So if the two opposite viewpoints don't work, we should do nothing.

That is not the real question. That is the real trick. You're either intentionally trying to mislead for political reasons, or you're just plain uninformed.

From Forbes:

"Our language is loaded with phrases that lead people into false beliefs and harmful actions, but the one I would nominate as the worst and most destructive of all is 'trickle-down economics.'
It was devised by Democrats in the 1980s as a way to attack President Reagan’s economic policy combination of tax rate cuts and some relaxation of federal regulations. They needed a catchy, easy-to-remember zinger to fire at Reagan; a line that would keep their voting base angry."
The full article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgel.../#69a611995891

The whole notion of "trickle down economics" is a myth intended to use the usual political trick of defining an opponent with a dishonest (a lie) characterization. The theory never existed.

From another article: https://www.nccivitas.org/2014/myth-trickle-economics/

"As economist Thomas Sowell noted in his book Basic Economics, 'Trickle down has been a characterization and rejection of what somebody else supposedly believed.' But 'no recognized economist of any school of thought has ever had any such theory or made any such proposal. It is a straw man. It cannot be found in even the most voluminous and learned histories of economic theories . . .Here the President [Obama] and like-minded progressive statists employ an avoidance tactic to evade confronting the actual arguments presented by those who advocate for lower tax rates and less government interference as ways to grow the economy. Such advocates clearly do not make their case by seeking a transfer of existing wealth to high-income earners and business owners (i.e. “give more to those who have the most”). Rather, they emphasize the creation of additional wealth and jobs when entrepreneurs are not hampered by heavy regulation and discouraged by steep taxes,' Sowell writes."

More to the point: "As almost any entrepreneur – big or small – can tell you, when a business investment is made it is the workers who get paid first. Profits and capital gains only come later. For instance, when a new restaurant opens up, construction workers and interior designers get paid for building or renovating the space. Companies make money providing the furnishings and kitchen equipment. The wait staff, cooks and cleaning crew receive regular paychecks for doing their work. Furthermore, the food and beverage suppliers likewise get paid. Only later, if the restaurant is successful, do the owners see a return on their investment.
Even hugely successful corporations can often take years to break even. For instance, Amazon began in 1995 but didn’t turn its first profit until six years later after sustaining billions in losses. All that time, its workers and suppliers kept collecting checks.
As Sowell put it, 'In short, the sequence of payments is directly opposite of what is assumed by those who talk about a ‘trickle down’ theory. The workers must be paid first and then the profits flow upward later – if at all.'”

So, the good policy is similar to what Trump did.

I know this is hard for you to understand as a staunch constitutionalist, but it hurts our society as a whole and inhibits our progress (another word conservatives hate as the root of progressive) for wealth and power to be concentrated in the hands of a small minority. This is the reason the Republican Party pushed for the Sherman Anti-trust Act in 1890, which was enacted unanimously and why the Federal Trade Commission was started. It was a problem then and now is again.

So then, the Sherman Anti-trust Act did not work. Misguided legislation usually doesn't. Especially Progressive legislation ("Progressive" being a self-prescribed label that is actually an oxymoron). And, as with most all Progressive legislation that doesn't work, Regressive/Progressive Pols want to double down. That is, impose even more limitations on people's rights, which continues into a spiral of more limitations which eventually leads to the centralized power of government which you pretend not to like.

And once again, you are acting like I said something, which I never even came close to saying. I have never come close to saying "do nothing". Why do you do this so frequently?

So, what should we do? Well, at the moment, unemployment is very low, and black unemployment and Hispanic unemployment are at all time lows, I think. What got us here? A Republican president, many years of a Republican congress, and tax cuts.

So I say, let's stick with what worked.

If Hilary had won, and the liberals ran Congress, and their massive tax hikes resulted in this low unemployment, I would be honest enough to admit that it worked. I'm willing to bet everything I own, that you and Spence will never do the same.

"it hurts our society as a whole ...for wealth and power to be concentrated in the hands of a small minority."

I completely agree that our nation would be better, if we had fewer poor people. I concede that whole-heartedly. Fair enough?

I see no connection, nor have you even tried to establish a connection, between the widening income inequality, and poverty.

Let's talk about how to help poor people become middle class, I'm all for that. I'll happily pay taxes to programs that are actually effective in this goal.

But please stop whining about the wealthy. They play just about no role in this. Not only do they not create poverty, they help reduce poverty by paying tons of taxes and giving so much to charity. There would be more poverty, not less, if Warren Buffet washed dishes instead of founded Berkshire Hathaway.

Stop demonizing the wealthy. It's stupid, it's dishonest, and it's intellectually lazy.

Even lack of money isn't the cause of most people's poverty, it's the symptom. The cause of poverty is usually bad decision-making, laziness, mental illness, or addiction. These are not things you make go away, by throwing money at them.

Of course, some people are poor because of bad luck or bad timing, and certainly they can permanently escape poverty with a little help, and we should give them that help, we have an obligation to do so in my opinion.

But one thing that liberals refuse to accept is this - you cannot eliminate poverty by giving money to poor people. If we coulda, we woulda, because we've given un-countable billions to poor people over the years.

We can and should try to eliminate poverty. None of what we need to do so, lies with a small number of billionaires. None. Zip. But liberals never, ever stop bitching about the 1%. Anything to divide us into a larger number of smaller groups to be pitted against one another - that's liberalism.

The Koch Brothers have been demonized by name on the floor of congress many times. For what? Have they ever been arrested or convicted of anything? How would you like it, if a US Senator stood in front of cameras, mentioned you by name, and told America that you were the enemy?

But what have the Republican President and Congress done for Hartford or Bridgeport? After many years something should have happened.

Is the low unemployment real, lets not forget trumps opinion on that prior to the election. How has the data collection or compilation changed since he was elected?
Remember, the unemployment rate comes from a separate survey than the one used to count jobs created. The former is based on a monthly survey of 60,000 households by the Census Bureau. The latter by a survey of about 149,000 businesses and government agencies by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
According to the Census household survey, the biggest contribution to the drop in the unemployment rate wasn't people getting jobs — that survey registered a gain of just 3,000 in April. It's due mainly to the fact that 410,000 dropped out of the labor force — and no longer count as unemployed.

If you compare today's numbers to December 2000, the picture is even more striking.

The labor force participation rate in Dec. 2000 was 67%. Today it is just 62.8%.

The employment-to-population ratio then was 64.4%. Now it's 60.3%.

The population not in the labor force — they don't have jobs and aren't looking — has climbed a stunning 25.3 million over those years.

Think about it this way. If the labor force participation rate were the same today as it was in December 2000, the unemployment rate wouldn't be 3.9%. It would be 10%!

Yes, many who've left the labor force over the past 18 years are baby boomers entering retirement. But that doesn't come close to explaining the massive increase in labor dropouts.

For example, the labor force participation rate among 20- to 24-year-olds was 78% in December 2000. It's just 71% today. For those 25-34 years old, the rate declined from 85% to 83%.

In contrast, among those 55 and older, the participation rate increased — going from 33% in December 2000 to 40% now.

Clearly, there are still millions of potential workers sitting on the sidelines.

As to black and hispanic unemployment, I thought a rising tide lifts all ships. Both those rates still have the same relationship to white unemployment that they did before trump, double. Nothing surprising or wonderful there.

As Jim said "The Koch Brothers have been demonized by name on the floor of congress many times. For what? Have they ever been arrested or convicted of anything? How would you like it, if a US Senator stood in front of cameras, mentioned you by name, and told America that you were the enemy?"
How many people has the president you constantly acclaim demonized on television again and again, for doing their jobs.
I know you dont really like him

if you think i constantly praise trump and never criticize him, you are hopeless, too stupid to try and talk to. it’s disgusting what he said
about the media? Fair enough? Now what do you have to say, about democrats who call out the koch brothers by name?

as to your question about blacks in hartford...local impact is far greater than federal impact. Your fellow
liberals in CT have seen to it that blacks in hartford never get anywhere, they have crippled those people
and made them addicted to liberal welfare.

i’m trying to talk to you like an adult pete. But if you keep fishing my questions, and you keep insisting i’m a rabid trump supporter, we should stop trying. is your reading really that bad, or are you that dishonest? i see no third option.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's your problem :wave:

Kind of nasty isn’t it, when someone gets demonized for their political actions. Sort of like how you keep trying to demonize me by name calling.
Tacit approval doesn’t win you any points in my book.
Good luck with claiming the results are worth the taint.
What the Trumplicans have done to the Republican Party will be long remembered, the stink will last a long time.
You missed the unemployment statistics issue. Funny how all of the sudden the numbers became true, isn’t it. You don’t have an answer for that, do you?
Thinking that it’s about poverty is missing the point. The middle class has been shrinking for the past 30 years.
That’s not good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Sort of like how you keep trying to demonize me by name calling."

You constantly dodge my questions, you constantly claim that I'm a blind Trump supporter, and you constantly claim that I said things, which I would never ever say. I've pointed that stuff out to you 100 times, and you keep doing it. I don't know how to respond.

"Good luck with claiming the results are worth the taint."

OK. Let's just stick to this. So you'd rather have a sweet person as POTUS, but with bad results? Is that what you're saying?

Just once, JUST THIS ONE TIME, can you please answer that question exactly as I asked it?

"What the Trumplicans have done to the Republican Party will be long remembered, the stink will last a long time"

You might be right. But why did the GOP pick up Senate seats? Trump is one guy. He's not the whole party.

"You missed the unemployment statistics issue. Funny how all of the sudden the numbers became true, isn’t it. You don’t have an answer for that, do you?"

Not sure what you're saying here. If you're saying I didn't care about unemployment when Obama was POTUS, you are elying again. I've said 1,000 times that Obama gets good marks for his impact on unemployment and the stock market. So does Trump. SO please tell me what I "missed"?

Pete' let's see who is the blind partisan denier, me or you...I gave Obama credit for helping unemployment under his watch. Can you do the same with Trump? What do you have to say, about unemployment under Trump? I am curious to see how you answer that.

He will not answer because it does not suit his agenda. To Pete this is not about what is right or wrong,he would rather bash a party or person. Obviously he has no point other than he dislikes Trump. He will neither praise,give credit nor acknowledge that there has been even one success in this presidency.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i have no argument against that. None.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's what I was saying there, you seem to have skimmed over it the first time.
Is the low unemployment real, lets not forget trumps opinion on that prior to the election. How has the data collection or compilation changed since he was elected?
Remember, the unemployment rate comes from a separate survey than the one used to count jobs created. The former is based on a monthly survey of 60,000 households by the Census Bureau. The latter by a survey of about 149,000 businesses and government agencies by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
According to the Census household survey, the biggest contribution to the drop in the unemployment rate wasn't people getting jobs — that survey registered a gain of just 3,000 in April. It's due mainly to the fact that 410,000 dropped out of the labor force — and no longer count as unemployed.

If you compare today's numbers to December 2000, the picture is even more striking.

The labor force participation rate in Dec. 2000 was 67%. Today it is just 62.8%.

The employment-to-population ratio then was 64.4%. Now it's 60.3%.

The population not in the labor force — they don't have jobs and aren't looking — has climbed a stunning 25.3 million over those years.

Think about it this way. If the labor force participation rate were the same today as it was in December 2000, the unemployment rate wouldn't be 3.9%. It would be 10%!

Yes, many who've left the labor force over the past 18 years are baby boomers entering retirement. But that doesn't come close to explaining the massive increase in labor dropouts.

For example, the labor force participation rate among 20- to 24-year-olds was 78% in December 2000. It's just 71% today. For those 25-34 years old, the rate declined from 85% to 83%.

In contrast, among those 55 and older, the participation rate increased — going from 33% in December 2000 to 40% now.

Clearly, there are still millions of potential workers sitting on the sidelines.

https://youtu.be/YVfNFJ9mUiE

you say he only picked up senate seats in very red states. if they were very red states, why did they elect democrat senators in 2012? you have to give it SOME thought, Pete.

I constantly have Obama
credit for what he did with unemployment. Trumpmis also doing good there. i’m not that kind of hypocrit
who refused to give onama credit but give trump credit. you try to paint me that way, but you can’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

as I said "and by lower margins than he was elected by, not a great thing going into 2020"

How has the unemployment data collection or analysis changed since Trump was elected?
If you do the analysis the way Trump claimed prior to election that it should be done, how do his actual employment numbers come out.

"as I said "and by lower margins than he was elected by, not a great thing going into 2020"

Aha. So even when the democrats lose, they still win. You also said very red states. How did those democrats get elected to the US Senate, in very red states?

"How has the unemployment data collection or analysis changed since Trump was elected?"

Beats me. I don't know that it changed.