General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat the hell does "trickle-down government" mean?
Romney pulled that zinger out last night and it's something I've never heard. It's obviously a counter to the Democratic criticism of Republican trickle down, supply side economics philosophy. But what does it mean? Does it further Romney's argument that 47% of Americans are "takers" who count on entitlements to "trickle down" from government above? Veterans counting on their medical benefits and pensions are beneficiaries of trickle down government? Students counting on their student loans are parasitic takers who rely on trickle down government? Seniors expecting their SS checks are leeches who can only survive on the trickling down syrup from big government above?
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)It doesn't resonate because it is nonsensical. And if trickle down government is the opposite of trickle down economics, I'll take it.
Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)too bad for them it sucks and falls flat.
Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #1)
Post removed
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It's a pair of catch-phrase words strung together, intended to cause a reaction rather than make a point. It's an attempt to pair "Trickle-down," a discredited theory that liberals loathe, with "government," something conservatives hate, and then glue it to Obama. it doesn't make any sense.
But it doesn't have to.
Think of it like the term "islamo-fascism," a reactionary word that fails examination.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Mitt trying to be clever = FAIL
liberal N proud
(60,339 posts)They have trickle down economics that makes the rich, richer. So they want to tag anything the government does to help people trickle down.
But if it were truly trickle down, the government would be getting richer and we wouldn't need to discuss deficits and debt.
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)newspeak
(4,847 posts)since, you and me pay into government, means my money comes back down to my family and your family and our infrastructure. when everyone is able to survive without abject poverty, there is less crime (with regulation that also include white collar crime) and a more educated populace (public education) means more service for you and me.
now, trickle on economics, means the wealthy and large corporate owners have more money, which they do not like to share and when investing, any slave wage country will do. most, don't really care about this country or it's people, as long as they can get the lowest wage for their value, shite in your backyard without any old regulations and make sure WS is taken care of. Some of their wealth may, just may trickle on americans. They don't want to sacrifice during times of war, but clearly love making profits from it, especially, when it is our money. and worker loyalty is a thing of the past. pensions are not something that is earned, but paying something that was an asset and now is deemed a liability. Of course, some can make even more money off of that liability by taking life insurance out on their employees and instead of giving it to the struggling family, they've made another asset. a bunch of greedy, sociopathic sick feks.
mzmolly
(51,003 posts)So, I have no idea.
raccoon
(31,112 posts)Glitterati
(3,182 posts)That's all.
They KNOW Trickle Down only works for the rich. We all do.
But, it's their only game. Always has been, always will be.
So they're trying to defend it by throwing monkey shit in the fan.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Solly Mack
(90,778 posts)It was a play on trickle -down economics (from "free-markets"/private business) v. government working to help/better society with business/work regulations, safety nets, education.
A way to push the right-wing talking point that private can do it better than government. That government is the problem and privatization is the the solution. It's an all encompassing catch-all phrase for all of the right-wing talking points.
I'm sure he meant it to be clever. It wasn't.
It was just another way to insult people.
haele
(12,665 posts)So logically, trickle down Government is when only a little bit of government resources - money and services - is distributed or "trickled down".
Sounds like a Tea Party/Republican/Randriod plan where Government is an exclusive ruling club that provides services as "nobless oblige" or charity.
Haele
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)That's all.
demlefty
(1 post)Remember how the Right created the term "political correctness" in the 1980s to mean anything educated (i.e., liberal) people said that they disagreed with? And remember that it took years before the corporate media actually considered the meaning of their political dog whistle? Well, now let's see how long it takes before the corporate electronic media dare to ask what Mitt's gibberish means. Perhaps a better question is: "Why do these people hate government -- or at least democratic government so badly? Could it be that besides hating the redistribution of "wealth", what they really fear is the democratic redistribution of their power and privilege, to average working citizens i.e., the democratic transformation of America?
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)It seems to me that it's the essence of government. Government takes in large amounts of general revenue and then targets it to specific uses, from farm subsidies to defense. If you're against the trickling down of tax revenue to the people then maybe you're an extremist libertarian who's against public roads and public armies and wants everything to be privatized. It seems to me that government by nature involves a trickle down redistribution of tax revenue. If you're against that, you're against government itself.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)what you said is not 'trickel down'
alp227
(32,045 posts)SeeThe Oxford Dictionary of American Political Slang (http://books.google.com/books?id=hc7x96jE5EcC&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=%22Trickle+down+government%22&source=bl&ots=AiEYy8_ARP&sig=WQ8k4UnjNsb7DmUY9oPYqOVxW8I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aFxuUJ_BDISS9QTB3oGoCQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Trickle%20down%20government%22&f=false). Mitch Daniels called the Obama stimulus "trickle down government" 2 years ago.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)kentuck
(111,106 posts)that should be posed to the zinger in chief.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)that Romney delivered.
AlleninHartwellGA
(2 posts)A government created of the people, for the people, and by the people should in fact be a trickle down government, otherwise why have it.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)are you lost??
Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #24)
Hassin Bin Sober This message was self-deleted by its author.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)AlleninHartwellGA
(2 posts)I thought this was a discussion group which supported most Democrat policies and were against most GOP policies. If so, then why would we run from a phrase such as "trickle down government" just because it was supposed to be a "zinger" from R"money" (sic). Every once in a while some people accidentally say something intelligent. I'm sure his group hopes the idea that we DO have a trickle down government, that it was in fact planned that way, does not catch on. We do elect our representatives, to serve as our voices and do our bidding, and to insure that the people are cared for above all else. Now, if I''m in the wrong place I can easily leave.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,334 posts)Trickle down economics is Reaganomics is Romneyomics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
"Trickle-down economics" and "the trickle-down theory" are terms in United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided by government to businesses and the wealthy will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole.[1] The term has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."[2] The term is mostly used ironically or as pejorative.[3]
Proponents of tax cuts often claim that savings and investment are essential to the economy, and thus less taxes (for any and all income brackets) need not harm any other income bracket. It has often been referred to as a straw-man argument.[4] Economist George Reisman, a proponent of tax cuts, said the following: "Of course, many people will characterize the line of argument I have just given as the 'trickle-down' theory. There is nothing trickle-down about it. There is only the fact that capital accumulation and economic progress depend on saving and innovation and that these in turn depend on the freedom to make high profits and accumulate great wealth. The only alternative to improvement for all, through economic progress, achieved in this way, is the futile attempt of some men to gain at the expense of others by means of looting and plundering. This, the loot-and-plunder theory, is the alternative advocated by the critics of the misnamed trickle-down theory."[5]
Today, "trickle-down economics" is most closely identified with the economic policies known as Reaganomics or laissez-faire. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts at first but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the term "supply-side economics" was used to promote a trickle-down idea.[6]
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)The republicans have promoted trickle down economics for over thirty years and it has not worked. Promoting government to trickle down would have the same effect.
It would be best if you explained your statement a little more.
Thank you
malaise
(269,123 posts)because he is associated with Friedman's neo-liberal sit aka trickle down economics.
Fugg Rmoney!
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)May I tweet your subject line?
jerseygal
(67 posts)the shit trickled down!!!!
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Mostly heard during St.Ronnie's term. It means give the rich tax breaks, and the money the rich save, they will trickle it down to us peons. And now Rmoney is pushing it on Obama.
Short and simple: Trickle down= piss on peons while telling them it's raining.
unblock
(52,285 posts)oh YEAH?
trickle-down eca ... ecamonicks?
well, uh, uh, that stuff you like, it's, uh, TRICKLE-DOWN GOVERNMENT, that's what it is!
so THERE!
and so's your MOTHER!
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)you're suppose to be happy about it.
NashvilleLefty
(811 posts)"Trickle-down economics" was such a terrible failure Regan changed the name to "Supply-Side Economics" just to avoid the association. The term itself has such a bad connotation that Romney tried to tie it to Obama's Keynesian economics, just to put a "bad taste" in everyone's mouths.
It has no real meaning. It's psy-ops.
newspeak
(4,847 posts)who says it doesn't work. If you want to bust up labor, get rid of regulations, and empower the wealthy, including global corporations-it's worked just fine. The disparity today between us and the have mores, has obscenely grown.
and WS, for the most part, has become nothing more than one big casino, gambling on our misery. and speaking of WS, did we ever find out who did the put options on the airlines before 9/11?
HillWilliam
(3,310 posts)Cavete Cadens Defricatus Urina!
because you know the teabillies wouldn't stand for no Frenchified Guardez L'Eau
Amonester
(11,541 posts)they would all go bankrupt in less than two weeks.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Bwahaahahahahahhahah. Miserable Bastards.
Megahurtz
(7,046 posts)which they are very good at doing.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)those of us at the bottom will only get something warm, wet, and yellow.
stlsaxman
(9,236 posts)probably the only phrase that wasn't on his notes.