OK, so Enlightening Meditation thinks that trickle-down works, and that the government is less efficient than private industry. I’m not sure how the latter leads to the former, but it doesn’t matter, because both are demonstrably false.
Yes, it is entirely true that trickle-down economics has failed, repeatedly. That is nothing one would have to be a socialist to notice or to say.
I have yet to hear her make one. What exactly are you thinking of?
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
I also think that Enlightening Meditation takes issue with the manner in which Hillary Clinton eats crackers.
Do the Republicans admit that?
I think you are right if it came down to a two way race. But this scene reminds me of the Al Gore/ Ralph Nader meeting in 2000 where Nader’s 2 percent swung the election to Bush. Bernie Sanders as the modern day Nader might be convinced by the same sort of left side rebels OR some covert Republicans to drop out and run a third party candidacy because like Nader, he does have issues he wants to get out which the Dems won’t touch and he’d have no chance in a two way nomination contest with Clinton if somehow Clinton could keep her numbers and cruise to the primaries which I highly doubt.
Sanders would probably avoid Iowa because NH is his territory. The political pundits would watch that one closely. Maybe Sanders could draw 40-45% in NH but quickly drop in other states meaning Sanders would be running a ghost campaign bereft of money, supporters, media attention until he drops out by Mar 2016 and considers a Nader style candidacy.
C’mon. The thing about being under fire in Bosnia was undeniably a blunder. Clinton said it and it wasn’t true.
She isn’t a military person. Perhaps after advice she *thought *they were. 
She is sure hard to run down on a bicycle.
[QUOTE=Chronos]
OK, so Enlightening Meditation thinks that trickle-down works, and that the government is less efficient than private industry. I’m not sure how the latter leads to the former, but it doesn’t matter, because both are demonstrably false.
[/QUOTE]
I (and also my friends depending on the VA for their healthcare) do firmly disagree. I wish that our government would support current and former troops especially the wounded ones who are still coping with the aftermath of their service.
The ‘trickle-up’ economics of the past 17 years has failed in my opinion. It is really depressing to see so many people agree with your position. I defend your right to speak it, though. ‘Trickle up’ economics may have indeed helped you, but it did not help most of us in the middle and/or lower classes.
I do not support your thoughts but I do support your right to express those thoughts. ** I proudly disagree with you. I proudly declare that trickle-up economics has failed. Trickle down should be tried again, I contend.**
NO, I never said that. ‘Sucks’ or ‘sucked’ would be too generous. The Clintons are corrupt regardless of one’s political persuasions. I still predict that HRC loses in the primary. I predicted her failure 8 years ago, and I predict her failure again. I’m not going to post here to defend most, if any, Republicans, but it would be a stretch to say that Clinton is better than most GOP candidates. I’m willing to listen to Rubio and Fiorina and maybe others, but most of the GOP are equally out of touch even if not nearly as corrupt as the Clintons. I support equal civil rights, voting rights, a less ‘trickle-up’ tax structure, et cetera, and I am disappointed with the GOP on many issues, but it is no excuse to let the Clintons back into power.
I vehemently stand by my predictions about Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders, and I stand by my predictions about Jeb Bush. I predict that both of them will be defeated during their respective primaries. I could be wrong and I could be too optimistic, but I hold firm to the predictions.
[QUOTE=carnivorousplant]
[QUOTE=Enightening Meditation]
Did you hear or read what happened when Terry Gross dared to ask about Hillary about her changing views?
[/QUOTE]
She was angry that Gross said “changing your mind” without “learning about it.”
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I agree. Terry Gross did not stick to the script, and HRC was absolutely livid.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
Since he’s announced I’ve seen a couple of articles touting him as some kind of gun rights hero.
SAY WHAT?
Both the NRA and Gun Owners of America rate him no better than an F!
Heh. I’ll bet some people will buy this bunk too. Vote for him over Hillary because she’s after their guns.
[/QUOTE]
There is no surprise here IMO. The NRA and GoA are lobbying groups. Bernie may deserve a ‘C’ grade on gun rights but he gets an ‘F’ for ever opposing these groups at all, but suddenly he has some gun rights credentials since HRC is his opponent in the next primary. Lobbyists are only singularly focused on their own agendas.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
[QUOTE=Enlightening Meditation]
I base it on her words during the pre-1995 era and then again after the recent (roughly 2013 to present) lurch back leftward: “You know that old theory…trickle down economics…<pause>. That has been tried. That has failed.” -HRC at a Martha Coakley campaign event. That’s just one example.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is entirely true that trickle-down economics has failed, repeatedly. That is nothing one would have to be a socialist to notice or to say.
[/QUOTE]
The trickle-up economics of the past 12 years (since Glass-Steagal repeal) has failed in my opinion. Your perspective is different. You may have benefitted from trickle-up economics, and that is your perspective. I proudly and vehemently disagree with you. I defend your right to state your opinion, however.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
[QUOTE=Enlightening Meditation]
Also, her gaffes are far more cringe-inducing than Obama.
[/QUOTE]
I have yet to hear her make one. What exactly are you thinking of?
[/QUOTE]
Oh, wow. Is this new or surprising to you? A Clinton gaffe? Some of us remember the Yankee ballcap wearing Cubs fan carpetbagger campaigning in upstate NY as soon as she stepped off the plane. Some of us still remember the ‘landing under sniper fire’ in Bosnia comment. Some of us still remember the ‘dead broke’ comment on the book tour. Also, the “It is hard enough with two parties to come to any resolution, and I say this very respectfully, because I feel the same way about our own democracy, which has been around a lot longer [?] than European democracy.” It is sad that she never studies the Romans and Greeks. I also consider this whole interview to be a gaffe [or collection of gaffes]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnUPhp7AHXo
C’mon, did she really apply to NASA to become an astronaut?
Do you think that HRC’s sudden recent support for LGBT rights is anything other than pure politics? What about Biden or Obama? They’re all phonies.
Let’s assume that Kathleen Willey and Dick Morris (among other Clinton staffers) are liars… Let’s assume that the Clintons are not at all corrupt… Let’s assume that Cattlegate and Travelgate never happened… Let’s assume that the Clintons are no pro-DC establishment… then… Are the Clintons the best choice to become leaders (again)?
I would be stunned if a plurality of voters would support this creature to be leader.
[QUOTE=carnivorousplant]
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Yes, it is entirely true that trickle-down economics has failed, repeatedly. That is nothing one would have to be a socialist to notice or to say.
[/QUOTE]
Do the Republicans admit that?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=John_Stamos’_Left_Ear]
I also think that Enlightening Meditation takes issue with the manner in which Hillary Clinton eats crackers.
[/QUOTE]
I take issue with Hillary’s corruption, her completely false story about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia, her vote on the Dubya-era war in Iraq, her carpetbagging campaigning for the US Senate, HillaryCare, It Takes a Village, her phony politics, her husbands’ phony politics, the coy silense all of a sudden on the Asia trade deal, etc. Perhaps, you are able to embrace Hillary as a candidate, and I proudly say that I do not.
I stand behind my predictions. I may be wrong, but I have enough faith in the American citizens that Hillary does get nominated as the Democratic Party candidate and does not win as POTUS.
It is difficult, but I try to be optimistic.
Fine – we’ll see if your predictions hold up. I still strongly disagree about Hillary vs the Republicans – they’re more dishonest, more corrupt, more out-of-touch, etc. They’re all worse and in almost every way.
As far as this “trickle-up” stuff, I wish we had trickle up economics! Trickle-down has been such a dismal failure – and it should be obvious… businesses don’t spend more money just because they have more money – they spend more money if there are more customers and more demand. Business don’t hire more people and make more widgets if there is no one to buy the stuff! How do we spark customers to buy and increase demand? Give more money to consumers. If their customers have more money, businesses will have to produce more to meet the demand. The rule should always be “does this policy give more money to consumers?” rather than “does this policy give more money to businesses”.
Enlightening Meditation, trickle-down doesn’t work, never has, and never will. The idea that the wealthy would create jobs if only they weren’t paying taxes is beyond silly. They create jobs when there is demand for their products, we can stimulate this demand by infrastructure projects that put real money in people’s hands which they plow right back into the economy. Now really, EM, there is no need to shout here. You can disagree and I’m sure you do, but it isn’t that most of us don’t understand your point, it’s just that we don’t buy it.
. . . never existed.
Maybe he just hasn’t found the font size that will make his argument correct.
How is it, then, that Ken Starr, with the full investigative and subpoena power of an independent counsel, spent five years hunting for that corruption and could come up with nothing more than a blowjob?
So, you want Sanders for POTUS, do you? Because among the GOP candidates, only Cruz is even slightly hesitant about the TPP.
NB: That ain’t good enough for the Dope’s Elections forum nor the GD forum. It’s good enough for IMHO, but here, you have to state a case and argue it. Which you have yet to do in any way that is coherent enough to rise above the Not Even Wrong level.
Maybe if blink tags worked here he’d be able to make some headway.
So, you want Sanders for POTUS, do you? Because among the GOP candidates, only Cruz is even slightly hesitant about the TPP.
[/QUOTE]
No, I do not want Sanders to win but would prefer him to Clinton for certain. I generally support free trade agreements, but it’s the fine details that matter. I do not support Cruz, and I’m not much willing to listen to an extremist grandstanding birther type.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
How is it, then, that Ken Starr, with the full investigative and subpoena power of an independent counsel, spent five years hunting for that corruption and could come up with nothing more than a blowjob?
[/QUOTE]
Did Whitewater, travelgate, and cattlegate never happen? Did Vince Foster kill himself? Is the Clinton Foundation not a shining example of corrupt influence peddling? I thought that Ken Starr was a secret Clinton crony, and I certainly do not defend his actions as a special prosecutor. His ‘investigating’ was a waste of resources at best.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Enlightening Meditation, trickle-down doesn’t work, never has, and never will. The idea that the wealthy would create jobs if only they weren’t paying taxes is beyond silly. They create jobs when there is demand for their products, we can stimulate this demand by infrastructure projects that put real money in people’s hands which they plow right back into the economy. Now really, EM, there is no need to shout here. You can disagree and I’m sure you do, but it isn’t that most of us don’t understand your point, it’s just that we don’t buy it.
[/QUOTE]
Don’t put words into my mouth, please. I support higher taxes for some applications as long as they are simple and not confusing or onerous. It’s the horribly inefficient use of gov’t funds that irks me. I still stand behind my prediction that Hillary loses the nomination. I have watched the trickle up toward Wall St and DC during these past few years, and it has failed the majority of people in this country.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
[QUOTE=Enlightening Meditation]
The ‘trickle-up’ economics of the past 17 years has . . .
[/QUOTE]
. . . never existed.
[/QUOTE]
The 2008 TARP bailout was the apex of trickle up. I am happy to disagree with you on this. You have a different perspective.
I chose ‘size = 7’ and didn’t know it’d be that big. Sorry.
[QUOTE=iiandyiiii]
As far as this “trickle-up” stuff, I wish we had trickle up economics! Trickle-down has been such a dismal failure – and it should be obvious… businesses don’t spend more money just because they have more money – they spend more money if there are more customers and more demand. Business don’t hire more people and make more widgets if there is no one to buy the stuff! How do we spark customers to buy and increase demand? Give more money to consumers. If their customers have more money, businesses will have to produce more to meet the demand. The rule should always be “does this policy give more money to consumers?” rather than “does this policy give more money to businesses”.
[/QUOTE]
The middle class once had a larger piece of the pie prior to the Glass-Steagal Act repeal. Which direction did it trickle since then?
I supported a larger stimulus and supported the large infrastructure legislation that failed to pass Congress. Liquidity needed to be added to the pie after such a hard pull back and deflation. To let such a huge chunk go to TARP was such a poor choice IMO.
There are other reasons that businesses spend more money. Big businesses spend more money on lobbyists when it buys influence in DC. Big businesses spend more money to pay lawyers to figure out the 70,000+ pages of tax code and 2700 pages of the PPACA, i.e. “ObamaCare”. It’s tougher for smaller and mid-size businesses to hire and expand under this environment even if expanding customer demand for products and services is there since regulations are often confusing. It’s too bad that expanding small businesses are punished if they grow to exceed 49 employees. I just wish that hard working visionary people had better opportunities to succeed in this country but the bureaucratic command portion of the economy just keeps expanding.
[QUOTE=iiandyiiii]
Fine – we’ll see if your predictions hold up. I still strongly disagree about Hillary vs the Republicans – they’re more dishonest, more corrupt, more out-of-touch, etc. They’re all worse and in almost every way.
[/QUOTE]
Eh, depends on the Republican. I am willing to listen to some of the newcomers, i.e. not Bush and not Romney and not Graham and not Cruz and not Huckabee and probably not Paul. Is Pataki corrupt? Huckabee corrupt or just insane? I agree on ‘out-of-touch’ generally for most or all of them. Also, I am willing to listen to those on the Dem side who oppose Hillary. I am a moderate who dislikes both parties and will possibly vote Libertarian once again.