[Politics] "Trickle down economics has never worked"

[Badger Boy]

So far, President Biden has been an excellent president. Legislation is being written and passed, there is organisation behind the scenes and no tell all books about the chaos and lack of intelligence happening in the administration. Adults are back in the building but the Democrats really need to organise themselves on a national level to ensure their candidates are chosen for when it comes time to unseat the Republican nutters. They should be planning to consolidate their power for the next few election cycles and really make it harder for the right wingers to get so much control again at any point in the future.

 

[bhafc99]

So far, President Biden has been an excellent president. Legislation is being written and passed, there is organisation behind the scenes and no tell all books about the chaos and lack of intelligence happening in the administration. Adults are back in the building but the Democrats really need to organise themselves on a national level to ensure their candidates are chosen for when it comes time to unseat the Republican nutters. They should be planning to consolidate their power for the next few election cycles and really make it harder for the right wingers to get so much control again at any point in the future.

Tough when Republicans' main obsession at the moment is trying to disenfranchise anyone who might not vote for them.

 

[blue-shifted]

So far, President Biden has been an excellent president. Legislation is being written and passed, there is organisation behind the scenes and no tell all books about the chaos and lack of intelligence happening in the administration. Adults are back in the building but the Democrats really need to organise themselves on a national level to ensure their candidates are chosen for when it comes time to unseat the Republican nutters. They should be planning to consolidate their power for the next few election cycles and really make it harder for the right wingers to get so much control again at any point in the future.

We could do with someone like him in charge

 

[blue-shifted]

'Corrupt' is when a clown comes on NSC in order to piss all over a perfectly decent thread. Again.

Just interested to see if he can back up his use of the word corrupt re Joe Biden, or whether he'll start talking about something else, or maybe just ignore it. Who knows

 

[Badger Boy]

Tough when Republicans' main obsession at the moment is trying to disenfranchise anyone who might not vote for them.

It's not just at the moment. It's always been the case that Republicans aren't interested in getting everyone to vote. The lower the turnout, generally the better it is for their party's chances of success. In defence of the Republicans, they packed the courts at all levels during Trump's term and that's defended their interests for years if not decades to come. The Democrats could learn a lot from the activity of the Republican party and if they'd had a more responsible, mature and structured president than Trump was, they could have solidified their power.

 

[jcdenton08]

Putting aside the fiscal economics of another nation, which I know too little to comment on, it's a relief having a "leader of the free world" who isn't balls out insane.

 

[blue-shifted]

It's not just at the moment. It's always been the case that Republicans aren't interested in getting everyone to vote. The lower the turnout, generally the better it is for their party's chances of success. In defence of the Republicans, they packed the courts at all levels during Trump's term and that's defended their interests for years if not decades to come. The Democrats could learn a lot from the activity of the Republican party and if they'd had a more responsible, mature and structured president than Trump was, they could have solidified their power.

Yeh, the real danger would be someone with Trump's sociopathic tendencies allied to a strategic mind. (Putin the best example in modern politics). In some ways, we got off lightly from a Trump presidency

 

[blue-shifted]

Ignoring any of the politicians involved, from a pure economic point of view, is there anyone on here who does does think that trickle down economics is a good thing?

 

[KeithDublin]

So far, President Biden has been an excellent president. Legislation is being written and passed, there is organisation behind the scenes and no tell all books about the chaos and lack of intelligence happening in the administration. Adults are back in the building but the Democrats really need to organise themselves on a national level to ensure their candidates are chosen for when it comes time to unseat the Republican nutters. They should be planning to consolidate their power for the next few election cycles and really make it harder for the right wingers to get so much control again at any point in the future.

Unfortunately, that's going to be easier said than done. It took a herculean effort to get Trump removed. There were 75 million utter ***** who voted for him. As soon as the democratic vote drops even a little bit, the republicans will win back seats. You've already got clowns in the far left, saying that Biden hasn't done enough, and they won't be voting next time. This plus the new census that gives more power to republican areas, means that we're on for a bumpy ride.

 

[Machiavelli]

Ignoring any of the politicians involved, from a pure economic point of view, is there anyone on here who does does think that trickle down economics is a good thing?

I think, along with Biden, that it's not a thing in the first place, which obviates the need to ascertain whether it's good or not.
As per my OP, it's been the prevailing logic for four decades, and what's transpired is flooding up (and out to tax havens).

 

[Badger Boy]

Yeh, the real danger would be someone with Trump's sociopathic tendencies allied to a strategic mind. (Putin the best example in modern politics). In some ways, we got off lightly from a Trump presidency

I think that's exactly right. Ultimately, for all the bad he and his band of losers did - it was fairly limited.

Unfortunately, that's going to be easier said than done. It took a herculean effort to get Trump removed. There were 75 million utter ***** who voted for him. As soon as the democratic vote drops even a little bit, the republicans will win back seats. You've already got clowns in the far left, saying that Biden hasn't done enough, and they won't be voting next time. This plus the new census that gives more power to republican areas, means that we're on for a bumpy ride.

I don't think that everyone who voted Trump was worthy of an asterix! Maybe a good percentage, but there were those who were benefiting from the tax cuts and the favourable terms to do business. There would also have been plenty of people who support his "America First" rhetoric, etc. I do agree it's concerning how many people were prepared to ignore everything else a vote for him actually means. The temperature of American politics seems to have really cooled already during the Biden presidency and long may it continue. It shouldn't be so tribal, no matter how entertaining.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Your comment about truthfulness is fair.

Politicians should be meticulous in the accuracy of statements they make. It always annoys me that none are.

You used the word corrupt. Could you expand on that?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/20/joe-biden-corruption-donald-trump

First, Biden’s support for finance over working-class Americans. His career was bankrolled by the credit card industry. He delivered for it by spearheading a bankruptcy bill that made it harder for Americans to reduce their debts and helped cause the financial crisis. He not only authored and voted for that bill, he split with Barack Obama and led the battle to vote down Democratic amendments.

 

[KeithDublin]

I think that's exactly right. Ultimately, for all the bad he and his band of losers did - it was fairly limited.



I don't think that everyone who voted Trump was worthy of an asterix! Maybe a good percentage, but there were those who were benefiting from the tax cuts and the favourable terms to do business. There would also have been plenty of people who support his "America First" rhetoric, etc. I do agree it's concerning how many people were prepared to ignore everything else a vote for him actually means. The temperature of American politics seems to have really cooled already during the Biden presidency and long may it continue. It shouldn't be so tribal, no matter how entertaining.

Every single one, no exceptions.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Just interested to see if he can back up his use of the word corrupt re Joe Biden, or whether he'll start talking about something else, or maybe just ignore it. Who knows

Hmmmm.....who indeed?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

"Trickle down economics has never worked

Complete bolleaux 'if I'm being honest'. Which I always am. Every single one of these Master Of The Universe type c*nts needs normal people to cater to their every basic everyday need. Else they run out of bog roll earlydoors

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Ignoring any of the politicians involved, from a pure economic point of view, is there anyone on here who does does think that trickle down economics is a good thing?

If it were a thing it would be a good thing, but is it actually a thing?

My perception is that in the west everyone is on average getting a better income and opportunity now than 30 years ago. The wealthy are benefitting more in 'fold' terms and absolute terms, though. Intrinsically that doesn't matter....

However whether this is a manifestation of 'trickle down' is untestable.

Moreover, focusing on making the rich richer because, via trickle down, the poor will get richer too, is the pursuit of an untested theory, and one that is intrinsically perverse.

I don't mind systems that make the rich richer, but they should make the poor richer too, by design, not simply by a hoped-for trickle down default.

The trouble is the trickle down proponenets argue that trickle down is inevitable so the only game in town is to make the rich richer and the poor will benefit by default. I see no evidence for that so it makes more sense to support the poor (make changes that make it easier for them to earn, acquire better lifestyles and better attitudes) rather than simply to set up society (tax and laws) with only the needs of the rich in mind.

Others, of course, like the idea of a noisy gammony working class, fully signed up to trickle down theory, knowing their place, keeping the streets clean and the bins emptied, with the chance to win a holiday or a million pounds on the lottery.

 

[keaton]

I think, along with Biden, that it's not a thing in the first place, which obviates the need to ascertain whether it's good or not.
As per my OP, it's been the prevailing logic for four decades, and what's transpired is flooding up (and out to tax havens).

Indeed. It's like Gwenthth Paltrow's fanny candles. If they did cure cancer ( or whatever bs she maintains) they would a good thing. But they don't, so it's not relevant

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

If it were a thing it would be a good thing, but is it actually a thing?

My perception is that in the west everyone is on average getting a better income and opportunity now than 30 years ago. The wealthy are benefitting more in 'fold' terms and absolute terms, though. Intrinsically that doesn't matter....

However whether this is a manifestation of 'trickle down' is untestable.

Moreover, focusing on making the rich richer because, via trickle down, the poor will get richer too, is the pursuit of an untested theory, and one that is intrinsically perverse.

I don't mind systems that make the rich richer, but they should make the poor richer too, by design, not simply by a hoped-for trickle down default.

The trouble is the trickle down proponenets argue that trickle down is inevitable so the only game in town is to make the rich richer and the poor will benefit by default. I see no evidence for that so it makes more sense to support the poor (make changes that make it easier for them to earn, acquire better lifestyles and better attitudes) rather than simply to set up society (tax and laws) with only the needs of the rich in mind.

Others, of course, like the idea of a noisy gammony working class, fully signed up to trickle down theory, knowing their place, keeping the streets clean and the bins emptied, with the chance to win a holiday or a million pounds on the lottery.

TL;DR. Doubt anyone did

But Rich People don't exist in a vacuum, much as they might like to. In fact, due to their sheer NEEDINESS, they'd fall to bits earlydoors without a whole GAMUT of trickle-down tradesmen catering to their every whim in exchange for real cash money while they lips-zipped DESPISE their clients

 

[beorhthelm]

there is no such thing as trickle down economics. its a strawman created to critique some policies about lower taxation, to avoid having to answer if high taxes have a negative effect on investment or growth.

 

[1066familyman]

If it were a thing it would be a good thing, but is it actually a thing?

My perception is that in the west everyone is on average getting a better income and opportunity now than 30 years ago. The wealthy are benefitting more in 'fold' terms and absolute terms, though. Intrinsically that doesn't matter....

However whether this is a manifestation of 'trickle down' is untestable.

Moreover, focusing on making the rich richer because, via trickle down, the poor will get richer too, is the pursuit of an untested theory, and one that is intrinsically perverse.

I don't mind systems that make the rich richer, but they should make the poor richer too, by design, not simply by a hoped-for trickle down default.

The trouble is the trickle down proponenets argue that trickle down is inevitable so the only game in town is to make the rich richer and the poor will benefit by default. I see no evidence for that so it makes more sense to support the poor (make changes that make it easier for them to earn, acquire better lifestyles and better attitudes) rather than simply to set up society (tax and laws) with only the needs of the rich in mind.

Others, of course, like the idea of a noisy gammony working class, fully signed up to trickle down theory, knowing their place, keeping the streets clean and the bins emptied, with the chance to win a holiday or a million pounds on the lottery.

Can you expand on the bit I've put in bold type please?

I'm intrigued.