Trickle down economics

[The True Adonis]

[The True Adonis]

[IFBBwannaB]

Is this sarcasm - or do we see both some-thing that we agree upon 

This is a sarcastic reference to Holocaust deniers such as yourself and to Jew hater that love Obama such as Jag.

[The True Adonis]

 

[Deicide]

Clearly the Jews' fault...

[tonymctones]

One MAJOR difference is that Reagan`s "Trickle-Down" economics had to do with tax brackets providing the rich few with the greatest benefit.  The bailouts are not the same animal whatsoever as the money is collected tax revenue from all brackets.

again though this tax breaks etc....bail outs etc....are simply how they are implemented the main idea being that you free up money at the top and it will trickle down. So essentially the bail outs are nothing more then trickle down economics...

[Soul Crusher]

Funny how the "far right" and "far left" were 100% correct about the "bailouts. 

[BM OUT]

Reagan coined the term trickle down economics, ...but in reality it should have been called "shit upon economics"

Yeah,creating the biggest and most prosperous economy in American history is shit.The guy took the economy that the stupid ass penut farming liberal Carter destroyed and completely revampped it and created more wealth then any president in the history of the country.

[Soul Crusher]

Yeah,creating the biggest and most prosperous economy in American history is shit.The guy took the economy that the stupid ass penut farming liberal Carter destroyed and completely revampped it and created more wealth then any president in the history of the country.

I dont understand the constant comnplaint about "trickle down" when everyone knows giving money to broke people never "trickles up" past the liquor store, walmart, and strip club.

[IFBBwannaB]

I dont understand the constant comnplaint about "trickle down" when everyone knows giving money to broke people never "trickles up" past the liquor store, walmart, and strip club.

Exactly, not to mention that there are too many poor and too little money to give to make a difference.

When you create a better business enviorment for companys and help them they take your help and leverage it to create more wealth and jobs. It can never work in reverse.

Poor people will get too little and will act foolishly with their money.

[Al Doggity]

I dont understand the constant comnplaint about "trickle down" when everyone knows giving money to broke people never "trickles up" past the liquor store, walmart, and strip club.

Possibly, but that usually isn't the crux of the complaint. It's usually small percentage of upper class vs. very large percentage of middle class.

In regards to McTones question, there was never exactly widespread praise for the bailouts among  conservatives or libs, and both camps had reservations about how they were instituted in varying degrees.

But to answer your question, the fundamental difference in theories between the bailouts and trickle down is that the purpose of the bailouts was to (artificially) prop up businesses that were believed to be too large to fail. There was less of a belief that once these businesses returned to health then so would the economy. It was more about the economy being in such bad shape that the failure of these businesses would be even more disastrous. That's the short answer.

[tonymctones]

Possibly, but that usually isn't the crux of the complaint. It's usually small percentage of upper class vs. very large percentage of middle class.

In regards to McTones question, there was never exactly widespread praise for the bailouts among  conservatives or libs, and both camps had reservations about how they were instituted in varying degrees.

But to answer your question, the fundamental difference in theories between the bailouts and trickle down is that the purpose of the bailouts was to (artificially) prop up businesses that were believed to be too large to fail. There was less of a belief that once these businesses returned to health then so would the economy. It was more about the economy being in such bad shape that the failure of these businesses would be even more disastrous. That's the short answer.

thanks doggity i understand the fundamental difference my question is whats the difference in the way that they have been employed? It seems to me that the bail outs are nothing more then trickle down economics, i understand they werent meant to be permenant and the reason they were done for but the way that the bail outs took place was in form of trickle down...youve heard obama tons of times they need that money to free up credit, credit used by the average person, us...Tax breaks are given to free up money, money that is used to expand business that leads to more money for the average person, us...

youve also heard obama and many others on here rant and rave that trickle down economics doesnt work...then they tout and yell about how the stimulus is working...but i thought trickle down economics doesnt work?

[Al Doggity]

thanks doggity i understand the fundamental difference my question is whats the difference in the way that they have been employed? It seems to me that the bail outs are nothing more then trickle down economics, i understand they werent meant to be permenant and the reason they were done for but the way that the bail outs took place was in form of trickle down...youve heard obama tons of times they need that money to free up credit, credit used by the average person, us...Tax breaks are given to free up money, money that is used to expand business that leads to more money for the average person, us...

youve also heard obama and many others on here rant and rave that trickle down economics doesnt work...then they tout and yell about how the stimulus is working...but i thought trickle down economics doesnt work?

 Very little of the stimulus package has been paid out. Of that, most of it has been tax cuts and unemployment benefits for the middle class. Of what is eventually scheduled to be paid out, most of it goes towards public works projects i.e. middle class employees. 1% vs nearly 50% isn't "trickle down".

The largest percentage of the corporate part of the stimulus package went to banks- removing foreclosed homes that couldn't sell from their balance sheets. The real estate market is a lot like the investment market in that a home's value only equals what someone is willing to pay. Banks have to submit their worth to the government at least once a year (I think it may be more), and those homes- more specifically the value of those homes on a given day- would have meant that certain parts of the industry had lost up to half their value in under a year. Difference between literally not being able to issue credit.

Other corporate bailouts were literally the difference between companies laying off employees en masse and keeping thousands of jobs. That's not really "trickle down".

[Soul Crusher]

Very little of the stimulus package has been paid out. Of that, most of it has been tax cuts and unemployment benefits for the middle class. Of what is eventually scheduled to be paid out, most of it goes towards public works projects i.e. middle class employees. 1% vs nearly 50% isn't "trickle down".

The largest percentage of the corporate part of the stimulus package went to banks- removing foreclosed homes that couldn't sell from their balance sheets. The real estate market is a lot like the investment market in that a home's value only equals what someone is willing to pay. Banks have to submit their worth to the government at least once a year (I think it may be more), and those homes- more specifically the value of those homes on a given day- would have meant that certain parts of the industry had lost up to half their value in under a year. Difference between literally not being able to issue credit.

Other corporate bailouts were literally the difference between companies laying off employees en masse and keeping thousands of jobs. That's not really "trickle down".

We are still losing 600k jobs a month. 

[240 is Back]

We are still losing 600k jobs a month. 

we're losing less jobs each month. 

It's impossible to have a turnaround from 1.2 million jobs lost, to zero jobs lost, in a single month.  Obama made that very clear.  He said we'd lose fewer jobs each month until we get back in the positive. 


But don't take my word for it.  Take the word/website of a man you are supporting for President==>

U.S. Job Losses Slowed as Economy Began to Stabilize
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aO4SUdppQTZ0

May 8 (Bloomberg) -- Employers cut fewer jobs in April as signs emerged that the worst of the U.S. recession had passed and hiring for the next census boosted government staffing by the most since 2001.

Payrolls fell by 539,000, after a 699,000 loss in March, the Labor Department said today in Washington. The jobless rate still jumped to 8.9 percent, the highest since September 1983, and probably won’t start retreating until an economic recovery is secured.


Obama said in Feb that it'll be a slow turnaround by the end of 2009.  Look at this image.  Job losses peaked in Feb 2009 following this chart and went down in March, then April, then May (anyone have an updated graphic showing the month-by-month)?

[Soul Crusher]

we're losing less jobs each month. 

It's impossible to have a turnaround from 1.2 million jobs lost, to zero jobs lost, in a single month.  Obama made that very clear.  He said we'd lose fewer jobs each month until we get back in the positive. 


But don't take my word for it.  Take the word/website of a man you are supporting for President==>

U.S. Job Losses Slowed as Economy Began to Stabilize
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aO4SUdppQTZ0

May 8 (Bloomberg) -- Employers cut fewer jobs in April as signs emerged that the worst of the U.S. recession had passed and hiring for the next census boosted government staffing by the most since 2001.

Payrolls fell by 539,000, after a 699,000 loss in March, the Labor Department said today in Washington. The jobless rate still jumped to 8.9 percent, the highest since September 1983, and probably won’t start retreating until an economic recovery is secured.


Obama said in Feb that it'll be a slow turnaround by the end of 2009.  Look at this image.  Job losses peaked in Feb 2009 following this chart and went down in March, then April, then May (anyone have an updated graphic showing the month-by-month)?

Fool, that included 70,000 govt jobs that are temp.

[240 is Back]

Fool, that included 70,000 govt jobs that are temp.

wait, I thought Ovbama didn't create any new jobs? 

Fool?  LMAO you paid dem prices for guns and ammo.  Pot, meet kettle

We've been thru this before.  Temp jobs still result in real $ being spent.

[The ChemistV2]

Exactly, not to mention that there are too many poor and too little money to give to make a difference.

When you create a better business enviorment for companys and help them they take your help and leverage it to create more wealth and jobs. It can never work in reverse.

Poor people will get too little and will act foolishly with their money.

You are dealing in reality and common sense...but leftists have this Utopian ideas of an equalized society..where everyone is given a pittance and all motivation to achieve something higher or to financially reach one's fullest potential is eliminated. History has shown it doesn't work. If it did, people wouldn't have constantly risked their lives on little shitty rafts, trying to escape Cuba. Capitalism works..but when the rules are altered, as when the Clinton administration put pressure on the mortgage industry to lower their lending standards(in the name of fairness) and grant loans to people with horrendous credit and income levels, it can be the spark that ignited the subprime crisis. Not the total cause of course, but an important component..but it's much easier to blame Bush for the entire financial meltdown.

[Soul Crusher]

wait, I thought Ovbama didn't create any new jobs? 

Fool?  LMAO you paid dem prices for guns and ammo.  Pot, meet kettle

We've been thru this before.  Temp jobs still result in real $ being spent.

Those are make work jobs that are being used to do a census.  They are not productive, dont expand business or the economy, and are akin to giving a kid an allowance to take the trash out. 

[drkaje]

I know most of the liberals on here dont believe in it, 240 i know for one doesnt im sure the majority of you dont as well...

Explain this to me though, how are the bailouts that are taking place any different then trickle down economics?

Trickle down economics worked under the assumption that fewer taxes on businesses would create jobs. Bailouts work under the assumption that buttressing failing business models will protect retirement accounts long enough for Wall Street to divest itself from sinking ships.

[240 is Back]

Those are make work jobs that are being used to do a census.  They are not productive, dont expand business or the economy, and are akin to giving a kid an allowance to take the trash out. 

Tens of millions of bucks injected into the economy.

Stop thinking micro, man.  MACRO is the word of the day

[240 is Back]

I love ya dutch boy, but we gott figure this out.

You're in debt collection.  You could collect $250 from 10 people, and it wouldn't be that big a deal, right?


Now, what if you collected $250 from, say, 200 milliom people?  It's still just chump change, but when you apply it to hundreds of millions of folks, it's kinda a big deal.

[IFBBwannaB]

I love ya dutch boy, but we gott figure this out.

You're in debt collection.  You could collect $250 from 10 people, and it wouldn't be that big a deal, right?


Now, what if you collected $250 from, say, 200 milliom people?  It's still just chump change, but when you apply it to hundreds of millions of folks, it's kinda a big deal.

You moron, 250$ spread so thin doesn't help anyone, 50Bil <<<<< 14Trill, no that's MACRO level economics.
But giving that 50Bil to those who can leverage it and produce actual benefits for the economy , this is MACRO level economics.

[Soul Crusher]

You moron, 250$ spread so thin doesn't help anyone, 50Bil <<<<< 14Trill, no that's MACRO level economics.
But giving that 50Bil to those who can leverage it and produce actual benefits for the economy , this is MACRO level economics.

how about building nuclear power plants?

How about building coal plants and hydro dams?

How about building new electric grids and lines?

How about cutting taxes for companies to build plants and factories here? 

How about ending bailouts to Wall Street gangsters ?

How about cutting wasteful spending in a meaningful way?

How about cutting the payroll tax?     

[240 is Back]

how about building nuclear power plants?

How about building coal plants and hydro dams?

How about building new electric grids and lines?

How about cutting taxes for companies to build plants and factories here? 

How about ending bailouts to Wall Street gangsters ?

How about cutting wasteful spending in a meaningful way?

How about cutting the payroll tax?    

now you're talking alternative uses of the 50 bil.  some of them are great ideas.

But we were discussing whether or not 50 bil of consumer spending will make a diff.

it will. 

HOW much?  that's debatable.  But the belief that "it won't make no difference cause ppl will just buy beer and cigs" is a silly argument form a grown man.  It will make some. w e can debate how much.