We just need more sandwiches for the rich kid. Then there would be many dishes to wash, and thus the crusts could trickle down to the other kid.>> ^Peroxide:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The kid with the richer parents should get the sandwich. The lazy one should get no entitlements. After the better child finishes, the crumbs should be given as (tax deductible) charity to the lesser child. Anything less would be socialism.

You forgot that the lazy child without the sandwich should politely ask if he/she can do the dishes and in return receive a crust from the sandwich. However, the dishes have already been done by the other hungry kids and the crust is gone. Too bad there just aren't enough dishes to do for everyone! Oh well.

Robert Reich has a little experience... "He served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and was Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997." I usually agree with his ideas and I especially think the idea of trickle-down economics to be a load of crap.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
For example on point 1. He says median hourly wages stagnated and dropped from 1980 to 1992. To prove his point he ... (wait for it) ... draws a picture that sort of resembles a coffee cup. As is expected, what he does (like most Prog-Libs) is cherry-pick a very specific, isolated, limited factoid and apply it in entirely the wrong way. Median hourly wages? Really RR? That's how you are measuring whether 'trickle down economics' works or not? Please 'prove' to me how that makes sense and I'll go further. I'll rely on a more holistic picture than that - thanks - such as the census...
http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-196.pdf
Notice that 1983 to 1989 (3 years after the election) was up across the board - went DOWN after Bush got in office (and his tax hikes I may add).
I could go on, but there's no point to it.


Looking at your census data, median household income in 1979 was $34,666 and in 1993 it was $33,660 (in the face of more women joining the workforce), which exactly matches what Reich said about wages dropping between 1980 and 1992. So thanks for providing proof that RR is correct with your holistic picture. BTW, your sentence "Notice that 1983 to 1989 (3 years after the election) was up across the board - went DOWN after Bush got in office" doesn't even make sense.

are you talking about the deregulation of the banking system and Wall Street that led to not just this crash but the previous one? because, yeah... the oh-so-lovable working class were behind that

Oh, no, more about the Let's-Give-Free-Houses-To-People-We-Know-Can't-Pay-For-Them-But-That's-The-Banks'-Problem-We-Just-Buy-Votes-From-The-Poor-Act.

The left likes to call it 'deregulation' as if that were a dropping of vital safeguards keeping the wealthy in check. It was more like a creating an opportunity for certain parties--not all of them wealthy--to take stupid risks thanks to government offering to cover their butts with taxpayer largesse. Not the same thing.

or the banking bailouts, where instead of using the money to cover the banking losses (see above) wasn't used to get lending going again, but for banks to consolidate and buy each other out... leading to banks that are even more TOO BIG TO FAIL

I was 100% against the failouts, but not much you can do against a leviathan government made that way by worshipers of leviathan government as the solution to every problem. You don't create a Kong then act surprised when Kong does what he wants instead of what you want, do you?

and how exactly is Trickle-Down Economics, which have been repeated over and over by the rich as reasons not to tax them, not completely horsesh_t considering the last 30yrs?
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/23/7927178-the-koch-brothers-graph

Why do liberals insist on calling 1% paying 40% of all taxes "not being taxed"? They're being taxed plenty already, and if you try to confiscate the rest, they'll just beam it overseas or keep it in tax-free products where it won't get invested or circulate. And that's ignoring the moral issue of why someone gets taxed proportionately higher for the 'crime' of having more?

of course, regarding that link, I assume your first response is... "Well Rachel Maddows, that's all I need to know about that link"

No, but I'm not sure what the point of that link was, really. Due to increasingly efficient software and other tech advances, over time a job that once required a thousand workers can be done with only 300. It's called "creative destruction" and yeah, it requires you to be on the ball.

I will say, if you already don't, you should lobby for some rich interests... I'm sure they got a teet for you... because you sure a capable job of touting the rhetoric without providing any concrete details

I've never been offered a job by a poor man, have you? Unless you're a vote-buying politician, you shouldn't overly concern yourself that someone else has more than you, nor blame them. Economics is not a zero-sum game.









>> ^packo:

>> ^quantumushroom:
The average oh-so-lovable working class stiff is chock-full of wrongful assumptions about business, law and government.
The most harm has been done and money wasted in the past 60 years by governments trying to guarantee an equality of outcomes.

are you talking about the deregulation of the banking system and Wall Street that led to not just this crash but the previous one? because, yeah... the oh-so-lovable working class were behind that
or the banking bailouts, where instead of using the money to cover the banking losses (see above) wasn't used to get lending going again, but for banks to consolidate and buy each other out... leading to banks that are even more TOO BIG TO FAIL
and how exactly is Trickle-Down Economics, which have been repeated over and over by the rich as reasons not to tax them, not completely horsesh_t considering the last 30yrs?
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/23/7927178-the-k
och-brothers-graph
of course, regarding that link, I assume your first response is... "Well Rachel Maddows, that's all I need to know about that link"
I will say, if you already don't, you should lobby for some rich interests... I'm sure they got a teet for you... because you sure a capable job of touting the rhetoric without providing any concrete details

>> ^quantumushroom:

The average oh-so-lovable working class stiff is chock-full of wrongful assumptions about business, law and government.
The most harm has been done and money wasted in the past 60 years by governments trying to guarantee an equality of outcomes.


are you talking about the deregulation of the banking system and Wall Street that led to not just this crash but the previous one? because, yeah... the oh-so-lovable working class were behind that

or the banking bailouts, where instead of using the money to cover the banking losses (see above) wasn't used to get lending going again, but for banks to consolidate and buy each other out... leading to banks that are even more TOO BIG TO FAIL

and how exactly is Trickle-Down Economics, which have been repeated over and over by the rich as reasons not to tax them, not completely horsesh_t considering the last 30yrs?
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/23/7927178-the-koch-brothers-graph

of course, regarding that link, I assume your first response is... "Well Rachel Maddows, that's all I need to know about that link"

I will say, if you already don't, you should lobby for some rich interests... I'm sure they got a teet for you... because you sure a capable job of touting the rhetoric without providing any concrete details

Like I said, PROVE it

Sure.

Step 1: Take RR's "crap I pulled out my hinder" arguments
Step 2: Say the exact opposite.

Boom. There. I've given you as much "proof" as RR did in his stupid 164 second waste of time.

For example on point 1. He says median hourly wages stagnated and dropped from 1980 to 1992. To prove his point he ... (wait for it) ... draws a picture that sort of resembles a coffee cup. As is expected, what he does (like most Prog-Libs) is cherry-pick a very specific, isolated, limited factoid and apply it in entirely the wrong way. Median hourly wages? Really RR? That's how you are measuring whether 'trickle down economics' works or not? Please 'prove' to me how that makes sense and I'll go further. I'll rely on a more holistic picture than that - thanks - such as the census...

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-196.pdf

Notice that 1983 to 1989 (3 years after the election) was up across the board - went DOWN after Bush got in office (and his tax hikes I may add).

I could go on, but there's no point to it. Prog-Libs have a mantra they stick to in the face of all facts and evidence, and all it takes is a bearded moron reinforcing the dumb ideas they believe to convince them they have 'proof'. All RR ever does is barf up typical left wing talking points. Nothing new here. He pukes up the same bologna, opinion based interpretation of the world every time he opens his piehole.

Sure is.. graphic, huh.
>> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
You know what would give more credence to your nonsense? Give George W. the credit due for simultaneously launching us into two poorly managed and unwinnable wars while drastically lowering taxes, thereby digging a grave for our country's economy for generations to come. If you want to talk about runaway spending, at least have the fucking intelligence to figure out that it happens worse when your ideological brethren are in charge. Otherwise you just come off as another proto-typical brainwashed conservative dupe. >> ^quantumushroom:
Even the St. Petersburg Times, proto-typical liberal rag-in-denial, has noted that His Earness's "Buffett Tax" will only bring in a couple of hundred billion over 10 years, nary a drop in the bucket. Runaway spending is still the problem.
Taxocrats pretend they want to tax "only millionaires" but it's the "common man" the left claims it's defending that will be taking it in the ass from the federal mafia, both in trickle-down higher taxes AND direct higher taxes.
As for The Bignose and Fatso Vaudeville Hour, I've never been offered a job by a poor man.


But we should also give credit to Obama for engorging the US cock that's been giving it to Afghanistan for a couple years now. And Libya got to taste the smegma'ed runoff, too. And it looks like the rape clinics in GITMO are still the frat boy party houses they were under Bush. So that's good.
Looks like Obama and Bush are giving each other high fives over our backs as we all take one in the ass and one in the mouth.

Funny (but not surprising) that she uses the term 'voodoo economics' - which is a derisive nickname for the type of trickle down economics that she supports.

thx bro!

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
*quality

Ive always heard the saying was Money flows up, Shit trickles down... must have been the Sopranos marathon.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

You know what would give more credence to your nonsense? Give George W. the credit due for simultaneously launching us into two poorly managed and unwinnable wars while drastically lowering taxes, thereby digging a grave for our country's economy for generations to come. If you want to talk about runaway spending, at least have the fucking intelligence to figure out that it happens worse when your ideological brethren are in charge. Otherwise you just come off as another proto-typical brainwashed conservative dupe. >> ^quantumushroom:
Even the St. Petersburg Times, proto-typical liberal rag-in-denial, has noted that His Earness's "Buffett Tax" will only bring in a couple of hundred billion over 10 years, nary a drop in the bucket. Runaway spending is still the problem.
Taxocrats pretend they want to tax "only millionaires" but it's the "common man" the left claims it's defending that will be taking it in the ass from the federal mafia, both in trickle-down higher taxes AND direct higher taxes.
As for The Bignose and Fatso Vaudeville Hour, I've never been offered a job by a poor man.



But we should also give credit to Obama for engorging the US cock that's been giving it to Afghanistan for a couple years now. And Libya got to taste the smegma'ed runoff, too. And it looks like the rape clinics in GITMO are still the frat boy party houses they were under Bush. So that's good.

Looks like Obama and Bush are giving each other high fives over our backs as we all take one in the ass and one in the mouth.

You know what would give more credence to your nonsense? Give George W. the credit due for simultaneously launching us into two poorly managed and unwinnable wars while drastically lowering taxes, thereby digging a grave for our country's economy for generations to come.

Oh, where to begin? There's probably more than we agree on about Iraq and even Afghanistan than you'll concede. Both wars appeared to be poorly planned and managed and the goals ill-advertised. Both were rife with the same business-as-usual waste, fraud and abuse found in our social welfare programs.

Now I hate to leave you behind, but Iraq was and is a VICTORY and the left will never admit it. Whether the Iraqis ultimately succeed or not is now up to them, but they seem to have embraced freedom even above islamist theocracy; their future is theirs to decide. Bush saw a threat which the rest of the world agreed was legit, including the American left, and he made the call. History will be the final judge.

Afghanistan is more of a mess due to a lack of clearly defined goals; if the goals were wiping out the Taliban and/or killing Been Hidin', then the job was somewhat done. Rebuilding the place is a waste of time. Again, history will decide.

BTW the left seems to support these other "uprisings" to overthrow Arab dictators and yet they have no idea who or what will replace the original turds, and though I doubt you or anyone else on the left will admit it, it's the birth of a free Iraq which spawned a demand for freedom in other Arab lands.

If you want to talk about runaway spending, at least have the fucking intelligence to figure out that it happens worse when your ideological brethren are in charge. Otherwise you just come off as another proto-typical brainwashed conservative dupe.

As the last three years have AMPLY proven (more if you count Congress being controlled by taxocrats since 2006) leftists in power are FAR worse. Odumbo has spent more money we don't have in 3 years than Bush did in 8, so there's really no comparison. Now you may balk at Bush being labeled 'a liberal with a few conservative tendencies' but that's what he was. I'm well aware the SOB rubber-stamped everything on his desk, including all the social programs the left loves so much, and as I state from time to time, the original scamulus and GM failout on his watch tips the scales of his legacy to FAIL.

We can only speculate on what Bush might have done/gotten away with had there been no 9/11. His spending sprees, had they taken place, might have been more roundly criticized by the right, or the prosperity of those years without the hit of 9/11 might have left everyone in a dream state like in the 90s.

Had Odumbo been a slithering socialist like President Hillary, there likely would be no Tea Party, but he made the same mistake Cankles did with the original full court press for socialized medicine. Now the Giant is awake.

I do read your other posts, and I really don't know what to tell you, Dude. You mark capitalism/free markets/deregulation as being failures or even nonexistent. My response to that is, "Compared to what?" Some utopian ideal that has never existed?




>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

You know what would give more credence to your nonsense? Give George W. the credit due for simultaneously launching us into two poorly managed and unwinnable wars while drastically lowering taxes, thereby digging a grave for our country's economy for generations to come. If you want to talk about runaway spending, at least have the fucking intelligence to figure out that it happens worse when your ideological brethren are in charge. Otherwise you just come off as another proto-typical brainwashed conservative dupe. >> ^quantumushroom:
Even the St. Petersburg Times, proto-typical liberal rag-in-denial, has noted that His Earness's "Buffett Tax" will only bring in a couple of hundred billion over 10 years, nary a drop in the bucket. Runaway spending is still the problem.
Taxocrats pretend they want to tax "only millionaires" but it's the "common man" the left claims it's defending that will be taking it in the ass from the federal mafia, both in trickle-down higher taxes AND direct higher taxes.
As for The Bignose and Fatso Vaudeville Hour, I've never been offered a job by a poor man.

You know what would give more credence to your nonsense? Give George W. the credit due for simultaneously launching us into two poorly managed and unwinnable wars while drastically lowering taxes, thereby digging a grave for our country's economy for generations to come. If you want to talk about runaway spending, at least have the fucking intelligence to figure out that it happens worse when your ideological brethren are in charge. Otherwise you just come off as another proto-typical brainwashed conservative dupe. >> ^quantumushroom:

Even the St. Petersburg Times, proto-typical liberal rag-in-denial, has noted that His Earness's "Buffett Tax" will only bring in a couple of hundred billion over 10 years, nary a drop in the bucket. Runaway spending is still the problem.
Taxocrats pretend they want to tax "only millionaires" but it's the "common man" the left claims it's defending that will be taking it in the ass from the federal mafia, both in trickle-down higher taxes AND direct higher taxes.
As for The Bignose and Fatso Vaudeville Hour, I've never been offered a job by a poor man.

Even the St. Petersburg Times, proto-typical liberal rag-in-denial, has noted that His Earness's "Buffett Tax" will only bring in a couple of hundred billion over 10 years, nary a drop in the bucket. Runaway spending is still the problem.

Taxocrats pretend they want to tax "only millionaires" but it's the "common man" the left claims it's defending that will be taking it in the ass from the federal mafia, both in trickle-down higher taxes AND direct higher taxes.

As for The Bignose and Fatso Vaudeville Hour, I've never been offered a job by a poor man.

Trickle down liberty.