Really? You still believe in "trickle down"?

[Searcher44]

The latest poll I've heard says 84% of Republicans will get behind Trump despite all the "anybody but Trump" rhetoric from the party for the last year. Does that mean Republicans believe that his 40% tax break (check my math, it's not my strong suit) to the highest income bracket will cause the super-rich to make the massive investments in factories and manufacturing facilities and training it would take to significantly expand American employment in well paying jobs? Or does it just mean Republicans are willing to to accept the final destruction of the middle class in their bid to stop Hillary?

All the money the smart guys have in exotic financial instruments, not just simple shit like hedging or leveraging derivatives but really modern mechanisms like HST - high speed trading. Investopedia says "These high frequency trading platforms allow traders to execute millions of orders and scan multiple markets and exchanges in a matter of seconds, thus giving the institutions that use the platforms a huge advantage in the open market." This stuff leaves guys and gals who have a lousy self-managed $100 grand in the markets with a severe case of rubber necking pain. So do you think the 10% will forsake these lucrative, in many cases taxpayer guaranteed, money manufacturing schemes and build new factories in Flint, or Houston, or Anywhere U.S.A? Or dip into the $trillions (mostly legal thanks to scams like the Panama Trade Agreement) stashed in "Tax Heavens" ( or the preferred Tax Havens) and bring it back to America where it will be exposed to taxes even if the taxes are as low as Trump is now endorsing? Keep in mind that all this money movement does not produce one thing, not one t shirt, not one running shoe, and certainly not a car or an MRI machine.


That's Trump's new economic adviser Steve Moore (you remember him from Reagan's team of econo-astrologers? And Larry Kudlow!) describing the glorious benefits of supply side economics to a new generation of wide-eyed believers;

 

[Searcher44]

The latest poll I've heard says 84% of Republicans will get behind Trump despite all the "anybody but Trump" rhetoric from the party for the last year. Does that mean Republicans believe that his 40% tax break (check my math, it's not my strong suit) to the highest income bracket will cause the super-rich to make the massive investments in factories and manufacturing facilities and training it would take to significantly expand American employment in well paying jobs? Or does it just mean Republicans are willing to to accept the final destruction of the middle class in their bid to stop Hillary?

All the money the smart guys have in exotic financial instruments, not just simple shit like hedging or leveraging derivatives but really modern mechanisms like HST - high speed trading. Investopedia says "These high frequency trading platforms allow traders to execute millions of orders and scan multiple markets and exchanges in a matter of seconds, thus giving the institutions that use the platforms a huge advantage in the open market." This stuff leaves guys and gals who have a lousy self-managed $100 grand in the markets with a severe case of rubber necking pain. So do you think the 10% will forsake these lucrative, in many cases taxpayer guaranteed, money manufacturing schemes and build new factories in Flint, or Houston, or Anywhere U.S.A? Or dip into the $trillions (mostly legal thanks to scams like the Panama Trade Agreement) stashed in "Tax Heavens" ( or the preferred Tax Havens) and bring it back to America where it will be exposed to taxes even if the taxes are as low as Trump is now endorsing? Keep in mind that all this money movement does not produce one thing, not one t shirt, not one running shoe, and certainly not a car or an MRI machine.


That's Trump's new economic adviser Steve Moore (you remember him from Reagan's team of econo-astrologers? And Larry Kudlow!) describing the glorious benefits of supply side economics to a new generation of wide-eyed believers;

Problem with video?

 

[Iceweasel]

The latest poll I've heard says 84% of Republicans will get behind Trump despite all the "anybody but Trump" rhetoric from the party for the last year. Does that mean Republicans believe that his 40% tax break (check my math, it's not my strong suit) to the highest income bracket will cause the super-rich to make the massive investments in factories and manufacturing facilities and training it would take to significantly expand American employment in well paying jobs? Or does it just mean Republicans are willing to to accept the final destruction of the middle class in their bid to stop Hillary?

The top 1% pay about 40% of the federal taxes. The lower 47% don't pay any. I don't see what is unfair to the poor here. Republicans aren't destroying the middle class, the piss poor economy is. How have Republicans been running the economy lately? Something needs to be done, what's your proposal?

 

[Searcher44]

The latest poll I've heard says 84% of Republicans will get behind Trump despite all the "anybody but Trump" rhetoric from the party for the last year. Does that mean Republicans believe that his 40% tax break (check my math, it's not my strong suit) to the highest income bracket will cause the super-rich to make the massive investments in factories and manufacturing facilities and training it would take to significantly expand American employment in well paying jobs? Or does it just mean Republicans are willing to to accept the final destruction of the middle class in their bid to stop Hillary?

The top 1% pay about 40% of the federal taxes. The lower 47% don't pay any. I don't see what is unfair to the poor here. Republicans aren't destroying the middle class, the piss poor economy is. How have Republicans been running the economy lately? Something needs to be done, what's your proposal?

My post was primarily directed at what I feel is the major factor in the decline of the Middle Class, supply-side, or "trickle down' economics. The decline is well documented and acknowledged by most Republicans. The cause of the decline is the topic. The Republican party, especially Reagan, have been the major propagandizers for the theory. The Democratic Party, as a whole, has not done much to counter either the effects or the theory itself. Individually there are more Democrats than Republicans who have spoken out for the Middle Class and not just paid lip service during election cycles. We can't expect Hillary Clinton, who has profited to an obscene degree from the transfer of wealth from wage earners to the true beneficiaries at the top of the pyramid, we can't expect her to truly defend the Middle Class. The most that could be hoped is she won't accelerate the upward transfer of wealth as much as The Donald will if he's elected and carries out on his promises to the super rich that he will cut their burden of financing your government to a historic low. I didn't mention the poor. George Carlin said their function in the economy was to "scare the shit out of the middle class" His bit is pretty funny, you've probably seen it. With a little effort a person could make a logical argument supporting the idea that makes that joke realistic enough to become a subject of comedy.

My proposal? I guess it would be that the left and the right down there, both of which are very angry, should get together and see how much they agree about the corruption of congress and the unpatriotic multi-nationals benefiting from petty partisan bickering and so on while they rape the economy and convince the citizens that it's their duty to compete with near-to-slave labor in the third world. I guarantee there would be more agreement than disagreement.

 

[The Rabbi]

The latest poll I've heard says 84% of Republicans will get behind Trump despite all the "anybody but Trump" rhetoric from the party for the last year. Does that mean Republicans believe that his 40% tax break (check my math, it's not my strong suit) to the highest income bracket will cause the super-rich to make the massive investments in factories and manufacturing facilities and training it would take to significantly expand American employment in well paying jobs? Or does it just mean Republicans are willing to to accept the final destruction of the middle class in their bid to stop Hillary?

The top 1% pay about 40% of the federal taxes. The lower 47% don't pay any. I don't see what is unfair to the poor here. Republicans aren't destroying the middle class, the piss poor economy is. How have Republicans been running the economy lately? Something needs to be done, what's your proposal?

My post was primarily directed at what I feel is the major factor in the decline of the Middle Class, supply-side, or "trickle down' economics. The decline is well documented and acknowledged by most Republicans. The cause of the decline is the topic. The Republican party, especially Reagan, have been the major propagandizers for the theory. The Democratic Party, as a whole, has not done much to counter either the effects or the theory itself. Individually there are more Democrats than Republicans who have spoken out for the Middle Class and not just paid lip service during election cycles. We can't expect Hillary Clinton, who has profited to an obscene degree from the transfer of wealth from wage earners to the true beneficiaries at the top of the pyramid, we can't expect her to truly defend the Middle Class. The most that could be hoped is she won't accelerate the upward transfer of wealth as much as The Donald will if he's elected and carries out on his promises to the super rich that he will cut their burden of financing your government to a historic low. I didn't mention the poor. George Carlin said their function in the economy was to "scare the shit out of the middle class" His bit is pretty funny, you've probably seen it. With a little effort a person could make a logical argument supporting the idea that makes that joke realistic enough to become a subject of comedy.

My proposal? I guess it would be that the left and the right down there, both of which are very angry, should get together and see how much they agree about the corruption of congress and the unpatriotic multi-nationals benefiting from petty partisan bickering and so on while they rape the economy and convince the citizens that it's their duty to compete with near-to-slave labor in the third world. I guarantee there would be more agreement than disagreement.

Since you cannot define "trickle down" economics your post is arrant nonsense.

 

[waltky]

Granny says...

... more like trickle on.

 

[Likkmee]

I damn sure do ! A quick trip to the urologist and I was gooder'n new in 10 daze.

 

[Searcher44]

The latest poll I've heard says 84% of Republicans will get behind Trump despite all the "anybody but Trump" rhetoric from the party for the last year. Does that mean Republicans believe that his 40% tax break (check my math, it's not my strong suit) to the highest income bracket will cause the super-rich to make the massive investments in factories and manufacturing facilities and training it would take to significantly expand American employment in well paying jobs? Or does it just mean Republicans are willing to to accept the final destruction of the middle class in their bid to stop Hillary?

The top 1% pay about 40% of the federal taxes. The lower 47% don't pay any. I don't see what is unfair to the poor here. Republicans aren't destroying the middle class, the piss poor economy is. How have Republicans been running the economy lately? Something needs to be done, what's your proposal?

My post was primarily directed at what I feel is the major factor in the decline of the Middle Class, supply-side, or "trickle down' economics. The decline is well documented and acknowledged by most Republicans. The cause of the decline is the topic. The Republican party, especially Reagan, have been the major propagandizers for the theory. The Democratic Party, as a whole, has not done much to counter either the effects or the theory itself. Individually there are more Democrats than Republicans who have spoken out for the Middle Class and not just paid lip service during election cycles. We can't expect Hillary Clinton, who has profited to an obscene degree from the transfer of wealth from wage earners to the true beneficiaries at the top of the pyramid, we can't expect her to truly defend the Middle Class. The most that could be hoped is she won't accelerate the upward transfer of wealth as much as The Donald will if he's elected and carries out on his promises to the super rich that he will cut their burden of financing your government to a historic low. I didn't mention the poor. George Carlin said their function in the economy was to "scare the shit out of the middle class" His bit is pretty funny, you've probably seen it. With a little effort a person could make a logical argument supporting the idea that makes that joke realistic enough to become a subject of comedy.

My proposal? I guess it would be that the left and the right down there, both of which are very angry, should get together and see how much they agree about the corruption of congress and the unpatriotic multi-nationals benefiting from petty partisan bickering and so on while they rape the economy and convince the citizens that it's their duty to compete with near-to-slave labor in the third world. I guarantee there would be more agreement than disagreement
.

Since you cannot define "trickle down" economics your post is arrant nonsense.

I think Steve Moore did a good "Pocket Definition" of the idea. Did you watch the video? Did you catch his comment right at the end? "If you're a supply-sider like me you'll like this plan". I'm sure you'd like me to go google some shit and give you an answer showing the evolution of the theory from Austrian roots or some such "nonsense". I'm not going to play your silly game. I'll let Moore's description stand, even though he doesn't even have a PHD in economics. You know exactly how I would define trickle down. And I note you won't embrace it or condemn it. That's rather cowardly. Something like Greenspan spending years writing a book examining his disastrous fed policies and pouring out reams of self-exculpatory "nonsense".

 

[BluesLegend]

Trickle down does not mean a free lunch, get a job pay your own damn bills.

 

[Iceweasel]

The latest poll I've heard says 84% of Republicans will get behind Trump despite all the "anybody but Trump" rhetoric from the party for the last year. Does that mean Republicans believe that his 40% tax break (check my math, it's not my strong suit) to the highest income bracket will cause the super-rich to make the massive investments in factories and manufacturing facilities and training it would take to significantly expand American employment in well paying jobs? Or does it just mean Republicans are willing to to accept the final destruction of the middle class in their bid to stop Hillary?

The top 1% pay about 40% of the federal taxes. The lower 47% don't pay any. I don't see what is unfair to the poor here. Republicans aren't destroying the middle class, the piss poor economy is. How have Republicans been running the economy lately? Something needs to be done, what's your proposal?

My post was primarily directed at what I feel is the major factor in the decline of the Middle Class, supply-side, or "trickle down' economics. The decline is well documented and acknowledged by most Republicans. The cause of the decline is the topic. The Republican party, especially Reagan, have been the major propagandizers for the theory. The Democratic Party, as a whole, has not done much to counter either the effects or the theory itself. Individually there are more Democrats than Republicans who have spoken out for the Middle Class and not just paid lip service during election cycles. We can't expect Hillary Clinton, who has profited to an obscene degree from the transfer of wealth from wage earners to the true beneficiaries at the top of the pyramid, we can't expect her to truly defend the Middle Class. The most that could be hoped is she won't accelerate the upward transfer of wealth as much as The Donald will if he's elected and carries out on his promises to the super rich that he will cut their burden of financing your government to a historic low. I didn't mention the poor. George Carlin said their function in the economy was to "scare the shit out of the middle class" His bit is pretty funny, you've probably seen it. With a little effort a person could make a logical argument supporting the idea that makes that joke realistic enough to become a subject of comedy.

My proposal? I guess it would be that the left and the right down there, both of which are very angry, should get together and see how much they agree about the corruption of congress and the unpatriotic multi-nationals benefiting from petty partisan bickering and so on while they rape the economy and convince the citizens that it's their duty to compete with near-to-slave labor in the third world. I guarantee there would be more agreement than disagreement.

They can't agree because liberals think standing on the neck of business is how you manage an economy. Businesses are where the wealth is created. The right knows it, the left denies it. Notice I said left and right, not Republican and Democratic. Many Republicans are no better than Democrats and do very well regardless of who is holding the reigns.

That's sort what this election cycle is about, the left and right wanting to get out from under the establishment party system. The problem with the left is they think even more government is the solution.

 

[NightFox]

The top 1% pay about 40% of the federal taxes. The lower 47% don't pay any.

Er.. the "lower 47%" do indeed pay federal taxes, they pall all kinds of federal taxes just not direct INCOME taxes, the fact that the taxes that they do pay are hidden (or at best obscured) that keeps the politician myth alive that they can get something paid for entirely by someone else. You also have to consider that the federal government has been accruing staggering amounts of debt (both in the form of operational budget deficits AND unfunded liabilities) and those are in effect TAXES ON THE FUTURE (as well as a drag on future economic growth) that pretty much every income bracket will be on the hook to pay.

I don't see what is unfair to the poor here. Republicans aren't destroying the middle class, the piss poor economy is. How have Republicans been running the economy lately? Something needs to be done, what's your proposal?

What's "unfair to the poor" here is the fact that "the poor" (those living below the poverty line) are only getting around $0.13 of every federal subsidy dollar, which means that the other $0.87 is going to subsidize people who ARE NOT POOR, welcome to the U.S. Welfare State that is so depraved that 87% of it's resources go to buy votes instead of actually helping those in need.

 

[Searcher44]

The latest poll I've heard says 84% of Republicans will get behind Trump despite all the "anybody but Trump" rhetoric from the party for the last year. Does that mean Republicans believe that his 40% tax break (check my math, it's not my strong suit) to the highest income bracket will cause the super-rich to make the massive investments in factories and manufacturing facilities and training it would take to significantly expand American employment in well paying jobs? Or does it just mean Republicans are willing to to accept the final destruction of the middle class in their bid to stop Hillary?

The top 1% pay about 40% of the federal taxes. The lower 47% don't pay any. I don't see what is unfair to the poor here. Republicans aren't destroying the middle class, the piss poor economy is. How have Republicans been running the economy lately? Something needs to be done, what's your proposal?

My post was primarily directed at what I feel is the major factor in the decline of the Middle Class, supply-side, or "trickle down' economics. The decline is well documented and acknowledged by most Republicans. The cause of the decline is the topic. The Republican party, especially Reagan, have been the major propagandizers for the theory. The Democratic Party, as a whole, has not done much to counter either the effects or the theory itself. Individually there are more Democrats than Republicans who have spoken out for the Middle Class and not just paid lip service during election cycles. We can't expect Hillary Clinton, who has profited to an obscene degree from the transfer of wealth from wage earners to the true beneficiaries at the top of the pyramid, we can't expect her to truly defend the Middle Class. The most that could be hoped is she won't accelerate the upward transfer of wealth as much as The Donald will if he's elected and carries out on his promises to the super rich that he will cut their burden of financing your government to a historic low. I didn't mention the poor. George Carlin said their function in the economy was to "scare the shit out of the middle class" His bit is pretty funny, you've probably seen it. With a little effort a person could make a logical argument supporting the idea that makes that joke realistic enough to become a subject of comedy.

My proposal? I guess it would be that the left and the right down there, both of which are very angry, should get together and see how much they agree about the corruption of congress and the unpatriotic multi-nationals benefiting from petty partisan bickering and so on while they rape the economy and convince the citizens that it's their duty to compete with near-to-slave labor in the third world. I guarantee there would be more agreement than disagreement.

They can't agree because liberals think standing on the neck of business is how you manage an economy. Businesses are where the wealth is created. The right knows it, the left denies it. Notice I said left and right, not Republican and Democratic. Many Republicans are no better than Democrats and do very well regardless of who is holding the reigns.

That's sort what this election cycle is about, the left and right wanting to get out from under the establishment party system. The problem with the left is they think even more government is the solution.

Businesses are where the wealth is created. The right knows it, the left denies it.

I don't think the left denies it, i think most of us worry about trends that this graph demonstrates, much of the "new wealth" is created in the financial sector. Where do you think this new wealth inevitably resides?

The problem with the left is they think even more government is the solution.

I guess by "more government" you mean more regulation. Is there any other way to limit a bank's ability to use depositor's wealth to leverage high risk investment as they factor the almost guaranteed taxpayer help if they get themselves into trouble as one of the variables in their formula of that risk?

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't think the left denies it, i think most of us worry about trends that this graph demonstrates, much of the "new wealth" is created in the financial sector. Where do you think this new wealth inevitably resides?

The problem with the left is they think even more government is the solution.

I guess by "more government" you mean more regulation. Is there any other way to limit a bank's ability to use depositor's wealth to leverage high risk investment as they factor the almost guaranteed taxpayer help if they get themselves into trouble as one of the variables in their formula of that risk?

I'm not a banker, ask someone else. I'm more concerned about small business, the backbone of America shrinking with the middle class, as jobs die off or go overseas. Yes, more government tends to mean more regulation and regulating businesses like cash cows isn't helping.

 

[Stephanie]

All these crystal ball analysis has become zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

go freaking vote for who you want and stop trying to psychoanalyze everything to death.

My gawd after they put in someone like Obama, I'm not going to worry over a businessman becoming the President of our country. in fact it might be what we need

 

[NightFox]

I don't think the left denies it, i think most of us worry about trends that this graph demonstrates, much of the "new wealth" is created in the financial sector. Where do you think this new wealth inevitably resides?

The problem with the left is they think even more government is the solution.

I guess by "more government" you mean more regulation. Is there any other way to limit a bank's ability to use depositor's wealth to leverage high risk investment as they factor the almost guaranteed taxpayer help if they get themselves into trouble as one of the variables in their formula of that risk?

I'm not a banker, ask someone else. I'm more concerned about small business, the backbone of America shrinking with the middle class, as jobs die off or go overseas. Yes, more government tends to mean more regulation and regulating businesses like cash cows isn't helping.

There's the rub though, the problems in our banking system have a serious impact on small (as well as medium and large) business; specifically banks are diverting more and more capital into high risk speculative investments (primarily derivatives) and less and less to their traditional business of investment in productive enterprises. This trend starves future productivity and capital formation and leads to slower growth and fewer business start-ups.

The question posed by Searcher is a good one, how do we get the financial system pointing in the direction of servicing the productive economy by providing the capital needed to invest in future production instead of what's going on today which is the financial sector essentially making it's money by gambling in the high stakes casino also known as the global derivatives market.

 

[rightwinger]

The latest poll I've heard says 84% of Republicans will get behind Trump despite all the "anybody but Trump" rhetoric from the party for the last year. Does that mean Republicans believe that his 40% tax break (check my math, it's not my strong suit) to the highest income bracket will cause the super-rich to make the massive investments in factories and manufacturing facilities and training it would take to significantly expand American employment in well paying jobs? Or does it just mean Republicans are willing to to accept the final destruction of the middle class in their bid to stop Hillary?

The top 1% pay about 40% of the federal taxes. The lower 47% don't pay any. I don't see what is unfair to the poor here. Republicans aren't destroying the middle class, the piss poor economy is. How have Republicans been running the economy lately? Something needs to be done, what's your proposal?

Supply side economic theory sold by the Republicans has destroyed the middle class

Remember all those tax cuts and incentives that were supposed to trickle down in the form of more jobs and higher wages?

The rich just kept the money...Who'da thunk it?

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't think the left denies it, i think most of us worry about trends that this graph demonstrates, much of the "new wealth" is created in the financial sector. Where do you think this new wealth inevitably resides?

The problem with the left is they think even more government is the solution.

I guess by "more government" you mean more regulation. Is there any other way to limit a bank's ability to use depositor's wealth to leverage high risk investment as they factor the almost guaranteed taxpayer help if they get themselves into trouble as one of the variables in their formula of that risk?

I'm not a banker, ask someone else. I'm more concerned about small business, the backbone of America shrinking with the middle class, as jobs die off or go overseas. Yes, more government tends to mean more regulation and regulating businesses like cash cows isn't helping.

There's the rub though, the problems in our banking system have a serious impact on small (as well as medium and large) business; specifically banks are diverting more and more capital into high risk speculative investments (primarily derivatives) and less and less to their traditional business of investment in productive enterprises. This trend starves future productivity and capital formation and leads to slower growth and fewer business start-ups.

The question posed by Searcher is a good one, how do we get the financial system pointing in the direction of servicing the productive economy by providing the capital needed to invest in future production instead of what's going on today which is the financial sector essentially making it's money by gambling in the high stakes casino also known as the global derivatives market.

Like I said, I'm not a banker but when did it become the responsibility of banks to start businesses? That part I'm not getting. Investors are people you can convince to share your efforts and risks, not people throwing money around from ivory towers.

 

[rightwinger]

 

[Stephanie]

If you prefer MORE OF this:

then go vote for Obama in a pantsuit, Hillary or for the commie sympathizer Bernie..

Or you can give Trump a chance. it's YOUR CHOICE.

 

[NightFox]

Like I said, I'm not a banker but when did it become the responsibility of banks to start businesses? That part I'm not getting. Investors are people you can convince to share your efforts and risks, not people throwing money around from ivory towers.

It's not the "personal responsibility" of bankers to start businesses, however bankers are given enormous advantages by virtue of our fractional reserve banking system, the existence of the federal reserve (the lender of last resort which has been delegated control over the nations money supply) and the explicit backstopping of government agencies (e.g. the FDIC, Fannie & Freddie, etc..,).

Banks are also somewhat protected from suffering the consequences of their risk taking because they are shielded by government agencies like the FDIC, in other words if consumers had to take into account the ACTUAL risk that bank XYZ was exposed to instead of just assuming that the FDIC will cover depositor losses consumers might not put their money in XYZ bank or would demand higher interest on their deposits.

The banking system is more and more eating the nations seed corn of future production because of several factors that are intensified (and outright created) by government intervention; number one being the implicit backstop by tax payers when their speculative gambling goes awry (moral hazard), secondly is the favorable tax treatment they receive via capital gains rates when in fact many of the "investments" they make are wholly speculative (i.e. not contributing to capital formation) in nature.