|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 23, 2017 14:22:58 GMT -5
So having a smart phone means I'm rich? Having a microwave (which I did have in the late 70s) or an HDTV, means I'm rich? Cell phones and HDTVs weren't even around in the 70s or 80s. What a false argument. Raising taxes to get out of a recession and stabilize means someone is an idiot? Must be why Reagan raised taxes so many times to get out of the 82 recession his tax cuts caused. Where did you study economics? No. It means you are better off than you were before you had them. The standard of living in this country has risin significantly from the 1980s. Everyone is better off because the economy grew. The poorest of the poor in this country are better off than even the middle class in most of the world. We got here by keeping regulation and taxes to a reasonable level. Raising taxes shrinks the economy. The fact that you believe Reagan's tax cuts caused the recession and his increases cured it... let me guess, you studied economics in a Communist country, or a state university (there's not much difference). The economy is like a pie that the government has to take a piece of to pay for what it does. The best way to increase the government's income is to grow the pie. Taking a bigger piece shrinks the pie.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 23, 2017 21:19:37 GMT -5
No, I took some economics courses as part of a master's program at a major university.
Being better off isn't the point of "trickle down." Increased wealth and less income inequality is. To that end, trickle down is a massive failure.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 24, 2017 10:13:19 GMT -5
No, I took some economics courses as part of a master's program at a major university. Being better off isn't the point of "trickle down." Increased wealth and less income inequality is. To that end, trickle down is a massive failure. *nods* I can tell you took them at a major university. You learned from people so far left, you may as well have been in North Korea. I studied at a small private university. At the time, it was the smallest fully accredited business school in the country (and they still had the idiot Robert Reich on the mandatory reading list). Here’s the problem: income inequality is a good thing. The rich getting richer is an unalloyed benefit to a country. What you want to avoid is the poor getting poorer, which is what you get in a socialist system where the tax code is used for redistribution instead of funding the government. This philosophy is currently on display in Venezuela where the government is working very hard to impoverish everyone. A growing gap between the rich and poor is only a problem for evil people who wish to use class envy as a means to power. A moral and ethical person would never begrudge a neighbor his success. The concern for moral people is only for the poor, who we’ve established are also getting richer; precisely because we have a growing economy.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 24, 2017 11:44:39 GMT -5
How to know if you had an idiot Econ teacher:
You believe the best way to ameliorate failure is to punish success.
|
|
|
Post by breakingbad on Dec 25, 2017 8:43:39 GMT -5
And the flip side: the best way to eradicate sloth and poverty is to reward it.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 28, 2017 11:40:27 GMT -5
It is true that the rich are richer. It is a filthy lie that the poor are poorer. The poor are considerably richer than they were in the 1980s. What has to be understood in terms of what Reagan did, is where the economy was when he started. The “malaise” of the late 1970s, Carter era was bad. Gas lines. Stagflation. Double digit inflation. Reaganomics saved the country from that. It is not perfect, no economic system is. But it is a vast improvement over Carternomics, both the first time, and when Obama brought it back. Saw some stats on the "lie" that the poor are poorer. What I read was that wages for the "poor" had increased by 6%, while in the same period wages for the wealthy increased by something like 80%. I forget the exact period involved, but it was a good 20 - 25 years from the 80s into the 2000s. You're also forgetting a few things, RJ. A lot of the Carter economic problems were caused by Nixon economic policies and practices. In fact, the pattern over the years seems to be something like Republican comes into office, cuts taxes on the assumption that doing so will pump up the economy, revenues go down, spending goes up, the deficit hits record numbers, a recession hits, then a Democrat gets elected and straightens things out. In short, want to ruin the economy? Elect a Republican and watch the deficit spending start. Want to improve the economy? Elect a Democrat. Really? I guess it doesn't pay to be poor, unless you are a born serf. The "rich get richer" because they worked for it, saved, invested, and built something. The poor didn't. For the most part, they relied on the Left and the Federal government to pay them for living. Want to improve the economy? Outlaw Democrats.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 28, 2017 11:43:09 GMT -5
OMG, RJ, are you serious? I've never seen such a divorce from reality. The economy soared for almost 30 years? Which economy? Not the US. Recession in the 90s, another "great recession" in the starting around 2007-2008. And most experts agree that it was the tax increases enacted under Clinton that turned the economy around in the 1990s. I'm not sure i'd consider the poor "considerably richer" than in the 1980s. In terms of gross income between now and then, yes. In comparison to the wealthy, no way. But, if you're happy with a small increase in comparison to major increases for others, . . . No, Clinton's tax increases slowed the growth of the economy. It wasn't until Gingrich forced him to cut taxes that it really took off. Then the dot com bubble exploded. If you want a major increase, do what's required to set yourself up for a major increase. Working for minimum wage, or living on welfare doesn't do it.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 28, 2017 11:45:05 GMT -5
So having a smart phone means I'm rich? Having a microwave (which I did have in the late 70s) or an HDTV, means I'm rich? Cell phones and HDTVs weren't even around in the 70s or 80s. What a false argument. Raising taxes to get out of a recession and stabilize means someone is an idiot? Must be why Reagan raised taxes so many times to get out of the 82 recession his tax cuts caused. Where did you study economics? Compared to actual poor, absolutely. The poor in the US have about the same living standard as the middle class in Europe. The actual poor not only don't have cell phones or flat screens, most don't have food, water, electricity, or a solid roof.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 28, 2017 11:47:32 GMT -5
No, I took some economics courses as part of a master's program at a major university.Being better off isn't the point of "trickle down." Increased wealth and less income inequality is. To that end, trickle down is a massive failure. Same thing. Universities today are simply Communist indoctrination centers. The government has no "right" to anyone's paycheck. Most of what the Feds spend is spent on illegal programs, cooked up by Leftists to enslave the population. Welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid are the largest portions of the "budget", which we haven't had for over 8 years.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 2, 2018 12:25:51 GMT -5
No, I took some economics courses as part of a master's program at a major university. Being better off isn't the point of "trickle down." Increased wealth and less income inequality is. To that end, trickle down is a massive failure. .....I can tell you took them at a major university. You learned from people so far left, you may as well have been in North Korea. I studied at a small private university. At the time, it was the smallest fully accredited business school in the country (and they still had the idiot Robert Reich on the mandatory reading list)..... Rush University, no doubt... Trickle down didn't work...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 2, 2018 14:12:58 GMT -5
.....I can tell you took them at a major university. You learned from people so far left, you may as well have been in North Korea. I studied at a small private university. At the time, it was the smallest fully accredited business school in the country (and they still had the idiot Robert Reich on the mandatory reading list)..... Rush University, no doubt... Trickle down didn't work... You an PAM can continue repeating "it didn't work" over and over again like a mantra. That won't make you any less spectacularly and obviously wrong.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 2, 2018 16:42:24 GMT -5
Wrong, RJ? Hoover tried trickle down . . . and we had a Great Depression. Reagan tried trickle down . . . and we had what you call a mild recession. W tried trickle down (and started a way) and we had another depression. The fact is that, with trickle down, the rich get richer and hold their money, not reinvesting in the economy or jobs.
Do a Google search on "does trickle down work" and see what you get. Almost universally no. But keep your head in the sand and keep hoping.
BTW, happy new year.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 2, 2018 17:34:06 GMT -5
Wrong, RJ? Hoover tried trickle down . . . and we had a Great Depression. Reagan tried trickle down . . . and we had what you call a mild recession. W tried trickle down (and started a way) and we had another depression. The fact is that, with trickle down, the rich get richer and hold their money, not reinvesting in the economy or jobs. Do a Google search on "does trickle down work" and see what you get. Almost universally no. But keep your head in the sand and keep hoping. BTW, happy new year. Again, we had the longest, largest period of growth in the history of the US when it was implemented. The results speak for themselves. I'm sure you do get your economics education from Google. All your Google result proves is that most people don't understand economics. Me? I've studied it in college, I've read Smith, and Krugman, Reich and Sowell and Hayek. For the first 18 years of my life, I got it at the dinner table every night, from a dad who had a Masters in it, and who spent 30 years putting that degree to work at the Department of Labor, and then the Department of Commerce. Supply-Side economics works brilliantly. But go ahead and pretend it doesn't. Oh and Hoover? The Depression started in 1929. FDR became president in 1933, but the depression didn't really end until World War II. Clearly FDR and Keynes didn't know what they were doing. In fact, a recovery began about the same time Roosevelt was sworn in, before any of his New Deal policies could be implemented, and when those policies were implemented the Keynesian policies he put in place further slowed the recovery. Still, it was handy for Roosevelt to blame Hoover. Just as Obama spent his entire presidency blaming Bush for everything.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 2, 2018 20:41:14 GMT -5
So you're OK with the enormous deficits that Reagan and Bush created by their "cut taxes and reduce revenue" while increasing spending policies?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 2, 2018 21:18:59 GMT -5
So you're OK with the enormous deficits that Reagan and Bush created by their "cut taxes and reduce revenue" while increasing spending policies? Why not? Obama added more to the debt than everyone before him, and that doesn't seem to bother you. The simple truth though, is the only way we're gong to get the debt under control is to grow the economy and put people back to work. There was no way to do that while US corporate taxes were the highest in the world.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 2, 2018 21:47:55 GMT -5
Wrong, RJ? Hoover tried trickle down . . . and we had a Great Depression. Reagan tried trickle down . . . and we had what you call a mild recession. W tried trickle down (and started a way) and we had another depression. The fact is that, with trickle down, the rich get richer and hold their money, not reinvesting in the economy or jobs. Do a Google search on "does trickle down work" and see what you get. Almost universally no. But keep your head in the sand and keep hoping. BTW, happy new year. Whenever the Federal government involves itself in the economy, the economy suffers. Sometimes some, sometimes a lot. The Puppet thought he was the world's greatest economist, and we got 1% growth for 8 years, and heard that that's the "new normal", that jobs weren't coming back, corporations weren't staying here, and the world was the most important issue. Trump came in, and in less than a year we got 3%+ growth, record markets, and money coming back into the US from overseas.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 2, 2018 22:46:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 3, 2018 10:00:40 GMT -5
Thanks, AW. But methnks your efforts fall on deaf ears!
RJ, you say that we have to grow the economy and put people back to work. What people? Aren't we at about full employment now? What's actually going to happen is that the increased revenues from lower taxes will be either held by the companies or given to shareholders.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 3, 2018 10:02:36 GMT -5
So, you've never held a job? If so, why were you paid? If whomever you worked for didn't have expendable capital, how did you get paid? Did you ever get a raise, or did you work for minimum wage your entire life? If so, how did your employer manage to afford to give you a raise? All of that is "trickle down". If those that own and manage companies don't see profits, the employees don't get paid, don't get raises, or don't keep their jobs. You can complain that everyone didn't get rich from trickle down, but anyone that actually holds a job is a beneficiary of "trickle down".
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 3, 2018 10:04:00 GMT -5
Thanks, AW. But methnks your efforts fall on deaf ears! RJ, you say that we have to grow the economy and put people back to work. What people? Aren't we at about full employment now? What's actually going to happen is that the increased revenues from lower taxes will be either held by the companies or given to shareholders. So, all those corporations that have already paid out bonuses to their employees, and those that have already given raises, are irrelevant, because they don't fit the lies your masters are telling you, correct?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 3, 2018 10:54:34 GMT -5
Thanks, AW. But methnks your efforts fall on deaf ears! RJ, you say that we have to grow the economy and put people back to work. What people? Aren't we at about full employment now? What's actually going to happen is that the increased revenues from lower taxes will be either held by the companies or given to shareholders. There’s a difference between the unemployment rate and the phenomenon called “under-employment.” Growing the economy is also the best way to reduce the welfare rolls.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 3, 2018 13:35:16 GMT -5
So, you've never held a job? If so, why were you paid? If whomever you worked for didn't have expendable capital, how did you get paid? Did you ever get a raise, or did you work for minimum wage your entire life? If so, how did your employer manage to afford to give you a raise? All of that is "trickle down". If those that own and manage companies don't see profits, the employees don't get paid, don't get raises, or don't keep their jobs. You can complain that everyone didn't get rich from trickle down, but anyone that actually holds a job is a beneficiary of "trickle down". That's not "trickle down," Redleg... that's basic fairness... unions have been calling for that since the 30's... "trickle down" is when you allow businesses to reap a larger than expected profit hoping they share that profit fairly with their employees... the ones that really made that profit for him... but they don't... they use it to make themselves even more profit... at their employees expense... or pad their already fat portfolio... Kinda like a businessman having a mobile home park providing shelter for his employees at a big business... (like Howard Industries here... and yeah, I'm talking about Hispanics)... who charges residents an outrageous price for rent... (but provides transportation to and from work)... with multiple families in a single mobile home... and even coke machines with prices twice as much as it is (Kroger) half-a-mile away... (because the families don't have transportation)... pays them barely above minimum wage... and gets a a big tax cut hoping he will help those residents by cutting their high living expenses... but instead, he doubles the size of the mobile home park... Reaganomics didn't work... and America is still trying to recover from it... on many fronts...
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 3, 2018 21:04:33 GMT -5
So, you've never held a job? If so, why were you paid? If whomever you worked for didn't have expendable capital, how did you get paid? Did you ever get a raise, or did you work for minimum wage your entire life? If so, how did your employer manage to afford to give you a raise? All of that is "trickle down". If those that own and manage companies don't see profits, the employees don't get paid, don't get raises, or don't keep their jobs. You can complain that everyone didn't get rich from trickle down, but anyone that actually holds a job is a beneficiary of "trickle down". That's not "trickle down," Redleg... that's basic fairness... unions have been calling for that since the 30's... "trickle down" is when you allow businesses to reap a larger than expected profit hoping they share that profit fairly with their employees... the ones that really made that profit for him... but they don't... they use it to make themselves even more profit... at their employees expense... or pad their already fat portfolio... Kinda like a businessman having a mobile home park providing shelter for his employees at a big business... (like Howard Industries here... and yeah, I'm talking about Hispanics)... who charges residents an outrageous price for rent... (but provides transportation to and from work)... with multiple families in a single mobile home... and even coke machines with prices twice as much as it is (Kroger) half-a-mile away... (because the families don't have transportation)... pays them barely above minimum wage... and gets a a big tax cut hoping he will help those residents by cutting their high living expenses... but instead, he doubles the size of the mobile home park... Reaganomics didn't work... and America is still trying to recover from it... on many fronts... No, it's not. It's trickledown. When "the rich" (corporations) can make a bigger profit, they pay people more, because they want to keep the best workers. Bonus', higher wages, better benefits, all contribute to the profit margin. When there is more money available to businesses, a bidding war develops for workers. If a business wants to keep the best workers, they have to offer more. That's exactly trickle down. Oh, The Puppet managed to "recover" us from it. He drove unemployment to over 10%, gave us a 1% growth, and made sure that hundreds of businesses failed. He also made sure that lots of big businesses went overseas. He was a "citizen of the world" after all, so the US didn't matter to him. Reaganomics is what allowed Waco Billy Boy to destroy the military, put lots of people on welfare, and basically squander our out put. Same with The Puppet. It was still Reaganomics that allowed The Puppet to keep from being impeached and prosecuted. It wasn't until his last few years that people were actually catching on to how incompetent and corrupt The Puppet and his crime syndicate were.
|
|