay wages that their workers are incapable of supporting themselves. The same employers who expect the taxpayer to provide food and low cost housing so their employees can continue to work for them

So, let me get this straight. It is the fault of the owner of the local fast food restaurant or Walmart, that landlords charge $1000 per month for an apartment, cell phone companies charge upwards of $50 a month, cable tv goes for $60 a month, a nice car runs $300 to $500 a month, and don't forget the must have internet connection; therefore fast food and Walmart must pay its employees top notch wages. Sorry, but that is not the way I see it. If the employee wants those "necessities", then he/she needs to earn them. Choose to work at Walmart... Don't expect to have everything you think you deserve. It really is as simple as that!

Immie

Yes...it is their fault

They have given up on paying a wage that keeps pace with the cost of living. Instead, they have transferred that burden onto the taxpayers

RW, my friend, we never agree and we don't here, but I always enjoy conversing with you. Suffice it to say in this case, that you are off your rocker.

Respectfully stated!

Immie