Yep… we would all have to accept that the President has the right to provoke a war on the way out the door.
It’s nuts.
Well…provoke a war, initiate thermonuclear holocaust…whatever the mad king’s gotta do, I guess.
1 Like
Umm. No. Not like that.
I outlined that for you when I quoted the USC Code §2381.
Did you miss that too?
It’s really hard when you actually have to read the thread, huh.
1 Like
I must have missed it.
I looked up that code.
Still don’t see where the treason lies.
Here’s the old thread if you are interested. It will come as no surprise that we didn’t resolve it back than, either🙂
And anybody who isnt on board with Trump has to be part of “The Swamp” or “Deep State” right?
It depends on the good or service.
If demand for it is inelastic, it is far less sensitive to price changes. People will pay no matter the price.
Or conversely, they won’t pay no matter what the price if they don’t want it.
Why trickle down doesn’t work…businesses and wealthy will not always invest in things that employ people with their tax cut money…they will invest where they get the highest rate of return.
Those aren’t always in things that grow the economy in general.
2 Likes
He is still draining the swamp. Look at the number of Dem and RINO politicians fleeing seeking re-election, and those being primaried from both parties. All due to the fact that 45 stood up to them for 4 years and didn’t cower and forced them to expose their true animus against the the American people and their resentment toward the limitations placed by the Constitution on their insatiable lust for power.
What about Trumps cabinet? Was that swamp draining too? 
1 Like
The elected aren’t “the swamp”.
1 Like
Why trickle up doesn’t work, because the same reasoning can be used to resist giving welfare or other government giveaways to poor people, they don’t always use that money in ways that generally benefits society. Many of them waste that money on drugs or other bad things.
1 Like
Provide evidence for that claim beyond your feelings.
You’re simply regurgitating the Welfare Queen Myth otherwise.
The evidence over decades is clear that demand-based policies stimulate the economy far more than supply-based policies.
So if the goal is to stimulate the economy, demand-focused policies are the way to go.
2 Likes
I’m a firm believer in supply and demand. I’m well aware that no business can survive if there is no demand for their product or service. But consider that throughout our history, individuals created a demand for something that people didn’t know they needed or wanted until an individual created the supply. The history channel has been rerunning some of their past series. They highlight people like Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller and Edison. They may have been ruthless, but the fact you can’t dismiss is these men created empires completely without government stimulus programs and have employed millions of people for decades. That’s what you don’t seem willing or able to distinguish, the difference between creating wealth and redistributing tax money.
Imagine two identical 8 ounce drinking glasses. 7 ounces of water in one and 1 ounce of water in the other, if the glass with 7 ounces represents the wealthy, and the glass with 1 ounce represents the poor, you seem to believe it is your right and responsibility to take 3 ounces from the wealthy glass, distribute that 3 ounces to the other in an attempt to create equity among the glasses, What am I missing in this analogy?
1 Like
You expect me to take seriously a post that posits the robber barons got by without government help?
The robber barons OWNED the government and used it to make sure they could operate in their ruthless unfettered manner.
Much like today.
The rest of your post is full of garbage assumptions and the usual myths.
5 Likes
In fact, there is ample evidence that supply side (trickle down) is disastrous economic policy.
Anaconda Copper
As usual, you seem utterly incapable of grasping the point. The point was NOT about the robber barrons. Would you consider Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos a robber Barron? Nor is the point about their character. Nor is the point about the beginnings of these or any other particular company or person. I’m giving you a factual representation of society. If I gave you the entirety of human history and society, would you grant there had ALWAYS been rich people and poor people? I’m also not talking about any of these people AFTER they were rich. Doesn’t it make sense to you that rich people are going to be more influential than poor as a whole, regardless of political ideology? Carnegie, Rockefeller etc. started from scratch, there were no government programs back then…
1 Like
I’m not entirely sure what your point is? Of course rich people are influential, they have the wealth and can use that to influence government and others.
As to no government programs back in the day, what’s your point there? Conditions for the common worker were awful, they were exploited, and treated as expendable. To the point where there were quite a few little labor wars, and battles, in order to get some rights.
