• 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

Conservative said:
Do you ever think with the brain that God gave you? We have spent trillions on social programs and still have poverty, homeless, druggies, etc. so when do you ever come to the decision that failure to accept and handle personal responsibility is the problem not simply throwing money at the problem?
Click to expand...

socialism is not a thinking based system except by those at the very top of that scheme. Then it is pure machiavellianism
 
TurtleDude said:
socialism is not a thinking based system except by those at the very top of that scheme. Then it is pure machiavellianism
Click to expand...

Isn't it amazing that those at the top have no problem keeping those at the bottom dependent on liberal social programs for their existence? Don't hear any liberals talking about liberal greed and fighting hard to destroy the economic system that made this country great.
 
Conservative said:
Isn't it amazing that those at the top have no problem keeping those at the bottom dependent on liberal social programs for their existence? Don't hear any liberals talking about liberal greed and fighting hard to destroy the economic system that made this country great.
Click to expand...

people at the top push programs that will keep them in power

what group has a vested interest in keeping lots of people dependent on the government?
the same ones whose programs keep people poor and dependent-rich dems
 
How exactly do you propose to furnish jobs without the capital provided by the rich?
 
Conservative said:
Isn't it amazing that those at the top have no problem keeping those at the bottom dependent on liberal social programs for their existence? Don't hear any liberals talking about liberal greed and fighting hard to destroy the economic system that made this country great.
Click to expand...

Isn't it amazing that those at the top have no problem keeping those at the bottom dependent on a debt-based market system that concentrates wealth and any financial security at the top? Don't hear any conservatives talking about conservative greed and fighting hard to destroy the principals of equality and social mobility that made this country great.

See what I did there?
 
Paschendale said:
Isn't it amazing that those at the top have no problem keeping those at the bottom dependent on a debt-based market system that concentrates wealth and any financial security at the top? Don't hear any conservatives talking about conservative greed and fighting hard to destroy the principals of equality and social mobility that made this country great.

See what I did there?
Click to expand...

How does any rich person keep you dependent? Think about that statement of yours? Do you have a choice as to where to spend your money in the private sector? How about the public sector? I can see what is keeping you out of the class that you seem to hate.

Yes, I saw what you did but what you did makes no sense because private sector choice is a lot different from public sector choice. Try to decide where to send your tax dollars.
 
JohnWOlin said:
I'm not going to argue with you that rich people don't give money to charity but I mean, if they didn't wouldn't that just make them a ****ing asshole?
Click to expand...

So you define someone who makes money and doesn't give it away as "an asshole"? Sounds like demonizing.
May as well label them evil assholes then wage ware on them while you're at it. Or infidels and wage a holy war.

I mean, what the **** do you think they are doing to generate income in the first place?
- creating jobs
- innovating
- providing goods and services that the public wants

These are assholes? I think the peanut gallery that sits back calling these individuals assholes, are the real assholes.
 
Conservative said:
How does any rich person keep you dependent? Think about that statement of yours? Do you have a choice as to where to spend your money in the private sector? How about the public sector? I can see what is keeping you out of the class that you seem to hate.

Yes, I saw what you did but what you did makes no sense because private sector choice is a lot different from public sector choice. Try to decide where to send your tax dollars.
Click to expand...

Do you really not understand that power comes from influence and not always from laws? Do you not realize that we only have access to what businesses choose to sell us, and only have access to the information they don't prevent us from getting? The real world does not operate in such simple terms. Private business does not work for the betterment of anyone but itself.

No, I do not have the choice of where to spend my money. Choice of evils is not a choice at all. It is the illusion of choice.

A poor family only has access to a crappy school that is underfunded. A wealthy family can afford to send their kids to any one of a dozen schools in the area, and actually pick the best. A well funded public school system would alleviate this. A poor family can only live in a ghetto, with crime, violence and poverty. A wealthy family can live in a safe area, with access to good services, and police who are out to protect you rather than arrest you. Livable wages would help offset this problem. A poor family works 14 hours a day and is forced to get all their food at McDonald's. A wealthy family has access to better nutrition. Again, wages, and a social system dedicated to ensuring that a person does not go without their basic needs would solve this problem. A wealthy person can afford expensive new drugs and top notch medical care. A poor person dies because their insurance carrier dropped their coverage. A public healthcare system would solve this.

Every example I just gave you is a way that rich people have choice where poor people do not, and each solution means curtailing business in order to SAVE LIVES and improve a person's chance to move up the social and economic ladder.
 
Paschendale said:
A poor family only has access to a crappy school that is underfunded. A poor family can only live in a ghetto, with crime, violence and poverty. A poor family works 14 hours a day and is forced to get all their food at McDonald's. A poor person dies because their insurance carrier dropped their coverage.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.
They have equal access. What they lack at that point in time, is the money.
There is no one forcibly stopping them from making theoretically (legally) any amount of money, from not having kids, etc.

Wait, yes, actually the government, and apparently democrats/liberals more so than other political persuasions working through government, do indeed want to forcibly stop certain people from making certain amounts of money. There are your bad actors...go get'em tex.
 
Paschendale said:
Do you really not understand that power comes from influence and not always from laws? Do you not realize that we only have access to what businesses choose to sell us, and only have access to the information they don't prevent us from getting? The real world does not operate in such simple terms. Private business does not work for the betterment of anyone but itself.

No, I do not have the choice of where to spend my money. Choice of evils is not a choice at all. It is the illusion of choice.

A poor family only has access to a crappy school that is underfunded. A wealthy family can afford to send their kids to any one of a dozen schools in the area, and actually pick the best. A well funded public school system would alleviate this. A poor family can only live in a ghetto, with crime, violence and poverty. A wealthy family can live in a safe area, with access to good services, and police who are out to protect you rather than arrest you. Livable wages would help offset this problem. A poor family works 14 hours a day and is forced to get all their food at McDonald's. A wealthy family has access to better nutrition. Again, wages, and a social system dedicated to ensuring that a person does not go without their basic needs would solve this problem. A wealthy person can afford expensive new drugs and top notch medical care. A poor person dies because their insurance carrier dropped their coverage. A public healthcare system would solve this.

Every example I just gave you is a way that rich people have choice where poor people do not, and each solution means curtailing business in order to SAVE LIVES and improve a person's chance to move up the social and economic ladder.
Click to expand...

then keep it, do whatever you want with it, don't participate but by all means stop whining.

As for those crappy schools what party is preventing vouchers from being implemented?

My question is what keeps a poor person poor, a rich person or a govt. bureaucrat that makes laws that penalizes wealth creation?
 
Paschendale said:
A poor family only has access to a crappy school that is underfunded. A wealthy family can afford to send their kids to any one of a dozen schools in the area, and actually pick the best. A well funded public school system would alleviate this.
Click to expand...
We already have a well funded public school system. We spend more money educating children than all but a handful of (mostly Scandanavian) countries.
 
Taylor said:
We already have a well funded public school system. We spend more money educating children than all but a handful of (mostly Scandanavian) countries.
Click to expand...

As I recall Chris Christie is being demonized for pointing out the high per student cost of education in his state vs. the results generated. So to a liberal it is all about spending more money and not about generating better results.
 
Paschendale said:
Isn't it amazing that those at the top have no problem keeping those at the bottom dependent on a debt-based market system that concentrates wealth and any financial security at the top? Don't hear any conservatives talking about conservative greed and fighting hard to destroy the principals of equality and social mobility that made this country great.

See what I did there?
Click to expand...

Arguments like that can be made to Republicans. But you're not dealing with Republicans any more. You might as well be facing the Huns.
 
JohnWOlin said:
Warren Buffett: 'Trickle Down' Theory Hasn't Worked (VIDEO) | TPMDC

Now I would think if I were a Democrat or Republican, I would listen to one of the richest men in the world that made most of his money just by figuring out ways to push money around in the right direction. I dunno, that's just me.
Click to expand...

Trickle down is just another buzzword with a politically implied meaning.

The closest I an get to a practical application is lowering the taxes for the rich and corporations will in some way benefit the middle class or poor, but even that doesn't work. How they spend it doesn't necessarily mean more jobs or lower prices.

ricksfolly

ricksfolly
 
Conservative said:
As I recall Chris Christie is being demonized for pointing out the high per student cost of education in his state vs. the results generated. So to a liberal it is all about spending more money and not about generating better results.
Click to expand...

Talk about pesonal responsibility! Where are the parents at?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Talk about pesonal responsibility! Where are the parents at?
Click to expand...

You have to be kidding, it is always someone else's fault that kids aren't getting educated and it is all because we aren't spending enough money. That is the liberal argument. You are right no though, where are the parents?
 
Conservative said:
You have to be kidding, it is always someone else's fault that kids aren't getting educated and it is all because we aren't spending enough money. That is the liberal argument. You are right no though, where are the parents?
Click to expand...

Save your "liberal" speech for those moved by partisanship. America's educational woes stem from the home, where young students are made to believe they can all become doctors and lawyers. Once mommy and daddy (if the kid's lucky) find out that Timmy is intellectually incapable of getting into med school, their son already hates the concept of "learning". Truly a tragedy, although this has nothing to do with liberals and the Obama.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Save your "liberal" speech for those moved by partisanship. America's educational woes stem from the home, where young students are made to believe they can all become doctors and lawyers. Once mommy and daddy (if the kid's lucky) find out that Timmy is intellectually incapable of getting into med school, their son already hates the concept of "learning". Truly a tragedy, although this has nothing to do with liberals and the Obama.
Click to expand...

Sorry but it has everything to do with liberal ideology vs. conservative ideology and nothing to do with partisanship, only logic and common sense. How in the world did we ever survive and create a 14.5 trillion dollar economy without all that help from liberals? Maybe if you got your nose out of the economics book you would understand personal behavior a lot more.
 
Conservative said:
Sorry but it has everything to do with liberal ideology vs. conservative ideology and nothing to do with partisanship, only logic and common sense. How in the world did we ever survive and create a 14.5 trillion dollar economy without all that help from liberals? Maybe if you got your nose out of the economics book you would understand personal behavior a lot more.
Click to expand...

How can this even be considered a reply to my statement? If this is the norm, don't bother to quote me and simply hit the reply button.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Save your "liberal" speech for those moved by partisanship. America's educational woes stem from the home, where young students are made to believe they can all become doctors and lawyers. Once mommy and daddy (if the kid's lucky) find out that Timmy is intellectually incapable of getting into med school, their son already hates the concept of "learning". Truly a tragedy, although this has nothing to do with liberals and the Obama.
Click to expand...

It couldn't be the fault of mediocre schools and the fact that we can't fire teachers. No way.

But as for a real argument, why do private schools do better than public schools, even though public schools send way more per pupil?

The Real Cost of Public Schools | Andrew J. Coulson | Cato Institute: Commentary
 
phattonez said:
It couldn't be the fault of mediocre schools and the fact that we can't fire teachers. No way.

But as for a real argument, why do private schools do better than public schools, even though public schools send way more per pupil?

The Real Cost of Public Schools | Andrew J. Coulson | Cato Institute: Commentary
Click to expand...

Interesting that your leanings show Libertarian as does Golden Boy. It does appear to me that of the two of you, Golden Boy doesn't have a clue what a Libertarian economic beliefs are.
 
haymarket said:
Do you seriously have any real knowledge based on practical real world experience about firing teachers? And screeds from the Cato folks do not count.
Click to expand...

Do you have any real responses? I've dealt with you before and you've done the same thing. I'm about ready to put you on ignore. I disagree with Goldenboy all the time and he gets on my nerves, but I don't put him on ignore. Know the difference? He offers good arguments (though he sometimes stoops to your level), all you do is post this kind of gibberish that doesn't answer my contention. Come up with a real response, admit that my argument is worthwhile, or I'll never respond to you again. Your choice.
 
phattonez said:
Do you have any real responses? I've dealt with you before and you've done the same thing. I'm about ready to put you on ignore. I disagree with Goldenboy all the time and he gets on my nerves, but I don't put him on ignore. Know the difference? He offers good arguments (though he sometimes stoops to your level), all you do is post this kind of gibberish that doesn't answer my contention. Come up with a real response, admit that my argument is worthwhile, or I'll never respond to you again. Your choice.
Click to expand...

You mentioned firing teachers and I asked you if you really knew anything about the real world situation involved in firing teachers.
It has been my experience that when this subject is opened up for discussion, many people who post articles like you did have not the slightest idea what they are talking about and only get their "information" from ideologically skewed sources who also do not know what they are talking about.

I have 33 years of experience in this field and would be happy to share it.

In your post you said this

It couldn't be the fault of mediocre schools and the fact that we can't fire teachers. No way.
Click to expand...

I would love to see your actual evidence of what you call "mediocre schools", how you define that term, what makes them mediocre and even more to see your evidence that "we can't fire teachers". Having spent over three decades as a teacher and over two decades of those as a union representative working in this area, I have knowledge to share. If it is knowledge and real world experience you are interested in.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
You mentioned firing teachers and I asked you if you really knew anything about the real world situation involved in firing teachers.
It has been my experience that when this subject is opened up for discussion, many people who post articles like you did have not the slightest idea what they are talking about and only get their "information" from ideologically skewed sources who also do not know what they are talking about.

I have 33 years of experience in this field and would be happy to share it.
Click to expand...

You just did it again, you enormous boob. :lol:

----
General answer to this recent topic change...

The fact is how much you spend on students is not the answer, it never was. The answer is caring, its better explaining of topics, its less of a crowd, its the one on one experience, its understanding that kids learn differently. You need to sit with just two children, maybe your own, and you will find they go about not only life differently, but learning, and this difference is what teachers need to learn, accept and make no excuses when its ignored. Sure, the kid might not care, but most kids get to the point of not caring not because they really don't care, but because they are hopelessly lost, which is undoubtedly caused by bad teaching. Do people really want to know why private schools beat out public schools? Caring, it's that simple.

To answer haymarkets question of mediocre schools, its simple, the pace is too fast, the attention to the kids is limited if there at all, the topics aren't explained, the attention to learning differences is nonexistent and kids are ignored.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom