Trickle down economics

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesATyler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmm, well I disagree.

I think our top 3 best Presidents were George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt.

JFK is a close tie with FDR
 
Last edited:
A rising tide lifts all boats and why America’s poorest are still among the richest in the world.
 
We have to be a little careful as Americans when we start sounding the “socialist” alarm. There are more than a few people throwing that around on this thread.

A purely capitalistic system would be tyrannical. There are several safety nets that people legitimately use in unforeseen circumstances. Sure there are people that abuse these systems, but many don’t. They use them as long as they have to and then get off of them. There are those that think of social security and SSI as a socialist entitlement . The US would be in serious trouble if that went away. Medicare, medicaid, these could all be considered socialist.
 
Actually we are around the 13th highest when it comes to our poverty line, considering pretax take home pay before assistance. Ironically, given this thread, there are lower poverty rates in Scandinavian countries who do identify themselves with socialism.

Of the 26 countries, the United States ties for the 13th highest pre-T&T poverty rate, which stands at 28.4%. The countries with the lowest pre-T&T poverty rates are Korea, Iceland, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway, with pre-T&T poverty rates spanning from 17.3% to 25.7%. At 35%, Spain has the highest pre-T&T poverty rate.

If you google the happiest countries in the world, the top ones are mostly in Scandinavia. I think Australia and Canada are in there somewhere as well.
 
Can anyone come up with an economic system that doesn’t disproportionately benefit the few and dehumanize people (free markets) but at the same time doesn’t require dependency on a powerful and often abusive and corrupt government (social democracy/welfare state)?
 
Last edited:
[quote="JamesATyler, post:1, topic:462859, full:true"s.
They want to take money from the top 1% of business owners, because they are supposedly giving too little to charity, and give it to a few hundred people in Congress to figure out how to spend, who as a collective whole have acted with such incompetence that we have a 20 trillion dollar debt. That is not a good plan.
[/quote]

Reminds me of an observation by the great P.J. O’Rourke who once said, “giving money and power to Congress is like giving whiskey and car keys to teen age boys.” If any other country on the face of the earth tended to its economic welfare as the Congress of the United States does, they’d be broke in a week.

What was it Estes Kefauver said in discussing the federal budget back in the fifties, " a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon we’re talking real money." It’s been going on for ages and somehow we keep on surviving. One day, it has to come back to bite us in the a**.
 
Spyridon said:
I think our top 3 best Presidents were George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I think that when a president swears his oath to defend the Constitution that it should mean something. Lincoln would be the number 1 worst president on my list. FDR would not be far behind.
 
JamesATyler said:
Ok. But I can’t figure out why I should take the business man’s money since I had nothing to do with earning it.
Click to expand...
If the business man lived alone on an island conducting his business sans employees, sans outside transportation and communication, sans customers, he would certainly keep all his money as you and I had nothing to do with his earning it.

However, since he relies on society to actually be in business, he owes society certain responsibilities including giving some back.

Edit: the man’s responsibility is to pay his taxes.
The government elected by the people has the responsibility to tell him how much to pay.

When the government gets it right, everyone makes a living wage. Not seeing it yet.
 
Last edited:
If it wasn’t for Lincoln, there probably wouldn’t be a Constitution today.

Totally agree about FDR. He was a socialist and kept this country in a depression much longer than it ever should have. Took a war to undo his efforts to create a perpetual depression.
 
Netherlands. They all complain but they wouldn’t trade it for another system. Small dense population probably helps. 23 political parties form coalitions, forcing immediately responsive government.

Most everyone works unless severely disabled. People get help to make sure they can work. The difference between high earners and low earners is much smaller. Tax burden more equally shared. Consumption tax (buy a new car every year/contribute more to nation’s income). Some people still get to be “rich” but way less get to be poor.
 
Last edited:
Crocus said:
When the government gets it right, everyone makes a living wage. Not seeing it yet.
Click to expand...
I feel there does need to be government regulation and oversight on such things. I would not be for a purely capitalist society without regulations.
 
What kind of regulations do you think, to remove present necessity for massive social programs?
Is the system even capable, given the adversarial nature of the 2 party system? Each bent on undoing what the last put in.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea. I don’t have the will or time to do that much work. 🤢
 
Spyridon said:
Nobody on Earth is truly “independent”.

In our society in America we are all dependent on each other to a greater or lesser degree. Which is why it’s of the utmost importance to ensure that large segments of our population don’t get neglected, because it will eventually take a negative toll on the population as a whole.
Click to expand...
Yup. I think this is something a lot of people miss. Your average independent worker is dependent on there being an employer to hire them, a landlord to rent to them, a farmer and a grocery to supply food for them to buy, the government to provide a safe road from their house to their job…all sorts of things.

I think in the U.S. the ADA law was a good example. The purpose was, not to provide care to the disabled, but to minimize the need for care. That is by providing legally so those who are disabled have protections if they need something a little different at work, so long as they can perform the job. Or providing so they can access stores and transportation and housing without having to rely on someone else. It is a cost on others, but it’s also designed to encourage people to be able to achieve what independence they can.

The trouble is a lot of programs “encourage independence” primarily by providing a stick to punish people who don’t make it fast enough. There’s also often a practical assumption that people should be happy with bare minimum jobs, and should take on debt to get a better chance.
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
Radical independence is an idea which is foreign to Catholic morality and theology. The Church teaches Catholics to be mindful of, and responsible with regard to our mutual dependence on each other and the planet we live on.
Click to expand...
That would be less than half of the story. Consider:
  1. Where does God enter into this “mutual dependence?” He can be safely ignored, then, since we only depend on each other and the planet?
  2. How does the principle of subsidiarity enter into this mutual dependence?
Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them. (Pope Pius XI, Quadregesimo Anno)
Click to expand...
How are these two magisterial teachings not examples of “radical independence,” or more properly stated, a “radical dependence” upon God rather than on the “city of man.”

You might want to read this part again: it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, before you state categorically what is “foreign to Catholic morality and theology.”
 
Last edited:
If I’m starving to death I’m not going to sit in my house and pray supposing God to miraculously provide victuals.

I’m going to go find food among men.

Also, had you read my whole post, you would have seen where I said “we depend on God for life itself”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top