Rahm and his business

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Read it yourself
the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.
The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.

no one is denying that income inequality is getting worse. What I am asking, and I think you know this, is this...how is Warren Buffet's wealth accumulation CAUSING anyone else to fail to achieve their own dreams?

Just because two things are happening at the same time, doesn't mean one causes the other.

Tell me how Buffet's wealth is the cause of anyone else's poverty?

Pointing out how wealthy Buffet is, does not explain how he caused anyone else's poverty. I don't think you are this stupid, I think you cannot answer, but you aren't honest enough to admit I'm right.

Buffet's wealth might not be fair in light of how many poor people there are. But his wealth isn't causing anyone's poverty. He created that wealth, and as Spence said, he's sharing billions of it. This is a good thing, not the sinister thing you desperately want it to be. He created that wealth, he didn't steal it.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

no one is denying that income inequality is getting worse. What I am asking, and I think you know this, is this...how is Warren Buffet's wealth accumulation CAUSING anyone else to fail to achieve their own dreams?

Just because two things are happening at the same time, doesn't mean one causes the other.

Tell me how Buffet's wealth is the cause of anyone else's poverty?

Pointing out how wealthy Buffet is, does not explain how he caused anyone else's poverty. I don't think you are this stupid, I think you cannot answer, but you aren't honest enough to admit I'm right.

Buffet's wealth might not be fair in light of how many poor people there are. But his wealth isn't causing anyone's poverty. He created that wealth, and as Spence said, he's sharing billions of it. This is a good thing, not the sinister thing you desperately want it to be. He created that wealth, he didn't steal it.

Where did I or anyone say that poverty is just a rich man's fault?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Where did I or anyone say that poverty is just a rich man's fault?

You just can't ever answer a direct question, can you?

Did Warren Buffet's accumulation of wealth, cause anyone else to be poor?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You just can't ever answer a direct question, can you?

Did Warren Buffet's accumulation of wealth, cause anyone else to be poor?

As a sole cause, likely not
Now tell me where I said poverty was wealthy peoples fault
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Where did I or anyone say that poverty is just a rich man's fault?

And if you don't believe that one person's poverty is caused by another person's wealth, then why should we give a frog's fat azz about income inequality? What's the harm in rich people getting richer?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And if you don't believe that one person's poverty is caused by another person's wealth, then why should we give a frog's fat azz about income inequality? What's the harm in rich people getting richer?

the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.
The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.
The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.

curves paints a different picture from WHAT? i’m not denying income inequality exists. I am denying that it hurts anyone.

as to where youbsaid inenperaons wealth causes another’s poverty....youvare goung on and on about the wealthy and about income inequality. If you don’t think that one persons wealth causes another’s poverty, why do you bring up the wealthy? what point are you trying to make?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

curves paints a different picture from WHAT? i’m not denying income inequality exists. I am denying that it hurts anyone.

as to where youbsaid inenperaons wealth causes another’s poverty....youvare goung on and on about the wealthy and about income inequality. If you don’t think that one persons wealth causes another’s poverty, why do you bring up the wealthy? what point are you trying to make?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know this is hard for you to understand as a staunch constitutionalist, but it hurts our society as a whole and inhibits our progress (another word conservatives hate as the root of progressive) for wealth and power to be concentrated in the hands of a small minority. This is the reason the Republican Party pushed for the Sherman Anti-trust Act in 1890, which was enacted unanimously and why the Federal Trade Commission was started. It was a problem then and now is again.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I know this is hard for you to understand as a staunch constitutionalist, but it hurts our society as a whole and inhibits our progress (another word conservatives hate as the root of progressive) for wealth and power to be concentrated in the hands of a small minority. This is the reason the Republican Party pushed for the Sherman Anti-trust Act in 1890, which was enacted unanimously and why the Federal Trade Commission was started. It was a problem then and now is again.

So then, the Sherman Anti-trust Act did not work. Misguided legislation usually doesn't. Especially Progressive legislation ("Progressive" being a self-prescribed label that is actually an oxymoron). And, as with most all Progressive legislation that doesn't work, Regressive/Progressive Pols want to double down. That is, impose even more limitations on people's rights, which continues into a spiral of more limitations which eventually leads to the centralized power of government which you pretend not to like.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I know this is hard for you to understand as a staunch constitutionalist, but it hurts our society as a whole and inhibits our progress (another word conservatives hate as the root of progressive) for wealth and power to be concentrated in the hands of a small minority. This is the reason the Republican Party pushed for the Sherman Anti-trust Act in 1890, which was enacted unanimously and why the Federal Trade Commission was started. It was a problem then and now is again.

"it hurts our society as a whole ...for wealth and power to be concentrated in the hands of a small minority."

I completely agree that our nation would be better, if we had fewer poor people. I concede that whole-heartedly. Fair enough?

I see no connection, nor have you even tried to establish a connection, between the widening income inequality, and poverty.

Let's talk about how to help poor people become middle class, I'm all for that. I'll happily pay taxes to programs that are actually effective in this goal.

But please stop whining about the wealthy. They play just about no role in this. Not only do they not create poverty, they help reduce poverty by paying tons of taxes and giving so much to charity. There would be more poverty, not less, if Warren Buffet washed dishes instead of founded Berkshire Hathaway.

Stop demonizing the wealthy. It's stupid, it's dishonest, and it's intellectually lazy.

Even lack of money isn't the cause of most people's poverty, it's the symptom. The cause of poverty is usually bad decision-making, laziness, mental illness, or addiction. These are not things you make go away, by throwing money at them.

Of course, some people are poor because of bad luck or bad timing, and certainly they can permanently escape poverty with a little help, and we should give them that help, we have an obligation to do so in my opinion.

But one thing that liberals refuse to accept is this - you cannot eliminate poverty by giving money to poor people. If we coulda, we woulda, because we've given un-countable billions to poor people over the years.

We can and should try to eliminate poverty. None of what we need to do so, lies with a small number of billionaires. None. Zip. But liberals never, ever stop bitching about the 1%. Anything to divide us into a larger number of smaller groups to be pitted against one another - that's liberalism.

The Koch Brothers have been demonized by name on the floor of congress many times. For what? Have they ever been arrested or convicted of anything? How would you like it, if a US Senator stood in front of cameras, mentioned you by name, and told America that you were the enemy?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.
The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.

There are many factors that have contributed to all of this but the real question is if trickle down doesn't work, why do so many still think it's good policy?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

There are many factors that have contributed to all of this but the real question is if trickle down doesn't work, why do so many still think it's good policy?

trickle down hasn’t worked, if by ‘worked’, you mean eliminated poverty. Has welfare ( trickle up) eliminated poverty? Have the most liberal places, like CT, eliminated poverty? Been to Hartford or Bridgeport lately?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by spence

There are many factors that have contributed to all of this but the real question is if trickle down doesn't work, why do so many still think it's good policy?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

trickle down hasn’t worked, if by ‘worked’, you mean eliminated poverty. Has welfare ( trickle up) eliminated poverty? Have the most liberal places, like CT, eliminated poverty? Been to Hartford or Bridgeport lately?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So if the two opposite viewpoints don't work, we should do nothing.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

There are many factors that have contributed to all of this but the real question is if trickle down doesn't work, why do so many still think it's good policy?

That is not the real question. That is the real trick. You're either intentionally trying to mislead for political reasons, or you're just plain uninformed.

From Forbes:

"Our language is loaded with phrases that lead people into false beliefs and harmful actions, but the one I would nominate as the worst and most destructive of all is 'trickle-down economics.'
It was devised by Democrats in the 1980s as a way to attack President Reagan’s economic policy combination of tax rate cuts and some relaxation of federal regulations. They needed a catchy, easy-to-remember zinger to fire at Reagan; a line that would keep their voting base angry."
The full article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgel.../#69a611995891

The whole notion of "trickle down economics" is a myth intended to use the usual political trick of defining an opponent with a dishonest (a lie) characterization. The theory never existed.

From another article: https://www.nccivitas.org/2014/myth-trickle-economics/

"As economist Thomas Sowell noted in his book Basic Economics, 'Trickle down has been a characterization and rejection of what somebody else supposedly believed.' But 'no recognized economist of any school of thought has ever had any such theory or made any such proposal. It is a straw man. It cannot be found in even the most voluminous and learned histories of economic theories . . .Here the President [Obama] and like-minded progressive statists employ an avoidance tactic to evade confronting the actual arguments presented by those who advocate for lower tax rates and less government interference as ways to grow the economy. Such advocates clearly do not make their case by seeking a transfer of existing wealth to high-income earners and business owners (i.e. “give more to those who have the most”). Rather, they emphasize the creation of additional wealth and jobs when entrepreneurs are not hampered by heavy regulation and discouraged by steep taxes,' Sowell writes."

More to the point: "As almost any entrepreneur – big or small – can tell you, when a business investment is made it is the workers who get paid first. Profits and capital gains only come later. For instance, when a new restaurant opens up, construction workers and interior designers get paid for building or renovating the space. Companies make money providing the furnishings and kitchen equipment. The wait staff, cooks and cleaning crew receive regular paychecks for doing their work. Furthermore, the food and beverage suppliers likewise get paid. Only later, if the restaurant is successful, do the owners see a return on their investment.
Even hugely successful corporations can often take years to break even. For instance, Amazon began in 1995 but didn’t turn its first profit until six years later after sustaining billions in losses. All that time, its workers and suppliers kept collecting checks.
As Sowell put it, 'In short, the sequence of payments is directly opposite of what is assumed by those who talk about a ‘trickle down’ theory. The workers must be paid first and then the profits flow upward later – if at all.'”

So, the good policy is similar to what Trump did.