starting to get More into politics now That i can vote

[northeast]

Trickle down = trickle on.
Don't give subsidies for rich people and tell me the purpose is to help poor people.
I'm not buying that.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Trickle down = trickle on.
Don't give subsidies for rich people and tell me the purpose is to help poor people.
I'm not buying that.

I'm not making a case for what you may think I am (more money for the rich). I was simply inserting the idea that IF the gov't saw an opportunity to spur an economy, that the funds should go to the brightest and best at business .. whether that's democrat or republican. I honestly thought that was somewhat obvious.

 

[franklin]

I'm not making a case for what you may think I am (more money for the rich). I was simply inserting the idea that IF the gov't saw an opportunity to spur an economy, that the funds should go to the brightest and best at business .. whether that's democrat or republican. I honestly thought that was somewhat obvious.

The money should go into the economy at large. It'll find it's way to the brightest and best at business just fine, whether it first goes into food stamps, unemployment benefits, schooling, jobs programs, public infrastructure, etc. There's absolutely no need whatsoever to subsidize the already wealth directly just because they're better at accumulating stuff. That leads to where we are at now with a purchased legislature.

If anything, in times of crisis like 2008, the rich should be more than willing to pay for the government stimulus that saved their margins from going negative or businesses outright collapsing.

 

[Stoked]

The money should go into the economy at large. It'll find it's way to the brightest and best at business just fine, whether it first goes into food stamps, unemployment benefits, schooling, jobs programs, public infrastructure, etc. There's absolutely no need whatsoever to subsidize the already wealth directly just because they're better at accumulating stuff. That leads to where we are at now with a purchased legislature.

If anything, in times of crisis like 2008, the rich should be more than willing to pay for the government stimulus that saved their margins from going negative or businesses outright collapsing.

There is only one way I can see of correcting this problem and I am afraid I am not willing to pay the price.

 

[northeast]

I'm not making a case for what you may think I am (more money for the rich). I was simply inserting the idea that IF the gov't saw an opportunity to spur an economy, that the funds should go to the brightest and best at business .. whether that's democrat or republican. I honestly thought that was somewhat obvious.

Rich does not equal best and brightest. This may be the most fundamental dishonesty of the Republican Crowd. Most rich got there through a series of socially undesirable traits and practices.

 

[Stoked]

Rich does not equal best and brightest. This may be the most fundamental dishonesty of the Republican Crowd. Most rich got there through a series of socially undesirable traits and practices.

Glad you know all their personal stories.

 

[northeast]

Glad you know all their personal stories.

Sad to see you are oblivious to the last decade.

 

[Dr. Jones]

The money should go into the economy at large. It'll find it's way to the brightest and best at business just fine, whether it first goes into food stamps, unemployment benefits, schooling, jobs programs, public infrastructure, etc. There's absolutely no need whatsoever to subsidize the already wealth directly just because they're better at accumulating stuff. That leads to where we are at now with a purchased legislature.

If anything, in times of crisis like 2008, the rich should be more than willing to pay for the government stimulus that saved their margins from going negative or businesses outright collapsing.

I lack the energy to write what all is wrong with this. (there's a lot right too .. but the over-generalization is just as bad as mine was)
Not sure why I responded at all if I'm unwilling to write a book on the matter .. let's just say that the 'real world' is corrupt enough that neither really works .. sigh, I've opened a can of worms, I know, but too tired to expound.

 

[Stoked]

Sad to see you are oblivious to the last decade.

Sad to see you pretend to be a liberal stooge.

Are there problems? Obviously. But unfortunatly you are not really here to discuss anything. You are here just poke poeple with sticks.

So try to hook another fish today, I am not in the mood.

 

[northeast]

I'm not making a case for what you may think I am (more money for the rich). I was simply inserting the idea that IF the gov't saw an opportunity to spur an economy, that the funds should go to the brightest and best at business .. whether that's democrat or republican. I honestly thought that was somewhat obvious.

Facts:
1. All sports team owners are subsidized.
2. All sports owners are rich.
3. Many cities have republican governments.

Conclusion: Republicans support subsidies, IF (and only if) they are for rich people.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Depending upon on how you're defining subsidy, you may be accurately describing me. It's not a republican thing, it's a prudent business thing. I have no desire to lend my money to anyone that hasn't demonstrated an intellect and work ethic necessary to multiply the loan. Is that wrong? I have no idea ... It's subjective .. But it seems right to me. (see parable of talents)

 

[Stoked]

Facts:
1. All sports team owners are subsidized.
2. All sports owners are rich.
3. Many cities have democrat governments.

Conclusion: Democrats support subsidies, IF (and only if) they are for rich people.

See?