Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

VonZan

Christy42 wrote: »

You provide zero evidence that trickle down economics is responsible for any of this.

Largely I would say the explosion of the tech industry has been the main driver. Shockingly there is still incentive to generate wealth without bottomed out tax rates as you still get more money in this case. Wealth generation has happened in countries with high tax rates and therefore trickle down can't be the main reason for an increased standard of living.

Similarly worker laws and social benefit schemes such as free education across a lot of Europe has had a massive effect here.

Trickle down economics is not the only thing to have been done over the past century and so giving it credit for everything is a bit silly. Indeed many first world countries have stayed largely away from it such as Scandinavia which have massive tax rates in comparison.

You accuse me of providing no evidence yet you respond to my post with no-evidence yourself. You provide no alternative to trickle down economics.

The only reason multinationals set up here is because we're in the EU and have a low corporate tax rate. The scandavian economy is driven by trickle down economics, the Swedes are some of the best inventors in the world. Confusing tax legislation with what drives the economy and growth is a big problem in your argument.

What is your alternative to trickle down economics? The solution to wealth inequality is is worldwide tax consolidation which will never happen due to countries like Ireland and the UK believing that low corporate tax rates drive growth; which they do for indegenous companies but foreign owned companies tend to massively export the majority of wealth generated.

The problem is that if you have enough money you can easily circumvent tax legislation and use it to your advantage and that's down to poor regulation and the continual pining to investor needs.

Christy42

VonZan wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

You provide zero evidence that trickle down economics is responsible for any of this.

Largely I would say the explosion of the tech industry has been the main driver. Shockingly there is still incentive to generate wealth without bottomed out tax rates as you still get more money in this case. Wealth generation has happened in countries with high tax rates and therefore trickle down can't be the main reason for an increased standard of living.

Similarly worker laws and social benefit schemes such as free education across a lot of Europe has had a massive effect here.

Trickle down economics is not the only thing to have been done over the past century and so giving it credit for everything is a bit silly. Indeed many first world countries have stayed largely away from it such as Scandinavia which have massive tax rates in comparison.

You accuse me of providing no evidence yet you respond to my post with no-evidence yourself. You provide no alternative to trickle down economics.

The only reason multinationals set up here is because we're in the EU and have a low corporate tax rate. The scandavian economy is driven by trickle down economics, the Swedes are some of the best inventors in the world. Confusing tax legislation with what drives the economy and growth is a big problem in your argument.

What is your alternative to trickle down economics? The solution to wealth inequality is is worldwide tax consolidation which will never happen due to countries like Ireland and the UK believing that low corporate tax rates drive growth; which they do for indegenous companies but foreign owned companies tend to massively export the majority of wealth generated.

The problem is that if you have enough money you can easily circumvent tax legislation and use it to your advantage and that's down to poor regulation and the continual pining to investor needs.

You made the claim first. Hence you need to provide the evidence for the claim. I will happily drop my argument if you will drop yours.

Being a great inventing nation does not imply trickle down economics? Your argument about Sweden makes no sense. Poor people can invent stuff as well (and frequently do so this is obviously not trickle down given the primary investment to get it going was education and not giving money to rich people).

Error the entire argument about trickle down economics is about Trump's tax plan and reducing taxes for rich people. So no I am not mixing them up. Trickle down economics is the idea that putting more more in rich peoples hands leads to more money for everyone. For instance via Trump's lowering of taxes. Scandinavia, while it has rich people, has avoided giving them even more money through low tax rates and has instead spent on social services leading to very successful countries.

I think you are trying to claim all companies or investment by rich people as trickle down economics which is not the same thing at all. Start ups will always find funding if they are good enough. Trickle down is the idea that wages will randomly increase and more good start ups will get funding if you give rich people more money than they have now. This point, which is key to the theory has not been addressed in your argument.

Alternative: high tax rates and spend money on social services. See Scandinavia.

FrostyJack

VonZan wrote: »

You accuse me of providing no evidence yet you respond to my post with no-evidence yourself. You provide no alternative to trickle down economics.

The only reason multinationals set up here is because we're in the EU and have a low corporate tax rate. The scandavian economy is driven by trickle down economics, the Swedes are some of the best inventors in the world. Confusing tax legislation with what drives the economy and growth is a big problem in your argument.

What is your alternative to trickle down economics? The solution to wealth inequality is is worldwide tax consolidation which will never happen due to countries like Ireland and the UK believing that low corporate tax rates drive growth; which they do for indegenous companies but foreign owned companies tend to massively export the majority of wealth generated.

The problem is that if you have enough money you can easily circumvent tax legislation and use it to your advantage and that's down to poor regulation and the continual pining to investor needs.

I don't even know where to start here. There are contradictions all over the place. Is Ireland an example of a trickle down economy? The only reason multinationals come here is because of the lower tax? Yet in some cases they pay less or even no tax in the States. Trump Inc is the perfect example of this, tax breaks and evasion to beat the band. One of the many reasons we will never see his tax returns. The theory of trickle down economy is you tax corporations less and they then invest more money into the companies employing more, paying employees more and generally expanding the economy by spreading more money around as their profits increase, but this rarely if ever happens. CEO's just pay themselves more and the top tier gets richer, while the person on the floor just works harder for less money instead of hiring the extra person. The latest round of tax cuts proves this with share buy backs and one time bonuses to employees. Next year the gap will get bigger and the proletariat gets nothing extra for the same work or more.
Having a global tax scheme has next to nothing to do with trickle down, unless you tax at high rates like 70% plus like was done before wealth inequality exploded, there is no way back. Communist style caps on wages is the only thing that could have immediate affect but no one in their right mind would back that. Sensible taxation and regulation would help guide things in the right direction not free for all the GOP push in their propaganda.

Leroy42

The alternative to Trickle down is that instead of giving the money to the wealthy you provide more hand-ups to those not in the wealthy bracket.

Why is there the assumption that those people will not generate the jobs, the productivity, the gains etc that others do? For example, give those entrepreneurs access to cheap finance to enable them to start up companies, try out new ideas.

Instead trickle down is based on the assumption that only the wealthy can generate wealth. I fail to see anywhere that this has been shown to be true to the extend that giving it to the less well off wouldn't have delivered similar or maybe better, gains.

So it not an argument about whether rich people can generate income, but rather do they generate more income that giving it to another group would have done. With the added bonus that by enabling the lower group to succeed you are increasing the wealthy cohort.

everlast75

Jesus. The guy is delusional. There is even laughter from the crowd!!

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1044598845278162944?s=19

Manic Moran

Surprising poll shows up on CNN this morning.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/politics/republican-party-favorability/index.html

GOP sees highest favorability in seven years

Just less than half of Americans -- 45% -- said they have a favorable view of the Republican party, according to a Gallup poll released Monday. And while the party fears a difficult midterm Election Day in November, this is the highest favorable view of the party since January 2011, when the party hit 47%, immediately after retaking Congress during the 2010 midterm elections
<snip>
Democrats are only one percentage point behind Republicans, with a 44% favorability rating. However, that has been more common for the party. They've wavered between 40% and 45% since mid-2015.

Favorability and likelihood to vote are, of course, not quite the same, but it's an interesting counter-point.

everlast75

Manic Moran wrote: »

Surprising poll shows up on CNN this morning.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/politics/republican-party-favorability/index.html

GOP sees highest favorability in seven years

Just less than half of Americans -- 45% -- said they have a favorable view of the Republican party, according to a Gallup poll released Monday. And while the party fears a difficult midterm Election Day in November, this is the highest favorable view of the party since January 2011, when the party hit 47%, immediately after retaking Congress during the 2010 midterm elections
<snip>
Democrats are only one percentage point behind Republicans, with a 44% favorability rating. However, that has been more common for the party. They've wavered between 40% and 45% since mid-2015.

Favorability and likelihood to vote are, of course, not quite the same, but it's an interesting counter-point.

I hope that all believe those figures. It will make Reps less likely to vote and more likely to mobilise Dems.

Quin_Dub

Manic Moran wrote: »

Surprising poll shows up on CNN this morning.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/politics/republican-party-favorability/index.html

GOP sees highest favorability in seven years

Just less than half of Americans -- 45% -- said they have a favorable view of the Republican party, according to a Gallup poll released Monday. And while the party fears a difficult midterm Election Day in November, this is the highest favorable view of the party since January 2011, when the party hit 47%, immediately after retaking Congress during the 2010 midterm elections
<snip>
Democrats are only one percentage point behind Republicans, with a 44% favorability rating. However, that has been more common for the party. They've wavered between 40% and 45% since mid-2015.

Favorability and likelihood to vote are, of course, not quite the same, but it's an interesting counter-point.

Is that not roughly in line with GOP Voter vs. Dem Voter levels though?

I've seen multiple polls showing that GOP voters have 90% support for the current administration but with Dem voters or Independents the support for the administration is fairly horrible.

GOP are walking a tightrope of distancing themselves from Trump and have support when this sorry episode comes to an end.

Igotadose

everlast75 wrote: »

Jesus. The guy is delusional. There is even laughter from the crowd!!

What's worse (well, in some ways) is watching him speak with his head kind of going left/right/left/right, as if what he really wanted to say was, "Nyah nyah nyah nyah I'm the big palooka in the schoolyard nyah nyah!" Really, what a pathetic speaker.

SimonTemplar

everlast75 wrote: »

Jesus. The guy is delusional. There is even laughter from the crowd!!

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1044598845278162944?s=19

The room is filled with career diplomats and politicians. They know he is bullsh*tting. Much different audience to the one he is used to at his handpicked MAGA rallies.



Pretty embarrassing for America for the UN to literally laugh at their president during his speech.

Leroy42

But why does the POTUS feel he needs to stand up in the UN and tell them all how great he is? They cannot elect him?

We all know that the US is the largest economy and most powerful country in the world, nobody in that rooms needs Trump to tell them that.

It just seems such an odd way to start a speech.

Igotadose

Leroy42 wrote: »

But why does the POTUS feel he needs to stand up in the UN and tell them all how great he is? They cannot elect him?

We all know that the US is the largest economy and most powerful country in the world, nobody in that rooms needs Trump to tell them that.

It just seems such an odd way to start a speech.

He's got nothing else though. It's 'stock market/unemployment/stock market/unemployment.' As soon as those go bad, he'll be up a creek. FWIW I think October is when badness happens to both, especially if arch-trade-enemy China decides to not get involved with the next US Treasure mega-debt-offering, which they might. Then, up goes inflation, down goes the market, up goes unemployment rates. Kinda scary times ahead.

mcmoustache

Igotadose wrote: »

He's got nothing else though. It's 'stock market/unemployment/stock market/unemployment.' As soon as those go bad, he'll be up a creek. FWIW I think October is when badness happens to both, especially if arch-trade-enemy China decides to not get involved with the next US Treasure mega-debt-offering, which they might. Then, up goes inflation, down goes the market, up goes unemployment rates. Kinda scary times ahead.

Has he mentioned Hillary Clinton or the Russia Hoax yet?

SimonTemplar

Leroy42 wrote: »

But why does the POTUS feel he needs to stand up in the UN and tell them all how great he is? They cannot elect him?

We all know that the US is the largest economy and most powerful country in the world, nobody in that rooms needs Trump to tell them that.

It just seems such an odd way to start a speech.

It is typical Trump narcissism. MY administration is the best!!

Christy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

But why does the POTUS feel he needs to stand up in the UN and tell them all how great he is? They cannot elect him?

We all know that the US is the largest economy and most powerful country in the world, nobody in that rooms needs Trump to tell them that.

It just seems such an odd way to start a speech.

He needs attention and vindication. Votes are not what hr is after (though they are a sign of vindication from those voters). More than anything else he needs a legacy to tell people he was great and for that to happen important people from around the globe have to start believing it.

oscarBravo

VonZan wrote: »

The scandavian economy is driven by trickle down economics...

It's almost as if you're trying not to be taken seriously.

There is no "scandinavian economy"; there are three (or four, depending how you define it) Scandinavian countries each with their own economies. And the one thing they have firmly in common is a stark rejection of "trickle down" nonsense.

Scandinavian societies are built on a foundation of egalitarianism above all else. Google "Janteloven" if you're interested in educating yourself. The idea that an economic philosophy based on the idea of promoting insane levels of wealth inequality in the hope that the poor will somehow eventually benefit from the crumbs from their feast is in any way consistent with Scandinavian-style social democracy is, frankly, risible.

ArthurDayne

Leroy42 wrote: »

But why does the POTUS feel he needs to stand up in the UN and tell them all how great he is?  They cannot elect him?

We all know that the US is the largest economy and most powerful country in the world, nobody in that rooms needs Trump to tell them that.

It just seems such an odd way to start a speech.

He's speaking to his voter base in reality -- not to the UN.  Trump has built his political career on posturing and, depressing as it is, many Americans will really buy into him going 'full Murica' to the United Nations.   It's the strong-man-who-supposedly-says-it-like-it-is style of politics which always seems to find fertile ground following a crisis, like the worst economic meltdown since the Wall Street Crash.

What I hate most about his politics is the fact that it's all vacuous hot air which I'm not sure he even really means half the time, but which resonates with people who seem more easily swayed by bombast than nuance. Sure, politicians lie and exaggerate, but it's not too often that you get the sense that they don't really believe in their own political ideology. I listen to things Trump says about globalisation and immigrants and I must say, something in my gut tells me he doesn't really mean it -- but he sees this rhetoric as a way to win, and winning is what he is all about. Trump sees the electorate in the same way he sees customers, and sees votes in the same way he sees shareholders investing into his corporation -- give the customers what they want and as long as you're getting the investments, you are winning and that's all that matters.  

I sense that there may have never been a US President in history who will have craved re-election for a second term with the same burning, competitive, obsessive desperation as Donald J Trump.  He knows knows that in the current climate of anti-intellectual political discourse, empty slogans of American exceptionalism hold enough sway over the requisite amount of voters to achieve the one thing that matters most to him -- personal victory.    He doesn't care what damage it does to the health of American politics -- winning is all that matters.

listermint

Looks like trickle down is working .. right...

Actually no, it's not as everyone knows the money goes right to the top . After all the workers take wage cuts and hours and overtime cut when things are lean. When things are going great it's never reciprocal. It's always one way the workers should be greatful, right ?


The 'billionaire' in the white house will look after them

dr.fuzzenstein

listermint wrote: »

Looks like trickle down is working .. right...

Actually no, it's not as everyone knows the money goes right to the top . After all the workers take wage cuts and hours and overtime cut when things are lean. When things are going great it's never reciprocal. It's always one way the workers should be greatful, right ?


The 'billionaire' in the white house will look after them

Just as a tiny side note, this "poor" steelworker has a Harley, a pickup, a massive house and a pool. But I digress...
Trickle down maybe working more for the unionized guys.

Leroy42

But hold on. Trickle down has basically been the process for years, and yet Trump was voted in by all those that felt left behind.

Those left behind who now believe that the best way to improve their lives is more of the same, except lets give even more to the guys at the top!

How does that make any sense at all?

walshb

SimonTemplar wrote: »

It is typical Trump narcissism. MY administration is the best!!

It’s this part of Trump and his reign that truly is pathetic..

He does it at every opportunity...it’s weird..

listermint

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Just as a tiny side note, this "poor" steelworker has a Harley, a pickup, a massive house and a pool. But I digress...
Trickle down maybe working more for the unionized guys.

Side note he's probably on military pension. So I doubt he is in the same bracket as work mates equally those items are not expensive in the States nor is a home in a steel town. So if we're holding him as an example it falls flat.

Thargor

That UN video is too perfect, what an embarrassment. Has a leader ever been laughed at like that on the floor of the UN?

Gbear

Granted, corporation tax is pretty high in the US, but it's not like there was generally a particularly stringent tax system there prior to Trumps tax cuts, and I don't see how you could argue that there was a lack of money knocking around.

There's plenty of money in the US system. They have possibly the least efficient healthcare system in the world, their third level education system has ballooned in cost due to similar anti-competetive and anti-consumer/student loan system, and there's surely a far better primary and secondary education system there, stuffed under the cushions in the Pentagon.

Whatever about Trump's latest cuts, the US was absurdly wealthy, and a little of that wealth used in a way that's not completely idiotic would give them at least comparable results to systems in Western Europe.

Of course it's not this simple, but the US could pay for a scaled up NHS for a fraction of their federal spend on healthcare as things stand.

UsedToWait

Thargor wrote: »

That UN video is too perfect, what an embarrassment. Has a leader ever been laughed at like that on the floor of the UN?

There was a flicker of a look on his face that was the same as the one when Obama roasted him at the reporters' dinner.


Although it probably pushed the Doomsday Clock a minute closer to midnight, I must admit to having enjoyed it immensely.

looksee

His speech is definitely slurred though, whether it is because he has to concentrate on what he is saying rather than just rambling on, I don't know, but the entire sentence when he was having trouble with 'expansionist' to the amusement of the Germans was very poorly articulated. He's not having a good day at the UN.

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

Side note he's probably on military pension. So I doubt he is in the same bracket as work mates equally those items are not expensive in the States nor is a home in a steel town. So if we're holding him as an example it falls flat.

No, he's not on a pension.

He may have the advantage of a slightly lower mortgage rate due to the VA loan guarantee, but his income is the same as any of his workmates. Unless he's on disability for being wounded, I guess, but I don't see any clues for that, and it's generally unlikely.

Itssoeasy

Was trumps speech yesterday the first time a person addressing the UN has been laughed at ? I've seen clips of people sitting there looking like they'd sour milk or people leaving the room before or during a speech but I've never heard of people laughing.

I haven't seen all the speech but that part seems to be the part that is getting
a lot of attention. I see also John Bolton is warning Iran of what's to come and trump saying he thinks the Iranian president is a "very lovely person" but then attacking the Iranian regime as spreading all manner of things throughout the world.

Leroy42

https://twitter.com/ericgeller/status/1044694810823667713?s=19

Two years after the biggest attack on American democracy and Trump and the GOP have passed a sum total of Zero legislation to protect America.

MAGA by leaving it wide open to attack. They rather spent time fighting for their SCOTUS pick.