Why would anyone, who is not a plutocrat, want to settle for a trickle?

Question

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in 1936, paraphrased the republican argument against him in his reelection bid, when he mocked the republicans with the following one minute section of his speech.

“Let me warn you! Let me warn America! Of course we believe in social security. We believe in jobs for the unemployed. We believe in saving people’s homes! Cross our hearts and hope to die, we believe in all these things! But, we do not like the way the present administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us! We will do all of them! We will do more of them! We will do them better, and most important of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything."
www. youtube.com/watch?v=SUZGkNAUSvY

Now, 76 years later, the Guardians of Plutocracy (GOP) are singing the same old song. So, if you are willing to settle for a trickle, vote for Romney; he will thank you for the tax cut for the wealthy.

.

Don M · Accepted Answer

I am not a plutocrat, I work hard for our living, and so does my wife.

What we're tired of are those who want Trickle Down Government. That's where the government controls our business, our lives and our wealth, and decides who gets what. That not only destroys an economy, as it has for the last four years, it destroys lives.

It makes some people actually believe that they can loaf, and live off the earnings of others--that becoming a human parasite is a viable and moral option. Some people go so far as to believe that all wealth really belongs to the government, and it decides how to distribute it. How else could someone call a tax cut for the wealthy a "giveaway"? (How can you give a person something that already belongs to him?)

Governor Romney wants to cut taxes for ALL income taxpayers--as did presidents Kennedy, Reagan and Bush. In each case, the economy grew, new jobs and new wealth was created, and things were better for everyone.

EDIT: WACO, your sarcasm contains a lot more truth than your sincerity.

? · Answer

interior the U. S., wages rose gradually till the 1970's whilst genuine wages began to stagnate. because it did, American families grew to become majorly in the direction of credit, borrowing exceptional quantities of funds. The late 70's additionally corresponds to a significant political shift: the sluggish loss of life of interventionnist regulations to the earnings of extreme-end tax cuts, deregulated markets and different measures of austerity. In Europe, Thatcher grow to be elected in 1979 and, interior the U. S., Reagan gained the 1980 election... via fact the 1970's, the yank GDP bigger immensely, yet that enhance grow to be coupled with growing to be inequalities. Now, individuals artwork harder and for longer than they ever did in the previous, yet maximum of them do no longer earnings of the effective growth that occurs virtually each twelve months. growth advantages a handful of very wealthy human beings, all on the fees of something -- and that all started with the final-wing shift of the late 1970's and early 1980's. Trickle down economics is, incredibly, a solid narrative to justify opposite robinhoodism: taking from the undesirable, between taxes, exempting the wealthy from such taxes, and using the money to furnish contract or subsidize massive firms. That, my pal, is what a conservative united statesa. looks like.

Anonymous · Answer

Obama is doing the opposite of "trickle". It is TAKING! A small "trickle", is better than being in the red.

Just sayin'.....

Trending News

Why would anyone, who is not a plutocrat, want to settle for a trickle?

3 Answers