I'm not a republican.

(11-03-2013 12:46 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  That is not what the "Trickle Down Effect" means. It relates more to the domino affect. NOT seepage. The only seepage here, is what is leaking out of... Well, nevermind.

Fitbud, how the hell did you even get into college? If you used the same logic in your assignments, your papers must've been completely full of fluff, inaccuracies, plagerism, and shet.

So they call it a the "Trickle Down Effect" because it's more of a "Domino Effect".

(11-04-2013 04:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 12:46 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  That is not what the "Trickle Down Effect" means. It relates more to the domino affect. NOT seepage. The only seepage here, is what is leaking out of... Well, nevermind.

Fitbud, how the hell did you even get into college? If you used the same logic in your assignments, your papers must've been completely full of fluff, inaccuracies, plagerism, and shet.

So they call it a the "Trickle Down Effect" because it's more of a "Domino Effect".

Trickle down is not a slow drip. There is no special ed for finance/economics. So sorry, your ignorance will continue.

(11-04-2013 10:15 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 04:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 12:46 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  That is not what the "Trickle Down Effect" means. It relates more to the domino affect. NOT seepage. The only seepage here, is what is leaking out of... Well, nevermind.

Fitbud, how the hell did you even get into college? If you used the same logic in your assignments, your papers must've been completely full of fluff, inaccuracies, plagerism, and shet.

So they call it a the "Trickle Down Effect" because it's more of a "Domino Effect".

Trickle down is not a slow drip. There is no special ed for finance/economics. So sorry, your ignorance will continue.

It isn't? Then why didn't "Trickle Down" economics work.

I can't wait to hear this one.

Fit, you really have no clue what you're talking about... I'm not going to argue what economic policies are best, because there is a lot more to this argument than you will be able to comprehend and to say one is better than the other is not completely accurate. I will make this point, just to make you look dumb, though. In 2008, before Obama was elected the dow jones was at about 12,000 and has recovered from 9-11. Through natural progression of the economy, the dow jones grows at a rate of over 10% per year. Under simple interest rules (1 compounding period a year) over a 5 year period, the dow should be at 19,328 today. As of this afternoon, the dow was at 15,616.

Your statement of "trickle down" economics not working, is directly contrary to believing obamanomics is working.

(11-05-2013 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 10:15 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 04:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 12:46 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  That is not what the "Trickle Down Effect" means. It relates more to the domino affect. NOT seepage. The only seepage here, is what is leaking out of... Well, nevermind.

Fitbud, how the hell did you even get into college? If you used the same logic in your assignments, your papers must've been completely full of fluff, inaccuracies, plagerism, and shet.

So they call it a the "Trickle Down Effect" because it's more of a "Domino Effect".

Trickle down is not a slow drip. There is no special ed for finance/economics. So sorry, your ignorance will continue.

It isn't? Then why didn't "Trickle Down" economics work.

I can't wait to hear this one.

Enroll in one of my graduate Finance courses. Even a cheapskate isn't going to get that lesson for free.

If not, look are site like How Money Works, or others. They all cover Trickle-Down-Economics. I guaran-f'n-tee you there is no mention of SLOW DRIP. But you are hilarious.


On the other hand- THIS is a perfect example of you talking out your ear just to argue in the dumbest, unfounded, erroneous, fallacy-filled debates.

(11-05-2013 09:30 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(11-05-2013 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 10:15 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 04:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 12:46 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  That is not what the "Trickle Down Effect" means. It relates more to the domino affect. NOT seepage. The only seepage here, is what is leaking out of... Well, nevermind.

Fitbud, how the hell did you even get into college? If you used the same logic in your assignments, your papers must've been completely full of fluff, inaccuracies, plagerism, and shet.

So they call it a the "Trickle Down Effect" because it's more of a "Domino Effect".

Trickle down is not a slow drip. There is no special ed for finance/economics. So sorry, your ignorance will continue.

It isn't? Then why didn't "Trickle Down" economics work.

I can't wait to hear this one.

Enroll in one of my graduate Finance courses. Even a cheapskate isn't going to get that lesson for free.

If not, look are site like How Money Works, or others. They all cover Trickle-Down-Economics. I guaran-f'n-tee you there is no mention of SLOW DRIP. But you are hilarious.


On the other hand- THIS is a perfect example of you talking out your ear just to argue in the dumbest, unfounded, erroneous, fallacy-filled debates.

I am certified in the state of Texas to teach economics. No need for a class.

(11-06-2013 12:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-05-2013 09:30 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(11-05-2013 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 10:15 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 04:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  So they call it a the "Trickle Down Effect" because it's more of a "Domino Effect".

Trickle down is not a slow drip. There is no special ed for finance/economics. So sorry, your ignorance will continue.

It isn't? Then why didn't "Trickle Down" economics work.

I can't wait to hear this one.

Enroll in one of my graduate Finance courses. Even a cheapskate isn't going to get that lesson for free.

If not, look are site like How Money Works, or others. They all cover Trickle-Down-Economics. I guaran-f'n-tee you there is no mention of SLOW DRIP. But you are hilarious.


On the other hand- THIS is a perfect example of you talking out your ear just to argue in the dumbest, unfounded, erroneous, fallacy-filled debates.

I am certified in the state of Texas to teach economics. No need for a class.

Then the state system is screwed up, because you claim to be certified, and don't even know the most basic of concepts, like Trickle-Down Economics.

You teach History, and claim to be certified in Economics. Yet don't know shet about either.

I remember high school economics... The entire class was about learning what a dividend pay out was and how to read stock prices. It never covered anything about macro nor microeconomics.

(11-06-2013 09:43 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  I remember high school economics... The entire class was about learning what a dividend pay out was and how to read stock prices. It never covered anything about macro nor microeconomics.

He's probably referring to Home-Ec (focused on balancing a checkbook, how to buy groceries, apply for a loan, or use Sunday paper coupons).

This explains why a History teacher would be "certified". Or certifiable.....

(11-06-2013 09:23 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 12:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-05-2013 09:30 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(11-05-2013 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 10:15 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  Trickle down is not a slow drip. There is no special ed for finance/economics. So sorry, your ignorance will continue.

It isn't? Then why didn't "Trickle Down" economics work.

I can't wait to hear this one.

Enroll in one of my graduate Finance courses. Even a cheapskate isn't going to get that lesson for free.

If not, look are site like How Money Works, or others. They all cover Trickle-Down-Economics. I guaran-f'n-tee you there is no mention of SLOW DRIP. But you are hilarious.


On the other hand- THIS is a perfect example of you talking out your ear just to argue in the dumbest, unfounded, erroneous, fallacy-filled debates.

I am certified in the state of Texas to teach economics. No need for a class.

Then the state system is screwed up, because you claim to be certified, and don't even know the most basic of concepts, like Trickle-Down Economics.

You teach History, and claim to be certified in Economics. Yet don't know shet about either.

I question your understanding of economics as well. It is common knowledge that "trickle down" economics never worked because the tax cuts given to the rich never really reached the poor.

Fit, first, trickle down economics has been in effect for over 60 years, for you to say it has failed would be an uneducated assessment, because in that time period the US economy has been one of the strongest in the world.

Second, like all aggies, you need to pull the wool out from over your eyes. Taxes were increased across the board on taxable "earned" income, not just the rich. There is no 0% tax bracket, it is now the 10% tax bracket, the 10% tax bracket is now the 15% and so on, what was created was the 39.6% tax bracket, which is only 4.6% greater than the previous 35% tax bracket. What you don't seem to realize is that the rich get most of their income from "unearned" income (long term capital gains) which is taxed at either 0%, 15% or 20%, that is well below the earned income tax brackets, so in essence, not even obama has done away with trickle down economics.

I don't want to argue economics or finances with you, because your understanding of them is very, very limited. I just want to point out your deficiency on the subject, not to help you out, but rather, because I dislike the way you come on here talking like you know everything when in reality you don't .

(11-07-2013 02:06 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  Fit, first, trickle down economics has been in effect for over 60 years, for you to say it has failed would be an uneducated assessment, because in that time period the US economy has been one of the strongest in the world.

Second, like all aggies, you need to pull the wool out from over your eyes. Taxes were increased across the board on taxable "earned" income, not just the rich. There is no 0% tax bracket, it is now the 10% tax bracket, the 10% tax bracket is now the 15% and so on, what was created was the 39.6% tax bracket, which is only 4.6% greater than the previous 35% tax bracket. What you don't seem to realize is that the rich get most of their income from "unearned" income (long term capital gains) which is taxed at either 0%, 15% or 20%, that is well below the earned income tax brackets, so in essence, not even obama has done away with trickle down economics.

I don't want to argue economics or finances with you, because your understanding of them is very, very limited. I just want to point out your deficiency on the subject, not to help you out, but rather, because I dislike the way you come on here talking like you know everything when in reality you don't .

Trickle down economics has been around and successful for the last 60 years? Really?

Why then did we dip into several recessions since it was implemented?

This is just too complicated to explain to you, I'm not going to argue if trickle down economics is good or if it's bad, my whole point of having this discussion is to show you that you talk too much about things you have no clue about.

There have been a total of 47 recessions in the history of the US. Over the past 60 years there have been 9. In the 125 years prior to that, there had been 38 recessions (2 of which could be classified as depressions), and 1 great depression.

Are economic policies to blame for the recessions? Not really. Outside factors and panics are what usually contribute to recessions. Out of the nine most recent recessions, one was after 9-11, the most recent is due to housing market collapse. Is it obama's fault? Is it the republicans fault? No, they were going to happen either way.

Has trickle down economics been implemented fully? Nope, and to classify what the US has done in the recent past as hardcore trickle down economics is foolish. To say that Obama doesn't have trickle down economics in his economic plan is also foolish.

Again, I'm only posting this to point out you don't have a full understanding of subjects you tend to talk a lot about.

Fitbud,

You said Trickle Economics meant that there would be a drip effect.

You are wrong, and now are trying to take this in a different direction. You can question my knowledge, but you have none to base it on.

In the end, you talked out your S, and now can't substantiate your ridiculous claims. SO you turn it into something else.

Feakin Aggies! LMFAO

(11-07-2013 11:46 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  Fitbud,

You said Trickle Economics meant that there would be a drip effect.

You are wrong, and now are trying to take this in a different direction. You can question my knowledge, but you have none to base it on.

In the end, you talked out your S, and now can't substantiate your ridiculous claims. SO you turn it into something else.

Feakin Aggies! LMFAO

Trickle Down Economics is the name given to the idea that giving tax breaks to the rich will actually help the economy. The nick name is telling because the actuall effect was that this form of economic stimulus takes too long to work.

The fastest way to stimulate the economy is to give money directly to the people who need it most. Bush and Obama used this tactic successfully in 2001 and 2009.

Obama didn't want anything to do with stimulus packages, he could have brought Bush's tax cuts back, but he didn't. The tax cuts were used during his presidency under what is called a sunset provision, that was set forth by president Bush. What you don't realize is that trickle down economics is not just tax cuts for the rich, but can also be tax cuts across the board, that is why it is more accurately described as a domino effect. You should really know what you're talking about before you go blah, blah, blah. By the way, the phrase "trickle down" economics came from a comedian and just like you, he didn't know much about economics, just so you know and now you know!

For your own sake fit, stop talking about anything financially related.

(11-08-2013 03:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 11:46 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  Fitbud,

You said Trickle Economics meant that there would be a drip effect.

You are wrong, and now are trying to take this in a different direction. You can question my knowledge, but you have none to base it on.

In the end, you talked out your S, and now can't substantiate your ridiculous claims. SO you turn it into something else.

Feakin Aggies! LMFAO

Trickle Down Economics is the name given to the idea that giving tax breaks to the rich will actually help the economy. The nick name is telling because the actuall effect was that this form of economic stimulus takes too long to work.

The fastest way to stimulate the economy is to give money directly to the people who need it most. Bush and Obama used this tactic successfully in 2001 and 2009.

You said it was the SLOW DRIP EFFECT, as in seepage. That is NOT the effect Trickle-Down Economics describes. You are wrong.

Can't get any clearer. But deflect/spin from your bullshet statement. It's your only way out.

(11-03-2013 12:24 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's called Trickle down because it's nothing but a slow drip.

In case you forgot.

The thing was that I was not referencing an economic term or phrase. Fitbud said the Fountains wasn't doing anything as it was the same people spending money at the same stores just in a new location. My point was that BB and B&N moving had a trickle down effect. Because the Wedgewood Plaza stores are now moving to Viscount and a NEW CVS is moving to Wedgewood. I wasn't referencing an economic term. Of corse, that point got derailed.