• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

Well that explains why you believe in the trickle up theory.

Doesn't work, never has. There's way too much evidence to the contrary. Let;s not even get started on off shoring money either. No doubt all your family money is working right here at home...The word "history" comes to mind.

There are two kinds of history, liberal revisionist history and real history. How did any rich person make you poorer? If you aren't part of that class that you hate then look in the mirror for the blame. Liberals never take responsibility for anything and you are evidence of that.
 
There are two kinds of history, liberal revisionist history and real history.

We can stop right here. You just blew all credibility right there. Suggesting that revising history is a liberal exclusive? Really? All you Reagan lovers crack me up. Keep spewing your dream world crap. We are still reeling from his regime.

Liberals never take responsibility for anything and you are evidence of that.

So let's see, I call bull**** to trickle down and somehow that leads you to "I never claim responsibility for anything"? Love that pretzel logic. And you wonder why others question your intellect?
 
We can stop right here. You just blew all credibility right there. Suggesting that revising history is a liberal exclusive? Really? All you Reagan lovers crack me up. Keep spewing your dream world crap. We are still reeling from his regime.



So let's see, I call bull**** to trickle down and somehow that leads you to "I never claim responsibility for anything"? Love that pretzel logic. And you wonder why others question your intellect?

Then prove the actual numbers wrong or ignore the actual numbers and show what we all know, feelings trump reality.

Reagan doubled GDP, created 16.8 million jobs, had a growing labor force, increased govt. revenue by 60%, cut the misery index in half, added 1.7 trillion to the debt in 8 years vs. Obama 5.7 trillion in 4. As usual liberals think with their hearts instead of their brain
 
Then prove the actual numbers wrong or ignore the actual numbers and show what we all know, feelings trump reality.]/quote]

The aftermath of his policies are being felt still. But hey, when one revises history there's no need to concern one's self with such trivial matters now is there? Oh wait, only liberals do that... seriously.


As usual liberals think with their hearts instead of their brain

I'm still laughing about your contention that liberals revise history... and you ignoring it right after you made your claim. You can't make this stuff up.

You righties still brag that Reagan cut spending and shrunk government. He did neither. But of course righties don't call that revising history.
 
Then prove the actual numbers wrong or ignore the actual numbers and show what we all know, feelings trump reality.]/quote]

The aftermath of his policies are being felt still. But hey, when one revises history there's no need to concern one's self with such trivial matters now is there? Oh wait, only liberals do that... seriously.


I'm still laughing about your contention that liberals revise history... and you ignoring it right after you made your claim. You can't make this stuff up.

You righties still brag that Reagan cut spending and shrunk government. He did neither. But of course righties don't call that revising history.

And you cannot seem to refute the data that I post. The aftermath of what Bush did in 2008? LOL, amazing how problems never are created by Democrats who controlled the Congress and the purse strings then but hell, we apparently had a king then but not now. You continue to show how brainwashed you really are. Instead of getting an education in school you are getting an indoctrination.
 
Then prove the actual numbers wrong or ignore the actual numbers and show what we all know, feelings trump reality.

Reagan doubled GDP, created 16.8 million jobs, had a growing labor force, increased govt. revenue by 60%, cut the misery index in half, added 1.7 trillion to the debt in 8 years vs. Obama 5.7 trillion in 4. As usual liberals think with their hearts instead of their brain

Are you really still doing this? It's been months of the same old garbage stats from you.
 
Are you really still doing this? It's been months of the same old garbage stats from you.

Yep, have to continue to post data over and over again for it to sink in with many liberals. Still some will never get it as feelings trump substance. Prove the data I posted as wrong?
 
Instead of getting an education in school you are getting an indoctrination.

You obviously know a whole less about me than you think you do.

Your bias is rather amusing if nothing else. I'm still chuckling about the revisionist history comments. Let me guess, you think Ronnie brought down the wall too?
 
You obviously know a whole less about me than you think you do.

Your bias is rather amusing if nothing else. I'm still chuckling about the revisionist history comments. Let me guess, you think Ronnie brought down the wall too?

Let me guess, you get your information out of a textbook and what teachers tell you?
 
Yep, have to continue to post data over and over again for it to sink in with many liberals. Still some will never get it as feelings trump substance. Prove the data I posted as wrong?

I did already, by comparing Reagan's numbers to Obama's and showing multiple similarities. Everyone here realizes that what Obama does has zero to do with your opinion of him - except you.
 
I did already, by comparing Reagan's numbers to Obama's and showing multiple similarities. Everyone here realizes that what Obama does has zero to do with your opinion of him - except you.

Right, see your point, Reagan had a net job gain at the end of his first term and Obama has a net job loss, Reagan created 16.8 million jobs and Obama won't come close. Reagan didn't have discouraged workers not counted in the unemployment numbers. You liberals are unbelievable.
 
Libertarians hold major contempt for any attempt to get businesses and governments working together. In our perfect world, a free market would mean ZERO subsidies, ZERO bailouts, ZERO free loans, ZERO favorable regulatory structures and laws, etc. We have a hand-out system today, and both liberals and conservatives have their hands out asking big business to provide gifts in exchange for favors. Libertarians are against all of that.

I disagree with just about every position you hold and feel like it is a waste of time to keep making the same arguments over and over and over again with libertarians about them. Given what you had said before about your liberal background, I thought we might have more in common than we actually do, but alas, it appears we don't have as much in common as we thought.

Best of luck to you in getting Ron Paul elected! :2wave:
 
I disagree with just about every position you hold and feel like it is a waste of time to keep making the same arguments over and over and over again with libertarians about them. Given what you had said before about your liberal background, I thought we might have more in common than we actually do, but alas, it appears we don't have as much in common as we thought.

Best of luck to you in getting Ron Paul elected! :2wave:

It appears that the only thing that matters to you is top-down regulation and entitlement program. If that is all you care about, then you're right. We have nothing in common. But if you were to reasonably take a more rounded look at the big picture, you would realize libertarians and liberals have A LOT in common.

BTW, only a small portion of the last post was opinion-based. The rest was either a direct question to you (e.g. how well did Sarbanes-Oxley prevent the fraud in the current crisis?) or a statement of facts (e.g. Warren Buffet made millions off the bailouts and stimulus).
 
Example:
Who spends more money, 10,000 people that spend $1 million dollars, or 300 million that spend $30,000.
That’s beside the point – they’re still consumers.



Yes, you are saying that. No, you have not proven that.
And so?

I was not trying to prove anything.

Thus, unsurprisingly, I didn’t.


According to the moderators, that is what the debate forums are for. Have you not seen the multiple warnings?
I know. Your point?



The majority of the country that support higher taxes for the wealthy. There have been over 20 polls that show this.
But I’m not talking to them, and you aren’t talking for them. Or so I thought, at least...

So why the “we”?




The standard of living is higher in China and India now than it was in the 1960s when the middle class was was better off in the US, so that can't be the reason.
I actually chuckled a bit at this.

Are you seriously suggesting that the standard of living in China and India is equal to the standard of living here in the USA?
:lamo
But how about the tax incentives we provide to companies that outsource jobs and investment? Think that might have something to do with it?
It very probably does contribute.
But, in a way, that ties into the part of my post that you didn’t quote – the part about tax incentives for businesses to have facilities here in the USA.
I mean…higher corporate taxes here in the USA as compared to other areas of the world ARE an incentive to “outsource jobs and investment”.
 
Last edited:
That’s beside the point – they’re still consumers.


It is entirely on point, it is the difference between a little stimulation of the economy, or a lot of stimulation of the economy. Demand drives production.


So why the “we”?

Because we are the ones that will make the decision in November to discontinue the tax cuts for the wealthy.


Are you seriously suggesting that the standard of living in China and India is equal to the standard of living here in the USA?

No, I am suggesting what I stated:

"The standard of living is higher in China and India now than it was in the 1960s when the middle class was was better off in the US, so that can't be the reason." The standard of living for the middle class in India and China has risen, while the standard of living for the middle class in this country has declined. That provide zero incentive for the middle class in this country to continue to vote for tax cuts for the wealthy.


It very probably does contribute.

That's why I support the party that has proposed a bill to stop providing tax incentives to outsource US jobs.


But, in a way, that ties into the part of my post that you didn’t quote – the part about tax incentives for businesses to have facilities here in the USA.
I mean…higher corporate taxes here in the USA as compared to other areas of the world ARE an incentive to “outsource jobs and investment”.

The Democrats bill to help stop outsourcing includes tax incentives for companies that keep jobs here, or brings jobs back. Have you read the bill?

I have no problem with targeted tax cuts for job creation in this country. What I am opposed to, is what we've done for the last 30 years, giving tax cuts to people just because they are rich, whether they invest their money in US jobs or not.
 
Last edited:
It is entirely on point, it is the difference between a little stimulation of the economy, or a lot of stimulation of the economy. Demand drives production.
You claim your statement was on point, but your explanation clearly shows that it was not.
The amount spent has no bearing on whether or not a person or entity is consuming. The amount only determines the degree of consumption, not whether it exists or not.

Because we are the ones that will make the decision in November to discontinue the tax cuts for the wealthy.
Yet again I will state: I was not directing my statements towards that “we”, and I had thought you were speaking for yourself.


No, I am suggesting what I stated:

"The standard of living is higher in China and India now than it was in the 1960s when the middle class was better off in the US, so that can't be the reason." The standard of living for the middle class in India and China has risen, while the standard of living for the middle class in this country has declined. That provides zero incentive for the middle class in this country to continue to vote for tax cuts for the wealthy.

That's why I support the party that has proposed a bill to stop providing tax incentives to outsource US jobs.
I was speaking of the standard of living in general, not any particular part of it. Whatever gave you the idea that I was talking about only the middle class standards of living?

The Democrats bill to help stop outsourcing includes tax incentives for companies that keep jobs here, or brings jobs back. Have you read the bill?
I don’t even know what bill you are talking about, beyond what might have been a vague mention of it in a few news broadcasts I’ve heard lately, so it’s safe to assume I haven’t read it.
Haven’t been paying much attention to the crap the DC crowd is up to lately.

I have no problem with targeted tax cuts for job creation in this country. What I am opposed to, is what we've done for the last 30 years, giving tax cuts to people just because they are rich, whether they invest their money in US jobs or not.
Assuming you are correct, I also would agree…
Assuming that the tax rates on those rich persons were reasonable to begin with, that is. Cutting unreasonable tax rates isn’t…unreasonable...
 
You claim your statement was on point, but your explanation clearly shows that it was not.
The amount spent has no bearing on whether or not a person or entity is consuming. The amount only determines the degree of consumption, not whether it exists or not.

That is what we were talking about. I never said there was no consumption, I said there wasn't enough consumption for a consumer economy to prosper.


I was speaking of the standard of living in general, not any particular part of it. Whatever gave you the idea that I was talking about only the middle class standards of living?

The middle class has no interest in the standard of living for the rich. It is their own declining standard of living they are concerned about. As someone recently said, the rich can take care of themselves.



I don’t even know what bill you are talking about, beyond what might have been a vague mention of it in a few news broadcasts I’ve heard lately, so it’s safe to assume I haven’t read it.
Haven’t been paying much attention to the crap the DC crowd is up to lately.


Creating American Jobs and End Offshoring Act


Assuming you are correct, I also would agree…
Assuming that the tax rates on those rich persons were reasonable to begin with, that is. Cutting unreasonable tax rates isn’t…unreasonable...

Glad we agree on that! :)
 
Last edited:
That is what we were talking about. I never said there was no consumption, I said there wasn't enough consumption for a consumer economy to prosper.
Odd. Perhaps some misunderstanding is involved here…I had thought you were saying that rich persons didn’t count as consumers.

The middle class has no interest in the standard of living for the rich. It is their own declining standard of living they are concerned about. As someone recently said, the rich can take care of themselves.
I was never speaking about a specific class’s standard of living, but rather the overall standard of living.

I may look into that.
 
Let me guess, you get your information out of a textbook and what teachers tell you?

Yeah, like 34 years ago. Seriously. That's your retort?

Well do you believe that Ronnie brought down the wall or not? I know you think he belongs in the photo below and all.

ReaganRushmore.jpg
 
Yeah, like 34 years ago. Seriously. That's your retort?

Well do you believe that Ronnie brought down the wall or not? I know you think he belongs in the photo below and all.

View attachment 67122950

Let's see the Berlin Wall came down in 1989,, about 23 years ago so you were 11 and I am sure an expert on politics and what was going on during that period of time. Reagan was directly involved in leading to the removal of that wall and is given credit by Russians for leading to the dismantling of that wall. Looks to me like my statement is true, you get your information out of textbooks and have no concept of human behavior as well as what the political conditions were at the time.
 
Let's see the Berlin Wall came down in 1989,, about 23 years ago so you were 11 and I am sure an expert on politics and what was going on during that period of time. Reagan was directly involved in leading to the removal of that wall and is given credit by Russians for leading to the dismantling of that wall. Looks to me like my statement is true, you get your information out of textbooks and have no concept of human behavior as well as what the political conditions were at the time.

If Reagan caused the wall to come down, then Obama is directly responsible for taking out Osama and the Arab Spring. Fair?
 
Let's see the Berlin Wall came down in 1989,, about 23 years ago so you were 11

.

Sorry skippy. You weren't even a gleam in the mailman's eye when I got out of college.

and I am sure an expert on politics and what was going on during that period of time. Reagan was directly involved in leading to the removal of that wall and is given credit by Russians for leading to the dismantling of that wall. Looks to me like my statement is true, you get your information out of textbooks and have no concept of human behavior as well as what the political conditions were at the time

Right on cue. As expected. Thanks for clearing that up. Keep lapping up the right wing delusions. Hell I bet you buy the edited "Tear Down The Wall" speech. Hook, line and sinker.

Ha ha. So let's see, nothing down by the Russians, Germans (read German people) or any another countries had anything to do with it. Check.
 
Republicans are sighing, not cheering

"The most notable factor in the Republican presidential race thus far is the depth of despair into which Republican voters have sunk.
They cannot find a candidate. Faced with a Democratic incumbent who appears shockingly weak to them, the Republicans have been unable to find a big nominee with a big voice to oppose him.

Instead, they are finding a series of small nominees with squeaky voices. Some think the Republican Party’s problem is that its voters have failed to “coalesce” around a single candidate. That is not the problem.

The problem is that there is no candidate around whom Republicans can coalesce. The field is not just weak, it is barren.
The GOP is now the party of woulda, coulda, shoulda. If only this governor had run. If only that person had not dropped out early. If only there had not been so many debates to introduce the candidates to the American people long before the candidates were ready to be introduced.
Today, what ushers forth from the throats of loyal Republicans is not a cheer, but a sigh."


Read more: Republicans are sighing, not cheering - Roger Simon - POLITICO.com
 
Back
Top Bottom