Search Fishin.com

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 32

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    11,442
    Post Thanks / Like

    Is there a trickle up policy?

    I keep hearing about trickle down economics but what's the alternative? You old guys errrrr older guys (I'm 50 and some say that's old!) keep bringing it up so what's the alternative? My basic understanding of TD is tax breaks for the wealthy and the investments they make in the world and their business, with their money, things they buy etc...help the economy. That's not to say the rest of us can't make money it's just describing what the "rich" get.

    So is the alternative to give breaks to the poor? The middle class? Who? The poor deserves what kind of breaks and who is poor? Does a family who may be supported 75-100% by tax payers need a break? Not sure how much more of a break you can give to someone getting money free of charge. How about lower, middle and upper middle class? Maybe better interest rates on loans? That works for me but when the banks and lenders were told to issue more subprime loans to unqualified people look at what happened.

    So what is the alternative to TD? Is it Obama-nomics? That sure seems like a flop doesn't it? Here on one hand he says trickle down didn't work but didn't he bail out some rich corporations? If he was so pro poor and middle class why didn't all of us tax payers get a huge check?? Wouldn't that be a step in practicing what he preaches? That's trickle up isn't it?? Give to the non "rich" and let us reinvest the money....I'm still waiting on my Obama check.

    Giving my tax dollars to GM and all those idiots didn't put money in my pocket..did it yours?? Doesn't he allow tax breaks to rich folks? Is spending more money than any man alive with the promise of saving our economy the way? I think that fell short as well. His lofty overinflated goals of unemployment rate targets were off.

    is raising the minimum wage a start in the right direction? Hmmm maybe I really haven't put a lot of thought into that. Is mandating a healthcare plan that requires us to be taxed more by our gubment the way to prosperity?? I have to ask who prospers when I give more and more of my money away to the gubment? Seems like wealth distribution. Is that the answer to TD?? Just take take take from anyone who has money and try to water down the playing field to were we are all making about the same money regardless of effort?? Is that it?? Sounds like a union attitude to me.

    The only thing I see that should be done is less gubment intrusion, less gubment, restrict their powers since they are suppose to work for us, cut WAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY back of foreign aid and even some of these bogus programs we have here in this country, gut the union ties on gubment, flat tax or whatever it can be called so people pay a set percentage equally and tons of other items that basically get people to be responsible for their actions and not have 10 lawyers to help them get out of trouble. I'm talking about all crimes top to bottom...you rip off the American people as an elected official your done and in jail. Of course congress and the potus would be in jail but hey do the crime do the time.

    In all seriousness I have zero faith in anything in politics being 100% transparent. It's to corrupt. I don't care if it's from the left or right someone is getting paid off. The sad part is we always have to pick the lessor of two evils and the two evils have built such a strong fortress around themselves that it's going to take an exceptional leader at the perfect time in history to get us back on path and Obama sure wasn't close to that as some fools thought.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    theres no need to try trickle up, give trickle down a chance to work, it's only been in effect 34 years.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    2,378
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by waterdog101 View Post
    theres no need to try trickle up, give trickle down a chance to work, it's only been in effect 34 years.
    Since Jimmy Carter version 1.0, 27 of those years have been pretty damned good economically.

    Not so much under Jimmy Carter Version 2.0 with far left code updates. Deficit government spending EVERY year since he took office, historic 17+ trillion dollar debt, historic 92 million people unemployed (the unemployment rate reported by the fed is a joke), health care insurance costs skyrocketing, historic numbers of people receiving government assistance, etc, etc,etc.

    Try and obscure them with BS, but hard facts speak for themselves.

    Hold on now...wait for it...here it comes...wait for it....

    IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Carlisle
    Posts
    1,096
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Devils Horse View Post
    Since Jimmy Carter version 1.0, 27 of those years have been pretty damned good economically.

    Not so much under Jimmy Carter Version 2.0 with far left code updates. Deficit government spending EVERY year since he took office, historic 17+ trillion dollar debt, historic 92 million people unemployed (the unemployment rate reported by the fed is a joke), health care insurance costs skyrocketing, historic numbers of people receiving government assistance, etc, etc,etc.

    Try and obscure them with BS, but hard facts speak for themselves.

    Hold on now...wait for it...here it comes...wait for it....

    IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT!
    --
    Hmmm.... It does seem to me the 27 good years you speak of since Mr Carter resulted in a debt of under a trillion dollars ballooning to a debt of over 10 trillion and a constantly shrinking middle class... If the slow erosion of the middle class seems to you like "pretty damned good economically" then we seem to have a very different view of what "pretty damned good economically" means... I agree we had a good 27 year run but the result of not paying for all the government that was added starting ...let me see... must have been around 1980, so the rich could get richer at the cost of the rest of was anything but good economics... The republican agenda over that time started a down slide that I don't believe we can ever overcome.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    2,378
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Hlleonard View Post
    --
    Hmmm.... It does seem to me the 27 good years you speak of since Mr Carter resulted in a debt of under a trillion dollars ballooning to a debt of over 10 trillion and a constantly shrinking middle class... If the slow erosion of the middle class seems to you like "pretty damned good economically" then we seem to have a very different view of what "pretty damned good economically" means... I agree we had a good 27 year run but the result of not paying for all the government that was added starting ...let me see... must have been around 1980, so the rich could get richer at the cost of the rest of was anything but good economics... The republican agenda over that time started a down slide that I don't believe we can ever overcome.
    Those talking points are the exact BS I was referring to. You been watching that Democrat fount of information and fact obfuscation, Jay Carney again?

    Sorry, I meant IT'S ALL THE REPUBLICANS' FAULT!

    Better?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Carlisle
    Posts
    1,096
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Devils Horse View Post
    Those talking points are the exact BS I was referring to. You been watching that Democrat fount of information and fact obfuscation, Jay Carney again?

    Sorry, I meant IT'S ALL THE REPUBLICANS' FAULT!

    Better?
    --
    Which part of all that wasn't true?... was the 8 trillion dollars added to the debt during the reagan,bush1,bush11 not the fault of those three guys?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    2,378
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Hlleonard View Post
    --
    Which part of all that wasn't true?... was the 8 trillion dollars added to the debt during the reagan,bush1,bush11 not the fault of those three guys?
    Sure it's their fault.

    Can you acknowledge that the 9+ trillion added to the debt (more than the 3 you mention put together) is the fault of Mr. Obama then? Or do you want to blame that on Mr. Bush like the candidates you support do?

    Your argument is typical of the Democrats and their supporters. Rather than answer for the abysmal job the Democrat majority has done since Mr. Obama took office, they just try to show how bad past Republicans were.

    That is the BS tactic I referred to, and it happens constantly.

    For example the President is doing everything within his power now to get people's focus off the Democrat party's ACA train wreck, the thrust of his state of the union speech is expected to be income inequality. Are you kidding me?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Carlisle
    Posts
    1,096
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Devils Horse View Post
    Sure it's their fault.

    Can you acknowledge that the 9+ trillion added to the debt (more than the 3 you mention put together) is the fault of Mr. Obama then? Or do you want to blame that on Mr. Bush like the candidates you support do?

    Your argument is typical of the Democrats and their supporters. Rather than answer for the abysmal job the Democrat majority has done since Mr. Obama took office, they just try to show how bad past Republicans were.

    That is the BS tactic I referred to, and it happens constantly.

    For example the President is doing everything within his power now to get people's focus off the Democrat party's ACA train wreck, the thrust of his state of the union speech is expected to be income inequality. Are you kidding me?
    --
    Yes sir, everything this president does is his responsibility the same as his predecessors and he is by no means a golden child... I don't believe I have defended any of his policies, he is just another in the line of presidents who seems to think it isn't necessary to pay for government programs but he is by no means the first or the worst (so far) in that line and I doubt he will catch Mr Reagan and might not catch Bush11 in the big spender category... For the right wing to call themselves conservatives and then attempt to crucify this president on his budget policies after increasing the debt by a factor or 8 or so in 27 years as you say is laughable.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    New Albany, Indiana.
    Posts
    8,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Hlleonard View Post
    --
    Yes sir, everything this president does is his responsibility the same as his predecessors and he is by no means a golden child... I don't believe I have defended any of his policies, he is just another in the line of presidents who seems to think it isn't necessary to pay for government programs but he is by no means the first or the worst (so far) in that line and I doubt he will catch Mr Reagan and might not catch Bush11 in the big spender category... For the right wing to call themselves conservatives and then attempt to crucify this president on his budget policies after increasing the debt by a factor or 8 or so in 27 years as you say is laughable.
    He has ALREADY surpassed both of them combined.

    What is laughable is the idiocy in your post.

    SAD.

    Later,

    Geo

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Carlisle
    Posts
    1,096
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoFisher View Post
    He has ALREADY surpassed both of them combined.

    What is laughable is the idiocy in your post.

    SAD.

    Later,

    Geo
    --
    He has passed neither of them.

    Ronald Reagan increased the debt by 218%
    George Bush11 increased the debt by 86%

    I'm sure you can do the math on Mr Obama's contribution.

    These are these numbers I found, maybe you can find different ones and post them.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    New Albany, Indiana.
    Posts
    8,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Hlleonard View Post
    --
    He has passed neither of them.

    Ronald Reagan increased the debt by 218%
    George Bush11 increased the debt by 86%

    I'm sure you can do the math on Mr Obama's contribution.

    These are these numbers I found, maybe you can find different ones and post them.
    Again, you didn't provide numbers, you provided percentages.

    So here are some numbers:

    Reagan Years and Bush Years

    1980's 907.7
    2001 (a2) 5,807
    2002 (a3) 6,228
    2003 (a) 6,783
    2004 (a) 7,379
    2005 (a4) 7,933
    2006 (a5) 8,507
    2007 (a6) 9,008
    2008 (a7) 10,025

    So, using Math, I get 907.7 + (10,025 - 5807) for 5.125 Trillion TOTAL for bush and Reagan combined.

    Now for Obama.......GAWD ****, those are some big numbers.........you sure you can count that high? And this is only through 2014.

    2009 (a8) 11,910
    2010 (a9) 13,562
    2011 (a10) 14,790
    2012 (a11) 16,066
    2013 ~16,738
    2014 ~17,152

    17,152 - 11,910 = 5.252 Trillion.. So based on the NUMBERS I have provided, pulled from THIS LINK, Obama has surpassed Reagan and Bush Combined.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa..._United_States

    Note: the initial year for Reagan is all that was reported, but I will give you the assumption that he raised it by 2.2trillion dollars...........even at that rate, if you add the 1.5 trillion/ear that is expected for 2015 and 2016, Obama STILL beats the two Republicans combined by 1 trillion........

    You like all other liberals love to spin and crunch **** to look the way you want, yea, the percentages you provided, taken from the democrat talking points do paint a different picture, but statistics my friend are about numbers, and you can paint that how ever the hell you want.

    Bottom Line, I have provided the corresponding data from a reliable source to BACK my argument. Something the left is rare to do.

    Good day, I'm done arguing with you tonight. Pick a number, and I will be glad to school your ass again tomorrow.

    Later,

    Geo

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Carlisle
    Posts
    1,096
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoFisher View Post
    Again, you didn't provide numbers, you provided percentages.

    So here are some numbers:

    Reagan Years and Bush Years

    1980's 907.7
    2001 (a2) 5,807
    2002 (a3) 6,228
    2003 (a) 6,783
    2004 (a) 7,379
    2005 (a4) 7,933
    2006 (a5) 8,507
    2007 (a6) 9,008
    2008 (a7) 10,025

    So, using Math, I get 907.7 + (10,025 - 5807) for 5.125 Trillion TOTAL for bush and Reagan combined.

    Now for Obama.......GAWD ****, those are some big numbers.........you sure you can count that high? And this is only through 2014.

    2009 (a8) 11,910
    2010 (a9) 13,562
    2011 (a10) 14,790
    2012 (a11) 16,066
    2013 ~16,738
    2014 ~17,152

    17,152 - 11,910 = 5.252 Trillion.. So based on the NUMBERS I have provided, pulled from THIS LINK, Obama has surpassed Reagan and Bush Combined.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa..._United_States

    Note: the initial year for Reagan is all that was reported, but I will give you the assumption that he raised it by 2.2trillion dollars...........even at that rate, if you add the 1.5 trillion/ear that is expected for 2015 and 2016, Obama STILL beats the two Republicans combined by 1 trillion........

    You like all other liberals love to spin and crunch **** to look the way you want, yea, the percentages you provided, taken from the democrat talking points do paint a different picture, but statistics my friend are about numbers, and you can paint that how ever the hell you want.

    Bottom Line, I have provided the corresponding data from a reliable source to BACK my argument. Something the left is rare to do.

    Good day, I'm done arguing with you tonight. Pick a number, and I will be glad to school your ass again tomorrow.

    Later,

    Geo
    --
    If you go back and use the correct number to do the math the numbers you seem to be enchanted with are actually around 6 and a half trillion instead of the 5.2 you posted... The .907 trillion you used for your calculation is the debt that Mr. Carter left Mr. Reagan.... So in your head it is ok to double or triple the debt as long as the numbers themselves are smaller?... I guess that is good right wing economics.

    Before you get into schooling somebody it might be a good idea to at least start at the right place in the text book.... You have a good day sir.

Similar Threads

  1. Trickle down economics
    By waterdog101 in forum "Off Topic" Posts
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-02-2011, 08:27 PM
  2. Foreign policy
    By demodan in forum "Off Topic" Posts
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-19-2010, 09:15 PM
  3. Vacation Policy
    By Tyme2fish in forum "Off Topic" Posts
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-01-2008, 03:05 AM
  4. Umbrela Policy
    By Tyme2fish in forum "Off Topic" Posts
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-23-2007, 08:25 PM
  5. Solar Powered Trickle Chargers
    By Chubminnow in forum Kentucky Discussion Board
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-14-2007, 02:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •