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

[Rigby5]

You mean government handouts like free primary education?

No I dont

I expect the usual liberal argument that all public works such as the police, FD, bridges, ect are socialism

Including public education but I dont agree

We build schools for the general welfare and do not target specific income groups

The wealthy and the poor have equal access to our schools or roads and bridges

Socialism is not at all about redistribution of wealth as you seem to be implying.
All socialism means is that you collectively create a jointly owned means of production instead of having to buy from a private source you have no say in and charges what the market will bear.
In the case of health care, in the US currently we pay insurance companies that pay health care corporations to pay for hospitals that then pay doctors and nurses.
With socialism, health care would mean we use our tax money to pay for hospitals and the salaries of doctors and nurses directly.
This cuts out layers of middlemen who do nothing but skim off money and make input over quality concerns, impossible.
When the wealthy and poor have equal access to public services, that is socialism.

 

[Care4all]

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.

Mandatory tithing, in their laws, provided for the poor....tithing was equivalent to taxing. They were a theocracy.

 

[Rigby5]

Interesting. What is your position on abortion?

Exception to save the life of the mother only

All women have millions of ovum, so there is no reason to demand the first ovum that gets impregnated should be the first to be born.
It is much better for the woman, the child, and society, if the actual births are delayed as much as possible.
So that means the first couple of ovum to become impregnated should likely be aborted.
The number of children does not change, so there is no murder involved at all.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Mandatory tithing, in their laws, provided for the poor....tithing was equivalent to taxing. They were a theocracy.

Exactly.
Tithing of Christianity is socialism.
And since we are not just one religion any more, are too large of a group to be organized by religion, then government has to do it instead.

 

[Mac-7]

Just like they did for the last 250+ years?

Not true

250 years ago there were no immigration laws and no illegal aliens

But for over 150 years we have had laws against illegal entry

 

[Mac-7]

Interesting. What is your position on abortion?

Exception to save the life of the mother only

All women have millions of ovum, so there is no reason to demand the first ovum that gets impregnated should be the first to be born.
It is much better for the woman, the child, and society, if the actual births are delayed as much as possible.
So that means the first couple of ovum to become impregnated should likely be aborted.
The number of children does not change, so there is no murder involved at all.

What are you babbling about?

We are discussing unique human beings in the womb

 

[meaner gene]

But Dragonlady uses US data to support those interjections.
Not some Greek or other unrelated country claiming that those countries mirror what would happen here.

And what US data suggests we ought to learn from "successful" foreign countries?

First you need a history of those countries being like the US, such as past economic policy and result mirroring what happened in the US. And then when their actions diverted from those policies, pointing out the results.

An example is when in 2009 the US and Great Britain took two different economic policy directions. After the 2008 recession the US put economic stimulus in place, while England took a "balance the budget" approach instead.

The result, is the US economy continued to grow continuously, while Great Britain .... Well you can read it for yourself.

UK economy in double-dip recession

The UK returns to recession, after a sharp fall in construction leads to the economy shrinking by 0.2% in the first three months of 2012.

www.bbc.com

UK economy in double-dip recession

It added that a fall in government spending had contributed to the particularly large fall in the construction sector.

This is a recession made by him and the chancellor in Downing Street. It is his catastrophic economic policy that has landed us back in recession," Mr Miliband said.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

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

Wrong, it is taken in every exchange in the form of devalued purchasing power.

I am an extreme left wing, socialist, progressive, liberal, but I agree that trying to create money, but quantitative easing or anything else, does devalue previous money and therefore is taking.
So while I believe in socialism to cut out the profit motivated middlemen, I do believe in fiscal conservatism, where you balance the budget, do not borrow, and prevent government spending from reducing capitalist profit motivation too much. That is because capitalist profit motivation is faster, more innovative, and leaner then the bureaucracy that can make government spending inefficient.

 

[meaner gene]

The reason most illegal immigrants flock to the US is that we turned their countries into military dictatorships by training and arming right wing, fascist, tyrants. People are not coming here out of greed, but out of fear.

But a minority of them are coming here for economic reasons. Which is the sector that republicans focus on. Clouding who is coming here and why.

 

[Mac-7]

That has been going on for years. Trying to say "Bush and Trump" were liberals just avoids the facts.

Thats like telling us the guy has been drinking a 5fh of whisky and smoking 4 packs of cigarettes a day and he’s not dead yet

 

[Rigby5]

Interesting. What is your position on abortion?

Exception to save the life of the mother only

All women have millions of ovum, so there is no reason to demand the first ovum that gets impregnated should be the first to be born.
It is much better for the woman, the child, and society, if the actual births are delayed as much as possible.
So that means the first couple of ovum to become impregnated should likely be aborted.
The number of children does not change, so there is no murder involved at all.

What are you babbling about?

We are discussing unique human beings in the womb

Human beings as ovum in the ovaries are just as unique.
There is no point is discussing impregnated ovum in the womb as being any more significant than un-impregnated ovum in the ovaries, just waiting for their chance to become impregnated.

The point is the first ovum to become impregnated likely are not the optimal ones you want to bring to birth.
It is best for the mother, child, and society, to wait as long as possible.
People are economically more stable later in life.
It is wrong to have children when too young.
It is better for everyone if births are delayed.
And there is nothing bad about aborting early ovum so you can instead give birth to ovum impregnated later.

 

[meaner gene]

Yet you said this lead to a persons economic failure, yet you're against them avoiding that failure.

... and avoids stupid personal decisions like unwed pregnancies ...

Interesting. What is your position on abortion?

As a personal decision to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

Exception to save the life of the mother only

Interesting....

 

[pknopp]

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.

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

Wrong, it is taken in every exchange in the form of devalued purchasing power.

Sheesh. Just because the money gave you can only buy 4 apples as opposed to 6 apples doesn't change the fact that the money was not earned by you.

 

[pknopp]

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.

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

Wrong, it is taken in every exchange in the form of devalued purchasing power.

I am an extreme left wing, socialist, progressive, liberal, but I agree that trying to create money, but quantitative easing or anything else, does devalue previous money and therefore is taking.
So while I believe in socialism to cut out the profit motivated middlemen, I do believe in fiscal conservatism, where you balance the budget, do not borrow, and prevent government spending from reducing capitalist profit motivation too much. That is because capitalist profit motivation is faster, more innovative, and leaner then the bureaucracy that can make government spending inefficient.

It is taking from those who do not benefit by the Q.E. They get squat but still pay higher prices. If you get $1 million in benefit from Q.E. but that only buy 70% of what it once did, nothing was taken from you.

 

[SC Patriot]

You mean government handouts like free primary education?

No I dont

I expect the usual liberal argument that all public works such as the police, FD, bridges, ect are socialism

Including public education but I dont agree

We build schools for the general welfare and do not target specific income groups

The wealthy and the poor have equal access to our schools or roads and bridges

Socialism is not at all about redistribution of wealth as you seem to be implying.
All socialism means is that you collectively create a jointly owned means of production instead of having to buy from a private source you have no say in and charges what the market will bear.
In the case of health care, in the US currently we pay insurance companies that pay health care corporations to pay for hospitals that then pay doctors and nurses.
With socialism, health care would mean we use our tax money to pay for hospitals and the salaries of doctors and nurses directly.
This cuts out layers of middlemen who do nothing but skim off money and make input over quality concerns, impossible.
When the wealthy and poor have equal access to public services, that is socialism.

Really?

The ACA website cost a half a billion dollars to develop. A HALF A BILLION DOLLARS. The "middlemen skimmers" are costing more than the "business owners" the half a billion dollar webbsite and government employees cost.
So you have no idea what you are spewing.

 

[themirrorthief]

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 means if a rich guy has money, he might be able to give you a job...if the government takes all his money via taxes...he will have to lay you off cause big brother has the money instead of him

 

[themirrorthief]

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.

We now mostly pretend we are a Christian nation. A nation that elects serial adulterers as president and tell the poor to screw off.

while democrat presidents create the poor

 

[LeftofLeft]

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.

Mandatory tithing, in their laws, provided for the poor....tithing was equivalent to taxing. They were a theocracy.

Go read the Bible. It makes a clear delineation between Church and State. The Romans were the State. Hardly a theocracy.

 

[themirrorthief]

The left has done a great job of equating taking less money from someone with giving them money. The right has failed miserably in calling bullshit on that. That frames up a lot of ridiculous arguments about tax policy.

Actually, the right wing has been brilliant. They've gotten stupid white people to see giving money to poor people as bad while taking money themselves as brilliant.

We spend less than 500 Billion a year on poverty relief and 2 TRILLION a year on middle class entitlements.

so why havent the dems fixed all that

 

[meaner gene]

The point is the first ovum to become impregnated likely are not the optimal ones you want to bring to birth.
It is best for the mother, child, and society, to wait as long as possible.
People are economically more stable later in life.
It is wrong to have children when too young.
It is better for everyone if births are delayed.
And there is nothing bad about aborting early ovum so you can instead give birth to ovum impregnated later.

There is also the fact that in "Gods will" the majority of those fertilized ovum "spontaneously abort"