On January 24 2012 06:59 jdsowa wrote: Lower class Republicans may not LOVE the upper class CEO set, but what bothers them more is the idea that Democrats want to take money from primarily productive people (whomever they may be) and give it to primarily unproductive people. These working class folks are busting their ass every day at some crappy job while these other people are hanging out at home on the govt dole. I think they also have an intuitive understanding that social programs incentivize laziness and government dependency.
A more nuanced argument for Republican tax policy would go something like this:
If one individual is in possession of $1 million, they can start up any number of businesses, hire people, or invest in research. If you take that $1 million and divide it by 100 people, you have 100 people that can afford to buy things, but don't have enough cash on hand to actually create jobs or fund any research. So there is no net gain to the economy. That is generally the principle behind "trickle-down economics" -- which is a term that liberals unthinkingly recoil from. It doesn't always work so cleanly in reality, but it's a concept worth understanding.
Except that it's not what the democrats want either, so what you're saying is that the lower class republicans actually have no understanding or knowledge about any of this.
And there is a mountain of evidence to show that the so called 'trickle-down economics' doesn't work at all, just increases the wealth gap, and does not create jobs. It's so full of shit it's laughable.
Whom are you trying to kid? The democrat party is the party of class warfare and envy. All they do is demonize the productive members of society and make self-entitled victims of everyone else. What do you think this "paying one's fair share" bullshit is all about?
Don't judge the party as a whole by a few members. I could just as easily say that Republicans want only themselves to be rich and everyone else poor by that arguement. (If I were to look at some of the extremity)
Both parties want arguably the same overall thing, they just have slightly different idelogies regarding certain aspects of it. Republicans want to make sure people earn their worth (through actually working, etc), democrats want to make sure everyone has the oppurtunity to earn their worth, for example.
On January 24 2012 06:59 jdsowa wrote: Lower class Republicans may not LOVE the upper class CEO set, but what bothers them more is the idea that Democrats want to take money from primarily productive people (whomever they may be) and give it to primarily unproductive people. These working class folks are busting their ass every day at some crappy job while these other people are hanging out at home on the govt dole. I think they also have an intuitive understanding that social programs incentivize laziness and government dependency.
A more nuanced argument for Republican tax policy would go something like this:
If one individual is in possession of $1 million, they can start up any number of businesses, hire people, or invest in research. If you take that $1 million and divide it by 100 people, you have 100 people that can afford to buy things, but don't have enough cash on hand to actually create jobs or fund any research. So there is no net gain to the economy. That is generally the principle behind "trickle-down economics" -- which is a term that liberals unthinkingly recoil from. It doesn't always work so cleanly in reality, but it's a concept worth understanding.
You aren't doing republicans any favors by trying to argue for "trickle down economics." I'm hoping this isn't a troll post to make republicans look stupid honestly...
First of all, the term "trickle down economics" is a pejorative used to criticize Republican policies. There is no economist anywhere who actually advocates any economic theory labeled "trickle down." The idea is to label Republican economic policies as being "for the rich." Using the term implies that economists actually favor making the rich richer, which is nonsense.
In practice, the economy actually works in the opposite direction than what is implied by "trickle down economics." Business investments are first paid out as expenditures to employees, suppliers, contractors, etc. Only later on, if the investment is successful, does the money return as a profit to the owner's of a company. To try and counter this fact, you will hear a lot of left wing economists arguing that the wealthy aren't actually investing and spending their money, so it would be better to take it from them and give it to the lower classes who will spend and spur the economy.
The reality, again, is that after the massive credit expansion following the 2001 recession, credit is merely contracting, leaving less capital and liquidity that can be spent or invested by banks or businesses. It doesn't make any sense at all to expand your business or hire more workers when the public is reducing their spending and debt financed purchases are on the decline.
Please study a bit more about actual economic theory before you propose things like "trickle down economics" on the behalf of Republicans.
On January 24 2012 06:59 jdsowa wrote: Lower class Republicans may not LOVE the upper class CEO set, but what bothers them more is the idea that Democrats want to take money from primarily productive people (whomever they may be) and give it to primarily unproductive people. These working class folks are busting their ass every day at some crappy job while these other people are hanging out at home on the govt dole. I think they also have an intuitive understanding that social programs incentivize laziness and government dependency.
A more nuanced argument for Republican tax policy would go something like this:
If one individual is in possession of $1 million, they can start up any number of businesses, hire people, or invest in research. If you take that $1 million and divide it by 100 people, you have 100 people that can afford to buy things, but don't have enough cash on hand to actually create jobs or fund any research. So there is no net gain to the economy. That is generally the principle behind "trickle-down economics" -- which is a term that liberals unthinkingly recoil from. It doesn't always work so cleanly in reality, but it's a concept worth understanding.
Except that it's not what the democrats want either, so what you're saying is that the lower class republicans actually have no understanding or knowledge about any of this.
And there is a mountain of evidence to show that the so called 'trickle-down economics' doesn't work at all, just increases the wealth gap, and does not create jobs. It's so full of shit it's laughable.
Whom are you trying to kid? The democrat party is the party of class warfare and envy. All they do is demonize the productive members of society and make self-entitled victims of everyone else. What do you think this "paying one's fair share" bullshit is all about?
Do you actually believe that being angry about the ridiculous wealth disparity between the ultra-wealthy and the middle class, and wanting to increase the standards of living for the lower class hardworking people who are stuck with shitty jobs or entirely unemployed is the same thing as wanting to take money away from hardworking people and give it to lazy pricks who sit on their couch? Nobody wants to give free money to lazy people. It might occasionally be a consequence, but it sure beats the hell out of the current situation.
Yeah, please tell me about how much democrats/Obama care about the unemployed and improving their situation....
Earlier in this thread, someone asked what conservatism was and why it was popular, and my reply was that the conservatism is "the empowerment of the individual to succeed without the state." Let's talk about this principle in the context of helping the employed and the people "stuck in shitty jobs" and contrast it to how democrats approach the problem. The conservative thinks, "hey, what we can we do foster the creation of jobs for people to encourage employment? I know! Let's cut taxes, cut regulations, and reduce other government-imposed barriers to employers hiring people. Let's empower people to go be successful on their own." In contrast, the liberal democrat thinks, "Oh those poor people! Let's extend their unemployment benefits and blame all of their problems upon rich whitey on Wall Street. Oh, let's not forget to raise taxes on rich whitey to pay for those extra welfare benefits." In short, democrats give handouts whereas conservatives/republicans want to empower people help themselves. If Obama and the democrats really gave two shits about job creation beyond the immediate political impact it would have for their party, then they wouldn't have done things such as obstructing the Keystone XL pipeline and fucking with Boeing when it tried to open a plant in South Carolina.
And don't even bother repeating this tripe about how trickle down economics does not work. Here's a newsflash for you:every single fucking large, profitable corporation that employs thousands of people is a monument to the success and effectiveness of trickle-down economics.
On January 24 2012 06:59 jdsowa wrote: Lower class Republicans may not LOVE the upper class CEO set, but what bothers them more is the idea that Democrats want to take money from primarily productive people (whomever they may be) and give it to primarily unproductive people. These working class folks are busting their ass every day at some crappy job while these other people are hanging out at home on the govt dole. I think they also have an intuitive understanding that social programs incentivize laziness and government dependency.
A more nuanced argument for Republican tax policy would go something like this:
If one individual is in possession of $1 million, they can start up any number of businesses, hire people, or invest in research. If you take that $1 million and divide it by 100 people, you have 100 people that can afford to buy things, but don't have enough cash on hand to actually create jobs or fund any research. So there is no net gain to the economy. That is generally the principle behind "trickle-down economics" -- which is a term that liberals unthinkingly recoil from. It doesn't always work so cleanly in reality, but it's a concept worth understanding.
Except that it's not what the democrats want either, so what you're saying is that the lower class republicans actually have no understanding or knowledge about any of this.
And there is a mountain of evidence to show that the so called 'trickle-down economics' doesn't work at all, just increases the wealth gap, and does not create jobs. It's so full of shit it's laughable.
Whom are you trying to kid? The democrat party is the party of class warfare and envy. All they do is demonize the productive members of society and make self-entitled victims of everyone else. What do you think this "paying one's fair share" bullshit is all about?
Do you actually believe that being angry about the ridiculous wealth disparity between the ultra-wealthy and the middle class, and wanting to increase the standards of living for the lower class hardworking people who are stuck with shitty jobs or entirely unemployed is the same thing as wanting to take money away from hardworking people and give it to lazy pricks who sit on their couch? Nobody wants to give free money to lazy people. It might occasionally be a consequence, but it sure beats the hell out of the current situation.
Yeah, please tell me about how much democrats/Obama care about the unemployed and improving their situation....
Earlier in this thread, someone asked what conservatism was and why it was popular, and my reply was that the conservatism is "the empowerment of the individual to succeed without the state." Let's talk about this principle in the context of helping the employed and the people "stuck in shitty jobs" and contrast it to how democrats approach the problem. The conservative thinks, "hey, what we can we do foster the creation of jobs for people to encourage employment? I know! Let's cut taxes, cut regulations, and reduce other government-imposed barriers to employers hiring people. Let's empower people to go be successful on their own." In contrast, the liberal democrat thinks, "Oh those poor people! Let's extend their unemployment benefits and blame all of their problems upon rich whitey on Wall Street. Oh, let's not forget to raise taxes on rich whitey to pay for those extra welfare benefits." In short, democrats give handouts whereas conservatives/republicans want to empower people help themselves. If Obama and the democrats really gave two shits about job creation beyond the immediate political impact it would have for their party, then they wouldn't have done things such as obstructing the Keystone XL pipeline and fucking with Boeing when it tried to open a plant in South Carolina.
And don't even bother repeating this tripe about how trickle down economics does not work. Here's a newsflash for you:every single fucking large, profitable corporation that employs thousands of people is a monument to the success and effectiveness of trickle-down economics.
Come on dude, don't be so ignorant. It's people like you that give each party a bad name.
I'm sure there are some democrats that think like that, but the majority simply want to make sure everyone has a fair chance, not to harm hard working working people. At least the ones I know.
And I'm pretty sure the Keystone pipeline denial was because of the enviourmental impact, not because Obama wanted to stop people from getting jobs...
On January 24 2012 06:59 jdsowa wrote: Lower class Republicans may not LOVE the upper class CEO set, but what bothers them more is the idea that Democrats want to take money from primarily productive people (whomever they may be) and give it to primarily unproductive people. These working class folks are busting their ass every day at some crappy job while these other people are hanging out at home on the govt dole. I think they also have an intuitive understanding that social programs incentivize laziness and government dependency.
A more nuanced argument for Republican tax policy would go something like this:
If one individual is in possession of $1 million, they can start up any number of businesses, hire people, or invest in research. If you take that $1 million and divide it by 100 people, you have 100 people that can afford to buy things, but don't have enough cash on hand to actually create jobs or fund any research. So there is no net gain to the economy. That is generally the principle behind "trickle-down economics" -- which is a term that liberals unthinkingly recoil from. It doesn't always work so cleanly in reality, but it's a concept worth understanding.
Except that it's not what the democrats want either, so what you're saying is that the lower class republicans actually have no understanding or knowledge about any of this.
And there is a mountain of evidence to show that the so called 'trickle-down economics' doesn't work at all, just increases the wealth gap, and does not create jobs. It's so full of shit it's laughable.
Whom are you trying to kid? The democrat party is the party of class warfare and envy. All they do is demonize the productive members of society and make self-entitled victims of everyone else. What do you think this "paying one's fair share" bullshit is all about?
So? At least one party has the guts to stand up for the obvious injustices that happen in a country, where mere "lower" class people and "productive" people are played against each other. Who´s playing class warfare now? Republicans, as nice the idea of everybody can get rich and successful is, are the party of predominantly wealthy people. There´s nothing wrong with that, but people struggle extremely hard to get enough to eat were it not for foodstamps, whole neighbourhoods got evicted and live in precarious situations, but the Banks, or rather the people resonsible, got bailed out AND paid out huge bonuses - I mean WTF. On the one hand property rights will be upheld, on the other hand people lose their home(granted many of them could not afford them in the first place but come one)? That´s simply bullshit. If this is all the "Mastermind" Gingrich can conjure, to demonize government he helped growing - then Obama will have his second term quite easily.
On January 24 2012 06:59 jdsowa wrote: Lower class Republicans may not LOVE the upper class CEO set, but what bothers them more is the idea that Democrats want to take money from primarily productive people (whomever they may be) and give it to primarily unproductive people. These working class folks are busting their ass every day at some crappy job while these other people are hanging out at home on the govt dole. I think they also have an intuitive understanding that social programs incentivize laziness and government dependency.
A more nuanced argument for Republican tax policy would go something like this:
If one individual is in possession of $1 million, they can start up any number of businesses, hire people, or invest in research. If you take that $1 million and divide it by 100 people, you have 100 people that can afford to buy things, but don't have enough cash on hand to actually create jobs or fund any research. So there is no net gain to the economy. That is generally the principle behind "trickle-down economics" -- which is a term that liberals unthinkingly recoil from. It doesn't always work so cleanly in reality, but it's a concept worth understanding.
Except that it's not what the democrats want either, so what you're saying is that the lower class republicans actually have no understanding or knowledge about any of this.
And there is a mountain of evidence to show that the so called 'trickle-down economics' doesn't work at all, just increases the wealth gap, and does not create jobs. It's so full of shit it's laughable.
Whom are you trying to kid? The democrat party is the party of class warfare and envy. All they do is demonize the productive members of society and make self-entitled victims of everyone else. What do you think this "paying one's fair share" bullshit is all about?
Do you actually believe that being angry about the ridiculous wealth disparity between the ultra-wealthy and the middle class, and wanting to increase the standards of living for the lower class hardworking people who are stuck with shitty jobs or entirely unemployed is the same thing as wanting to take money away from hardworking people and give it to lazy pricks who sit on their couch? Nobody wants to give free money to lazy people. It might occasionally be a consequence, but it sure beats the hell out of the current situation.
Yeah, please tell me about how much democrats/Obama care about the unemployed and improving their situation....
Earlier in this thread, someone asked what conservatism was and why it was popular, and my reply was that the conservatism is "the empowerment of the individual to succeed without the state." Let's talk about this principle in the context of helping the employed and the people "stuck in shitty jobs" and contrast it to how democrats approach the problem. The conservative thinks, "hey, what we can we do foster the creation of jobs for people to encourage employment? I know! Let's cut taxes, cut regulations, and reduce other government-imposed barriers to employers hiring people. Let's empower people to go be successful on their own." In contrast, the liberal democrat thinks, "Oh those poor people! Let's extend their unemployment benefits and blame all of their problems upon rich whitey on Wall Street. Oh, let's not forget to raise taxes on rich whitey to pay for those extra welfare benefits." In short, democrats give handouts whereas conservatives/republicans want to empower people help themselves. If Obama and the democrats really gave two shits about job creation beyond the immediate political impact it would have for their party, then they wouldn't have done things such as obstructing the Keystone XL pipeline and fucking with Boeing when it tried to open a plant in South Carolina.
And don't even bother repeating this tripe about how trickle down economics does not work. Here's a newsflash for you:every single fucking large, profitable corporation that employs thousands of people is a monument to the success and effectiveness of trickle-down economics.
inside the current system it's ohhhhh sooooooo easy to make money if you have money to spend. the gap between the rich and the poor is not between the rich an in unemployed. i am able, and by no way i have the slightes clue about economie and how it works nor about banking, but i can turn 20k into 2 million dollars in 10 minutes. all i have to do is to download a shitty programm, watch the news and bet on whatever. what about u giving me 20k and i invest into adiddas or nike? what you think would happen ? ud be rich man with olympics and european soccer blabla whatever comming up-... chances are very little to lose that money. ofc there is the chance of failure but well... if you can invest 20k and you lose it, it wont bother you at all 2bad i dont have 1k to invest...
On January 24 2012 06:59 jdsowa wrote: Lower class Republicans may not LOVE the upper class CEO set, but what bothers them more is the idea that Democrats want to take money from primarily productive people (whomever they may be) and give it to primarily unproductive people. These working class folks are busting their ass every day at some crappy job while these other people are hanging out at home on the govt dole. I think they also have an intuitive understanding that social programs incentivize laziness and government dependency.
A more nuanced argument for Republican tax policy would go something like this:
If one individual is in possession of $1 million, they can start up any number of businesses, hire people, or invest in research. If you take that $1 million and divide it by 100 people, you have 100 people that can afford to buy things, but don't have enough cash on hand to actually create jobs or fund any research. So there is no net gain to the economy. That is generally the principle behind "trickle-down economics" -- which is a term that liberals unthinkingly recoil from. It doesn't always work so cleanly in reality, but it's a concept worth understanding.
Except that it's not what the democrats want either, so what you're saying is that the lower class republicans actually have no understanding or knowledge about any of this.
And there is a mountain of evidence to show that the so called 'trickle-down economics' doesn't work at all, just increases the wealth gap, and does not create jobs. It's so full of shit it's laughable.
Whom are you trying to kid? The democrat party is the party of class warfare and envy. All they do is demonize the productive members of society and make self-entitled victims of everyone else. What do you think this "paying one's fair share" bullshit is all about?
Do you actually believe that being angry about the ridiculous wealth disparity between the ultra-wealthy and the middle class, and wanting to increase the standards of living for the lower class hardworking people who are stuck with shitty jobs or entirely unemployed is the same thing as wanting to take money away from hardworking people and give it to lazy pricks who sit on their couch? Nobody wants to give free money to lazy people. It might occasionally be a consequence, but it sure beats the hell out of the current situation.
Yeah, please tell me about how much democrats/Obama care about the unemployed and improving their situation....
Earlier in this thread, someone asked what conservatism was and why it was popular, and my reply was that the conservatism is "the empowerment of the individual to succeed without the state." Let's talk about this principle in the context of helping the employed and the people "stuck in shitty jobs" and contrast it to how democrats approach the problem. The conservative thinks, "hey, what we can we do foster the creation of jobs for people to encourage employment? I know! Let's cut taxes, cut regulations, and reduce other government-imposed barriers to employers hiring people. Let's empower people to go be successful on their own." In contrast, the liberal democrat thinks, "Oh those poor people! Let's extend their unemployment benefits and blame all of their problems upon rich whitey on Wall Street. Oh, let's not forget to raise taxes on rich whitey to pay for those extra welfare benefits." In short, democrats give handouts whereas conservatives/republicans want to empower people help themselves. If Obama and the democrats really gave two shits about job creation beyond the immediate political impact it would have for their party, then they wouldn't have done things such as obstructing the Keystone XL pipeline and fucking with Boeing when it tried to open a plant in South Carolina.
And don't even bother repeating this tripe about how trickle down economics does not work. Here's a newsflash for you:every single fucking large, profitable corporation that employs thousands of people is a monument to the success and effectiveness of trickle-down economics.
Come on dude, don't be so ignorant. It's people like you that give each party a bad name.
I'm sure there are some democrats that think like that, but the majority simply want to make sure everyone has a fair chance, not to harm hard working working people. At least the ones I know.
And I'm pretty sure the Keystone pipeline denial was because of the enviourmental impact, not because Obama wanted to stop people from getting jobs...
Do you actually pay attention to what democrats do in terms of regulations, tax policy, and fiscal policy? It's all about soaking the rich to give handouts to the poor. Seriously, in what way are democrats even remotely pro-business outside of subsidizing or enacting beneficial regulations/laws for pet industries. Specifically, what broad-based policies do democrats promote that would benefit all businesses?
Even the Washington Post admitted that there was no good, "non-political reason" for obstructing the Keystone XL pipeline -- even environmental reasons. It was purely a political move to appease the left-wing base.
am able, and by no way i have the slightes clue about economie and how it works nor about banking, but i can turn 20k into 2 million dollars in 10 minutes. all i have to do is to download a shitty programm, watch the news and bet on whatever. what about u giving me 20k and i invest into adiddas or nike?
Lets see you try that then and come back in 10 minutes as a multi-millionaire. Good luck, you're probably going to need it.
Using income equality as a measure of societal success is utter nonsense. Inequality is the natural state of man and any attempts to "equalize" are bound to be coercive and based on threats of violence.
And yes, trickle down economics does work.
My father has spent the last 30 years of his life establishing himself as the owner of a small construction company after toiling as a general field worker for over twenty years. Now he employs and indirectly provides for the livelihood of over 400 employees by providing union-free, competitive salaried jobs. The past few years he has paid ~50% of his own salary to the government for "improvements" he will never even see. If recent newspaper headlines are any indication, then Obama is spending the majority of it on bailing out the same corporations that funded his 2008 campaign, for drone wars in the middle-east, and an incredibly ill-conceived healthcare plan that attempts to fit him into a one-size-fits-all plan. Maybe his money is being wisely spent on public education. Oh wait... Maybe it's being spent on our natural parks. Oh wait... Maybe Social Security and Medicare are doing well... Oh wait...
If the left-wing is insistent on chopping it up into 1% vs 99% (aka class-warfare), then at least know that men like my father account for 99% of the 1%.
On January 24 2012 06:59 jdsowa wrote: Lower class Republicans may not LOVE the upper class CEO set, but what bothers them more is the idea that Democrats want to take money from primarily productive people (whomever they may be) and give it to primarily unproductive people. These working class folks are busting their ass every day at some crappy job while these other people are hanging out at home on the govt dole. I think they also have an intuitive understanding that social programs incentivize laziness and government dependency.
A more nuanced argument for Republican tax policy would go something like this:
If one individual is in possession of $1 million, they can start up any number of businesses, hire people, or invest in research. If you take that $1 million and divide it by 100 people, you have 100 people that can afford to buy things, but don't have enough cash on hand to actually create jobs or fund any research. So there is no net gain to the economy. That is generally the principle behind "trickle-down economics" -- which is a term that liberals unthinkingly recoil from. It doesn't always work so cleanly in reality, but it's a concept worth understanding.
Except that it's not what the democrats want either, so what you're saying is that the lower class republicans actually have no understanding or knowledge about any of this.
And there is a mountain of evidence to show that the so called 'trickle-down economics' doesn't work at all, just increases the wealth gap, and does not create jobs. It's so full of shit it's laughable.
Whom are you trying to kid? The democrat party is the party of class warfare and envy. All they do is demonize the productive members of society and make self-entitled victims of everyone else. What do you think this "paying one's fair share" bullshit is all about?
Do you actually believe that being angry about the ridiculous wealth disparity between the ultra-wealthy and the middle class, and wanting to increase the standards of living for the lower class hardworking people who are stuck with shitty jobs or entirely unemployed is the same thing as wanting to take money away from hardworking people and give it to lazy pricks who sit on their couch? Nobody wants to give free money to lazy people. It might occasionally be a consequence, but it sure beats the hell out of the current situation.
Yeah, please tell me about how much democrats/Obama care about the unemployed and improving their situation....
Earlier in this thread, someone asked what conservatism was and why it was popular, and my reply was that the conservatism is "the empowerment of the individual to succeed without the state." Let's talk about this principle in the context of helping the employed and the people "stuck in shitty jobs" and contrast it to how democrats approach the problem. The conservative thinks, "hey, what we can we do foster the creation of jobs for people to encourage employment? I know! Let's cut taxes, cut regulations, and reduce other government-imposed barriers to employers hiring people. Let's empower people to go be successful on their own." In contrast, the liberal democrat thinks, "Oh those poor people! Let's extend their unemployment benefits and blame all of their problems upon rich whitey on Wall Street. Oh, let's not forget to raise taxes on rich whitey to pay for those extra welfare benefits." In short, democrats give handouts whereas conservatives/republicans want to empower people help themselves. If Obama and the democrats really gave two shits about job creation beyond the immediate political impact it would have for their party, then they wouldn't have done things such as obstructing the Keystone XL pipeline and fucking with Boeing when it tried to open a plant in South Carolina.
And don't even bother repeating this tripe about how trickle down economics does not work. Here's a newsflash for you:every single fucking large, profitable corporation that employs thousands of people is a monument to the success and effectiveness of trickle-down economics.
Come on dude, don't be so ignorant. It's people like you that give each party a bad name.
I'm sure there are some democrats that think like that, but the majority simply want to make sure everyone has a fair chance, not to harm hard working working people. At least the ones I know.
And I'm pretty sure the Keystone pipeline denial was because of the enviourmental impact, not because Obama wanted to stop people from getting jobs...
Do you actually pay attention to what democrats do in terms of regulations, tax policy, and fiscal policy? It's all about soaking the rich to give handouts to the poor. Seriously, in what way are democrats even remotely pro-business outside of subsidizing or enacting beneficial regulations/laws for pet industries. Specifically, what broad-based policies do democrats promote that would benefit all businesses?
Even the Washington Post admitted that there was no good, "non-political reason" for obstructing the Keystone XL pipeline -- even environmental reasons. It was purely a political move to appease the left-wing base.
Just like Republicans don't throw in ridiculous Religious crap in their bills to appease the right-wing base? Face it, people on both sides will do whatever it takes to get a vote, and if you don't think the Republicans do it as much as the Democrats I honestly suggest you watch a debate and watch the very words they use. Theres a reason they mention Jesus or God in half their rebuttals on economic policy, and it's not becaus they are religious.
And I never said Democrats were or weren't pro-business. I just said that their mantra is to give everybody equal oppurtunity.
am able, and by no way i have the slightes clue about economie and how it works nor about banking, but i can turn 20k into 2 million dollars in 10 minutes. all i have to do is to download a shitty programm, watch the news and bet on whatever. what about u giving me 20k and i invest into adiddas or nike?
Lets see you try that then and come back in 10 minuets as a multi-millionaire. Good luck, you're probably going to need it.
you didnt get it... its not about luck but about the predictions that you are able to make... if you have the money and dont need to worry about 20k you can easily have a rate 2000:1 on certain bets... worst case cenario is, you have put a barrel of oil infront of someones house if he doesnt accept money... or you have to buy a part of italy or spain and give it to the one you owe the money...
Trickle down economics is a pejorative term used to make fun of Reaganomics, the idea that by making the rich richer everyone else benefits. This is not the case. The bottom 50% earners of this country control a whopping 2% of the total wealth in the entire nation. That's incredibly bad, and it's because of trickle down economics. No, making the rich richer doesn't help others. This ridiculous policy does not work, it's merely the rich exerting their incredible amount of influence to pass laws to make themselves richer. No half intelligent economist takes this seriously anymore, after years and years of data of it NOT working. And I tell you that as an economist myself. The idea is ridiculous.
And increasing taxes on the wealthy (specifically taxing long term capital gains at the same rate as income, and don't give me this horseshit about them not investing anymore, they'll invest as long as they can make a profit doing it, what will they do, sit on the money?) is not the same thing as "OH LET'S DRAIN THE RICH FOR ALL THEY HAVE AND GIVE IT TO THE POOR!" Newsflash, the rich will still be rich.
SoLaR, your father isn't in the 1%, don't kid yourself. 400 employees is nothing, and to the 1%, 50% of their salary is a drop in the bucket and hardly noticeable, since they make all their money in long term capital gains, while they sit twiddling their thumbs.
am able, and by no way i have the slightes clue about economie and how it works nor about banking, but i can turn 20k into 2 million dollars in 10 minutes. all i have to do is to download a shitty programm, watch the news and bet on whatever. what about u giving me 20k and i invest into adiddas or nike?
Lets see you try that then and come back in 10 minuets as a multi-millionaire. Good luck, you're probably going to need it.
you didnt get it... its not about luck but about the predictions that you are able to make... if you have the money and dont need to worry about 20k you can easily have a rate 2000:1 on certain bets... worst case cenario is, you have put a barrel of oil infront of someones house if he doesnt accept money... or you have to buy a part of italy or spain and give it to the one you owe the money...
You act like there in no punishment for making improper decisions regarding investments. A bad investment has far more repercussions then someone simply refusing to buy your product when you operate in a competitive market. 2000:1 on certain bets in the market????? No way, that doesn't happen, If that was the case and that didn't happen there would be no profit for anyone on that because the incredible demand for this transaction would lower the overall profit for everyone. The market rarely ever works that way. And if someone is smart enough to find these things for themselves, I don't care if they make money on them, because logic says that the opportunity that pays that well must be very, very difficult to find.
I am so sick of the mentality that finance guys can pull rabbits out of their hats at will and make a fortune out of nothing. That really doesn't happen unless you're insider trading and doing a ton of other illegal shit. If it's so easy, you go do it and make a ton of money. Maybe when you have a bunch you'll realize it's not very fun when big brother comes knocking at your door, puts a gun to your head and makes you pay up.
On January 24 2012 08:03 Whitewing wrote: Trickle down economics is a pejorative term used to make fun of Reaganomics, the idea that by making the rich richer everyone else benefits. This is not the case. The bottom 50% earners of this country control a whopping 2% of the total wealth in the entire nation. That's incredibly bad, and it's because of trickle down economics. No, making the rich richer doesn't help others. This ridiculous policy does not work, it's merely the rich exerting their incredible amount of influence to pass laws to make themselves richer. No half intelligent economist takes this seriously anymore, after years and years of data of it NOT working. And I tell you that as an economist myself. The idea is ridiculous.
And increasing taxes on the wealthy (specifically taxing long term capital gains at the same rate as income, and don't give me this horseshit about them not investing anymore, they'll invest as long as they can make a profit doing it, what will they do, sit on the money?) is not the same thing as "OH LET'S DRAIN THE RICH FOR ALL THEY HAVE AND GIVE IT TO THE POOR!" Newsflash, the rich will still be rich.
SoLaR, your father isn't in the 1%, don't kid yourself. 400 employees is nothing, and to the 1%, 50% of their salary is a drop in the bucket and hardly noticeable, since they make all their money in long term capital gains, while they sit twiddling their thumbs.
Yes, with a salary of $525,000, he is in the 1%. You can look up precisely what percentile that equates to. Maybe you think that's not the case because your 1% is just a bullshit pejorative for a group of people who have been successful financially. Your claims are born out of envy. At least direct that envy towards my father's work ethic rather than the capital he has earned.
On January 24 2012 08:03 Whitewing wrote: Trickle down economics is a pejorative term used to make fun of Reaganomics, the idea that by making the rich richer everyone else benefits. This is not the case. The bottom 50% earners of this country control a whopping 2% of the total wealth in the entire nation. That's incredibly bad, and it's because of trickle down economics. No, making the rich richer doesn't help others. This ridiculous policy does not work, it's merely the rich exerting their incredible amount of influence to pass laws to make themselves richer. No half intelligent economist takes this seriously anymore, after years and years of data of it NOT working. And I tell you that as an economist myself. The idea is ridiculous.
And increasing taxes on the wealthy (specifically taxing long term capital gains at the same rate as income, and don't give me this horseshit about them not investing anymore, they'll invest as long as they can make a profit doing it, what will they do, sit on the money?) is not the same thing as "OH LET'S DRAIN THE RICH FOR ALL THEY HAVE AND GIVE IT TO THE POOR!" Newsflash, the rich will still be rich.
SoLaR, your father isn't in the 1%, don't kid yourself. 400 employees is nothing, and to the 1%, 50% of their salary is a drop in the bucket and hardly noticeable, since they make all their money in long term capital gains, while they sit twiddling their thumbs.
Yes, with a salary of $525,000, he is in the 1%. You can look up precisely what percentile that equates to. Maybe you think that's not the case because your 1% is just a bullshit pejorative for a group of people who have been successful financially. Your claims are born out of envy. At least direct that envy towards my father's work ethic rather than the capital he has earned.
When I say 1%, I'm referring to wealth, not income. It has nothing to do with salary, salary is nothing. Net income including things like long term capital gains is a much better indicator.
And frankly, if he is making that much, he can afford to lose a good amount of it and still do way above the national average. Do you think your father is working 30 times harder than a factory floor worker earning minimum wage? Because his salary is 30 times higher. Guess what if we take half of that away and don't tax the floor worker? He's still making 15 times as much! Is he working 15 times harder? I highly doubt it. And this isn't at all taking into account any income he has from investments, just pure salary. Guess what? The poor guy has no wealth to invest, so the gap in net income is way higher than that! BTW, I'm not poor, I have a pretty good work ethic myself, and don't you dare pretend that there aren't hard working people who aren't nearly as lucky as your father.
Do you know how long CEO's have been earning 30 times as much as their floor workers (way more for most ceo's of top companies. Average CEO salary in a top 100 company is 12 million.) ? Yeah, it's thanks to 'trickle down economics'. They certainly didn't used to.
BTW: This is relevant-
Yes, that's Reagan supporting taxing the rich.
And this bullshit about inequality being the natural state of man you said earlier? Pretty much sums up why I'm disgusted with the republican party lately. You know what the biggest indicator of the level of development of a society is? It's the level of the average welfare for everyone. It's a pretty shitty society when you have just a few people with everything and a shit ton of people with nothing, while the people in the middle have difficulty.
am able, and by no way i have the slightes clue about economie and how it works nor about banking, but i can turn 20k into 2 million dollars in 10 minutes. all i have to do is to download a shitty programm, watch the news and bet on whatever. what about u giving me 20k and i invest into adiddas or nike?
Lets see you try that then and come back in 10 minuets as a multi-millionaire. Good luck, you're probably going to need it.
you didnt get it... its not about luck but about the predictions that you are able to make... if you have the money and dont need to worry about 20k you can easily have a rate 2000:1 on certain bets... worst case cenario is, you have put a barrel of oil infront of someones house if he doesnt accept money... or you have to buy a part of italy or spain and give it to the one you owe the money...
You act like there in no punishment for making improper decisions regarding investments. A bad investment has far more repercussions then someone simply refusing to buy your product when you operate in a competitive market. 2000:1 on certain bets in the market????? No way, that doesn't happen, If that was the case and that didn't happen there would be no profit for anyone on that because the incredible demand for this transaction would lower the overall profit for everyone. The market rarely ever works that way. And if someone is smart enough to find these things for themselves, I don't care if they make money on them, because logic says that the opportunity that pays that well must be very, very difficult to find.
I am so sick of the mentality that finance guys can pull rabbits out of their hats at will and make a fortune out of nothing. That really doesn't happen unless you're insider trading and doing a ton of other illegal shit. If it's so easy, you go do it and make a ton of money. Maybe when you have a bunch you'll realize it's not very fun when big brother comes knocking at your door, puts a gun to your head and makes you pay up.
lets say it like that... i was atr a friends house and we were playing around with some program, i dont know the name but tomorrow i will provide you with link or the name or whatever my friend has to say ... we bet 20k on some shit regarding italy while some stuff about the european safety parachute was being discussed or whatever in eu parlaiment. we went to party ... as we came back we were millionaires... needless to say this was fictional capital but everything else where real interest rates and what ever there is... this is my personal experience as a total noobie... everything we did was reading some news and the predicted outcome...
edit: and i was not referring to "some financial guys" but to private persons that have money to give to finance guys to make the money. maybe it was just luck ...
As a republican, let me explain why republicans are drawn to Newt. As a result of George W Bush years, we republicans have developed a bit of an inferiority complex regarding our politicians -- specifically their inability to cleanly articulate conservative principles and ideals. In other words, we're tired of our politicians looking like idiots. We know that conservative values, when properly articulated, are incredibly powerful and popular. We've seen it before (Reagan), and we know there are people today who can articulate it very well (Rush Limbaugh is particularly good at this).
Of the candidates, Gingrich articulates conservative values better than anyone (when he chooses to). I've remarked multiple times in this thread that Gingrich is the smartest guy on the stage at any of the debates, and I can't imagine how anyone can still doubt this after the last debate. Republicans look at Gingrich and see a guy who actually can talk the talk. Hell, Gingrich even knows that this is why people are drawn to him. Why do you think he keeps mentioning that he's the guy to debate Obama and is always mentioning the Lincoln/Douglas debates? He's playing on the desire of republican voters to have a smart-sounding candidate.
If you compare Newt to any of other candidates, none of them can hold a candle to his eloquence. Romney is passionless and equivocating. Paul is just a little too crazy. Santorum is an asshole. We'll see how this plays out, but republicans clearly like Newt's style.
I think Newt will only guarantee Obama to be reelected, he has zero chance in the general imho.. smart is too big a word for him, he times well the use of slapstick rhetoric and bullies himself out of disadvantageous positions on stage with flair, but that hardly is qualification to be called smart or to be president material... I mean the guy is a poster child for the crook, immoral, hypocritical and deceptive politicians everywhere, he's not even a conservative heh.
Oh believe me, I'm painfully aware of Newt's limitations. In fact, I have openly remarked that there is no guarantee that Newt would be any more conservative than Romney as a president.
As for the corruption charges, is Obama really any different? So many of Obama's policies and actions, ranging from his green energy initiatives to the way that the auto-bailouts were handled, reek of corruption.
am able, and by no way i have the slightes clue about economie and how it works nor about banking, but i can turn 20k into 2 million dollars in 10 minutes. all i have to do is to download a shitty programm, watch the news and bet on whatever. what about u giving me 20k and i invest into adiddas or nike?
Lets see you try that then and come back in 10 minuets as a multi-millionaire. Good luck, you're probably going to need it.
you didnt get it... its not about luck but about the predictions that you are able to make... if you have the money and dont need to worry about 20k you can easily have a rate 2000:1 on certain bets... worst case cenario is, you have put a barrel of oil infront of someones house if he doesnt accept money... or you have to buy a part of italy or spain and give it to the one you owe the money...
You act like there in no punishment for making improper decisions regarding investments. A bad investment has far more repercussions then someone simply refusing to buy your product when you operate in a competitive market. 2000:1 on certain bets in the market????? No way, that doesn't happen, If that was the case and that didn't happen there would be no profit for anyone on that because the incredible demand for this transaction would lower the overall profit for everyone. The market rarely ever works that way. And if someone is smart enough to find these things for themselves, I don't care if they make money on them, because logic says that the opportunity that pays that well must be very, very difficult to find.
I am so sick of the mentality that finance guys can pull rabbits out of their hats at will and make a fortune out of nothing. That really doesn't happen unless you're insider trading and doing a ton of other illegal shit. If it's so easy, you go do it and make a ton of money. Maybe when you have a bunch you'll realize it's not very fun when big brother comes knocking at your door, puts a gun to your head and makes you pay up.
lets say it like that... i was atr a friends house and we were playing around with some program, i dont know the name but tomorrow i will provide you with link or the name or whatever my friend has to say ... we bet 20k on some shit regarding italy while some stuff about the european safety parachute was being discussed or whatever in eu parlaiment. we went to party ... as we came back we were millionaires... needless to say this was fictional capital but everything else where real interest rates and what ever there is... this is my personal experience as a total noobie... everything we did was reading some news and the predicted outcome...
edit: and i was not referring to "some financial guys" but to private persons that have money to give to finance guys to make the money. maybe it was just luck ...
Don't be ridiculous, nobody in life gambles 20k at a payout of 2000:1, where the hell are you getting these numbers?
am able, and by no way i have the slightes clue about economie and how it works nor about banking, but i can turn 20k into 2 million dollars in 10 minutes. all i have to do is to download a shitty programm, watch the news and bet on whatever. what about u giving me 20k and i invest into adiddas or nike?
Lets see you try that then and come back in 10 minuets as a multi-millionaire. Good luck, you're probably going to need it.
you didnt get it... its not about luck but about the predictions that you are able to make... if you have the money and dont need to worry about 20k you can easily have a rate 2000:1 on certain bets... worst case cenario is, you have put a barrel of oil infront of someones house if he doesnt accept money... or you have to buy a part of italy or spain and give it to the one you owe the money...
You act like there in no punishment for making improper decisions regarding investments. A bad investment has far more repercussions then someone simply refusing to buy your product when you operate in a competitive market. 2000:1 on certain bets in the market????? No way, that doesn't happen, If that was the case and that didn't happen there would be no profit for anyone on that because the incredible demand for this transaction would lower the overall profit for everyone. The market rarely ever works that way. And if someone is smart enough to find these things for themselves, I don't care if they make money on them, because logic says that the opportunity that pays that well must be very, very difficult to find.
I am so sick of the mentality that finance guys can pull rabbits out of their hats at will and make a fortune out of nothing. That really doesn't happen unless you're insider trading and doing a ton of other illegal shit. If it's so easy, you go do it and make a ton of money. Maybe when you have a bunch you'll realize it's not very fun when big brother comes knocking at your door, puts a gun to your head and makes you pay up.
lets say it like that... i was atr a friends house and we were playing around with some program, i dont know the name but tomorrow i will provide you with link or the name or whatever my friend has to say ... we bet 20k on some shit regarding italy while some stuff about the european safety parachute was being discussed or whatever in eu parlaiment. we went to party ... as we came back we were millionaires... needless to say this was fictional capital but everything else where real interest rates and what ever there is... this is my personal experience as a total noobie... everything we did was reading some news and the predicted outcome...
edit: and i was not referring to "some financial guys" but to private persons that have money to give to finance guys to make the money. maybe it was just luck ...
I sure hope you are trolling...
@Whitewing: There are many cases where left-wing policies of redistributing wealth through welfare state policies does not work. What should be argued here is not whether or not to help the poor (which is a cop-out straw man), but how is the best method to go about doing it. As it stands right now, people are out of work and 47 million Americans are on foodstamps, that is a lot.
am able, and by no way i have the slightes clue about economie and how it works nor about banking, but i can turn 20k into 2 million dollars in 10 minutes. all i have to do is to download a shitty programm, watch the news and bet on whatever. what about u giving me 20k and i invest into adiddas or nike?
Lets see you try that then and come back in 10 minuets as a multi-millionaire. Good luck, you're probably going to need it.
you didnt get it... its not about luck but about the predictions that you are able to make... if you have the money and dont need to worry about 20k you can easily have a rate 2000:1 on certain bets... worst case cenario is, you have put a barrel of oil infront of someones house if he doesnt accept money... or you have to buy a part of italy or spain and give it to the one you owe the money...
You act like there in no punishment for making improper decisions regarding investments. A bad investment has far more repercussions then someone simply refusing to buy your product when you operate in a competitive market. 2000:1 on certain bets in the market????? No way, that doesn't happen, If that was the case and that didn't happen there would be no profit for anyone on that because the incredible demand for this transaction would lower the overall profit for everyone. The market rarely ever works that way. And if someone is smart enough to find these things for themselves, I don't care if they make money on them, because logic says that the opportunity that pays that well must be very, very difficult to find.
I am so sick of the mentality that finance guys can pull rabbits out of their hats at will and make a fortune out of nothing. That really doesn't happen unless you're insider trading and doing a ton of other illegal shit. If it's so easy, you go do it and make a ton of money. Maybe when you have a bunch you'll realize it's not very fun when big brother comes knocking at your door, puts a gun to your head and makes you pay up.
lets say it like that... i was atr a friends house and we were playing around with some program, i dont know the name but tomorrow i will provide you with link or the name or whatever my friend has to say ... we bet 20k on some shit regarding italy while some stuff about the european safety parachute was being discussed or whatever in eu parlaiment. we went to party ... as we came back we were millionaires... needless to say this was fictional capital but everything else where real interest rates and what ever there is... this is my personal experience as a total noobie... everything we did was reading some news and the predicted outcome...
edit: and i was not referring to "some financial guys" but to private persons that have money to give to finance guys to make the money. maybe it was just luck ...
I sure hope you are trolling...
@Whitewing: There are many cases where left-wing policies of redistributing wealth through socialist policies does not work. What should be argued here is not whether or not to help the poor (which is a cop-out straw man), but how is the best method to go about doing it. As it stands right now, people are out of work and 47 million Americans are on foodstamps, that is a lot.
Are you arguing the current american policies are socalist ones?
EPT
