What's new

FedEx Freight | Time has ran out!!

For those of you who don't understand Reaganomics, it's based on the principle that the rich and the poor will get the same amount of ice. In Reaganomics, however, the poor get all of theirs when hell freezes over.
 
Dick Dastardly said:
For those of you who don't understand Reaganomics, it's based on the principle that the rich and the poor will get the same amount of ice. In Reaganomics, however, the poor get all of theirs when hell freezes over.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true liberal dirtbag who seeks to create class division. Divide and conquer. Convince people they can't succeed because the system is against them, as opposed to their own lack of intelligence. You were fired because you behaved stupidly???

ST
 
Trucker 206 said:
And where does that 'extra' $10 go? Not in the pockets of the workers. Sounds like a polished up version of 'Ronnie-nomics'. Trickle down was a failure. Greed is the root of ALL evil.
Click to expand...
Typical response from someone who doesn't understand business...actually, it does indirectly go "in the pockets of the workers"!! Most of that $10 is reinvested back into the company with a small portion going to pay investors. Once reinvested, it helps the business to grow by creating more jobs while increasing wages and bennies for those already employed...business 101...
 
silent trucker said:
Spoken like a true liberal dirtbag who seeks to create class division. Divide and conquer. Convince people they can't succeed because the system is against them, as opposed to their own lack of intelligence. You were fired because you behaved stupidly???

ST
Click to expand...

Why the vitriol? Are you upset that your son won't be able to serve in the military now that transgenders have been banned?
 
Richard Cranium said:
Whether or not Ronnienomics (I like that) was a failure depends entirely on where you stand in the tax bracket demographic. For those at the top of the socio economic ladder it was a dream come true. For the rest us there was minimal positive impact. All that money that was supposed to go back into the economy and trickle down to us?.....
It trickled, right into the fat cats bank accounts.
Click to expand...
I disagree, as do most economists.

"Near the end of Reagan’s second term, tax revenues received by the U.S. government increased to $909 billion in 1988 from $517 billion in 1980. Inflation was reduced to 4%, and the unemployment rate fell below 6%. Although economists and politicians continue to argue over the effects of Reaganomics, it did usher in one of the longest and strongest periods of prosperity in American history. Between 1982 and 2000, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) grew nearly 14-fold, and the economy added 40 million new jobs."

Read more: Reaganomics http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reaganomics.asp#ixzz4o3u0Ogwh
 
Redracer3136 said:
Typical response from someone who doesn't understand business...actually, it does indirectly go "in the pockets of the workers"!! Most of that $10 is reinvested back into the company with a small portion going to pay investors. Once reinvested, it helps the business to grow by creating more jobs while increasing wages and bennies for those already employed...business 101...
Click to expand...
No need for the insults, red. I understand business quite well as a matter of fact and would gladly sit in a room and talk business. Go back and check to see how wages have 'kept up' since the '80s.
 
Trucker 206 said:
No need for the insults, red. I understand business quite well as a matter of fact and would gladly sit in a room and talk business. Go back and check to see how wages have 'kept up' since the '80s.
Click to expand...
I hear everyone complain about Reaganomics but show me a time, government, or country where the rich didn't benefit more than the poor. But I think 90% is class envy, I make a decent living as do most of the people I know the ones who don't don't want to work in the first place. If I'm doing alright I don't care if some is getting "richer".
 
johndeere4020 said:
I hear everyone complain about Reaganomics but show me a time, government, or country where the rich didn't benefit more than the poor. But I think 90% is class envy, I make a decent living as do most of the people I know the ones who don't don't want to work in the first place. If I'm doing alright I don't care if some is getting "richer".
Click to expand...
Agree, JD. We're doing just fine as well. Both me and the wife's retirements are locked in. And with minimal debt, we can go anytime. As for 'class envy' I personally could care less. Envy is one of the Seven Deadly's. And so is, dare I say it, greed.
 
Trucker 206 said:
No need for the insults, red. I understand business quite well as a matter of fact and would gladly sit in a room and talk business. Go back and check to see how wages have 'kept up' since the '80s.
Click to expand...
Uhhhh....was your original reply not insulting enough?? If you "know business" then why would you have made such a reply??
 
johndeere4020 said:
I saw a study once where the offered a group of people 50,000 dollars and another group a 100,000 or they could all have 20,000. The 50,000 group wanted the 20,000 because it wasn't "fair" that the other group got more. They would give up 30,000 to keep someone else from getting more. Lot of truth to it.
Click to expand...
You'd be surprised at what people would do just to hold others back...misery loves company!!
 
johndeere4020 said:
I saw a study once where the offered a group of people 50,000 dollars and another group a 100,000 or they could all have 20,000. The 50,000 group wanted the 20,000 because it wasn't "fair" that the other group got more. They would give up 30,000 to keep someone else from getting more. Lot of truth to it.
Click to expand...
You don't mention how many people were in each group. That is a factor.
 
johndeere4020 said:
I saw a study once where the offered a group of people 50,000 dollars and another group a 100,000 or they could all have 20,000. The 50,000 group wanted the 20,000 because it wasn't "fair" that the other group got more. They would give up 30,000 to keep someone else from getting more. Lot of truth to it.
Click to expand...

What is also true and predictable, you could start everyone with the same dollar amount, today. Pick any amount, say $50k. Over time, some would accumulate (earn) quite a lot, far surpassing the $100K example. Others would squander theirs down to $20k, or even zero, for some.

Who would we blame for that inequality? They started on equal footing, but with variable, and often repeatable results.

Then politicians can tax the 100K group, in order to subsidize the 20k group in an attempt at fairness, where everyone lives like the 50k group.

Capitalism vs Socialist/Communism. One offers a path for anyone to climb up. The other offers a burden to keep everyone equally down.

Under Capitalism, we can donate to Charities to help the truly unfortunate, by choice, rather than by Government force.
 
Last edited:
Atx2Byd.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top