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

[danielpalos]

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

Kind of depends on where you live to be honest but $75k isn't what I would consider blue collar middle class in 2009.

The chart isn't intended to define middle class. It's simply a snapshot of mobility. This is something Socialists can't comprehend. In a Socialist society there isn't any real mobility, everyone remains relatively the same throughout their lives... they are born into the working class or the ruling class and that's where they stay. In OUR system, you can be in any class you want to be in... FREEDOM lets you do that. So there is natural mobility happening and those with less are always in pursuit of more.

Your chart doesn't show any mobility. You aren't even willing to say that a family earning $75,000 in 2009 is an upper class income. Obviously you know better.

There is no ruling class in a socialist society. That is the realization of true freedom.

we simply are not moral enough in modern times; that requires, social morals for free.

 

[danielpalos]

Your chart doesn't show any mobility. You aren't even willing to say that a family earning $75,000 in 2009 is an upper class income. Obviously you know better.

There is no ruling class in a socialist society. That is the realization of true freedom.

Well yes, the chart certainly does show mobility, that's it's intent and purpose. Do you not know what is meant by "mobility" or something? It means moving from one thing to another thing. In this case, moving from "middle income" to "upper income" ...and yes, $75k is not a typical "middle" income. Whether you want to use a median average or a mean average, $75k is well above that. Now you can say $75k is still "middle class" and I won't argue that point but the purpose of the chart wasn't to define what is middle class. You are trying to distract from the point the chart is making in order to argue a point it was never making.

In doing so, you reveal yet another problem we have with your entire War on Wealth agenda... you can't ******* define where middle class ends and upper class begins. You can just arbitrarily draw the lines wherever you need to in the moment and jump around at will whenever it's convenient. It's just another platitude that means nothing.

We don't have CLASSES in America. That's an invention of the Socialists to engage in class warfare. This is because, in Europe and Asia, where Socialism cut it's teeth, that's how Socialism had to be sold to the masses. In those countries, people were born into their class and remained in that class their entire life. The hopeless state of their inherited class is what fostered enthusiasm for this new idea of Utopian Socialism. We don't have a need for that here because we have free enterprise and a free market system which allows free individuals to achieve any level of wealth they desire. You're not confined to a class here, you can be in any class you want to be in. BUT.... Socialists can't promote Socialism if the people realize they're not victims of class with no hope. That's why we hear the term "middle class" and "working class" in the modern lexicon.

Not solving simple poverty on an at-will basis, distorts markets anyway. Why resort to more socialism than, necessary and proper.

 

[danielpalos]

'Trickle Down'

The practice of taking money from the middle class and letting it 'trickle down' to those addicted to / stuck depending on Govt Provided Social programs designed to help the poor survive but never improve their status to the point they can someday get off of those Programs, such as Food Stamps, Welfare, etc...

These programs are designed to keep people dependent on the federal govt and the politicians who promise to keep that money coming...as long as you vote for them.

THAT'S the real 'Trickle Down' in this country....

Not even close.

There's no where near the corruption or welfare fraud in low income families as there is in big corporations.

You RWNJs know this is true but you like gittin' yer hate on for poor families, especially since they're elderly, children, vets, military, handicapped.

IOW, the people you hate.

Most are white but you just love telling yourself they're black.


[emoji90]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

just typical, right wing, "hate on the poor", in the Age of Corporate Welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

It's all very simple to fix. We just need educated Americans who will demand our elected officials enact the measures which will put us back on the road to prosperity.

Unfortunately, the propaganda outlets of both sides of the political spectrum have spent the last two decades dumbing down the electorate to the point of deep delusions, willful ignorance, and mind boggling stupidity.

The solutions are:

1. Ban tax expenditures. These are an annual $1.4 trillion transfer of wealth up the food chain, and the single biggest reason our tax rates are as high as they are. The national debt is not caused by evil rich people not having higher tax rates. Nor is it caused by darkies on food stamps. It is caused by tax expenditures.

2. Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility age to 70, and index the age to 9 percent of the population going forward. We are living decades longer than our ancestors who created Social Security. Common sense demands we work longer.

3. Our military spending is at levels we have not seen since World War II, when adjusted for inflation. We are not engaged in a World War and should spend accordingly. Long before Trump came along, I have been saying our allies need to pick up their fair share of our common defense. They look down their noses at us for not spending as much on a social safety net as they do, all the while depending on us to defend them out of our pockets. Let's see how snooty they are, and how strong their social safety nets are, when they have to pick up their own defense tab.

How many companies want 69 year old workers? Screw them over and then give them a pittance based on last year's income. Republicans are so f*cking heartless. Truly mean spirited people.

I refuse to "subsidize" lousy management with my Labor; and insist on recourse to the literal meaning and letter of the law regarding the concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

 

[danielpalos]

We need to double the social security tax, for the common good !!!! Lmfao

end the drug war, right wingers; it is just, drug money.

 

[danielpalos]

How many companies want 69 year old workers? Screw them over and then give them a pittance based on last year's income. Republicans are so f*cking heartless. Truly mean spirited people.

You're reacting on sheer emotion and nothing else. For the past 80+ years, we've poured trillions of tax dollars into programs to solve all these emotive circumstances you come up with. We don't seem to ever have enough money to deliver Utopia. There's always 69 year olds who can't find a job... kids who can't afford college... sick people with no health care... on and on and on!

You think Republicans are "heartless" because they don't want to continue doing what hasn't worked. In your mind, the ONLY solution to the emotive problems you find is to have government take from the wealthy and give to the needy. Socialism!

Even though you are shown history that Socialism fails repeatedly, you can't disabuse yourself of the notion. At some point, you need to grow up and stop making decisions based on your emotions. Then you will start to understand we're never going to solve ALL the problems. Utopia is a fairy tale.

In America, if someone feels their pay is not adequate for the work they do, they are FREE to go do something else or seek better pay. If no one wants to pay what you feel you're worth, be your own boss! Again, we have that freedom here. Once you've turned your freedom over to the State, you'll do what they tell you to do and you won't complain. If you do complain or can't be productive, they shoot you in the head.

Here's the thing about Conservatism, even Liberal Progressives benefit from Conservative philosophy. All of these emotional "problems" you're conjuring up are better taken care of by a healthy and vibrant capitalist economy that is flourishing.

There is no excuse for Congress, when assembled; they Must discover the ways and means, to provide for the general welfare and common defense.

 

[deanrd]

It's all very simple to fix. We just need educated Americans who will demand our elected officials enact the measures which will put us back on the road to prosperity.

Unfortunately, the propaganda outlets of both sides of the political spectrum have spent the last two decades dumbing down the electorate to the point of deep delusions, willful ignorance, and mind boggling stupidity.

The solutions are:

1. Ban tax expenditures. These are an annual $1.4 trillion transfer of wealth up the food chain, and the single biggest reason our tax rates are as high as they are. The national debt is not caused by evil rich people not having higher tax rates. Nor is it caused by darkies on food stamps. It is caused by tax expenditures.

2. Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility age to 70, and index the age to 9 percent of the population going forward. We are living decades longer than our ancestors who created Social Security. Common sense demands we work longer.

3. Our military spending is at levels we have not seen since World War II, when adjusted for inflation. We are not engaged in a World War and should spend accordingly. Long before Trump came along, I have been saying our allies need to pick up their fair share of our common defense. They look down their noses at us for not spending as much on a social safety net as they do, all the while depending on us to defend them out of our pockets. Let's see how snooty they are, and how strong their social safety nets are, when they have to pick up their own defense tab.

How many companies want 69 year old workers? Screw them over and then give them a pittance based on last year's income. Republicans are so f*cking heartless. Truly mean spirited people.

In what kind of shape do you think a 64 year old was in 1935? That's when Social Security was created.

The 69 year old of today is far, far healthier than the 64 year old of 1935. The average life expectancy back then was 60, and only 5.4% of the population was over the age of 65. Social Security was insurance. It was not meant for everyone to collect. It was intended for those who beat the odds.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors who created Social Security. If we are living longer, we should be working longer. Common damned sense.

Today, nearly 15% of Americans are over the age of 65. That's more than the entire population of Canada.

A child born today will live past 100. That is clearly an unsustainable trend. You would have people living off Social Security for more than a third of their lives!

It is people like you who are the truly mean spirited people. You want to retire and live off the hard work of a smaller and smaller percentage of the population for decades longer than you should.

Yea 'em till they are dead you mean spirited a............................

 

[danielpalos]

end the drug war right wingers; drug money can fiscally multiply, "euphorically" instead of negatively.

 

[Boss]

There is no excuse for Congress, when assembled; they Must discover the ways and means, to provide for the general welfare and common defense.

You don't even understand what "general welfare" means.

Have you read Madison's explanation in the Federalist Papers?

 

[danielpalos]

There is no excuse for Congress, when assembled; they Must discover the ways and means, to provide for the general welfare and common defense.

You don't even understand what "general welfare" means.

Have you read Madison's explanation in the Federalist Papers?

Of course I understand it; I am a federalist. Why not ask a relevant question instead of only having red herrings for your fisherman work ethic?

 

[Boss]

Of course I understand it; I am a federalist. Why not ask a relevant question instead of only having red herrings for your fisherman work ethic?

So explain to me what Madison understood "general welfare" to mean?

 

[danielpalos]

Of course I understand it; I am a federalist. Why not ask a relevant question instead of only having red herrings for your fisherman work ethic?

So explain to me what Madison understood "general welfare" to mean?

He did not say it meant; the general warfare or the general badfare. Let's start with that.

 

[Boss]

Of course I understand it; I am a federalist. Why not ask a relevant question instead of only having red herrings for your fisherman work ethic?

So explain to me what Madison understood "general welfare" to mean?

He did not say it meant; the general warfare or the general badfare. Let's start with that.

I asked you to explain what Madison understood "general welfare" to mean. Either you can do that or you can't. Telling me what he DIDN'T say, isn't what I asked you. Now, perhaps you want to try again?

 

[danielpalos]

Of course I understand it; I am a federalist. Why not ask a relevant question instead of only having red herrings for your fisherman work ethic?

So explain to me what Madison understood "general welfare" to mean?

He did not say it meant; the general warfare or the general badfare. Let's start with that.

I asked you to explain what Madison understood "general welfare" to mean. Either you can do that or you can't. Telling me what he DIDN'T say, isn't what I asked you. Now, perhaps you want to try again?

Do you agree that general welfare, cannot mean, general badfare?

 

[Boss]

Of course I understand it; I am a federalist. Why not ask a relevant question instead of only having red herrings for your fisherman work ethic?

So explain to me what Madison understood "general welfare" to mean?

He did not say it meant; the general warfare or the general badfare. Let's start with that.

I asked you to explain what Madison understood "general welfare" to mean. Either you can do that or you can't. Telling me what he DIDN'T say, isn't what I asked you. Now, perhaps you want to try again?

Do you agree that general welfare, cannot mean, general badfare?

"Badfare" isn't even a ******* word.

Can you not explain what Madison understood "general welfare" to mean?

 

[danielpalos]

Of course I understand it; I am a federalist. Why not ask a relevant question instead of only having red herrings for your fisherman work ethic?

So explain to me what Madison understood "general welfare" to mean?

He did not say it meant; the general warfare or the general badfare. Let's start with that.

I asked you to explain what Madison understood "general welfare" to mean. Either you can do that or you can't. Telling me what he DIDN'T say, isn't what I asked you. Now, perhaps you want to try again?

Do you agree that general welfare, cannot mean, general badfare?

"Badfare" isn't even a ******* word.

Can you not explain what Madison understood "general welfare" to mean?

It is about definitions, dear. There is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause.

 

[Boss]

So explain to me what Madison understood "general welfare" to mean?

He did not say it meant; the general warfare or the general badfare. Let's start with that.

I asked you to explain what Madison understood "general welfare" to mean. Either you can do that or you can't. Telling me what he DIDN'T say, isn't what I asked you. Now, perhaps you want to try again?

Do you agree that general welfare, cannot mean, general badfare?

"Badfare" isn't even a ******* word.

Can you not explain what Madison understood "general welfare" to mean?

It is about definitions, dear. There is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause.

No, the Constitution isn't about arbitrary definitions you pull outta your ass. It took years of deliberation and careful thought in every single line. The Federalist Papers serve as an outline and expanded explanation. If want to know what something in the Constitution means, you look to the Federalist Papers, not the dictionary. In Federalist #41, Madison explains how "general welfare" cannot possibly mean what modern liberal progressives claim. If it did, Madison asserts, there would be no purpose in enumerating powers or even the rest of the Constitution itself.

"General welfare" is specifically referring to the listed things in Article I Sec. 8. Nothing else is authorized or implied and no further powers are granted. So regardless of what a dictionary says, if it's not in Article I Sec. 8, it's not "general welfare." And this is explained by the man who wrote the damn thing.

 

[danielpalos]

He did not say it meant; the general warfare or the general badfare. Let's start with that.

I asked you to explain what Madison understood "general welfare" to mean. Either you can do that or you can't. Telling me what he DIDN'T say, isn't what I asked you. Now, perhaps you want to try again?

Do you agree that general welfare, cannot mean, general badfare?

"Badfare" isn't even a ******* word.

Can you not explain what Madison understood "general welfare" to mean?

It is about definitions, dear. There is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause.

No, the Constitution isn't about arbitrary definitions you pull outta your ass. It took years of deliberation and careful thought in every single line. The Federalist Papers serve as an outline and expanded explanation. If want to know what something in the Constitution means, you look to the Federalist Papers, not the dictionary. In Federalist #41, Madison explains how "general welfare" cannot possibly mean what modern liberal progressives claim. If it did, Madison asserts, there would be no purpose in enumerating powers or even the rest of the Constitution itself.

"General welfare" is specifically referring to the listed things in Article I Sec. 8. Nothing else is authorized or implied and no further powers are granted. So regardless of what a dictionary says, if it's not in Article I Sec. 8, it's not "general welfare." And this is explained by the man who wrote the damn thing.

How did we get, wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they are nowhere enumerated in our Constitution. Providing for the general welfare is explicitly enumerated. The general welfare is not the specific welfare. You cannot win claiming any specifics, for the general welfare.

 

[Boss]

I asked you to explain what Madison understood "general welfare" to mean. Either you can do that or you can't. Telling me what he DIDN'T say, isn't what I asked you. Now, perhaps you want to try again?

Do you agree that general welfare, cannot mean, general badfare?

"Badfare" isn't even a ******* word.

Can you not explain what Madison understood "general welfare" to mean?

It is about definitions, dear. There is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause.

No, the Constitution isn't about arbitrary definitions you pull outta your ass. It took years of deliberation and careful thought in every single line. The Federalist Papers serve as an outline and expanded explanation. If want to know what something in the Constitution means, you look to the Federalist Papers, not the dictionary. In Federalist #41, Madison explains how "general welfare" cannot possibly mean what modern liberal progressives claim. If it did, Madison asserts, there would be no purpose in enumerating powers or even the rest of the Constitution itself.

"General welfare" is specifically referring to the listed things in Article I Sec. 8. Nothing else is authorized or implied and no further powers are granted. So regardless of what a dictionary says, if it's not in Article I Sec. 8, it's not "general welfare." And this is explained by the man who wrote the damn thing.

How did we get, wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they are nowhere enumerated in our Constitution. Providing for the general welfare is explicitly enumerated. The general welfare is not the specific welfare. You cannot win claiming any specifics, for the general welfare.

*sigh* Well.. "how we get things" has nothing to do with what the Constitution says! The congress has passed laws and courts have upheld MANY unconstitutional things, should I list some of those to refresh your memory?

The "general welfare" clause has been highly debated through the years but you have to go back to what the author explained he meant. That is found in Federalist #41. The "general welfare" IS specific welfare, it's outlined fully in Article I Sec. 8.

 

[danielpalos]

Do you agree that general welfare, cannot mean, general badfare?

"Badfare" isn't even a ******* word.

Can you not explain what Madison understood "general welfare" to mean?

It is about definitions, dear. There is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause.

No, the Constitution isn't about arbitrary definitions you pull outta your ass. It took years of deliberation and careful thought in every single line. The Federalist Papers serve as an outline and expanded explanation. If want to know what something in the Constitution means, you look to the Federalist Papers, not the dictionary. In Federalist #41, Madison explains how "general welfare" cannot possibly mean what modern liberal progressives claim. If it did, Madison asserts, there would be no purpose in enumerating powers or even the rest of the Constitution itself.

"General welfare" is specifically referring to the listed things in Article I Sec. 8. Nothing else is authorized or implied and no further powers are granted. So regardless of what a dictionary says, if it's not in Article I Sec. 8, it's not "general welfare." And this is explained by the man who wrote the damn thing.

How did we get, wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they are nowhere enumerated in our Constitution. Providing for the general welfare is explicitly enumerated. The general welfare is not the specific welfare. You cannot win claiming any specifics, for the general welfare.

*sigh* Well.. "how we get things" has nothing to do with what the Constitution says! The congress has passed laws and courts have upheld MANY unconstitutional things, should I list some of those to refresh your memory?

The "general welfare" clause has been highly debated through the years but you have to go back to what the author explained he meant. That is found in Federalist #41. The "general welfare" IS specific welfare, it's outlined fully in Article I Sec. 8.

Yes, Article 1, Section 8 enumerates the Terms general welfare and continues with explanations and qualifications; only the right wing, never gets it.