I always enjoy liberals crying and making fun of trickle down then support govt spending to prop the economy. Govt spending means paying private organizations to build a road, provide food, build a bridge to nowhere, build a bomb to drop on a country ect with the hope the money will be use by these companies to hire somebody and thus trickle the money down to the peon. Reagan practiced a form keyensian economics via building the military. They(reagans admin) just gave it a different name.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
$1.2 Trillion went to Wallstreet
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I always enjoy liberals crying and making fun of trickle down then support govt spending to prop the economy. Govt spending means paying private organizations to build a road, provide food, build a bridge to nowhere, build a bomb to drop on a country ect with the hope the money will be use by these companies to hire somebody and thus trickle the money down to the peon. Reagan practiced a form keyensian economics via building the military. They(reagans admin) just gave it a different name.
I think that was his point. Progressive leaders arent any different than conservatives when it comes to the rich. This idea about Obama and democrats going after the rich would be utterly hilarious if it wasnt so sad watching the minions eat it up. Coming up on 3 years into Obama's administration, 2 of which his party had super majorities and they went after the rich by extending Bush tax cuts, enacting legislation that forces people to buy a product just for the sake of being alive, and giving tax payers money to big banks and big auto along with giving health care exemptions to big corporations.
Wake the eff up.
First thing that needs to be done is to somehow educate people on how their representatives are actually voting which is most likely not in their best interest.
The second thing that needs to be done is replace these worthless Representatives with people who will actually work for the people who vote them in.
Then I woke up 🙁
Clearly this is the case as Govt doubled in size under a Republican president with mostly republican majorities. Stingy republicans keeping govt in check!
They gave the big banks shitloads of money and they just sat on it. The need to give the money to the smaller community banks who will actually give loans to small Businesses.
Jaskalas
Lifer
Clever phrase. You had to add in 'major' thinking progressives are just that, knowing Libertarians are equally opposed to it. Though our two ideals are mutually exclusive there is still some common ground? Imagine that.
It would be a good day when our respective sides take down their own parties due to corruption. If only.
JSt0rm
Lifer
Thats because they are dishonest with themselves. They want to double the size when its their programs but bail outs to union workers? oh no!
BoberFett
Lifer
Craig hates libertarians more than he hates Republicans.
Doppel
Lifer
Key word "was". With goldman his biggest or second biggest campaign contributor we should have known, we lied to ourselves didn't we?
Morgan, top of list in this thread, contributed only half as much as Goldman. They got much better ownership for their dollar.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
To be fair:
A) These were loans, not gifts - all of that money should be back in the government's coffers by now.
B) Lots of those banks - even Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs - were on the teetering edge of collapse when things were at their worst. In a way you could argue it would have been for the best if they did shut down, but there are a lot of people who'd be out of jobs as a result... Not to mention the waterfall effect that'd have triggered.
C) The banks "sat" on that money because the entire problem was investors were withdrawing more in a panic than they had on hand - the very definition of making a run on a bank. The money the government made available was by its very nature meant as a safety buffer, not to be lent out.
A) These were loans, not gifts - all of that money should be back in the government's coffers by now.
B) Lots of those banks - even Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs - were on the teetering edge of collapse when things were at their worst. In a way you could argue it would have been for the best if they did shut down, but there are a lot of people who'd be out of jobs as a result... Not to mention the waterfall effect that'd have triggered.
C) The banks "sat" on that money because the entire problem was investors were withdrawing more in a panic than they had on hand - the very definition of making a run on a bank. The money the government made available was by its very nature meant as a safety buffer, not to be lent out.
Last edited:
Doppel
Lifer
For what little consolation it may be worth the democrats spent most of Bush's reign lamenting how awful he was and dearly wishing they could get a democrat back to change things to how they should be. Now Obama has shattered that dream for many. I bet if you polled you'd find that there are far more people today than in recent memory who believe that the government is, in its current form, destined to continue down the current path of representing corporations first, people last. Obama has dashed hope for literally millions who were heretofore blaming it on Republicans and now know both parties are more or less equally injurious to the nation.
How about Option 3?
You know...the one where the government doesn't take so much money out of the economy to begin with?
woolfe9999
Diamond Member
Failed analogy. If the government contracts with a private company to build a road, the company has to hire people to build that road. The usual formulation of "trickle down" is that you give a tax break to corporations and just hope they use the extra money to hire people and/or increase the real wages of existing employees. The first scenario doesn't require faith in the outcome because the money is being supplied for a specific project that requires labor, whereas the second scenario is totally faith based.
JSt0rm
Lifer
Taxes are at a all time low already. Nice try but your right wing radio garble wont work on me.
Phokus
Lifer
LMAO, Obama isn't a 'progressive' in the very least. You're retarded if you think that. How progressive is he? He caved on extending bush's tax cuts, he caved on the public option, he caved on a lot of foreign policy stuff, he caved on the debt deal, etc. etc. If anything, he's like some crypto-republican. Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich are more like 'progressives', but the democratic party is so far to the right, they're in the fringe.
Last edited:
Ron Paul.
Freedom is terrifying. We think for you!
I dont think it is a failed analogy at all. Ultimately the hope and expectation of where the money goes is the same. Whether it is a tax break or giving them money. The "hope" and "expectation" is the money ends up being trickled down to the peons in the form of a job creation.
I dont see the difference at the end of a day. And Reagan did a lot of direct funding of job creation as well. And so did Bush II for that matter.
woolfe9999
Diamond Member
I'm not disputing your second point, that military spending can be Keynesian. Your first point, however, doesn't make much sense. If the government contracts with a private company to do a specific piece of work, and the work requires labor, it is 100% certain that the contract will result in job creation. It may be debatable whether the money spent was worth the number of jobs created, but that's a different issue. The "trickle down" theory that is maligned by liberals is not even close to the same thing. It's one thing to pay a company to perform a specific job that requires labor, quite another to give a company a tax break and just hope it decides to use the money to create jobs.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
