Rep vs. Dem Differences

In article , "Peter
Gottlieb" wrote:



Economics - Maximize wealth at top (trickle-down theory). Works
well for top, worse for others.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what trickle down means.

"Newps" wrote in message
...

Economics - Maximize wealth at top (trickle-down theory). Works
well for top, worse for others.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what trickle down means.


Well, then, correct the misunderstanding. If it is so "fundamental" then is
should be trivial to correct.

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

"Newps" wrote in message
...

Economics - Maximize wealth at top (trickle-down theory). Works
well for top, worse for others.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what trickle down means.



Well, then, correct the misunderstanding. If it is so "fundamental" then is
should be trivial to correct.

Very simple. The more money you let all people have the more money that
can ciruclate in the economy. The more you have the more that trickles
down. For example 4 years ago I put an addition on my house for $55K.
If I don't have access to that money the contractor I hired doesn't get
the job. He makes a certain amount of profit, now he can trickle down
some of his money to somebody else by spending his money on something
that is important to him. The more money you have to spend the better
the economy will be.

"Newps" wrote in message news:ccKdneZWWrnmU6XcRVn-
The more money you have to spend the better
the economy will be.

I didn't agree with it when Reagan called it the "trickle down" theory, but
I think it's because I don't think that money necessarily trickles down. It
can, but it also trickles over and up.

An economy depends on the movement of money from one entity to another. If
everyone just held on to their money at the same time, the economy would
cease to be. The more money I have in my hand, the greater the odds that I
will give it to another person in exchange for goods and/or services.

I have a very liberal neighbor, a carpenter, who was bitching about how bad
the economy is right now. I told him that it wasn't that bad to me, as I
handed him over 6K to build a screened-in porch onto my house!

The irony of that moment made us both laugh.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

Trent Moorehead wrote:
"Newps" wrote in message news:ccKdneZWWrnmU6XcRVn-

The more money you have to spend the better
the economy will be.

An economy depends on the movement of money from one entity to another. If
everyone just held on to their money at the same time, the economy would
cease to be.

As long as you do anything with your money except literally put it in
your mattress the economy gets bigger.



I have a very liberal neighbor, a carpenter, who was bitching about how bad
the economy is right now. I told him that it wasn't that bad to me, as I
handed him over 6K to build a screened-in porch onto my house!

The irony of that moment made us both laugh.

That's because he never really though about it but simply spouted the
union line.

Newps wrote:

That's because he never really though about it but simply spouted the
union line.

If he's building porches on houses, he's probably not union.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

"Newps" wrote in message
...

Economics - Maximize wealth at top (trickle-down theory). Works
well for top, worse for others.

Very simple. The more money you let all people have the more money that
can ciruclate in the economy. The more you have the more that trickles
down. For example 4 years ago I put an addition on my house for $55K. If
I don't have access to that money the contractor I hired doesn't get the
job. He makes a certain amount of profit, now he can trickle down some of
his money to somebody else by spending his money on something that is
important to him. The more money you have to spend the better the economy
will be.

Ok, so what part of what I said does not match with what you said?

Regardless, like I said, the way to maximize taxpayer's take is to reduce
the size of government, not increase it.

A lot of economists disfavor the "trickle-down" theory as not being as
efficient as more balanced tax cuts. It does *seem* like it could work, but
the studies don't seem to clearly bear this out (IIRC there was a lot of
excess funds at the top being saved or invested overseas so not helping this
country's economy).

I'm not for higher taxes, certainly. However, I do believe we need a
smaller government as a first step. Democrats are called "Tax and Spend"
but Republicans are turning out to be "Spend and Borrow" which is even
worse.