The Failure Of “Trickle Down”, and The Generation That Understands This

[danielpalos]

Where were lefties during the eight years when "90% of Americans didn't fair well" during the Obama years? It's getting down right laughable that small minded lefties dig up the tired old trickle down argument only during republican administrations. Don't they think we notice?

A better question would be where were the Conservatives during Obama's 8 years? All they did was obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. They offered nothing to improve the economy. In fact, they hurt it through Sequestration and shutting down the government in 2013.

Yes, thank god they obstructed the socialist asshole. Should have done more really.

with nothing but repeal? even wo-men in the Non Porn sector, can do that.

 

[skews13]

Libs do it to smear capitalism. And they do it because socialist have taken over the movement. All this noise boils down to capitalism vs. socialism and Trump is the personification of how evil capitalism is.

We already have plenty of socialism in this country already. Socialism and capitalism can peacefully co-exist in the same state; they have both in all our European allies, as well as our allies in Japan, Korea, and Israel. It's ridiculous to say that any economy is 100% capitalism. None of them are. But regardless, the problem isn't capitalism. The problem is the human condition of greed, which is something Conservatives never seem to account for...

Socialism is state owned means of production. You don't even know what the word means.

Do you get your, "encyclopedic" understanding of Socialism, from a dictionary?

Socialism starts with a social Contract, like a Constitution.

And government subsidies to private companies.

 

[Iceweasel]

Libs do it to smear capitalism. And they do it because socialist have taken over the movement. All this noise boils down to capitalism vs. socialism and Trump is the personification of how evil capitalism is.

We already have plenty of socialism in this country already. Socialism and capitalism can peacefully co-exist in the same state; they have both in all our European allies, as well as our allies in Japan, Korea, and Israel. It's ridiculous to say that any economy is 100% capitalism. None of them are. But regardless, the problem isn't capitalism. The problem is the human condition of greed, which is something Conservatives never seem to account for...

Socialism is state owned means of production. You don't even know what the word means.

Do you get your, "encyclopedic" understanding of Socialism, from a dictionary?

Socialism starts with a social Contract, like a Constitution.

And government subsidies to private companies.

...otherwise known as crony "capitalism". That's the beginning of the love affair.

 

[Iceweasel]

Socialism is state owned means of production. You don't even know what the word means.

And what exactly is socialist in this country, or what is being proposed by liberals that would result in this? Nothing.

Wrong. The bigger government gets the more control it exerts on the marketplace. Eventually companies can't meet the demands and only government can run it.

end our, nationally socialized drug war, right wingers.

Your problem is obvious.

 

[The Derp]

The costs for insurance is not low, many people have had huge increases. The more government is involved the more complex and expensive things cost. Your theory is bogus. But I said nothing about insurance in particular, there's much more to an economy than that. Although it was a major first step.

A few things here:

1. So long as there is a profit motive tied to the administration of reimbursement to providers, premiums will never come down.
2. Premiums were increasing prior to Obamacare, at rates higher than the growth of premiums Pre-ACA
3. Medical bankruptcies made up 60% of all bankruptcies prior to the ACA, with the average medical debt of about $17K (Obamacare caps out of pocket costs at about $6,500 for individuals and $14,000 for families).
4. The more private insurers there are, the more leverage providers and drug companies have. Fewer insurers (or a single payer) prevents providers and drug companies from playing insurers off one another for higher fees. When there are more payors than providers, who has the bargaining power? When there are more providers than payors, who has the bargaining power?
5. I agree there's more to the economy than insurance, but I asked you what other mandates there are aside from insurance. Health insurance itself is not germane to health care. It is parasitic and offers nothing to improve or enhance your care. It only restricts it. You can only go to doctors in your network, and if you choose not to you have to pay high fees. In a single payer system, there are no networks anymore and you're free to go to whatever provider you want. You can't do that in today's system, or the system prior without spending tons out of pocket.
6. To this day, no one has been able to make the case that the service insurance companies provide is any better or more cost effective than the service Medicare provides. In fact, many private insurers use Medicare as the template when devising processes.

 

[The Derp]

Yes, thank god they obstructed the socialist asshole. Should have done more really.

They obstructed at the expense of the economy. That's what you don't seem to grasp. The economy struggled not because of anything Obama wanted to do, but because Conservatives forfiet their duties to govern, made obstruction their agenda, and produced nothing to improve the economy. Even today, while they control all three branches of Congress, they are unable to produce anything that will benefit this country. In the seven years they had to come up with an Obamacare replacement, the best they can do is devise a system that kicks 23,000,000 people off insurance, spikes costs for seniors, and defeats the purpose of health insurance.

 

[Iceweasel]

Yes, thank god they obstructed the socialist asshole. Should have done more really.

They obstructed at the expense of the economy.

Bullshit. Obama was out to kill business with regulations and EOs.

 

[danielpalos]

Libs do it to smear capitalism. And they do it because socialist have taken over the movement. All this noise boils down to capitalism vs. socialism and Trump is the personification of how evil capitalism is.

We already have plenty of socialism in this country already. Socialism and capitalism can peacefully co-exist in the same state; they have both in all our European allies, as well as our allies in Japan, Korea, and Israel. It's ridiculous to say that any economy is 100% capitalism. None of them are. But regardless, the problem isn't capitalism. The problem is the human condition of greed, which is something Conservatives never seem to account for...

Socialism is state owned means of production. You don't even know what the word means.

Do you get your, "encyclopedic" understanding of Socialism, from a dictionary?

Socialism starts with a social Contract, like a Constitution.

And government subsidies to private companies.

Only, until the (other) Peoples' money, runs out.

 

[The Derp]

Here it is again, lefties blaming conservatives for the eight years of negative growth during the Obama years.

But Conservatives are to blame. They offered nothing to improve the economy and made obstruction their governing agenda. They voted to repeal Obamacare 60+ times in 7 years without a replacement plan. Which proves Conservatives aren't interested in fixing the system...if they were, then they would have had an Obamacare replacement ready to go after 7 years of voting to repeal it 60+ times. The bill they ended up with kicks 23,000,000 off insurance, spikes costs for seniors, guts Medicaid, and would throw the insurance marketplace into turmoil. They shut down the government, costing the economy about $23B. They haven't produced a single Jobs bill, and continue to rely on debunked tax cutting nonsense that was just repealed in Kansas because it didn't deliver on any of the promises made of it. So why would Conservatives suddenly know how to grow an economy today? The examples of their past efforts during Bush the Dumber and during Brownback in Kansas seem to indicate the opposite.

Barry Hussein vowed to shut down the fossil fuel industry while the rest of the world gobbled it up and we ended up with laughable bills like "cash for clunkers" and failed alternate energy corporations like Solyndra. Lefties kept their heads in the sand while Hillary sold uranium sites to Russia and accepted about a quarter of a million dollars each for a series of money laundering events disguised as speeches to Wall Street bankers.

Obama did not vow to shut down the fossil fuel industry. So already, your argument starts from a false premise. The fossil fuel industry was already in decline when Obama took over. Nothing Obama did killed any fossil fuel jobs. In fact, because of Obama, solar power now costs 1/3 of what it did in 2009, there are more solar jobs than all fossil fuel jobs combined. So you can trot out Solyndra and its $700M loss, but I'll just point to the fossil fuel industry, which lost $50B in oil bankruptcies alone between 2009-2016. So which is more? $700M or $50B? What has killed fossil fuel jobs is the drop in oil prices. That's had more to do with the job loss than anything Obama did. As for her WS speeches...I find it odd that you are screeching about HRC doing that while ignoring the fact that Trump has appointed dozens of Wall Street veterans to major positions of power including Secretary of Commerce and Treasury. So why are you attacking HRC for taking money from Wall Street for speeches while turning a blind eye to Trump putting Wall Street alums into positions of power in his cabinet?

Meanwhile the democrat party ran socialist for president and their shrinking small minded base still manages to convince themselves that conservatives are the problem. No wonder they lost the presidency, both houses of congress, most governors and more than 3,000 state and local elections in less than a decade.

True, Conservatives have done a spectacular job consolidating their power the last decade. But what do they have to show for it? Nothing. We can just look at Kansas; Conservatives took control in 2010, passed tax cuts in 2012, then saw the state's surplus vanish into record deficits, job and GDP growth below the national average, three credit downgrades, increased health care and tuition costs, raiding of the welfare block grant and the highway fund, and business growth below all its neighbors and the country as a whole. Same thing happened in Wisconsin, Arizona, and Louisiana. Conservatives have absolutely no economic successes they can point to. None at all.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism is state owned means of production. You don't even know what the word means.

And what exactly is socialist in this country, or what is being proposed by liberals that would result in this? Nothing.

Wrong. The bigger government gets the more control it exerts on the marketplace. Eventually companies can't meet the demands and only government can run it.

end our, nationally socialized drug war, right wingers.

Your problem is obvious.

even wo-men in the Non Porn sector can do what you do; yet, you claim equality for pay purposes.

 

[The Derp]

Bullshit. Obama was out to kill business with regulations and EOs.

And which regulations and EO's were those? Obama left office with more jobs than when he entered it. Bush the Dumber is the one who killed businesses, having lost net 841,000 private sector jobs in his first four years, and net 460,000 private sector jobs lost after 8.

 

[The Derp]

Notice that in both 2001 and 2002, the US economy continued to grow on an annual basis (the "technical" recession was just a few quarters). Their work suggests that this growth was entirely due to MEWs. In fact, MEWs contributed over 3% to GDP growth in 2004 and 2005, and 2% in 2006. Without US homeowners using their homes as an ATM, the economy would have been very sluggish indeed, averaging much less than 1% for the six years of the Bush presidency. Indeed, as a side observation, without home equity withdrawals the economy would have been so bad it would have been almost impossible for Bush to have won a second term. The Economic Blue Screen of Death

Thank you for posting this. It is exactly what I've been saying for years; that Bush and the Conservatives deliberately inflated a housing bubble in order to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of the tax cuts when it wasn't. This chart and link you provided would seem to support that charge. Without the mortgage bubble, Bush would not have won re-election in 2004 because the economy was in the toilet as a result of his tax cutting policies.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Yes, thank god they obstructed the socialist asshole. Should have done more really.

They obstructed at the expense of the economy.

Bullshit. Obama was out to kill business with regulations and EOs.

The evidence of which is?


See, Ice......this shit you have been told to believe?

It's shit.....

 

[Mr.Blonde]

OK, but that's just what you believe. That is not fact. So you have an opinion that you seem to be substituting for fact. Medicare and Social Security were both challenged in the courts by Conservatives who believed both programs were unconstitutional. They were wrong. So why do you insist on re-litigating battles that have already been fought? It makes no sense, and makes you look petty and small.

What I believe is fact. I can even quote exactly where it is mentioned in the Constitution:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So you are saying the justices who decided "Plessy v. Ferguson" were correct? So I guess you believe Oliver Brown should have just shut up then?

Neither is the word "gun" or "abortion". The Constitution is written fairly broadly and vaguely on purpose. They didn't have all the answers in 1776, and trying to apply 18th-Century thinking to 21-st century issues defeats the purpose of the Constitution and its evolution. You don't still treat medical conditions with leeches, so why would you apply 18th-century thinking to solve 21st-century problems?

And there is a legal constitutional solution. It is called an Article 5 Convention.

Class warfare has been waged in this country since 1980, only now are the middle and lower classes fighting back. We cut taxes, household debt skyrocketed, wages stagnated, and we had periods of bubble-led growth. They just repealed trickle-down economics in Kansas because it was a disaster. What makes you think it will work this time?

You are missing an important thing the federal government. The federal government has made it not worth doing a lot of business here.

Taxation should be used to influence behavior, and we shouldn't "punish" good things like income.

Who decides what "good behavior" that should be promoted is?

What if someone decides thata good Christian Life style should be promoted and uses the tax code to punish other types?

Or how about if the government decides to punish Democrats for having children, but promotes Republicans having children?

 

[The Derp]

What I believe is fact. I can even quote exactly where it is mentioned in the Constitution
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

General welfare clause. Why are you determined to re-litigate things that have already been settled. The government is given very broad powers, including the ability for Congress to create laws that apply nationally. It's kind of their purpose to do that. I never said the justices deciding Plessy v. Ferguson are correct. And they overturned Plessy v. Ferguson in Brown v. KS Board of Education.

And there is a legal constitutional solution. It is called an Article 5 Convention.

So you didn't even address the issue I was talking about. And you can screech Article 5 till the cows come home, but a Constitutional Convention is never going to happen. Furthermore, my point is that there is no mention of "gun" or "abortion" in the Constitution either, yet you all seem pretty sure there is. So where does that leave us? You living in Conservative fantasyland with everyone else living in reality. Why do we have to placate your ego? Get over yourself.

You are missing an important thing the federal government. The federal government has made it not worth doing a lot of business here.

Completely untrue, unsupported and bullshit nonsense. Fact is, you cannot come up with one single example as to why you think this. You speak in terms of generalities and vagueness for a purpose; that purpose is that you don't know the first thing about which you speak, but are desperate to be taken seriously. So you end up posting generalized, ambiguous nonsense that doesn't seem to sweat the details. That's because you all do a lot of sloppy work. That's why none of your policies succeed anywhere. That's why they just repealed trickle-down in Kansas. The policy is bunk. So if the policy is bunk, what does that say about the people pushing that bunk policy? The federal government isn't even in the picture with what we're talking about here; namely that trickle-down economics doesn't work. Kansas was billed as "the red state model". In 2012, McConnell said Brownback's Tax Cuts were "what we want to do here [Washington] but can't, for now."

If they didn't work in Kansas, why would they work nationally? We already tried such a plan in 2001 when Bush the Dumber cut taxes.

Who decides what "good behavior" that should be promoted is?

Congress makes that determination and they have the power to collect and levy taxes and tariffs.

What if someone decides thata good Christian Life style should be promoted and uses the tax code to punish other types?

Separation of Church and State. First Amendment won't allow that. Do you need a tutorial on the Constitution?

Or how about if the government decides to punish Democrats for having children, but promotes Republicans having children?

How would they do that? Since most people aren't even registered in one party or another, I'm wondering why you feel the need to argue in hypothetical instead of reality? Do you have any real world examples, or does your argument exist exclusively in the realm of imagination and fantasy?

 

[TheDude]

I only read part of the OP. It's so bad, so void of facts, and loaded on bias and misinformation . But I do have a few points.

1. Millennials aren't as responsible as former generations. Many assume spend $10 on beers at the local than save for a home. They like to travel, etc. Saving cash just isn't part of the equation.

2. I bought my first house when I was 22. That was 1984. Interest rates were well above 10%. My mortgage payment was approaching 700 a month with tax/insurance. I was earning $5.89 an hour, with 10 hours OT a week. Today's interest rates are low as FK, especially under Obama.

3. By an large millennials are liberal. These are the people who want our gates open to immigration (fewer jobs & reduced standard of living) & more stuff (higher taxes). Liberals are their own worst enemies.

 

[Boss]

I don't have to believe anything. I just have to notice a middleclass that used to be strong, that disappeared after the Reagan Administration.

Well, let's take a quick look at what happened to the middle class...

As you can see, since 1967 the middle income families have been declining. But where are they going? The lower income families are also declining slightly over the same time. Which group is increasing? That's where your middle class is disappearing to!

You see, the problem that Socialists have with trying to refute our free market capitalist system is, it just ******* produces wealthy people! Our system creates more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. So that has to somehow be turned into a "problem" that needs a Socialist to fix! If only free market capitalism could kill 150 million people like Socialism, they wouldn't have such trouble knocking it down. But instead, it just keeps churning out rich people! DAMMIT!

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yes, thank god they obstructed the socialist asshole. Should have done more really.

They obstructed at the expense of the economy.

Bullshit. Obama was out to kill business with regulations and EOs.

The evidence of which is?


See, Ice......this shit you have been told to believe?

It's shit.....

What do you play stupid on purpose?


Look at the biggest one Obama care.

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yes, thank god they obstructed the socialist asshole. Should have done more really.

They obstructed at the expense of the economy.

Bullshit. Obama was out to kill business with regulations and EOs.

The evidence of which is?


See, Ice......this shit you have been told to believe?

It's shit.....

What do you play stupid on purpose?


Look at the biggest one Obama care.

.

Then look at this...


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/03/24/obamas-slams-small-businesses-with-excessive-regulations?context=amp




How Obama Is Keeping Small Businesses Down
Richard Williams • March 25, 2014, at 8:00 a.m.


In 1995, President Bill Clinton determined that small businesses were in dire need of relief from the smothering effect of hundreds of thousands of pages of federal regulations. He worked with a Republican Congress to produce the most significant legislation ever to help small businesses, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Ac t.

By contrast, the current administration has talked about helping small businesses, but continues to enact regulatory policies that limit their ability to profit and deters new businesses from entering the market. In fact, the current plan appears to be one of speeding up regulations.

President Obama has said that “small businesses have always formed the backbone of the American economy. These entrepreneurial pioneers embody the spirit of possibility, the tireless work ethic, and the simple hope for something better that lies at the heart of the American ideal.” But the rate of growth for regulatory restrictions was approximately 38 percent larger for the Obama administration between 2009 and 2012 as it was during a similar number of years for President George W. Bush (2001 to 2004). Restrictions are actual regulatory requirements telling business what they “must’ or “shall” do. But, of course, these are just additions to regulatory restrictions that have been piling up since the 1870’s and now number more than 1 million. And yet Obama, more than any other president, has made decreasing the overall regulatory burden a high priority, issuing a specific executive order to require agencies to decrease the enormous volume of regulations

.

And Trumps EO, 2 for 1 tries to slam Obama's hatred for business



https://www.google.com/amp/thehill....-trump-to-sign-order-reducing-regulations?amp





.

 

[Tehon]

I don't have to believe anything. I just have to notice a middleclass that used to be strong, that disappeared after the Reagan Administration.

Well, let's take a quick look at what happened to the middle class...

View attachment 132543
As you can see, since 1967 the middle income families have been declining. But where are they going? The lower income families are also declining slightly over the same time. Which group is increasing? That's where your middle class is disappearing to!

You see, the problem that Socialists have with trying to refute our free market capitalist system is, it just ******* produces wealthy people! Our system creates more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. So that has to somehow be turned into a "problem" that needs a Socialist to fix! If only free market capitalism could kill 150 million people like Socialism, they wouldn't have such trouble knocking it down. But instead, it just keeps churning out rich people! DAMMIT!

You think a family making $75,000 in 2009 constitutes an upper class income? Really?