Trickle Down Economics

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Trickle Down Economics is a term coined by socialists who hate capitalism. It is easy to demean/mock anything when breaking an activity down to its basics. Remember the old M*A*S*H episode that was based on a running joke. The characters on the show were repeating this joke about a guy who tried to sell his act to a circus. He showed his "act" which was him flying around inside the big tent without any aid except his flapping arms. When he landed, the owner of the circus rejected his act because all he was doing was bird imitations.

That is what the Democrats do when they call capitalism in its purest form, trickle down economics.

An entrepreneur dreams up a product or service he believes people need and then creates jobs for people to fulfill his dream. The Democrats call business owners paying salaries -- trickle down economics -- because their socialist view is that the business owners have a hell of a nerve making a profit then trickling some of those profits to those being provided jobs.

Damn those business owners with their bird imitations. The Democratic Party solution is having people work for the government. What this accomplishes is obvious. People working for the government needs the Democrats to stay in office so that they won't lose their jobs -- while the rest of America suffers.

[chadk66]

you didn't build that:lol:

[Actor]

Capitalism "in its purest form" does not exist, never has, never will.

[zico20]

Capitalism "in its purest form" does not exist, never has, never will.

Communism in its purest form does not exist, never has, never will, but that does not stop the Democrats from dreaming that one day it will become a reality. :D

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Capitalism "in its purest form" does not exist, never has, never will.

NOTHING in its purest form can work. Pure capitalism will be abused by criminals and greed. Regulations and policing are required.

However socialism has always failed and always will. Any form of government based on taking away people's freedoms is the enemy of the people. America believes in freedom. Freedom requires capitalism as the only methodology to allow it to exist.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Such a rich topic.

The term trickle down economics is generally credited to Will Rogers to describe Herbert Hoover's policies to get us out of the depression. Will Rogers was a Democrat, although it might be a stretch to describe him as a socialist who hated capitalism.

Trickle down economics, more often called supply side economics, would be referred to by zero economists as capitalism in its purest form, whatever that means.

Rather it is more aptly described using the 1890 term the "horse and sparrow" theory, which said, "If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows."

What you describe as trickle down economics - entrepreneurs developing products and providing jobs - is classic capitalism but not what is generally referred to as trickle down. Trickle down is the theory that says that increasing the wealth of the rich classes, for example by substantial tax breaks (Reagonomics), will have a trickle down effect on the middle classes. Or, the horse and sparrow theory. Make the rich richer, and that wealth will pass to the classes below.

Capitalism works. Trickle down, not so much.

[RunForTheRoses]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367682/trickle-down-lie-thomas-sowell

Nobody is advocating the trickle-down theory that the Left attacks.

In the contest for the biggest lie in politics, this one is a top contender. While there have been all too many lies told in politics, most have some little, tiny fraction of truth in them, to make them seem plausible. But the “trickle-down” lie is 100 percent li


https://www.nccivitas.org/2014/myth-trickle-economics/

[Clocker]

The Democrats call business owners paying salaries -- trickle down economics -- because their socialist view is that the business owners have a hell of a nerve making a profit then trickling some of those profits to those being provided jobs.


No, "trickle down" economics as alleged by the left is a policy that gives the rich tax cuts and other breaks that allow them to increase spending and investment, which will eventually benefit the lower classes.

The term was used by the left to attack Reagan's economic proposals, which were to cut all taxes, cut government spending, and reduce government regulation of the economy. This would stimulate business spending and investment and help create jobs.

The rebuttal to the straw man "trickle down" is to call Democrat proposals "trickle-up poverty". Many on the left, including Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, have advocated more government spending on welfare entitlements and unemployment benefits to increase consumer spending, increase demand, and create jobs. Since this would be paid for by increased taxes, the result would be a reduction in income inequality and wealth inequality.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Such a rich topic.

The term trickle down economics is generally credited to Will Rogers to describe Herbert Hoover's policies to get us out of the depression. Will Rogers was a Democrat, although it might be a stretch to describe him as a socialist who hated capitalism.

Trickle down economics, more often called supply side economics, would be referred to by zero economists as capitalism in its purest form, whatever that means.

Rather it is more aptly described using the 1890 term the "horse and sparrow" theory, which said, "If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows."

What you describe as trickle down economics - entrepreneurs developing products and providing jobs - is classic capitalism but not what is generally referred to as trickle down. Trickle down is the theory that says that increasing the wealth of the rich classes, for example by substantial tax breaks (Reagonomics), will have a trickle down effect on the middle classes. Or, the horse and sparrow theory. Make the rich richer, and that wealth will pass to the classes below.

Capitalism works. Trickle down, not so much.

That IS NOT the way the liberals use the term. They use it to demean capitalism. Not surprising the term was created by a humorist then used by Democrats as if it was something real.

The term "trickle down" paints a very specific image. There is nothing in the term that suggests tax breaks. There is nothing in the term that suggests the rich getting richer. The liberals paint a vivid picture of evil business owners feeding drops to their workers in tattered clothes.

They want to paint the picture of the American worker as Oliver begging, "Please sir, I want some more."

We're all still trying to figure out the methodology of how giving handouts to the poor while business go under or go to other countries help the economy. I'll be happy to address that explanation if there is one.

Personally, I believe that the poor don't want to be poor, and the best way to make that happen is for healthy businesses requiring more workers. It is competition that causes salaries to rise.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

That IS NOT the way the liberals use the term. They use it to demean capitalism. Not surprising the term was created by a humorist then used by Democrats as if it was something real.

The term "trickle down" paints a very specific image. There is nothing in the term that suggests tax breaks. There is nothing in the term that suggests the rich getting richer. The liberals paint a vivid picture of evil business owners feeding drops to their workers in tattered clothes.

They want to paint the picture of the American worker as Oliver begging, "Please sir, I want some more."

We're all still trying to figure out the methodology of how giving handouts to the poor while business go under or go to other countries help the economy. I'll be happy to address that explanation if there is one.

Personally, I believe that the poor don't want to be poor, and the best way to make that happen is for healthy businesses requiring more workers. It is competition that causes salaries to rise.
If there is an issue for "liberals" like Bernie Sanders, it is that the wealth gap between the richest and the poorest has been widening. In essence, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets. In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 43%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[15] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 35% to 37%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 88%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%.

What they believe is that wealth is not, and will not "trickle down" from the richest to the poorest.

Even if you think there is nothing in the term that suggests tax breaks or the rich getting richer, that implication has always existed. Reagan's tax plan, which included substantial tax breaks for the wealthy, was based on the trickle down theory and the work of Arthur Laffer. This is historically documented. Trickle down has historically been used to indicate that as the rich classes accumulate wealth, it will trickle down to the classes below. You don't have to believe me. Look it up.

What the "liberals" are doing is asking what in their mind seems like a pretty obvious question. If wealth is continuing to shift to the rich classes, and the poor are getting poorer, how does that equation change? Obviously accumulating wealth at the top levels has not resulted in the middle and poorer classes doing better.

When you say, They want to paint the picture of the American worker as Oliver begging, "Please sir, I want some more," as much as anything that has been based on the fact that salaries have been stagnant for years. Again, it isn't so odd for workers to wonder why the businesses keep accumulating wealth (and profits) and the wealthy keep getting wealthier. I think you exaggerate what is a very natural reaction. It isn't just liberals. It is a lot of very ordinary Americans wondering why they seem to be getting a smaller, and smaller cut of the pie. And they are not doing it out of a hatred of capitalism. Perhaps they wonder why capitalism isn't working for them, and perhaps they have some share of the blame, but it is human nature to wonder why they are getting left behind, and it is also human nature to look at themselves second. You blame "liberals" as if those getting left behind aren't liberals, conservatives, and everything in-between - all part of that 80% that is getting a smaller and smaller part of the pie. They just want to know how they get their piece of the pie.

You are correct in one regard. Healthy business that hires more workers is an excellent idea. I'd add one other thing. It is harder and harder to get good-paying middle class jobs. When I was younger, union workers often were able to live a very comfortable middle class existence. Skilled laborers - plumbers, electricians, carpenters - could put kids through college, and live in upper middle class neighborhoods. It is harder and harder to do that today. In the new economy, many of the best paying jobs will require education and training. As much as anything we should figure out how we can make that education and training as available as possible. What we really need is people in the middle doing well enough to trickle up.

[Tom]

What the liberals want is to re-distribute the wealth, but not the work.
And over-regulate business to stifle their growth.

Oh, and lie about the economy.
Obama says he fixed it.

Which is it?

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.

And they pay 84% of the income taxes.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-84-of-income-tax-1428674384

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Well if I've learned nothing else, providing an even-tempered, rational response to anything here generally gets this response:

Liberals lie and hate America and then lie a little more and hate America a little more, and then they're stupid and wing nut conservatives are the greatest and never lie or say anything stupid and I don't care if what you said makes sense, I'm going to mention something else which states a fact as a pejorative. Oh, and Obama sucks and hates America and never did anything good, in fact he's tried to destroy America. Did I miss anything?

And by the way, don't let the facts get in your way. According to the CBO, the top 20% of earners pay 65.3% of taxes.

And don't just quote 2007 when later data is available. In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 43%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%. If that sounds good to you, I guess you've got the liberals by the short hairs.

[Clocker]

And they pay 84% of the income taxes.



Typical right wing lies. According to that article, the top 20% only pay 83.9% of federal income taxes.

[Clocker]

And don't just quote 2007 when later data is available. In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 43%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%. If that sounds good to you, I guess you've got the liberals by the short hairs.

Are you saying that inequality was greater after just 2 years of the Obama administration than it was near the end of the Bush administration?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Are you saying that inequality was greater after just 2 years of the Obama administration than it was near the end of the Bush administration?
To quote St. Ronny, There you go again.

Let's just throw the point in the toilet so we can take a shot at Obama because everything is his fault, even the shit that happened before anybody knew a guy named Obama existed. The only reason the date matters is if Obama made it his holy cause to make sure the gap in wealth continued to grow and it was not a residual of exiting the Bush years in the worst economic shape since the great depression.

Life is often a lot more complicated than "whatever is wrong can be blamed on (liberals/democrats/Congress/Obama/everybody who doesn't think like we do)."

Should I remind you of what the point was again, or do you think you can read the post and contemplate responding to that point?

Thanks for a completely useless and unhelpful comment.

[Tom]

Gee, I enjoyed it.
Go figure!

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Gee, I enjoyed it.
Go figure!
I respect the fact that you can only see one side of any five sided issue. That sort of focus is really a lost art.

[Tom]

I'll let you in the secret.
When 4 of the 5 sides are BS, it is not hard. ;)

[Clocker]

Thanks for a completely useless and unhelpful comment.

And thank you for returning the favor.

The point was sarcasm to poke fun at people like Obama who don't understand economics and who think that the president can create jobs and wipe away "inequality" by the force of their great leadership.

[classhandicapper]

I don't see why income distribution in percentage terms is relevant.

I would gladly live in a world where the top 1% have 10 trillion dollars each as long as I have 10 million. The idea is to lift all boats. To the extent you can do that, it simply does not matter if someone else's boat is lifted more than mine because they are more educated, smarter, work harder, or got luckier. The idea is make everyone comfortable.

Now granted, we have problems in that area, but those have to do with global trade, 0% interest rates on savings, an inability to crack teacher's unions and improve the quality of education, greed on Wall St etc... It has nothing to do with tax policy.

[delayjf]

Now granted, we have problems in that area, but those have to do with global trade

And that is my issue with this global economy that liberals like Hillary and Soros tout - the rising boats will not be in the US, but abroad.

[classhandicapper]

And that is my issue with this global economy that liberals like Hillary and Soros tout - the rising boats will not be in the US, but abroad.


It took me an embarrassingly long time to realize that. I bought the free trade story hook, line, and sinker. Theoretically, it is correct over the very long term. But in the mean time, because of huge differences in standards of living, tax policy, regulations, wages etc... the US was gutted at a massively faster rate than it would have been otherwise.

[chadk66]

we've been seeing how trickle up poverty works the past 8 years. 94 million out of the work force, 57 million on welfare, etc. etc. works like a champ if your into that kind of shit

[Robert Fischer]

money is something we invented in the image of the power system of our universe.


In our universe, power clusters along the shape of power law into super nodes, or relative monopolies.

Our economy thrives on billions of near-free laborers.

Individuals can move around within the system, but large groups are subject to the system.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mVeBPCxxzc0/TvuBikf4g5I/AAAAAAAAACw/lv_7L2etNmw/w1200-h630-p-nu/Normal+Distibution+vs+Power+Law+Distribution.JPG
thank google for the weird example. #of days homeless across a population

Our system = right side , Power Law curve. A flat plain that towers into a volcano. Most people zero or 1 days of homelessness (red line along bottom) and a small percentage 'living' homeless (the tower).
Bell curve = left side, a 'hill' (or, bell...), a fat curve center with most people having a bunch of days living as homeless(although not as much as the lifetime homeless from the power law).

change #of days homeless to number of days wealthy, or simply wealth

[Clocker]

money is something we invented in the image of the power system of our universe.


We invented money because it is a lot more efficient than barter. I don't know what the power system of the universe is, but I doubt that Native Americans had it in mind when they developed wampum.

Our economy thrives on billions of near-free laborers.

You have obviously not required the services of a plumber any time recently.

[mostpost]

Communism in its purest form does not exist, never has, never will, but that does not stop the Democrats from dreaming that one day it will become a reality. :D
I don't know a single Democrat who advocates the establishment of Communism in the United States. Saying that they do indicates an appalling lack of intelligence.

And actually, Communism in its purest form probably did exist briefly in Cambodia under Pol Pot. We all know what a disaster that was.

[mostpost]

NOTHING in its purest form can work. Pure capitalism will be abused by criminals and greed. Regulations and policing are required.

However socialism has always failed and always will. Any form of government based on taking away peoplle's freedoms is the enemy of the people. America believes in freedom. Freedom requires capitalism as the only methodology to allow it to exist.
That is completely wrong. There is no definitive correlation between capitalism and freedom, or between socialism and lack of freedom.
Following is a list of the top ten socialist countries in the world. Next to each is its ranking on the Human Freedom index compiled by the Cato Institute a very right wing think tank.

1. China 132 But remember, China is a Communist country and a dictatorship
2. Denmark. 4th
3. Finland. 3rd.
4. Netherlands. 14th
5. Canada. 6th
6. Sweden. 10th
7. Norway. 11th.
8. Ireland. 8th.
9. New Zealand. 5th
10. Belgium. 22nd.
And the United Kingdom which does not make the list of the top ten socialist countries, but which all of you consider as socialist ranks 9th on the Cato Institutes index of human freedom.
So, seven of the top ten countries on the Cato Institutes Human freedom index are socialist countries.

This does not mean that every socialist country is a bastion of freedom. Nor can we ignore the reality that there are or were capitalist countries where freedom was severely limited. As mentioned previouslyChile under Pinochet, present day Russia where Billionaires abound, and especially Nazi Germany are just some examples.

[horses4courses]

I don't know a single Democrat who advocates the establishment of Communism in the United States. Saying that they do indicates an appalling lack of intelligence.

And actually, Communism in its purest form probably did exist briefly in Cambodia under Pol Pot. We all know what a disaster that was.

Your reference here is very fitting.
So many conservatives here dismiss
Democrats and socialists as those
who will stop at nothing until we
have a communist society. BS.

All that shows is the ignorance
of those conservatives. Anyone
who advocates a fairer and more
just society draws the ire of the
ignorant.

[Tom]

All that shows is the ignorance of those conservatives. Anyone
who advocates a fairer and more just society draws the ire of the
ignorant.

And you are trying to tell us, with a straight face, that this is what the democrat parry wants to do? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

A just society, by a government that totally ignores its own laws, condemns cops, encourages terrorist groups, and funds terrorist nations?:lol::lol:

[horses4courses]

And you are trying to tell us, with a straight face, that this is what the democrat parry wants to do? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

A just society, by a government that totally ignores its own laws, condemns cops, encourages terrorist groups, and funds terrorist nations?:lol::lol:

You're the result of many decades of misinformation in this country.
Started in the 1950s. There are millions like you - mostly male, white,
and getting older.

[Tom]

You're the result of many decades of misinformation in this country.
Started in the 1950s. There are millions like you - mostly male, white,
and getting older.

Ah, your racism is showing again.
But you are lucky, it is dwarfed by your ignorance.
Nothing I mentioned happened in the 1950's - they all happened under the Killer Kenyan Klown.

But that is ok, I know people like you need to somehow justify your total failures.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I can only say how incredibly gratified I am that my life is a delight. Things could hardly be better. I golf for free (nope not a Democratic welfare system), I play the horses without worry - and all under your mortal enemy, Obama. Somehow the misery of the Obama years whizzed right past me. Also I feel great sympathy for most of you who seem to be perpetually angry and despondent. Crappy way to live I'm sure. I hope things improve for most of you because heading to the inevitable last roundup with so little hope and happiness I wouldn't wish on anyone, including Republicans facing 4 more years of Democratic rule.

[classhandicapper]

That is completely wrong. There is no definitive correlation between capitalism and freedom, or between socialism and lack of freedom.
Following is a list of the top ten socialist countries in the world. Next to each is its ranking on the Human Freedom index compiled by the Cato Institute a very right wing think tank.

1. China 132 But remember, China is a Communist country and a dictatorship
2. Denmark. 4th
3. Finland. 3rd.
4. Netherlands. 14th
5. Canada. 6th
6. Sweden. 10th
7. Norway. 11th.
8. Ireland. 8th.
9. New Zealand. 5th
10. Belgium. 22nd.
And the United Kingdom which does not make the list of the top ten socialist countries, but which all of you consider as socialist ranks 9th on the Cato Institutes index of human freedom.
So, seven of the top ten countries on the Cato Institutes Human freedom index are socialist countries.

This does not mean that every socialist country is a bastion of freedom. Nor can we ignore the reality that there are or were capitalist countries where freedom was severely limited. As mentioned previouslyChile under Pinochet, present day Russia where Billionaires abound, and especially Nazi Germany are just some examples.

It depends what your definition of freedom is. Mine includes economic freedom. By definition, there is very little economic freedom in a socialist country.

[Ocala Mike]

New Dealer here. My definition of freedom was contained in FDR's "Four Freedoms" speech given early in the year of my birth.

I don't think economic freedom was one of them, unless you regard it as covered under "freedom from want."

Socialist countries seem to do pretty well with that one.

[Clocker]

My definition of freedom was contained in FDR's "Four Freedoms" speech given early in the year of my birth.



My definition of freedom is contained in the Constitution, further detailed in the Bill of Rights. There is nothing in there about the government providing you with freedom from want or fear, only the opportunity for you to attain those things.

Boiled down into a single concept, you have (or should have) the freedom to do anything that does not infringe on the rights of others.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

If you understand capitalism, you know that freedom is impossible without it.

Any time the government starts telling you what you can and cannot do, i.e., socialism, freedom dies.

[ElKabong]

I can only say how incredibly gratified I am that my life is a delight. Things could hardly be better. I golf for free (nope not a Democratic welfare system), I play the horses without worry - and all under your mortal enemy, Obama. Somehow the misery of the Obama years whizzed right past me. Also I feel great sympathy for most of you who seem to be perpetually angry and despondent. Crappy way to live I'm sure. I hope things improve for most of you because heading to the inevitable last roundup with so little hope and happiness I wouldn't wish on anyone, including Republicans facing 4 more years of Democratic rule.

Donald trump couldn't have posted the above any better....

This will shock you, but a lot of us are doing quite well. Some of us though have feelings for others not so fortunate. Some are brothers or sisters, some are friends. Only assholes roll along life thinking only of themselves and disregard what's going on around them, I'm glad to say this board isn't overly populated with that sort.

As for the four more years of democrat rule comment, the senate and house won't both go blue. Nice try tho

[Tom]

I will take trickle down over the dems' trickle ON any day.

[Tom]

Obama. Somehow the misery of the Obama years whizzed right past me

Don't worry - it is in your children's and grandchildren's rear view mirror, closing on them.

The hug hole he dug has to be filled some day.
They will be the one paying to do it.


Glad you are happy in your ignorance of reality.
You just don't see that this nation is over, do you?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Don't worry - it is in your children's and grandchildren's rear view mirror, closing on them.

The hug hole he dug has to be filled some day.
They will be the one paying to do it.


Glad you are happy in your ignorance of reality.
You just don't see that this nation is over, do you?
The danger in America are the people who have stopped believing in America. It is people like Trump who can't believe they could lose on the issues or on qualifications and instead blame it on a rigged election. It is people driven by hate, whether it is hate or race, religion, the media, or political party. It is people who believe the time for armed insurrection is here.

The last time this happened was people like Joe McCarthy who went on the rampage against the communists since because of them this country was over. It happened in the 20's when the country was rabidly mad over the waves of European immigrants, finally passing quota laws. It happened when the wing nuts decided that we were a country of alcoholics and the only thing that would save us is banning alcohol. Oh yeah, the country was over then too. It happened when the country was divided in two by slavery. And you know what really happened? Eventually saner voices prevailed and life in America went on.

Reality. You lump everybody, except people who think like you, into your own basket of deplorables. You are angry out of all proportion to reality. Life in America for the vast majority of people is pretty good. No, it's better than pretty good, and that was my point. My life has been good for a very long time, it didn't deteriorate under Obama - in fact my portfolio exploded in value under the evil Obama - and I'm not seeing it deteriorating regardless of who gets elected. Is your life that bad except when you are sitting in front of your computer circle jerking with the other off the chart right wingers about liberals and Democrats and immigrants and Hillary? You think you have the exclusive franchise on reality where climate change is a hoax (talk about teeing one up for your grandchildren), Trump is a misunderstood genius, Democrats want to destroy the economy, and every politician is a liar or a cheat and probably both. You have a plan that could actually work, why don't you do what real entrepreneurs do - work with the system we have to implement it. You ever think that perhaps the reason you are marginalized is that you just don't have anything most people are willing to buy?

Is that to say there are not problems? Of course there are, and certainly not as horrible as other places in the world. And they are not unsolvable. Except for the people who spend all their time complaining and not having one workable suggestion. The strength of America is in the fact that we can be both diverse and unified. If you'd spend time realizing that reality is that not everyone thinks like you, it has never been the case and it never will be the case, and we've thrived as a republic for 250 years, perhaps you'd have a less jaundiced view of the world.

Reality. Yeah, you have the copyright on that one.

[Tom]

The danger in America are the people who have stopped believing in America.

We call them democrats.
IT is not the right who is ignoring the laws and the constitution.
It is not the right who is alienating people against police everywhere.
It is not the right who is trying to take away or limit constitutions rights without due process of law.
It is not the right who is funding the world's largest terror sponsoring nation.
It is to the right who is trying to destroy our sovereignty by opening the borders to anyone who want to come here.

The GD democratic party is a far worse threat than ISIS or any terrorist group has ever been. To call a democrat an American, to me, is an outright lie.

[PaceAdvantage]

You're the result of many decades of misinformation in this country.
Started in the 1950s. There are millions like you - mostly male, white,
and getting older.Oy vey...the ol' old white man bait...guys, stop falling for this tripe.

[Tom]

Those old white republicans.....

[HalvOnHorseracing]

We call them democrats.
IT is not the right who is ignoring the laws and the constitution.
It is not the right who is alienating people against police everywhere.
It is not the right who is trying to take away or limit constitutions rights without due process of law.
It is not the right who is funding the world's largest terror sponsoring nation.
It is to the right who is trying to destroy our sovereignty by opening the borders to anyone who want to come here.

The GD democratic party is a far worse threat than ISIS or any terrorist group has ever been. To call a democrat an American, to me, is an outright lie.
I'm not going to get into a back and forth on this. If you talk to a whiny liberal, they make the same over the top arguments, except it's republicans or conservatives who ignore laws and the constitution (the CIA coup in Guatemala, watergate, Iran-Contra, WMD in Iraq, torture) and are trying to take away our rights without due process.

Everyone has a little piece of the truth. That doesn't mean they are sole possessors of the truth.

[whodoyoulike]

I don't see why income distribution in percentage terms is relevant.

I would gladly live in a world where the top 1% have 10 trillion dollars each as long as I have 10 million. The idea is to lift all boats. To the extent you can do that, it simply does not matter if someone else's boat is lifted more than mine because they are more educated, smarter, work harder, or got luckier. The idea is make everyone comfortable.

Now granted, we have problems in that area, but those have to do with global trade, 0% interest rates on savings, an inability to crack teacher's unions and improve the quality of education, greed on Wall St etc... It has nothing to do with tax policy.

You already are living in that world. Just divide the top 1% amount by 10,000 then you have them with $1 billion to your $1,000.

[whodoyoulike]

If you understand capitalism, you know that freedom is impossible without it.

Any time the government starts telling you what you can and cannot do, i.e., socialism, freedom dies.


Don't they have capitalism in Russia and China?

Your entire post seems incorrect otherwise, where did their multi-millionaires and billionaires come from. And, they definitely don't have the freedom we do.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Any time the government starts telling you what you can and cannot do, i.e., socialism, freedom dies.
There are over 175,000 pages in the Code of Federal Regulations. What do you think they contain if not what you can and cannot do? Recipes?

I'm guessing with that many pages, freedom must have died a while ago. Except on PA where as far as I can tell you can say anything.

[Ocala Mike]

My definition of freedom is contained in the Constitution, further detailed in the Bill of Rights. There is nothing in there about the government providing you with freedom from want or fear......



Actually, unless the Preamble has been revoked, those freedoms are covered.

I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your post.

[EasyGoer89]

The danger in America are the people who have stopped believing in America. It is people like Trump who can't believe they could lose on the issues or on qualifications and instead blame it on a rigged election. It is people driven by hate, whether it is hate or race, religion, the media, or political party. It is people who believe the time for armed insurrection is here.

The last time this happened was people like Joe McCarthy who went on the rampage against the communists since because of them this country was over. It happened in the 20's when the country was rabidly mad over the waves of European immigrants, finally passing quota laws. It happened when the wing nuts decided that we were a country of alcoholics and the only thing that would save us is banning alcohol. Oh yeah, the country was over then too. It happened when the country was divided in two by slavery. And you know what really happened? Eventually saner voices prevailed and life in America went on.

Reality. You lump everybody, except people who think like you, into your own basket of deplorables. You are angry out of all proportion to reality. Life in America for the vast majority of people is pretty good. No, it's better than pretty good, and that was my point. My life has been good for a very long time, it didn't deteriorate under Obama - in fact my portfolio exploded in value under the evil Obama - and I'm not seeing it deteriorating regardless of who gets elected. Is your life that bad except when you are sitting in front of your computer circle jerking with the other off the chart right wingers about liberals and Democrats and immigrants and Hillary? You think you have the exclusive franchise on reality where climate change is a hoax (talk about teeing one up for your grandchildren), Trump is a misunderstood genius, Democrats want to destroy the economy, and every politician is a liar or a cheat and probably both. You have a plan that could actually work, why don't you do what real entrepreneurs do - work with the system we have to implement it. You ever think that perhaps the reason you are marginalized is that you just don't have anything most people are willing to buy?

Is that to say there are not problems? Of course there are, and certainly not as horrible as other places in the world. And they are not unsolvable. Except for the people who spend all their time complaining and not having one workable suggestion. The strength of America is in the fact that we can be both diverse and unified. If you'd spend time realizing that reality is that not everyone thinks like you, it has never been the case and it never will be the case, and we've thrived as a republic for 250 years, perhaps you'd have a less jaundiced view of the world.

Reality. Yeah, you have the copyright on that one.

What specifically is Trump 'blaming' on a rigged election? Seems like he's just pointing out the truth, unless you think he's not correct and it's all on the up and up?

[Tom]

It is Hilary who is claiming that Russia trying to rig the election.
And it was Al Gore who refused to accept the results of an election.
And it was Chicago that rigged the election that put JFK in the WH.

[ReplayRandall]

It is Hilary who is claiming that Russia trying to rig the election.
And it was Al Gore who refused to accept the results of an election.
And it was Chicago that rigged the election that put JFK in the WH.

You've dumbed it down to it's simplest form, Tom. If they can't understand it, they're hopeless, you can't stoop down any lower to their level.....You'll just throw out your back...:lol:

[Tom]

Hannity just played a bunch of comments about the 2000 recount from Gore and Hillary.

Hillary alleged that there was collusion involving Jeb Bush as the Gov of Florida. Gore accused polling workers of collusion and tampering.

So, according to the top of the party, elections ARE rigged.
But, they want Trump to promise last night to go by the results.
Even when they did not.

People, this crap is so damn obvious.....wake up.

[sammy the sage]

rigging elections...I thought this thread was about the upper 1% pissing on you and calling IT rain....

don't matter either way...both have been done and will continue to happen as long as you ACT like a Lemming... :bang: :mad:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

What specifically is Trump 'blaming' on a rigged election? Seems like he's just pointing out the truth, unless you think he's not correct and it's all on the up and up?
What I said was It is people like Trump who can't believe they could lose on the issues or on qualifications and instead blame it on a rigged election. I

I'm not sure how that could be clearer. Trump believes that if he loses the election it is more likely because the election was rigged than the voters rejected his policies or qualifications.

Trump has some broad definitions of rigged. First, he means that the media is against him and is looking to influence the outcome of the election. He believes that they give Hillary a pass while grabbing onto every word Trump says and twisting it into something negative. Second, he believes there are shenanigans at polling places - fraudulent votes, fraudulent counts. He has a point on the former, he's off the rails on the latter. 27 of 47 states with a Secretary of State are Republican, and of the ones that are not, for most of those states they were going Democrat anyway.

But at the end of the day, it is his policies and qualifications that ultimately did him in with the media and the voters.

[Tom]

Trump has said or done nothing more than the left had done as far as allegations of rigged elections.:sleeping:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Trump has said or done nothing more than the left had done as far as allegations of rigged elections.:sleeping:
And there you have it. If Hillary wins it is because the left has been whining about rigged elections.

[Tom]

Just saw an email leaked to that they thought Obama got illegals to vote for him to beat Hillary.

Nothing new here.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Plenty of dead people on line to vote for Hillary just like they voted for Democrats in previous elections.

Freedom is impossible without capitalism. Without capitalism, you have to work where the government tells you.

Take your Democratic Party trickle-up economics and shove it where the sun don't shine.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Don't they have capitalism in Russia and China?



They have a form of capitalism where the government tells them what businesses they can and cannot have -- who they can or cannot hire -- limits on how much they can make -- they can do anything as long as the government approves and gets their fair share.

Very much like where the Democrats are taking us.

I'm sure both China and Russia would love for you to go there and try to exercise freedoms.

[Hank]

[QUOTE=Jess Hawsen Arown]Trickle Down Economics is a term coined by socialists who hate capitalism. It is easy to demean/mock anything when breaking an activity down to its basics. Remember the old M*A*S*H episode that was based on a running joke. The characters on the show were repeating this joke about a guy who tried to sell his act to a circus. He showed his "act" which was him flying around inside the big tent without any aid except his flapping arms. When he landed, the owner of the circus rejected his act because all he was doing was bird imitations.

That is what the Democrats do when they call capitalism in its purest form, trickle down economics.

An entrepreneur dreams up a product or service he believes people need and then creates jobs for people to fulfill his dream. The Democrats call business owners paying salaries -- trickle down economics -- because their socialist view is that the business owners have a hell of a nerve making a profit then trickling some of those profits to those being provided jobs.

Damn those business owners with their bird imitations. The Democratic Party solution is having people work for the government. What this accomplishes is obvious. People working for the government needs the Democrats to stay in office so that they won't lose their jobs -- while the rest of America suffers.[/QUOT




Nonsense. Both parties are completely servile to finance capital. Follow the money ignore the rhetoric.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/financial-sector-gives-hillary-clinton-a-boost-1462750725

[EasyGoer89]

What I said was It is people like Trump who can't believe they could lose on the issues or on qualifications and instead blame it on a rigged election. I

I'm not sure how that could be clearer. Trump believes that if he loses the election it is more likely because the election was rigged than the voters rejected his policies or qualifications.

Trump has some broad definitions of rigged. First, he means that the media is against him and is looking to influence the outcome of the election. He believes that they give Hillary a pass while grabbing onto every word Trump says and twisting it into something negative. Second, he believes there are shenanigans at polling places - fraudulent votes, fraudulent counts. He has a point on the former, he's off the rails on the latter. 27 of 47 states with a Secretary of State are Republican, and of the ones that are not, for most of those states they were going Democrat anyway.

But at the end of the day, it is his policies and qualifications that ultimately did him in with the media and the voters.

But if he didn't already lose, how can he be blaming his loss?

Seems like he's pointing out an ugly truth, so I guess if the truth makes you uncomfortable, you shift the discussion to blame trump for pointing out the truth, or, something like that.

Does the truth make your body hurt? Nothing he said is false, there's widespread rigging, Brazile and wasserman-Schultz rigged things, the media is 100 pct against trump, we are hearing non stop about miss piggy nonsense while all these things come out against Hillary and her team and not a peep from anyone other than Alex jones or hannity, do you disagree with him on his rigging claims or media bias?

[Tom]

Nonsense. Both parties are completely servile to finance capital. Follow the money ignore the rhetoric.

Yes, and Trump is the money, not a politician, so eliminate the middle man.

[Saratoga_Mike]

we've been seeing how trickle up poverty works the past 8 years. 94 million out of the work force, 57 million on welfare, etc. etc. works like a champ if your into that kind of shit

It's 95.7 mm now. Why no outrage? Wait, it was an absurd figure (in isolation) to look at before and it is now.*

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/95745000-record-number-americans-not-participating-labor-force-boomers


*the economy is stronger now PA, just pointing out the nonsense of some stats, but feel free to invoke moveon.org.