search results matching tag: trickle down

» channel: weather

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (23)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (3)     Comments (216)   

Sarah Palin after the teleprompter freezes

newtboy says...

Perhaps in your mind, not mine. I have consistently said Carter was my favorite recent president, just the least popular. He did what he saw as right (and in my eyes he was correct at nearly every turn, like adopting solar BEFORE it's too late, and using less oil and gas by turning down your thermostat and putting on a sweater if it's cold inside for military, economic, and ecologic reasons), and was called wishy washy for it. He was a nuclear submarine commander, HARD CORE military, yet he was called weak on the military/defense (rather than insightful). I also disagree that Obama was the worst, in my lifetime Bush caused WAY more damage to our country, Obama has taken 6 years to dig out of the Bush hole, so he's no hero for me either...but he's certainly not the villain you wish to label him...we haven't even had a domestic terrorist attack on his watch.

Regan policies include raising taxes on the rich and limiting military spending (true, not by choice or often, but he did do both) If that's what you mean, perhaps you're correct...but I think you mean his trickle down economics, which were a clear proven disastrous failure and didn't even work for the rich...it made the top few % more dollars, but less wealth in the end because those dollars were worth far less, as @dannym3141 said above.

Odd, you have no trouble changing facts....why can't I? ;-)

bobknight33 said:

Carter got caught up in this and became the worst president to that date. (Obama is now the worst).

Regan policies turn this around. Trickle down worked and still does.

But you still cant change the fact..

Sarah Palin after the teleprompter freezes

dannym3141 says...

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/06/30/trickle-down-economics-fails-to-deliver-as-promised/

Article discussing the trickle-down idea. Refers to a paper from a respected uni which shows that there is little evidence to believe that it works, and if it does work it a) doesn't work as well as widely touted and b) hardly works at all.

I also read another article from more recent than 2009 from some kind of financial group on or associated strongly with Wall Street itself that concluded even the wealthy see more spending power if their money is more evenly spread; they may have less money in a mathematical sense, but their money will be worth more and provide more because the flow of the economy is so much more active. I'll keep looking and edit if i find it.

billpayer said:

@bobknight33 "Trickle down worked and still does."

If you mean shit trickles down your leg.

Regan destroyed America. It took a few decades.

Sarah Palin after the teleprompter freezes

Sarah Palin after the teleprompter freezes

bobknight33 says...

Things were great under Regan and under Clinton. I would say Clinton era went strong because of the internet The internet bubble burst and then Bush got in. Bush did not blame Clinton ( like OBAMA) for the mess he inherited.

Kennedy, It was post war every thing was going gang busters, Democrat or Republican did not matter who was in charge. This lasted up through Johnson then came the oil crisis which drag the economy down and 15%+ interest rates, Carter got caught up in this and became the worst president to that date. (Obama is now the worst).

Regan policies turn this around. Trickle down worked and still does.

But you still cant change the fact..

You are living in a opposite world. Everything you believe Democrat leadership stand for, they have delivered the opposite.


We can thank the disappearing middle class and the poor being worse off from 6 years of the failed leadership.
But on the bright side the rich are richer, Thank to Democrat leadership.

Well if you like the disappearing middle class keep voting Democrat.

Fairbs said:

The middle class has been disappearing since trickle down economics was instituted under reagan. Tax rates on rich was 70% and he lowered it to 35%. Note: my numbers are off, but the change was that drastic.

Support for newt's point... https://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/economy/news/2004/07/28/964/economic-prosperity-and-the-presidents/

Sarah Palin after the teleprompter freezes

Fairbs says...

The middle class has been disappearing since trickle down economics was instituted under reagan. Tax rates on rich was 70% and he lowered it to 35%. Note: my numbers are off, but the change was that drastic.

Support for newt's point... https://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/economy/news/2004/07/28/964/economic-prosperity-and-the-presidents/

bobknight33 said:

You are living in a opposite world. Everything you believe Democrat leadership stand for, they have delivered the opposite.


We can thank the disappearing middle class and the poor being worse off from 6 years of the failed leadership.
But on the bright side the rich are richer, Thank to Democrat leadership.

Well if you like the disappearing middle class keep voting Democrat.

Russell Brand debates Nigel Farage on immigration

dannym3141 says...

"The rich keep you fed enough that you bark at the intruders." - Some youtuber.

Yes he's a little out of his depth and he's so desperate to try and get people to understand that he's hurrying and nervous. Well, he's a comedian, he isn't used to public speaking, he knows how to make people laugh not convince them in an argument. But he's out there, putting his neck on the line when he doesn't even NEED to - because as the tabloids (controlled by who?) enjoy pointing out he's rich. At least he got rich through his ability to make people laugh, rather than tricking people into voting for him because he'd act in their best interests then selling their decisions to the highest bidder.

We are seeing politicians scrambling for ANYTHING they can to hold power and keep making money for a little longer. That anything is immigration and they're quite happy to let people convince themselves its the immigrants. Even if we are slightly overcrowded for our infrastructure in Britain, we wouldn't be if the money in the system was active and being used to build and be productive instead of sitting in the pockets of people who have everything they want and 8 figure bank balances. These people in charge keep telling us they're going to tackle all these problems, but they never do anything to close the loopholes being used by all the huge corporations who have been paying NO TAX WHATSOEVER during the times of extreme wealth and growth. Is it any wonder our countries are in a dire condition? Our tax system has been starved of hundreds of billions, possibly trillions, who really knows!? And why weren't they closed? Just look at the links between big business and and politics, the only reason we aren't all saying "what the fuck is going on?" is because they can distract people through their control over the media and their convincing oratory skill into going "it's your neighbour.. it's his fault. was he born here? why is he using your hospital?", meanwhile we lose out of BILLIONS because the post office was sold off on the sly! Only to be told next election THAT WE ARE SHORT ON OUR FUCKING BUDGET. You're ok with that happening?! Why is it ok for them to keep coming back having lost our money and asking for more, but if it was a man who came directly to our door to collect our money in exchange for services, we'd tell him to piss off? It's EASIER to blame someone who looks and speaks differently rather than the clever bastard with a gleam in his eye sitting in the pub silver tonguing his constituents.

We are not fucking short on productivity - how many people do you know that think they have a lot of spare time and freedom from work? But that productivity is not being directed appropriately, and if you don't believe that then you need to get outside and talk to people who are less fortunate than you... benefit of the doubt, maybe you just haven't had to see it. But all the money that went on bonuses could be going into improving schools, police, hospitals, public transport and roads and god knows what else. A bunch of people would go without a brand new range rover sport or yacht or champagne holiday for 30... in contrast, thousands less people would die - think of the old people dying in the cold each winter? or hospital beds and treatments for those with cancer or anything that the NHS can't afford to treat? All the freshly educated nurses and doctors thanks to our universities being given cash to improve their facilities and training.

The theory behind all this was trickle-down-wealth, the money will be distributed through society by paying those at the top a lot of money. It CLEARLY does not work, and anyone who suggests otherwise would surely be considered insane. It's not working, we see it not working, so why aren't we fixing it or getting angry and making those in charge fix it?

If Brand is advocating anarchy (and i'd like to know your argument for saying that, i could stand to be convinced), it's because he's exasperated at our inaction and wants to try and stir people to act. We're currently at the other extreme - watching it happen. People are criticising the crowd for being too into brand, too "leftist" or some nonsense. But those are the people that are having their lives drained by these leeches at the top, of course they're only going to come and cheer if someone is going to say what needs to be said. Any other night, it's just drones debating different ways to stack the odds against everyone.

Edited: Tried to make it nicer, more readable, sorry for the long post but he's really really got a great point and i can't understand why we are all ignoring what's going on. We seem to accept that big business WILL get away with not paying billions in tax like that's fine.. but it's not, we can change it, we just have to stop fucking ignoring it and hold these twats to account like Brand is trying to do. It's not like he's suggesting some wild and risky change, he's just saying STOP LETTING AND HELPING PEOPLE STEAL MONEY FROM US. They won't, and watch Farage go bright red when brand talks about his scandals and rich business partners. If they won't, we need to get rid of them. You may not like his demeanour but he is expressing democratic and egalitarian points.

A10anis said:

"Russell Brand destroys Nigel Farage on immigration"???
I can only assume you are joking. Brand was WAY out of his depth. In fact, much as I dislike the pseudo revolutionary, vainglorious half wit, I actually felt sorry for him. He was put firmly in his place by one astute person; "If you think you can, why don't you stand (for election)?" His response; " Mate, I'm frightened I'd become one of them." So, he doesn't even have confidence in his own childish rhetoric. He calls for anarchy just as long as he is not at the helm. He should put up, or shut up. Oh, and his call for people not to vote is one of the stupidest, most irresponsible things I have heard in a while.

The Unbelievably Sweet Alpacas! - Income Inequality

Chairman_woo says...

Some system where the wealth of the lowest paid worker was linked to the companies net profit would be nice. If their going to argue that whole "trickle down" thing they can only complain so much when we legally manacle them to their staff!

Or perhaps a national minimum wage based on a fraction of the highest earners.

Or going really crazy perhaps outlaw anything but co-operatives/shared ownership with staff. (that one is probably too complicated and problematic to be practical I fear)

I might suggest a similar system for politicians too i.e. they get paid as much as their poorest citizens, or some sensible fraction of that number. (including private assets to discourage corruption)

Maybe even go the whole hog and make politicians and high ranking civil servants utterly dependant on the state i.e. no significant private property and a state issued lifestyle which matches that of the poorest.

Too Extreme perhaps but if we meet them somewhere in the middle...

The Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists would probably go mental, but then how would we tell?

RFlagg said:

I think it's more like if they would stop redistributing the wealth to themselves from their workers.........

Clinton - businesses don't create jobs

Sagemind says...

Well, she's right that Trickle-down Economics doesn't work but with this clip being trimmed before and after, I really have no idea what her point was.
She could be going on to say anything at all..

Jon Stewart Goes After Fox in Ferguson Monologue

newtboy says...

If you have no reason to believe they may be corrupt, then you simply haven't been paying attention.
For the action of the cop to be self defense, you must take his word as truth and ignore the witnesses (granted, they have not been consistent) and you must accept that it's the right method to attempt to manhandle a person for jaywalking (the reason for the stop in the first place) and that it's the right thing to do to escalate a confrontation from a fist fight directly to firearms, ignoring the other options made available like pepper spray, tasers, batons, and backup. If the officer was truly in fear, he only needed to shut and lock his door to be safe, how is that hard?

Your reading comprehension is terrible. He said clearly that it's NOT reasonable or condonable, but is understandable as a misguided attempt to 'lash out' at the system that keeps you down.

I saw lots of white people on TV rioting and looting too, but they don't count because they don't further your (seemingly racist) theories, right?

It seems you've ignored the majority of the protests that have been responsible, civil, and peaceful in favor of focusing on the minority of trouble makers (that insert themselves into ANY mass protest these days) and blame their actions on the entire community (while knowing that most of the rioters are not from the community but have traveled there in order to riot and loot).

As the one's in 'charge', is it not the police that have the responsibility to display 'responsible behavior'? I thought it was your position that behavior works on a trickle down system, where the behavior of the top is emulated all the way down...does that not make this the police chief's fault?

lantern53 said:

Because I have no reason to believe they are corrupt. The action of the cop, to me, appears to be self-defense, not an act of corruption.




Burning down businesses where you live doesn't do anyone any good, does it? But to you it's perfectly reasonable, is that right? It's a natural act brought on by oppression.

Did all of the black people riot? No, seems to me only the young ones, mostly male. That is on them. Don't blame the cops. If you don't like how the cops police, then vote in your own representatives, fire the chief, protest at the police department, be vocal at the town council...but leave your molotov cocktails at home.

How about some responsible behavior?

Last Week Tonight - Ferguson and Police Militarization

enoch says...

the situation in st louis did not just pop up out of thin air overnight.the tensions between the poor community (mostly black) and the police has been a festering pressure cooker for almost 15 years.

a particularly venal chapter in the st louis police archives is the RNC of 2008,for anybody to absorb some context on the militarization of a police force.

the tinder has been accumulating just waiting for the match.
mike brown WAS that match.
this is not new nor original.
it has happened before.

and as @lantern53 has pointed out:it is the chain of command that sets the tone of how that police force performs their duties.so if those in charge are authoritarian douche nozzles,that attitude tends to trickle down to the everyday cop on the street.

cops by their very nature are authoritarian due to their vocational choice.they respect the chain of command and the authority it represents.to follow orders is to be a "good" cop.

so i do not understand the ridicule that lantern is receiving.he is offering his perspective AS an actual police officer.i am not suggesting that he is right NOR that his opinion somehow exonerates the st louis cop JUST because he is a cop but rather we should listen to someone who actual IS a cop.

there is absolutely ZERO evidence that lantern is a bad cop.we simply do not know how well,or poorly,lantern is at his job.

there IS evidence,however,that lantern tends be a tad racist,authoritarian and contradictory.lantern may be a poor debater but that does not make him a bad cop.

though his defense of zimmerman does reveal an extremely poor judge of character.(seriously lantern?that dude is a full fledged cunt).

but i get it @VoodooV,
lantern is easy pickings.
a right wing authoritarian conservative commenting on a mostly secular left site?
its like shooting fish in a barrel.

sometimes lantern brings it on himself...i know.
his poor debating skills coupled with an almost embarrassing understanding of history and government makes him catnip to someone like you.

its
just
so
easy

i disagree with lantern,pretty much always and i agree that sometimes his biased rhetoric should be taken to task,if only to clear up the bullshit.

but you take it to whole new levels voodoo.
you follow him from thread to thread and chastise and belittle him and THEN act all hurt and shocked when he lashes out at you!

seriously?thats like poking a grizzly bear in the face and then crying when it rips half your face off.

you use the exact same tactics choggie used,but at least he was entertaining.

you are just a bully.
a hypocritical,sanctimonious bully.hiding behind the skirts of others who may find lanterns comments distasteful (which they certainly can be).this is a cowards path and just like all bullies,you rely on the silence of others to continue your persecution of someone who does not have the support of an entire site.

i find your lack of humanity disturbing.
and i will not be silent.
your actions do not deserve respect but rather ridicule.

Man Escapes 5 Yr Sentence After Dash Cam Footage Clears Him

newtboy says...

I understand that, but criminals are not usually acting criminal 100% of the time either, yet they are treated as if they are by police, prosecuted and imprisoned, and ostracized and 'dehumanized' after release by having most of their rights as a citizen removed. It seems that the reality is that we act like once you've committed (or are convicted of) a crime, you ARE a 'criminal' 100% of the time. If it's proper to do that to ordinary citizens because of temporary criminal activity, why not police?
OR...a murderer doesn't murder most of the time, that doesn't mean it should be ignored when they do...especially not because of their 'job'. If a cop is crooked once, he's a crooked cop. Period. (to me)
To your second point, that illustrates my original point exactly. If they (or you) believe it's proper to lie 'in the furtherance of their duties', why on earth would any reasonable person think that would stop on the stand? Since it's unreasonable to believe they would lie right up to that point, but not on the stand, one can not trust anything an officer says on the stand. That's going to be my position until it's made illegal for them to lie to a citizen, at any time. Even then, it's going to take a while for the 'culture' of lying to change.
EDIT: In your example, of finding severed heads in a trunk, you seem to imply that you think it would be the right thing to do to 'placate the judge' by committing the crime of perjury and saying it was a legal search even if it wasn't...If so, why should your testimony ever be given any weight if you think it's OK to just lie in court? If I misunderstood, forgive me.

You say you and your local force doesn't act this way, but I would ask...do/have you lied to/intentionally misled 'suspects' in order to get them to admit what they did? If so, I'm afraid I see you as part of the problem.
I fully agree with you on one thing, I feel this 'culture' trickles down from the top.

lantern53 said:

A cop can't be crooked 100% of the time, but he can break the law on occasion. Personally, I have no respect for an officer who will plant evidence or abuse prisoners or anyone else. But then, that's just the way we do things at our PD.

On the other hand, you have to understand that when a cop is testifying in court that he found several severed heads in a car trunk, the judge is going to want him to say it was all a legal search...whether it was or not.

Bernie Sanders tears into Walmart for corporate welfare

dannym3141 says...

@bobknight33 it seems your viewpoint rests on the fact that minimum wage should be an "entry level wage where one can better oneself [..] to ask for a higher wage."

At least in my country, a lot of the time the vast majority of jobs vacancies are in places that deal with minimum wage - fast food, supermarkets, that kind of thing - because they usually deal with the "basics" that people can't do without. Hence basic, menial and minimum wage for minimum stress at work.

The people who are in better jobs over here have seen a lot of similarly positioned people get sacked so they know they've got to keep hold of their job. Everyone's been cutting back, there's less jobs, and those jobs are tightly held by people with better experience. And then, when better jobs become available, you have lots and lots of low experienced workers applying alongside a select few who used to work - who's more likely to get the job?

Finer points aside, i'd love everyone in the thread to agree that there are a whole bunch of people spending a whole lot of money at walmart - and every other scary-large company. If that money is not cycling around between people then it's stagnating somewhere and doing nobody any good.

Take soccer here in england for example. Soccer players are paid something like £20 000 per week at every top team. A lot of them are actually between £40 000 and £120 000 per week but let's talk approximate. Now look, we should all be able to see that a person couldn't possibly hope to spend that much money. If you want to go to a match, let's call it £40, 60 000 people are giving £40 to go and watch, so that's £2 400 000 and let's say it all goes on wages. Well what's happening is this entire wad of cash is ending up sitting in a bank account somewhere, because this guy can't physically go out and redistribute this cash, spending his money in the normal way and keeping the economy moving and the money spreading.

It's not just footballers and i'm sure we can agree to some extent that this can be seen in a lot of places - a select few are in positions allowing them to amass huge fortunes they can't possibly use.

"Trickle-down" has not worked, it isn't trickling anywhere, they've got the cracks sealed up. Maybe we should be thinking about "trickle up" - if cost us less to watch a soccer match, metaphorically speaking (as in cheaper bills, higher wages, less stagnation at the top), maybe people might feel less stressed, less scared, more generous, more free, the world might be a better place so that services would be better, people would be more dedicated at their job to improve because they stand to earn more, less stress less violence, more money less crime, etc. Is there something to that perhaps?

The problem is it's hard to interject whilst it's all ongoing and say "you're taking this cut, you're taking this cut, all this money is going here, just trust us the world will be a better place." It's not fair to suddenly tell people what they do is only worth half of what it was yesterday. But between the top and the bottom what you have is a rich billionaire smoking a cigar whilst some child in the poorest neighbourhood is sat in 5th-hand-me-downs on a filthy carpet listening to his mother selling her body? That's a guess, i don't know how to best represent poverty, but take any example you like. If the rich person was stood directly next to the baby he'd probably feel outraged and help, but there's a lot of smoke and mirrors that stand between him helping every baby that is every born in the future, because warlmart suddenly can afford to double their lowest wages by halving some of their highest.

To conclude - i don't think minimum wage is as you suggest.

enoch (Member Profile)

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your comment on TDS: Minimum wage hike and the Pope denouncing Trickle Down has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 10 Badge!

Raise The Minimum Wage -- Robert Reich

ChaosEngine says...

I never got "trickle down" economics. It doesn't matter how wealthy you are, at some point, you just have enough of a particular thing. A billionaire might have an absolutely top of the line smartphone, but he still really only needs one smartphone.

OTOH, if you do the opposite of trickle down (which I guess would be "rising tide", but the voodoo guys stole that one already), i.e. pay the poor more, then they will buy more stuff, which in turn will make the rich richer. So continuing the analogy, instead of giving $20000 to the rich, give 20 poor people $1000. Then they might buy 10 smartphones, which is obviously better for the economy.

Note to pedants: I am aware that poor people probably won't buy an expensive smartphone... it's an analogy. Don't take it literally.

democracy now-income gap threatens democracy

VoodooV says...

now that I am watching the video, I will say he didn't respond very well to the that one pundit. The biggest thing he ignored is the huge strawman the pundit constructed where labor makes everything and there is no profit. Bullshit. At no time did he argue that companies will be making no profit and labor will get everything. Huge strawman.

You could probably triple or quadruple the minimum wage and a lot of these companies would still be making money hand over fist.

they keep ignoring the fundamental issue. You give poor people more money...THEY WILL SPEND IT!! = huge boost to the economy. If you give rich people more money that they don't even need, THEY HOARD IT AND TAKE IT OUT OF THE ECONOMY!!. The republicans have it backwards, it's not trickle down economics, it's trickle UP economics. Where do you think businesses get their money in the first place.....the people at the bottom buying their products.

If you fuck over the poor, you interrupt the cycle and you've got no one buying your shit.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists