Trickle-Down Economics is a BiG FaT JoKe!

Originally posted by loam
You were the first to explicitly state greed was inherent in those with wealth.

There's the problem. I did not say that... And I am "disagreeable" because you (and nyk537) are bringing up everything you can to avoid talking about the topic, which is trickle-down economics. You want to "define greed", talk about charity, my opinion of "wealthy" people and Joe Biden, for Christ's sake. NONE of that has anything to do with the topic.

I was explaining why trickle-down economics doesn't work and instead of defending it and showing how it DOES work, you went after me and my opinions.

How was I arguing things you haven't said precisely?

See above. I never said greed was inherent in wealthy people. Instead of debating the subject, you went off subject and on the offensive, which is a classic "arguing" strategy of the person who doesn't have a leg to stand on. nyk537 was "offended". Please!

I don't want to "argue" with you. I just wanted to debate the subject of the thread. But it's clear you only want to make it personal. You started right away by putting words in my mouth, attributing opinions to me that don't exist and then you say I'm "disagreeable" when I defend myself. I'm on to you, Loam. I don't need this.

Sorry to have wasted your time.

Yeah, me, too.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by loam
You were the first to explicitly state greed was inherent in those with wealth.

There's the problem. I did not say that...

Oh really?

True, but inherent in MOST people who have climbed the economic ladder to corporate CEO (and other top positions) is greed.

Hmm. Looks like loam was really putting words in your mouth there huh?

I was explaining why trickle-down economics doesn't work and instead of defending it and showing how it DOES work, you went after me and my opinions.

That's part of having a discussion. No one is going after you personally. I've asked you more than once to explain in detail how you feel that someones hard earned money doesn't rightfully belong to them, and you refuse.

I don't want to "argue" with you. I just wanted to debate the subject of the thread. But it's clear you only want to make it personal.

No one is making this personal but you BH.

I don't know what's gotten into you.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic




You clearly have issues.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But it's clear you only want to make it personal. You started right away by putting words in my mouth, attributing opinions to me that don't exist and then you say I'm "disagreeable" when I defend myself. I'm on to you, Loam. I don't need this.

I'm calling you out! Show me where I made this personal?

You didn't defend yourself. You insulted those who shared their own opinions in this thread and happened to disagree with you and called that a waste of time.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
...You started right away by putting words in my mouth, attributing opinions to me that don't exist...I never said greed was inherent in wealthy people.

Lie.

Were these NOT your EXACT words?

...inherent in MOST people who have climbed the economic ladder to corporate CEO (and other top positions) is greed...So, the most corrupt, greedy people end up in the top positions. They keep the money for themselves and their cronies...

Did I force you to write that?

I responded in its entirety with:

This position always confuses me when people assert it. Why is it viewed that most are motivated by "greed" as opposed to a simple ambition to control one's own circumstances?

Sure, unbridled "greed" MAY come into play for some at the top. But greed can be found ANYWHERE humans may be found, regardless of whether they are at the top or not. Moreover, what does greed really mean to you?

Just curious.

How is that personal? How is that putting words into your mouth? How is that attributing opinions to you?

:shk:

I'm at a loss to explain your irrational outburst and saddened that it came specifically from you.

I guess I had you figured all wrong.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by loam]

Originally posted by nyk537
I've asked you more than once to explain in detail how you feel that someones hard earned money doesn't rightfully belong to them, and you refuse.

OK -

When a CEO comes into that position in a company that they did not start (for instance HP), and said CEO gets a huge salary and bonuses for no Value Added work, and when said CEO gets fired and then takes home another huge bonus while some thousands of the people who DID do the Value Added work (Value Added is a technical term with precise meaning) lose their jobs, that is an example of a CEO keeping money (hardly "hard earned") that is not rightfully theirs.

Legally, probably. Rightfully, hell no.

Clearly the trickle down theory does not work in today's US culture. Otherwise, we would not be in the situation where real wages are stagnant or declining while CEO wages are skyrocketing.

Socialism, or "wealth redistribution" may indeed not be the really right answer, but it seems clear that "trickle down" is a miserable failure in terms of overall economic health.

Doesn't seem that complicated to me, but I'm just a red-neck hippie...

Well, at least that's an explanation of a view on this. That's all I was ever asking for.

You may feel that a CEO who comes into a company has not earned their money there. However, not just anyone is appointed CEO of a major company. They all have to start somewhere, usually at the bottom.

Not everyone just walks into a high paying CEO position. It usually comes from years of dedication and hard work. So in a way, they have earned their position, and thus their money.

Granted there are exceptions to every rule.

You say we need to replace the system. I say we only need replace those who were mismanaging our money.

Trickle down theory is soft greed. People maybe greedy but how politely they may ask for what they want makes the difference in their success.

The trickle down theory works if your friends give it up. Usually if everyone is greedy they don't. This our problem.

We should get a good education which is bought, hehe, by the corporations. However, the corporations are greedy and cheat us out of our salaries. When they do this they set the tempo for us to deal with other friends.

So now we see a select group of greedy friends, first they corrupt the market and now want to staive off liability as if there should be some exception.

In my town when poorer citizens experienced eminate domain they gave up blighted housing and went to live in the projects. When richer citizens experienced eminate domain, they clung to blighted housing and fought all the way to the supreme court.

Greed has killed the trickle down theory. "Won't you please give today". Nah, I wouldn't give a flea a dry leaf to use as a pamper.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by rightwingnut]

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by tommy_boy

 

You confuse fraud, waste and abuse with sound taxation policy-- which essentially means you have no idea what the real problem is.

You're barking up the wrong tree, imo.

I gave you 3 parallels across 3 of the most recent Republican administrations, where the same economic policy was upheld, with the same results. You are either admitting that all 3 were riddled in fraud, waste and abuse, or you just decided not to address the topic at hand.

Also note that the Clinton Administration was not listed in my post mainly because, while implementing a different economic philosophy, that administration sparked one of the strongest periods of economic prosperity in our country's history. You have a large mountain to climb, my friend, if you plan on asserting the glories of Trickle Down Economics in light of so much evidence to the contrary. It is also a stretch for you to believe that I am not clearly aware that there are other variables that account for economic downturns. We can address those topics in another thread if you like.

Also, I don't see any quotes, links, or references in your post that guides me towards bi-partisan assessments that Trickle Down Economics has been anything other unsuccessful, which is what I was hoping the Repubs on this site would post.

Regarding those claiming that socialism would be the alternative

Let's not be intellectually dishonest and jump to extremes! Come on! There isn't one way, and we can be more moderate in our arguments. Also, for those conservatives touting the horrors of socialism, remember please that it is your party that is SOCIALIZING the debt of our current mess to the American tax-payer! The current administration is now the most socialist administration we've had in a while, but only when it benefits big business.

On topic though, the OP was trying to make the point that our current free market economy is not working. My argument is that a system of wealth redistribution would be just as vile, if not much more so.

I was absolutely NOT making that point, nyk537. Laffer Curve Economics is not the measure nor the definition of a free market economy. It is one principle for generating revenue within an economy, and one that, as I have asserted in the opening post, has a record of not working. Interestingly, though, as you are not for wealth redistribution, are you then NOT FOR debt redistribution, which is what the administration is attempting with this trillion dollar bail out?

Originally posted by nyk537
Not everyone just walks into a high paying CEO position. It usually comes from years of dedication and hard work. So in a way, they have earned their position, and thus their money.

I'm not saying they have not earned a reasonable compensation. I am saying the compensation they get is out of all reason.

The average CEO of a large U.S. company made roughly $10.8 million last year, or 364 times that of U.S. full-time and part-time workers, who made an average of $29,544, according to a joint analysis released Wednesday by the liberal Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy.

Source

I say that a CEO-to-Average wage factor of 364 to 1 is excessive, unwarranted, damaging to the economy and to social stability.

You say we need to replace the system. I say we only need replace those who were mismanaging our money.

I actually agree. However, I also say that given the "trickle down" theory, and the indisputable fact that the US economy is a mess and normal wages are stagnant, that a substantial and significant number of CEO types fit the description of "greedy".

I actually think that trickle down could work. But it is painfully clear that it is not working.

This goes back to something I said in another thread, that I think this kind of behavior should be socially shunned, and publicly and frequently scorned. It is the equivalent of picking one's nose at a formal dinner.

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
Socialism, or "wealth redistribution" may indeed not be the really right answer, but it seems clear that "trickle down" is a miserable failure in terms of overall economic health.

Exactly. It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. Even conditions on CEO's salaries or some kind of regulation that says a person can't get a $47 million severance while their employees are being laid off by the thousands. I'm not advocating strict limits. If a company is doing well and the employees are sharing in the profits and not being laid off, then the CEOs could go nuts. I don't care how wealthy they are. As long as their employees are ALSO taken care of.

It doesn't have to be socialism, but I think there should be checks somewhere, because we simply can't trust people to let the wealth "trickle-down".

Thank you, OMS for saying what I was trying to get across.

reply to post by tommy_boy

Originally posted by tommy_boy
You are either admitting that all 3 were riddled in fraud, waste and abuse, or you just decided not to address the topic at hand.

I'm not just "admitting" the former, I'm emphatically stating that to be the case.

Originally posted by tommy_boy
Also note that the Clinton Administration was not listed in my post mainly because, while implementing a different economic philosophy, that administration sparked one of the strongest periods of economic prosperity in our country's history.

What different economic philosophy would you be talking about? (Ironically, Clinton governed fiscally more conservatively than most.)

Incidentally, could you articulate Clinton's economic philosophy and how it differs from conservative fiscal policy. I just want to make sure I understand what issues we are discussing. There is a difference between theory and execution. Are we discussing the former or latter?

Originally posted by tommy_boy
Also, I don't see any quotes, links, or references in your post that guides me towards bi-partisan assessments that Trickle Down Economics has been anything other unsuccessful, which is what I was hoping the Repubs on this site would post.

I'll work on this when time permits.

Originally posted by tommy_boy
Regarding those claiming that socialism would be the alternative

Let's not be intellectually dishonest and jump to extremes! Come on! There isn't one way, and we can be more moderate in our arguments.

It is a natural tendency to make that assumption. But, I agree, thus my comment about throwing babies out with the bath water.

Originally posted by tommy_boy
Also, for those conservatives touting the horrors of socialism, remember please that it is your party that is SOCIALIZING the debt of our current mess to the American tax-payer! The current administration is now the most socialist administration we've had in a while, but only when it benefits big business.

On this, we completely agree. I've been calling BOZO on this one for the last eight years.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by loam]

And what I LOVE is McBush said that the CEOs and their Golden Parachute was the problem. Oops, one of the people running his campaign is that CEO! 47million golden parachute while 20,000 people lose their jobs. When asked about it in an interview he nearly beat the interviewer with a chair and ran out screaming "Its ok they're a Republican!"

Originally posted by nyk537
Apparently, anyone who is wealthy is greedy. I find this to be borderline insulting honestly.

Weath and greed go hand in hand. It is rare that wealth is not based on some level of extraordinary greed. Some exceptions: inheritence. (See: Paris Hilton.) Another exception: compulsive disorder. (See Bill Gates.)

Plus, you are insult too easily. We are just having a discussion, buddy. No need to be offended.

Finally, tell me you don't listen to Rush Limbaugh regularly, please. And if you do listen to him, tell me you don't take his rhetoric seriously.

Examine the definition of "misguided", in a technical sense.

Originally posted by nyk537
We cannot account for the greed of some. There are just as many who have worked hard to get where they are who have no problem sharing what they have earned.

What we get into now is a socialist policy of wealth redistribution. Do we really need to government to come in on those who have worked hard and earned their money and take it away from them? Do we really need a government who thinks they know better than we do what we should do with our own money? I don't think so.

GIVE me a break... HOW long are you going to defend this-
A shift of focus to the MIDDLE CLASS is not socialist, its AMERICAN!

TRICKLE down breeds corpofascism - ITS a farce to fool the UNENLIGHTENED PARTISANS such as yourself. THE money earned VIA trickledown blankets the top, always has always will. The proof is on your TV NOW but FAIR AND BALANCED I suspect.

On a larger note, maybe your generation needs to die off before we can make a solid move towards PROGRESS. TIME will bury your entire movement - but time will never ever stop progress, it is the future. CLING to it while you live and rest assured the GOP platform is slowly reaching its end!

Originally posted by nyk537
The free market is not what got us into this mess. Corruption and mismanagement is what got us into this mess. Having government control everything is not the answer for this country.

Regardless of your assessment of the average wealthy person in this country, I believe that people, if left alone, will do what is right. I believe they will give where gifts are needed, without government telling them they have to or simply taking from them.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by nyk537]

I agree that corruption and mismanagement is what got us in this mess. But you must look at why we had such corruption and mismanagement in the first place. It all boils down to greed. Without adequate regulation the free market always crashes because of this greed. Because of the regulations that are required to eliminate this greed from being pervasive, the markets are not really ever free.

How many decisions have been made over the years which weighed profits(greed) much more heavily than the benefit of society as a whole? It is a very high percentage.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by disgustedbyhumanity]

reply to post by loam


Tommy. bailing out the corporations is not socialism. It is facism.

That said, without a bailout, life as we know it will be different. It will inevitably lead to a completely new economic system, and unfortunately if it happens during this administration the changes will be nothing that anyone will much enjoy. Weve all seen the various predictions here of cancelled elections and martial law.

We need the bailout. Buy the loans, refinance the homeowners to the amount paid, sell them to private investors once they are proven sound. Everyone wins at no cost to the taxpayer. Short of that, let's buy the loans and wait for the next administration to take the next step. The taxpayer won't lose money so don't worry about that.

reply to post by tommy_boy
Very good post.

Too bad there are so many people out there that don't see this.

Before anyone can even theorise about trickle down economics, we still have to answer how any economy can hope to succeed and prosper with a fiat currency, fractional reserve banking and excessive sistemic debt eating up every little bit of productivity that the slaves can muster?

reply to post by tommy_boy

My thoughts on this are simple. When Reagan was in office I had more disposable income than I had ever had before or have had since. Carter left this country in a terrible financial situation and Reagan straightened it out. The first two years of his administration were tough, but when things turned around, I did alright.
Wish I could say that now.

reply to post by mental modulator
Maybe you need to realized the very people who are voting for income redistribution are wealthy. Do you see Obama giving away the proceeds of his book? He has mad several million? Do you see those bastions to the democratic party, who are constantly voting for entitlements that you pay for, giving away their fortune? Income redistribution is done by taxing my hard earned dollars and giving to people who have never worked a day in their lives. Don't talk to me about my generation dying off, so there can be progress. Instead, tell these lazy bums who expect us to support them to get off their butts and get a job!

I remember Ronald Reagan used to say, "A rising tide lifts all boats." and after Jimmy Carter I seriously bought into that.

Sure enough the tide started rising and I was singing his praises. The tide kept going up and up and up and made it all the way to my neck before I stopped and realized, hey, wait a minute;

I DON'T OWN A BOAT!

I've been dog paddling like crazy ever since just to keep my head above water. Most of the people I know have been doing the same.

I loved Ronald Reagen but I have to admit, when he deregulated everything he did nothing more than give a green light to corporate crime and greed.

Those who followed in his footsteps have erased accountability so no one is held responsible for the theft of America, no one except the tax payer.

Now, as a last hurrah of his administration dubya wants to give a trillion dollars to the thieves who have already stole a trillion from us.

It's almost enough to make me vote for Obama, If I didn't already know that he's owned by corporate America just as McCain is.

Still, Ronald Reagan made you feel good while he was screwing you. I don't blame Nancy for marrying him