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.

 

Trickle down economics does little to benefit the people. You're an idiot for believing it does.

page: 7
103
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Because this tit for tat mentality is so beneficial.

If we want to compare a healthcare plan with an economic plan though... After passing the ACA the economy continued to improve. Every time we've gone with a trickle-down plan the middle class stagnates, poverty increases, and it ultimately ends in a recession.




posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

Because this tax bill affects liberals just as much as it affects conservatives and it REALLY irks me that conservatives think they can get away with drafting and signing legislation without Democrat support.


The ACA was signed with zero Republican support. My advice to you is pretty much the same asthe left's advice when the ACA became law: deal with it.

The ACA was drafted with Republican opinion though. The BIG difference between then and now is that the Republicans are actively drafting legislation that they have no intention of including Democrats with. I had a feeling someone would attempt this argument so I was ready WELL in advance for this comeback, btw.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

There really is no accurate way to judge employment. There are so many different levels of employment levels or reasons to not seek employment that a one and done figure could NEVER be accurate in that regard. That's why the government keeps track of six different figures for it.

It should be noted that the current U3 number is WELL below even what it was during the 90's when our economy was considered at full employment during the tech boom.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

So how would the expansion of jobs lead to economic growth with the economy already at near full employment? Shouldn't we instead be looking at the increase of wages? Something you just got done saying will be unaffected by this tax cut.


More jobs means employees will have more options which puts pressure on wages to rise as companies try to keep talent. In industries that are rapidly expanding, it is not uncommon to see retention bonuses, etc because companies don't want to lose existing employees to new opportunities. So when companies have an incentive (i.e. lower taxes) which allows them to use capital to expand, they create new jobs. Those new jobs are then sought after by new and existing employees which puts pressure on wages to go up.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated
What good are more jobs if the people don't exist to fill them? Again, we are at near full employment. I'm sure the expansion of jobs will help somewhat, but there is the law of diminishing returns that should be kicking in in short order. And the double whammy is that Trump wants to close our borders so don't expect to fill them with immigrant labor either.
edit on 7-11-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated
What good are more jobs if the people don't exist to fill them? Again, we are at near full employment. I'm sure the expansion of jobs will help somewhat, but there is the law of diminishing returns that should be kicking in in short order. And the double whammy is that Trump wants to close our borders so don't expect to fill them with immigrant labor either.


More jobs being created means that industries and companies are expanding. Again, if the supply is constant (number of employees) and more jobs are being created then wages will rise because companies are competing for a limited number of employees to fill their needs.

Wages go down when the reverse happens. When you have more people than jobs, wages go down because more people are competing over fewer jobs and thus willing to work for less to get the scarce job.

The best way to raise wages is to keep the supply of workers constant (i.e., not importing cheap illegal labor) and encouraging expansion (i.e., cutting taxes and removing other costs of doing business).



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

So how would the expansion of jobs lead to economic growth with the economy already at near full employment? Shouldn't we instead be looking at the increase of wages? Something you just got done saying will be unaffected by this tax cut.


Under Obama we saw a lot of job loss and stagnation right? We saw a lot of people go from a good paying job to an underpaid job for their skill sets due to losing the good paying job. Today we still have a lot of people underpaid and without work...underpaid is not the 18 year old kid making coffee for 10 bucks an hour. Underpaid is the senior engineer making coffee at 10 bucks an hour. So what we have is an 18 year old out of work because some underpaid senior engineer who took his job that is really more align to an 18 year old with low skills.

We need job growth in all the right areas so everyone is paid their worth based on their skill sets they bring to an employer, so don't anyone tell me we need to pay someone at McD 20 bucks an hour. What we need are the jobs worth 20, 40, 60 100 etc bucks an hour for those with the right skill sets, and those with low skill in the 10 bucks an hour job should be working towards gaining skills for the higher paying jobs. To assume jobs should just magically increase in wage with no change in the value of that job to an employer is just silly....



edit on 7-11-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do the Republicans have no intention of involving Democrats, or are the Democrats refusing to compromise and get involved?



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
To assume jobs should just magically increase in wage with no change in the value of that job to an employer is just silly....

So is assuming that trickle down economics works as advertised after it has been linked to crashing the economy and expanding wealth inequality every time it has been implemented. You said that wage stagnation happened under Obama? That is only because Obama was trying to rebuild the economy after Bush got done tanking it with his version of trickle down economics.
edit on 7-11-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Because this tit for tat mentality is so beneficial.

If we want to compare a healthcare plan with an economic plan though... After passing the ACA the economy continued to improve. Every time we've gone with a trickle-down plan the middle class stagnates, poverty increases, and it ultimately ends in a recession.


LMAO, you're going to seriously attempt to portray the ACA as an economic benefit to the middle class? The tone deafness of anyone making that argument is ear shattering.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do the Republicans have no intention of involving Democrats, or are the Democrats refusing to compromise and get involved?

You and I both know it is more so the former than the latter. The republicans have literally expressed that they have no desire to work with Democrats and the Democrats have been begging to be included in the talks. They even get giddy when they are thrown a bone (even if Trump just pulls the rug out from that hope a day or two later).



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

I think both sides would admit that it would be useful to see an accurate count on just how many Americans are not counted by the official unemployment figures who actually are looking for work. What the government calls "full employment" is a heavily manipulated figure than disenfranchises a lot of unemployed Americans.


Well also under employed too, but unemployment percentage only reflect those actively looking for a job in the last 4 weeks. There are a lot of people who do not have a job outside of that four weeks...somewhere around 15 to 20%.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Considering how willing the Dems were to get involved in the healthcare debate I'm going to assume they're just getting shut out.
edit on 11/7/2017 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

OK, let's establish a baseline here before we move onward. Do you believe it should be the government's responsibility to redistribute the earnings of individuals and corporations to others? Do you believe that responsibility entitles the government to also enact artificial controls such as wage and compensation floors and ceilings? Do you believe that naturally occurring gaps between the haves and the have nots should be artificially closed via government taxation, redistribution, and legislation?



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Where did I say that? I simply pointed out the fact that the ACA has had no demonstrable impact on economic growth for the middle class.

Trickle-down economics on the other hand can be shown to have a clear deleterious effect.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Where did I say that? I simply pointed out the fact that the ACA has had no demonstrable impact on economic growth for the middle class.

Trickle-down economics on the other hand can be shown to have a clear deleterious effect.


I disagree on both counts. Next.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Let's consult the Constitution:
Taxing and Spending Clause

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

They are and have been. The only demographic that benefited was not the rich. It is what is considered below a poverty line that was increased its bottom line quite a bit in the last 10 years and especially under Obama. . But think about it. If you are 'poor' you can get.

Section 8 housing instead of rent or a mortgage
EBT instead of having to pay inflated prices for goods
Free Medical Care instead of paying for it
Free School Vouchers for private schools instead of paying for it.

That means a person making minimum wage who gets back a large subsidize tax return is doing better than a middle class family making 80k a year busting their ass.

They can BOTH live in the same neighborhoods. The middle class guy might be their boss working longer hours for salaried paid.

Toss in inflation and the US Middle Class is the hardest hit and THAT is who the tax break should be for.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

This is ridiculous also. My health premiums have gone from about 450 a month to well over 1600 dollars. That is a mortgage payment.

WTF did this save me money. Oh, and if I decided to pay 'cash' for my visits which sometimes is cheaper because some doctors want the direct cash inflow I pay a fine that is then used as a subsidy for the poor.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

So you not only disagree with verifiable facts but with what I said I said?

Brainwashed. I said it in my first post in this thread.



new topics

top topics



 
103
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join