Re "And, I believe, the "trickle down" theory is an unworkable theory": 



 ‘What’s this about my wealth trickling down to poor people?’





---In, <emily.mae50@...> wrote :

 It's a nice idea. We're way out of balance. And, I believe, the "trickle down" 
theory is an unworkable theory, given current global economics, the goal of 
"ever-increasing profits" for companies, and the selfish side of human nature, 

---In, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :

 Reducing the tax burden allows more investment and growth of the economy, 
creating more tax payers with a smaller tax burden instead of fewer tax payers 
with a greater tax burden. John Kennedy did the same.


 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" <>
 Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 2:57 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why the Trumpies hate the Media
   Re: "While taxes were reduced, revenues more than doubled."


 The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms 
proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. 

 At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had 
went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, 
and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as 
well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues 
is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.

 Furthermore, the receipts from individual income taxes (the only receipts 
directly affected by the tax cuts) went up a lower 91.3 percent during the 
80's. Meanwhile, receipts from Social Insurance, which are directly affected by 
the FICA tax rate, went up 140.8 percent. This large increase was largely due 
to the fact that the FICA tax rate went up 25% from 6.13 to 7.65 percent of 

 The reference to the doubling of revenues under Reagan commonly refers to 
TOTAL revenues. These include the above-mentioned Social Insurance revenues for 
which the tax rate went UP. It seems highly hypocritical to include these 
revenues (which were likely bolstered by the tax hike) as proof for the 
effectiveness of a tax cut.

 Hence, what evidence there is suggests there to be a correlation between lower 
taxes and LOWER revenues, not HIGHER revenues as suggested by supply-siders. 
There may well be valid arguments in favor of tax cuts. But higher tax revenues 
does not appear to be one of them.


---In, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :

 By the end of the seventies we had a stagnate economy with high interest rates 
and high rate of inflation.BTW Nixon was a liberal Republican followed by Ford 
, not much better then Carter who saw the economy crater .Yes, in the Reagan 
era, a lot of wealth was created but I'm not sure how you can say it didn't 
benefit the country. All kinds of jobs were created. It was the largest 
expansion of the economy we had ever seen. While taxes were reduced, revenues 
more than doubled. Perhaps you mean there weren't more or enough *freebies* 
handed out as gifts to voters. At the same time, Reagan drove the Soviet Union 
into bankruptcy trying to keep up with our rebuilding of our military. The cold 
war ended along with Soviet communism and the Iron curtain fell.

 Oh yes, I'll say what I will about unions. Their purpose has served it's time 
and are now out dated. They are a bunch of crooks. I was a member of a union 
for 28 years. I don't know where you get the idea that without them, companies 
don't reinvest in themselves. That is how companies grow. I'll agree that in 
many cases CEO can be over compensated. However, they are responsible for 
insuring that a company makes a profit and keep investors happy and investing. 
BTW, many union pension funds are invested in companies that rely on those 
profits to pay pensions for more than their own workers. Your average union 
pension is probably heavily invested in companies they like to demonize.



 From: "olliesedwuz@... [FairfieldLife]" <>
 Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 8:14 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why the Trumpies hate the Media

   I remember back in the 1970's, when communications, travel, and banking were 
all regulated by the Feds. Nobody thought of it as socialism, and the 
industries so regulated were guaranteed a profit. In the post - Reagan era of 
deregulation, there has been a lot of wealth created, but very little of it has 
benefited the country as a whole. In fact one of the major effects of 
deregulation has been the wholesale destruction of the unions, and any upward 
pressure on wages. 

 Say what you will about unions, but they are the only mechanism the little guy 
has, for increasing that paycheck. Without them, profits do not get reinvested 
in companies. Instead, CEOs in their blind quest to become ever richer, use 
them for stock buybacks, artificially boosting the company's equity and earning 
themselves fat bonuses, again. 

 No one in the US is advocating socialism, nor are Obama and Clinton "lefties". 
The idea is laughable. Clinton's NAFTA deal and others were largely responsible 
for knocking down trade barriers, and sending millions of jobs overseas. 

 I resent this idea started by the B actor Reagan that the Federal Government 
is too big and corrupt to get anything done, including the management of social 
programs. It is poisonous thinking, and very anti-social for the country as a 
whole. Like it or not, the government is ours and we own it. That puppet 
Reagan's stunted and dark thinking has become some sort of mantra for the 
Republicans seems to me astonishingly unpatriotic. Too often it is now used as 
an excuse for the rich to deny their obligation to help this country, vs. 
seeing it simply as another economic market for further plunder.

 So, now that we have an economy largely composed of massive multinational 
corporations, what is wrong with providing a safety net for those who for 
whatever reason, fall outside the needs of the corporate interests that govern 
us? This is not a cry for socialism, it is simply a fair thing to do, given the 
way our system works. 
---In, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :

 Raul Castro? Is this some kind of straw man argument? Your entire Democratic 
party is advocating socialism without using the word. Bernzie being the 
exception. They all want the same thing, total government control by taxation 
or regulation.
 Obama and Clinton are only centrists from a Bernzie Sander's point of view.
 You're not in favor of *handouts* but.... we don't hand out enough. Right!

 Quite frankly, it's cheaper to do business over seas than the US due to 
government regulation, taxation and union demands, more Democratic meddling.



 From: "olliesedwuz@... [FairfieldLife]" <>
 Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2015 7:04 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why the Trumpies hate the Media

   "the far left"??!? As in similar in political outlook to say, Raul Castro of 
Cuba?? And who, exactly, in the US Government, has advocated, or worse, acted 
on, such an ideological vision? I am pretty confident I can wait here for days 
without a name from you, even down to the level of city dogcatcher, because 
*they don't exist*. 

 Obama is a centrist, like Clinton was. The only difference is the color of his 
skin. His concern over the demise of social programs is well founded, when our 
previous President advocated the destruction of Social Security. "Put it all in 
the stock market", he and his cronies said, and he would have, but he had no 
mandate from Congress. A good thing, as we would have had millions in the 
street when the market crashed.

 I am not in favor of handouts, but the current Republican domestic philosophy, 
and tax policy, seems to be, "I got mine, screw you", justified on the basis of 
some waste and corruption wrt social services programs. A very cold-hearted way 
of thinking, and obviously biased when no such scrutiny is applied to say, 
military programs, or corporate welfare. 

 The Republicans scream about losing American jobs, while advocating constantly 
for ways to ship jobs overseas. It is ironic that the only thing keeping our 
economy afloat are all the cheap products from China, the Far Left, Communist 
nation, on which our continued prosperity depends. Calling Obama "far left" is 
quite funny from that perspective, as it is the Republicans who are driving us 
further into China's hands. 
---In, <awoelflebater@...> wrote :


---In, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :

 Ollie, you make an awful lot of assumptions here. You assume that, because a 
person in congress opposes the policies of the *far left*, that they are racist 
and that they oppose those policies because the person implementing them has 
dark skin. How simple minded can you get? If you are white, I would have to 
believe that you are seriously suffering from *white guilt* and trying to 
absolve yourself by leveling such a charge.Next year, the excuses will be that 
we need a *woman* to lead the country and if elected and she faces any 
resistance, it will be because she's female in a patriarchal society. This is 
meant to appeal to the base instincts of the *low information* voter, an appeal 
to the emotions of the ignorant. 

  Damn the fact that these very policies have driven poverty higher than ever, 
that black unemployment levels are the highest in decades, more people are on 
government assistance than ever. Damn the fact that our current president has 
more than doubled the national debt of all other presidents before him with 
nothing to show for it, that we owe much of that debt to China. That money 
generating businesses are leaving our country in droves.

 Damn the fact that he threw hard fought, won and costly victories back to our 
enemies that has embolden them, That our once stable allies don't trust the 
word of our leaders. That once dangerous terrorists that had been locked up 
have been returned to the battle field to continue killing again.
  Damn the fact that he opens our borders to whoever wants to come here, 
without due process, driving down wages for our own citizens, while subsidizing 
the substandard wages of the * illegal immigrants* with government social 
program hand outs that cost all other tax payers.
  Damn the fact that because of him,  the people have put more Republicans in 
office than any time since the end of the civil war with nothing to show for it 
because they fear being labeled *racist* and give him just about anything he 
wants including another trillion dollar plus budget this year.
  Ollie, you have got to be kidding me! You are one of these low information 
voters that have drunk the Kool-aide. Of course, any one with a brain can 
figure out that the purpose of these policies is to bring about a complete 
collapse of the current social and economic system in place and replacing it 
with the purest form of socialism which will not redistribute wealth but 
redistribute poverty and suffering. Be careful of what you wish for. The 
*right* is armed and dangerous and will only tolerate so much of the left's 


 This is exactly the mindset, the one that you voice here, that scares the 
bejeebers out of me, Mike. Add that to the fact that you claim those "on the 
right" are "armed and dangerous" isn't lessening this feeling I have. That's 
all America needs, is a bunch of Kool Aid drunk right wingers emerging from 
their villages with flaming torches, pitchforks and no teeth (thanks to 
unaffordable health and dental) and screaming for banishment of those seeking 
asylum in the US and to rid the country of "socialistic" programs. You live in 
a dreamworld, Mike. Not one thing you say here is, I believe, true but it sure 
gives me a glimpse into one mindset present day US residents have and it is 
fear driven.


 From: "olliesedwuz@... [FairfieldLife]" <>
 Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2015 4:03 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why the Trumpies hate the Media

   Please put me on your list too. Barack Obama is one of our better 
Presidents. I find it appalling that the many racists in the US Congress see 
fit to obstruct him, simply because of the color of his skin. Anyway, just for 
you old white racists, I would LOVE it if we had another black man (or a black 
woman for a change) for President, only this time, two black parents, and that 
beautiful dark, dark skin and full lips. I hope whomever it is, they give you a 
big bear hug, a wet kiss on the cheek, and knock that silly pillow case off 
your pointed little head. 

 Merry Christmas to you, and in the TRUE spirit of Jesus Christ, May God Bless 
Barack Hussein Obama!!! 
---In, <emptybill@...> wrote :

 Someone's "principle political view" is irrelevant if their personhood stinks.
 That is what shills like Oprah claimed about “The One”. Only he was not 
presented as a “stinking personhood” but rather as a unifying saint. 
 This is why Em’ likes him … wondrous Barack Osama, the great divider. He is 
the epitomee of the political liar – promising to unite all while following the 
plan of Saul Alinsky (Radical Marxist/Apostate Jew): 
 “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first 
radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where 
mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical 
known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively 
that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.” 
 “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to 
what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to 
hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it 
  Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky
 Chanukistani proly double votes … both Canadian and US elections. What do you 
expect from a dual? Em’ proly votes for whomever sounds most neo-Marxist. 
 I say - hypocrite swine … give up your possessions and give it all away. 
Problem is the swine only want to give away other people’s rights and 
 Don’t worry though - Hillary will show them! 
 After all, she’s a self-professed lover of Alinsky too. 









            • Re:... Mike Dixon [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... Bhairitu [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... feste37
            • Re:... Mike Dixon [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... Mike Dixon [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... Bhairitu [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... Mike Dixon [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... Bhairitu [FairfieldLife]
          • [Fairfie... [FairfieldLife]
            • [Fa... [FairfieldLife]
            • [Fa... [FairfieldLife]
            • [Fa... [FairfieldLife]
  • [FairfieldLife] Re: Why t... [FairfieldLife]

Reply via email to