RWs: you need to admit Hillary is right about the failure of trickle down economics

[S.J.]

The worse thing we could do for economic growth is to give the rich the tax breaks and deregulate. The top few percent will crush the middle class and small business every time in such a case.

You have no ideas what you're talking about.

 

[owebo]

I miss Reagan....we are,still,benefiting from his trickle down prosperity...

 

[Boss]

RWs: you need to admit Hillary is right about the failure of trickle down economics

Just shut the hell up... you're stupid. All economics are essentially "trickle down" because that is how economies work. Big companies you hate provide jobs and paychecks to people who spend them on things the big company makes. The store that sells those things pays employees to sell the products and they spend their money on things. People go out to eat, they get in a car that someone earned a paycheck making, they buy gas that someone earned a paycheck transporting, they are waited on by a staff that depends on their business. All around you, everyday, commerce is happening and it has a "trickle down" effect across the board. Rich people spend their money and poor people prosper.

What rich people aren't is stupid like you. They will not just sit there and let you confiscate their wealth. So anytime you concoct some grand scheme to "make the rich pay their fair share" they simply adopt another strategy to maintain their wealth. They don't NEED to earn incomes anymore because, you see, they're RICH. So when you start taxing the fuck out of incomes, they simply stop earning them and find other ways to maintain their wealth. Worst case scenario, they can always find some rat-hole country who desperately needs their wealth and welcomes it because, you see, they're POOR!

 

[Mac1958]

Economics, like most issues, are a matter of finding the proper equilibrium.

Unfortunately, our economic debate, like most issues, is mired in the quicksand of shallow political partisanship.
.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You also need to admit that she is right about the vital importance of strengthening the middle class. Consumer spending is the key to economic growth - not the hope that more investment is on the horizon if you cut the taxes on the top 1%.

Giving tax breaks to the top earners and corporations has been proven time and time again to be a poor stimulator of economic growth. Sure the idea sounds rational on paper, but put into practice it's a failure. Why? Because these top earners just keep the money they save rather than invest it. Investing is no longer a priority for them if they are already richer now than ever before. Corporate profits are also at an all time high. Moreover, more investment in supply is pointless if there isn't a level of demand to match it.

Bush's tax cuts for instance were deficit-creating nightmares. Job growth under Bush was pathetic and we had a Great Recession begin on his watch.

Kansas cut taxes on top earners and the state now has a huge deficit and a recession.

Funny obama made most of Bush's tax cuts permanent ..



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Is there a magic ratio when the riches start trickling down?
What percentage of a country's wealth needs to be controlled by what percentage of the population before everybody's in clover?
At the moment, in the US, around 25% of household wealth is held by 0.1% of families.
How much more wealth should they be given control of before the cream starts flowing down?
No one seems to have a plan.

They are "given"


How about you tax the fuck out of them and let's see how far they run.



.

 

[BULLDOG]

Your man Obama has played with interest rates and the money supply to keep Wall Street humming and keep the wealthiest 1% fat and happy, while the rest of us suffer. And you somehow still believe the Democrats are the party of the middle class. Your arrogance is exceeded only by your stupidity.

It's not the left pushing for more tax breaks for the rich.

You do better than that. You have made sure that the rich are very very rich and the rest of us are poor.

So how do you think more tax breaks for the rich are going to help the rest of us? Excessive breaks for them already caused the current situation.

Except they didn't. You must actually know absolutely nothing about economics. How about instead of US explaining how having more money to spend on employees and business expansion encourages said employment and expansion, YOU tell US how having less money will encourage any amount of expansion and hiring?

Even further beyond that, I wouldn't expect anyone but a brain dead Liberal to think Hillary is actually offering to tax her corporate masters who are paying her to implement these policies. The "rich" YOU are referring to aren't the same "rich" that end up being taxed by these new policies, but their competitors, which is exactly why the Democrats love spouting this "tax the rich" drivel that mindless drones see fit to echo, because Hillary's corporate masters don't even pay taxes.

Looks good on paper, but in practice, it has never worked the way you want. Businesses are doing great. Profit margins are better than ever. Business doesn't hire people or build new facilities just because the government gives them money. They do it because their market improves and they can sell more items.

 

[hazlnut]

You also need to admit that she is right about the vital importance of strengthening the middle class. Consumer spending is the key to economic growth - not the hope that more investment is on the horizon if you cut the taxes on the top 1%.

Giving tax breaks to the top earners and corporations has been proven time and time again to be a poor stimulator of economic growth. Sure the idea sounds rational on paper, but put into practice it's a failure. Why? Because these top earners just keep the money they save rather than invest it. Investing is no longer a priority for them if they are already richer now than ever before. Corporate profits are also at an all time high. Moreover, more investment in supply is pointless if there isn't a level of demand to match it.

Bush's tax cuts for instance were deficit-creating nightmares. Job growth under Bush was pathetic and we had a Great Recession begin on his watch.

Kansas cut taxes on top earners and the state now has a huge deficit and a recession.

The RWs here don't even know what that means.

 

[Boss]

Looks good on paper, but in practice, it has never worked the way you want. Businesses are doing great. Profit margins are better than ever. Business doesn't hire people or build new facilities just because the government gives them money. They do it because their market improves and they can sell more items.

AGAIN.... Markets improve because people have good-paying jobs and stable employment. They're not having to stress about paying the 400% increase in their health care premiums. They have time to spend their money because they're not working two crappy jobs to make up for the good one they lost.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Right wingers will never admit that. If they did, they wouldn't be right wingers any more.

oh rightwingers will admit it. The problem is that she wants to do the exact opposite of what she says.
How did the ACA make the middle class stronger? How does high taxes on fuel or other products make the middle class stronger? How does creating a new generation of poverty and then increasing taxes on the middle class to pay the entitlements make anyone stronger.
I think we can all agree, a strong middle class is good. But everything the democrats do tends to bring the middle class down even more.

 

[BULLDOG]

Your man Obama has played with interest rates and the money supply to keep Wall Street humming and keep the wealthiest 1% fat and happy, while the rest of us suffer. And you somehow still believe the Democrats are the party of the middle class. Your arrogance is exceeded only by your stupidity.

It's not the left pushing for more tax breaks for the rich.

How does taxing someone else make another person richer? Whether you are for tax increases or not.

Massive decrease in the amount they pay can make them a lot richer.

 

[Avatar4321]

How can something that has not been applied in years be proven a failure?

 

[Boss]

Is there a magic ratio when the riches start trickling down?
What percentage of a country's wealth needs to be controlled by what percentage of the population before everybody's in clover?
At the moment, in the US, around 25% of household wealth is held by 0.1% of families.
How much more wealth should they be given control of before the cream starts flowing down?
No one seems to have a plan.

You're living in a fantasy world where wealth is finite and only a certain amount exists. Wealth is CREATED. It doesn't matter how much happens to be at the top at any given time... that's a good thing... we prosper in a system that allows us to obtain that kind of wealth... MANY countries aren't so fortunate, and you seem to want to emulate them.

The "cream" doesn't just start magically flowing down and showering your lazy ass with wealth... that's a Utopian fantasy you're having... snap out of it and join us in the real world. Get off your duff and CREATE some wealth of your own... you can do that here. There is absolutely no reason you can't be one of those 0.1% who control 25% of the wealth... you have that opportunity in this country.

Sitting there being a smug little smart ass who doesn't understand he is promoting Marxism is detrimental to the country and everything we have going for us. Look, you don't like the 0.1% who have 25% of the wealth? Well create something they want! Provide a service that benefits them! Capture some of that wealth for yourself! What do you think... they sit around gazing at their piles of money all the time? What sort of gratification do you think they get from that?

 

[toomuchtime_]

You also need to admit that she is right about the vital importance of strengthening the middle class. Consumer spending is the key to economic growth - not the hope that more investment is on the horizon if you cut the taxes on the top 1%.

Giving tax breaks to the top earners and corporations has been proven time and time again to be a poor stimulator of economic growth. Sure the idea sounds rational on paper, but put into practice it's a failure. Why? Because these top earners just keep the money they save rather than invest it. Investing is no longer a priority for them if they are already richer now than ever before. Corporate profits are also at an all time high. Moreover, more investment in supply is pointless if there isn't a level of demand to match it.

Bush's tax cuts for instance were deficit-creating nightmares. Job growth under Bush was pathetic and we had a Great Recession begin on his watch.

Kansas cut taxes on top earners and the state now has a huge deficit and a recession.

In fact, it was an economic plan like Hillary's, tax investment capital out of the private sector and let government bureaucrats and politicians decide how to spend it, that gave the US the economic doldrums of the 1960's and 1970's, a stagnant economy and high inflation, and it was a tax cut from Reagan that fired up the US economy and gave us the prosperity of the 1980's and financed the tech boom of the 1990's.

 

[rdean]

Huh? I thought if you cut taxes on the rich they create jobs all over the place, in the US only of course. Are you telling me that was complete bullshit?

Turns out it was.

After all that practice, you would think they would get it.

 

[rdean]

Is there a magic ratio when the riches start trickling down?
What percentage of a country's wealth needs to be controlled by what percentage of the population before everybody's in clover?
At the moment, in the US, around 25% of household wealth is held by 0.1% of families.
How much more wealth should they be given control of before the cream starts flowing down?
No one seems to have a plan.

You're living in a fantasy world where wealth is finite and only a certain amount exists. Wealth is CREATED. It doesn't matter how much happens to be at the top at any given time... that's a good thing... we prosper in a system that allows us to obtain that kind of wealth... MANY countries aren't so fortunate, and you seem to want to emulate them.

The "cream" doesn't just start magically flowing down and showering your lazy ass with wealth... that's a Utopian fantasy you're having... snap out of it and join us in the real world. Get off your duff and CREATE some wealth of your own... you can do that here. There is absolutely no reason you can't be one of those 0.1% who control 25% of the wealth... you have that opportunity in this country.

Sitting there being a smug little smart ass who doesn't understand he is promoting Marxism is detrimental to the country and everything we have going for us. Look, you don't like the 0.1% who have 25% of the wealth? Well create something they want! Provide a service that benefits them! Capture some of that wealth for yourself! What do you think... they sit around gazing at their piles of money all the time? What sort of gratification do you think they get from that?

So you want either an Oligarchy or a Corporatocracy. Which is it?

 

[2aguy]

You also need to admit that she is right about the vital importance of strengthening the middle class. Consumer spending is the key to economic growth - not the hope that more investment is on the horizon if you cut the taxes on the top 1%.

Giving tax breaks to the top earners and corporations has been proven time and time again to be a poor stimulator of economic growth. Sure the idea sounds rational on paper, but put into practice it's a failure. Why? Because these top earners just keep the money they save rather than invest it. Investing is no longer a priority for them if they are already richer now than ever before. Corporate profits are also at an all time high. Moreover, more investment in supply is pointless if there isn't a level of demand to match it.

Bush's tax cuts for instance were deficit-creating nightmares. Job growth under Bush was pathetic and we had a Great Recession begin on his watch.

Kansas cut taxes on top earners and the state now has a huge deficit and a recession.

No.....allowing people who earned the money keep the money is how we had the greatest expansion of growth during the Reagan years.......giving more money to politicians who put us 19 trillion dollars in debt...that is the smart move to you?

Do you understand what people do with their own money......? They invest it, and that investment makes jobs....giving money to the government makes that money disaapear into the pockets of politicians and their buddies.....as 19 trillion in debt with nothing to show for it shows......

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Your man Obama has played with interest rates and the money supply to keep Wall Street humming and keep the wealthiest 1% fat and happy, while the rest of us suffer. And you somehow still believe the Democrats are the party of the middle class. Your arrogance is exceeded only by your stupidity.

It's not the left pushing for more tax breaks for the rich.

You do better than that. You have made sure that the rich are very very rich and the rest of us are poor.

So how do you think more tax breaks for the rich are going to help the rest of us? Excessive breaks for them already caused the current situation.

Except they didn't. You must actually know absolutely nothing about economics. How about instead of US explaining how having more money to spend on employees and business expansion encourages said employment and expansion, YOU tell US how having less money will encourage any amount of expansion and hiring?

Even further beyond that, I wouldn't expect anyone but a brain dead Liberal to think Hillary is actually offering to tax her corporate masters who are paying her to implement these policies. The "rich" YOU are referring to aren't the same "rich" that end up being taxed by these new policies, but their competitors, which is exactly why the Democrats love spouting this "tax the rich" drivel that mindless drones see fit to echo, because Hillary's corporate masters don't even pay taxes.

Looks good on paper, but in practice, it has never worked the way you want. Businesses are doing great. Profit margins are better than ever. Business doesn't hire people or build new facilities just because the government gives them money. They do it because their market improves and they can sell more items.

You must have missed half of my post. Actually, make that both halves. Not only did you not bother to answer my question, but you ignored the part where I pointed out to you that it helps only the top percentage of business, and this type of tax system is designed to only damage their competitors.

The fact is that you can't answer my question, because in no way does taxing a business cause it to expand. Does taxing your paycheck earn you more money?

You also clearly didn't read my post, because you stupidly came to the conclusion that I was advocating corporate welfare, when I said absolutely nothing about GIVING them money. Businesses thrive in an economy where there is a demand for their services, they hire people and expand because of that demand which they have to supply. It's not a question of whether or not they hire people, THEY MUST HIRE PEOPLE, it's not a question of whether or not businesses pay their employees enough, THEY MUST PAY THEM ENOUGH. Every human being that buys anything does so with currency, that currency comes from somewhere, in the vast majority of cases that somewhere is a job. If people are not paid 'enough', the demand drops, and so does the need for it to be supplied, and thus the profit for the supplier drops. I shouldn't even have to explain this, but to summarize: Businesses don't need the government at all, whatsoever, businesses exist to supply a demand, and thus can support themselves, and to supply that demand they hire people at a reasonable wage.

I'm sure you've heard this one: "Most hiring is done by small businesses"
The funniest part is that your corporate masters told you this, and are pretending they'll help the smaller 99% of businesses, and you believe them. You're electing their servant, and letting them control the tax code through her.

Yet you Democrats actually have the audacity to pretend every free-thinker in America is stupid. The sheer irony of your every thought is funny in the saddest way possible.

 

[hunarcy]

Huh? I thought if you cut taxes on the rich they create jobs all over the place, in the US only of course. Are you telling me that was complete bullshit?

During the 1960s the United States experienced its longest uninterrupted period of economic expansion in history. John F. Kennedy provided this through a tax cut. Kennedy suggesting that business needed the tax relief that would be provided by liberalizing the depreciation allowance on new plants and equipment and by giving business a 7 percent investment tax credit.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's not the left pushing for more tax breaks for the rich.

You do better than that. You have made sure that the rich are very very rich and the rest of us are poor.

So how do you think more tax breaks for the rich are going to help the rest of us? Excessive breaks for them already caused the current situation.

Except they didn't. You must actually know absolutely nothing about economics. How about instead of US explaining how having more money to spend on employees and business expansion encourages said employment and expansion, YOU tell US how having less money will encourage any amount of expansion and hiring?

Even further beyond that, I wouldn't expect anyone but a brain dead Liberal to think Hillary is actually offering to tax her corporate masters who are paying her to implement these policies. The "rich" YOU are referring to aren't the same "rich" that end up being taxed by these new policies, but their competitors, which is exactly why the Democrats love spouting this "tax the rich" drivel that mindless drones see fit to echo, because Hillary's corporate masters don't even pay taxes.

Looks good on paper, but in practice, it has never worked the way you want. Businesses are doing great. Profit margins are better than ever. Business doesn't hire people or build new facilities just because the government gives them money. They do it because their market improves and they can sell more items.

You must have missed half of my post. Actually, make that both halves. Not only did you not bother to answer my question, but you ignored the part where I pointed out to you that it helps only the top percentage of business, and this type of tax system is designed to only damage their competitors.

The fact is that you can't answer my question, because in no way does taxing a business cause it to expand. Does taxing your paycheck earn you more money?

You also clearly didn't read my post, because you stupidly came to the conclusion that I was advocating corporate welfare, when I said absolutely nothing about GIVING them money. Businesses thrive in an economy where there is a demand for their services, they hire people and expand because of that demand which they have to supply. It's not a question of whether or not they hire people, THEY MUST HIRE PEOPLE, it's not a question of whether or not businesses pay their employees enough, THEY MUST PAY THEM ENOUGH. Every human being that buys anything does so with currency, that currency comes from somewhere, in the vast majority of cases that somewhere is a job. If people are not paid 'enough', the demand drops, and so does the need for it to be supplied, and thus the profit for the supplier drops. I shouldn't even have to explain this, but to summarize: Businesses don't need the government at all, whatsoever, businesses exist to supply a demand, and thus can support themselves, and to supply that demand they hire people at a reasonable wage.

I'm sure you've heard this one: "Most hiring is done by small businesses"
The funniest part is that your corporate masters told you this, and are pretending they'll help the smaller 99% of businesses, and you believe them. You're electing their servant, and letting them control the tax code through her.

Yet you Democrats actually have the audacity to pretend every free-thinker in America is stupid. The sheer irony of your every thought is funny in the saddest way possible.

Yes, giving them more tax breaks is giving them more money. If corporate profits weren't at all time highs, you might have a point about encouraging them to spend more money, but they are doing fine. They will not hire or enlarge their businesses until their sales are increased to the point that they need to. Giving them more free money won't help anyone but their main stock holders. The main stock holders are already doing just fine.