Conservative's 'trickle down theory' is dead wrong according to study

[DCal430]

Tickle down should really be called flowing up poverty.

 

[Zorkorist]

Fuck Government.

-John

 

[riffdex]

The thing males need to to guide them away from lives of crime and jail are two things: fathers, and employment. They don't need more government meddling.

Ignorant simplification of a complex issue. No, males need love and attention. Saying young men need fathers is falling prey to the ignorant implication that one needs a male role model to feel loved or succeed. I guess with your reasoning, a young man with two fathers would be extra successful?

My friend grew up with no father in the house. His father died when he was 2. His mother never could love anybody else, she would prefer to be alone because her deceased husband was the only man she cared for. She wasn't going to go remarry just for the sake of her son having a "father figure". To arbitrarily remarry for this purpose would not have been fair for anybody. Instead she doubled up on love. My friend did fine without a father. Although having a father and mother would have possibly made life easier and been more love for the child, it was not essential for success. Not even close. A child needs love and you can get love from many sources. Your mother, father, sisters, cousins. Societal roles are no longer set in stone.

So just fathers and employment? That's all there is to it, huh?There's certainly no negative correlation between one's level of education and chances of committing crimes. /s
No, young men and women in our society need education to bridge the gap between unrealized potential and actual success. Unfortunately, the quality of education in America varies greatly based on location. Unsurprisingly, you get a poorer quality of education if you are poor. It's funny how you only mention factors that are arguably something that could be fixed within communities or by the free market, and leave out a factor that would be influenced by the government.

 

[trenchfoot]

Ignorant simplification of a complex issue. No, males need love and attention. Saying young men need fathers is falling prey to the ignorant implication that one needs a male role model to feel loved or succeed. I guess with your reasoning, a young man with two fathers would be extra successful?

My friend grew up with no father in the house. His father died when he was 2. His mother never could love anybody else, she would prefer to be alone because her deceased husband was the only man she cared for. She wasn't going to go remarry just for the sake of her son having a "father figure". To arbitrarily remarry for this purpose would not have been fair for anybody. Instead she doubled up on love. My friend did fine without a father. Although having a father and mother would have possibly made life easier and been more love for the child, it was not essential for success. Not even close. A child needs love and you can get love from many sources. Your mother, father, sisters, cousins. Societal roles are no longer set in stone.

So just fathers and employment? That's all there is to it, huh?There's certainly no negative correlation between one's level of education and chances of committing crimes. /s
No, young men and women in our society need education to bridge the gap between unrealized potential and actual success. Unfortunately, the quality of education in America varies greatly based on location. Unsurprisingly, you get a poorer quality of education if you are poor. It's funny how you only mention factors that are arguably something that could be fixed within communities or by the free market, and leave out a factor that would be influenced by the government.

You've made some excellent points that are both thoughtful and meaningful, but the bolded text, IMO, may not one of them. You may or may not be correct about that but I for one wouldn't assume as such given that Atreus21 may have meant to say that fathers and jobs are the two most important factors but not the only ones.

Yes, it was a small detail where the word "only" got left out as the second word at the beginning of Atreus21's post, but to base your entire post on an assumption that IMO, needed prior clarification or a pre-conditional declarative stating as such, is, well, somewhat assumptive on your part?

Just say'in what might be the case.

 

[lotus503]

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/15/news/economy/trickle-down-theory-wrong-imf/index.html?iid=SF_LN

Wealth does not trickle down from the rich to the poor. Period.

That's not Senator Elizabeth Warren talking.
That's the latest conclusion of new research from the International Monetary Fund, which analyzed 150 countries.

In fact, researchers found that when the top earners in society make more money, it actually slows down economic growth.
On the other hand, when poorer people earn more, society as a whole benefits.

The authors explain that high levels of income inequality drag down growth because poor people struggle to pay for health care and education, which hurts society as a whole.


Tax the rich more!

Use that $ to pay for better education/schools in poor neighborhoods.
and for programs that guide males away from a life of crime and jail.

Trickle down always relied on slim margins within the laffer curve, none of which were really ever present.

 

[JSt0rm]

And all you can continue to come back with is how lost I am, or how far out there. Zero facts as per usual.

Typical Democrat, wave the flag of sexual and racial tolerance, but then intolerant to anyone that doesn't agree with them on any of their "issues"

The old bigotory of bigots line. You are literally the definition of not a moderate. hilarious you tried to pull that off.

 

[TheSlamma]

The old bigotory of bigots line. You are literally the definition of not a moderate. hilarious you tried to pull that off.

So based on post 105 which you agreed on at least 6 of my statements, blindly denied a few and then played stupid to.. err wait, no I believe you are dumb enough to have no clue how to help the environment. What would you say that I am?

This should be good. I'm literally preparing for the most incorrect answer the earth has ever seen. This will even be more wrong than the time that one guy said the earth was flat. Even more wrong than trickle down and even more wrong than your mom telling you that you can grow up to be anything you want.

 

[JSt0rm]

So based on post 105 which you agreed on at least 6 of my statements, blindly denied a few and then played stupid to.. err wait, no I believe you are dumb enough to have no clue how to help the environment. What would you say that I am?

This should be good. I'm literally preparing for the most incorrect answer the earth has ever seen. This will even be more wrong than the time that one guy said the earth was flat. Even more wrong than trickle down and even more wrong than your mom telling you that you can grow up to be anything you want.

I wasnt the only one who poke holes in the reasons you dont like the dems. You are a libertarian. They align more closely with the republicans but hate both parties. They are only moderate in your mind though.

On top of that you just spew a bunch of bullshit insults with no meaning. As if that is someone impressing anyone. lol.

 

[Fern]

I say Bullshit to your Bullshit.

If it trickled down we wouldn't have a dying middle class, and the Federal Reserve rescuing banks after the middle class was raped by them, to reap more benefits as they are now.

It never trickles down, it just gets handed to the guys up top to perpetuate the Bullshit.

Yeah. There's trickle down. You missed the part about "trickle away".

Our middle class is being killed by 'trickle away'. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah. There's trickle down. You missed the part about "trickle away".

Our middle class is being killed by 'trickle away'. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade

Fern

Yes, America's financial elite has invested heavily offshore, particularly in China. It's apparently more profitable than investing in this country.

Your point is?

 

[Lash444]

Yes, America's financial elite has invested heavily offshore, particularly in China. It's apparently more profitable than investing in this country.

Your point is?

I won't speak for him, but I can't imagine a bigger fail of economic policies for a country than for the elite to be granted an ever increasing amount of wealth, only to invest it in the advancement of another.

Are you just trolling us? Was that an honest question?

 

[Fern]

Yes, America's financial elite has invested heavily offshore, particularly in China. It's apparently more profitable than investing in this country.

Your point is?

We need to make the US a desirable place for such investment etc.

The Left's constant demonization and horsewhipping of business/capitalism is going to continue to drive away what's here and prevent others (foreign) from coming.

A multi-pronged solution is what's needed but you're so busy screaming "more taxes" (more horsewhipping) you can't see it.

Fern

 

[Lash444]

I mean, I can understand havign a gripe with wasteful government spending, but at least the masses are receiving some goods/services from that offering.

But here you are in a thread about supply side economics being a failure, and then you basically freely admit that the money isn't being spent state-side, and then are dumb enough to ask why someone has a problem with the whole thing. I don't pretend to understand Republicans, and maybe you are one of the rich R's who benefits from it...

But if you aren't rich, and are voting for a side that is supporting supply side economic policies...you are either benefitting, ignorant, or stupid.

 

[Lash444]

We need to make the US a desirable place for such investment etc.

The Left's constant demonization and horsewhipping of business/capitalism is going to continue to drive away what's here and prevent others (foreign) from coming.

A multi-pronged solution is what's needed but you're so busy screaming "more taxes" (more horsewhipping) you can't see it.

Fern

We are in a thread about the merits, or lack thereof, for trickle down. Kansas just lowered their taxes. Where is all this growth that was promised from that.

Wouldn't you say that the country already tried investing money in the "trickle down" plan. They left the rich with more money, in hopes that everyone would prosper. How did that turn out?

And now you sit here, saying that the people are demonizing big business. Demonizing would be getting a solid return, but expecting more than they should. Instead they get completely hosed, and you somehow turn it around to make it sound like the people who got screwed are just a bunch of whiners. Only one group benefitted, and you can preach on like a Kansas governor who has his head so far up his @$$ that he can't even see light. Face it, keeping on the path isn't going to make business come back. Hopefully the people who elected Brownback reailize that.

 

[dank69]

We need to make the US a desirable place for such investment etc.

...

So...go back to third world conditions? No, seriously, how do you propose we compete with third world labor conditions?

 

[Zorkorist]

Lawl,

There is no trickle down today, because government taxes, regulates, and spends so much.

There is absolutely no incentive for a person to try and work when there is so much fake money flowing around.

If all the money is fake...

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

So...go back to third world conditions? No, seriously, how do you propose we compete with third world labor conditions?

Stop spending money into deficit... would be a good start.

That makes the money a little less fake.

A balanced budget amendment.

-John

 

[ivwshane]

Lawl,

There is no trickle down today, because government taxes, regulates, and spends so much.

There is absolutely no incentive for a person to try and work when there is so much fake money flowing around.

If all the money is fake...

-John

Oops, it looks like you've outed yourself as one of those lazy government takers. How often do you have lobster while talking on your Obama phone after cashing your welfare check?

Or am I totally wrong about you?

 

[Zorkorist]

You are wrong about so many things, lol.

Yes, you are wrong again.

-John

 

[ivwshane]

You are wrong about so many things, lol.

Yes, you are wrong again.

-John

Oops!! Looks like you just contradicted yourself! My assumptions about you are either right or as you stated they are wrong, thus proving that there are, indeed, incentive to work.

Which voice in your head is correct?

 

[Zorkorist]

Dude, if you are just going to attack me, I will report you.

If you want to dialog, I will engage you.

-John

 

[ivwshane]

Dude, if you are just going to attack me, I will report you.

If you want to dialog, I will engage you.

-John

By all means report me! You made a bullshit claim, I proved you wrong using yourself as an example. It's not my fault you are stupid

 

[Zorkorist]

Lawl,

-John

 

[dank69]

Stop spending money into deficit... would be a good start.

That makes the money a little less fake.

A balanced budget amendment.

-John

So balance the budget and companies will no longer use the cheapest labor they can find? So simple and it makes so much sense, after about five beers and a few shots.

 

[Zorkorist]

Lessen the burden of Government, and you will find that productivity increases.

Right now each person's "work" goes to support Government. Something like 50% of work, goes to others rather than themselves.

It's easy to see how this would be a problem.

-John