Liberals Believe in Trickle Down Economics

[Boss]

The movement is poor workers trying to get paid a decent wage........

Let's jump off right here and get something straight. When you say "worker" you are talking about individuals who have made the choice to work for a capitalist in return for a wage. In non-capitalist, communist, socialist, Maoist or Marxist countries, the "worker" is a class of people who have no other choice in life. In America, where we have FREE MARKET CAPITALISM, the "worker" is free to go out there and start their own capitalist company and compete. They do not have to be a "worker" if they choose not to be, it's entirely up to them.

Whenever you hear people talking about "the workers" it is a throwback to Marxist Socialism and the arguments made in the 19th century for it across Europe, where kings and rulers controlled all capitalism. We're not ruled by kings here, we are a free nation, the people here are free to be "workers" or "entrepreneurs" or "owners" or "investors" or "capitalists."

I haven't been a "worker" since I was 19. I didn't like being a "worker," and wanted more out of life. So I used the opportunity available in a free market capitalist system, to improve my lot in life. I started out with virtually nothing and became successful through hard work and dedication. Many times along the way, I failed, my ideas didn't meet my expectations, it was difficult and frustrating, but I didn't give up. I was determined not to be a "worker" and to be successful, and I made that happen. I wouldn't be able to do this in Russia or China.

 

[francoHFW]

preaching to the choir lol....only thing holding them together is ignorant bs...

 

[francoHFW]

No, Pubs just let the min wage go down with inflation- they're con men and not stupid, exactly lol...

 

[AntiParty]

The movement is poor workers trying to get paid a decent wage........

Let's jump off right here and get something straight. When you say "worker" you are talking about individuals who have made the choice to work for a capitalist in return for a wage. In non-capitalist, communist, socialist, Maoist or Marxist countries, the "worker" is a class of people who have no other choice in life. In America, where we have FREE MARKET CAPITALISM, the "worker" is free to go out there and start their own capitalist company and compete. They do not have to be a "worker" if they choose not to be, it's entirely up to them.

Whenever you hear people talking about "the workers" it is a throwback to Marxist Socialism and the arguments made in the 19th century for it across Europe, where kings and rulers controlled all capitalism. We're not ruled by kings here, we are a free nation, the people here are free to be "workers" or "entrepreneurs" or "owners" or "investors" or "capitalists."

I haven't been a "worker" since I was 19. I didn't like being a "worker," and wanted more out of life. So I used the opportunity available in a free market capitalist system, to improve my lot in life. I started out with virtually nothing and became successful through hard work and dedication. Many times along the way, I failed, my ideas didn't meet my expectations, it was difficult and frustrating, but I didn't give up. I was determined not to be a "worker" and to be successful, and I made that happen. I wouldn't be able to do this in Russia or China.

And let me correct you. Big government will not fix this situation by raising the minimum wage hurting small business.

UNIONS is the only possible way to fix our current situation on PAY. But like everything, Unions have flaws that anti-Unions like to capitalize on.

Unions have been trying hard to get started on these Monopolies for a very long time. They tend to fire the people who bring up the idea and say it was because "whatever else"

Unionization of THE PEOPLE isn't big Government. It's a large group of people that recognize they deserve "A fair days pay for a fair days work"

 

[Boss]

You may be correct on what is considered a "corporation" but I doubt it. When you state that most corporations are struggling to make it and laying off people, it has more to do with owner and CEO profits than actual struggle to stay alive. Big Corporations don't even pay taxes, in fact, they get money back because they know the loopholes in taxation. Lot's of these large corporations are putting money in banks oversea's to keep away from American taxation and can't pull it out when the Corporation is in panic.

I ask you why it's ok large corporations pay 0 or less taxation when I have a family of 5 and have to pay standard taxation.

-18.9% Tax Rate would work pretty well for my FAMILY

10 Big Companies That Pay No Taxes (and Their Favorite Politicians) | Mother Jones

Don't excuse the link because it's bias. Research it and learn that it's just true.

All you are doing is regurgitating more Maoist-Marxist claptrap. You are apparently illiterate when it comes to world history and have no idea that your idiotic ideas have been promoted before, and millions upon millions of people died as a result of policies designed to do away with the problems you indicate.

You are listening and linking up to literal Marxists who want to destroy the free market capitalist system so they can once again try to implement a form of Marxist Socialism. Oh, but THIS time, it won't result in killing millions upon millions of people! These people are using the exact same tactics and almost verbatim, the exact same terminology, as was used by Mao in China to work people into a frenzy of jealousy and envy, hate and anger, toward the "evil capitalist." This seems to work on ignorant people who have no idea about history.

 

[Boss]

And let me correct you. Big government will not fix this situation by raising the minimum wage hurting small business.

UNIONS is the only possible way to fix our current situation on PAY. But like everything, Unions have flaws that anti-Unions like to capitalize on.

Unions have been trying hard to get started on these Monopolies for a very long time. They tend to fire the people who bring up the idea and say it was because "whatever else"

Unionization of THE PEOPLE isn't big Government. It's a large group of people that recognize they deserve "A fair days pay for a fair days work"

Unions have done more to drive jobs out of this country than anything we've ever done. Let me explain to your incompetent ass what legitimately causes increased pay rates in a free market capitalist system. Increased demand for labor! When there are more jobs than quality people to take those jobs, the rate of pay increases with the value of labor.

 

[KNB]

So why aren't job creators creating any jobs?

 

[Boss]

So why aren't job creators creating any jobs?

Why do we need to go through it again? I already explained how jobs are created.

Jobs are created when supply doesn't meet demand. Capitalists are not in business to be "job creators" and could really care less if they create any jobs. In fact, if they can produce enough supply to meet demand without creating jobs, they will. Or if it's cheaper for them to outsource those jobs, they may do that too.

So what you have to do to create more jobs is dramatically increase demand for 'stuff'. The problem is, this is hard to do when many people don't have jobs because they don't have money to buy 'stuff'. Right now, we have plenty of 'stuff' and we need more demand. When you have more supply than demand, prices of 'stuff' is lower. This can work to our advantage because wealthy people tend to like buying 'stuff' when it's cheap. But right now, you want to punish them for spending and buying 'stuff' because you think it's unfair. So they aren't buying the 'stuff' because they are avoiding your taxation and regulations. They are choosing to invest their money in tax shelters and securities instead of buying more 'stuff' and this is why we have a stagnant economy.

If you ease the regulatory burdens and taxation on the wealthy, maybe they would start buying the plentiful 'stuff' and this would create demand for more 'stuff' which would create new jobs? Maybe if you gave them incentives to not send their money to Switzerland, and instead, keep it here and invest in new start up businesses, they would do that? But you'll have to get over this seething jealous rage you're in, and let them do their thing. Otherwise, we will continue to watch jobs disappear and the economy continue to decline. There is nothing else that can save us, governments don't have some endless pile of cash to support everyone. Wish it were so, but it's not.

 

[Oldstyle]

High taxes? Those high taxes currently amount to RECORD CORPORATE PROFITS. How do corporations keep making RECORD PROFITS if they pay too much in taxes?

Do you know what the "regulations" are that prevent job creators from creating jobs in America? It's that pesky "minimum wage" that everyone keeps talking about. It's just too damn high! If we lower the minimum wage to Chinese levels, then corporations can move those production jobs back to America and use more of their RECORD PROFITS to hire more American workers. This makes sense to you, doesn't it?

And yet, not one single conservative anywhere at any time has proposed we LOWER the minimum wage.

Not ALL corporations are making "record profits" ...by any stretch. In fact, most corporations are struggling to break even in this economy. They've had to downsize, streamline, lay off workers, pull every rabbit out of their ass to remain solvent. Some have had to sell off assets or borrow money to remain afloat, and many of them have gone tits up. Yes, some corporations are making "record profits" but that means they are doing what they are supposed to do. If you ever reach a point in time where no companies are making "record profits" then capitalism is in BIG BIG trouble.

You may be correct on what is considered a "corporation" but I doubt it. When you state that most corporations are struggling to make it and laying off people, it has more to do with owner and CEO profits than actual struggle to stay alive. Big Corporations don't even pay taxes, in fact, they get money back because they know the loopholes in taxation. Lot's of these large corporations are putting money in banks oversea's to keep away from American taxation and can't pull it out when the Corporation is in panic.

I ask you why it's ok large corporations pay 0 or less taxation when I have a family of 5 and have to pay standard taxation.

-18.9% Tax Rate would work pretty well for my FAMILY

10 Big Companies That Pay No Taxes (and Their Favorite Politicians) | Mother Jones

Don't excuse the link because it's bias. Research it and learn that it's just true.

Are you REALLY this naive? What makes you think that large multinational corporations doing business and paying taxes in other countries have a "duty" to bring that money to the US so it can be taxed again? What possible reason would they have to do that? If you had a clue about this topic you'd realize that the US loses out on billions of dollars of investment money that would come into the US BECAUSE we insist on taxing it.

 

[Oldstyle]

So why aren't job creators creating any jobs?

Sigh, because idiots like you keep threatening to take away their profits or pass legislation that could drive their costs up so that they can't make a profit?


Let me repeat this once again since so few of you progressives seem to have studied economics in school...investment usually takes place when there is enough anticipation of profit to warrant a risk of capital.

If you do something to lessen that anticipation of profit...you lessen the likelihood that capital will be risked!

This is pretty common sense stuff here, kiddies! I know it seems to be over your heads at the moment but if you'd stop listening to college Political Science professors and progressive politicians and take a few Macro Economics classes you'd have a better grasp of what will and what will not create jobs.

 

[Mac1958]

.

They create a clearly hostile, uncertain, unstable environment for business.

Then they wonder why business is hesitant to do what it does - take risks.

God damn.

.

 

[Nyvin]

I'm sorry, you have things backwards. You are explaining what enables a free market capitalist system, then trying to say that is what a free market capitalist system causes. It's convoluted, whether you intended it to be or not. I have no idea what you're talking about "setting a precedent" ...can't even rationalize what you are attempting to say. Rivers in WV have not a thing to do with how free market capitalist economic systems work, and it seem to be about right here that you begin sounding like some blithering liberal idiot. If you don't know what you're talking about, just shut up and listen to people who do.

I never stated what capitalist system causes...neither did you. You just went over basic supply and demand phrases and then threw in this sentence in the beginning:

The reason for increasing economic prosperity at the top is because this will inevitably trickle down to everything below the top

That's a very strong "inevitably"....one that hasn't been shown to be true after the Reagan years and the Bush tax cuts. But in any case...you're setting a precedent here...saying that the goal of capitalism should be to increase economic prosperity at the top, through lowering taxes, lowering regulation, and keeping the minimum wage low, and whatever else helps the people at the top. That...according to you, is how capitalism is successful. "The Nature of all capitalism" as you put it.

I would totally disagree with you on that. I would say having a strong consumer base is what makes capitalism successful. Social services, minimum wages, and labor unions together creating the middle class is what lead to the economy being so successful after ww2 for a good ~40 years. As long as you have a good consumer base and the means of production, you're economy will be successful. You don't need rich people at all.

It's funny you have to resort to personal attacks, but if you gotta be petty like that go ahead.

 

[kaz]

Are you REALLY this naive? What makes you think that large multinational corporations doing business and paying taxes in other countries have a "duty" to bring that money to the US so it can be taxed again? What possible reason would they have to do that? If you had a clue about this topic you'd realize that the US loses out on billions of dollars of investment money that would come into the US BECAUSE we insist on taxing it.

The government has the responsibility to not get in the way of the success of our businesses, the businesses don't have the responsibility to sacrifice themselves to our government...

 

[kaz]

I ask you why it's ok large corporations pay 0 or less taxation when I have a family of 5 and have to pay standard taxation

Why should Warren Buffett advocate more taxes and then use a capital gains gimmick to pay a lower rate? Why should Bill Gates advocate the death tax then set up trusts to avoid paying them? Why should Obama say he should pay more taxes, and he doesn't? Why do you think the Clintons deducted $50 per pair of used underwear? Why didn't Charlie Rangle pay taxes on offshore investments and why didn't Tom Daschle pay taxes on benefits he received or Zoe Baird pay payroll taxes?

What it comes down to, is why do you care when corporations don't pay taxes, but you don't care when Democrats evade and even cheat on their taxes?

 

[Boss]

I'm sorry, you have things backwards. You are explaining what enables a free market capitalist system, then trying to say that is what a free market capitalist system causes. It's convoluted, whether you intended it to be or not. I have no idea what you're talking about "setting a precedent" ...can't even rationalize what you are attempting to say. Rivers in WV have not a thing to do with how free market capitalist economic systems work, and it seem to be about right here that you begin sounding like some blithering liberal idiot. If you don't know what you're talking about, just shut up and listen to people who do.

I never stated what capitalist system causes...neither did you. You just went over basic supply and demand phrases and then threw in this sentence in the beginning:

The reason for increasing economic prosperity at the top is because this will inevitably trickle down to everything below the top

That's a very strong "inevitably"....one that hasn't been shown to be true after the Reagan years and the Bush tax cuts. But in any case...you're setting a precedent here...saying that the goal of capitalism should be to increase economic prosperity at the top, through lowering taxes, lowering regulation, and keeping the minimum wage low, and whatever else helps the people at the top. That...according to you, is how capitalism is successful. "The Nature of all capitalism" as you put it.

I would totally disagree with you on that. I would say having a strong consumer base is what makes capitalism successful. Social services, minimum wages, and labor unions together creating the middle class is what lead to the economy being so successful after ww2 for a good ~40 years. As long as you have a good consumer base and the means of production, you're economy will be successful. You don't need rich people at all.

It's funny you have to resort to personal attacks, but if you gotta be petty like that go ahead.

"The nature of" means "the natural inclination of" or the "natural order of events to follow" and has nothing whatsoever to do with "the goal of" something. I can't believe I am having to explain the basic language to you. The "goal" of capitalism is to make profit. Period. Doesn't have any other goal or purpose, there is no other objective. As a result of capitalism happening, the natural order of events to follow, is what we can call "trickle down" economics, it's not the goal or objective of capitalism, it's what happens as a result.

Now, what is "trickle down" in common terms? It's not automatically new jobs with better pay, although that can result eventually. It is the spending of the capitalist profits. The capitalist may buy some new equipment, or hire a contractor and expand a building, or take his wife out for a steak dinner. Anything he does with the profits besides stuffing them in a mattress is "trickling down" to someone else. In turn, those capitalists make profits, and they spend, the trickling down continues. It goes all the way down to the store clerk who stocks the shelves getting overtime pay or the waiter at the steak house making more tips. Everyone prospers from it, and as a result, it strengthens the consumer base.

You are completely wrong about the inevitable results. Whether you have been brainwashed by idiots who have manipulated statistics or you were too young to remember the Reagan era, or you were living under a rock... I don't know. But what happened as a result of Reagan's supply side policies was phenomenal. We've not ever seen a period of long-term economic prosperity like it before or since. It happened so fast and with such velocity that it freaked people out and some began to wonder if there was too much prosperity happening. So politicians AFTER Reagan began raising taxes and undoing what Reagan had done, and it took until Clinton's second term to kill the economic prosperity he created.

 

[francoHFW]

Reaganism worked for a second in 1982- since, ruin for the country and everyone but the rich. NOW, WE NEED DEMAND. EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS BS, CHUMPS OF THE GREEDY IDIOT RICH. And thanks for the S and L and housing bubble/scandals and the WORLD DEPRESSION, morons.

 

[Boss]

Reaganism worked for a second in 1982- since, ruin for the country and everyone but the rich. NOW, WE NEED DEMAND. EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS BS, CHUMPS OF THE GREEDY IDIOT RICH. And thanks for the S and L and housing bubble/scandals and the WORLD DEPRESSION, morons.

Well, the S&L Housing bubble happened as a result of anti-Reagan liberal policies. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank (not Reaganites) proposed that we should, in our time of great prosperity, make low interest loans available for the poor to buy houses. Presient G.W. Bush (not a Reaganite) signed off on it.

Yep... We do need demand. But demand can't happen until people have money and people won't have money until capitalists start spending money, and capitalists won't start spending money until they are making money. They can't make money as long as you're passing more and more regulations and new taxes on them.

The economies of European countries are in trouble because of Socialist policies. The same kind of policies that killed the Reagan economic boon, and the same kind of policies you think we need more of. The ONLY reason we are not in the same dire straights as Greece and Spain is because we were in a lot better shape and had further to fall. But we're getting there. Let us run up a few more trillion in debt and have our credit downgraded again, and we'll start to see our own financial systems collapse. It's a matter of time.