Pro/Forums - View Single Post

ricecrispi · 11-09-2005, 12:28 PM

Johnson's attempt to revive the rural eastern mountion area couldn't be measured in short term. You think trickle down would reach an area like that by now

I'm sorry but trickle down does exist but it's not the "perfect/beautiful picture" model presented by Lothar which I was debating about.

I'm just being realistic with the reality around me.
------
Yeah America is better off than the rest of the world. Our poor or "middle class" is like lifestyles of the rich and famous when compared to other nations. Somehow people think trickle down starts at the middle class?

When did middle class ever gain control? When did you contribute large amounts of funds to presidentital election? You think middle class taxes cuts and trickle down created Dubai islands or did a rich billionaire start it. You think Dubai islands would exist if the rich didn't come to it? Bush talks about cutting taxes and how we benefit but who does he really want to satisfy? The people who voted for him or the person who invested millions into him? Who got rich, you and me or the rich fatcat who somehow got richer? Really over estimating the consumer power of the middle class is what I'm debating

I don't think a middle class person has influence in the trickle down. We are is part of a cycle, not some beneficial "pay it forward" pyramid scheme that we can decide what to do.

US is the biggest consumers in the world. They want it that way and that is why taxes are low. We benefit from having more money and by buying shit we don't need like 300 hp cars with AWD and the latest BOHO fashion and the newest graphic cards that are to powerful? It's for the good of the world they say because it trickles down. The end rsults is the rich get richer. If we all went poorer and they became richer from it you think they care about us unless it involved their money in the long run?

They use the term "trickle down" to fool us and make it a euthanism for capitalism which masked imperialism which is rooted to word empire. Each definition is more and more benign. In the end it's about exploiting the lower class. It starts with people in the US and trickles down to other countries and the enviroment. Marx got it wrong when he used the term "bourgeois" because all they are is wannabe upperclass. That term original was meant to mock uppper-middleclass who wanted to join the elite club, the 1%-ers. The US is mainly "bourgeois" and all we want to do is pretend we got it good and flash our cars, clothes, and big house and compete with ourselves.

Imperialism. Who did it benefited from imperialism? the "bourgeious" who wanted tea and far east goods or the investors? Imperialism is now corporate capitalism. Who benefits? The rich investors or the middle class?

We indirectly benefit from the capitalist cycle.

11-09-2005, 12:28 PM	#46
ricecrispi Cooling Savant Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: california Posts: 429	Johnson's attempt to revive the rural eastern mountion area couldn't be measured in short term. You think trickle down would reach an area like that by now I'm sorry but trickle down does exist but it's not the "perfect/beautiful picture" model presented by Lothar which I was debating about. I'm just being realistic with the reality around me. ------ Yeah America is better off than the rest of the world. Our poor or "middle class" is like lifestyles of the rich and famous when compared to other nations. Somehow people think trickle down starts at the middle class? When did middle class ever gain control? When did you contribute large amounts of funds to presidentital election? You think middle class taxes cuts and trickle down created Dubai islands or did a rich billionaire start it. You think Dubai islands would exist if the rich didn't come to it? Bush talks about cutting taxes and how we benefit but who does he really want to satisfy? The people who voted for him or the person who invested millions into him? Who got rich, you and me or the rich fatcat who somehow got richer? Really over estimating the consumer power of the middle class is what I'm debating I don't think a middle class person has influence in the trickle down. We are is part of a cycle, not some beneficial "pay it forward" pyramid scheme that we can decide what to do. US is the biggest consumers in the world. They want it that way and that is why taxes are low. We benefit from having more money and by buying shit we don't need like 300 hp cars with AWD and the latest BOHO fashion and the newest graphic cards that are to powerful? It's for the good of the world they say because it trickles down. The end rsults is the rich get richer. If we all went poorer and they became richer from it you think they care about us unless it involved their money in the long run? They use the term "trickle down" to fool us and make it a euthanism for capitalism which masked imperialism which is rooted to word empire. Each definition is more and more benign. In the end it's about exploiting the lower class. It starts with people in the US and trickles down to other countries and the enviroment. Marx got it wrong when he used the term "bourgeois" because all they are is wannabe upperclass. That term original was meant to mock uppper-middleclass who wanted to join the elite club, the 1%-ers. The US is mainly "bourgeois" and all we want to do is pretend we got it good and flash our cars, clothes, and big house and compete with ourselves. Imperialism. Who did it benefited from imperialism? the "bourgeious" who wanted tea and far east goods or the investors? Imperialism is now corporate capitalism. Who benefits? The rich investors or the middle class? We indirectly benefit from the capitalist cycle. Last edited by ricecrispi; 11-09-2005 at 12:36 PM.