Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. The problem is the stream is too small and the trickle too few for the those at the bottom.
The only people who thinks Trickle Down works are those who never see how small the leftover is at the bottom.
.
OK - let's take your reasoning... why is the trickle too small? People holding the resources not re-investing in the community? That does not imply that trickle down does not work. It just means people with resources are holding on to them - which is totally lawful and moral. And then you have to ask why people are holding on to their resources...
Fair enough, but why isn't San Francisco taxing their rich residents more to resolve the SF homeless crisis? Isn't that the liberal mantra, that the rich should pay their fair share to promote equality? But here we have an example of a city of rich residents who lean very heavily Dem/liberal, but the SF rich aren't taxed more to fund a solution for the SF homeless they've displaced. How is that anything but hypocritical?
And another question I've asked but not one liberal has been able to answer... Why won't the wealthy liberal gentrifying liberal/Dem San Franciscans pay higher local taxes to fund housing and basic necessities for the poor and the homeless they've displaced?
It has been proven that repubs give MORE to charity then dems.
Most liberals don't believe in redistribution of wealth, especially in San Francisco.
Then what's with all the "the rich aren't paying their fair share" BS from the left, when the IRS reports that the top 1% pays a significantly higher effective federal income tax rate than everyone else?
Do liberals even know WTF they're talking about? Sure seems they don't. And now we learn that rich liberal/Dem San Franciscans won't pay more in local taxes to resolve the SF homeless crisis.
I posted this earlier - and along with the above post - I suggest reading the Sidewalks link. It gives insight that these are not your typical class of homeless people. Check this out from an advocate...
“My name is Chris Daly. I’m a homeless advocate.” Having caught everyone’s attention with this oddly timed piece of information, he went on: “I was elected ten years ago talking about affordable housing and I’m still talking about it. We’re lying if we say that measures like this will get us there. We need radical changes in budget priorities. . . . We need to move money from the sacred cows of fire and police to housing and special needs.”
This is the kind of thinking that they are dealing with out there.
More uninformed ignorance.
Chris Daly is despised by most San Franciscans and basically was chased out of town after his terms ended (He is now living in Vallejo).
After he moved away, he famously told his haters, "I ain't going nowhere." and opened a bar in the city. San Franciscans responded by boycotting his bar and it closed down just two years after it opened.
His left wing party then tried to takeover the vacated Mayor's seat with one of their guys via backroom dealing and the establishment basically locked them out of the room and filled the seat with a centrist (Ed Lee). The local newspaper made sure to report the reaction of an angry and pissed off Daly muttering to himself.
To say that Chris Daly represents SF is like saying David Duke represents the GOP.
.
Then what's with all the "the rich aren't paying their fair share" BS from the left, when the IRS reports that the top 1% pays a significantly higher effective federal income tax rate than everyone else?
Do liberals even know WTF they're talking about? Sure seems they don't. And now we learn that rich liberal/Dem San Franciscans won't pay more in local taxes to resolve the SF homeless crisis.
The left: HYPOCRITES!
Most liberals don't want redistribution of wealth. I know that fact is hard to swallow after you've been feed this lie from right-wing media for your entire life. But facts are facts. You can ignore it, but it's still a fact.
If liberals are as radical as you think they are, Bernie Sanders would be our leading candidate wouldn't he? Many conservatives fail to see the truth that is right in front of them - Hillary is a centrist and most liberals are around the center.
Most liberals don't want redistribution of wealth. I know that fact is hard to swallow after you've been feed this lie from right-wing media for your entire life. But facts are facts. You can ignore it, but it's still a fact.
If liberals are as radical as you think they are, Bernie Sanders would be our leading candidate wouldn't he? Many conservatives fail to see the truth that is right in front of them - Hillary is a centrist and most liberals are around the center.
Your ignorance is once again on full display.
.
Bernie IS your leading candidate, but the media is propping up Hillary's campaign and the DNC is paving the they way for her. She owns the DNC.
Most liberals don't want redistribution of wealth.
Then why all the rhetoric from the left about the rich not paying their fair share (which is false, according to IRS data)? And why so much opposition from the left to a flat tax in which everyone pays an equal proportion of their income?
Chris Daly is despised by most San Franciscans and basically was chased out of town after his terms ended (He is now living in Vallejo).
After he moved away, he famously told his haters, "I ain't going nowhere." and opened a bar in the city. San Franciscans responded by boycotting his bar and it closed down just two years after it opened.
His left wing party then tried to takeover the vacated Mayor's seat with one of their guys via backroom dealing and the establishment basically locked them out of the room and filled the seat with a centrist (Ed Lee). The local newspaper made sure to report the reaction of an angry and pissed off Daly muttering to himself.
To say that Chris Daly represents SF is like saying David Duke represents the GOP.
.
Be advised that the article was written six years ago. At that time he seemed to have prominence among the homeless advocates.
OK - let's take your reasoning... why is the trickle too small? People holding the resources not re-investing in the community? That does not imply that trickle down does not work. It just means people with resources are holding on to them - which is totally lawful and moral. And then you have to ask why people are holding on to their resources...
What do you mean why is the trickle small? The trickle is ALWAYS small. That's why Trickle Down doesn't work.
.
What do you mean why is the trickle small? The trickle is ALWAYS small. That's why Trickle Down doesn't work.
And you explained why...
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
Most liberals don't want redistribution of wealth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And now we learn that rich liberal/Dem San Franciscans won't pay more in local taxes to resolve the SF homeless crisis. 
