@postwhore - what's wrong this one?
It illustrates the unfairness of beantown... that he does not object to subsidies for immoral rich people.
Only subsidies for struggling poor people bother him.
@postwhore - what's wrong this one?
why not?
Trickle down = trickle on.
Don't give subsidies for rich people and tell me the purpose is to help poor people.
I'm not buying that.
I'm not making a case for what you may think I am (more money for the rich). I was simply inserting the idea that IF the gov't saw an opportunity to spur an economy, that the funds should go to the brightest and best at business .. whether that's democrat or republican. I honestly thought that was somewhat obvious.
The money should go into the economy at large. It'll find it's way to the brightest and best at business just fine, whether it first goes into food stamps, unemployment benefits, schooling, jobs programs, public infrastructure, etc. There's absolutely no need whatsoever to subsidize the already wealth directly just because they're better at accumulating stuff. That leads to where we are at now with a purchased legislature.
If anything, in times of crisis like 2008, the rich should be more than willing to pay for the government stimulus that saved their margins from going negative or businesses outright collapsing.
I'm not making a case for what you may think I am (more money for the rich). I was simply inserting the idea that IF the gov't saw an opportunity to spur an economy, that the funds should go to the brightest and best at business .. whether that's democrat or republican. I honestly thought that was somewhat obvious.
Rich does not equal best and brightest. This may be the most fundamental dishonesty of the Republican Crowd. Most rich got there through a series of socially undesirable traits and practices.
Sad to see you are oblivious to the last decade.Glad you know all their personal stories.
The money should go into the economy at large. It'll find it's way to the brightest and best at business just fine, whether it first goes into food stamps, unemployment benefits, schooling, jobs programs, public infrastructure, etc. There's absolutely no need whatsoever to subsidize the already wealth directly just because they're better at accumulating stuff. That leads to where we are at now with a purchased legislature.
If anything, in times of crisis like 2008, the rich should be more than willing to pay for the government stimulus that saved their margins from going negative or businesses outright collapsing.
Sad to see you are oblivious to the last decade.
I'm not making a case for what you may think I am (more money for the rich). I was simply inserting the idea that IF the gov't saw an opportunity to spur an economy, that the funds should go to the brightest and best at business .. whether that's democrat or republican. I honestly thought that was somewhat obvious.
Facts:
1. All sports team owners are subsidized.
2. All sports owners are rich.
3. Many cities have democrat governments.
Conclusion: Democrats support subsidies, IF (and only if) they are for rich people.
let's just say that the 'real world' is corrupt enough that neither really works
my biggest gripe is the subsidy of Wall Street , the biggest parasites on the planet, which PKM I am guessing you are not part of.
Are you are a banker or loan officer, entrepreneur, or what?
This is simply not true.