http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...et-meltdown/article33677193/?click=sf_globefb The Globe & Mail is a pretty conservative, market-worshipping paper. In Canadian terms at least. So if the G&M is running this piece, it bears reading. One of the more pathetic things we've seen lately is US voters swallowing the Big Con about Donald being an Outsider, as opposed to Hillary the Arch-Insider. Ain't long, so even the Lubaks and Facemen of this board ought to be able to get through it without terminal brain exhaustion.
Oh, far be it from me to even dream of convincing any person outside the top 20% income bracket who was stooopid enough to vote for Donald of anything LOL. I just thought this article does a good job of revealing just one way in which Donald is the Real Hillary. Y'know, the one he conned all those unfortunate suckers into believing she was.
I don't know if I was in it or not this past year, but every American has the same chance for a try to bite at that apple. More than you lot in the UK anyway, although that opportunity in the US slipped pretty far down during past decade. As for how I voted, it's none of your business, but I skipped the presidential ballot on the 9th, and in the primary voted for Rubio in Texas. So it seems when you're not just ignorant or making shit up, you're just a kid. That's why I mentioned last week you're not really sponge worthy.
I agree regulatory capture is a problem as is buying undue influence. Where we differ is you seem completely ignorant of how many former Goldman Sachs lobbyists the half black Jesus had or how he killed both single payer and even a public option before a single Republican got a chance to comment on the ACA. In short, you are not very knowledgeable nor very bright so kindly piss off, child.
Obama and Clinton both got to be president. Hey, if you're born stupid or lazy or lame, that's genetics that hobbled you not America.
Now that I actually agree with you on though which state they live in is a MASSIVE factor. Hint: Red states especially in the south have the least social mobility while blue states often exceed European standards.
Why do you guys think this suddenly happened because Obama was president? Before you can even be taken seriously, you really need to read up on the history of the last 40 years and what "trickle down economics" has brought us.
Then why the hell are so many blue state yankees moving to the south if the blue states are so great?
Most likely the same as it has always been, retirees looking for warmer climates and a lower cost of living.
It's about time the Right acknowledged that. But, because the Right totally fucked the American middle class by championing "trickle down economics", it will take a miracle for us to ever get us unfucked.
No one on the right championed "trickle down economics" because that doesn't exist nor were there ever a set of policies advocated by any Republican Admin. that could be defined as such. Simply a liberal myth.
Look, I realize with Trump coming in saying outright lies might make you think it's going to be ok for everyone to do so, but as I was alive and breathing and capable of intelligent thought back in the 80s, I know Reagan initiated what came to be known as "trickle down economics". Lie to yourself if you want, but don't lie to the rest of us.
Making things easier for the rich (through tax cuts, deregulation, and so on) will spur economic growth by driving business investment. This is trickle-down economics. This is still the basic Republican policy alignment to this day. Dayton is demonstrating an almost Trump-like level of disregard for reality here.
Reality disagrees with you and Senor whomever. https://fee.org/articles/there-is-no-such-thing-as-trickle-down-economics/
That article is just a bunch of lies. Either that or the author is incredibly stupid. There is an argument which isn't so popular among actual academic economists, but which is more or less hegemonic among politicians, even Democrats (though Bernie offered a blueprint for a different set of ideas) that deregulation, tax cuts for business and wealthy individuals, and weakening labor protections will enable rich people to invest more, driving economic growth and broad-based prosperity. The fact that this was given the nickname 'trickle-down' economics by its detractors doesn't make it any less real.
"During the campaign of 1980, Ronald Reagan announced a recipe to fix the nation's economic mess. He claimed an undue tax burden, excessive government regulation, and massive social spending programs hampered growth. Reagan proposed a phased 30% tax cut for the first three years of his Presidency. The bulk of the cut would be concentrated at the upper income levels. The economic theory behind the wisdom of such a plan was called supply-side or trickle-down economics." http://www.ushistory.org/us/59b.asp
And I'm pretty certain that President Reagan never said a thing about "trickle down economics". Once again, "trickle down economics" does not exist. I've provided a link proving that.
You fucking moron. You are not a teacher. You are a liar. There is no possible way anyone as stupid as you project on here could possibly obtain a job teaching children even in Arkansas.
Believe what you want and make all the idiotic personal insults you want. If you want some people like Anna and Ed629 have seen copies of my Praxis Scores which are one of the big ways you gain teacher certification in Arkansas (and other states). Rant and rave all you want. I've been a certified school teaching for more than a decade and taught for 11 years full time. Case closed.
So are you claiming that the actual policies that were called trickle-down economics did not exist? There were no tax cuts or deregulation?
h 200 Considering that from the 4th quarter of 1982 (when Reagan's policies were fully in effect) until 2007, 25 years later there was steady economic growth with only a single extremely mild recession (1990-91) I would say they were very good economic policies. The U.S. should be so lucky again.......
