Has Trickle Down Economics Failed?

[KissMy]

I just know you would have risk everything like he did. Elon did the actual work of creating these products instead of having one of your pot induced hallucinations. He is a job creator. You are a job sponge & a taker. If you want to tax the hoarders, that is fine with me, but not the innovators & jobs creators who are the backbone of this country & the ones who provide for you.

You are truly out of your mind. Working people more than earn what we get. Nobody 'provides' for us. If workers were actually paid in accordance with their true value they could start businesses. The wealthy have eliminated opportunity.

There were a rare few people that made a fortune from the internet boom - but they don't begin to deserve the amounts of money that they made. Not relative to the value of all other work that's being done.

The fact is that the human race did just fine without computers or the internet. But without ditch diggers we'd all be dead.

Which has more value?

What is the "true value" of labor?

Takers like Richard-H believe that NASA should continue to get $20 billion a year so their cronies can continue to suck us dry. Elon Musk replaced NASA's crucial function for only $1.6 billion. Just because someone got paid to do a job in the 60's does not mean we must continue to pay them many times more for the rest of their life.

This plays out in every unionized government agency. Government employees work their 20 year career for $50k or less but once they retire we have to pay them triple.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I won't say it failed.

I will say it has never been proven to work.

Which, of course, is why when you ease the burden on the people economic growth skyrockets. Because it never works.

Ease the burden? Have you looked at the stats for people in the 1980s? And not the upper class people. Minimum wage never went up under Reagan. Millions were added to the ranks of poverty. With regards to income distribution, the rich ended with a higher percentage than they started and the poor ended with a lower percentage.

How does any of that ease someone's burden?

This is why we say trickle down didn't work or has never been proven to work. The whole point of the theory was that if you make life great and easy for the wealthy, that money will flow down to everyone. That didn't happen, clearly, and those of us who have studied economics know it will NEVER happen. Not here at least.

The supply-siders grande experiment failed.

 

[uscitizen]

The supply-siders grande experiment failed.

au contrare, it worked exactly as plannned by and for the supply siders.

 

[DontBeStupid]

The supply-siders grande experiment failed.

au contrare, it worked exactly as plannned by and for the supply siders.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Oldstyle]

So what's working now?

You complain that minimum wage didn't go up but at least people had jobs.

 

[DontBeStupid]

So what's working now?

You complain that minimum wage didn't go up but at least people had jobs.

And those jobs were being paid less and less, as evidenced by the growing percentage of income going to the wealthy.

Having a job that doesn't pay you enough to pay your bills or having no job at all? Gee. Is there a difference?

 

[BoycottTheday]

The only thing trickling now is poverty and it moving on up big time.

*

 

[Oldstyle]

So what's working now?

You complain that minimum wage didn't go up but at least people had jobs.

And those jobs were being paid less and less, as evidenced by the growing percentage of income going to the wealthy.

Having a job that doesn't pay you enough to pay your bills or having no job at all? Gee. Is there a difference?

There's a huge difference...when people are working we're not supporting them with unemployment checks and food stamps. Having a job gives people hope. Having no job not only depresses the person who is out of work but scares his or her neighbor who IS working so much that they alter their spending habits.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So what's working now?

You complain that minimum wage didn't go up but at least people had jobs.

And those jobs were being paid less and less, as evidenced by the growing percentage of income going to the wealthy.

Having a job that doesn't pay you enough to pay your bills or having no job at all? Gee. Is there a difference?

Ahhh, I love the smell of the Zero Sum Fallacy in the morning, smells like......fail!

 

[Urkie]

Because ending Glass-Steagall allowed banks to write mortgages for the first time?
LOL!
I love it when liberals repeat talking points with absolutely zero understanding.
Please explain how Glass-Steagall would have prevented the crisis.

Well then why don't you explain to me what the Glass-Steagall Act did? I don't think you understand based on your comments.

It is important to know because if you understand what it actually did, then you would realize its repeal definitely was one of the biggest reasons the crisis happened.

You go first Sparky.

Fine, I'll go first then. Glass-Steagall basically put a wall between commercial banks and investment banks. To keep it simple, it basically kept banks from doing business on Wall Street.

When the act was repealed, it allowed those 2 types of banks to merge and do business together. Commercial banks started to issue more loans because investment banks could take on all the risk and they took on this risk because they made tons of money on the fees from selling off their securities (bundled home loans in this case). Both sides would win as long as the price of housing went up.

They created a situation where they could manipulate home loans to make more money at the expense of the loan holders. In other words, they could gamble with someone's mortgage. If Glass Steagall had been there, then these banks would not have been able to take on so much risk.

So now you tell me why Glass-Steagall being repealed was not one of the reasons for the financial collapse?

 

[DontBeStupid]

So what's working now?

You complain that minimum wage didn't go up but at least people had jobs.

And those jobs were being paid less and less, as evidenced by the growing percentage of income going to the wealthy.

Having a job that doesn't pay you enough to pay your bills or having no job at all? Gee. Is there a difference?

Ahhh, I love the smell of the Zero Sum Fallacy in the morning, smells like......fail!

If you had taken 3 seconds to actually look up some facts, you would see I am correct.

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The number of Americans below the poverty level increased from 29.272 million in 1980 to 31.745 million in 1988"

"The share of total income going to the 5% highest-income households grew from 16.5% in 1980 to 18.3% in 1988 and the share of the highest fifth increased from 44.1% to 46.3% in same years. In contrast, the share of total income of the lowest fifth fell from 4.2% in 1980 to 3.8% in 1988 and the second poorest fifth from 10.2% to 9.6%."

 

[Google]

And those jobs were being paid less and less, as evidenced by the growing percentage of income going to the wealthy.

Having a job that doesn't pay you enough to pay your bills or having no job at all? Gee. Is there a difference?

Ahhh, I love the smell of the Zero Sum Fallacy in the morning, smells like......fail!

If you had taken 3 seconds to actually look up some facts, you would see I am correct.

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The number of Americans below the poverty level increased from 29.272 million in 1980 to 31.745 million in 1988"

"The share of total income going to the 5% highest-income households grew from 16.5% in 1980 to 18.3% in 1988 and the share of the highest fifth increased from 44.1% to 46.3% in same years. In contrast, the share of total income of the lowest fifth fell from 4.2% in 1980 to 3.8% in 1988 and the second poorest fifth from 10.2% to 9.6%."

Your manipulation of the facts is so transparent. But that information isn't because of Reaganomics, you leftists just put up economic facts that happened under Reagan and just say it was his fault without actually showing how!!!

 

[DontBeStupid]

Your manipulation of the facts is so transparent. But that information isn't because of Reaganomics, you leftists just put up economic facts that happened under Reagan and just say it was his fault without actually showing how!!!

How did I manipulate the facts? Are you claiming those events did not happen?

And if you actually read my posts, you would see I don't blame Reagan for causing any of that to happen. But it happened. During his Presidency. While "trickle down" was supposedly lifting all boats. If all boats were rising, then how do you explain a LARGE number that weren't?

 

[Google]

Your manipulation of the facts is so transparent. But that information isn't because of Reaganomics, you leftists just put up economic facts that happened under Reagan and just say it was his fault without actually showing how!!!

How did I manipulate the facts? Are you claiming those events did not happen?

And if you actually read my posts, you would see I don't blame Reagan for causing any of that to happen. But it happened. During his Presidency. While "trickle down" was supposedly lifting all boats. If all boats were rising, then how do you explain a LARGE number that weren't?

Reagan also gave amnesty to 3 million Mexican immigrants who were already here laboring under the poverty line. That one simple fact negates the number of Americans that increased under the poverty line. A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants : NPR


But I already shared the economic facts under Reagan, and you said again and again that just because the economy roared, its a fact sorry, that it wasn't because of Reagan's policies. You believe it was because of government deficit spending.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Reagan also gave amnesty to 3 million Mexican immigrants who were already here laboring under the poverty line. That one simple fact negates the number of Americans that increased under the poverty line.

Look out now! You just presented an opinion and supported it with fact! Be careful. That might become contagious!

But I already shared the economic facts under Reagan, and you said again and again that just because the economy roared, its a fact sorry, that it wasn't because of Reagan's policies. You believe it was because of government deficit spending.

I wouldn't say the economy roared, but it did well. And yes, I believe it was due to deficit spending. You believe it was trickle down. You have so far provided zero evidence to support your opinion that trickle down caused the economic expansion. And, you have also provided zero evidence that anything trickled down to the lower incomes. Which I would love to see you talk about, since there are proven facts that the lower incomes got worse under Reagan.

 

[Google]

Reagan also gave amnesty to 3 million Mexican immigrants who were already here laboring under the poverty line. That one simple fact negates the number of Americans that increased under the poverty line.

Look out now! You just presented an opinion and supported it with fact! Be careful. That might become contagious!

But I already shared the economic facts under Reagan, and you said again and again that just because the economy roared, its a fact sorry, that it wasn't because of Reagan's policies. You believe it was because of government deficit spending.

I wouldn't say the economy roared, but it did well. And yes, I believe it was due to deficit spending. You believe it was trickle down. You have so far provided zero evidence to support your opinion that trickle down caused the economic expansion. And, you have also provided zero evidence that anything trickled down to the lower incomes. Which I would love to see you talk about, since there are proven facts that the lower incomes got worse under Reagan.

Please, I implore you to look at all of my posts on this thread. I stated the economic facts, FACTS, and asked if anyone disagreed. No one did I was just ridiculed and told that the economic consequences after a policy is put into place doesn't matter.

The Reagan administration put its' 'trickle down' economic policies in place. I say the results speak for themselves.

12,000,000 jobs were created between 1981-1988. Show me the evidence that government spending and not Reagan's policies were the driving factor.

 

[Google]

And after inheriting a dismal economy from Carter, Reagan never bemoaned how unfair it was that Carter screwed everything up.

DontBeStupid, instead of rehashing the old tired debate of the 80's, perhaps you should be more concerned at the economic policies the CURRENT president has put in place. Reagan isn't on the ticket in 2012, unfortunately, and an astonishing 11% of Americans' are satisfied with the direction Obama is taking this country. Americans' Satisfaction With National Conditions Dips to 11%

 

[Oldstyle]

Reagan also gave amnesty to 3 million Mexican immigrants who were already here laboring under the poverty line. That one simple fact negates the number of Americans that increased under the poverty line.

Look out now! You just presented an opinion and supported it with fact! Be careful. That might become contagious!

But I already shared the economic facts under Reagan, and you said again and again that just because the economy roared, its a fact sorry, that it wasn't because of Reagan's policies. You believe it was because of government deficit spending.

I wouldn't say the economy roared, but it did well. And yes, I believe it was due to deficit spending. You believe it was trickle down. You have so far provided zero evidence to support your opinion that trickle down caused the economic expansion. And, you have also provided zero evidence that anything trickled down to the lower incomes. Which I would love to see you talk about, since there are proven facts that the lower incomes got worse under Reagan.

If it were just deficit spending that made the economy roar under Reagan then wouldn't it be REALLY roaring now? Kind of a silly argument you're making there.

 

[Google]

Reagan also gave amnesty to 3 million Mexican immigrants who were already here laboring under the poverty line. That one simple fact negates the number of Americans that increased under the poverty line.

Look out now! You just presented an opinion and supported it with fact! Be careful. That might become contagious!

But I already shared the economic facts under Reagan, and you said again and again that just because the economy roared, its a fact sorry, that it wasn't because of Reagan's policies. You believe it was because of government deficit spending.

I wouldn't say the economy roared, but it did well. And yes, I believe it was due to deficit spending. You believe it was trickle down. You have so far provided zero evidence to support your opinion that trickle down caused the economic expansion. And, you have also provided zero evidence that anything trickled down to the lower incomes. Which I would love to see you talk about, since there are proven facts that the lower incomes got worse under Reagan.

If it were just deficit spending that made the economy roar under Reagan then wouldn't it be REALLY roaring now? Kind of a silly argument you're making there.

Exactly, if deficit spending is beneficial to economic growth, the economy should be booming.

The left is so illogical, it doesn't take much to figure out there isn't anything behind it.

It is no wonder why they would rather focus on Reagan than the present.

 

[Oldstyle]

Look out now! You just presented an opinion and supported it with fact! Be careful. That might become contagious!



I wouldn't say the economy roared, but it did well. And yes, I believe it was due to deficit spending. You believe it was trickle down. You have so far provided zero evidence to support your opinion that trickle down caused the economic expansion. And, you have also provided zero evidence that anything trickled down to the lower incomes. Which I would love to see you talk about, since there are proven facts that the lower incomes got worse under Reagan.

If it were just deficit spending that made the economy roar under Reagan then wouldn't it be REALLY roaring now? Kind of a silly argument you're making there.

Exactly, if deficit spending is beneficial to economic growth, the economy should be booming.

The left is so illogical, it doesn't take much to figure out there isn't anything behind it.

It is no wonder why they would rather focus on Reagan than the present.

It's hard to fathom how a group of people who for so long complained about how THEY had a better way can turn out to have so few ideas once they took power. Another four years of Obama might be the death knell of the Progressive movement.