• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obamanomics

Reagan championed the trickle down theory of cutting taxes for the rich and their increased spending would result in more for the rest. Obama has vocally championed making the rich pay more. The progressive theory doesn't talk about dollars much but percentages. Afterall even under Reagan the rich paid more.

To me obamanomics is a pop culture style of leadership. What makes you popular with the widest audience wins. One could say that is how a democracy works, but if we are to compare governing our national affairs with a popularity contest we are in trouble. Obama will take from the rich and redistribute to the masses that give him popularity. Oh if it were just that simple.

Why isn't it that simple? Obamanomics will result in continuous debt that really is the biggest real threat to our nation. Sadly pop culture doesn't care so long as the party goes on. There in lies the key to obamanomics. Kicki the can down the road, keep the party going, and rock on. When it's finally over someone else can deal with it.
 
Yeah trickle down worked great. Now 1% of he population has 99% of the wealth. How did that work out for you?
 
Well according to the University of Santa Cruz (a bastion of right wing conspiracy) the redistribution of wealth in America has changed very little in the last 90 years - you should look it up before you realize how silly you sound. I guess that is how "liberals" role though; no facts, lots of fiction and plenty of emotion.

LiberalAvenger;bt1975 said:
Yeah trickle down worked great. Now 1% of he population has 99% of the wealth. How did that work out for you?
 
CalGun;bt1976 said:
Well according to the University of Santa Cruz (a bastion of right wing conspiracy) the redistribution of wealth in America has changed very little in the last 90 years - you should look it up before you realize how silly you sound. I guess that is how "liberals" role though; no facts, lots of fiction and plenty of emotion.

you should read the forum rules the next time before you call me silly.
 
Well two things here; this is a blog but I do like to play by the rules and didn't call you silly. Since you ignored reality I said look it up before you realize how silly you sound. The facts simply do not support your assertion because wealth in the United States has not shifted as dramatically as you would have suggested at 99 to 1%. Plus you didn't even bother to mention what you define as wealth. I'm happily married and thus far richer than any man!
 
Now 1% of he population has 99% of the wealth. How did that work out for you?

About as well as raising taxes on the wealthy which will only generate enough revenue to cover 6% of the deficit you liberals will spend.
 
The merits of Reaganomics are up for debate, but the fact that he increased military spending to heights similar to those seen in wartime, in peacetime, is detestable.
 
Trickle Down economics worked real well from 2003-2012 didnt it?
 
It worked fine until the radical left force a willing banking industry to make real estate loans it never should have. You ever wonder how things might be if we hadn't loaned all those people 100's of dollars who could never pay it back?

TheDemSocialist;bt1991 said:
Trickle Down economics worked real well from 2003-2012 didnt it?
 
Back
Top Bottom