Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Have more wealth than half the population of the United States.
Hey Mr. Reagan, when exactly is this trickle down thing going to kick in?
Hey Mr. Bush, since the "job creators" still have the Tax Cut you gave them in 2002 and 2004, why aren't they, you know, creating more jobs?
Hey Mr. Lyndon Johnson, since your war on poverty was designed to rid us of hunger and alleviate suffering, when are those trillions spent in the last 50 years going to do the job? Why do we still have the same percentage in poverty today as we had before that money was spent to "defeat" it?
Where would all those people be today had that money not been spent? Would you have rather that it had been spent killing Arabs in Iraq, or feeding and housing our own people?
Actually, I would have preferred the money be used to create a viable work force, an educated work force. Instead, it was used to buy votes ("those ni&&ers will vote Democrat for the next 200 years). We didn't help the poor - we created a permanent under-class, unarmed to compete in the world today, and unwilling to try to break the bonds that hold them down.
Compete against who? With what? The rich have taken all the money invested it overseas. What resources do you suppose the poor have in order to "break the bonds"?
N, of course not. They exploited their workers and paid them peanuts so they could live in big houses and offshore jobs.Hey Mssrs. Clinton and Obama...
Your insipid post implies that these "400 Americans" have somehow stolen their wealth from half the population of the United States. Do you include Bill Gates in those 400? If so, please explain how his accumulation of wealth has deprived others of wealth. You may wait until Recess to respond.
That’s the mindset of the Liberals. They assume we operate under a zero sum game where one person gaining wealth means someone else had to lose for them to do it.
Are you saying that the filthy rich are all honest men and woman who have never lied or cheated their fellow humans and always stay within the bounds of ethical conduct? Ever? Really?
In 1980 we were sold the theory of Supply Side Economics or Trickle Down Economics. Specifically, if we make more money available to the investment class, than they'll use that money to grow the economy, which will brings jobs, material gain and opportunities to the lower classes.
In practice this theory had uneven success. Much of the extra wealth on top went into buying politicians so that our capitalists could create the trade and regulatory environment to ship production to dirt cheap labor markets in freedom hating nations. Another problem was that Supply Side Economics advocated for lower American wages (so that our suppliers would have lower operating costs and hence more incentive to invest). Taken together these things destroyed consumer purchasing power, which is why starting with Reagan The American family started to take on massive amounts of debt (to compensate for lost jobs and lower wages/benefits).
As a result, Reaganomics has left us with an upper class that has more concentrated wealth than any such class in history, coupled with a middle class that is too indebted to consume. This isn't a temporary crisis, it's a structural flaw that we keep trying to fix with more credit and a toxic cycle of asset bubbles.
But it gets worse. You know how republicans hate concentrated political power - well, take a guess what our singularly massive amount of concentrated wealth amounts to? Reaganomics, by concentrating wealth in the hands of the suppliers (which is spread across the entire investment class), has created exactly the kind of concentrated power that they claim to be against. This is why wealthy individuals on both sides of the political aisle own politicians. This is why lobbyists and not voters determine legislation.
Republicans don't get it.
We swallowed poison in 1980.
Turn off talk radio.
The money never trickled down you fucking fools.
It trickled into the pockets of politicians. This was predicted when Reagan announced that he was bringing the wealthy American back.
We need cheap loans for that tech school, and many more. You're clueless as to what Pub policies have done. Right up on racist code though...Oh yeah? What do you tell the inner city black kid whose mom is strung out on drugs and whose dad is in jail and doesnt have a telephone or shoes or mail service? How do you proposing providing resources so he can become an astronaut?Compete against who? With what? The rich have taken all the money invested it overseas. What resources do you suppose the poor have in order to "break the bonds"?
Last time I looked, everyone in this country has an opportunity to go to school through the 12th grade. Are you saying that's not a resource? Where I live, there is a technical college that has many Associate degree programs. Most are 60 - 70 semester hours. With lottery money, the overall costs is a minimal investment.
There are plenty of resources available if people want them and plenty of excuses that e made if they don't.
Tell him there is some bleeding heart Liberal somewhere that claims he/she has compassion but don't waste your time asking them because their compassion comes from seeing who else they can get the resources from.
The resources you propose providing them would likely come from taxpayers and involve those who didn't do drugs or weren't put in jail having taken from them resources that otherwise would go to THEIR KIDS. I would tell him to not get strung out on drug or do something to get thrown in jail so your kids, if you have any, won't have to rely on taxpayers.
Feel free to loan them any of your money you want. I find it interesting that the bleeding heart proposals always involve someone else getting the bills.
I am a prime example of those policies. If you vote for what's in your best interest, why shouldn't I do the same?
He provided an accurate history lesson as anyone who lived through the supply-side economics era can testify. Show us where he's wrong.In 1980 we were sold the theory of Supply Side Economics or Trickle Down Economics. Specifically, if we make more money available to the investment class, than they'll use that money to grow the economy, which will brings jobs, material gain and opportunities to the lower classes.
In practice this theory had uneven success. Much of the extra wealth on top went into buying politicians so that our capitalists could create the trade and regulatory environment to ship production to dirt cheap labor markets in freedom hating nations. Another problem was that Supply Side Economics advocated for lower American wages (so that our suppliers would have lower operating costs and hence more incentive to invest). Taken together these things destroyed consumer purchasing power, which is why starting with Reagan The American family started to take on massive amounts of debt (to compensate for lost jobs and lower wages/benefits).
As a result, Reaganomics has left us with an upper class that has more concentrated wealth than any such class in history, coupled with a middle class that is too indebted to consume. This isn't a temporary crisis, it's a structural flaw that we keep trying to fix with more credit and a toxic cycle of asset bubbles.
But it gets worse. You know how republicans hate concentrated political power - well, take a guess what our singularly massive amount of concentrated wealth amounts to? Reaganomics, by concentrating wealth in the hands of the suppliers (which is spread across the entire investment class), has created exactly the kind of concentrated power that they claim to be against. This is why wealthy individuals on both sides of the political aisle own politicians. This is why lobbyists and not voters determine legislation.
Republicans don't get it.
We swallowed poison in 1980.
Turn off talk radio.
The money never trickled down you fucking fools.
It trickled into the pockets of politicians. This was predicted when Reagan announced that he was bringing the wealthy American back.
Your lack of understanding of even the most fundamental capitalism concepts is stunning !!!
You attack without facts; you accuse without proof; you bitch without having a solution.
In short, pretty much a waste of time. Bring something to the table other than accusations, innuendo and empty rhetoric.
It was a history lesson by a retard, for the retard. He's completely full of shit, the facts don't back it up. Only a hand full of whack jobs say the Reagan years were bad or wrong for America.He provided an accurate history lesson as anyone who lived through the supply-side economics era can testify. Show us where he's wrong.
They wouldnt pay them a living wage.N, of course not. They exploited their workers and paid them peanuts so they could live in big houses and offshore jobs.Hey Mssrs. Clinton and Obama...
Your insipid post implies that these "400 Americans" have somehow stolen their wealth from half the population of the United States. Do you include Bill Gates in those 400? If so, please explain how his accumulation of wealth has deprived others of wealth. You may wait until Recess to respond.
That’s the mindset of the Liberals. They assume we operate under a zero sum game where one person gaining wealth means someone else had to lose for them to do it.
Are you saying that the filthy rich are all honest men and woman who have never lied or cheated their fellow humans and always stay within the bounds of ethical conduct? Ever? Really?
Define 'exploited' -
There was no supply side era. The whole notion ended once Bush raised taxes, violating his pledge.He provided an accurate history lesson as anyone who lived through the supply-side economics era can testify. Show us where he's wrong.In 1980 we were sold the theory of Supply Side Economics or Trickle Down Economics. Specifically, if we make more money available to the investment class, than they'll use that money to grow the economy, which will brings jobs, material gain and opportunities to the lower classes.
In practice this theory had uneven success. Much of the extra wealth on top went into buying politicians so that our capitalists could create the trade and regulatory environment to ship production to dirt cheap labor markets in freedom hating nations. Another problem was that Supply Side Economics advocated for lower American wages (so that our suppliers would have lower operating costs and hence more incentive to invest). Taken together these things destroyed consumer purchasing power, which is why starting with Reagan The American family started to take on massive amounts of debt (to compensate for lost jobs and lower wages/benefits).
As a result, Reaganomics has left us with an upper class that has more concentrated wealth than any such class in history, coupled with a middle class that is too indebted to consume. This isn't a temporary crisis, it's a structural flaw that we keep trying to fix with more credit and a toxic cycle of asset bubbles.
But it gets worse. You know how republicans hate concentrated political power - well, take a guess what our singularly massive amount of concentrated wealth amounts to? Reaganomics, by concentrating wealth in the hands of the suppliers (which is spread across the entire investment class), has created exactly the kind of concentrated power that they claim to be against. This is why wealthy individuals on both sides of the political aisle own politicians. This is why lobbyists and not voters determine legislation.
Republicans don't get it.
We swallowed poison in 1980.
Turn off talk radio.
The money never trickled down you fucking fools.
It trickled into the pockets of politicians. This was predicted when Reagan announced that he was bringing the wealthy American back.
Your lack of understanding of even the most fundamental capitalism concepts is stunning !!!
You attack without facts; you accuse without proof; you bitch without having a solution.
In short, pretty much a waste of time. Bring something to the table other than accusations, innuendo and empty rhetoric.
The sad part is they actually believe this. It is the narrative of the Left: the Reagan years were years when only the very wealthy did well. Everyone else stagnated as companies shipped jobs overseas.It was a history lesson by a retard, for the retard. He's completely full of shit, the facts don't back it up. Only a hand full of whack jobs say the Reagan years were bad or wrong for America.He provided an accurate history lesson as anyone who lived through the supply-side economics era can testify. Show us where he's wrong.
The problem is you assholes have nothing. So you try to diminish everything around you to look better. It ain't working.
Intelligence is the ability to adapt and learn- you are a brainwashed functional moron, hater dupe.It was a history lesson by a retard, for the retard. He's completely full of shit, the facts don't back it up. Only a hand full of whack jobs say the Reagan years were bad or wrong for America.He provided an accurate history lesson as anyone who lived through the supply-side economics era can testify. Show us where he's wrong.
The problem is you assholes have nothing. So you try to diminish everything around you to look better. It ain't working.
Maybe one-strike, 25 to life, laws with the understanding anyone convicted of corruption charges will serve twenty-five years before becoming eligible for parole.If ending corruption is what you want, make the penalty for said corruption so costly that any possibile benefit is overwhelmed.
Yup, raising taxes 4% changed the whole dynamic. Idiot.There was no supply side era. The whole notion ended once Bush raised taxes, violating his pledge.He provided an accurate history lesson as anyone who lived through the supply-side economics era can testify. Show us where he's wrong.In 1980 we were sold the theory of Supply Side Economics or Trickle Down Economics. Specifically, if we make more money available to the investment class, than they'll use that money to grow the economy, which will brings jobs, material gain and opportunities to the lower classes.
In practice this theory had uneven success. Much of the extra wealth on top went into buying politicians so that our capitalists could create the trade and regulatory environment to ship production to dirt cheap labor markets in freedom hating nations. Another problem was that Supply Side Economics advocated for lower American wages (so that our suppliers would have lower operating costs and hence more incentive to invest). Taken together these things destroyed consumer purchasing power, which is why starting with Reagan The American family started to take on massive amounts of debt (to compensate for lost jobs and lower wages/benefits).
As a result, Reaganomics has left us with an upper class that has more concentrated wealth than any such class in history, coupled with a middle class that is too indebted to consume. This isn't a temporary crisis, it's a structural flaw that we keep trying to fix with more credit and a toxic cycle of asset bubbles.
But it gets worse. You know how republicans hate concentrated political power - well, take a guess what our singularly massive amount of concentrated wealth amounts to? Reaganomics, by concentrating wealth in the hands of the suppliers (which is spread across the entire investment class), has created exactly the kind of concentrated power that they claim to be against. This is why wealthy individuals on both sides of the political aisle own politicians. This is why lobbyists and not voters determine legislation.
Republicans don't get it.
We swallowed poison in 1980.
Turn off talk radio.
The money never trickled down you fucking fools.
It trickled into the pockets of politicians. This was predicted when Reagan announced that he was bringing the wealthy American back.
Your lack of understanding of even the most fundamental capitalism concepts is stunning !!!
You attack without facts; you accuse without proof; you bitch without having a solution.
In short, pretty much a waste of time. Bring something to the table other than accusations, innuendo and empty rhetoric.
He provided an accurate history lesson as anyone who lived through the supply-side economics era can testify. Show us where he's wrong.In 1980 we were sold the theory of Supply Side Economics or Trickle Down Economics. Specifically, if we make more money available to the investment class, than they'll use that money to grow the economy, which will brings jobs, material gain and opportunities to the lower classes.
In practice this theory had uneven success. Much of the extra wealth on top went into buying politicians so that our capitalists could create the trade and regulatory environment to ship production to dirt cheap labor markets in freedom hating nations. Another problem was that Supply Side Economics advocated for lower American wages (so that our suppliers would have lower operating costs and hence more incentive to invest). Taken together these things destroyed consumer purchasing power, which is why starting with Reagan The American family started to take on massive amounts of debt (to compensate for lost jobs and lower wages/benefits).
As a result, Reaganomics has left us with an upper class that has more concentrated wealth than any such class in history, coupled with a middle class that is too indebted to consume. This isn't a temporary crisis, it's a structural flaw that we keep trying to fix with more credit and a toxic cycle of asset bubbles.
But it gets worse. You know how republicans hate concentrated political power - well, take a guess what our singularly massive amount of concentrated wealth amounts to? Reaganomics, by concentrating wealth in the hands of the suppliers (which is spread across the entire investment class), has created exactly the kind of concentrated power that they claim to be against. This is why wealthy individuals on both sides of the political aisle own politicians. This is why lobbyists and not voters determine legislation.
Republicans don't get it.
We swallowed poison in 1980.
Turn off talk radio.
The money never trickled down you fucking fools.
It trickled into the pockets of politicians. This was predicted when Reagan announced that he was bringing the wealthy American back.
Your lack of understanding of even the most fundamental capitalism concepts is stunning !!!
You attack without facts; you accuse without proof; you bitch without having a solution.
In short, pretty much a waste of time. Bring something to the table other than accusations, innuendo and empty rhetoric.
Can you quantify that 4%? Just how many dollars is that? How many jobs are lost because that money isn't available for investment?Yup, raising taxes 4% changed the whole dynamic. Idiot.There was no supply side era. The whole notion ended once Bush raised taxes, violating his pledge.He provided an accurate history lesson as anyone who lived through the supply-side economics era can testify. Show us where he's wrong.In 1980 we were sold the theory of Supply Side Economics or Trickle Down Economics. Specifically, if we make more money available to the investment class, than they'll use that money to grow the economy, which will brings jobs, material gain and opportunities to the lower classes.
In practice this theory had uneven success. Much of the extra wealth on top went into buying politicians so that our capitalists could create the trade and regulatory environment to ship production to dirt cheap labor markets in freedom hating nations. Another problem was that Supply Side Economics advocated for lower American wages (so that our suppliers would have lower operating costs and hence more incentive to invest). Taken together these things destroyed consumer purchasing power, which is why starting with Reagan The American family started to take on massive amounts of debt (to compensate for lost jobs and lower wages/benefits).
As a result, Reaganomics has left us with an upper class that has more concentrated wealth than any such class in history, coupled with a middle class that is too indebted to consume. This isn't a temporary crisis, it's a structural flaw that we keep trying to fix with more credit and a toxic cycle of asset bubbles.
But it gets worse. You know how republicans hate concentrated political power - well, take a guess what our singularly massive amount of concentrated wealth amounts to? Reaganomics, by concentrating wealth in the hands of the suppliers (which is spread across the entire investment class), has created exactly the kind of concentrated power that they claim to be against. This is why wealthy individuals on both sides of the political aisle own politicians. This is why lobbyists and not voters determine legislation.
Republicans don't get it.
We swallowed poison in 1980.
Turn off talk radio.
The money never trickled down you fucking fools.
It trickled into the pockets of politicians. This was predicted when Reagan announced that he was bringing the wealthy American back.
Your lack of understanding of even the most fundamental capitalism concepts is stunning !!!
You attack without facts; you accuse without proof; you bitch without having a solution.
In short, pretty much a waste of time. Bring something to the table other than accusations, innuendo and empty rhetoric.
Reagan's growth was mainly deficit defense spending (doubled the debt) and a corrupt S+L bubble. Great job!
There's something called balance, private and government investment, like in training, education, and infrastructure, THAT WORKS. You are imbalanced and brainwashed, tool of the greedy idiot rich GOP.Can you quantify that 4%? Just how many dollars is that? How many jobs are lost because that money isn't available for investment?Yup, raising taxes 4% changed the whole dynamic. Idiot.There was no supply side era. The whole notion ended once Bush raised taxes, violating his pledge.He provided an accurate history lesson as anyone who lived through the supply-side economics era can testify. Show us where he's wrong.In 1980 we were sold the theory of Supply Side Economics or Trickle Down Economics. Specifically, if we make more money available to the investment class, than they'll use that money to grow the economy, which will brings jobs, material gain and opportunities to the lower classes.
In practice this theory had uneven success. Much of the extra wealth on top went into buying politicians so that our capitalists could create the trade and regulatory environment to ship production to dirt cheap labor markets in freedom hating nations. Another problem was that Supply Side Economics advocated for lower American wages (so that our suppliers would have lower operating costs and hence more incentive to invest). Taken together these things destroyed consumer purchasing power, which is why starting with Reagan The American family started to take on massive amounts of debt (to compensate for lost jobs and lower wages/benefits).
As a result, Reaganomics has left us with an upper class that has more concentrated wealth than any such class in history, coupled with a middle class that is too indebted to consume. This isn't a temporary crisis, it's a structural flaw that we keep trying to fix with more credit and a toxic cycle of asset bubbles.
But it gets worse. You know how republicans hate concentrated political power - well, take a guess what our singularly massive amount of concentrated wealth amounts to? Reaganomics, by concentrating wealth in the hands of the suppliers (which is spread across the entire investment class), has created exactly the kind of concentrated power that they claim to be against. This is why wealthy individuals on both sides of the political aisle own politicians. This is why lobbyists and not voters determine legislation.
Republicans don't get it.
We swallowed poison in 1980.
Turn off talk radio.
The money never trickled down you fucking fools.
It trickled into the pockets of politicians. This was predicted when Reagan announced that he was bringing the wealthy American back.
Your lack of understanding of even the most fundamental capitalism concepts is stunning !!!
You attack without facts; you accuse without proof; you bitch without having a solution.
In short, pretty much a waste of time. Bring something to the table other than accusations, innuendo and empty rhetoric.
50 months of growth despite mindless opposition, no corrupt bubble, averted a full blown depress- only cost 6-7 trillion. Thanks for the meltdown/disaster, functional shyttehead.Reagan's growth was mainly deficit defense spending (doubled the debt) and a corrupt S+L bubble. Great job!
You know --- maybe we should identify Reagan's performance against the current WH occupant.
Oh wait ---- he's a leftist. He can't do anything wrong.
Cutting tax rates will grow the economy, something it hasn't done for a while. And that will make whatever else we need to do more affordable. Though I'm not a neocon, so we probably disagree on how much we actually should be spending on in "the world at large." Most of our domestic problems would be solved by cutting taxes and spending right there.
Cutting taxes has NEVER grown the economy. At best, it is a temporary shot in the arm that benefits very few. What will grow the economy is to bring back our high tech jobs.
That's quite a narrow view. We still had little in the way of competition, seeing as how Japan and Germany were still in rebuild mode. Now there are many more than those two competing and competing very well.The only glory years I can recall were the sixties when the economy was booming, we were putting men on the Moon thanks to a democratic president, and there were tons of high paying jobs. Nixon and Raygun made sure those days were over. Thank you Ronnie Raygun.
Oh really? Is that why China makes most products sold in this ocuntry? Because we had little competition? Give me a break.
You can buy a $11 shirt made in China, or a $59 shirt made in Oregon - which do you pick?
Why do you think that shirt from China only costs $11, despite the huge freight costs?
Their slave labor conditions are worse than ours.
We don’t have slave conditions here. Someone with low level skills is getting an equivalent low level pay. If their pay is too low, perhaps they should improve their skills instead of demanding they be paid on existence rather than what they offer.
