Don't Blame Biden

Biden's new motto-

"The bucks stops with the last guy."

 

The wealthy minority pay most of the income taxes. The poor pay none of them. The system is set up exactly as the left thinks it should be. That makes the complaints look more like envy of the rich than common sense.

 

That's true. I was just responding to another post, but it was off topic. Sorry.

Well, that is creating wealth although in an indirect and elusive way. By the same token he is losing wealth when the stock drops 5%.

 

Trickle down is in no way a government/political policy. It is a natural system and the way things happen with free private enterprise.

 

The Right's new motto......

"Biden burnt my toast."

'I don't take responsibility at all': Trump deflects blame for coronavirus testing fumble
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/04/inv...harebar|email&par=sharebar#no_universal_links

 

There is no ceiling or end point on how high the left thinks taxes on the rich should be.

 

Understanding Reaganomics
The term Reaganomics was used by both supporters and detractors of Reagan's policies. Reaganomics was partially based on the principles of supply-side economics and the trickle-down theory. These theories hold the view that decreases in taxes, especially for corporations, offer the best way to stimulate economic growth. The idea is that if the expenses of corporations are reduced, the savings "trickle down" to the rest of the economy, spurring growth. Prior to becoming Reagan's vice president, George H. W. Bush coined the term "voodoo economics" as a proposed synonym for Reaganomics.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reaganomics.asp

 

In your zeal to screech about the bad orange boogeyman, I think you got some wires crossed-

Investing Club: Devon Energy won’t pump more oil even as prices surge on Ukraine war concerns, CEO says

 

LOL. Somehow I don't think you would be making this same post if Trump were president. Orange man bad. Everything is his fault.

 

I don't know if you intended to refute my post, but you don't. I said, "Trickle down is in no way a government/political policy." (it is a natural outgrowth of free private enterprise) but I did not say government cannot mess with it for better or worse

 

Naahhh, you just missed it.

 

And if they were to tax 100% of the income of the wealthy, it wouldn't make federal government solvent. Only reducing spending can do that.

 

Ahhhh.., I don't want to hear it. Because of the systemic flaws, the people that we get to pick from are no more than butt lickers. That's the problem



The Miss Republican contest! Damn, that was a good one!

Case closed your honor!

 

The choices that we make certainly play a role, however the point is that they are not the only variable in the equation that determines the final result. That's the reality and nothing changes that.

 

Which explains why we do not have a government by the people and for the people. We have government by the political establishment for the government.

 

No it is not obvious. What is obvious is that you want to cloak your lack of a sound defense with the worn out cliche "Obviously you don't understand".

What are you talking about? I never put forward something called "trickle up". Stop creating straw men.

Simply put, governments enforce rules that play a large role in determining economic outcome. That's what government economic policy has to to with an economic system.

I am not Russian, so please stop creating straw men.

 

No problem.

No I'm sorry. That is not creating wealth. Its creating the illusion of wealth. In that scenario, that person has been compensated 10 times what a very highly skilled worker in high technology would be, and 50 times what someone on the lower end of spectrum. All that will happen is such people enter the market and artificially increase demand, which will have the effect of increasing debt that cannot be repaid. The taxpayer then ends up footing the bill.

 

You may not be aware that Donald Trump, as President of the United States, the top person in this country responsible for enforcing the law, sat and watched and DID NOT DO A DAMN THING while the capitol was being attacked and ransacked. Why in the hell would someone like Laura Ingram have to text the President of the United States to get him to stop a riot?

 

Capitalism is a economic/political system. At the point where it stipulates private ownership of the means of production, it enters the political realm. Therefore it can rightly be viewed as an economic/political system.

You forgot the part where the government implements tax and spend policy that favors the wealthy.

No, everything starts with people with desires that they want fulfilled.

 

Humans by nature want to deflect blame from themselves. The position that you are putting forward is no more than a ruse that a segment of the elites in society have come up with to avoid the responsibility for their poor leadership, lack of insight, and bad decisions.

This is no more than a straw man that you have constructed. This "People such as yourself", "But we never hear them comment" is something that you have created in your mind.

If you actually think that what exists in this country is a meritocracy then you are in illusion. There is no way someone like George W Bush would be president in a meritocracy.

Oh really? So you mean to tell me that a person whose doesn't have an aptitude for business, doesn't have an aptitude for math, doesn't have an aptitude for critical thinking, doesn't have an aptitude for judging character, is going to become a millionaire in this system simply because he has the right attitude? Please!

If no one owes you anything, then everyone should work for free. That's nonsense.

 

There is a difference in something that simply does not exist and something that exists but people in general are ignorant of. Its just like if you told a person whose knowledge of math only want as far as simple arithmetic that any continuous function can be expressed as a sum of sinusoids, that's a concept that doesn't exist in his mind. So in practical terms, unless you have the time to educate such a person, AND he wants to be educated, there is no use in relating to him in a way in which he has such knowledge. That is to say, in practical terms we may as well try to structure society in such a way for people who are ignorant of an intellectual consistent ideology, because mostly that's what society consists of.

Yeah, despite that, people with money get away with their greedy snobbery all the time.

Straw man. You get brownie points for using the word "seem" above. Just because it "seems" that way to you, doesn't mean its true. But greedy snobbery will make you see things in a distorted way.

 

They are by far the most dominant one.

 

I really don't think you can say that. What I think is fair to say is that we have a limited amount of choices that we have available to us at any given time. Therefore we have a limited set of outcomes that are possible. The way we make the choices and utilize the opportunities at our disposal have a large impact on the resulting outcome that is from the limited set of possible outcomes.

 

We disagree on every point.