• 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!

Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1%

JP Hochbaum said:
Yes, it is called the internet. I suggest you check out sites like Google and what not to search for how it works.
Click to expand...

Now I'm REALLY confused. Your point was about the internet...? And now I should use Google and similar sites to see how the internet works? What does that have to do with the OP?

I am not trying to be obtuse but rather understand what idea you are advancing. Please excuse my ignorance if it is obvious and I am missing it.
 
Dickieboy said:
Now I'm REALLY confused. Your point was about the internet...? And now I should use Google and similar sites to see how the internet works? What does that have to do with the OP?

I am not trying to be obtuse but rather understand what idea you are advancing. Please excuse my ignorance if it is obvious and I am missing it.
Click to expand...
I was being sarcastic and mean. There are two eras in recent histoy in which government taxation or policies had nothing to do with how well the economy was doing: the roaring twenties, brought on by the automobile, and the internet boom of the 1990's.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
I was being sarcastic and mean. There are two eras in recent histoy in which government taxation or policies had nothing to do with how well the economy was doing: the roaring twenties, brought on by the automobile, and the internet boom of the 1990's.
Click to expand...

hahaha.

nothing at all do with it. Imagine how much better it would of been if the government ran a huge deficit and piled on taxes after taxes in the 20's! We were so close to achieving that utopia too!

Same in the 90's. Why, if the cold war hadn't of ended we would of been even in a bigger economic boom. cuts in military spending was killing our boom
 
sawyerloggingon said:
"Trickle down" is like the N word for economic policy, the correct term is supply side and it works. At least use the proper term if you want honest discussion.
Click to expand...

Not true sir.... From David Stockman the Reagan appointee to the OMB
Stockman was quoted as referring to Reagan's tax act as: "I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." Of the budget process during his first year on the job, Mr. Stockman is quoted as saying: "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers," which was used as the subtitle of the article.
Click to expand...

The Education of David Stockman - Magazine - The Atlantic
 
ARealConservative said:
hahaha.

nothing at all do with it. Imagine how much better it would of been if the government ran a huge deficit and piled on taxes after taxes in the 20's! We were so close to achieving that utopia too!

Same in the 90's. Why, if the cold war hadn't of ended we would of been even in a bigger economic boom. cuts in military spending was killing our boom
Click to expand...

There are several adjustments that as conservative and liberals we could probably agree on. It is unfortunate that the two sides in office are so stupid and divided that they can't see how wasteful they are.

There are two things I would do. Bring most or all troops home, they are overseas helping other countries economies. Cut spending to go into research and defense of the borders and space agency.

With this money saved we could implement UHC, and save everyday Americans close to $6k per year. In which they could use to spend on the economy. That amount of aggregate demand (750 billion) would be the size of the stimulus but done every year by good old American citizens.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
There are several adjustments that as conservative and liberals we could probably agree on. It is unfortunate that the two sides in office are so stupid and divided that they can't see how wasteful they are.

There are two things I would do. Bring most or all troops home, they are overseas helping other countries economies. Cut spending to go into research and defense of the borders and space agency.

With this money saved we could implement UHC, and save everyday Americans close to $6k per year. In which they could use to spend on the economy. That amount of aggregate demand (750 billion) would be the size of the stimulus but done every year by good old American citizens.
Click to expand...

I agree with the principle here. It's never going to happen as long as a large percentage is going to support new wars and wasteful spending no matter who is president.
 
TurtleDude said:
actually many of us say so what? those who have money to invest are going to see their income grow more than those who spend every penny they earn
Click to expand...

Where those jobs man?
Record profits... Comeon where are those job creators? Shouldnt we be drowning in jobs?
 
Last edited:
Don't you idiots know it takes money to make money?

Jeeez.
 
The rich collect, the middle and poor have debt, its always been like this and always will.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Where those jobs man?
Record profits... Comeon where are those job creators? Shouldnt we be drowning in jobs?
Click to expand...

Well, if you believe the rhetoric coming out of the Whitehouse there figuratively everywhere. You having trouble finding one? Try calling them.
 
Much of the inequality is compounded by jobs being shipped overseas and to Mexico, thus keeping profits high and allowing the stock market to make it's recovery. You may also remember in 2010 that Congress decided to not increase many of social federal spending programs because they said cost of living was "flat" thus, anyone not in any kind of management position, would feel the burn more so. There is no one answer why there is this inequality, it is certainly preventable.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
Derogatory? It was started by Regan talk to the Dead Prez not the people who repeat it.
Click to expand...

In 1896, Democratic Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan made reference to trickle-down theory in his famous "Cross of Gold" speech:

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.[17]

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary notes that the first known use of trickle-down as an adjective meaning "relating to or working on the principle of trickle-down theory" was in 1944,[18] while the first known use of trickle-down theory was in 1954.[19]

After leaving the Presidency, Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, alleged, "Republicans [...] simply don't know how to manage the economy. They're so busy operating the trickle-down theory, giving the richest corporations the biggest break, that the whole thing goes to hell in a handbasket." [1]

Speaking on the Senate floor in 1992, Sen. Hank Brown said, "Mr. President, the trickle-down theory attributed to the Republican Party has never been articulated by President Reagan and has never been articulated by President Bush and has never been advocated by either one of them. One might argue whether trickle down makes any sense or not. To attribute to people who have advocated the opposite in policies is not only inaccurate but poisons the debate on public issues."[20]

Thomas Sowell claimed that, despite its political prominence, no trickle-down theory has ever existed among economists.[6] In response, many critics referred him to Stockman's remarks to Greider. Sowell replied in his newspaper columns.[21] Stockman himself had not proposed or advocated the alleged theory, so Sowell rejected him as an example of someone who had done so. Additionally, Stockman had not specifically named anyone who, or quoted a source that, advocated the theory although he did claim that the theory was being adhered to by the Reagan administration. Sowell replied that Stockman "was not even among the first thousand people to make that claim" but that "not one of those who made the claim could provide a single quote from anybody who had advocated a 'trickle-down theory.'"[6]
Click to expand...

Trickle-down economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
ksu_aviator said:
All this proves is that Keynsian economics does not benefit the masses.

But it also bolsters my signature.
Click to expand...

Keynesian economics helps minimize the impact of the economic crises (that are an occurrence in a market prevalent system) by way of protecting short term profit. The only groups that has any real issue with fiscal and monetary policy are the socialists/communists/marxists.

A severe economic crisis is how an economic revolution begins.
 
Last edited:
JP Hochbaum said:
There are several adjustments that as conservative and liberals we could probably agree on. It is unfortunate that the two sides in office are so stupid and divided that they can't see how wasteful they are.

There are two things I would do. Bring most or all troops home, they are overseas helping other countries economies. Cut spending to go into research and defense of the borders and space agency.

With this money saved we could implement UHC, and save everyday Americans close to $6k per year. In which they could use to spend on the economy. That amount of aggregate demand (750 billion) would be the size of the stimulus but done every year by good old American citizens.
Click to expand...

This post right here is part and parcel of what I posted. Getting government more involved in healthcare will not, I repeat will not push costs down. It will do the opposite and the winners will be the politically connected and the losers will be those paying taxes.

HSA's--good limited health care policy, dead under Obama care.
Catatstrophic coverage for low income earners, dead under Obama care.

If it will save so much money you have to explain to me why premiums are rising faster now instead of slower.

My response is to get rid of the ability of the 1% to buy influence by making government both weaker and more transparent and take regulation and legislation tilted towards larger busineses more able to buy influence off the table. Your argument is to have government do more. The more government can do the more it can screw up for the little guy who has lesser means to correct it.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
“In 2010, average real income per family grew by 2.3% … but the gains were very uneven. Top 1% incomes grew by 11.6%, while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 0.2%. Hence, the top 1% captured 93% of the income gains in the first year of recovery. Such an uneven recovery can help explain the recent public demonstrations against inequality.”
Click to expand...

And.... there's the problem with most of the occupy crowd. They stand behind trees waiting to "capture" any income gains that might happen by. When nothing falls into their lap, they cry about the 1% capturing everything for themselves.

With some more complaining and some more time standing behind trees, perhaps the next time some income gains are "released" they might fare better in "capturing" them.
 
Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1%
Click to expand...

This is why it is so very poetic that Romney will be the representative of the 1% in the big battle with the 99% coming up in November. If it this had been scripted for a movie, there is no one better they could have chosen than the King of the 1% himself to represent his kind.
 
Catawba said:
This is why it is so very poetic that Romney will be the representative of the 1% in the big battle with the 99% coming up in November. If it this had been scripted for a movie, there is no one better they could have chosen than the King of the 1% himself to represent his kind.
Click to expand...

Personally I suspect that, for some reason or another, it has been planned that the GOP would not win '08 or '12. As in "not even try" sort of thing.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
“In 2010, average real income per family grew by 2.3% … but the gains were very uneven. Top 1% incomes grew by 11.6%, while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 0.2%. Hence, the top 1% captured 93% of the income gains in the first year of recovery. Such an uneven recovery can help explain the recent public demonstrations against inequality.”

The 10 page update offers a clear picture of how income shares have varied over different business cycles, as well as the long-term trends since 1917. Top income shares fell dramatically after World War II, stayed flat, then began to rise in the early 1980s and have returned to their pre-War levels.




The top 10% in the US take now take home about 47% of all income, but this is driven by the top 1% who account for 20%.

The difference between the business cycle of the 1990s and the 2000s is that the incomes of the bottom 99% grew by 20% between 1993 and 2000, but only by 6.8% between 2002 and 2007.

Saez suggests that this “may … help explain why the dramatic growth in top incomes during the Clinton administration did not generate much public outcry while there has been a great level of attention to top incomes in the press and in the public debate since 2005.”

Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1% « Economics for public policy
Click to expand...

Did you mean to say over 90% of obama stimulus money that put us in the poor house went to union gov workers?
 
Neomalthusian said:
Personally I suspect that, for some reason or another, it has been planned that the GOP would not win '08 or '12. As in "not even try" sort of thing.
Click to expand...


Even though their campaign strategy since 2010 has pissed off hispanics, blacks, women and the working class, I don't believe it has been their intent. I think in their zeal to beat Obama, they have just pushed the moderates away from their party, including possible contenders that might have beaten Obama.
 
Catawba said:
Even though their campaign strategy since 2010 has pissed off hispanics, blacks, women and the working class, I don't believe it has been their intent. I think in their zeal to beat Obama, they have just pushed the moderates away from their party, including possible contenders that might have beaten Obama.
Click to expand...

I do believe it has been intentional. Who knows if the candidates take themselves seriously or not, but Americans don't. Sure the dyed in the wool Republican voters will rally behind whoever the GOP throws at them, but there is no genuine excitement about any of them. And as for '08, I don't need to point to anything more than 1) Romney ducking out early and 2) Palin. It was a throw away. This year will be too, if I'm putting money on it.

We are passive recipients of who the parties and power structures behind them deliver to us. It's not democratic, and nothing's really going to change.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom