Had a look on Amazon a few moments, read the editorial reviews, and it's already on my Kindle. It will be a while before I will get to it, as there are several books ahead of it in line, but I think I will enjoy it.
Thanks for the heads up.
Does Trickle-Down Economics Actually Work?
- Thread starter Frederick Foresight
- Start date
Thanks for the heads up.
Had a look on Amazon a few moments, read the editorial reviews, and it's already on my Kindle. It will be a while before I will get to it, as there are several books ahead of it in line, but I think I will enjoy it.
Thanks for the heads up.
If only we could get an electronic copy of Piezoe's brain. It would be great to just switch on a routine that stays coherent and fairly nice in the face of stupidity.
Last edited:
Trickle down eco does work. Its the innovators and risk takers that make the most and risk the most.
Maybe you're too damn young to remember, but "trickle down" economics was instituted by Reagan, who is a Republican. On the flip side, "deregulation" was championed by Clinton, who is a Democrat.
Clinton was a social liberal (mostly) and moderately conservative fiscally. You leave out that the Republicans championed deregulation (with disastrous results as we have seen over and over again) and moderately conservative Democrats went along with them. Liberals have not championed deregulation.
Whether Clinton was a Democrat or Republican, the fact is that he was the one who passed the free trade act (NAFTA) and financial deregulation (repealing the Glass-Steagall Act) in the 90s.
Carter & Dukakis were the end of the FDR Democrats, Clinton and his Democratic Leadership Council were the new wave of Democrats which relied on rich people donating aka Neo-Liberals. Thus NAFTA & Welfare reform.
As for regulation always being good? Well the EU has little to no growth and virtually no tech sector thanks to the lazy EU bureaucrats who think everything Apple does should be regulated.
As for regulation always being good? Well the EU has little to no growth and virtually no tech sector thanks to the lazy EU bureaucrats who think everything Apple does should be regulated.
The only sponsors of the Financial Modernization Act were Republicans Leach and Bliley in the House and Republican Gramm in the Senate. The Act was strongly opposed by Democrats Dingell in the House and Daschle in the Senate. After numerous rejections and revisions, the Bill eventually passed with fairly strong by-partisan support in the House but barely squeaked through the Senate, with practically no debate except for Tom Daschle's strong objection. Interestingly, both Daschle and Dingell predicted the problems that later resulted in corrective legislation known as the Dodd Frank Bill, which Republicans have been trying to water down ever since with some success. Dingell said the Financial Modernization Act would lead to "too big to fail banking institutions." Pres. Clinton, after first vowing to veto the Bill, eventually agreed to sign the Bill into law after provisions insisted upon by Democrats were included.
CitiBank (I think it was) had purchased a large interest in Travellers Insurance Co. which was illegal under the banking laws then in effect. They were going to have to divest, and this is what prompted Phil Gramm to push through the Financial Modernization Act , also known as Gramm-Leach-Bliley, with great urgency.
I seem to recall that to get the Bill through the Senate, Gramm managed to get it attached to a must-pass omnibus spending Bill in the final days of the 106th Congress's 1999 session just before the Thanksgiving recess, but now I can't find any mention of this, so I may be wrong ....
From my perspective it appears that you are describing what you see or what the media is telling you is happening and then reading something in that is not there, viz., "[a] push to eradicate the very idea of marriage..."
If there is, as you say, a "push" to erradicate marriage, who is doing the pushing? From my perspective all the pushing is in the other direction, and those choosing not to get married are having to push back. The U.S. is a secular country where there is not only freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. Certainly marriage is "encouraged," --- here, that may be too mild a word --- by the Christian and other religions. A bit inconsistent considering that the Christian Religion is based on the teachings of Jesus; yet so far as we know Jesus was never married and spent most of his private time with other men who we also have no record of being married. Thus the only reasonable conclusion is that there is a very high probability that Jesus was gay.
I freely admit I have an advantage when it comes to interpreting the Bible. I am an atheist, so I am able to consider the Bible dispassionately with an open mind, something true believers will find impossible to do.