Skip to main content

The right wing has this idea that if you send a shovel full of money to rich folks, the top 2% income earners, that they will go on a spending spree and hire lots of us working folks. For what jobs, nobody knows. But since they have extra money, they will hire people anyway. It is just what rich people do when they have spare cash. Or not.

Of course, what makes more sense is that the 2% got rich by being greedy bastards. They want to get all that money and keep it. So, we send them some money and they bury it in the backyard (which happens to be in Aruba).

The obvious answer to how to get the 2% to really work and hire is to give the money to someone else. Middle class people who are not rich have not developed that "greedy bastard, bury it in the backyard" attitude are perfectly willing to spend the money. Give money to them and the 2% will fall over themselves trying to figure out how to get that money from the middle class into their own holes in the ground.

Its a win-win plan. The 2% want the money, and eventually, they will end up with it. We just have to make them work for it, and in the process, the middle class get to spend it. And many of the middle class get jobs working for the rich bastards as they try to get that money.

Jobs. Now we have a second level of benefit. Even as the 2% try to pull our money out of our pockets, they have to give some back to the employees who help them execute their schemes. That means more money in middle class pockets that the 2% still want to get back. And try they will.

So this is real stimulus. The trick is, you have to tell the rich bastards where you put the money, so they can go get it.

Originally posted to JoeEngineer on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 05:54 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (2+ / 0-)

    I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. - Susan B. Anthony

    by JoeEngineer on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 05:54:08 AM PDT

  •  If we had tax cuts that were triggered (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spoc42, doomedtorepeathistory

    Say we had tax cuts for the Rich and Corporations which were triggered at 5% Unemployment - then I say go for it.  If Unemployment goes above 5% for more than 2 quarters - tax cuts go away.

    That would make these folks really put their money where their mouth is.

    •  Nice, but I'd like the cuts for the middle class (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If unemployment drops to 5%, give even more cuts to the middle class.

      Why would we ever give the tax break directly to the Rich and Corporations? If you want to see a wild animal hunt, you feed the prey, not the hunter. They are the hunters, we are the prey.

      I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. - Susan B. Anthony

      by JoeEngineer on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 06:26:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because it would force the Rich and Corporations (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Spoc42, bear83, doomedtorepeathistory

        They would have to earn their tax cuts by creating jobs at home instead of overseas.

        I don't mind giving someone a goal and making them earn it.  The problem is though we are dealing with a mindset like those on the Wall Street Bailout Bonuses and they would think they would be entitled to the tax cuts even though they did not hit the triggers.  

  •  Not greedy, just human (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I think it is a mistake to charactise the rich as "greedy bastards" because they have so much more money than we do.  

    The difference between the richest in the world (@ what 2Million/year) and the upper middle class American ( say @80k per year ) is no more stark than the difference between a middle class American @50 K per year and a starving child in India or Africa.  Are we all "Greedy bastards" because we don't send 40% of our money to the third world poor?

    Name calling just undermines your point, which is an important one.   The wealthy are not really interested  in money, any more than a competitive swimmer is interested in saving up all those 0.01 seconds that he saves by being so fast.

    When you get to certain point, money is just a measurement of winning.   They aren't hoarding money somewhere because they are greedy, they keep it because they are already spending money as fast as they want to, and more money will make no difference in their material circumstances.

    This still supports your point that they don't spend the money, and, that if you give it to the poor, they will compete to get it into their own piles.

    Better to compare them to the lions in the zoo.   If you throw them meat, they eat it and get lazy.  If you hang it from trees, or put it into a barrel, they have to work to get it and it makes their lives more interesting.  They don't get so fat and lazy.

    We should do the same for our rich brothers and sisters.  Give them something to work for!  

    Religion gives men the strength to do what should not be done.

    by bobtmn on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 06:57:21 AM PDT

  •  Actually they have the money now and they have (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spoc42, luckylizard, laker

    had it for the past 10 years and they didn't create on net a single job with it.

    I think its high time they gave it back.

  •  great framing (0+ / 0-)

    I like the framing
    as well as the suggestion
    that tax cuts should be tied to

    I am, as apparently we all are,

    by doomedtorepeathistory on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 08:57:20 AM PDT

  •  Advocating for the rich (0+ / 0-)

    Great way to get campaign contributions. Defending the poor is not nearly as effective.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site