I mean, kind of, but the style of quoting at the head of your comments is typically used on this site to address specific points as part of a back-and-forth, not just "I'm introducing my own thoughts to this discussion, divorced from the course of conversation this has followed so far." You don't need to quote the comment you're replying to because your reply hangs off my comment already.
If you had posted your comment without that header I would not have immediately thought you were part of the conversation, and instead taken the comment as an aside and not a direct reply.
>What do you think about the concept of "trickle-up economics"?
And so I answered your question.
If that was confusing to you, that's unfortunate and I'm sorry that the way I quoted you made you unable to comprehend the next twelve paragraphs of my post.
>I was reacting to:
>> We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty.
>Why would you reply to my comment defending your stance as if I had challenged it?
I can't reply to comment that contains the above, so I'll do so here.
Where did I say anything even remotely approaching "We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty."?
I wasn't "defending" anyone or anything. I am not the user who posted the comment[0] you replied to.
And it seems strange that you found my comment adversarial, as it was at worst orthogonal to yours.
Upon reading the your reply to djsumdog's comment, I thought I'd add my own (related, and I thought, relevant) thoughts to the discussion.
Is that not kind of the whole point of this site?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25446323