I think you’ll be fine as long as you don’t fuck Over or Up. And stay far away from Around.
A Duck is right out.
Even if I was a bit of a quack as a physician?
Sir, I would never refer to you with such a canard!
DSeid, Sire, your first order of business is choosing the Village Idiot of your realm; many are worthy.
I’m afraid you misunderstand. Don’t worry though: I speak Elvis. The requirement that you fuck Off was contingent on you not being elected Philosopher King. Now that you’ve been elected, you’re in the clear.
And Off is also quite relieved.
DSeid for Philosopher King sounds good to me… it seems like he could master the art of the possible, while the others won’t sway anyone ;).
In addition, this Pitting has borne quite wonderful fruit. I don’t think I’d ever see someone claiming that increased investment in public infrastructure, research, and education is “trickle down economics”. I mean, I can’t even wrap my head around the illogic used to make that jump.
Reading comprehension, idiot.
Increased wages are not the product of infrastructure spending or education. They don’t magically “lead to” better wages for anyone but the top 10 percent. Infrastructure spending does “lead to” jobs, but that doesn’t guarantee fuck all about wages. Nor does investing in education become a magic wage improver. Just ask any college graduate over the past 15 years.
The ridiculous notion that these things will just automatically “lead to” better wages if we funnel more money into government contractors’ pockets and for-profit universities is the very definition of Trickle Down economics.
Better wages happen when we legislate better wages, legislate union protections, legislate consequences for businesses that cheat the system. That’s how it works in real life. Clinton’s notion is Ronald Reagan’s fantasy world that has never existed.
The problem here doesn’t lie with me, but with you for not understanding how you’ve been bought into their way of thinking so deeply that you can’t even recognize it when it’s being fed to you.
Well…
Supply side economics is crackpottery that insists that tax cuts anywhere, everywhere and always will lead to a rapidly growing economy, which never seems to happen outside of the cases where the economy is recovering from deep recession. For an example see Jude Wanniski, who conceived of taxes as Grand Theory of Everything, so of course he tied them to Hitler’s rise. Yes: he did.
Sane supply side economics is conventional economics. The supply side consists of physical infrastructure, private capital (machines, etc.), human capital (education) and technology. Prudent investment of those sorts will expand potential output. To advance long run trend growth, think about what increases supply.
Shayna: There you go again. You are just double down on the stupidity here, aren’t you? This time by goalpost moving.
How is infrastructure spending or education spending “trickle down” again? Who benefits directly from this spending? Hint, it’s not just the rich. I’m not entire sure how say, having the government offer more scholarships = trickle down. That doesn’t just work.
And interestingly enough if you keep reading Clinton’s plan, you’ll note she actually support higher wages, more protections for unions, and greater regulations. Maybe not as much as Sanders, but she definitely addresses them. However, with increased infrastructural, research, and educational investment. You somehow act like more investment is her entire policy.
But you’ve worked yourself into such ridiculous histrionics that rational thought has fled from you. You are just a sputtering moron at this point who is doing far more harm than good.
Granted. But “Trickle Down” isn’t the same thing as Supply Side economics (well, aside from strange people who think any improvements on the supply side are bad, which is very very silly).
Here Shayna, I’ll help educate you:
I think only a simpleton or someone with an axe to grind would believe that investments in infrastructure, research, and education (which btw, also was done in the New Deal and the War on Poverty) are benefits to upper income level earners, designed to have their extra wealth spent into the economy.
Well, under that definition, clearly Shayna is right. Because only rich people use roads.
ISiddiqui, you’re a goddamn idiot. You cannot take a single sentence and pretend that was the only sentence in the context of the point I made. You’re just an ignorant buffoon who thinks Wikipedia is a cite. I’m done with your stupidity.
P.S. You can’t even follow the argument if you think I said only the wealthy benefit.
Wages, dumbfuck. My last word to you is WAGES.
Wikipedia > Facebook Comments
So then why did you do exactly that to Hillary’s economic plan?
You’re done with everyone, apparently, since everyone who’s bothered posting has ridiculed your attempt to equate increased investment in infrastructure and education with trickle down.
She apparently knows better than everyone else. We must have all been brainwashed 
Let us for the moment ignore Shayna’s “misunderstanding” of what “trickle-down” means and ignore the extremely odd claim that investing in education, infrastructure, and research is a plan to enrich Wall Street and the sub-1%.
Is she correct that the way to create middle class jobs with middle class income, that the solution to the hollowing out of the middle class, is to legislate wages?
It seems to me that the argument for legislating wages is on the lowest end, so the the lower SES groups have real living wages. But having a living wage is not entering middle class nor does a living wage, for all it has to recommend it, do anything about the hollowing out of the middle class and increasing wealth inequality (more than income inequality) in this country.
Mind you I completely get that preventing the ongoing elimination of middle class jobs in an era of global competition and increasing automation is a challenge. How we invest in education, infrastructure, and jobs, probably matters as much as that we do, and damned if I know what the best way to do that is.
I do not expect a response from Shayna as she put me into her “I’m done with you” list a while back. By now she is “done with” a goodly number of those who post in Elections, especially those who lean Democratic but who do not completely endorse her beliefs in lockstep. Soon she will likely become “bored with” us.
As to the reasonable request that as duly elected Philosopher King of this thread I appoint the Village Idiot(s) … I posit that the owner(s) of that title usually self-declare.