Wait are you actually arguing that both Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are not idiots? Are you kidding me? Lol
It should be a trivial matter, then, to provide me with some grounds for this.
I never even said Obama was the president we needed.
Obama's policies are identical to what you have stated we need. Thus, whether it is Obama enacting those policies, or Blue Oyster Cult the Flock of Seagulls co-staring, the outcome is going to be the same. Polices aren't magic. It's not like Obama didn't meet the minimum MP requirements to cast legislation, or something.
Trickle down economics doesn't work because when you give tax breaks to the wealthy, they're supposed to spread the wealth. However they never have, and never will. It's the same reason why companies like Wal-Mart are making billions upon billions a year, yet have shitty work benefits and pay their workers minimum wage. They keep all the money for themselves and watch our country crumble as the middle class shrinks and merges with the lower class. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Walmart pays most of their employees more than minimum wage and has a competitive benefits program. Considering many of their employees require no more than a highschool diploma and the ability to show up to work - it's a pretty good deal.
Similarly, Walmart buys and ships in bulk. They provide to consumers in the region a range of products that are lower in cost. People can get the same or similar products for less money. This lowers their cost of living and expands their discretionary income.
[video=youtube;rseRLNMGEKE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rseRLNMGEKE[/video]
Now - the economic reality of freedom is that things much change. Even Walmart, under a free market (which we do not currently have, mind you), will have to change its ways - or be broken upon the rock that is the consumer market.
The fact is that there is no other alternative to "trickle-down" economics. It is how the economy functioned centuries before the Income Tax was instated, and it is the only way in which the economy functions.
Part of the reason why "big money" doesn't "spread its wealth" is because new business creation is very small and independent trades are few and far between.
Allow me to explain: Central Planning (the basis of socialism and communism - the idea that a single institution like the government should be able to plan an economy, set prices, dictate wages, and even assign jobs) only works in environments that are static with fixed requirements and demands.
For example - a game like "Banished" can be planned based upon the map you are in, the optimal distances between buildings, etc. You know what resources are necessary for the various buildings and industries. You know roughly how much food you need for each given person, and thus how many people you need to assign to various gathering/farming tasks. The citizens of the game -never- spontaneously come up with new lines of clothing, new methods of farming, new tools, or make discoveries like electricity that would completely change the way in which the game works.
Thus, within the view that society, technology, etc are static, central planning can work. Thus, a town with a population of X and a growth rate of Y% - we can project how many electricians will be needed. That is how many electricians licenses we will extend to citizens seeking them.
We can also project how many restaurants we need, how many stores, etc, etc - and issue permits and licenses accordingly.
We can designate where people can build what type of business and who can enter into business. If someone starts selling produce from their garden (or begins to make too large of a garden in their yard) - then it interferes with the business that has been allotted for the grocery store and it must be stopped.
This is the basis behind business permits and trade licensing (IE - being licensed to become an electrician, plumber, etc). While the "public" argument is that it is done for the safety of consumers - the reality is that these licenses require certification within a Union; meaning these policies exist purely to benefit the Union.
These are all over the place - from the excessive fees and costs of regulatory compliance to start a business, to the legal precedence that has been established to litigate honest people running small business out of business over copyright or patent claims (that simply are beyond the financial means of the small business to defend against).
We have created a nation that is exceptionally hostile toward entrepreneurship. Socialist countries are ranked higher on economic freedom scales than America by primarily conservative analysts.
The economy in America has been slowly shaped into a stagnant form meant only to produce the bare minimum to sustain its current population and infrastructure.
The reason "Trickle Down" does not 'work like it used to' is because there is relatively little to spend money on and we have a culture that has been indoctrinated to be employees looking for someone to give them a job rather than tradesmen looking for opportunities to employ their trade (as independent or as part of an employment contract).
It does work, even in these troubled times. The problem is that it has a somewhat delayed effect.
Also, not helping is the current economic reality of inflation. Money sitting in the bank is losing its value at an alarming rate. Wealthy people with the assets to do so regularly invest this money into assets that are more hardy against inflation and are not as readily liquid as a bank account. People of even greater wealth begin to try and get in on the game by investing in tiers of the market where currency can be spent 'ahead' of inflationary curves.
Directly - those people are making it possible for the government to authorize the bonds it uses to pay for things like food stamps and social security (because they buy those bonds and sell them to other groups who need the bond as an intermediary for exchange).
What does a video editor have to do with either of these two idiots being women? I mean, what does a video editor have to do with either of these two women being idiots?
Gee, I don't know. Being able to choose what portions of a person's statement others hear... couldn't imagine how that could have anything to do with it.
They're idiots. Even the teabaggers accept this.
They do?
Even Bill O'Reilly accepts this.
O'Reilly?
No wonder, you poor soul. You actually think he's a Republican people pay attention to.
How can you actually argue this point?
Indeed, how can I?
It's so obvious. I mean... They're idiots. That's what idiots are. Idiots are idiots. Therefor those two are idiots. It makes perfect sense.
Why would anyone question idiots being idiots?
