| # | Author | Message |
241
| mrkthompsn
Wed 5/21/2008 8:43a | <IE: It did NOT trickle down. PERIOD.>
One can never escape trickle-down economics. The only reason it may have not "worked", is because in order to get trickled on, you must get a JOB, and perform well in the job such that your performance is valuable enough to get the trickling.
Money is either trickled by the free market (by earning it), or it is trickled by the government (by taking it). The only question is: which trickle is right for America? Freedom, or government tyrrany?
|
242
| dshyates
Wed 5/21/2008 8:48a | It didn't trickle at all. The mean salary of the middle class has gone down since Reagan took office, while CEO salaries have exploded.
Your theory totally ignores reality. |
243
| dshyates
Wed 5/21/2008 8:49a | Do we really need to reunionize to demand our money/ |
244
| mrkthompsn
Wed 5/21/2008 11:29a | so where does the "middle class" get their money - at all? |
245
| davewasbaloo
Wed 5/21/2008 11:32a | >>>which trickle is right for America? Freedom, or government tyrrany?<<<
What a crock. The only thing companies are interested in is profit, and does not always go to the people. Quite the opposite. That's why offshoring has been so popular.
As someone who has been an exec for two large multinationals, I say "get real" |
246
| dshyates
Wed 5/21/2008 11:39a | The middle class gets what the Execs choose to give them. Remembering that every dollar they give the employees is one they don't get to keep.
There is a reason the mean salary of the middle class has gone down, and executive salaries have exploded. Profit sharing went by the wayside. |
247
| mrkthompsn
Wed 5/21/2008 11:53a | Up and down, up and down. Sharp rate of going up, slow rate rate of going up.
Democrats are always thinking in derivatives - never the basics. |
248
| Dabob2
Wed 5/21/2008 12:30p | <<By a small amount.>>
<Small percentages of very large numbers make for large numbers.>
Thank you Einstein. But the fact remains that they never altered things by more than a small percentage, and that Reagan presented budgets with large deficits built in. Congress made them slightly larger by restoring certain cuts, but what Reagan presented had deficits larger than any seen before.
<<He did when he said congress changed the proposals by more than a small amount.>>
<I don't believe he said that. I took him to mean that you were wrong when you claimed the small increases were insignificant. They weren't.>
Yes, they were. |
249
| mrkthompsn
Wed 5/21/2008 1:39p | Going forward, it is better to spend FAR FAR FAR less than we are spending now. If either party can do it, then hoorah. I just don't trust the Democrats are able to do it .. or even to calculate the ability to do it. It's just not their mantra. |
250
| Dabob2
Wed 5/21/2008 1:51p | Both parties are too enamored of deficit spending, but as several links have shown, Democrats have lately done a somewhat better (though still not good enough) job of things. |
