OH the IRONY...LA TIMES Discovers TRICKLE DOWN PAIN!!

[roger teekell]

I thought Liberals said trickle down economics didn't work...

Now they are discovering the TRUTH!!

That prosperity doesn't TRICKLE UP from the bottom...Even if Obama THINKS it can...

This is a fascinating example of what is going on around the country...

http://attackmachine.com/blog/2009/03/09/the-la-times-discovers-trickle-down-economics/

Liberals used to scoff at the notion that cutting taxes for everyone including the most productive — and thus wealthy — people in our society could benefit us all.

That is, they cannot fathom their own saint, JFK, who observed that a “rising tide lifts all ships.”

And when Reagan made policy on this principle, the mockery was long and loud.

Now comes a story about trickle down in reverse: when one job cut leads to another.

Read more at link..

[tnt]

The reason people are mocked when they bring up Reagan and Trickle down is because Reagan actually raised taxes many, many times - including the largest tax hik in history.

He also expanded spending.

(BTW, trickle down is fine in an expanding econmy, but it's worthless in a contracting economy)

[Oregon]

Makes sense to me.

Rush talks about it quite a bit.


I rarely think about the details of it, because it seems common sense anyway. People with money will spend money and that's good for people with stuff and jobs.

You know what this reminds me of?

Even come up to a traffic jam, but there is no wreck there? But you knew there was a wreck there an hour ago?

Traffic wrecks are like this. They jam traffic, and the jam works back a few blocks to a mile or two away. Then when they clear the wreck, the traffic jam remains, or even keeps moving back down the highway farther like a wave, as the front of the line starts to move again. Basically, few people get through the area without feeling some of the effects.

The reason people are mocked when they bring up Reagan and Trickle down is because Reagan actually raised taxes many, many times - including the largest tax hik in history.

He also expanded spending.

(BTW, trickle down is fine in an expanding econmy, but it's worthless in a contracting economy)

That's rediculous - does not make any sense.

ALL jobs, business and spending is Trickle Down. In any economy.

It's always happening to some degree, and never hurts unless someone is trickling the money to someone whose job is to damage the economy.

Even in the Great Depression era, if Hoover Dam was built, all money, wages went to somebody for something. And from those to others.

[shrek]

The reality is that a poor person does not create jobs. A rich person does. No ifs ands or buts.

I heard once that what this nation needs is people spending the money and not saving or hoarding it.

Well the reality is that the richer you are the more likely you are to save. But also the more likely you are to spend things on little luxeries.

And note a child is not going to be damaged if they cannot go to the Indoor play gym as often or even Disney land as often.

I never made it to disneyland as a child. Not getting there till I was in college with Friends.

This nation has to wake up, and face reality. We have been living a fake reality for a long time.

[shrek]

The reason people are mocked when they bring up Reagan and Trickle down is because Reagan actually raised taxes many, many times - including the largest tax hik in history.

He also expanded spending.

(BTW, trickle down is fine in an expanding econmy, but it's worthless in a contracting economy)

Note that Reagan signed those bills into law. He did not create them. It was Reagan that began demanding the ability to line item veto budget bills.

Note Reagan never got that tool. But keep spinning if you wish.

[Long Island Bob]

The reason people are mocked when they bring up Reagan and Trickle down is because Reagan actually raised taxes many, many times - including the largest tax hik in history.

He also expanded spending.

(BTW, trickle down is fine in an expanding econmy, but it's worthless in a contracting economy)


He cut taxes on "the rich" (1981 ERTA)
and
raised social security taxes and unemployment taxes on the middle class, (1982 TEFRA)
and
eliminated tax shelters the rich and middle class both used (1986 TRA).

for some reason the left always said: "reagan rasied taxes" and the right always said "reagan cut taxes."

is there some disease that keeps people from being honest about this?

[tnt]

The reality is that a poor person does not create jobs. A rich person does. No ifs ands or buts.

I heard once that what this nation needs is people spending the money and not saving or hoarding it.

Well the reality is that the richer you are the more likely you are to save. But also the more likely you are to spend things on little luxeries.

And note a child is not going to be damaged if they cannot go to the Indoor play gym as often or even Disney land as often.

I never made it to disneyland as a child. Not getting there till I was in college with Friends.

This nation has to wake up, and face reality. We have been living a fake reality for a long time.


Right now, regardless of tax rates, the rich aren't investing and businesses aren;t expanding because their are no customers.

This recovery has to be focused on getting consumer confidence and middle class disposable income re-established.

Then you can cut cap gains and top rates.

[Guild-Sfire]

This nation has to wake up, and face reality. We have been living a fake reality for a long time.

If you are referring to the last 28 years of Reaganomics...you would be correct.

On Nov. 4th, 2008.....we did wake up.

[tnt]

He cut taxes on "the rich" (1981 ERTA)
and
raised social security taxes and unemployment taxes on the middle class, (1982 TEFRA)
and
eliminated tax shelters the rich and middle class both used (1986 TRA).

for some reason the left always said: "reagan rasied taxes" and the right always said "reagan cut taxes."

is there some disease that keeps people from being honest about this?


Correct.

But to then claim that trickle down works is silly.

The correct statement is -

Cutting taxes for the rich while hiking them in a manner that disproportionally effects the middle, while signifigantly increasing govt. spending leads to some positive effects on teh economy.

[shrek]

Right now, regardless of tax rates, the rich aren't investing and businesses aren;t expanding because their are no customers.

This recovery has to be focused on getting consumer confidence and middle class disposable income re-established.

Then you can cut cap gains and top rates.

Tnt,

The rich are not investing because they do not want to loose any more money. And yes Businesses are not expanding. But Note they will not if you take money from the Rich and give it to the poor.

I heard on the news today that alot of those stimulus construction jobs could be going to illlegals because there was no provision put into the stimulus bill for those construction jobs that only companies using the Everify system would get the money.

So in reality the money most likely will flow south to Mexico and not feed our economy.

I guarantee that you cut Cap Gains taxes and Top rates it would stimulate the economy far faster than giving Juan and Jose a job.

Note Juan and Jose often live in an apt with 10 other guys and do not eat out and send most if not all of the money they earn home.

[tnt]

Makes sense to me.

Rush talks about it quite a bit.


I rarely think about the details of it, because it seems common sense anyway. People with money will spend money and that's good for people with stuff and jobs.

You know what this reminds me of?

Even come up to a traffic jam, but there is no wreck there? But you knew there was a wreck there an hour ago?

Traffic wrecks are like this. They jam traffic, and the jam works back a few blocks to a mile or two away. Then when they clear the wreck, the traffic jam remains, or even keeps moving back down the highway farther like a wave, as the front of the line starts to move again. Basically, few people get through the area without feeling some of the effects.



That's rediculous - does not make any sense.

ALL jobs, business and spending is Trickle Down. In any economy.

It's always happening to some degree, and never hurts unless someone is trickling the money to someone whose job is to damage the economy.

Even in the Great Depression era, if Hoover Dam was built, all money, wages went to somebody for something. And from those to others.


You could cut corp. taxes to zero and Home Depot would STILL be closing stores....why? Because there are no customers.

You could cut cap gains to zero and people would STILL be yanking cash from the market....why? Becuase there are no earnings because there are no custoemrs.

[HeadOnStraight]

I thought Liberals said trickle down economics didn't work...

Now they are discovering the TRUTH!!

That prosperity doesn't TRICKLE UP from the bottom...Even if Obama THINKS it can...

This is a fascinating example of what is going on around the country...

http://attackmachine.com/blog/2009/03/09/the-la-times-discovers-trickle-down-economics/

Liberals used to scoff at the notion that cutting taxes for everyone including the most productive — and thus wealthy — people in our society could benefit us all.

That is, they cannot fathom their own saint, JFK, who observed that a “rising tide lifts all ships.”

And when Reagan made policy on this principle, the mockery was long and loud.

Now comes a story about trickle down in reverse: when one job cut leads to another.

Read more at link..
Well, once that $13 dollars a week stimulus money starts trickling up thru the economy, things will improve. Once Bill Maxwell and Dave Vasquez pick up a shovel, for a four week stimulus construction project, things will pick up.

[shrek]

If you are referring to the last 28 years of Reaganomics...you would be correct.

On Nov. 4th, 2008.....we did wake up.

LOL So your attempting to claim Clinton practiced 8 years of Reaganomics????????????

Hardly.

And no we did not wake up on Nov 4. We still have a president in office thinking he can spend us out of a recession.

He signed into law 2 trillion in deficit spending. When we elect politicians into office that do not believe in deficiti spending and demand accountability on all tax payer dollars spent then and only then will we have woken up as a nation.

[tnt]

Tnt,

The rich are not investing because they do not want to loose any more money. And yes Businesses are not expanding. But Note they will not if you take money from the Rich and give it to the poor.

I heard on the news today that alot of those stimulus construction jobs could be going to illlegals because there was no provision put into the stimulus bill for those construction jobs that only companies using the Everify system would get the money.

So in reality the money most likely will flow south to Mexico and not feed our economy.

I guarantee that you cut Cap Gains taxes and Top rates it would stimulate the economy far faster than giving Juan and Jose a job.

Note Juan and Jose often live in an apt with 10 other guys and do not eat out and send most if not all of the money they earn home.

re: the illegals...yeah, I agree - that's just plain stupid.

But here's another way to make sure the jobs go to US citizens...demand they be union jobs....

But regardless, the only way to speed this rcovery is to create wealth in the middle class.

[Oregon]

Right now, regardless of tax rates, the rich aren't investing and businesses aren;t expanding because their are no customers.

This recovery has to be focused on getting consumer confidence and middle class disposable income re-established.

Then you can cut cap gains and top rates.

We just had our busiest January and February ever, since 1988.

The folks calling us are the ones who have a good chunk of money to spend.

It is trickling down to us, and from us to our suppliers and to those whom we spend our home budget money for.

So they are investing it in their homes and properties and improvements.

Do you have a business? Or do you work at a job?

[Oddball]

He cut taxes on "the rich" (1981 ERTA)
and
raised social security taxes and unemployment taxes on the middle class, (1982 TEFRA)
and
eliminated tax shelters the rich and middle class both used (1986 TRA).

for some reason the left always said: "reagan rasied taxes" and the right always said "reagan cut taxes."

is there some disease that keeps people from being honest about this?Not with me...I recognize that Reagan both lowered and raised taxes.

The one think he didn't do, despite all his bluster to the contrary, was cut spending and bureaucracy.

[Guild-Sfire]

LOL So your attempting to claim Clinton practiced 8 years of Reaganomics????????????



Who Signed NAFTA into Law?

Who Signed the Telecommunications act? (allowing monopolies of Media markets)

Who Signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act?

Who kept Greenspan head of the fed?

Clinton was a Republican, when it came to economics...along with many other Dems....

[shrek]

You could cut corp. taxes to zero and Home Depot would STILL be closing stores....why? Because there are no customers.

You could cut cap gains to zero and people would STILL be yanking cash from the market....why? Becuase there are no earnings because there are no custoemrs.

TNT,

There are no customers because there is no confidence. And note Obama is not building an confidence. In fact his spending 2 tillion in Debt has depressed consumers even more.

There is money out there, but people are still not buying. WHy because of fear. And not just fear of loosing a job. But because of fear that they will look bad in the eyes of others for showing off their wealth.

I have heard numerous news stories where people cancelled home remodeling projects and the like not because they did not have the money or because they were worried about loosing their jobs. But because they did not want to anger their neighbors. Or look like they were showing off.

Apparently it is no longer good to be prosperous in the US. And who has fostered this attitude????????????

Why Obama and Liberals of course.

:rolleyes:

[simssk]

If you are referring to the last 28 years of Reaganomics...you would be correct.

On Nov. 4th, 2008.....we did wake up.

So have you fallen asleep since Nov. 4th?

[Patranus]

Harding, Coolidge, JFK, Regan, and Bush (JR) all cut taxes which lead to a very successful economic situation.

FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush (Sr.), and Clinton all raised taxes which lead to adverse economic conditions.

Now, with the exception of Clinton (depends on what year and what congress he had), all presidents in modern history that have raised taxes have seen little to no growth in the economy.

Supply-Side economics has been proven president after president. Tax cuts increase governmental revenue. It was true under JFK and it was true on Bush (Jr.). Tax hikes, price controls, and "windfall profits" taxes hurt the economy and decreases governmental revenue. It was true under FDR and it was true under Nixon.

High tax rates discourage productivity and curbs investment.

[HeadOnStraight]

Right now, regardless of tax rates, the rich aren't investing and businesses aren;t expanding because their are no customers.

This recovery has to be focused on getting consumer confidence and middle class disposable income re-established.

Then you can cut cap gains and top rates.
How about cutting taxes in a way that offers incentives to investment and risk taking business expansions? Why is it the democrats only see taxes as a form of punishment, but never see that lowering of taxes can be an incentive?

If rich people see a lowering of taxes makes it attractive for them to buy cars, boats, planes, homes, redecorate, entertain, dine out and spend more money, it does trickle down. Raising taxes makes them cling to their money for fear that government will be raising them even more in other ways.

0bama demonizes private planes and expensive SUVs and trips to Vegas, so people stop doing those things and other people lose their jobs because of it. Both wealth and economic pain trickle down.

[shrek]

Who Signed NAFTA into Law?

Who Signed the Telecommunications act? (allowing monopolies of Media markets)

Who Signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act?

Who kept Greenspan head of the fed?

Clinton was a Republican, when it came to economics...along with many other Dems....

Who attempted to get Universal Healthcare shoved down our throats???????????

Who backed NAFTA??????? Not many conservatives or for that fact republicans.

And Greenspan helped him finance most of his spending plans why get rid of Greenspan??????

The only thing that you could really say was Republican maybe Gramm Leach Bliley. But it is most certainly not conservative. And even then there were Dems that voted for that bill.

Nothing you have listed here shows a continuation of Reaganomics.

[tnt]

We just had our busiest January and February ever, since 1988.

The folks calling us are the ones who have a good chunk of money to spend.

It is trickling down to us, and from us to our suppliers and to those whom we spend our home budget money for.

So they are investing it in their homes and properties and improvements.

Do you have a business? Or do you work at a job?

I run a remodling business.

We've had our worse 6 months ever.

Unemployement, falling home values, tight credit destroy our industry, and we have all three right now.

Our clients are middle > upper middle > upper class.

What line of work are you in?

[HeadOnStraight]

You could cut corp. taxes to zero and Home Depot would STILL be closing stores....why? Because there are no customers.

You could cut cap gains to zero and people would STILL be yanking cash from the market....why? Becuase there are no earnings because there are no custoemrs.
and the longer 0bama is in "punish the rich" mode, the harder it will be to get out of this mess.

[JudasGoat]

Right now, regardless of tax rates, the rich aren't investing and businesses aren;t expanding because their are no customers.

This recovery has to be focused on getting consumer confidence and middle class disposable income re-established.

Then you can cut cap gains and top rates.

well we're well on our way. Nothing boosts consumer confidence like dog parks and 'shovel ready' road and bridge projects. And I say shovel ready in the context of "shovelling the horse crap" value of this con of a stimulus plan.

[shrek]

re: the illegals...yeah, I agree - that's just plain stupid.

But here's another way to make sure the jobs go to US citizens...demand they be union jobs....

But regardless, the only way to speed this rcovery is to create wealth in the middle class.

To late, the bill has already been signed. No way to change it now.

And again how do you get the middle class more money? Get the rich willing to spend again.

I read a story of a lady who made $80,000-$100,000 a year selling High end womens clothes. In 2008 her income fell to $50,000 she had to sell her BMW and have a roomate move into her spacious home to afford the mortgage.

She is middle class. She made her living off of the spending habbits of the rich. And again in the article she said most of her customers stopped spending not because they were no longer rich.

But because as many told her it was no longer cool to show up in new clothing or show extravagence.

The Rich's aversion to wanting to show off has helped in fact dry this market up.

And what caused this aversion to spending money????????????

Oh that would be because Liberals have been screaching how evil the rich are and that we should be punishing them for their wealth.

[Greyclouds]

Harding, Coolidge, JFK, Regan, and Bush (JR) all cut taxes which lead to a very successful economic situation.

FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush (Sr.), and Clinton all raised taxes which lead to adverse economic conditions.

Now, with the exception of Clinton (depends on what year and what congress he had), all presidents in modern history that have raised taxes have seen little to no growth in the economy.

Supply-Side economics has been proven president after president. Tax cuts increase governmental revenue. It was true under JFK and it was true on Bush (Jr.). Tax hikes, price controls, and "windfall profits" taxes hurt the economy and decreases governmental revenue. It was true under FDR and it was true under Nixon.

High tax rates discourage productivity and curbs investment.

Quick Questions: The greatest economic expansion of the past two decades occurred under which president? Did he cut taxes prior to this expansion or raise them?

Oh, and what was the REAL reason for the economic expansion? Was it the president's doing? Was it the fact that taxes were changed?


I only ask because you labeled Bill Clinton as an "economic failure president," whereas the presidency has little to do with economic conditions in this nation. (Crap, I also gave away the answer to the above quick questions!)

[HeadOnStraight]

Tnt,

The rich are not investing because they do not want to loose any more money. And yes Businesses are not expanding. But Note they will not if you take money from the Rich and give it to the poor.

I heard on the news today that alot of those stimulus construction jobs could be going to illlegals because there was no provision put into the stimulus bill for those construction jobs that only companies using the Everify system would get the money.

I heard that when the House-passed stimulus bill it contained language to bar employment of illegal immigrants, but the Senate democrats deliberately took it out.

[tnt]

How about cutting taxes in a way that offers incentives to investment and risk taking business expansions? Why is it the democrats only see taxes as a form of punishment, but never see that lowering of taxes can be an incentive?

If rich people see a lowering of taxes makes it attractive for them to buy cars, boats, planes, homes, redecorate, entertain, dine out and spend more money, it does trickle down. Raising taxes makes them cling to their money for fear that government will be raising them even more in other ways.

0bama demonizes private planes and expensive SUVs and trips to Vegas, so people stop doing those things and other people lose their jobs because of it. Both wealth and economic pain trickle down.

Like I said, in an expanding economy, stimulating investment is great.

But there is no tax incentive that you can offer that will get businesses to expand right now.

These companies aren't closing and laying people off because their taxes are high - they are doing it because htey don't have any profit to tax!!!!

And that is because their customer base - the middle class - is unemployeed, lost signifigant value in tehir homes, has no savings, has no access to credit.

Now, don't get me wrong - I don't think our recovery should be based on the same idiotic elements that led to the last expansion, namely artificially high home values and artifically low interest rates, but right now, taxes on the upper and business classes are not the issue...

Consumer confidence, disposable income for the middle class is.

So all efforts to employ the middle class will pay off with customers for the businesses that the wealthy want to invest in and expand.

[shrek]

I heard that when the House-passed stimulus bill it contained language to bar employment of illegal immigrants, but the Senate democrats deliberately took it out.

Does not surprise me in the slightest. The stimulus is nothing more than smoke and mirrors at work.

Construction is entirely different now days than it was 80 years ago.

High end construction jobs need high end experience. And the low end jobs can easily be filled by illegals and why would companies go to illegals???????? No hassles with unions. No worries about getting sued by a disgruntled employee fired for being late or not showing up.

Again what is going to stimulate our economy is not putting money into poor peoples hands. What is going to stimulate the economy is getting the Rich people wlling to spend again and not worried about being attacked just for being well off.

[HeadOnStraight]

Like I said, in an expanding economy, stimulating investment is great.

But there is no tax incentive that you can offer that will get businesses to expand right now.

These companies aren't closing and laying people off because their taxes are high - they are doing it because htey don't have any profit to tax!!!!

And that is because their customer base - the middle class - is unemployeed, lost signifigant value in tehir homes, has no savings, has no access to credit.

Now, don't get me wrong - I don't think our recovery should be based on the same idiotic elements that led to the last expansion, namely artificially high home values and artifically low interest rates, but right now, taxes on the upper and business classes are not the issue...

Consumer confidence, disposable income for the middle class is.

So all efforts to employ the middle class will pay off with customers for the businesses that the wealthy want to invest in and expand.

I agree that people are hurting, but maintaining tax levels, and even increasing them only exacerbates the problem. Raising taxes on a healthy economy can make sense, but doing it at a time like this is criminal.

Cutting taxes for everyone, gives everyone a little more money, combined that with some coherency by the 0bama administration, and we might see a turn around.

[HeadOnStraight]

Does not surprise me in the slightest. The stimulus is nothing more than smoke and mirrors at work.

Construction is entirely different now days than it was 80 years ago.

High end construction jobs need high end experience. And the low end jobs can easily be filled by illegals and why would companies go to illegals???????? No hassles with unions. No worries about getting sued by a disgruntled employee fired for being late or not showing up.

Again what is going to stimulate our economy is not putting money into poor peoples hands. What is going to stimulate the economy is getting the Rich people wlling to spend again and not worried about being attacked just for being well off.
Plus, 80 years ago they were building roads, bridges, dams and electrical transmission lines that where they never existed before, most of the stimulus plan only refurbishes existing infrastructure or is targeting special interest projects that will have no impact on the economy or commerce.

[shrek]

Plus, 80 years ago they were building roads, bridges, dams and electrical transmission lines that where they never existed before, most of the stimulus plan only refurbishes existing infrastructure or is targeting special interest projects that will have no impact on the economy or commerce.

Shoot there are many Historians/Economists that say the WPA projects of old did little or nothing to boost the US Economy in the 1930's.

And your right. The projects back then were new projects. And yes we have benefited as a nation from those projects but they did not boost the economy.

So how does Obama and his obamabots expect it to help now??????????

[roger teekell]

Like I said, in an expanding economy, stimulating investment is great.

But there is no tax incentive that you can offer that will get businesses to expand right now.

These companies aren't closing and laying people off because their taxes are high - they are doing it because htey don't have any profit to tax!!!!

And that is because their customer base - the middle class - is unemployeed, lost signifigant value in tehir homes, has no savings, has no access to credit.

Now, don't get me wrong - I don't think our recovery should be based on the same idiotic elements that led to the last expansion, namely artificially high home values and artifically low interest rates, but right now, taxes on the upper and business classes are not the issue...

Consumer confidence, disposable income for the middle class is.

So all efforts to employ the middle class will pay off with customers for the businesses that the wealthy want to invest in and expand.
But the point that the middle class is unemployed IS THE POINT!!

WHY are they unemployed??

WHO is going to HIRE these people??

I don't think the people that got a $13/week credit on their taxes...That "95%" can hire anyone...

Yet Obama SAID he was going to build the economy from "The bottom up"....

Just admit it...Obama was wrong...

[roger teekell]

Makes sense to me.

Rush talks about it quite a bit.


I rarely think about the details of it, because it seems common sense anyway. People with money will spend money and that's good for people with stuff and jobs.

You know what this reminds me of?

Even come up to a traffic jam, but there is no wreck there? But you knew there was a wreck there an hour ago?

Traffic wrecks are like this. They jam traffic, and the jam works back a few blocks to a mile or two away. Then when they clear the wreck, the traffic jam remains, or even keeps moving back down the highway farther like a wave, as the front of the line starts to move again. Basically, few people get through the area without feeling some of the effects.



That's rediculous - does not make any sense.

ALL jobs, business and spending is Trickle Down. In any economy.

It's always happening to some degree, and never hurts unless someone is trickling the money to someone whose job is to damage the economy.

Even in the Great Depression era, if Hoover Dam was built, all money, wages went to somebody for something. And from those to others.


Precisely!!

Obama's plan to "Build thew economy from the bottom up" is one of the most asinine statements I've ever heard a politician say...

Why the MSM didn't call him on this is beyond me.

[Oddball]

Precisely!!

Obama's plan to "Build thew economy from the bottom up" is one of the most asinine statements I've ever heard a politician say...

Why the MSM didn't call him on this is beyond me.
Ummm...Because they're a bunch of butt-boys who were invested in Barry Obungler's acquisition of the presidency?

[shrek]

Precisely!!

Obama's plan to "Build thew economy from the bottom up" is one of the most asinine statements I've ever heard a politician say...

Why the MSM didn't call him on this is beyond me.


Why doesn't the MSM call Obama on trying to spend our way out of a recession????????????

The reality is that they are invested in an ideology and are willing to over look the stupidity of Obama's plan as long as their ideology is implemented.

[roger teekell]

How about cutting taxes in a way that offers incentives to investment and risk taking business expansions? Why is it the democrats only see taxes as a form of punishment, but never see that lowering of taxes can be an incentive?

If rich people see a lowering of taxes makes it attractive for them to buy cars, boats, planes, homes, redecorate, entertain, dine out and spend more money, it does trickle down. Raising taxes makes them cling to their money for fear that government will be raising them even more in other ways.

0bama demonizes private planes and expensive SUVs and trips to Vegas, so people stop doing those things and other people lose their jobs because of it. Both wealth and economic pain trickle down.

Spot on!!

Here in Vegas our Mayor in VERY ANGRY at Obama for his irresponsible statements about Vegas!!

I spoke to him on Friday...And he wants an Apology from Obama and a RETRACTION of his statements!!

The view that Obama put out there that Conventions in Vegas are BAD is hurting our economy a LOT!!

And when MGM loses money they lay people off...From Middle Management to Servers,Housekeepers,security personel,front-desk help,dealers,cooks....The list goes on and on...

That PROVES the point that I'm making...

Call it what you want...But in Business...People with money CREATE the jobs...And it "trickles down"...

It's just the way it is..

[tnt]

But the point that the middle class is unemployed IS THE POINT!!

WHY are they unemployed??

WHO is going to HIRE these people??

I don't think the people that got a $13/week credit on their taxes...That "95%" can hire anyone...

Yet Obama SAID he was going to build the economy from "The bottom up"....

Just admit it...Obama was wrong...

Why are they unemployed?

becuae the companies they worked for have no customers....

Home depot closed dozens of stores..why? Because rich people didn't get tax cuts....no....because they didn't have middle class custoemrs to serve.

Curcuit City closed...why?

Are the rich people going to go out and buy Ford Taruases to save Detroit?

How many homes in Arizona do you think the rich in america will buy if you give them a nice big tax cut?

Wealth is built on the backs of the middle class - with out a prosporous middle class, you have no economy worth speaking of.

It's just that simple.

And you can not put the cart before the horse.

[roger teekell]

Ummm...Because they're a bunch of butt-boys who were invested in Barry Obungler's acquisition of the presidency?

I have a feeling that when Obama's policies start effecting THEIR families ( And they will ) a light will go on and they will turn on Obama...

Just a hunch.

[Kermit McDermitt]

It's not really about whether it's up or down. The economy is pretty much flat. Thing is, if the economy is strong, money is circulating round the circle, and much of it gets in the hands of poorer people if they want it.

If we all sat on our money it would hurt the poor the most.

So when we give more money to all groups from the government, they start spending it, more money gets circulated through the market which creates investment and entrepreneurship, and everyone benefits. Its not really about tax cuts for the rich or the poor, just cutting tax rates in general, across the board. But cutting for some and increasing for others defeats the purpose of cutting taxes in the first place.

[roger teekell]

Why are they unemployed?

becuae the companies they worked for have no customers....

Home depot closed dozens of stores..why? Because rich people didn't get tax cuts....no....because they didn't have middle class custoemrs to serve.

Curcuit City closed...why?

Are the rich people going to go out and buy Ford Taruases to save Detroit?

How many homes in Arizona do you think the rich in america will buy if you give them a nice big tax cut?

Wealth is built on the backs of the middle class - with out a prosporous middle class, you have no economy worth speaking of.

It's just that simple.

And you can not put the cart before the horse.


No you can't put the cart before the horse...So why are you trying to do it??

WHY are their no middle class customers??

WHO is going to hire them to allow them to make money to spend at Home Depot??

[HeadOnStraight]

Shoot there are many Historians/Economists that say the WPA projects of old did little or nothing to boost the US Economy in the 1930's.

And your right. The projects back then were new projects. And yes we have benefited as a nation from those projects but they did not boost the economy.

So how does Obama and his obamabots expect it to help now??????????
On example, building interstate highways that never existed before, greatly benefited the economy, and paid for themselves hundreds of times over, because of all the products, merchandise and commuters that use those roadss. 0bama is spending billions on light rail, which moves only people, not freight, so they are a waste, and will never pay for themselves, and he wastes money on many projects that do nothing for the economy or commerce.

[SUVRon]

If you are referring to the last 28 years of Reaganomics...you would be correct.

On Nov. 4th, 2008.....we did wake up.

It's going well so far. :rolleyes:

[shrek]

Why are they unemployed?

becuae the companies they worked for have no customers....

Home depot closed dozens of stores..why? Because rich people didn't get tax cuts....no....because they didn't have middle class custoemrs to serve.

Curcuit City closed...why?

Are the rich people going to go out and buy Ford Taruases to save Detroit?

How many homes in Arizona do you think the rich in america will buy if you give them a nice big tax cut?

Wealth is built on the backs of the middle class - with out a prosporous middle class, you have no economy worth speaking of.

It's just that simple.

And you can not put the cart before the horse.

Tnt,

Note taht everything you state is because The rich Will not pay the middle class for jobs or services performed.

It is not because they did not get a tax cut.

Trying to fix this from the bottom up will not work. Giving money to the Poor and or fellow middle class people does not create new business nor does it feed jobs.

Note that Circuit City may not have made a living selling to the rich. But those that did buy from Circuit city were getting their incomes paid for by things the wealthy were buying.

A Cabinet maker who just bought a brand new TV from Circuit city did so because someone just ordered $50,000 in new cabinets from his employer, and I guarantee that another middle income worker did not do that.

[OIVORY]

<snip>
I read a story of a lady who made $80,000-$100,000 a year selling High end womens clothes. In 2008 her income fell to $50,000 she had to sell her BMW and have a roomate move into her spacious home to afford the mortgage.

She is middle class. She made her living off of the spending habbits of the rich. And again in the article she said most of her customers stopped spending not because they were no longer rich.

But because as many told her it was no longer cool to show up in new clothing or show extravagence.

The Rich's aversion to wanting to show off has helped in fact dry this market up.

And what caused this aversion to spending money????????????

Oh that would be because Liberals have been screaching how evil the rich are and that we should be punishing them for their wealth.

Everyone knows this story (or one just like it).

Why cannot people connect the dots?

If companies aren't going to Vegas to celebrate, they aren't celebrating anywhere. Every million dollars they don't spend on partying with their employees is a million dollars that doesn't get spent. Nobody knows who the next victim of the Media Cross hairs is going to be, so nobody is spending excess money.

Trickle down misery.

[shrek]

On example, building interstate highways that never existed before, greatly benefited the economy, and paid for themselves hundreds of times over, because of all the products, merchandise and commuters that use those roadss. 0bama is spending billions on light rail, which moves only people, not freight, so they are a waste, and will never pay for themselves, and he wastes money on many projects that do nothing for the economy or commerce.

Very Good point, and it was A republican president that thought of the internet highway system.

Not trying to rub salt in the wound here, but republicans tend to do things to drive the economy forward Democrats have a long history of doing things to recue people.

There is a very big difference and a very big difference in results between the two ways of thinking.

[roger teekell]

Tnt,

Note taht everything you state is because The rich Will not pay the middle class for jobs or services performed.

It is not because they did not get a tax cut.

Trying to fix this from the bottom up will not work. Giving money to the Poor and or fellow middle class people does not create new business nor does it feed jobs.

Note that Circuit City may not have made a living selling to the rich. But those that did buy from Circuit city were getting their incomes paid for by things the wealthy were buying.

A Cabinet maker who just bought a brand new TV from Circuit city did so because someone just ordered $50,000 in new cabinets from his employer, and I guarantee that another middle income worker did not do that.


Extremely well said Shrek...

Just like the guy working on the oil rig in the gulf making a REALLY GOOD living is doing so because the CEO of Exxon Mobile is making 100X more.....

Do you think they oil rig worker cares what his boss makes??

As long as the CEO gave HIM a good job that provides for his family??

Hell...I have a pretty good job here in Vegas that was made possible by someone with FAR more money then me risking his money to open a business...

I don't know any other way it works..

[TheFallGuy]

Well, once that $13 dollars a week stimulus money starts trickling up thru the economy, things will improve. Once Bill Maxwell and Dave Vasquez pick up a shovel, for a four week stimulus construction project, things will pick up.

And once they do their taxes next year, they'll realize that instead of having no taxes due or overpayment of taxes, they'll owe ~$600.

This was just a cheap stunt like Bush did. The actual taxes weren't changed, just how much was being withheld. So, if you perfected your withholding so come April 15 you owe nothing and get nothing back (which means you paid the proper amount), you'll either have to readjust your withholding or pay ~$600 next year.

Enjoy your measly $13.

[shrek]

Extremely well said Shrek...

Just like the guy working on the oil rig in the gulf making a REALLY GOOD living is doing so because the CEO of Exxon Mobile is making 100X more.....

Do you think they oil rig worker cares what his boss makes??

As long as the CEO gave HIM a good job that provides for his family??

Hell...I have a pretty good job here in Vegas that was made possible by someone with FAR more money then me risking his money to open a business...

I don't know any other way it works..

Roger,

Of course that oil worker does not care, as long as he is living well. The only time, workers care is if that Exxon Pres is still making a high living and they are asked to take a pay cut or they are asked to make other sacrifices.

The reality is that people do not mind rich people. In fact All want to be rich. Some understand that you must make sacrifice and work hard.

Others believe they can be rich by grabbing it from others.

But the reality of that is that siezing it from one group to make another group richer only works as long as the rich group puts up with it.

The moment they know longer do. then it stops. And your right someone gave you a job by making a far greater sacrifice of their money than you have.

What if tomorrow your demanding more of their money makes them decide the investment is no longer worth it?

The funny thing is that its Dems and people like Obama screaming about jobs moving overseas but its dems and Unions making the investment not worth it that push them over seas.

[roger teekell]

Roger,

Of course that oil worker does not care, as long as he is living well. The only time, workers care is if that Exxon Pres is still making a high living and they are asked to take a pay cut or they are asked to make other sacrifices.

The reality is that people do not mind rich people. In fact All want to be rich. Some understand that you must make sacrifice and work hard.

Others believe they can be rich by grabbing it from others.

But the reality of that is that siezing it from one group to make another group richer only works as long as the rich group puts up with it.

The moment they know longer do. then it stops. And your right someone gave you a job by making a far greater sacrifice of their money than you have.

What if tomorrow your demanding more of their money makes them decide the investment is no longer worth it?

The funny thing is that its Dems and people like Obama screaming about jobs moving overseas but its dems and Unions making the investment not worth it that push them over seas.

That is ironic...to be sure.

You know what else is ironic???

This thread has 572 views and only ~ 50 posts..

I wonder why the Liberals don't pop in here and defend their long held positions??

Reality is a great teacher....;)

[tnt]

Tnt,

Note taht everything you state is because The rich Will not pay the middle class for jobs or services performed.

It is not because they did not get a tax cut.

Trying to fix this from the bottom up will not work. Giving money to the Poor and or fellow middle class people does not create new business nor does it feed jobs.

Note that Circuit City may not have made a living selling to the rich. But those that did buy from Circuit city were getting their incomes paid for by things the wealthy were buying.

A Cabinet maker who just bought a brand new TV from Circuit city did so because someone just ordered $50,000 in new cabinets from his employer, and I guarantee that another middle income worker did not do that.

If there is opportunity, companies will respond.

That's all there is to it.

Right now, for what ever reason, the middle class has little disposable income and therefore, there is no opportunity to sell.

The upper class is still wealthy.

The upper class could still invest, could still open a new company, could still do a number of things - but they won't because they won't pay off.

You are describing an extremely short and small part of the economic expansion - purchase of luxury items. The economy is not built on a family buying 1 kitchen. The economy is built on10,000 families buying new cars.

(which brings up another reason why stimulating the top does little in a recession. The shere numbers of upper class families are so low compared to the middle class -

Think about it this way - you want to slash taxes for the wealthy so they can buy cabinets and and you think that will be our road to recovery.

So in a small town, maybe there are 10 wealthy familys. You slash their taxes. All ten make a large purchase that helps the cabinet maker. Along the way, while shopping for the cabients, all ten stopped by the local deli and bought a sandwhich.

There - we stimulated the economy. Now, we know that luxury items are a one and done thing...they won't be buying another kitchen for 10 years. but hey, at least we had a shot in the arm. The cabient company can hire 2 or 3 extra people to keep up with the 10 orders.

Same town has 1,000 middle classers. You cut their taxes.

Of course they aren't wealthy. They aren't going to buy cabinets.

They'll buy a Game Boy.

1,000 familys drive by the deli and have a sandwhich.

1,000 familys DRIVE - consuming gas, maybe a few cars need a tune up.

1,000 families have a lower price point item in their home that requires a new game fo $20 now and then, requiring them to drive out back past the deli.....

And how many jobs does meeting the need for 1,000 custeomrs create at the game store - as compared to 10 cabinet orders? And at the deli?)

Again, give every company in the world a tax break - they STILL WOULD NOT BE EXPANDING.

Give every middle classer a tax break and they can start spending, which then leads to demand, and opportunity, which then leads to expansion.

[tnt]

Extremely well said Shrek...

Just like the guy working on the oil rig in the gulf making a REALLY GOOD living is doing so because the CEO of Exxon Mobile is making 100X more.....

Do you think they oil rig worker cares what his boss makes??

As long as the CEO gave HIM a good job that provides for his family??

Hell...I have a pretty good job here in Vegas that was made possible by someone with FAR more money then me risking his money to open a business...

I don't know any other way it works..

This isn't about being thankful, or understanding your boss should make 100X....

If there is not a thriving middle class, the oil CEO will not need the driller because there will be no demand for oil.

You guys have this impression that people are wealthy just 'cause and they choose to benevolently start companies and give people jobs.

That's not they way it works.

We're capitalists.

And for capitalists to thrive and create and expand, we need a market.

That's the way it works.

[dizzzave]

Trickle-down, supply-side, reaganomics, etc. has been so thouroughly discredited as a massive failure, that arguing with its believers is like arguing with flat-earthers.

The failure is evident in the flatlining of wages (except for the top 5%) despite massive productivity increases and a large increase in per-capita-gdp.

The mind-boggling thing is that not only are there people that don't see how hard it ****ed us, but they want more.

[dizzzave]

Reality is a great teacher....;)

Obviously not in your case if you can't see how much the fruits of Reaganomics have ****ed the nations middle-class.

[tnt]

Trickle-down, supply-side, reaganomics, etc. has been so thouroughly discredited as a massive failure, that arguing with its believers is like arguing with flat-earthers.

The failure is evident in the flatlining of wages (except for the top 5%) despite massive productivity increases and a large increase in per-capita-gdp.

The mind-boggling thing is that not only are there people that don't see how hard it ****ed us, but they want more.

Yeah, it's insane.

[Stick Ross]

Why in the world would companies want to hire people if there's no demand?

[shrek]

If there is opportunity, companies will respond.

That's all there is to it.

Right now, for what ever reason, the middle class has little disposable income and therefore, there is no opportunity to sell.

The upper class is still wealthy.

The upper class could still invest, could still open a new company, could still do a number of things - but they won't because they won't pay off.

You are describing an extremely short and small part of the economic expansion - purchase of luxury items. The economy is not built on a family buying 1 kitchen. The economy is built on10,000 families buying new cars.

(which brings up another reason why stimulating the top does little in a recession. The shere numbers of upper class families are so low compared to the middle class -

Think about it this way - you want to slash taxes for the wealthy so they can buy cabinets and and you think that will be our road to recovery.

So in a small town, maybe there are 10 wealthy familys. You slash their taxes. All ten make a large purchase that helps the cabinet maker. Along the way, while shopping for the cabients, all ten stopped by the local deli and bought a sandwhich.

There - we stimulated the economy. Now, we know that luxury items are a one and done thing...they won't be buying another kitchen for 10 years. but hey, at least we had a shot in the arm. The cabient company can hire 2 or 3 extra people to keep up with the 10 orders.

Same town has 1,000 middle classers. You cut their taxes.

Of course they aren't wealthy. They aren't going to buy cabinets.

They'll buy a Game Boy.

1,000 familys drive by the deli and have a sandwhich.

1,000 familys DRIVE - consuming gas, maybe a few cars need a tune up.

1,000 families have a lower price point item in their home that requires a new game fo $20 now and then, requiring them to drive out back past the deli.....

And how many jobs does meeting the need for 1,000 custeomrs create at the game store - as compared to 10 cabinet orders? And at the deli?)

Again, give every company in the world a tax break - they STILL WOULD NOT BE EXPANDING.

Give every middle classer a tax break and they can start spending, which then leads to demand, and opportunity, which then leads to expansion.


That $13 a paycheck may allow them to go buy one or two more sandwiches a week.

But it is the wealthy that give them their job.

Of course you are right that 1 kitchen does not feed all middle class salaries. But one kitchen at $100,000 allows pays for many workers salaries. Those many workers go out and buy many lower end kitchens and lower end cars and lower end Dinners.

1 high end dinner with drinks and tip can run $300 for two. The tip off of of that dinner or even multiple tips of of that one $300 dinner would not allow me as the server serving that $300 to be able to afford such a dinner myself but it would and has allowed me to take my girlfriend out for a $75 dinner for two.

And that waiter getting the tip off of the $75 dinner then can afford to pay their bills.

Yes the spigot is turned off right now but it is the Rich that have turned off that spigot.

I posted here earlier about a lady making $80-100k a year selling high end womens clothes. She is not rich. But her customers not buying those clothes have made a very noticable change in her lifestyle.

She had to sell her luxery car get a lower end used car and get roommates.

And as stated before her customers did not state they were broke. No they were telling her it is out of fashion now to buy high end and look and act rich.

[shrek]

Trickle-down, supply-side, reaganomics, etc. has been so thouroughly discredited as a massive failure, that arguing with its believers is like arguing with flat-earthers.

The failure is evident in the flatlining of wages (except for the top 5%) despite massive productivity increases and a large increase in per-capita-gdp.

The mind-boggling thing is that not only are there people that don't see how hard it ****ed us, but they want more.

Care to show how Economics do not trickle down??????????

A guy buying the $150,000 car gives the salesman selling that car a very good commission, that salesman can then by a very nice house for his wife and kids and buy them many things they want.

The Saleman is higher middle class. He cannot afford a $150,000 car but he can afford good cars himself and a nice house and the costs associated with owning a nice house. He can pay the plumber and the Landscaper and the plumber then can pay his employees and the employees go to bars and buy beers and go out to eat at Red Lobster and McDonalds allowing them to pay their employees.

So how is Trickle down Economics not at work here?????????????? It does not go the other way. There has to be investment before someone is going to spend money and that investment comes from those that have the money and not the other way around.

[shrek]

That is ironic...to be sure.

You know what else is ironic???

This thread has 572 views and only ~ 50 posts..

I wonder why the Liberals don't pop in here and defend their long held positions??

Reality is a great teacher....;)

I have noticed it a lot here lately. Liberals are finding it harder and harder to spin and deflect. So they run in look around and leave.

I started thread last week that had in the end 80 responses and about 1200 views. I have a thread going now that has had 10 responses and 150 views.

[roger teekell]

Obviously not in your case if you can't see how much the fruits of Reaganomics have ****ed the nations middle-class.

Baloney!!

But you already knew that before you typed it...

The only thing that prevented Reaganomics from creating surpluses is the CONSTANT increases in Government spending...

I noticed you didn't respond to the OP so I'll ask you a Direct Question...

HOW ELSE does an economy grow if "Rich" people don't start businesses that create jobs...

Want proof??......Just look at the HUGE increase in the "Middle Class" under Reagan..

[Molliegoch]

I have noticed it a lot here lately. Liberals are finding it harder and harder to spin and deflect. So they run in look around and leave.

I started thread last week that had in the end 80 responses and about 1200 views. I have a thread going now that has had 10 responses and 150 views.

Just because we're not typing our fingers to the bone, doesn't make us libs.

[shrek]

Just because we're not typing our fingers to the bone, doesn't make us libs.

I am not talking everyone that is not nor never did run to all threads.

I am talking of those that used to run to all threads and immediately begin to deflect if the message was ever painting Liberals or their mouth pieces in a poor light.

They do not do it so much as of late.

Ever hear the addage if the Shoot fits???? Well in this case the shoe does not fit you. I was not talking of or about you.

[roger teekell]

Just a few FACTS....

http://www.ronaldreagan.com/rush2.html

Families earning more than $50,000 (in 1990 dollars) went from less than 25 percent of families in 1980 to 31 percent in 1990.


The black middle class grew rapidly, from 2.6 million households with incomes of $25,000 or more in 1979, to 3.9 million in 1989.


Despite the change that the rich got richer, the poor got poorer, and the middle class was almost decimated during the 1980s, all income groups from the poorest to the richest experienced real income gains. Yet during the Carter years-when liberalism was flourishing-only the income of the top 1 percent grew. The share of income gains going to the top 1 percent of families was 160 percent higher under Carter than under Reagan.


Funny how CUTTING the top marginal rate from 70% to 28% made the middle class GROW at a very quick clip...

Thus creating MORE consumers in the market..

[deportalllibs]

Harding, Coolidge, JFK, Regan, and Bush (JR) all cut taxes which lead to a very successful economic situation.

I'm related to Calvin Coolidge actually and I'm happy to carry on the family tradition of lower taxes and smaller government.

[roger teekell]

This one bears REPEATING....


"The black middle class grew rapidly, from 2.6 million households with incomes of $25,000 or more in 1979, to 3.9 million in 1989".


How is that possible???

Why would a REPUBLICAN have policies that help Black people??

I thought they hated Black People...

Makes no sense...

[Oregon]

This one bears REPEATING....


"The black middle class grew rapidly, from 2.6 million households with incomes of $25,000 or more in 1979, to 3.9 million in 1989".


How is that possible???


I don't know ...

SEX ???

What other stats did you omit that are related?

More info needed please.

[shrek]

I don't know ...

SEX ???

What other stats did you omit that are related?

More info needed please.

:rolleyes:This has nothing to do with sex. This has to do with the amount of Blacks that raised to that income level.

[mrsc696]

Harding, Coolidge, JFK, Regan, and Bush (JR) all cut taxes which lead to a very successful economic situation.

FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush (Sr.), and Clinton all raised taxes which lead to adverse economic conditions.

Now, with the exception of Clinton (depends on what year and what congress he had), all presidents in modern history that have raised taxes have seen little to no growth in the economy.

Supply-Side economics has been proven president after president. Tax cuts increase governmental revenue. It was true under JFK and it was true on Bush (Jr.). Tax hikes, price controls, and "windfall profits" taxes hurt the economy and decreases governmental revenue. It was true under FDR and it was true under Nixon.

High tax rates discourage productivity and curbs investment.

It's never ever been a revenue problem it's always been a spending problem!

[shrek]

It's never ever been a revenue problem it's always been a spending problem!


Exactly, instead of worrying about attacking the rich. Why not just spend less?

The reality is that spending less does not earn votes.

[mrsc696]

The real Reagan record

http://http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg1414.cfm

[Guild-Sfire]

Trickle-down, supply-side, reaganomics, etc. has been so thouroughly discredited as a massive failure, that arguing with its believers is like arguing with flat-earthers.

The failure is evident in the flatlining of wages (except for the top 5%) despite massive productivity increases and a large increase in per-capita-gdp.

The mind-boggling thing is that not only are there people that don't see how hard it ****ed us, but they want more.


http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e200/guild-sfire/QFT.gif

[CrusaderFrank]

The reason people are mocked when they bring up Reagan and Trickle down is because Reagan actually raised taxes many, many times - including the largest tax hik in history.

He also expanded spending.

(BTW, trickle down is fine in an expanding econmy, but it's worthless in a contracting economy)

Homework:

Where were the following rates when Reagan took office and then when he left office:

Capital Gains
Individual Income Tax top rate
Inflation
Unemployment
Prime Rate
30 Year T Bond
Average Mortgage Rate.

[shrek]

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e200/guild-sfire/QFT.gif

Guildsfire,

Care to explain how Trickly down economics do not work???????????

The reality is that everything starts at the top and rolls down. Companies are created because someone with money invests it to start a company. And that company stays in business because they sell a product. Many companies often sell products to higher end clients that their own employees often cannot afford to purchase.

But those employees working to create those products earn a paycheck that allow them to afford other things.

How is this incorrect????????

[roger teekell]

I don't know ...

SEX ???

What other stats did you omit that are related?

More info needed please.

What does SEX have to do with this??

Stay on Topic..

It's simple...On Reagan's watch the Black population that moved from poor to middle class INCREASED by about 1/3 in 9 years...

Reagan LOWERED taxes and freed up capital for businesses to hire and expand....

And the Black community benefited GREATLY!!

More info here...

http://www.ronaldreagan.com/rush2.html

[roger teekell]

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e200/guild-sfire/QFT.gif

Truth??

Not so much...:rolleyes:

[tnt]

Homework:

Where were the following rates when Reagan took office and then when he left office:

Capital Gains
Individual Income Tax top rate
Inflation
Unemployment
Prime Rate
30 Year T Bond
Average Mortgage Rate.


How about:

% of income middle class paid to fed. govt. as tax in all forms?

[Guild-Sfire]

Guildsfire,

Care to explain how Trickly down economics do not work???????????

In 1980...the USA was the largest exporter of finished goods....
Today, we are the largest importer of finished goods.

In 1980....the USA was the largest Creditor nation in the world....
Today, we are the largest Debtor nation the world has ever known.

Since 1980, the middle class has shrunk...while the small percentage of the wealthy, have become wealthier.

The 1980's is when Thatcherism, Reaganomics, and Milton Friedman's ideas started being used......

Coincidence?

The reality is that everything starts at the top and rolls down. Companies are created because someone with money invests it to start a company.Henry Ford Filed Bankruptcy 7 times......before he got it right...
Walt Disney, struggled to make it....

It was not rich business men that invested....it was local banks....
And them taking a chance...

Did Bill Gates create Microsoft with big investors? Google?

The majority of businesses in America, are small businesses, and most of them are people who got lines of credit from a bank (not a rich dude) and built their business by working their asses off.....some, have become huge corporations..others.....may have been bought out by huge corporations......

And still others....are very good, moderate sized businesses.....making a profit, employing 12-1200 people.....and got there, w/out wealthy people investing.

[Guild-Sfire]

Truth??

Not so much...:rolleyes:

Wow...


Can't argue with that. :rolleyes:

[darknessesedge]

He cut taxes on "the rich" (1981 ERTA)
and
raised social security taxes and unemployment taxes on the middle class, (1982 TEFRA)
and
eliminated tax shelters the rich and middle class both used (1986 TRA).

for some reason the left always said: "reagan rasied taxes" and the right always said "reagan cut taxes."

is there some disease that keeps people from being honest about this?

congress controls the purse strings...
the president can only sign or veto the bills.

[redfire1539]

The majority of businesses in America, are small businesses, and most of them are people who got lines of credit from a bank (not a rich dude)

That's a load of crap. Before the economy tanked I got ALL of my capital from several "rich dudes." I never got it from the banks. Hardly any of the small business owners I know got their money from banks. It all came from those "rich dudes."

My experience has been that its always easier to get investment money from a person, rather then a bank.

Well, until Obama became president. :frown:

Now I can't get money from my rich associates or the banks. And here I was, wanting to hire about 60 people for some new ventures I was pursuing.

Oh wait... I thought trickle down economics didn't work???????? Damn. Guess I'll just have to hire those 60 employees with that extra $13/paycheck. :rolleyes:

[Guild-Sfire]

That's a load of crap. Before the economy tanked I got ALL of my capital from several "rich dudes." I never got it from the banks. Hardly any of the small business owners I know got their money from banks. It all came from those "rich dudes."

My experience has been that its always easier to get investment money from a person, rather then a bank.

Well, until Obama became president. :frown:

Now I can't get money from my rich associates or the banks. And here I was, wanting to hire about 60 people for some new ventures I was pursuing.

Oh wait... I thought trickle down economics didn't work???????? Damn. Guess I'll just have to hire those 60 employees with that extra $13/paycheck. :rolleyes:

Interesting..you joined 18 months or so ago...and you chose to respond to my post......today. :think:

What do you do?

What Rich dudes? VC's?


I noticed you ignored the rest of my post....why is that?

[redfire1539]

Interesting..you joined 18 months or so ago...and you chose to respond to my post......today. :think:

Why does that matter?

What do you do?

Lot's of different things. Mostly in the technology field. 18 months ago I contemplated opening up some gun stores and now I'm kicking myself for not doing it. Obama could have made me a lot of money if I had!

What Rich dudes? VC's?

Some VCs. Mostly just independently wealthy people I've met over the years.

I noticed you ignored the rest of my post....why is that?

I commented on the topic I have personal experience with.

<slightly off-topic rant>
It bugs me when people attack the rich, simply because they are rich. I grew up poor. My family even had to get "assistance" for a short time when I was a kid. But instead of despising those who had money, and fancy cars, and big houses, I asked myself "What are they doing right? What can I learn from them?" So that's what I did. I tried to learn everything I could from them about money and finances.

I bought my first company when I was 17. At 18, my partner drained the bank accounts and disappeared. That sucked, but now I'm glad I learned the lessons I did from that at a young age rather then later in life. At 22, I started another company. I was the lowest paid employee the whole time I owned it. I didn't get my big pay out until I sold it a few years later. And that's the way I think it should be.

Company Owners'/Officers' income should be in direct proportion to the health and income of the company. It ticks me off when a CEO fires 20,000 employees and still gets $100 Million bonus. But if the company is making a nice profit and the employees themselves are getting good wages and large bonuses then by all means, let him have his big bonus.

I've spent my life trying to climb from the bottom to the top (I'm not there yet!) without screwing over other people and it really ticks me off when the government takes my hard earned money to give it to a bunch of lazy people who do nothing for themselves. I'm all for helping others, but let me do it myself, my way. Forcing others to do something, even when its for a good cause, only breads resentment.
<end rant>


Anyway, this wasn't directed specifically at you. I just wanted you to have an idea of where I was coming from.


(I find it ironic that during the campaign, the Economy was the number one issue, yet we didn't elect the one person out of the whole bunch who actually had a solid background and proven track record of managing and making money! (Romney))

[Stick Ross]

Some VCs. Mostly just independently wealthy people I've met over the years.

Not many people have connections. That's the point. A lot of people have to do this on their own. That's were financial loans come in.

[shrek]

In 1980...the USA was the largest exporter of finished goods....
Today, we are the largest importer of finished goods.

In 1980....the USA was the largest Creditor nation in the world....
Today, we are the largest Debtor nation the world has ever known.

Since 1980, the middle class has shrunk...while the small percentage of the wealthy, have become wealthier.

The 1980's is when Thatcherism, Reaganomics, and Milton Friedman's ideas started being used......

Coincidence?


:dance: Note we Can still import so many finished goods because as a nation we are wealthier than most if not all others.

And yes in terms of National Debt we are indeed a debtor nation. But in terms of personal wealth the US still has more wealth.

And care to post a link to stats proving that the US middle class has shrunk? and the wealthy class has not grown but only gotten wealthier.

Lastly you have done absolutely nothing to show that everything does not start at the top and trickles down.

Henry Ford Filed Bankruptcy 7 times......before he got it right...
Walt Disney, struggled to make it....

It was not rich business men that invested....it was local banks....
And them taking a chance...

Did Bill Gates create Microsoft with big investors? Google?

The majority of businesses in America, are small businesses, and most of them are people who got lines of credit from a bank (not a rich dude) and built their business by working their asses off.....some, have become huge corporations..others.....may have been bought out by huge corporations......

And still others....are very good, moderate sized businesses.....making a profit, employing 12-1200 people.....and got there, w/out wealthy people investing.

:dance:Again your words actually support my claim. I never said that Henry Ford was Rich, but he did use the money of others to finance his auto business. People who were smart enough to invest it in something smart.

Same thing with Disney.

And you had better learn your history. Bill Gates Mom worked for IBM, and not as a secretary but as an executive, his parents financed his endevours and they were not poor.

And Google? :)):)) You really need to research.


Google began in January 1996, as a research project by Larry Page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Page), who was soon joined by Sergey Brin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin), when they were both Ph.D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy) students at Stanford University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University) in California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google#cite_note-milestones-5) They hypothesized that a search engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine) that analyzed the relationships between websites would produce better ranking of results than existing techniques, which ranked results according to the number of times the search term appeared on a page.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google#cite_note-6) Their search engine was originally nicknamed "BackRub" because the system checked backlinks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backlinks) to estimate the importance of a site.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google#cite_note-7) A small search engine called Rankdex was already exploring a similar strategy.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google#cite_note-8)
Convinced that the pages with the most links to them from other highly relevant web pages must be the most relevant pages associated with the search, Page and Brin tested their thesis as part of their studies, and laid the foundation for their search engine. Originally, the search engine used the Stanford University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University) website with the domain google.stanford.edu. The domain google.com was registered on 15 September 1997,[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google#cite_note-9) and the company was incorporated as Google Inc. on 4 September 1998 at a friend's garage in Menlo Park, California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menlo_Park,_California). The total initial investment raised for the new company amounted to almost US$1.1 million, including a US$100,000 check by Andy Bechtolsheim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Bechtolsheim), one of the founders of Sun Microsystems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Microsystems).[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google#cite_note-10)


They started google as a thesis project and had an initial investment of $1.1 Million of outside funds to start it.

And yes many businesses get lines of credit by banks to start their money.

But they only do so if rich people invest in the bank to lend them the money.

The reality is this always starts with Rich people and the money they are willing to spend/invest that fuels other peoples ability to start or buy other things.

So thanks for helping me prove my point.

[Guild-Sfire]

Why does that matter?

It doesn't...just an observation.



Some VCs. Mostly just independently wealthy people I've met over the years.VC's usually do not invest in an idea......you have to have some capitol, and some progress on a business before they kick in money..

And you are lucky to personally know some wealthy people to invest their money.




<slightly off-topic rant>
It bugs me when people attack the rich, simply because they are rich. I grew up poor. My family even had to get "assistance" for a short time when I was a kid. But instead of despising those who had money, and fancy cars, and big houses, I asked myself "What are they doing right? What can I learn from them?" So that's what I did. I tried to learn everything I could from them about money and finances. Not sure where I attacked the Rich....or where the rich are getting attacked. Yes, some people are envious of people with a lot of money..... that is a pointless endeavor.



I bought my first company when I was 17. At 18, my partner drained the bank accounts and disappeared. That sucked, but now I'm glad I learned the lessons I did from that at a young age rather then later in life. At 22, I started another company. I was the lowest paid employee the whole time I owned it. I didn't get my big pay out until I sold it a few years later. And that's the way I think it should be.

Company Owners'/Officers' income should be in direct proportion to the health and income of the company. It ticks me off when a CEO fires 20,000 employees and still gets $100 Million bonus. But if the company is making a nice profit and the employees themselves are getting good wages and large bonuses then by all means, let him have his big bonus.

I've spent my life trying to climb from the bottom to the top (I'm not there yet!) without screwing over other people and it really ticks me off when the government takes my hard earned money to give it to a bunch of lazy people who do nothing for themselves. I'm all for helping others, but let me do it myself, my way. Forcing others to do something, even when its for a good cause, only breads resentment.
<end rant>
That is a good rant...I agree with some of it.....

Anyway, this wasn't directed specifically at you. I just wanted you to have an idea of where I was coming from.
Thanks.....

(I find it ironic that during the campaign, the Economy was the number one issue, yet we didn't elect the one person out of the whole bunch who actually had a solid background and proven track record of managing and making money! (Romney))
Correct me if I am wrong...didn't Romney make a lot of his money by buying companies....offshoring the jobs, then selling the company for a profit?

[Guild-Sfire]

:dance: Note we Can still import so many finished goods because as a nation we are wealthier than most if not all others.

Spin Shrek Spin!

And yes in terms of National Debt we are indeed a debtor nation. But in terms of personal wealth the US still has more wealth. That has got to be one of the dumbest statements....ever...

And care to post a link to stats proving that the US middle class has shrunk? and the wealthy class has not grown but only gotten wealthier. Why bother....you wont believe it...

Lastly you have done absolutely nothing to show that everything does not start at the top and trickles down.I absolutely did....you refuse to believe it....



Again your words actually support my claim. I never said that Henry Ford was Rich, but he did use the money of others to finance his auto business. People who were smart enough to invest it in something smart.

Same thing with Disney.

And you had better learn your history. Bill Gates Mom worked for IBM, and not as a secretary but as an executive, his parents financed his endevors and they were not poor. Gates Mother never worked for IBM. She had connection there, with her work with the United Way.






And Google? :)):)) You really need to research.

They started google as a thesis project and had an initial investment of $1.1 Million of outside funds to start it.

And yes many businesses get lines of credit by banks to start their money.
Yes...they do.

But they only do so if rich people invest in the bank to lend them the money.:))

The reality is this always starts with Rich people and the money they are willing to spend/invest that fuels other peoples ability to start or buy other things.Wrong again....but you do not disappoint.

[shrek]

Spin Shrek Spin!

Guildsfire,

No spin, we are indeed still very wealthy. Yes we are no longer a manufactering nation. But that does not mean we do not have wealth to buy products.

That has got to be one of the dumbest statements....ever...


I notice you provide nothing to back up your claim. Note if what I state is so dumb there should be tons of evidence to prove it. :D

Why bother....you wont believe it...


Ah yes the weak liberal debate tactic when they have no data to back up their claim. Thanks Guildsfire.

I absolutely did....you refuse to believe it....


You did not. You threw out unsubstatiated claims about how as a nation we now import more than we export and that the middle class has shrunk while the rich get richer.

That does nothing to show that rich people do not start the money flowing.


Gates Mother never worked for IBM. She had connection there, with her work with the United Way.


Actually I admit I am wrong here. But if I had researched it better the first time, I couldn't show you this now.

Bill Gates was born in Seattle on October 28, 1955 to his parents, Mary and William Gates II. He has two sisters. His father was a prominent Seattle lawyer, and his mother was a schoolteacher, University of Washington regent and chairwoman of United Way International. His great-grandfather was a state legislator and mayor, and his grandfather was the vice president of a national bank.


http://novaonline.nv.cc.va.us/eli/evans/his135/events/gates00/gates.html

Bill's parents were well to do and very well connected. Bill Gates had backing.

Wrong again....but you do not disappoint.

Again you make a claim but offer no substantive proof.

The reality is that Rich people spending and investing, fuels the economy.

Never in the modern economy has money and wealth travelled uphill. You have never heard of the poor funding businesses, research and or even government. The poor have always had to look to other sources to help fund what they want to do.

Now please provide how Wealth does not flow downhill from the Rich to everyone below.

You have not done so here. And noting that we are not an exporter nation, or that we have huge national debt does nothing to disprove what I state.

[Guild-Sfire]

Never in the modern economy has money and wealth travelled uphill.

Then, how do people get wealthy?



And noting that we are not an exporter nation, or that we have huge national debt does nothing to disprove what I state.

It absolutely does.

[waynevan]

He cut taxes on "the rich" (1981 ERTA)
and
raised social security taxes and unemployment taxes on the middle class, (1982 TEFRA)
and
eliminated tax shelters the rich and middle class both used (1986 TRA).

for some reason the left always said: "reagan rasied taxes" and the right always said "reagan cut taxes."

is there some disease that keeps people from being honest about this?

Its called The Other Side Sucks disease.

[shrek]

Then, how do people get wealthy?


Three ways, they save it, they earn it, and yes they inherit it. But note just inheriting it does not mean you will keep your wealth or stay wealthy. You have to use the money you inherited and save it and use it to earn more off of it to keep your wealth.

It absolutely does.

How????????????

How does business thrive and grow????????????

Answer its not because of poor people. Its because people spend money and they only are able to spend money because other people spend money paying their salaries and or income.

[HeadOnStraight]

Never in the modern economy has money and wealth travelled uphill. You have never heard of the poor funding businesses, research and or even government. The poor have always had to look to other sources to help fund what they want to do.

Now please provide how Wealth does not flow downhill from the Rich to everyone below.

You have not done so here. And noting that we are not an exporter nation, or that we have huge national debt does nothing to disprove what I state.
The mantra is that the rich get wealthy off the sweat form the brow of the hard working poor. You know, like those guys at Google, who only got rich by all but enslaving the poor to work those salt mines for those Google millionaires. However, normal, everyday people did invest in companies like Google and Microsoft, or even Coca-cola, and they did get wealthy along the way.

[Guild-Sfire]

Three ways, they save it, they earn it, and yes they inherit it. But note just inheriting it does not mean you will keep your wealth or stay wealthy. You have to use the money you inherited and save it and use it to earn more off of it to keep your wealth.


Most people that are very rich.....got it form inheritance....

The rest...earned it...by wealth traveling....uphill.




Answer its not because of poor people. Its because people spend money and they only are able to spend money because other people spend money paying their salaries and or income.
The Middle class drives an economy...not the rich...not the poor.
A healthy, growing middle class, ensures a good economy.

(with the usual business cycles)

[tnt]

The mantra is that the rich get wealthy off the sweat form the brow of the hard working poor. You know, like those guys at Google, who only got rich by all but enslaving the poor to work those salt mines for those Google millionaires. However, normal, everyday people did invest in companies like Google and Microsoft, or even Coca-cola, and they did get wealthy along the way.

Google got rich because the internet became availible to the middle class, who propelled online activities to a mainstay of consumer spending.

With out a middle class capable of using google, amazon, etc....the expansion enjoyed by the companies and the corresponding growth in our GDP never would have happened.

[shrek]

Google got rich because the internet became availible to the middle class, who propelled online activities to a mainstay of consumer spending.

With out a middle class capable of using google, amazon, etc....the expansion enjoyed by the companies and the corresponding growth in our GDP never would have happened.

Tnt,

You correct, that is how Google got rich. But how did they come to exist in the first place???????

Oh that would be by investments made by people with money IE Rich people.

[shrek]

The mantra is that the rich get wealthy off the sweat form the brow of the hard working poor. You know, like those guys at Google, who only got rich by all but enslaving the poor to work those salt mines for those Google millionaires. However, normal, everyday people did invest in companies like Google and Microsoft, or even Coca-cola, and they did get wealthy along the way.

Headonstraight, Exactly. The funny thing is that The founders of Google had to get money from rich people to get going.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Why are they unemployed?

becuae the companies they worked for have no customers....

Home depot closed dozens of stores..why? Because rich people didn't get tax cuts....no....because they didn't have middle class custoemrs to serve.

Curcuit City closed...why?

Are the rich people going to go out and buy Ford Taruases to save Detroit?

How many homes in Arizona do you think the rich in america will buy if you give them a nice big tax cut?

Wealth is built on the backs of the middle class - with out a prosporous middle class, you have no economy worth speaking of.

It's just that simple.

And you can not put the cart before the horse.

You are missing his point. Why don't they have any customers? Because the customer base has no disposable income. And that is because they are paying 25-35% of their income in taxes. Hell even God only asks for 10%.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

...
Trying to fix this from the bottom up will not work. Giving money to the Poor and or fellow middle class people does not create new business nor does it feed jobs.

...
No, but it does buy votes to get re-elected...

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Most people that are very rich.....got it form inheritance....

The rest...earned it...by wealth traveling....uphill.




The Middle class drives an economy...not the rich...not the poor.
A healthy, growing middle class, ensures a good economy.

(with the usual business cycles)

Prove that first claim please.

[shrek]

Most people that are very rich.....got it form inheritance....

The rest...earned it...by wealth traveling....uphill.


:)):)):)) Guildsfire,

You make this so easy. Of Forbes Richest people in the world. 1/2 never got a college degree and 1/3 never finished high school. And few of them inherited their wealth.

Wealth does not travel up hill. Yes they may have saved their money used it buy a business or then invested it in other businesses. But that does not = wealth traveling uphill.

THey would not have earned their salary without wealthy people buying products to give them their income either directly or indirectly.

The Middle class drives an economy...not the rich...not the poor.
A healthy, growing middle class, ensures a good economy.

(with the usual business cycles)

Yes the middle class drives the economy. But the Rich Create the economy. There is a difference.

Note again I go back to Forbes Magazines 2009 list of the richest people in the world. Last year few Billionaires grew wealth. Most just lost less than others.

Why is this important. Because of lost wealth billionaires had to sell businesses sky scrapers, Jets, Sports Teams, and ussually for less than what they paid for them and Finally were not looking to buy new things.

Yes I know boo freakin hoo. I am not stating we should pity them. I am pointing out that when they the billionaires loose money other people, people who make far less feel the effects. Meaning that wealth does travel downhill and not up.

[shrek]

No, but it does buy votes to get re-elected...

Very Good point. But alas buying votes to get re elected does not create new business, nor does it fuel the economy.

[tnt]

Tnt,

You correct, that is how Google got rich. But how did they come to exist in the first place???????

Oh that would be by investments made by people with money IE Rich people.

So go ask that guy that gave google 100,000 today to fund a similar venture.

i think maybe he passes.

Not becuase of HIS taxes, but because he sees that the middle class is up the creek.

So, again, go cut Home Depot's corporate taxes to zero for 2009.

You think that would make them re-open their expo stores and re-employ all those folks?

Go cut GM's corp taxes to zero - that gonna help them sell cars and trucks? (not gonna matter a lick because they aren't profitable.)

The way to stimulate the economy and regain traction is by suring up the consumer base on which we capitalists will thrive.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Very Good point. But alas buying votes to get re elected does not create new business, nor does it fuel the economy.

But alas creating new business and fueling the economy is not the reason politicians make policy. Getting re-elected is.

What Obamessiah is doing is nothing more than what Chavez did. The difference is one of scale.

[tnt]

But alas creating new business and fueling the economy is not the reason politicians make policy. Getting re-elected is.

What Obamessiah is doing is nothing more than what Chavez did. The difference is one of scale.


Well, here you are falling into the trap set for us by both sides during this crisis.

Creating new business and fueling the economy (and I'll add SAVING old businesses) is not the place of the politicians at all.

Both sides are getting caught up in bail-out hysteria.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Well, here you are falling into the trap set for us by both sides during this crisis.

Creating new business and fueling the economy (and I'll add SAVING old businesses) is not the place of the politicians at all.

Both sides are getting caught up in bail-out hysteria.

Very true. But it is ridiculous to say that cutting taxes does not improve the economy. Any measure that puts more money in the pockets of ALL consumers improves the economy. The USG takes in the form of taxes. Therefore I have less to spend on private sector goods. Simple business.

[shrek]

So go ask that guy that gave google 100,000 today to fund a similar venture.

i think maybe he passes.

Not becuase of HIS taxes, but because he sees that the middle class is up the creek.

So, again, go cut Home Depot's corporate taxes to zero for 2009.

You think that would make them re-open their expo stores and re-employ all those folks?

Go cut GM's corp taxes to zero - that gonna help them sell cars and trucks? (not gonna matter a lick because they aren't profitable.)

The way to stimulate the economy and regain traction is by suring up the consumer base on which we capitalists will thrive.

Actually I am betting the Founder of Sun Microsystems would still invest if he thought it was a good investment.

Yes the Middle Class is hurting now. But note so are the rich. And yes they are hurting in a different way. But as I stated to guildsfire,

Forbes brings up that of all the billionaires out there most did not gain wealth this year most just lost less than others.

Why is this important. Because those billionaires have had to sell, businesses, skyscrapers, sports teams, stadiums and fleets of planes and cars to cover their losses. And did so selling them for less than they bought them for.

This hurts the middle class. And it is the middle class hurting as to why Home Depot is now hurting and GM is not selling cars.

No cutting taxes would not have an immediate effect on the Middle class or even on HD or GM. But it does help create a foundation so that this does not occur as easily in the future.

Yes the Middle class is important to driving the economy, but the rich create the economy that is driven by the middle class.

[tnt]

Very true. But it is ridiculous to say that cutting taxes does not improve the economy. Any measure that puts more money in the pockets of ALL consumers improves the economy. The USG takes in the form of taxes. Therefore I have less to spend on private sector goods. Simple business.

I'm all for middle class tax cuts right now because we need to stimulate the consumer class. Unfortunately, I think the responsible thing to do would be to offset those cuts by letting the BUsh temp. cuts expire for higher income folks.

If we didn't spend 850 billion bailing out wall street, I think perhaps we could have perhaps left the higher income earners alone.

The strategy here has to be focus on teh middle class until the recovery starts - then cut taxes for everyone. (but at that exactl moment we'll have the biggest problem yet to face - hyper-inflation, so everything is gonna change then....)

[harumph]

Yes the Middle class is important to driving the economy, but the rich create the economy that is driven by the middle class.

Largely ignored fact. Well said.

[tnt]

Actually I am betting the Founder of Sun Microsystems would still invest if he thought it was a good investment.

Yes the Middle Class is hurting now. But note so are the rich. And yes they are hurting in a different way. But as I stated to guildsfire,

Forbes brings up that of all the billionaires out there most did not gain wealth this year most just lost less than others.

Why is this important. Because those billionaires have had to sell, businesses, skyscrapers, sports teams, stadiums and fleets of planes and cars to cover their losses. And did so selling them for less than they bought them for.

This hurts the middle class. And it is the middle class hurting as to why Home Depot is now hurting and GM is not selling cars.

No cutting taxes would not have an immediate effect on the Middle class or even on HD or GM. But it does help create a foundation so that this does not occur as easily in the future.

Yes the Middle class is important to driving the economy, but the rich create the economy that is driven by the middle class.

two points -

1) The billionaires are selling things becuse the market is gone. Themarket is the middle class. You want to make it attractive to some one to buy or build a new sports stadium? Garuntee that there are enough people with enough money in tehir pocket to sell out the season....I promise you, if the opportunity is there, a capitalist stands ready to profit from it - regardless of the economic climate.

2) The billionaire who has 2,000,000,000 and losses a whooping 50% still has 1,000,000,000 to get by and buy his son braces and send his daughter to school. The middle classer making 50K with 20K in the bank who loses his job and half his savings will have a hard time paying his rent. The negative effects of this recession are disproportiontely felt by the middle class.

[tnt]

Largely ignored fact. Well said.

Opportuniy creates the market.

Opportunity is a bunch of people standing around with money in their pockets.

[shrek]

two points -

1) The billionaires are selling things becuse the market is gone. Themarket is the middle class. You want to make it attractive to some one to buy or build a new sports stadium? Garuntee that there are enough people with enough money in tehir pocket to sell out the season....I promise you, if the opportunity is there, a capitalist stands ready to profit from it - regardless of the economic climate.

2) The billionaire who has 2,000,000,000 and losses a whooping 50% still has 1,000,000,000 to get by and buy his son braces and send his daughter to school. The middle classer making 50K with 20K in the bank who loses his job and half his savings will have a hard time paying his rent. The negative effects of this recession are disproportiontely felt by the middle class.

TNT,

If what you state is true and Billionaires are only selling because the market is gone why sell at a loss??????????

THey are selling at a loss to cover their expenses. Not because the market is gone. Just as with all past bad markets this one will come back. The smart move if you were not selling to cover your own expenses would be to hold off and wait till the market recovers.

Unless your claiming the market will never recover again??????

And lastly. Again I did not say we must feel sorry for the Rich. Yes you loose 1 billion and you still have 1 billion left your not exactly hurting.

And yes the Middle Class is feeling the most pain in this. But that was not my point. Nor did I ever claim the Middle class did not drive this market. Of course they do.

But it was the rich that creates the Market in the first place. And if the Rich is selling off to cover their own expenses that effects others many many others.

[shrek]

Opportuniy creates the market.

Opportunity is a bunch of people standing around with money in their pockets.

Opportunity does not create a market. Opportunity pushes people to spend money to capture that opportunity.

Opportunity is not a bunch of people. Opportunity is what could be if someone does something to drive people to them.

[harumph]

Opportuniy creates the market.

Opportunity is a bunch of people standing around with money in their pockets.

Wrong. Opportunity creates entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs create the market. A bunch of people standing around with money in their pockets are just that—people standing around.

[tnt]

TNT,

If what you state is true and Billionaires are only selling because the market is gone why sell at a loss??????????

THey are selling at a loss to cover their expenses. Not because the market is gone. Just as with all past bad markets this one will come back. The smart move if you were not selling to cover your own expenses would be to hold off and wait till the market recovers.

Unless your claiming the market will never recover again??????

And lastly. Again I did not say we must feel sorry for the Rich. Yes you loose 1 billion and you still have 1 billion left your not exactly hurting.

And yes the Middle Class is feeling the most pain in this. But that was not my point. Nor did I ever claim the Middle class did not drive this market. Of course they do.

But it was the rich that creates the Market in the first place. And if the Rich is selling off to cover their own expenses that effects others many many others.

Opportunity creates the market.

Take a billionaire and air drop him into East Timor. If the rich build the economy, that place should grow and grow and grow, right?

[tnt]

Wrong. Opportunity creates entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs create the market. A bunch of people standing around with money in their pockets are just that—people standing around.


Then why is the economy tanking? We have the same enterpenuers, and in fact the rich have been getting richer for many, many years.

Why isn't our economy booming?

[shrek]

Then why is the economy tanking? We have the same enterpenuers, and in fact the rich have been getting richer for many, many years.

Why isn't our economy booming?

:))Those Entrepenuers have either lost money themselves or realize that this is not exactly the best time to start a new Enterprise

Again Forbes showed that in 2008 the Richest among us lost very sizable portions of their wealth. And your admitting the economy is tanking tends to suggest that way the rich go so goes the economy.

And get this. That has been my point all along.

[shrek]

Opportunity creates the market.

Take a billionaire and air drop him into East Timor. If the rich build the economy, that place should grow and grow and grow, right?

:)) You drop a billionaire into East Timor, he will bring opportunity with him. He will want a home built for his stature. That creates jobs.

He will want furniture and other things of oppulance brought to him. That means shipping and shipping brings jobs. But that being said the Billionaire then would need to build something to attract others to the area to get the money to flow in and not just out. This means a resort or something else catering to the wealthy tourist, which creates more jobs.

This has been done time and time again. Just look at India. India is the scene of great wealth and opportunity. But it is also the scene of great poverty and despair.

But note the poverty and despair is because of societal beliefs along with political and religous agendas and not because the Rich do not create opportunities.

In India many many people make a living off of supporting the Upper classes in India. Which really do exist there.

[tnt]

:)) You drop a billionaire into East Timor, he will bring opportunity with him. He will want a home built for his stature. That creates jobs.

He will want furniture and other things of oppulance brought to him. That means shipping and shipping brings jobs. But that being said the Billionaire then would need to build something to attract others to the area to get the money to flow in and not just out. This means a resort or something else catering to the wealthy tourist, which creates more jobs.

This has been done time and time again. Just look at India. India is the scene of great wealth and opportunity. But it is also the scene of great poverty and despair.

But note the poverty and despair is because of societal beliefs along with political and religous agendas and not because the Rich do not create opportunities.

In India many many people make a living off of supporting the Upper classes in India. Which really do exist there.


India is a text book case for a developing middle class leading to economic prosperity.

Getting back tot eh guy in East Timor....so after he builds his house etc...and spends a good chunk of his money doing so, how does he continue to GROW his wealth? Take me through that. So he spent say half of his fortune in five years...how does he create opportunity (as you claim only the wealthy can do) and start making money?

[arubicus]

Then why is the economy tanking? We have the same enterpenuers, and in fact the rich have been getting richer for many, many years.

Why isn't our economy booming?

And many rich have become poor and many poor have become rich. Not so black and white as you make it to be.

[shrek]

India is a text book case for a developing middle class leading to economic prosperity.

Getting back tot eh guy in East Timor....so after he builds his house etc...and spends a good chunk of his money doing so, how does he continue to GROW his wealth? Take me through that. So he spent say half of his fortune in five years...how does he create opportunity (as you claim only the wealthy can do) and start making money?

India is developing and it is indeed being driven by the middle class, yes. But because the Rich have created the opportunities. Not because the middle class has.

Note before Industry came to India. India had tourism, and it was the rich that fueled the tourism. Yes eventually middle class tourists came as well, but at the root of everything is the rich.

And did you fail to read all of what I wrote about the billionaire in East Timor???????

To start replacing the wealth that he looses in building the nice house he has to create a reason for other people to come to east Timor.

So he builds a resort to attract fellow rich people and then after they start coming more moderate middle income people start coming and an industry is born.

But first you have to convince that Billionaire to go to East Timor.

That is the hard part. Because a Billionaire would only go there if he saw opportunity.

[tnt]

India is developing and it is indeed being driven by the middle class, yes. But because the Rich have created the opportunities. Not because the middle class has.

Note before Industry came to India. India had tourism, and it was the rich that fueled the tourism. Yes eventually middle class tourists came as well, but at the root of everything is the rich.

And did you fail to read all of what I wrote about the billionaire in East Timor???????

To start replacing the wealth that he looses in building the nice house he has to create a reason for other people to come to east Timor.

So he builds a resort to attract fellow rich people and then after they start coming more moderate middle income people start coming and an industry is born.

But first you have to convince that Billionaire to go to East Timor.

That is the hard part. Because a Billionaire would only go there if he saw opportunity.


You are priving my point.

The billionaire would only go there if he saw opportunity.

You eariler claimed that the rich CREATE opportunity, now you agree that the rich FOLLOW opportunity.

Dropping a billionaire into East Timor would not drive the economy of East Timor to new, sustainable heights.

Only opportunity and exploitation can do that.

[shrek]

You are priving my point.

The billionaire would only go there if he saw opportunity.

You eariler claimed that the rich CREATE opportunity, now you agree that the rich FOLLOW opportunity.

Dropping a billionaire into East Timor would not drive the economy of East Timor to new, sustainable heights.

Only opportunity and exploitation can do that.

TNT,

Note it is not as black and white as you want to make it. The Rich do create opportunity.

I guess I should have worded my last response differently . The rich would only go to East Timor if he saw the potential of creating opportunity there.

A billionaire would not go to East Timor to create Opportunity because of the Politically instable climate that exists there.

Not that he could not build a resort and attract visitors but why go there and build an empire and have it taken away the next time there is political upheaval in the nation?????????? Note the Nation last changed political hands in 1999.

But that is not to say that a billionaire could not go there and create opportunity. Because in fact he could.

[rational]

The reality is that a poor person does not create jobs. A rich person does. No ifs ands or buts.


One but....

Poor people create LOTS of government jobs through the welfare system, the criminal justice system, and probably others I haven't thought of. But I know what you're saying. Unfortunately, the Obamabots think the government is the solution.

[tnt]

TNT,

Note it is not as black and white as you want to make it. The Rich do create opportunity.

I guess I should have worded my last response differently . The rich would only go to East Timor if he saw the potential of creating opportunity there.

A billionaire would not go to East Timor to create Opportunity because of the Politically instable climate that exists there.

Not that he could not build a resort and attract visitors but why go there and build an empire and have it taken away the next time there is political upheaval in the nation?????????? Note the Nation last changed political hands in 1999.

But that is not to say that a billionaire could not go there and create opportunity. Because in fact he could.


You're changing the focus because you don't want to concede the point.

Choose any poor country you want....without a thriving middle class there is no real opportunity for economic growth - heck, even the Chinese know this now, which is why they are travelling gently down the path of capitalism.

The opportuniy is serving the middle class - at least that is the opportunity that has led to our most recent expansions.

Other opportunities include exploiting natural resourses etc....but none of those are sustainable either without a thriving middle class.

Go ahead, go find a diamond mine. Or a gold mine. Or any natural resourse you can name.

With out a market for the resourse you find and exploit, your efforts amount to nothing.

[tnt]

TNT,

Note it is not as black and white as you want to make it. The Rich do create opportunity.

I guess I should have worded my last response differently . The rich would only go to East Timor if he saw the potential of creating opportunity there.

A billionaire would not go to East Timor to create Opportunity because of the Politically instable climate that exists there.

Not that he could not build a resort and attract visitors but why go there and build an empire and have it taken away the next time there is political upheaval in the nation?????????? Note the Nation last changed political hands in 1999.

But that is not to say that a billionaire could not go there and create opportunity. Because in fact he could.

And BTW I'm not claiming it's black and white. You clearly need rish takers and investors

(but even they can be built from the ground up if you have a well developed and sustainable middle class. In other words, there wa a time when america looked a lot like fuedal england - a couple of uber-wealthy families with what amounted to an army of serfs working for them. There was upper and lower class. Then, when we developed a middle class, you saw wealth boundries crossed repeatedly and the number of wealthy americans swelled as entrapenures from all classes siezed on teh opportunity the swelling middle class presented. Rich people are created by the market - they don't descend from teh heavens and bless us with their investments...)

But I am saying trickle down largely doesn't work and certainly doesn't help in an economy such as ours right now.

Target relief at the middle class.

Protect the consuming class.

Then we capitalists will see the opportunity there in and exploit it!

Cut the top taxes once the recovery is well under way.

[shrek]

You're changing the focus because you don't want to concede the point.

Choose any poor country you want....without a thriving middle class there is no real opportunity for economic growth - heck, even the Chinese know this now, which is why they are travelling gently down the path of capitalism.

The opportuniy is serving the middle class - at least that is the opportunity that has led to our most recent expansions.

Other opportunities include exploiting natural resourses etc....but none of those are sustainable either without a thriving middle class.

Go ahead, go find a diamond mine. Or a gold mine. Or any natural resourse you can name.

With out a market for the resourse you find and exploit, your efforts amount to nothing.

I am not changing the focus on anything.

East Timor is politically volatile and thus not exactly the best place to create opportunity. That is why I said it would be hard to get a billionaire to go there.

Again I am not discounting the middle Classes role in a society. They do drive a given society. But the rich create the opportunity that the Middle Class Thrives upon.

Note you mention the Chinese. The Rich came first in china and as they came more and more chinese have become middle class.

But the middle class in china did not bring the business and did not man the factories without the Rich first coming there and spending the money opening those factories.


Note you bring up the exploitation of Natural resources. :D Yes the middle class comes after a natural resource is found. Look at the California Gold Rush. The middle class came all on the promise of getting rich.

And they spent tons of money getting there. People realized that it was easier to get rich supplying those seeking their riches and not actually hunting for the gold themselves. But note the opportunity there was created by the opportunity of becoming rich.

A rich person did not create the environment, but it was the promise of wealth that drove people to CA, not a promise of becoming middle class. Andnote it was soon the rich people that controled it. Not that middle class that you mention.

[shrek]

TNT,

Your so Certain that the Middle Class Creates the wealth in the US.

But let me explain it this way. There are millions upon millions of middle class folks in the US. But if they get laid off or the company they are working at is shut down the vast majority has to rely on finding another job to be able to keep staying in the middle Class.

A person with more wealth can go out and either create his opportunities to go forward or can afford to move to the right environment to keep growing his wealth.

Again the Middle class my drive the economy but they are dependent on the Rich to fuel the Economy. The Rich can subsist without others to subsist.

Again if a middle class person looses his job. He HAS to go out and hunt for another job. A rich person can live without a job for a while depending on his level of wealth. And that Rich person can generate enterprise even while unemployed.

Note that Rich person can hire people to do things for him and pays them. They then go out and pay others for services and so on and so on. And it started because that rich person paid something.

Which only rich people can afford to do when jobs are scarce.

[Stick Ross]

The problem with the idea of the wealthy buying luxury items from the American market is due to the fact that money is not always spent here.

A lot of the times, they are prone to buying trendy imported goods or spending money on goods and services while in other countries rather than goods and services from the domestic market.

[harumph]

The problem with the idea of the wealthy buying luxury items from the American market is due to the fact that money is not always spent here.

A lot of the times, they are prone to buying trendy imported goods or spending money on goods and services while in other countries rather than goods and services from the domestic market.

I would venture to say that it is more like "sometimes," not "a lot of times." Remember, even if they purchase an imported product, this country is making money. Companies do not normally run upside down (not for long, anyway).

[tnt]

TNT,

Your so Certain that the Middle Class Creates the wealth in the US.

But let me explain it this way. There are millions upon millions of middle class folks in the US. But if they get laid off or the company they are working at is shut down the vast majority has to rely on finding another job to be able to keep staying in the middle Class.

A person with more wealth can go out and either create his opportunities to go forward or can afford to move to the right environment to keep growing his wealth.

Again the Middle class my drive the economy but they are dependent on the Rich to fuel the Economy. The Rich can subsist without others to subsist.

Again if a middle class person looses his job. He HAS to go out and hunt for another job. A rich person can live without a job for a while depending on his level of wealth. And that Rich person can generate enterprise even while unemployed.

Note that Rich person can hire people to do things for him and pays them. They then go out and pay others for services and so on and so on. And it started because that rich person paid something.

Which only rich people can afford to do when jobs are scarce.

My point is that the middle class is the engine that drives the healthy economy.

With a healthy middle class, people can get rich.

So to stimulate the entire economy, stimulate the middle class.

That's all.

[Stick Ross]

I would venture to say that it is more like "sometimes," not "a lot of times." Remember, even if they purchase an imported product, this country is making money. Companies do not normally run upside down (not for long, anyway).

What about goods and services bought outside the country?

[DaveDayton]

If you are referring to the last 28 years of Reaganomics...you would be correct.

On Nov. 4th, 2008.....we did wake up.

...and have been spending $1,000,000,000.00 and hour since.

[harumph]

What about goods and services bought outside the country?

What about 'em? How did they get out of this country, bicycle? What is your point? I said sometimes. Have you ever gone on vacation outside of this country (i.e.-Bahamas)?

Are you making a point, here? If they have a residence here in the states, there is a good chance they are injecting money into our economy. They are CERTAINLY paying their fair share of taxes.

[shrek]

My point is that the middle class is the engine that drives the healthy economy.

With a healthy middle class, people can get rich.

So to stimulate the entire economy, stimulate the middle class.

That's all.

Tnt,

While I understand what your stating. I disagree. The middle class over extended themselves in this last economic boom. The middle class now needs to retract a bit lick their wounds before any stimulus would work.

Note that in 2002 Bush gave out a $300 per person stimulus check. It really did kick start the economy.

But in 2008 he gave out $700 per person and it did nothing to stimulate the economy.

Right now no stimulus will stimulate the economy. No stimulus will work until everyone is ready to start spending again.

And note the first ones that have to start spending are the rich. Not the other way around.

[Stick Ross]

What about 'em? How did they get out of this country, bicycle? What is your point? I said sometimes. Have you ever gone on vacation outside of this country (i.e.-Bahamas)?

Are you making a point, here? If they have a residence here in the states, there is a good chance they are injecting money into our economy. They are CERTAINLY paying their fair share of taxes.

The point is that luxury items are usually comprised of expensive foreign goods and services. Usually, it's the location that matters when it comes to trendy goods or services, especially services (i.e. a Swedish spa or tourism in other countries, complete with buying goods and services on that tour).

[shrek]

Can they?

During the Great Depression, people who once were wealthy were to be found on the relief rolls. In Detroit, it was said the rolls included "lawyers, bankers, and two people after whose families streets were named".

Phaedrus,

Go back and read your history Phaedrus, those that were hurt the most during the Great Depression were those that had bought stock on Credit.

In other words they over extended themselves and then when the market crashed those that extended them the credit came calling.

Sound familiar??????? The same thing happened in the Housing boom in 2005-2006 we had people buying homes they could not afford using paperless loans given to them by Banks urged on By Federal agencies to do it.

Those Dr's Lawyers and bankers from the great depression you state were rich. Were not really rich, but had spent money they did not have speculating in the market.

Yes eventually everyone was hurt in the great depression including those that truly were rich. But note it was the Rich that rebounded from the Great depression the fastest.

And note it will be those that had independent wealth now that willl bounce back the fastest now.

[harumph]

The point is that luxury items are usually comprised of expensive foreign goods and services. Usually, it's the location that matters when it comes to trendy goods or services, especially services (i.e. a Swedish spa or tourism in other countries, complete with buying goods and services on that tour).

Again, what is your point? Entrepreneurs don't sit around in Swedish spas all day eating bon-bons. They run companies that produce jobs. Why are you stuck on this? Let it go.

[Stick Ross]

Again, what is your point? Entrepreneurs don't sit around in Swedish spas all day eating bon-bons. They run companies that produce jobs. Why are you stuck on this? Let it go.

This all goes back to companies making a profit. Who's paying for the products for them to hire people?

[roger teekell]

My point is that the middle class is the engine that drives the healthy economy.

With a healthy middle class, people can get rich.

So to stimulate the entire economy, stimulate the middle class.

That's all.

But who EMPLOYS the Middle class??

Obama seems to think the poor can stimulate the middle class and the rich....By the Govt. giving them money.

While that may help SOME businesses in the short term...It will NEVER grow a sustained economy.

If you think it can please explain to me HOW.

[shrek]

But who EMPLOYS the Middle class??

Obama seems to think the poor can stimulate the middle class and the rich....By the Govt. giving them money.

While that may help SOME businesses in the short term...It will NEVER grow a sustained economy.

If you think it can please explain to me HOW.

Roger,

Exactly, giving the poor money will indeed mean they will go out and spend it. But unless given more and more and more money the poor cannot sustain it and it does not feed the economy as if the Rich and upper middle class started spending.

The kid making minimum wage sweeping the warehouse floor and the guy mopping the bathroom at a grocery store are paid because rich people spend and invest money even if that warehouse nor the grocery store cater to the wealthy.

[harumph]

This all goes back to companies making a profit. Who's paying for the products for them to hire people?

It is supremely obvious that neither you nor this current administration know how businesses work.

[Stick Ross]

It is supremely obvious that neither you nor this current administration know how businesses work.

Care to explain? The point is that the middle class are not prone to buy that many luxury goods or services, so there's a higher chance of them spending their money here. If domestic companies can't get access to that money, they're SOL. They can't hire people if they're not making money. Those above the middle class bracket tend to buy more luxury items (i.e. non-middle class goods). Usually, these luxury items are mainly comprised of foreign goods and services.

[shrek]

Care to explain? The point is that the middle class are not prone to buy that many luxury goods or services, so there's a higher chance of them spending their money here. If domestic companies can't get access to that money, they're SOL. They can't hire people if they're not making money. Those above the middle class bracket tend to buy more luxury items (i.e. non-middle class goods). Usually, these luxury items are mainly comprised of foreign goods and services.

:)):)) So Higher end items services are only used by the rich overseas???????????

Hog Huey. Mercedes Benzes are not made in the US but when a rich person buys one here in AZ it benefits that commissioned sales person here in AZ who then takes his wife out to eat at fine restaurants here in AZ that employ servers and chefs and cooks here in AZ that then spend their income here.

Shoot even high end day spas and $200 hair treatments are done here.

Yes The Rich tend to travel more. And yes they may buy foreign made products. But if a Guy in California buys a $500 bottle of French wine the store that sold it and the person that stocked it and the guy who delivered it and the company who imported it benefits as well as all of the employees that it employs to bring in.

In fact importing high end products tends to benefit as many people here in the US as the country where that product was made.

[harumph]

Care to explain? The point is that the middle class are not prone to buy that many luxury goods or services, so there's a higher chance of them spending their money here. If domestic companies can't get access to that money, they're SOL. They can't hire people if they're not making money. Those above the middle class bracket tend to buy more luxury items (i.e. non-middle class goods). Usually, these luxury items are mainly comprised of foreign goods and services.

Who ARE you? Your class warfare musings tickle me.

No. I don't care to explain it. It's too basic.

[Stick Ross]

:)):)) So Higher end items services are only used by the rich overseas???????????

Hog Huey. Mercedes Benzes are not made in the US but when a rich person buys one here in AZ it benefits that commissioned sales person here in AZ who then takes his wife out to eat at fine restaurants here in AZ that employ servers and chefs and cooks here in AZ that then spend their income here.

Shoot even high end day spas and $200 hair treatments are done here.

Yes The Rich tend to travel more. And yes they may buy foreign made products. But if a Guy in California buys a $500 bottle of French wine the store that sold it and the person that stocked it and the guy who delivered it and the company who imported it benefits as well as all of the employees that it employs to bring in.

In fact importing high end products tends to benefit as many people here in the US as the country where that product was made.

No, luxury goods may not always be bought outside the country. Still, many items and services are classified as luxury items simply based on their location. Yes, there are companies that can make money from shipping imported items, but depending more and more on imported goods is not ideal. It erodes our manufacturing base.

Plus, it's not just imported goods. What about foreign services?

[Stick Ross]

Who ARE you? Your class warfare musings tickle me.

No. I don't care to explain it. It's too basic.

Hey, I have nothing against the wealthy. Some of them are pretty cool. Even some of my uncles are wealthy. And they're free to spend their money any way they wish. It's their money. I'm just saying we shouldn't depend on them.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

I'm all for middle class tax cuts right now because we need to stimulate the consumer class. Unfortunately, I think the responsible thing to do would be to offset those cuts by letting the BUsh temp. cuts expire for higher income folks.

If we didn't spend 850 billion bailing out wall street, I think perhaps we could have perhaps left the higher income earners alone.

The strategy here has to be focus on teh middle class until the recovery starts - then cut taxes for everyone. (but at that exactl moment we'll have the biggest problem yet to face - hyper-inflation, so everything is gonna change then....)
You spend other people's money very freely. Why does the upper class deserve their money less than you do?

"We" didn't bail out Wall Street.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Then why is the economy tanking? We have the same enterpenuers, and in fact the rich have been getting richer for many, many years.

Why isn't our economy booming?

You know less about the economy than I do and know no rich people at all.

[itsrea]

re: the illegals...yeah, I agree - that's just plain stupid.

But here's another way to make sure the jobs go to US citizens...demand they be union jobs....

But regardless, the only way to speed this rcovery is to create wealth in the middle class.I do not agree.. Union jobs will mean more cost - we're already in debt to our ears, and if these so called jobs stretch out to more then originally planned Obama and his Congress will come back for more money.

[itsrea]

But who EMPLOYS the Middle class??

Obama seems to think the poor can stimulate the middle class and the rich....By the Govt. giving them money.

While that may help SOME businesses in the short term...It will NEVER grow a sustained economy.

If you think it can please explain to me HOW.this is a serious question (and I'm not sure I'm asking it right, so give me some room here, please): Do you think the whole mess could be an experiment produced by 'those that be' - by people attempting to FORCE a THEORY of trickle UP?

Could Obama have bought into some sort of 'stalinism' thinking that says that the middle class really CAN work this world without the rich?

[itsrea]

I do not agree.. Union jobs will mean more cost - we're already in debt to our ears, and if these so called jobs stretch out to more then originally planned Obama and his Congress will come back for more money.Has anyone else heard that Obama just signed paperwork (not sure if it's legislation or a contract) agreeing that Unions will get all the road and bridge construction jobs - cutting out all the small contractors who cannot afford to pay union rates?

[shrek]

No, luxury goods may not always be bought outside the country. Still, many items and services are classified as luxury items simply based on their location. Yes, there are companies that can make money from shipping imported items. but depending more and more on imported goods is not ideal. It erodes our manufacturing base.

Plus, it's not just imported goods. What about foreign services?

Who said its Ideal?


The reality is though that Rich people do fuel economy in a way far more than middle class people do.

Again that rich guy that buys the $150,000 mercedes gives that US salesman a commission. That US Salesman goes and takes his wife out to a $300 dinner at a really fancy restaurant. the waiter gets $60 tip off of that dinner. He takes his GF/Wife out to eat at a restaurant charging $60-70 for the two. He leaves a tip $12-14 tip. The waiter of that restaurant goes out and buys dinner himself and so on and soon and so forth.

How many people would it take buying McDonalds Meals would it take to equal the commission paid on the Mercedes?

How many Mcdonalds meals would it take to equal $300?

The reality is you take the rich out of the buying cycle and they kill the economy.

They are necessary to start and fuel the economy even if the Middle class drives it.

[itsrea]

My point is that the middle class is the engine that drives the healthy economy.

With a healthy middle class, people can get rich.

So to stimulate the entire economy, stimulate the middle class.

That's all.I'm not sure what you're saying here.. IMO the whole range has to be stimulated.. if the rich are cutting jobs (Microsoft, Boeing, Starbucks, and WaMu just cut jobs here in Washington), there can be no sustained middle class PAYchecks coming in.

Government can pay for some jobs, but not enough to get barbershop going for any length of time..

Would you mind trying to explain what you think better?

[opsyscw]

Every good job I ever got was given to me by a homeless wino living under a bridge.

[/sarc]

[Sneaky SF Dude]

every good job i ever got was given to me by a homeless wino living under a bridge.

[/sarc]

lol

[shrek]

That may be- however, it does not mean the wealthy "can get by without anyone else".

And they needed "everyone else" to get wealthy in the first place.

One of the reasons "the wealthy" turned to speculation in the 1920s is because the tax structure helped to distribute 1/3 of all income to the top 5%, and those in the lower income brackets didn't have money to buy anything.

So "the wealthy" turned to speculation because it gave them a greater return than any legitimate economic activity.

Again, there is this mistaken notion that concentrating the wealth amonst the wealthier will lead to "more productive economic activity".

History shows this is not always true.

Phaedrus,

Where did I ever state that the Wealthy can get by without anyone else????????

Answer I did not. They can go longer and even continue to pay for many things that people with less money have to cancel right away. Things such as lawn care, pool care and even eating out. But yes they need others whether it be the money manager/ accountant to help manage their money to other things they just really do not want to do.

Do you care to back up what you stated about people turning to speculation to get around taxes?????????? I would really love to see that.

The reality is that Dr's, lawyers, and others in the 1930's were not automatically rich. But they were trying to be that is why they were speculating. Not specifically because they wanted to get so rich they did not need to pay more taxes.

And lastly I am not trying to state that we should focus relief only on the wealthy.

I am only stating that those that said trickle down failed are absolutely wrong, because no matter what All wealth starts at the top and does roll down.

Again the Rich man goes into Mercedes Dealership and buys a $150,000 Mercedes. The Salesman that sold him that car gets a really nice commission and takes his wife out to eat for a $300 meal. The server then gets a $60 tip off that $300 and takes his wife/girlfriend out to eat for a $60 meal and the Server there takes his $12 tip and goes out to eat and the cycle continues.

Now care to tell me how I am wrong?

[itsrea]

That may be- however, it does not mean the wealthy "can get by without anyone else".

And they needed "everyone else" to get wealthy in the first place.

One of the reasons "the wealthy" turned to speculation in the 1920s is because the tax structure helped to distribute 1/3 of all income to the top 5%, and those in the lower income brackets didn't have money to buy anything.

So "the wealthy" turned to speculation because it gave them a greater return than any legitimate economic activity.

Again, there is this mistaken notion that concentrating the wealth amonst the wealthier will lead to "more productive economic activity".

History shows this is not always true.A. You're misinterpreting what we're saying.. we're not saying that we need to concentrate WEALTH anywhere.

We ARE saying that to heavily tax the people who provide the jobs would:

1.) Cut back on their ability and willingness to use their money to create and/or expand business,

and

2.) Cause them to pass those taxes on to the next person down the chain, who will then pass that increase on to the next person and on down the chain till that next person is you.

Now, maybe YOU can afford the increase, but those like myself that are on fixed incomes such as retirement cannot, and certainly those that are on welfare cannot. So we buy less.

I, personally, have been buying less since before Christmas.

B. There is no such thing as "Trickle UP".

There is no making the middle class wealthier while the rest of the world stands still.

The only way the middle class can be wealthier is for the wealthy to be wealthier and pass it on to us by way of wages or savings, or investments.

In other words YOU are not going to ever be wealthy unless you EARN it.. there is no way a government could tax the few to enrich the many and SUSTAIN that wealth over any period of time. There simply is not enough money in the world for that to be sustainable.

and for ANYONE to BELIEVE there IS, is simply maddness. There IS no government made utopia where the poor suddenly becomes equal to the the middle class and then the giant middle class suddenly becomes equal to the wealthy - what happens instead is that we all sink to the level of the poor.. all you have to do is look at history of any country that has attempted it to see that.

and, if you think WE can do it better then take a look at the current administration and their propensity to dig themselves (and thus us) into a HUGE hole of debt. The ONLY way they can pay for their plans is to take something away from someone else... at some point that someone else will run out too, and by that time those peoples that have been supported by that someone will either have to be dumped or be taxed, cause I am here to tell you that years and years of experience has taught me the government will NEVER do without in order for you and I to have.

There is a email going around the internet: This is the SAME government that confiscated the Mustange Ranch for back taxes then had to close it.. in other words the government couldn't even run a whore house and sell whiskey... and you want them to figure out how to make the middle class rich by taxing the wealthy???

[roger teekell]

I do not agree.. Union jobs will mean more cost - we're already in debt to our ears, and if these so called jobs stretch out to more then originally planned Obama and his Congress will come back for more money.

I'm not sure WHAT is going on in Obama's mind...

The fact that he actually USED the words "Build the economy from the BOTTOM UP"...And was not DESTROYED in the MSM blew me away.

I mean...It's NEVER been done before...Because it CAN"T be done...

So.......

[roger teekell]

A. You're misinterpreting what we're saying.. we're not saying that we need to concentrate WEALTH anywhere.

We ARE saying that to heavily tax the people who provide the jobs would:

1.) Cut back on their ability and willingness to use their money to create and/or expand business,

and

2.) Cause them to pass those taxes on to the next person down the chain, who will then pass that increase on to the next person and on down the chain till that next person is you.

Now, maybe YOU can afford the increase, but those like myself that are on fixed incomes such as retirement cannot, and certainly those that are on welfare cannot. So we buy less.

I, personally, have been buying less since before Christmas.

B. There is no such thing as "Trickle UP".

There is no making the middle class wealthier while the rest of the world stands still.

The only way the middle class can be wealthier is for the wealthy to be wealthier and pass it on to us by way of wages or savings, or investments.

In other words YOU are not going to ever be wealthy unless you EARN it.. there is no way a government could tax the few to enrich the many and SUSTAIN that wealth over any period of time. There simply is not enough money in the world for that to be sustainable.

and for ANYONE to BELIEVE there IS, is simply maddness. There IS no government made utopia where the poor suddenly becomes equal to the the middle class and then the giant middle class suddenly becomes equal to the wealthy - what happens instead is that we all sink to the level of the poor.. all you have to do is look at history of any country that has attempted it to see that.

and, if you think WE can do it better then take a look at the current administration and their propensity to dig themselves (and thus us) into a HUGE hole of debt. The ONLY way they can pay for their plans is to take something away from someone else... at some point that someone else will run out too, and by that time those peoples that have been supported by that someone will either have to be dumped or be taxed, cause I am here to tell you that years and years of experience has taught me the government will NEVER do without in order for you and I to have.

There is a email going around the internet: This is the SAME government that confiscated the Mustange Ranch for back taxes then had to close it.. in other words the government couldn't even run a whore house and sell whiskey... and you want them to figure out how to make the middle class rich by taxing the wealthy???:)):clap::)):clap::))....That last sentence is FUNNY!!

I don't care WHO you are!!

[ltravisjr]

I think that our economy is essentially trickle down. The want ads are filled with employers soliciting work and very few if any job seekers advertising their services to potential employers. That tells me that employers are the catalysts in the economy.

[roger teekell]

I think that our economy is essentially trickle down. The want ads are filled with employers soliciting work and very few if any job seekers advertising their services to potential employers. That tells me that employers are the catalysts in the economy.

Great Point!!

Well Done....:clap: