So Kansas, how's the trickle tasting?

[Vurdah]

So opponents of trickle down always say something like this 'like duh" . Then the next sentence out of their mouths is to give more money to people so they can spend all of it to "stimulate" the economy. Which is it? People save money or people spend money.


And I haven't delved too deep into Kansas economic policies (cause I'm on my phone) but if was "tax breaks to rich, they will give more money to workers", that's a stupid fucking policy. If it was "hire 10,000 more workers or increase your average workers wage by 15%, and we will offset the cost by lowering your tax burden by a certain amount, in theory seems like a solid way for the government to stimulate growth in the private sector. But if they were given tax breaks with no oversight or requirements, you are just asking for trouble.

Trickle down didn't work when Reagan did it and it's not working now. And giving money to people to spend doesn't really work that well either. Companies see an increase in sales but it's temporary so there is no point for them to invest in more employees. Especially when your current workforce can handle the demand.

I do agree with you on your idea of offering tax cuts IF they hire a certain number of new employees and maintain that number throughout the year in order to qualify for said tax cut. It's actually not a bad idea. More workers means more production and less hours needing to be worked by current employees. It also means less people on welfare programs and unemployment and also means more people with disposable income to stimulate the economy.

Try not to judge someone based of off an obviously sarcastic comment. Seems to be a big issue with people on MMOC not being able to pick up on sarcasm. Or maybe I'm being far too subtle. Who knows.

[Orbitus]

Let me know when you find an article that's not posted on Salon (of all places), and a ragtag group of columns in backwater papers.

P.S. And, of course, your video is from the Young Turks. Give me a break!

Let me know when you can refute any of the points in any of them. Since they will never be in those rags like conservative post and the federalist. They love tax breaks, when the tax breaks are destroying their state, they will simply sweep it under the rug.

[Zaramirrah]

Speaking as a Kansas resident, the trickle is small, warm, and sort of sour. Like watered down whiskey.

[A dot Ham]

I support the original version of reaganomics where we would cut spending and taxes. I do support running deficits. With regard to corporate taxation I am merely pointing out that having a high tax rate does cause tax flight and that there is trillions o dollars that could repatriated but currently sit overseas.

I am against raising taxes on anyone until there's an actual budget

You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Reagan rose the debt ceiling twice while in office. The budget is rather irrelevant if you can simply raise the debt ceiling. It is a practice that has been repeated by every president since. (Thanks breh)

The only reason you raise the debt ceiling is popularity. Raising the debt ceiling allows you to stay popular because you don't have to increase taxes AND you don't have to cut spending.

The only reason you CAN raise the debt ceiling is military power. Because if anyone ever tried to collect on that debt would stick a "gun" in their face and tell them to "Fuck Off!" China owns the majority of our 19 trillion dollar debt, and they continue to leverage that fact as it makes us dependent on Chinese manufacturing.

Tax flight can easily be countered by imposing higher tariffs on imported goods specific to the manufacturer that has moved overseas thereby nullifying the benefits for such a move.

Higher taxes are not the ONLY reason companies pack up and go. In the US we place a high value on human rights, ethical working conditions, and environmental impact. Those values and the laws created to enforce those interests come at cost to corporations. China however, has none of these and are all too willing to accept these corporations with open arms. So we essentially support corporations that don't share our same values and strip the country of cash flow. If the US truly valued human rights, and our environment we wouldn't do any business with China at all. Period.

Reaganomics was NEVER about cutting spending. Never... I don't know what history books you are reading. His campaign was "no new taxes" but when he got to office it was like "well we might need some new taxes" and like I said previously you don't raise the debt ceiling if you are cutting spending.

Reaganomics was always military based. Increased government spending on military, which puts money into the pockets of American corporations, which trickles into the economy, and those companies will NEVER be overseas companies. Boeing, lockheed, etc. The problem is that it costs far more to have a standing military to operate such purchases and thus we create a worse situation.

I honestly don't know how you can support Reaganomics and trickle down economics when we see nationally the effect that has had, and then we have an article spelling it out on a smaller state-sized model and it still doesn't work.

[satimy]

You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Reagan rose the debt ceiling twice while in office. The budget is rather irrelevant if you can simply raise the debt ceiling. It is a practice that has been repeated by every president since. (Thanks breh)

The only reason you raise the debt ceiling is popularity. Raising the debt ceiling allows you to stay popular because you don't have to increase taxes AND you don't have to cut spending.

The only reason you CAN raise the debt ceiling is military power. Because if anyone ever tried to collect on that debt would stick a "gun" in their face and tell them to "Fuck Off!" China owns the majority of our 19 trillion dollar debt, and they continue to leverage that fact as it makes us dependent on Chinese manufacturing.

Tax flight can easily be countered by imposing higher tariffs on imported goods specific to the manufacturer that has moved overseas thereby nullifying the benefits for such a move.

Higher taxes are not the ONLY reason companies pack up and go. In the US we place a high value on human rights, ethical working conditions, and environmental impact. Those values and the laws created to enforce those interests come at cost to corporations. China however, has none of these and are all too willing to accept these corporations with open arms. So we essentially support corporations that don't share our same values and strip the country of cash flow. If the US truly valued human rights, and our environment we wouldn't do any business with China at all. Period.

Reaganomics was NEVER about cutting spending. Never... I don't know what history books you are reading. His campaign was "no new taxes" but when he got to office it was like "well we might need some new taxes" and like I said previously you don't raise the debt ceiling if you are cutting spending.

Reaganomics was always military based. Increased government spending on military, which puts money into the pockets of American corporations, which trickles into the economy, and those companies will NEVER be overseas companies. Boeing, lockheed, etc. The problem is that it costs far more to have a standing military to operate such purchases and thus we create a worse situation.

I honestly don't know how you can support Reaganomics and trickle down economics when we see nationally the effect that has had, and then we have an article spelling it out on a smaller state-sized model and it still doesn't work.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ockman/305760/

China doesn't own the majority of our debt

And I don't like Reagan because started deficit spending which is just a way to increase your popularity while fucking over the future when you will no longer be in office. I like David stockman and he was one of the main architects of reaganomics

[A dot Ham]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ockman/305760/

China doesn't own the majority of our debt

And I don't like Reagan because started deficit spending which is just a way to increase your popularity while fucking over the future when you will no longer be in office. I like David stockman and he was one of the main architects of reaganomics

China does own our debt. When the US government offers up bonds with no interest... the majority get bought up by... China. I should clarify that by saying that China as a whole is the largest stakeholder maybe not 51%+, but definitely the biggest piece of the pie.

I really don't have time to read the David Stockman biography if you want to post snips of anything relevant I would be happy to read it... but that is the biggest block of useless information irrelevant to an argument that I have ever seen posted... I have to trust there is some pertinent information in there... but like I said I don't have time to read through it to find it.

All that aside, over the last 30 years we can see just how bad Reagan's policies have fucked up our economy, the most damning would be be deregulating the banks which had direct impact on the 2008 crash. Furthermore, we have seen that trickle down economics (or Reaganomics) only works in the short term, and has long term damning effects. Current national economy, and going back to OP... Kansas.

So again, how can you still support something that has overwhelming evidence that it does. not. work.

[Machismo]

and how is that going to provide for every single person who needs help? you seem to be advocating to take america back to a third world country status.

And you seem to be advocating for a new definition of the word "need."

[Poopymonster]

Trickle down economics has never worked and only help the rich getting richer and making the poor poorer...

Never worked? or working as intended?

[IIamaKing]

All this talk of trickle down made me have to pee.

[Machismo]

I told you all the problems with it. You made up another argument for me... for some reason that I fail to grasp.

Once again, this is what I said:

"It is entirely possible to start and/or go to a private university. Most people just want it to be easier, so they opt to spend other people's money, and have the government do it for them."

You seemed to imply that there was a great deal wrong with what I said. Let's take it sentence by sentence.

"It is entirely possible to start and/or go to a private university." Is that sentence factually correct? Yes, yes it is. You wanted to add that it was difficult, which I would agree. However, nothing I said was wrong, which you claimed it to be.

"Most people just want it to be easier, so they opt to spend other people's money, and have the government do it for them." You didn't even bother to address that sentence, so it's rather irrelevant. Besides, it is nothing more than a technical opinion, which I will gladly back with data if you like.

Then you replied with:

"I dont even want to begin to explain everything wrong with this statement. " You seem to think there's a great deal wrong with those two sentences. So, where was I actually wrong? That's the part where you are failing. You are pushing on with your own diatibe, yet never bothered to back up your claim that I was wrong. Which of those two sentences is incorrect?

[GennGreymane]

Once again, this is what I said:

"It is entirely possible to start and/or go to a private university. Most people just want it to be easier, so they opt to spend other people's money, and have the government do it for them."

You seemed to imply that there was a great deal wrong with what I said. Let's take it sentence by sentence.

"It is entirely possible to start and/or go to a private university." Is that sentence factually correct? Yes, yes it is. You wanted to add that it was difficult, which I would agree. However, nothing I said was wrong, which you claimed it to be.

"Most people just want it to be easier, so they opt to spend other people's money, and have the government do it for them." You didn't even bother to address that sentence, so it's rather irrelevant. Besides, it is nothing more than a technical opinion, which I will gladly back with data if you like.

When your done arguing with yourself, let me know.

[Poopymonster]

Speaking as a Kansas resident, the trickle is small, warm, and sort of sour. Like watered down whiskey.

But you have freedom! Making government smaller makes freedoms happen apparently.

[Ycarene]

Money is like electricity, it only works when it's moving.

[Machismo]

When your done arguing with yourself, let me know.

I simply want to know what was actually wrong with those two sentences that you seemed to take such umbrage with. You said they were wrong, but how?

"It is entirely possible to start and/or go to a private university." Is that sentence wrong? I do believe it is possible. Since people have done it before, many times, it seems like it is entirely possible. You got incensed over how "wrong" a single sentence was, but it is factually correct, is it not? If it's not factually correct, then you are arguing that it is indeed impossible to do. You claimed to not be arguing that, which means you agree with me that the sentence is not as "wrong" as you claimed it to be.

So, it's either possible, or impossible. I said it was possible. Was I wrong?

[Poopymonster]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ockman/305760/

China doesn't own the majority of our debt

And I don't like Reagan because started deficit spending which is just a way to increase your popularity while fucking over the future when you will no longer be in office. I like David stockman and he was one of the main architects of reaganomics

Almost like the current form of Capitalism, CEOs short term yay, fuck the future.

[PragmaticGamer]

Back in the 1890s, it was called "the Horse and Sparrow Theory."

Basically, if you feed enough oats to a horse, it's going to have some that just don't digest. It will then excrete the undigested bits, and sparrows will be able to eat them.

It was a pile of horse shit back then, but at least they were honest about it.

[GennGreymane]

I simply want to know what was actually wrong with those two sentences that you seemed to take such umbrage with. You said they were wrong, but how?

"It is entirely possible to start and/or go to a private university." Is that sentence wrong? I do believe it is possible. Since people have done it before, many times, it seems like it is entirely possible. You got incensed over how "wrong" a single sentence was, but it is factually correct, is it not? If it's not factually correct, then you are arguing that it is indeed impossible to do. You claimed to not be arguing that, which means you agree with me that the sentence is not as "wrong" as you claimed it to be.

So, it's either possible, or impossible. I said it was possible. Was I wrong?

Try reading, its not hard. I said I found a lot wrong, and listed some the issues.... why this is hard for you to understand is beyond me at this point. Please let me know when you are done arguing with yourself.

[Ineluki]

Hmm, getting a decent job isnt hard in Kansas. They are all over the place, its amazing how many people cant keep one because they cant reliably show up to work or just job hop like crazy. Or bitch and moan about their low paying job while a place 3 blocks away is offering a starting wage at well over what they make but "they dont like the hours" that they will have to work.

[Machismo]

Try reading, its not hard. I said I found a lot wrong, and listed some the issues.... why this is hard for you to understand is beyond me at this point. Please let me know when you are done arguing with yourself.

I'm arguing with you, because you refuse to actually answer the question. You said it was wrong, yet it seems to be actually correct. I do think it's possible to do such things. Is it possible?

Let me know when you want to stop being a coward, and admit to being wrong.

Saying that something is difficult does not show how "wrong" my statement was. At best, it adds context. However, my statement still stands, and even through your context, was shown to be correct. Your words corroborated my staement, they definitely did not refute it. Thanks. Now if only you would have the decency to retract your initial statement.

[Wells]

Hmm, getting a decent job isnt hard in Kansas. They are all over the place, its amazing how many people cant keep one because they cant reliably show up to work or just job hop like crazy. Or bitch and moan about their low paying job while a place 3 blocks away is offering a starting wage at well over what they make but "they dont like the hours" that they will have to work.

Who's talking about unemployment?