Republicans: I WARNED YOU.

[myp]

Even our latest technological explosion was trickle down reality. I always agreed the credit for the 1990s economic growth belonged to a Bill. But I submit his last name was Gates, not Clinton. I would submit to you that Bill Gates and/or Steve Jobs have created more wealth, employed more humanity, and influenced your life and our economy more than you know.

I think you misunderstand what people mean when they say "trickle down economics" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

 

[Stonewall]

No misunderstanding at all and the 'tax cuts' mentioned by wiki there is another way of saying the wealthy were allowed to keep more of their own money. I think you misunderstand where money comes from in the first place, it's our money to begin with.

The government then for and by the people is supposed to tax in order to provide the common defense and promote the general welfare. The money.....all the wealth......belongs to We the People, is that not correct?

And wealth is...like it or not...historically been stacked in the upper 1 to 2 percent of our populations. Like it is today. Who are the 'evil rich' today for example? Are they not the top one or two percent who 'horde' wealth while the rest of us do without? What is the median income in America some 55,000?

Are we talking about the same thing?

 

[myp]

Progressive taxation is fairer from a libertarian (equality in process) standpoint in my opinion: http://www.politicalfray.com/showthread.php?t=3672

That is kind of off-topic though. Trickle down is about greater benefits to the rich always trickling down- this includes government contracts, bailouts, you name it. It isn't true. It is a silly political thing though. It isn't even economics. Read the wikipedia page and the criticism that even some Austrians and Chicago economists have had of it and how it hasn't really existed to a large extent to begin with.

 

[a777pilot]

If one believes in a progressive taxation system then one ought love the so called trickle down. Also, there ought to be progressive systems for government assistance, medical care, and the cost of everything else in life.

 

[Stonewall]

Progressive taxation is fairer from a libertarian (equality in process) standpoint in my opinion: http://www.politicalfray.com/showthread.php?t=3672

That is kind of off-topic though. Trickle down is about greater benefits to the rich always trickling down- this includes government contracts, bailouts, you name it. It isn't true. It is a silly political thing though. It isn't even economics. Read the wikipedia page and the criticism that even some Austrians and Chicago economists have had of it and how it hasn't really existed to a large extent to begin with.

There you go again. "Greater benefits" that you use there myp, is nothing more than the wealthier of We the People keeping their own money. Progressive thought process very much considers not taxing the wealthy much more on the basis that they can afford it as a "benefit" those citizens are receiving. As if it's the government's money and allowing you to keep more than the average citizen makes is some kind of special favor or benefit.

Your opinion is absolutely and all wrong. And the anti-thesis of the building of America. The US had an income tax during the civil war, the Supreme Court ruled federal income taxes unconstitutional in 1895 I believe, we the smarter people of course amended our constitution in 1913 and never looked back.

 

[myp]

There you go again. "Greater benefits" that you use there myp, is nothing more than the wealthier of We the People keeping their own money. Progressive thought process very much considers not taxing the wealthy much more on the basis that they can afford it as a "benefit" those citizens are receiving. As if it's the government's money and allowing you to keep more than the average citizen makes is some kind of special favor or benefit.

Your opinion is absolutely and all wrong. And the anti-thesis of the building of America. The US had an income tax during the civil war, the Supreme Court ruled federal income taxes unconstitutional in 1895 I believe, we the smarter people of course amended our constitution in 1913 and never looked back.

You don't understand what I am saying. You don't think people should be taxed equally? I am saying a progressive tax does that.

No tax isn't an option unless you are an anarchist. You want a government? Guess, what- there will be some tax, so unless you are an anarchist you too are for some tax (or just deny reality).

 

[Stonewall]

You don't understand what I am saying. You don't think people should be taxed equally? I am saying a progressive tax does that.

A progressive tax does nothing of the sort and taxes wealthier incomes at a higher percentage. Your definition of equally I find odd.

No tax isn't an option unless you are an anarchist. You want a government? Guess, what- there will be some tax, so unless you are an anarchist you too are for some tax (or just deny reality).

I'm for some tax...given the fact that it's always remembered the money is ours........not any government's. A tax that provides for the common defense and helps the general welfare of our nation......but isn't looked at as if any tax cut is some kind of "benefit" as you believe it is. that is complete and utter nonsense in my opinion.

 

[myp]

A progressive tax does nothing of the sort and taxes wealthier incomes at a higher percentage. Your definition of equally I find odd.

Since that is kind of off-topic here, I would say check out my posts in the thread I linked to above and we can continue the discussion there if you are interested. Nominal dollar figures aren't equally valued.

I'm for some tax...given the fact that it's always remembered the money is ours........not any government's. A tax that provides for the common defense and helps the general welfare of our nation......but isn't looked at as if any tax cut is some kind of "benefit" as you believe it is. that is complete and utter nonsense in my opinion.

A tax cut is a relative benefit. But that is not the only one- like I said the bailouts, etc. Anyway, this is useless. There is NO trickle down theory or "reality" when it comes to economics. It is a political device that is derogatory and if you want to stand by it, so be it- you are probably one of the few in the world

 

[youngconservatives]

No one can tell if tax cuts would work for sure because the government has never cut spending at the same time just my two scents.

 

[a777pilot]

No one can tell if tax cuts would work for sure because the government has never cut spending at the same time just my two scents.

Agree.

We, here in America, do not have a tax problem. We have a spending problem.

 

[misterveritis]

Some questions for you

Somewhere, someone in the GOP made the statement that deficits don't matter. Maybe Cheney? That is partially true, the economy and jobs should be a piority. Once the jobs are moving up, more taxes will be paid which will help lower the deficit. The deficit has been cut by one-trillion dollars by this administration.

Is this an example of new math? Do you merely accept what the administration feeds you? Can you show me the cuts? What programs have less money this year than last year? Defense?

Obama turned the job market around from losing 750,000 jobs a month to gaining positive jobs numbers for some 32 months.

In how many months before the two-term Marxist, flexible with our enemies, president Barack Hussein Obama was elected was the nation losing 750,000 jobs per month?
In how many months after the two-term Marxist, flexible with our enemies, president Barack Hussein Obama was elected did the nation lose 750,000 jobs per month?

We still need more. If the two jobs bills would be put on the floor by Boehner, we could have more.

From your foxhole the government creates jobs and wealth, right? Where does the money come from?

This man has done an amazing job in spite of the hateful GOP and their full intentions to bring the man down, regardless of the damage to the country.

What has he done? For full disclosure I want him defeated. So back to my question. What has he done for the United States? He has encouraged massive theft from the next generation. I admit that. Has he done anything else?

My thought, be freaking careful of the ditch you dig for your enemy, lest you fall in it. As for this muslim brotherhood crapola, he had four years to do whatever you think he was going to do, instead he was working hard to save the auto industry, keep the banks solvent and helping to establish health care. Now he wants to increase jobs, cut the deficit, and work on an immigration policy, also gun control. This bogey man shat is so old. Cheers.

Okay. So he nationalized a portion of the auto industry. He nationalized a portion of the banking and financial industries. He nationalized student loans. He and his minions, Reind and Pelosi rammed the affordable health care act down our throats. That is intended to set the stage for socialism.

He is a tyrant now. It is clear to most of us. Let us hope the Republican Congress stops the tyrant who temporarily occupies the White House.

 

[misterveritis]

Marx was an anarchist...

Really? Based on which of his fifty volumes of collected writings?

 

[misterveritis]

Marx/Engels wrote of communism as a classless, stateless, moneyless society. You can look that up- it is everywhere (including The Communist Manifesto). Socialism was the transition to communism, which was state-led (dictatorship of the proletariat), but the ultimate goal was to get rid of the state.

And yet his writings spend a great deal of time working through the problems of the intermediate stage, the state-tyranny, the dictatorship of the proles. For some reason no one ever escapes the intermediate step.

The goal was to wreck capitalist, free-market economies and replace them with a perfectly just system. It is a utopian pipe dream.

 

[myp]

And yet his writings spend a great deal of time working through the problems of the intermediate stage, the state-tyranny, the dictatorship of the proles. For some reason no one ever escapes the intermediate step.

The goal was to wreck capitalist, free-market economies and replace them with a perfectly just system. It is a utopian pipe dream.

Agreed (although I don't think it was a malignant goal towards free markets so much as just a utopian alternative dream). I'm no communist, but it was being misrepresented, so I was clarifying that.

 

[misterveritis]

The Collective Mindset

It wasn't "trickle down". The government didn't give billions of dollars to the richest and watch it go down. It was actually quite different and much more complex... built on the hard work of a nation from the bottom up and with some luck in having great resource availability and good stretches of political stability amongst other things.

Is everything "collective" with you?
Other than the cronies that the Marxist rewards who else receives billions to "trickle down"?

Is it possible you have no understanding of freedom and of liberty? Is it possible that you are completely clueless about economic freedom? Is it possible that fyou do not believe that you should be able to decide for yourself while I decide for me...all without government intervention?

 

[Protectionist]

What economic structure then built the economy of the United States?

Oops.

It certainly can't be said that trickle down economics did. TDE is associated with low taxation, and while we have had low taxation (on the rich) for the past 30 years, for 65 years before that, we had very high taxation on the rich, and those were our best economic years.

When we went to the trickle down nonsense of Reagan/Bush (28-31% tax on the rich) we had some f our worst economic years. So, to try to say that trickle down economics built the economy of the United States, would be preposterous idiocy.

 

[misterveritis]

The Marxist Goal

Agreed (although I don't think it was a malignant goal towards free markets so much as just a utopian alternative dream). I'm no communist, but it was being misrepresented, so I was clarifying that.

Nice. But Marx was very specific in many of his writings about his goal to wreck capitalism. He believed it was fundamentally unfair. Don't you share his opinion?

His conceit is that man could ever know enough to do centrally what each of us does individually.

Centralization is a very great evil.

 

[misterveritis]

The Lies we tell one another

It certainly can't be said that trickle down economics did. TDE is associated with low taxation, and while we have had low taxation (on the rich) for the past 30 years, for 65 years before that, we had very high taxation on the rich, and those were our best economic years.

When we went to the trickle down nonsense of Reagan/Bush (28-31% tax on the rich) we had some f our worst economic years. So, to try to say that trickle down economics built the economy of the United States, would be preposterous idiocy.

Would you share what the effective tax rates have been in the US for the last hundred years?
Can you explain how the tax revenues nearly doubled under Reagan's lower tax rates?

 

[Protectionist]

So that last you worked for a poor person was when?

You don't. You want to make sure the employer has enough money to be able to pay you and anyone else working for them.

So someone at 'the top' has to be spending money, purchasing from one company, who purchases from another company, who purchases from the company that produces the goods.

A pyramid, so to speak. If you apply that to 'trickle up' economics, the pyramid has no balance, and just as when you climb a ladder, it takes a great deal more effort to go up, then go down.

The true failure in the current economic situation came when the government demanded that loans be made to individuals and companies with lax laws that pretty much ignored the ability to pay those loans back. And all the perifrial maneuvering in the financial sector related to those loans, and that was the recipe.

Not cutting taxes for the wealthy. But it makes for one hell of a scapegoat, doesn't it.

That employer will have money to pay his employees if he gets SALES in the stores. And those SALES are boosted by more AMERICANS working and spending their paychecks. And that (for one example) and quite well come from millions more AMERICANS getting jobs which came from the $$$ of increased taxation.

And I guess you just can't let go of that word "trickLe", but I guess you were referring to PERCOLATE UP ECONOMICS. With it, there's no great effort in going up at all. You just tax the people who can easily afford to pay. Hire lots of badly needed workers and you fix the economy with infrastructure repair, immigration control, crime control, etc) Get it ?

 

[Protectionist]

And a poor analogy it was. Trickle down I agree with you is a talking point, a political one at that, and has become a deragatory term for some observers, obviously you are one of these Observers. I don't defend the term.....I'm explaining to you what you call reality really doesn't matter....it doesn't change that reality.

I'll ask again and take note you appear to have difficulty answering this question. What was the economic model that turned the United States into the most propsperous and powerful nation in this planet's history.

With warm regards -Stonewall

Over the past 60 years:

Best GDP growth and Job Growth were at 75-80% taxation on the rich (PERCOLATE UP ECONOMICS)

Close 2ND BEST Job & GDP Growth were at 91-94% taxation on the rich (PERCOLATE UP ECONOMICS)