RE: Trump/GOP: $2.5 trillion for top 1%; $2.5 trillion cuts to poor.

RE: Trump/GOP: $2.5 trillion for top 1%; $2.5 trillion cuts to poor. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tamaka -> RE: Trump/GOP: $2.5 trillion for top 1%; $2.5 trillion cuts to poor. (6/5/2017 4:22:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery It's hard to believe you are actually that naïve. But if you are, look up trickle down theory and paying off your big campaign donors. And not to forget that Trump himself would benefit financially, as would his companies and his families' companies. I understand the theory of trickle down theory. I really don't see how that would apply when you're giving yet more money to people who already have more money than God. I really don't see the 1% holding their hands out wanting more money. So i am saying, if you take a step back from those 2 obvious knee-jerk responses, i ask again, why would they want to give more money back to the (already) ultra-rich 1%?

RottenJohnny -> RE: Trump/GOP: $2.5 trillion for top 1%; $2.5 trillion cuts to poor. (6/5/2017 4:27:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery And not to forget that Trump himself would benefit financially, as would his companies and his families' companies. Will you benefit from the changes? If not, why not?

Musicmystery -> RE: Trump/GOP: $2.5 trillion for top 1%; $2.5 trillion cuts to poor. (6/5/2017 4:34:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery It's hard to believe you are actually that naïve. But if you are, look up trickle down theory and paying off your big campaign donors. And not to forget that Trump himself would benefit financially, as would his companies and his families' companies. I understand the theory of trickle down theory. I really don't see how that would apply when you're giving yet more money to people who already have more money than God. I really don't see the 1% holding their hands out wanting more money. So i am saying, if you take a step back from those 2 obvious knee-jerk responses, i ask again, why would they want to give more money back to the (already) ultra-rich 1%? If you're suggesting it's a dumb-ass idea for a budget, I agree. If you're asking why those in power would do it anyway, I've already answered that. You even quoted it: - a double down commitment to trickle down (even though it never works) - paying off wealthy donors - Trump himself would benefit financially, as would his companies and his families' companies. Corruption, conflict of interest, a mania maintaining more is never enough -- take your pick. Point is, it's at the expense of people who DON'T have "more money than God" to funnel yet more to their coffers. Does it make sense? Not in any good governance sense. In the balls to the walls corruption kleptocracy sense -- totally in character.

tamaka -> RE: Trump/GOP: $2.5 trillion for top 1%; $2.5 trillion cuts to poor. (6/5/2017 4:39:05 PM)
Ok. All of those answers are plausible. Now take the 'bad guy' approach out of it, are there any possible positive reasons that the government might want to funnel a few trillion dollars to the 'care & keeping' of the ultra rich?

Musicmystery -> RE: Trump/GOP: $2.5 trillion for top 1%; $2.5 trillion cuts to poor. (6/5/2017 4:49:27 PM)
[image]http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/cat-running-in-circles.gif[/image]

igor2003 -> RE: Trump/GOP: $2.5 trillion for top 1%; $2.5 trillion cuts to poor. (6/5/2017 4:52:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Ok. All of those answers are plausible. Now take the 'bad guy' approach out of it, are there any possible positive reasons that the government might want to funnel a few trillion dollars to the 'care & keeping' of the ultra rich? A large part of the "government" you are asking about are either part of that 1%, or they get significant contributions from that 1%. The reason for wanting to funnel more money to that top 1% can easily be summed up in just one word. GREED.

BoscoX -> RE: Trump/GOP: $2.5 trillion for top 1%; $2.5 trillion cuts to poor. (6/5/2017 4:57:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 A large part of the "government" you are asking about are either part of that 1%, or they get significant contributions from that 1%. The reason for wanting to funnel more money to that top 1% can easily be summed up in just one word. GREED. No, it's called reducing the size of our vastly bloated and insanely wasteful government, and using the cost savings to energize the economy - benefitting all Americans who participate in the economy. Might suck slobblegobblerons to be a sassy fat assed bureaucrat right now, but that's a good thing

Musicmystery -> RE: Trump/GOP: $2.5 trillion for top 1%; $2.5 trillion cuts to poor. (6/5/2017 4:58:49 PM)
It's called reducing the well-being of 99% of the population to benefit the coffers of the wealthiest 1%, including Trump.

tamaka -> RE: Trump/GOP: $2.5 trillion for top 1%; $2.5 trillion cuts to poor. (6/5/2017 4:59:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 A large part of the "government" you are asking about are either part of that 1%, or they get significant contributions from that 1%. The reason for wanting to funnel more money to that top 1% can easily be summed up in just one word. GREED. No, it's called reducing the size of our vastly bloated and insanely wasteful government, and using the cost savings to energize the economy - benefitting all Americans who participate in the economy. Might suck slobblegobblerons to be a sassy fat assed bureaucrat right now, but that's a good thing Well if they really wanted to do that, wouldn't they subsidize small business loans?

Musicmystery -> RE: Trump/GOP: $2.5 trillion for top 1%; $2.5 trillion cuts to poor. (6/5/2017 5:01:38 PM)
Now that would be a healthy step.

tamaka -> RE: Trump/GOP: $2.5 trillion for top 1%; $2.5 trillion cuts to poor. (6/5/2017 5:10:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Now that would be a healthy step. Right. So i can't help but wonder what the reason is they are trying to syphon money to the rich. Hypothetically, is there any plausible possible positive reason?

BoscoX -> RE: Trump/GOP: $2.5 trillion for top 1%; $2.5 trillion cuts to poor. (6/5/2017 5:11:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Well if they really wanted to do that, wouldn't they subsidize small business loans? Then taxpayers have to pay sassy fat assed bureaucrats crazy high union salaries and lifetime pensions and all kinds of other benefits at taxpayer expense, all while interest rates are at historic lows Insanely wasteful, and there are private sector people who do that in a very efficient manner (or go out of business). When government is wasteful though, we just tend to shovel more cash at the problem If the rates were super high, perhaps a short term program would be in order to get the economy rolling but that's not necessary now

BoscoX -> RE: Trump/GOP: $2.5 trillion for top 1%; $2.5 trillion cuts to poor. (6/5/2017 5:14:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Now that would be a healthy step. Right. So i can't help but wonder what the reason is they are trying to syphon money to the rich. Hypothetically, is there any plausible possible positive reason? They're not "siphoning money" to them. It's their money - they are letting them keep more of their own money so they can create jobs with it and grow the economy, for everyone's benefit

Hillwilliam -> RE: Trump/GOP: $2.5 trillion for top 1%; $2.5 trillion cuts to poor. (6/5/2017 5:20:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Now that would be a healthy step. Right. So i can't help but wonder what the reason is they are trying to syphon money to the rich. Hypothetically, is there any plausible possible positive reason? because the rich made the campaign donations and expect a return on their investment. It's called "buying Congressmen". Both sides do it.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Trump/GOP: $2.5 trillion for top 1%; $2.5 trillion cuts to poor. (6/5/2017 5:23:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Now that would be a healthy step. Right. So i can't help but wonder what the reason is they are trying to syphon money to the rich. Hypothetically, is there any plausible possible positive reason? They're not "siphoning money" to them. It's their money - they are letting them keep more of their own money so they can create jobs with it and grow the economy, for everyone's benefit Trickle down economics was disproven 35 years ago. Seriously, if you got a nice raise at work, would you just, out of the goodness of your heart, pay the guy who mows your yard more? Or tell him to bring a friend so you can pay both of them? See how fucking stupid it sounds? Time and time again, it has been shown not to work. Bush I even had a name for it. "Voodoo Economics".

Musicmystery -> RE: Trump/GOP: $2.5 trillion for top 1%; $2.5 trillion cuts to poor. (6/5/2017 5:23:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Now that would be a healthy step. Right. So i can't help but wonder what the reason is they are trying to syphon money to the rich. Hypothetically, is there any plausible possible positive reason? [image]http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/cat-running-in-circles.gif[/image] Is it possible there's NOT a positive reason?

BoscoX -> RE: Trump/GOP: $2.5 trillion for top 1%; $2.5 trillion cuts to poor. (6/5/2017 5:28:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Now that would be a healthy step. Right. So i can't help but wonder what the reason is they are trying to syphon money to the rich. Hypothetically, is there any plausible possible positive reason? They're not "siphoning money" to them. It's their money - they are letting them keep more of their own money so they can create jobs with it and grow the economy, for everyone's benefit Trickle down economics was disproven 35 years ago. Seriously, if you got a nice raise at work, would you just, out of the goodness of your heart, pay the guy who mows your yard more? Or tell him to bring a friend so you can pay both of them? See how fucking stupid it sounds? Time and time again, it has been shown not to work. Bush I even had a name for it. "Voodoo Economics". "Trickle down"? It's just common sense. If a government removes too much money from the economy it's bad. If you want to decrease any activity, tax it very heavily. Cigarettes, industry... See also Crazy Uncle Bernie's socialist baby, Venezuela That he gushed over Where the people are starving

Musicmystery -> RE: Trump/GOP: $2.5 trillion for top 1%; $2.5 trillion cuts to poor. (6/5/2017 5:29:10 PM)
But the US isn't starving. These are long standing programs. We're thriving actually. Nice try. But no.

BoscoX -> RE: Trump/GOP: $2.5 trillion for top 1%; $2.5 trillion cuts to poor. (6/5/2017 5:37:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery But the US isn't starving. These are long standing programs. We're thriving actually. Nice try. But no. So long as you ignore the debt, which you do every time it is convenient for you (like this) And the fact that if interest rates go up significantly we are totally fucked The debt is unsustainable Pompous smug ass Obama lectured that President Bush was "unpatriotic" for much less debt than he left for President Trump Trump's plan is perfect, exactly what we need to crawl out of the massive debt hole Obama created Cut government waste to the bone, fuel and grow the economy, so the growing tax base can lift everyone and everything

tamaka -> RE: Trump/GOP: $2.5 trillion for top 1%; $2.5 trillion cuts to poor. (6/5/2017 5:56:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery But the US isn't starving. These are long standing programs. We're thriving actually. Nice try. But no. So long as you ignore the debt, which you do every time it is convenient for you (like this) And the fact that if interest rates go up significantly we are totally fucked The debt is unsustainable Pompous smug ass Obama lectured that President Bush was "unpatriotic" for much less debt than he left for President Trump Trump's plan is perfect, exactly what we need to crawl out of the massive debt hole Obama created Cut government waste to the bone, fuel and grow the economy, so the growing tax base can lift everyone and everything Could the 1% be in debt? If so, to whom do they owe money?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875