It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hillary Clinton: 'Trickle-Down Economics Has Failed'

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: badgerprints




She's deflecting. The last 7 years have been a Keynesian experiment on a level never before seen in history.


No kidding.

I have been trying to figure out what the CLintons and her party obsession is with the rich, and taxes.

When all they have to do is call up the federal reserve and say print a few trillion.




posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

No I do not think trickle down economics works for the majority, and I think Hillary Clinton would continue the system that is working for the 1%.


I don't believe that, as most democrats hope to see the survival of the middle class.

You think the republicans have majority's interest at heart? I honestly can't fathom why anyone would believe that. ?



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting


I don't believe that, as most democrats hope to see the survival of the middle class.

You think the republicans have majority's interest at heart? I honestly can't fathom why anyone would believe that. ?


Democrats hope to see the "survival" of the middle class?
Funny that you would term it like that.

And just who do you think the majority actually is?



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96


I have been trying to figure out what the CLintons and her party obsession is with the rich, and taxes.



The "Rich" that her party is so obsessed with are any republicans that make more than minimum wage.
Meanwhile a wealthy democrat is considered a good middle class citizen.
Taxes are just a control tool.

It's all about control.
edit on 28-10-2014 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting




You think the republicans have majority's interest at heart? I honestly can't fathom why anyone would believe that. ?


That was hilarious.

Because when it comes down right to it. Be it Democrat or Republican.

There are only two things that they care about.

Money, and votes.

Withhold either, and see how much they 'care'.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Why anyone believes anything that comes out of this woman's mouth at this point is beyond me.

She will say anything, ANYTHING, even irrelevant diarrhea such as this.

Yes they all do, but at least some of them are likeable. Oh and... BENGHAZI.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: badgerprints
She's deflecting.
The last 7 years have been a Keynesian experiment on a level never before seen in history.

She is trying to blame the economy on trickle down while trickle down was actually predicated on an economy that had jobs and consumption within the country.
Produce and consume, it's a cycle.
Government has run most of the jobs out of the country. Those jobs produce products that are then re-imported to the US where they are offered to the same jobless people who should have made them in the first place.
Trickle down was short circuited by politicians and bankers many years ago.

Her own party has spent, borrowed and printed twice as much money as every administration before it combined and poured that money into banks and failed businesses.
It's been a Keynesian wet dream and has been an abysmal failure.

Clinton doesn't want the failed policies of the last 6 years to be the subject of conversation so she blames an idea that was subverted decades ago.


You are correct sir. Trickle down works when the means of production are unencumbered by government regulation and interference. The US tax rate on businesses is among the highest in the developed world and the restrictive stance of government toward business growth actually fostered the move to off shore American jobs. It has only accelerated since the current clown in power has been at the controls. Remember " you didn't build that" and the employer mandate, (Obama care less) which will decimate small businesses. And let's not forget that the butcher of Bengahzi's husband, slick willy repealed Glass-Steagall which assured the concentration of this country's wealth in the hands of a few financial giants. That was trickle up to be sure. The money changers produce nothing and remove productive capital from the hands of the American economic engine. That in a nutshell is how we got here. How to fix it? that's another story, but it's not more of the same to be sure.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

No I do not think trickle down economics works for the majority, and I think Hillary Clinton would continue the system that is working for the 1%.


I don't believe that, as most democrats hope to see the survival of the middle class.

You think the republicans have majority's interest at heart? I honestly can't fathom why anyone would believe that. ?


No matter which one of the major parties one votes for, the politician that is elected represents corporate / lobbiests interests, not the interests of the public.
edit on 28-10-2014 by AlaskanDad because: added clarification



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Hello again Mr. X,

Looks like the whole Democrat platform is "Trickling-Down" the drain.
Lots of diversions and tangents to make voters confused."

Clearly you support the opposite of the "Democrat" platform.

Are you a "supply-sider"?
Will tax cuts to the wealthy stimulate the economy?
Is it truly the case that the wealthy are suffering?



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: badgerprints
She's deflecting.
The last 7 years have been a Keynesian experiment on a level never before seen in history.

She is trying to blame the economy on trickle down while trickle down was actually predicated on an economy that had jobs and consumption within the country.
Produce and consume, it's a cycle.
Government has run most of the jobs out of the country. Those jobs produce products that are then re-imported to the US where they are offered to the same jobless people who should have made them in the first place.
Trickle down was short circuited by politicians and bankers many years ago.

Her own party has spent, borrowed and printed twice as much money as every administration before it combined and poured that money into banks and failed businesses.
It's been a Keynesian wet dream and has been an abysmal failure.

Clinton doesn't want the failed policies of the last 6 years to be the subject of conversation so she blames an idea that was subverted decades ago.


Wow. Your analysis was spot on.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Partisanship and dislike of Hillary aside, as to avoid sticking points....

Look around and tell me, wouldn't you agree that trickle-down economics has failed?

The dollar has a fraction of the buying power it used to have.
Monopolies have returned.
The big "too big to fail" bailout has turned out to have been nothing but the greedy terrorizing the rest of us.
Property values have eroded for most of us.
Most of us have had to adjust our standards of living as a means of survival.

Basically, unless you are posting from behind a seaside, gated community - from a house that has about ten bathrooms, supply side economics has failed you to some extent.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: xuenchen

Hello again Mr. X,

Looks like the whole Democrat platform is "Trickling-Down" the drain.
Lots of diversions and tangents to make voters confused."

Clearly you support the opposite of the "Democrat" platform.

Are you a "supply-sider"?
Will tax cuts to the wealthy stimulate the economy?
Is it truly the case that the wealthy are suffering?



Ummm not really the "opposite" of the "Democrat" platform.

Strange you would assume that.

What is your next best guess?




posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide

Partisanship and dislike of Hillary aside, as to avoid sticking points....


Okay. . .



Look around and tell me, wouldn't you agree that trickle-down economics has failed?


No.


The dollar has a fraction of the buying power it used to have.


True.




Monopolies have returned.


True.




The big "too big to fail" bailout has turned out to have been nothing but the greedy terrorizing the rest of us.


True.




Property values have eroded for most of us.


True.



Most of us have had to adjust our standards of living as a means of survival.


True.



Basically, unless you are posting from behind a seaside, gated community - from a house that has about ten bathrooms, supply side economics has failed you to some extent.


False.


"Trickle-down economics" and the "trickle-down theory" are terms in United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided to businesses and upper income levels will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole.

en.wikipedia.org...

Haven't we spent the last few years attacking and punishing the wealthy? We've raised taxes continuously. Corporate taxes are high.

The "supposed" heroes of trickle-up economics lie and pump 85 billion into the Market every month!
QE Forever!

Our economy has stank like a diaper wrapped in dead skunk rolled in 3 day-old vomit for YEARS!

We've ridden one bubble after another to avoid a massive correction to our economy.

We tax and tax and tax and tax and tax and spend and spend and spend and spend and spend!

There has not been ONE economic decision from government to enable business, small business in over a decade!

People urinate on the idea of trickle down economics yet attack those very same business owners!

I'll catch heat for this, but I don't really care!

*pffft!*

People still blaming the wealthy!

And government laughs and laughs and laughs all the way to the bank!



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Ninety-five percent of all generated income last year went to one percent of the population. Tell me exactly how that is punishing the wealthy?

Seems like they've got it pretty good.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide


Look around and tell me, wouldn't you agree that trickle-down economics has failed?



Trickle down was based on the idea that companies employ people, people get paid, people buy those products.

What happened was that companies got taxed, companies moved all of the manufacturing overseas that they possibly could, they re-import products back to the states to offer to the jobless people who used to have jobs.

Politicians also have defused anti trust and become the biggest money trust and currency devaluator on the planet.

Trickle down economics was effectively short circuited decades ago.

The last 6 years have been a Keynesian fire hose.
Twice as much money printed,borrowed and blown as all previous administrations in US history combined.
This has not been trickle down economics since the late 80's.
And when it was, it didn't last long.

The term trickle down was bs to start with.
Wealth does not trickle down.
It's built from the bottom up.
Or it used to be.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: beezzer

Ninety-five percent of all generated income last year went to one percent of the population. Tell me exactly how that is punishing the wealthy?

Seems like they've got it pretty good.



Can you source that? I'm no economist, but (as someone already said) we're looking at Keynesian economics and not supply-side economics.

You want to argue that?

Sure.

But we haven't seen trickle-down for over a decade.

Our economic malaise has been "painted as "trickle-down" for quite some time.

Riding a bubble to Keynesian-Town ain't trickle-down.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: badgerprints

You've said it better than I could!



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
By the way,
When a politician talks about big business, the wealthy and taxes, they are not talking about the people that hold the top 90% of the money in this country.

They are talking about the small section of upper middle class that is on the verge of actually becoming wealthy.
They talk about greedy wal-mart and then hammer the guy with a small business that's on the verge of becoming solvent.

They tell the bottom three percent of the wealth that the next three percent up are all evil and rich.
Then they take big payoffs from the top 94 percent of the money to keep them that way.
edit on 28-10-2014 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Beezer, you claim that there is a war on the wealthy but they are wealthier then ever, and haven't spent the last 40 years co solididating power.

So which is it?



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: beezzer

Beezer, you claim that there is a war on the wealthy


True.


but they are wealthier then ever,


True.


and haven't spent the last 40 years co solididating power.

So which is it?


Simple. The wealthy buy spineless politicians.
Spineless politicians make laws to benefit Wall Street, PAC's, Donors.
Spineless politicians then blame disparity on business owners who aren't Wall Street or PAC's.
Business owners get the heat.
Wall Street goes unseen.
Spineless politicians make tons of money.
People angry at the wrong crowd.

People focused on the guy making 100,000 or even 300,000 not on Wall Street or crooked politicians.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join