Has Trickle Down Economics Failed?

[Google]

What is your alternative explanation for the prolonged growth and economic prosperity that occurred under Reagan's watch?

Simple, deficit spending. Reagan tripled the national debt during his presidency. That money was injected into the economy which would explain the rise in GDP.

Of course, I would still not say that resulted in all boats rising, which clearly didn't happen. Minimum wage was never raised under Reagan. The number living in poverty went up by a couple million. Share of total income for the bottom earners fell as a percentage of the total, and rose for those at the top.

Just because we had a good economy does NOT in any way prove that "trickle down" worked.

Between 1983 to 1990 19.9 million jobs were created. How many of them were created due to government spending?

Do you have to do drugs to believe the things you do?

 

[uscitizen]

Obamas plan of trickle down poverty seems to be right on course with thousands entering poverty every month. The Goal is to see those millionaires and billionaires on food stamps. Might need another 4yrs to accomplish that.

yep 16 years in all since he is a turd Bush term.

 

[DontBeStupid]

If deficit spending is so beneficial to economic growth, do tell why after increasing deficit spending beyond any and all records the economy isn't roaring right now?

I never it claimed it was beneficial. It's a tool like many other tools. For example, the past couple years, deficit spending has resulted in a drop in the unemployment rate, GDP growth and most importantly, a prevention of a depression. Now that there is talk of cutting back and balancing the budget, which history tells us is a bad idea, now is when we see a drop in the stock market and up ticks in unemployment and weaker forecasts for growth.

But again, none of this matters to the fact that you guys still have not shown how Reagan's policies caused all that growth in the 80s.

 

[whitehall]

Wait a minute platehead. You make two false assumptions and then you build a case on them. Communism wasn't built on optimism. It was built at the point of a gun by fanatic criminals. That takes care of your point #2 that trickle down economics is "similar" to communism because it is based on optimism. If any failed economic plan was based on "optimism" it was the hope/change scam of the Obama administration. How did that work out?

OK whitewash...

No, I did not make a false assumption about Communism. Communism was not founded by the point of a gun.... that may be the end result, but you are wrong about the inception.

as for the rest, typical wingnut tripe. address the topic and quit masturbating.

Masturbating, humm, advice from someone who needs to post a picture of his big handgun on a political forum? Play games with samantics if you want to risk the future of America platehead but communism is always , I say again, always instituted at the point of a gun. Comparing trickle down economics to communism just because both seem "optimistic" to the ignorant biased leftie biased mind is a cheap political trick.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Between 1983 to 1990 19.9 million jobs were created. How many of them were created due to government spending?

Extremely difficult to tell. I can say this though, the increase in debt that happened under Reagan was almost entirely spent in this country. We weren't running around invading countries during that time, so those trillions were spent here. That's, you know, stimulus spending. And that causes, you know, companies to expand.

 

[Google]

What is your alternative explanation for the prolonged growth and economic prosperity that occurred under Reagan's watch?

Simple, deficit spending. Reagan tripled the national debt during his presidency. That money was injected into the economy which would explain the rise in GDP.

Of course, I would still not say that resulted in all boats rising, which clearly didn't happen. Minimum wage was never raised under Reagan. The number living in poverty went up by a couple million. Share of total income for the bottom earners fell as a percentage of the total, and rose for those at the top.

Just because we had a good economy does NOT in any way prove that "trickle down" worked.

You obviously know more than the CEO's of America that are demanding deficit spending and debt be brought under control.

"I am asking that all of us forgo political contributions until the Congress and the president return to Washington and deliver a fiscally disciplined long-term debt and deficit plan to the American people," Starbucks CEO (Starbucks CEO Asks Business Leaders To Temporarily Boycott Political Donations)

They are all wrong, right? What we need to do, especially after the credit downgrade, is to double down in deficit spending. What drugs are you on?

 

[uscitizen]

continued defecit spending combined with eternally artificially low interest rate has rendered stimulus spending pretty much impotent.

they used to drop the interest rate during a resceeion to stimulate lending and spending.
How can you drop it from close to 0?

the low interest rate and high govt spending has been propping up the economy for at least a decade.

 

[Google]

Between 1983 to 1990 19.9 million jobs were created. How many of them were created due to government spending?

Extremely difficult to tell. I can say this though, the increase in debt that happened under Reagan was almost entirely spent in this country. We weren't running around invading countries during that time, so those trillions were spent here. That's, you know, stimulus spending. And that causes, you know, companies to expand.

So you believe all economic growth is a result of government spending? Do you understand where the government derives its revenues from?

Hard to tell

 

[uscitizen]

Between 1983 to 1990 19.9 million jobs were created. How many of them were created due to government spending?

Extremely difficult to tell. I can say this though, the increase in debt that happened under Reagan was almost entirely spent in this country. We weren't running around invading countries during that time, so those trillions were spent here. That's, you know, stimulus spending. And that causes, you know, companies to expand.

So you believe all economic growth is a result of government spending? Do you understand where the government derives its revenues from?

Hard to tell

Umm credit? Thin air?
Of course all we have had for the last decade has been false growth.
Had it been real it would not have evaporated so quickly.



Money created from thin air and pumped into the economy has to appear to make the economy grow.

 

[Google]

Extremely difficult to tell. I can say this though, the increase in debt that happened under Reagan was almost entirely spent in this country. We weren't running around invading countries during that time, so those trillions were spent here. That's, you know, stimulus spending. And that causes, you know, companies to expand.

So you believe all economic growth is a result of government spending? Do you understand where the government derives its revenues from?

Hard to tell

Umm credit? Thin air?

So your answer is: No, I do not understand where the government derives its revenues from.

 

[uscitizen]

So you believe all economic growth is a result of government spending? Do you understand where the government derives its revenues from?

Hard to tell

Umm credit? Thin air?

So your answer is: No, I do not understand where the government derives its revenues from.

Ohh I know where it gets it's real money from. It's creative bookkeeping money now is another matter. It never was really there in the first place.

 

[DontBeStupid]

So you believe all economic growth is a result of government spending? Do you understand where the government derives its revenues from?

Hard to tell

What? I never said that. Didn't say anything close to it. Why are you making up stuff and then arguing with yourself?

Do you understand that we can borrow from outside the country and inject funds into our economy at very low interest rates?

 

[rdean]

Do you dispute any of these facts? Where are the results from this president's numerous legislative accomplishments?!?!?

In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent.13 To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd.

The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.

This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.

Oh please. You mention 1950. When was Eisenhower in office? The last Republican president to leave office with a balanced budget. Of course, his taxes were more than 90% on the wealthiest Americans. Oops.

Listening right wingers talk economics is like listening to right wingers talk science. Or civil rights. Or music. Or art. Or literature. Or education. You might as well be listening to a dog bark for all the sense they make.

That is your response? Where did I mention Eisenhower in that quote. The answer is nowhere.

You make it too easy.

You said, "From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year." in post 63.

Then I said, "Oh please. You mention 1950. When was Eisenhower in office? The last Republican president to leave office with a balanced budget. Of course, his taxes were more than 90% on the wealthiest Americans."

The "operative number being 1950".

Which is why I asked the question, "When was Eisenhower in office?"

Which, by the way is, "January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961"

Look at that "economic growth" averaging 3.6%. During the time of the highest taxes. Oops.

Like I said, you might as well be listening to a dog bark for all the sense they make. Check this out. Tell me this makes less sense than Republicans talking economics.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6E_CYO2tyk&feature]Bad Chihuahua - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Google]

So you believe all economic growth is a result of government spending? Do you understand where the government derives its revenues from?

Hard to tell

What? I never said that. Didn't say anything close to it. Why are you making up stuff and then arguing with yourself?

Do you understand that we can borrow from outside the country and inject funds into our economy at very low interest rates?

Really, nothing close to it? I stated the economic facts under Reagan, to which you responded that it wasn't his policies, but the deficit that was responsible for that economic growth. Not close

 

[Google]

Oh please. You mention 1950. When was Eisenhower in office? The last Republican president to leave office with a balanced budget. Of course, his taxes were more than 90% on the wealthiest Americans. Oops.

Listening right wingers talk economics is like listening to right wingers talk science. Or civil rights. Or music. Or art. Or literature. Or education. You might as well be listening to a dog bark for all the sense they make.

That is your response? Where did I mention Eisenhower in that quote. The answer is nowhere.

You make it too easy.

You said, "From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year." in post 63.

Then I said, "Oh please. You mention 1950. When was Eisenhower in office? The last Republican president to leave office with a balanced budget. Of course, his taxes were more than 90% on the wealthiest Americans."

The "operative number being 1950".

Which is why I asked the question, "When was Eisenhower in office?"

Which, by the way is, "January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961"


Look at that "economic growth" averaging 3.6%. During the time of the highest taxes. Oops.

Like I said, you might as well be listening to a dog bark for all the sense they make. Check this out. Tell me this makes less sense than Republicans talking economics.
]

You just quoted the wrong post. So, do you believe raising the highest tax rate to 90% would create economic growth?

 

[uscitizen]

The truth is that for some any taxes are too much.
They will just not come right out and say that. the wannabe freeloaders.

Taxes are for the pheasants to pay, the elite just grouse about them.
I say the whole deal is fowl.

 

[Google]

The truth is that for some any taxes are too much.
They will just not come right out and say that. the wannabe freeloaders.

51% of Americans pay no income taxes. Where is the fairness?

 

[rdean]

That is your response? Where did I mention Eisenhower in that quote. The answer is nowhere.

You make it too easy.

You said, "From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year." in post 63.

Then I said, "Oh please. You mention 1950. When was Eisenhower in office? The last Republican president to leave office with a balanced budget. Of course, his taxes were more than 90% on the wealthiest Americans."

The "operative number being 1950".

Which is why I asked the question, "When was Eisenhower in office?"

Which, by the way is, "January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961"


Look at that "economic growth" averaging 3.6%. During the time of the highest taxes. Oops.

Like I said, you might as well be listening to a dog bark for all the sense they make. Check this out. Tell me this makes less sense than Republicans talking economics.
]

You just quoted the wrong post. So, do you believe raising the highest tax rate to 90% would create economic growth?

I quoted your post. I even listed the number. #63

Bark
Bark
Bark
rooff
rooff
growl
whine
burp
yawn

See? The same amount of sense.

 

[rdean]

The truth is that for some any taxes are too much.
They will just not come right out and say that. the wannabe freeloaders.

51% of Americans pay no income taxes. Where is the fairness?

10% of Americans buy our politicians. Now those politicians are cancelling town halls or charging money to anyone who want's to ask them a question. Where is the fairness?

Why are you defending people who would gladly spit in your face? You aren't a millionaire. Here's a dollar. Go park my Rolls.

 

[uscitizen]

Had some of you listened to me before the recession began you would not have lost your ass in the market.
Or bought a overpriced home that is now upside down.
etc...