Isn't Interesting That The Failed Trickle Down Economics
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
I disagree. The are Governmentist. The masses are not repesented often, the government is. Big difference. And you are delerious to think the dems aren't following the party line. They have always been that way.
Also, jobs meean nothing if they don't generate wealth. The less of the wealth you create or can control, the less you will generate jobs.
*two cents*
<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kpx77g3_2q0?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com
That's the truth!!!!
Last edited:
Republicans have been in congress since February. What plans do they have to bring back good paying American jobs?
Answer,
None!
Answer,
None!
Does wealth trickle up
Could you provide a link where it does?
Thanks!!!
nobody needs a link just some common sense.
working class people spend their money.
spent money increases demand
more demand equals more profits
more profits equals more money for the rich
more demand also makes room for others to make similar products to fill demand
businesses need more products to keep up with demand.
they hire more people to keep up with needed products
more people spending money
more people paying into social security
keep repeating cycle
all businesses that support those businesses are making money
economic growth based on money moving through it increases.
there is a reason when Bush sent out the 500 dollar stimulus checks he sent it to the working class. They would spend it and put it into the economy.
Damn, Lamarr ran from this thread.
What happened in 1983-84 Thought?
Until you answer that, your words mean nothing.
Until you answer that, your words mean nothing.
You don't know what happened in 1983-84!
With all due respect. Let's not engage in historical amnesia. Gore most likely would not have gone in to Iran, even if 911 did occur under his watch. This would have lessen the unfunded burdens that the unpaid for war, tax cuts and Medicare Part D incurred.
We did enter a slight recession at the end of the Clinton administration, but GW's way of dealing with it was to stimulate the economy by ramping up the military industrial complex and give tax cuts to the wealthy. Even the most cynical would have to admit that Gore would not have taken that tactic.
I don't disagree with any of that but it doesn't address my post you quoted. Hopefully Gore would have had more respect for Clinton and his intelligence infrastructure and they would have prevented 9-11 but the financial crisis was still coming and modern day politics has become and has been for a long while about fixing immediate situations while kicking other stuff down the road. With Clinton having done such a great job of putting the Democrats in bed with Wall Street nearly as much as the Republicans, they still would have engaged in the same sub prime shenanigans and outright fraud that got us into the crisis of 2007 and 2008.
The main difference is without Medicare Part D, two unfunded wars, and a supply side based tax cut (not just for the wealthy but heavily to their benefit), the country would have been on a better financial footing to recover.
Why are the "Bush tax cuts" viewed as a negative when it increased federal tax revenues? Other than that, I agree about the Medicare part D & the Wars
I've referenced this many times with no response
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
And Thought1, Trickle Down is a process, not a policy
Tax cuts are not negative as long as you pay the bills.
Oh yea? Don't rewrite history.
Trickle-down economics
<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc6b490e" classid="clsid
27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /p>
Last edited:
^^^^^^
Similar threads
