Trickle-Down Economics is a BiG FaT JoKe!, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times


reply posted on 24-9-2008 @ 11:56 PM by zappafan1
Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Originally posted by zappafan1
reply to post by LoneGunMan

Geez.... what crapola. More proof that the sooner the left coast falls into the water the better.
SNIP: Read my other post as to why jobs go overseas.



I am not left you bible belt goober. The left and the right are serving the same dish, why cant you understand that.

SNIP: There is no "Right". The "Right" is where the people have been throughout most of history.... right smack in the middle; those who believe in the Constitution and what it says; not what it has been interpreted to say.

SNIP: 1- I don't live in the bible belt. 2-Sorry.... if you can't see the difference, you haven't been paying attention.

It is because of extreme deregulation that has created this mess of our jobs going overseas.
SNIP: NOOOO.... the banks were forced into giving those loans. don't you get it?
Listen, I'm going to refute, for free, everything your misguided teachers were paid our tax dollars to teach you: around 1963, ex-President Johnson (Democrat) took most all of the proceeds from the (hugely successful) Kennedy Tax Cuts, then opened the "lock-Box" with all the Social Security money in it, and folded it into the General Fund in order to fund his (Marxist/Socialist) "Great society" programs which, in a short 16 years, it became quite evident that the programs failed, and turned our inner cities into low-income,drug and crime infested areas in which no bank in their right mind would loan money to anyone who lived there; Lenders called this practice "red-lining." They literally drew red lines on a map and wouldn't loan money there for mortgages. That's called "fiduciary responsibility in lending".
The Democrats, not wanting to admit that their Socialist Great Society programs failed. Carter and his minions passed laws forcing the banks to give the loans or they would be discredited and called racist, and probably forced out of business. Then Clinton, with his "multi-cultural" BS, put the program on steroids, which brought us to where we are now. Still, not wanting to admit the entire plan failed, Slim shady is trying to blame it on Bush.

The banks KNEW they could get as greedy as they wanted and the Gov would bail them out. They did it with INTENT! The people did it because they had too.
SNIP: Part of that I agree with, which is why government shouldn't get involved with the public business sector in any way. No..... people don't have to go into debt. No-one forces them to do it.



[edit on 24-9-2008 by zappafan1]


reply posted on 25-9-2008 @ 02:22 AM by mental modulator
Originally posted by zappafan1

REGAN and BUSH JR hold the record for the largest debts incurred, in office, in HISTORY.
SNIP: Not true.

BUSH JR has increased spending more than any other president in history.
SNIP: Better reearch as to where most of the money went, and why.

The most amusing thing is that you used the term "redistribution of wealth."

WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS BAILOUT IS????
SNIP: Unfortunately, true; I agree. But look where it started and by whom.

NIP: You really need to look into banking practices and something called fiduciary lending responsibility. Who's more likely to pay back that loan with no problems?

SNIP: Yes.... and they didn't learn it from intuitive wisdom or by living it.... they were taught that in our failed schools.




[edit on 25-9-2008 by zappafan1]

FRANK WOULD HAVE a HEART ATTACK...

FIRST off yes. REGAN first off

zfacts.com...

The Gross National Debt
Links Quotes FAQ Timeline
National Debt History (Graph): White House data show the gross national debt hit a 47 year low just as President Reagan was taking office. It climbed steadily under Reagan and G. H. W. Bush, declined under Clinton and made a quick U-turn under G. W. Bush.

The Gross Deficit vs. the political Deficit Lite The real deficit remains near its peak and over half a trillion $ per year.

National Debt Clocks: The Gross National Debt is over $8 trillion and climbing. More than $1.5 trillion of the debt is owed to the Social Security trust fund and indirectly to those who have paid their FICA taxes.

Presidential Contributions to the Gross National Debt: The gross federal debt now stands at 63.5% of GDP. Of that, 33.5 percentage points were contributed by Reagan-Bush, 6 points by G. W. Bush, and 6.1 points by printing money. The remaining 18 points are left over from WWII.


GWB


the national debt had risen to US$8.98 trillion dollars, an increase of over 70% from the start of the year 2000 when the debt was US$5.6 trillion.[66][67]




All Presidents prior to Reagan contributed to paying off the huge WWII debt. The graph also credits the drop in federal debt as a percent of GDP under Clinton towards repayment of the remaining WWII debt and not towards paying off the Reagan-Bush debt. That would simply hide their impact by making it appear that more of the current federal debt was left over from WWII. Had Reagan-Bush simply managed to break even, the WWII debt would have been as low as it's shown to be.



YOUR boys incurred all the debt... GOV source BTW.

ALL the MONEY that GWB has spent went to shells, bullets, bombs, R&D, MRU's.....

WHAT IS your bloody point??? ITS irresponsible - our economy is in the toilet and the buck stops at his desk!

THERE were not high enough numbers to override and legislate around him.

HE - your EMPEROR and your Philosophy is a failure, for each of the five terms since it has started...YAWN....

THE mortgage crisis started when the financial markets took advantage of deregulation
that was intended to help put low income families into homes. DON'T try to tell me about it bud,,, I worked in sub prime myself... THE CEO'S kept inventing new, more imaginative instruments to work the system. THEY bent the spirit of the law, time, and time again. THE deregulation created loop holes while the appointees per GWB looked the other way. SO don't tell me about it, MY team sold a hundred million worth to WAMU GS and MS.

THE entire market encouraged dishonesty since your EXHAUSTED EMPEROR took office.

ONCE again TRICKLE DOWN IS DEAD- THE GOP IS DYING a deserved and slow death.

THE KIDS ARE LIBERAL BECAUSE THEY ARE TOLERANT- each generation becomes more liberal.

IF it was up to the conservatives of the past we would still be in the feudal system...LUCKILY each generation has become more and more enlightened and more and more civilized.

LIBERTY - PROGRESS and FUTURE go hand in hand. ALL THREE ARE a 100% natural process.

CONSERVATION of old and outdated views is a human construct that is unnatural
but, ever present. IT is like trying to save a flower for time and memorial - IT is illogical,
impossible
because

NOTHING in existence is STATIC - nothing

THESE STINKING, rotting dead GOP policies are a thing of the past - get a new country.

WAKE up this is WHAT A GOP PARADISE LOOKS LIKE! CHAOS,DEBT, HYPOCRISY and CORRUPTION galore!




[edit on 25-9-2008 by mental modulator]


reply posted on 25-9-2008 @ 05:41 PM by Cool Hand Luke
Originally posted by Buck Division

Let me turn your statement around and say, the rich get their income from the vast labor pool of underpaid workers.


Let me turn that around on you and ask why are people settling for these low paying jobs? You do have the freedom to apply at any business. Better yet start your own business if you don't like working for someone else.

As far as low paying jobs go, if you were lets say running a McDonald's restaurant, is that a job where alot of skill is needed? How about Walmart? If you were running these businesses would you pay a cashier or a burger flipper $50,000 a year? Why or why not?

If I understand you, here is another version of what you are saying:
Where do the slaves get their food? From there masters! Without there masters, slave would starve.


People get paid with money and do with it what they wish. If people are unhappy with the wage that a company is paying them find a better paying job. Yes I know getting an education or learning a skilled trade to get those higher paying jobs is tough but if you are not going to make yourself valuable, then don't complain about the wage you are receiving.

That is the logic you are using here. Although your statement is true, most would say it is not a morally defensive position.


I agree, most of today's society wants money for doing nothing. So anyone that says that people have to earn what they get, these days, is considered offensive.

We need to tax the rich. The slaves need to take their freedom.

No, we do not need to tax the rich. We need people to start taking pointers from the rich and not just sit around and envy them all day.

People forget that alot of the billionaires today started their road to prosperity in their garage or a simple mom and pop shop on a shoestring budget. Many of them had many of their businesses fail until they ultimately succeeded. Maybe these people were on to something? Take chances, don't give up if you fail, etc is the mantra these people follow.

Here you equate employees to slaves. The only slaves in western society are the slaves to envy and ignorance: those who look at other people and envy how much another person makes and sit back all day long and wonder how come is that someone doesn't give me that kind of money. They will never figure out that in order to make that kind of money you have to work for it.

Another question for those in favor of taxing the rich. How much money is a person allowed to make before he is considered rich and therefore punished with more taxes?


reply posted on 25-9-2008 @ 09:03 PM by zappafan1
Originally posted by Cool Hand Luke
Originally posted by Buck Division

Let me turn your statement around and say, the rich get their income from the vast labor pool of underpaid workers.


Let me turn that around on you and ask why are people settling for these low paying jobs? You do have the freedom to apply at any business. Better yet start your own business if you don't like working for someone else.

As far as low paying jobs go, if you were lets say running a McDonald's restaurant, is that a job where alot of skill is needed? How about Walmart? If you were running these businesses would you pay a cashier or a burger flipper $50,000 a year? Why or why not?

If I understand you, here is another version of what you are saying:
Where do the slaves get their food? From there masters! Without there masters, slave would starve.


People get paid with money and do with it what they wish. If people are unhappy with the wage that a company is paying them find a better paying job. Yes I know getting an education or learning a skilled trade to get those higher paying jobs is tough but if you are not going to make yourself valuable, then don't complain about the wage you are receiving.

That is the logic you are using here. Although your statement is true, most would say it is not a morally defensive position.


I agree, most of today's society wants money for doing nothing. So anyone that says that people have to earn what they get, these days, is considered offensive.

We need to tax the rich. The slaves need to take their freedom.

No, we do not need to tax the rich. We need people to start taking pointers from the rich and not just sit around and envy them all day.

People forget that alot of the billionaires today started their road to prosperity in their garage or a simple mom and pop shop on a shoestring budget. Many of them had many of their businesses fail until they ultimately succeeded. Maybe these people were on to something? Take chances, don't give up if you fail, etc is the mantra these people follow.

Here you equate employees to slaves. The only slaves in western society are the slaves to envy and ignorance: those who look at other people and envy how much another person makes and sit back all day long and wonder how come is that someone doesn't give me that kind of money. They will never figure out that in order to make that kind of money you have to work for it.

Another question for those in favor of taxing the rich. How much money is a person allowed to make before he is considered rich and therefore punished with more taxes?


Thank you, Cool Hand... I've been on ATS for going on three years, and it is near impossible to have rational discussions with many. So many are here not to logically debate, but to find those who think...... no.. ..FEEL like they do. Liberalism is a mental disorder, and the public schools are pumping them out every day.


reply posted on 26-9-2008 @ 02:35 PM by rightwingnut
reply to post by zappafan1


Those statistics as you see, are the ones we keep telling them, before they get to this point, where they keep doing it any way.


reply posted on 21-3-2009 @ 01:25 PM by zappafan1
reply to post by LoneGunMan


"....This site is as close to moderate as you can get. There are very few true liberals and the only true liberals I have run into call themselves conservative....they are neo-cons. "

REPLY: Umm...... excuse me? I wasn't complaining about the ATS site. If I didn't like it I wouldn't be here. And where in hell did you learn the definition of the word "Liberal."?

NOUN: Neoconservatism
"An approach to politics or theology that represents a return to a traditional point of view (as in The Constitution and Bill of Rights, in contrast to more liberal or radical schools of thought of the 1960s) AKA Marxism/Socialism/Communism." So, if you were to call me a neocon, I would have to say "Thank You", as it means being an American who believes in the ideas and ideals set forth by The founders.
=====================================


"....You have let yourself get fooled by the media my friend. The people taking and wanting handouts are few and far between. 99 percent of the middle class just wants a fair shake and the Fox news neo-con bootlickers have been brainwashed into not seeing it. ATS wants a fair shake, a middle of the road belief without the fanatic left VS. right. The mainstream does not, the corporations are dividing us for a reason. Turn off the TV and wake up."

REPLY: While I occasionally watch TV, it's only about 5 hours per week at most. From the figures and studies I've seen, FOX is more fair and balanced that every other news outlet, and a couple of those studies were done at places like Yale; hardly a bastion of Conservatism. Even the Left V: Right is something that YOU have been brainwashed into believing. The fallacy of the moving middle comes to mind. For the past 40 years, 20,000 people have been polled as to their political beliefs, and every year it comes back about 60/40, Conservative to Democrat. Now, the radicals/Liberals are Way, way Left, along with the Socialists/Marxists, and Conservatives are still right smack in the middle, with the rest of the Republican nutballs way to the right.
=====================================

".....Its funny you use Cool Hand as an example of a thinking feeling person. Go to his profile and your own profile and count your friends list..."

REPLY: I was merely responding to what Cool Hand wrote in his above post. "Thinking" and "feeling" are two very different things. Most all of the people who voted for Obama were "feeling" and not "thinking."
I don't check others peoples profile, and mine is far from complete, on purpose..... and I've never checked my "friends" list. I'm not here to make friends 'nor to make enemies. I'm more into valid, rational discussion with people on any number of topics I've studied for over 35 years; like politics, history and economics. Those who make posts like "...the Fox news neo-con bootlickers " hardly fall into the category of rational, valid discussion.

Todays "Liberal" is consumed with the thought that government should look out for them and provide what they "think" they should have, whether they work or not, and that the "Rich" have somehow taken it from them; as if there's just so much money to go around, which is total crap. Cultural Marxism (AKA: Group-ism) is being taught in our halls of education from pre-school to the college level. The ranks of those receiving welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, the "Earned Income Tax Credit" and all are those who are taking from the pockets of others, through unconstitutional laws and programs, and are taking those handouts you mention. They are all on the governments "plantation", and are not the slaves of corporations.


reply posted on 25-3-2009 @ 11:41 AM by rightwingnut
Originally posted by GordonJQ
So, it's the Middle Class fault for wanting money for working? You realize Zappa you're calling for 1800's south right? Where the Super Rich own slaves to do the work for no pay. You're saying how dare an American want to be paid for working. We should just hope our masters throw us an extra piece of bread so we don't starve to death.



I'll take this one on and be anti-position. Where was the money for this poverty? It is insensless to portend that the slave was better off slave. However, when it came to a lack of money, we have caused our own deficits by unleashing poverty onto too little economics.

Having done so, we have precluded that those human beings could now also live at some low level of economics. They did not. They devised credit terms. Paid three times the worth of any items and drove up inflation. The middle class should have understood they could not afford to live and remained poor.

I do not know who told them they should have more money, but they are the blame for not realizing that this money was not available and should have lived within their means.

Even worse, insearch of high social conscience, they became known as the drug culture. This allowed the "piggy bank" to be turned upside down and all the pennies to be given away in level stacks to every one. This action on their part was certainly the sign that the "piggy bank" only held so much money. Trickle down theory is that turning the "piggy bank" upside down but we are saying greed has the pennies stuck in the middle class area, instead of the pennies, not nickels as they were, trickling down to the poor.


reply posted on 27-3-2009 @ 09:09 PM by zappafan1
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic

Open Minded Skeptic says:
".....Socialism, or "wealth redistribution" may indeed not be the really right answer, but it seems clear that "trickle down" is a miserable failure in terms of overall economic health."

REPLY: where were you in 2006 (if in America)? Have you checked out the numbers from 2003 through 2006? The market? Consumer confidence? Dollars going into government coffers?

So, many here think.... no "feel" .... that trickle up economics might work? When was the last time some poor guy, or welfare recipient, signed your paycheck?
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



The Internet as a case study of Socialism
  Posted 18 days ago with 7 member flags
Why the need for Constant Growth?
  Posted 4 days ago with 7 member flags
Real Socialists. The Friends Of The Conservatives.
  Posted 14 days ago with 6 member flags
The Greenbay Packer\'s Prove That Socialism Works.
  Posted 18 days ago with 5 member flags
On What Date Did Human Freedom End?
  Posted 14 days ago with 5 member flags