Hold up, pot meet kettle. His was a ribbing on the theory of trickle down economics, a theory dems don’t subscribe but you just alluded. I’ve seen far worse ribbing from you.
In CA, we raised taxes on the wealthy.
Here is what our budget looks like now. 
“California’s state budget is so flush words can’t describe it”
Economic trends are so sunny that the analyst’s office projects a state budget surplus of $14.8 billion next year, unless the Legislature chooses to spend the money or cut taxes.
The Legislature and Newsom could follow Brown’s lead and use that money to continue preparing for a recession. If so, the state would have about $30 billion in reserves to weather a recession by the summer of 2020.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article221653225.html
Progressive tax. Flat taxes are silly in my mind. Consumption taxes wind up being too regressive and the second you try to make them not regressive, you make them too complicated.
I didn’t allude to trickle down economics. Perhaps fewer emojis and more discussion could prevent this sort of misunderstanding.
2 Likes
According to this the debt is still climbing. State debt clock:
There are pros and cons. It’s worth a read.
That why GOP do it every time, they know there voters are dumb as hell and will take what CEC spits out with out actual fact. So can spend then lose to a Dem POTUS who get’s blame for increased deficit. It going to happen this time as US just increased the military spending by a amount more than all the other countries even pay for their military. So stupid these people think we need so much fire power for defense when we have enough nukes on subs floating around to destroy Russia and China at same time.
LOL!
10kookaburras
From Wiki:
The 2 Santa Claus Theory. This is from a conservative, who came up with a plan, that if one looks at history, from the 1980’s to present…it is quite obvious the Pubs have used this theory several times.
The Two Santa Claus Theory is a political theory and strategy published by Wanniski in 1976, which he promoted within the United States Republican Party.[14][15]The theory states that in democratic elections, if Democrats appeal to voters by proposing programs to help people, then the Republicans cannot gain broader appeal by proposing less spending. The first “Santa Claus” of the theory title refers to the Democrats who promises programs to help the disadvantaged. The “Two Santa Claus Theory” recommends that the Republicans must assume the role of a second Santa Claus by not arguing to cut spending but by offering the option of cutting taxes.[ citation needed ]
According to Wanniski, the theory is simple. In 1976, he wrote that the Two-Santa Claus Theory suggests that “the Republicans should concentrate on tax-rate reduction. As they succeed in expanding incentives to produce, they will move the economy back to full employment and thereby reduce social pressures for public spending. Just as an increase in Government spending inevitably means taxes must be raised, a cut in tax rates—by expanding the private sector—will diminish the relative size of the public sector.”[15] Wanniski suggested this position, as Thom Hartmann has clarified, so that the Democrats would “have to be anti-Santas by raising taxes, or anti-Santas by cutting spending. Either one would lose them elections.”[16]
Thanks for being a supporter of trickle down economics.
On behalf of Ronald Reagan.
Ignoring unfunded liabilities?
I made no mention of trickle down economics. This was a misinterpretation on your part.
Corporate profits eventually filter down to some beneficiary. The majority of this is typically the wealthy, whether it’s share holders or executives.
That’s where you tax it. As it passes on to these individuals. That’s why eliminating the concept of unearned income is so important to me.
Ok, if you say so.
I would know since it was my proposal.
Thanks for your valuable contribution to the discussion.
Corporate profits trickling down.
The idea behind trickle down is that the down is lower socioeconomic class. I have never said anything about that with my response and don’t believe it to be true. The only trickle down here is from the corporation itself to the wealthy shareholders and executives. I wasn’t terribly precise with my first statement so it’s not a criticism on you and I have no problems elaborating on my statement. Should we continue to beat this horse or do you have something else to contribute?
2 Likes
