MeBeJedi said:
No it is not. "trickle-down economics" runs on the premise that when rich people pay less taxes then they in turn invest the gains into other businesses or companies who thus hire people to work and giving many jobs and you products to buy. The wealth of the rich guy was invested and subsequently paid to a guy who put in a days work he took the money home to feed his family. Redistributing wealth? Yeah, but honorably and in everyone favor. That is my scenerio.
It is still redistribution, because by your very own scenario, the money goes to the rich and "trickles down" to the poor (the blue collar worker). The name, itself, indicates the "flow" of the wealth. LOL!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle_down_economics
However, all the economic reports indicate this has not happened. The biggest reason why people were able to buy as much as they did in recent years was due to increased use of credit, rather than real increases in wages. And look where that's gotten us now.
Regardless, the middle class is disappearing because "trickle-down" doesn't work. The whole point of this mindset was so that the rich Republicans could keep as much money as they could, and most of that was stored in off-shore accounts.
In fact, Republicans are so enamored by all things off-shore, that they've even sent jobs overseas. That way, they don't have to pay actual Americans all that extra money they've been receiving under Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Hell, even Halliburton, based in Texas, partically run by Cheney, and made rich by the Middle East war..........has opened a new headquarters IN THE MIDDLE EAST!
(That being said, here's some more irony: the current economy has been bringing jobs back to US soil. Since the dollar has lost so much value compared to other currencies, it's actually become cheaper for foreign companies to produce their goods in the US. Attaboy, Bush. LOL)
Is this seriously the same MeBejedi that I remember? You always struck me as having a sound mind in the past, but now, with this political stuff of yours, it's as if you're not even trying to honestly and seriously discuss issues. In my opinion that's way below your behavior in the past, but maybe I've misjudged you.
First: Names for an economic theory do not define what that theory is ALL about. (LOL.) While "trickle-down" economics does imply a "flow," that term defines "flow" in conjunction with real work and real production of wealth for our society as a whole. Simply taking money from one person and giving it to another yields no gain in wealth for anyone, but in fact wastes our economy's money and manpower in the form of a government bureaucracy.
Second: "Trickle Down Economics" was a term coined by an ignorant opponent of Reagan's economic policies. Its definition is only a simplified caricature of them.
Third: You are incredibly misinformed about the recent economic policies of George W. Bush. He followed the later policies of Clinton more than he followed anything Reagan ever did.
Fourth: High taxes on people and businesses, oppressive regulations, even more borrowing on the part of our government, and a bad monetary policy is what has so "shrunk" the middle class in recent years. The miniscule tax cuts and the lack of Obama's direct redistribution of wealth on the part of our government has had nothind to do with the recent setbacks for average people. The fact that you are even trying to claim otherwise is absolutely laughable. You seek to correct everybody in this thread and yet you make absurd claims like that? LOL. :)
Fifth: The one thing you're actually right about is the way Republicans don't care about jobs and wealth flowing overseas. But believe me, that's not this country's biggest problem and the solutions I hear from Democrats will only worsen things by hurting our economy as a whole.
Sixth: A lowered value for the dollar is not good for our economy on the whole. Increased investment in the U.S. is generally good, but not at the cost of everyone becoming poorer by having our rates of incomes redistributed to all of the rich and poor people who get in debt. This is something you should be a lot more clear in stating (and certainly shouldn't disagree with, if you do).
MeBeJedi said:
This "country" does not support welfare for the rich. Allowing them to keep money they legitimately earn is fine, but that's not welfare.
What do you think subsidies are? You do realize we are paying farmers to NOT grow crops?
This "country" and the American people (Republicans and Democrats) are apposed to subsidies and welfare like that. It is only the Republican and Democrat politicians of this "country" that support bullshit like that.
Janskreet was talking in terms of what average Americans support when he said "country." (That's why I put the term in quotes.) Is the simple context of a statement too hard for you to follow, MeBeJedi? LOL.
MeBeJedi said:
Democrats have continually tried to crush the ability of people to get ahead and build wealth there.
LOL. You do realize that the current financial and housing crisis - the biggest since the Great Depression - is happening under a Republican administration?
LOL. You do realize that every action our government took to FORCE this shitty housing and credit crisis on our economy would have all been actually and strongly apposed by Reagan?
Seriously, use your brain for crying out loud (it's in your skull for a reason)! I'm sorry for being so forceful here, but are you really this fucking stupid, MeBejedi? I actually thought you were smarter than this! Please, I beg that you start proving your current trend wrong! I have to admit, your newfound ignorance and haughty attitude are making me a little sad and disappointed.
::sigh::
Have you heard nothing about what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been doing the last few years? Did you know that they were both "government sponsored entities"?! Have you heard nothing about the way socialists threatened lawsuits against banks that refused to engage in bad mortgages? Did you know that even Clinton blamed the housing crisis on the actions his own party took?! Do you know nothing about how both Clinton and Bush (the younger) have allowed a bad monetary policy to create both the "tech" credit bubble and the subsequent housing credit bubble? Do you even have any clue what a bad monetary policy is?!
For someone who likes to go around shooting his mouth off and pretend like he's the one to educate everyone else, you are incredibly, foolishly ignorant. Perhaps you should try researching the world before you go around thinking you can tell other people how it works. You'd sound less stupid and you'd come off as less of an offensive dickwad.
MeBeJedi said:
I hope Barack Obama tries to bring us back to the sound fiscal policies of Ronald Reagan.
Oh yes, more borrow and spend. Check your history. Reagan and both Bushes were all about deficit spending - spending money that we don't even have. Do you like being in debt to countries like China, Japan and the Middle East? The only president under whom we had a deficit surplus was Clinton!
Oh, and "small government" GREW under Reagan and the Bushes, rather than shrank.
Man, you guys are all about making the big statements without checking facts.
No, I'm not going to check my history because my history is highly correct and valid. You're the one that needs to check your history because you clearly have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
What I was talking about were Reagan's policies of low taxation, low regulation, and a strong monetary policy. Both elder Bush and Clinton essentially kept those policies of Reagan alive (for the most part) up until the end of the 90's and our country's economy grew like crazy over those fifteen years (as a clear, measured result). With both the government out of people's ways and a stable money supply, our country was able to solidly invest in itself and we all benefitted from that. It was not until Clinton allowed Greenspan to ruin the dollar (for the sake of the fucking stock market) that our economy finally began to go downhill again. To make things even worse in recent years, Bush not only allowed the EXACT same thing with the Dollar, but we had awful Democrat regulations forcing bad mortgages on our banking system too!
You need study history to stop being such an ignorant loud mouth. If you knew ANYTHING about Reagan, you'd know that he was strongly apposed to big government spending and borrowing. Unfortunately that issue wasn't nearly a big enough priority for him (in comparison to his other good policies) and he allowed drunken Democrats in the legislature to spend like crazy. (In case you're ignorant of how our government works, it is the legislative branch that most decides how much our government spends on what and not the President, duh.) In Reagan's defense though, his allowance of Democrat spending was a tool he used to secure the funding that won us the Fucking Cold War (I know, a very small thing, right?), and defense spending was easily the smaller part of overall spending during his years in office. But, yeah, if you're like me and you support small government, yes, he could have perhaps done better in hindsight, but that one small fact is nothing close to Reagan being "all about deficit spending" as you so stupidly said. LOL.
Elder Bush was also apposed to big spending and borrowing, but he, again, had to work with Democrats at a time of war. Clinton, compared to most Demcorats, was thankfully against out-of-control spending and the initial Republican takeover of the legislature in 1995 helped rain in spending even more for a few years, but our government still grew overall and we still outspent tax income (there was no surplus under Clinton). Then, under the younger Bush and both Republican and Democrat legislatures of his years, "small government" took a took a turn for the worse again. None of them were apposed to spending and borrowing at all and, as such, I absolutely refused to support them on that issue. But, Barack Obama has all but promised to increase spending and borrowing even more than what Bush and has done, so if you don't like Bush's spending I'm confused as to why you'd like Barack's spending proposals. :)
The fact that you apparently don't know one drop of this actual history is a very shameful thing in my mind. It's all basic history that anyone can find if they simply look for it and yet you apparently don't even have a clue!
Yikes, and you say that I'm making "big statements" without checking the facts? Wow.
Oh well, at least I can still say you're still a colorful person, MeBeJedi. Hopefully I can return to thinking you're intelligent someday as well. :)
MeBeJedi said:
but I don't see a single, substantial reason as to why that would be.)
Winning an election comes to mind...
"Winning an election" is why I wouldn't see evidence? . . . Hmm, I don't get the logic there.
No, "winning an election" is the REASON, not the CAUSE.
Uh . . . "No"?! Reasons aren't causes? LOL, what?! :)
Hmm, and, so, you believe you can legitmately attribute "reasons" to people without evidence of those supposed reasons? We're all just supposed to take your mysterious word and therefore believe that you can read the hearts and minds of evil Republicans?! LOL! That is truly hilarious. :)
MeBeJedi said:
Yes, a few, rare, low-level Republicans do shitty things when nobody's looking. But, does MeBeJedi believe that every last low-level Democrat is a perfect little Sunday school student by comparison? Don't make me laugh (just a warning).
Ironically, Elizabeth Dole (R), wife of Bob Dole, publicly aired TV ads that accused Karen Hagen (D) of being a Godless American. Guess what....Hagen was a sunday school TEACHER!
"It was bitter, negative, and costly race, with both parties investing heavily. In the days leading up the decision day, Dole was criticized for an attack ad questioning Hagan's Christian faith, though the challenger is an elder in a Presbyterian church and Sunday school teacher." http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/11/04/elizabeth-dole-beaten-by-little-known-democratic-challenger-in-north-carolina.html
So, your facetious post beautifully points out your ignorance of current events. Thanks for making me laugh! LOL!
(Of course, the even bigger irony is that Republicans, who complain ferociously when their religion is attacked, have no problems attacking the religion of others - even those who believe in God.)
LOL.
Doh, I warned you not to make me laugh, MeBeJedi! :)
I seriously can't believe that you're such a brainless drone that you'd actually believe Democrats have done nothing dirty to help them win any recent elections or win current debates. What a skewed, upside-down world you must live in. :)
MeBeJedi said:
Politics is messy and has always been messy. A person who is trying to be fair-minded will realize this.
Obama did. It's a big reason why he won. :)
Uhh . . . Obama realized that poliics is messy? What does that have to do with the point I was trying to make about our discussion? . . . .
Eh, well, since you're bringing it up, I guess I'll talk about it: Sure, I'll definitely admit that Obama was a fairly classy guy in this election. Obama's temperment generally seems like one that is patient and willing to listen to people and that's certainly a great thing for this country to have in a President (he made McCain look like an idiot in this regard). Of course, the friends and allies he's chosen to have in the past are easily questionable, and his supported policies suck nasty, dirty cock, but I'll give you the fact that he seems like a guy who at least tries to be wise and careful. I'm glad that led him to run a very clean campaign (for his part). :)