Romney borrows from Bush41.

[_krose]

George H. W. Bush - October 19, 1992 debate:
"I do not want any more trickle-down government."

Willard M. Romney - October 3, 2012 debate:
"What we’re seeing right now is a trickle-down government approach..."


Very original. I wonder what he's going to borrow from Papa Bush next... "voodoo economics"? "thousand points of light"? "read my lips"?

[_bcspace]

Better than borrowing from Karl Marx.......

[_krose]

Better than borrowing from Karl Marx.......

Depends on what it was, I suppose. What did he take from Karl?

[_cinepro]

George H. W. Bush - October 19, 1992 debate:
"I do not want any more trickle-down government."

Willard M. Romney - October 3, 2012 debate:
"What we’re seeing right now is a trickle-down government approach..."


Very original. I wonder what he's going to borrow from Papa Bush next... "voodoo economics"? "thousand points of light"? "read my lips"?

What's wrong with that phrase? It does a good job of conveying the idea that government intervention and support of the economy can improve the economy.

[_subgenius]

a purist approach for insults...interesting requirement

but you were obviously critical of with Obama's plagiarisms from 2011 SoU address:

Margaret Thatcher - "first nation to have been founded on an idea."
JFK - ""I know there isn’t a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth."
Robert Kennedy - "The future is not a gift. It is an achievement."

[_bcspace]

Forward!

But it's not about slogans, it's about actual policy:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/105249140/The-Marxism-of-Barack-Hussein-Obama

[_krose]

Oh, I get it now. You didn't mean Mitt took from Marx.

You wanted to change the subject as to who was borrowing "zingers" from whom, and now you change it again to a wacko conspiracy theory of Marx discipleship rather than borrowing phrases. Right.

[_krose]

What's wrong with that phrase? It does a good job of conveying the idea that government intervention and support of the economy can improve the economy.

First off, I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, just that it wasn't the clever original line that so many people seem to think it was. He must have been so disappointed that the Prez didn't set it up for him by saying "trickle down" in the debate, so that he had to slip it in on his own.

But since you say that, how does it make any sense? The supply-siders' notion was that by letting rich people keep more money, the poorer people below them would benefit somehow. (There is no evidence that it worked out that way, of course.) I fail to see how that concept correlates to government spending to help the economy. It's not "trickling," it's direct.