If Trickle Down Economics doesn't work, then how do you explain the love for Stimulus?

[Dragonlady]

In our system some people have to be poor. So we help them. It's the biggest reason for our exceptionalism. We are founded on judeo Christian values and Christ was about helping the poor first and foremost.

Right, because Jesus wants poor people to starve...

Jesus commands all Christians to feed and clothe the poor yet says nothing about having the State being involved so they can pay off their cronies, unions, and bureaucrats and then feed and clothe the poor on what is left over.

Jesus is not in charge of the government of the United States of America.

Separation of church and state.

The Constitution says that the government should work for the “general welfare” of the nation. Even the Ancient Romans had the good sense to know that in order to rule, you need to keep the “headcount” fed and happy, or they will turn on you.

Republicans have been starving working people for generations and are now shocked that working people are sick of their lies.

The minimum wage did not go up under Obama eight years either. It went up in 2009 but that was passed under Bush.

Nine increases to the minimum wage in the past 40 years. In the meantime executive compensation has gone up by over 1000%.

Hourly workers in the United States have seen the value of their paycheques decline over the past 40 years. And Republicans are still refusing to give them a raise.

Companies have managed to absorb increases in the cost of materials, ranch and/or property purchase, transportation, insurance, office supplies, and technology. But each time they asked to increase wages that’s a bridge too far.

 

[Dragonlady]

In our system some people have to be poor. So we help them. It's the biggest reason for our exceptionalism. We are founded on judeo Christian values and Christ was about helping the poor first and foremost.

Right, because Jesus wants poor people to starve...

Jesus commands all Christians to feed and clothe the poor yet says nothing about having the State being involved so they can pay off their cronies, unions, and bureaucrats and then feed and clothe the poor on what is left over.

Jesus is not in charge of the government of the United States of America.

Separation of church and state.

The Constitution says that the government should work for the “general welfare” of the nation. Even the Ancient Romans had the good sense to know that in order to rule, you need to keep the “headcount” fed and happy, or they will turn on you.

Republicans have been starving working people for generations and are now shocked that working people are sick of their lies.

There is a clear line between general welfare and wealth redistribution towards the impossible task of eliminating wealth inequality.

But you have no problem with the wealth redistribution which created the inequity in the first place. Until 1981, when Reagan cut taxes to the wealthy for the first time, there was an equitable distribution of income. Reagan tilted the economic plate in favour of the wealthy.

Each successive tax cut has increase the tilt upward so that today, the top 10% are getting 80% of the wealth of the nation. This is unsustainable.

Fools like you continue to talk about “wealth redistribution” while ignoring the greatest wealth distribution redistribution in the history of the world: the Republican Party transfer of American wealth to the top 10% under successive over the past 40 years.

You don’t even acknowledge this happened

 

[Wyatt earp]

While the analogy doesn’t quite hold up, the notions behind soaking the rich and helicopter monies are both born of economic fallacy.

The government taking a portion of what they initially gave is in no way "soaking the rich".

The government cannot give anything that it has not already taken. The fallacies remain fallacies.

The only fallacy here is the notion that taxation is “theft” of something that the taxpayer has earned solely through their own efforts. That’s a lie.

Your taxes are your share of the cost of living in a first world country. Taxes pay for the education which allows you to earn money, the roads and transportation systems you used to get to and from work, the infrastructure which powers your house, your workplace, and your leisure.

In addition it pays for the safety and security to protect intellectual property, private property rights, police fire and medical, and all of the things that make a first world country safe and livable.

You could move to a country with no taxes at all but you wouldn’t like living there. I believe you refer to them as “shit hole countries”.

So stop pretending that taxation is theft and start paying your fair share of the costs of living in a first world country.

You’re not special snowflake you’re just another Republican deadbeat.

Who's taxes? Chicago where it cost $12 bucks for a pack of smokes or south carolina where it cost $5 bucks for the same pack of smokes???

 

[22lcidw]

The left loves stimulus, so long as it's driven by dementia instead of the orange man.

But the left hates trickle down. In their minds the more you take from employers the more likely employees are to get a raise. Let's call it what it is instead, they desire govt. entitlements, because that's the only other direction, and that starves a country under socialism. But the PROGS talk anyway, they do that a lot. In PROG, the less money you make the better car you drive, debt & bad decisions are personal too.

Trickle down economics is just a term. For those who think rationally it's really up & down, an exchange of money ongoing. If that shit don't work, then explain why economic stimulus is different, go!

Stimulus is the opposite of "Trickle Down". Stimulus is taking money from the rich and giving it to working class people. (Which is only sensible, since the rich stole it from them to start with). Trickle down is not taxing the rich and hoping they share some of the wealth with poor people.

They don't.

View attachment 494518

You must include the fiat currency and all the social programs in everything we do. The amount of social programs needed at this point far outweighs any revenues that can be gained to balance the budget. Two major opportunities were the huge tax base by the massive baby boomer generation and the massive social security tax increases to do good by the budget. now the boomers and the social security are going to them as they pay less and get more. As they earned it.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The left loves stimulus, so long as it's driven by dementia instead of the orange man.

But the left hates trickle down. In their minds the more you take from employers the more likely employees are to get a raise. Let's call it what it is instead, they desire govt. entitlements, because that's the only other direction, and that starves a country under socialism. But the PROGS talk anyway, they do that a lot. In PROG, the less money you make the better car you drive, debt & bad decisions are personal too.

Trickle down economics is just a term. For those who think rationally it's really up & down, an exchange of money ongoing. If that shit don't work, then explain why economic stimulus is different, go!

Stimulus is the opposite of "Trickle Down". Stimulus is taking money from the rich and giving it to working class people. (Which is only sensible, since the rich stole it from them to start with). Trickle down is not taxing the rich and hoping they share some of the wealth with poor people.

They don't.

View attachment 494518

Who in turn take that money and spend it on products that benefit the rich.

 

[pknopp]

In our system some people have to be poor. So we help them. It's the biggest reason for our exceptionalism. We are founded on judeo Christian values and Christ was about helping the poor first and foremost.

Right, because Jesus wants poor people to starve...

Jesus commands all Christians to feed and clothe the poor yet says nothing about having the State being involved so they can pay off their cronies, unions, and bureaucrats and then feed and clothe the poor on what is left over.

Jesus is not in charge of the government of the United States of America.

Separation of church and state.

The Constitution says that the government should work for the “general welfare” of the nation. Even the Ancient Romans had the good sense to know that in order to rule, you need to keep the “headcount” fed and happy, or they will turn on you.

Republicans have been starving working people for generations and are now shocked that working people are sick of their lies.

The minimum wage did not go up under Obama eight years either. It went up in 2009 but that was passed under Bush.

Nine increases to the minimum wage in the past 40 years. In the meantime executive compensation has gone up by over 1000%.

Hourly workers in the United States have seen the value of their paycheques decline over the past 40 years. And Republicans are still refusing to give them a raise.

Companies have managed to absorb increases in the cost of materials, ranch and/or property purchase, transportation, insurance, office supplies, and technology. But each time they asked to increase wages that’s a bridge too far.

All of which happened under Obama also.

 

[Mac-7]

He made no qualifications as to how one helps the poor.

He said told the rich man to sell all his processions and give it to the poor

Jesus didnt say give it to the government so that government can hand it out

 

[Mac-7]

The Trillions that has been pumped into the markets were not taken from anyone. It's just created.

No you are wrong

The dollars are worth less and the goods we buy are more costly

 

[Mac-7]

No argument, this is a Christian nation was/is/always

Americans give more to charity than any other people

And Christians are more generous than non Christians

 

[pknopp]

He made no qualifications as to how one helps the poor.

He said told the rich man to sell all his processions and give it to the poor

Jesus didnt say give it to the government so that government can hand it out

Fine, let's go with that. What say you?

 

[Mac-7]

that we are constantly at war, most of which we start.

I suppose you mean Iraq which even many Bush voters admit was a mistake

But our wars since we became a superpower have never been for territorial or even economic gain

but rather in opposition to the international forces of evil

 

[pknopp]

The Trillions that has been pumped into the markets were not taken from anyone. It's just created.

No you are wrong

The dollars are worth less and the goods we buy are more costly

Which does nothing to dispute what I said.

Yes, doing this has those kinds of ramifications but it was taken from no one to do it.

 

[Mac-7]

Fine, let's go with that. What say you?

See post #49

 

[Dragonlady]

The left loves stimulus, so long as it's driven by dementia instead of the orange man.

But the left hates trickle down. In their minds the more you take from employers the more likely employees are to get a raise. Let's call it what it is instead, they desire govt. entitlements, because that's the only other direction, and that starves a country under socialism. But the PROGS talk anyway, they do that a lot. In PROG, the less money you make the better car you drive, debt & bad decisions are personal too.

Trickle down economics is just a term. For those who think rationally it's really up & down, an exchange of money ongoing. If that shit don't work, then explain why economic stimulus is different, go!

Stimulus isn't "trickle down". If you had even a basic knowledge of economics you'd know that. Trickle down says that when the rich get richer, they spend more, and their investment and spending, "trickles down" to working people and creates more jobs and raises, and the increased revenues pay for the tax cuts.

The theory has been totally debunked as "voodoo economics". No tax cuts have ever paid for themselves, not even the Kennedy tax cuts in the 60's. Under successive Republican Administrations, the tax cuts have accelerated the transfer of wealth from the working and middle class to the top 10%, and destabilzied the markets, leading to three economic crashes in 40 years.

At the same time as Republicans were cutting taxes, the suppressed the wages of working Americans, attacked the unions, and eliminated anti-trust legislation. Each time they crashed the economy, working people lost ground economically. They're now dependent on food stamps and Section 8.

The middle class was seriously impoverished by Trump's crash, but more billionaires were created during his administration than in any other administration. The American middle class is now the only First World middle class that is shrinking, with more people falling back into poverty, than are moving up into wealth.

Republicans have effectively killed the goose that laid the Golden Egg. The American Dream is dead, and the middle class is now struggling. Without a thriving middle and working class, the US will continue to spiral downward economically, and socially. Argentina is in your future.

 

[Mac-7]

It does nothing to dispute what I said.

Libs are creating inflation that reduces the value of personal savings

 

[Dragonlady]

In our system some people have to be poor. So we help them. It's the biggest reason for our exceptionalism. We are founded on judeo Christian values and Christ was about helping the poor first and foremost.

Right, because Jesus wants poor people to starve...

Jesus commands all Christians to feed and clothe the poor yet says nothing about having the State being involved so they can pay off their cronies, unions, and bureaucrats and then feed and clothe the poor on what is left over.

Jesus is not in charge of the government of the United States of America.

Separation of church and state.

The Constitution says that the government should work for the “general welfare” of the nation. Even the Ancient Romans had the good sense to know that in order to rule, you need to keep the “headcount” fed and happy, or they will turn on you.

Republicans have been starving working people for generations and are now shocked that working people are sick of their lies.

The minimum wage did not go up under Obama eight years either. It went up in 2009 but that was passed under Bush.

Nine increases to the minimum wage in the past 40 years. In the meantime executive compensation has gone up by over 1000%.

Hourly workers in the United States have seen the value of their paycheques decline over the past 40 years. And Republicans are still refusing to give them a raise.

Companies have managed to absorb increases in the cost of materials, ranch and/or property purchase, transportation, insurance, office supplies, and technology. But each time they asked to increase wages that’s a bridge too far.

All of which happened under Obama also.

It happened under Clinton too. That's because both Presidents were working with the Republican tax structure, as set up under Reagan, which is the root of the wealth inequity. Unless and until the tax code is rewritten to balance the economic plate in a way which more equitably distributes income so that work is rewarded, not just wealth, conditions will continue to worse.

The Child Tax Benefit is a start, but wage have to rise. The status quo is unsustainable and will only lead to more economic instability.

 

[Mac-7]

Stimulus is taking money from the rich and giving it to working class people.

Or in another words, baby hitlers lock workers out of their jobs for a year while bleeding heart libs save the day through government handouts

Only people infected with marxist dogma could see the logic of that

 

[Dragonlady]

It does nothing to dispute what I said.

Libs are creating inflation that reduces the value of personal savings

63% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. They don't have the resources to withstand a $500 emergency. Inflation will have no affect on their non-existent savings but an increase in wages may allow them to actually HAVE savings.

The people whose "savings" will be afflicted by inflation, will also have their real property values increased by inflation to a degree much greater than inflation will harm their savings.

 

[Bobob]

The left loves stimulus, so long as it's driven by dementia instead of the orange man.

But the left hates trickle down. In their minds the more you take from employers the more likely employees are to get a raise. Let's call it what it is instead, they desire govt. entitlements, because that's the only other direction, and that starves a country under socialism. But the PROGS talk anyway, they do that a lot. In PROG, the less money you make the better car you drive, debt & bad decisions are personal too.

Trickle down economics is just a term. For those who think rationally it's really up & down, an exchange of money ongoing. If that shit don't work, then explain why economic stimulus is different, go!

Trickle-down doesn't happen as indicated by the huge tax reduction for the wealthy which they invested in the stock market and our debt climbed by the two trillion dollars that the wealthy were supposed to "trickle-down" to the working class and into the treasury.
Don't know whether the stimulus does work as a one-time shot. It does put money into the economy in the short term and may be the goose that laid the golden egg if the movement in the economy journeys upward.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

The left loves stimulus, so long as it's driven by dementia instead of the orange man.

But the left hates trickle down. In their minds the more you take from employers the more likely employees are to get a raise. Let's call it what it is instead, they desire govt. entitlements, because that's the only other direction, and that starves a country under socialism. But the PROGS talk anyway, they do that a lot. In PROG, the less money you make the better car you drive, debt & bad decisions are personal too.

Trickle down economics is just a term. For those who think rationally it's really up & down, an exchange of money ongoing. If that shit don't work, then explain why economic stimulus is different, go!

I'll give it a go.

You are conflating 2 different things.

Economic stimulis is giving money to people or businesses who qualify for it by a predetermined set of standards.

Trickle down economics is the idea that as profit increases so do wages of those employed.

The first is predictable and easily quantified in its outcome. The second is a philosophy that is neither.

As to your first paragraph.

Yes, we want more entitlements. The reason being that unlike trickledown economics the available funds are guaranteed to help the employed and... yes also the unemployed and other people in need. It doesn't "starve" a country as countless Western countries have proved. It leads to a higher standard of living and more happiness of the populace on the whole.

Economic stimulis is giving money to people or businesses who qualify for it by a predetermined set of standards. Same applies to all economic conditions, established standards. The only difference is the govt. is spreading the money generating public debt with among other things hope to generate growth. Or if PROG language because "people are hurting".

Trickle down economics is the idea that as profit increases so do wages of those employed. Again, it's up and down, down causes up, back down again etc. etc. The idea for stimulus is exactly the same.

The first is predictable and easily quantified in its outcome. No shit predictable huh? Then why all the hiring signs? Under O'bummer we had stimulus while O'bummercare stagnated growth and raised taxes. It was predictable alright, the money went into govt. programs for O'bummercare, ask me how I know, govt. buildings, ask me how I know, and govt. infrastructure where a days work took weeks ask me how I know, and giant steel animals they call art ask me how I know.

The second is a philosophy that is neither. Reflecting on the OP, since trickle down is just a philosophy then it's safe to say you're more likely to receive a raise if the govt. takes more money.

As to your first paragraph.

Yes, we want more entitlements. The reason being that unlike trickledown economics the available funds are guaranteed to help the employed and... yes also the unemployed and other people in need.


It doesn't "starve" a country as countless Western countries have proved. Say goodbye to USA military force those countries depend on yo cover their ass. Yeah, let's give everything to China, sounds about right. There has been a recent trend of rising homelessness in England. Over the 2016/17 period, 59,110 people were considered homeless, this is a 9% increase over the 2014/15 numbers. Homelessness among vulnerable groups has also increased by 75% since 2010 (Shelter, 2019).

On any given night, there are 4,000 people sleeping rough (Shelter, 2019). Households in temporary accommodation has risen from 48,330 in 2011 to 78,170 in 2017 (EOH, 2018). 57% of private renters say they struggle to cover housing costs (Shelter, 2019).

There is no official strategy for gathering information on homelessness in Greece. The UN Human Rights Council reports 21,216 people as homeless (FEANTSA, 2017).

Currently 34.8% of the population, 3.7 million people, are considered to be living below the poverty line (Kathimerini, 2018). The country also has the highest level of unemployment in Europe at 18.5% (Eurostat, 2019) .

Since the start of the financial crisis evictions have risen by nearly 70%.

You could move to Cuba???????????????