Supply side/Trickle down: Where's the money?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Giving $1 more to the upper class does not mean $1 reaches the poor,

this is true its more like $500 reaches the poor. Remember, Henry Ford only got $1.49 per car while the poor or middle class person who bought it got a $500 car.

And this does not even mention that the poor get free health care education and trillion in welfare none of which they could invent themselves or pay for in a million years. It all comes from the top 1% and trickles or floods down to the poor.

 

[Rshermr]

the ratio of wealth given to upper class and wealth received by lower/middle classes is very unbalanced.

Dear, if you want to earn $one billion you must sell $100 billion to lower and middle class. That is unbalanced just not in the assbackwards liberal sense of the word.

What I mean is there isn't a 1:1 ratio. Giving $1 more to the upper class does not mean $1 reaches the poor, or if it does, there's thousands of poor for every rich person receiving the $1, which means each poor person would get $0.001. (These aren't supposed to be exact numbers, just estimates to play with.)

This link takes you to a source that has studied where the money has gone.
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

It explains that the upper 1% of income earners have been getting 93% of income growth. And why, and how. And what it has done to income inequality.

Nice substantive article that is a welcome change to the propaganda coming from the right wingers.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The goal of oligarchs and gilded aristocrats is power. Power comes from control, and money gives them control of workers. (Workers are, in reality, the entire source of any nation's wealth. They are extremely powerful--but unorganized.)

American oligarchs and gilded aristocrats use the political ideology of the Republican Party to acquire a voting base of religious fundamentalists, right wing "libertarians," nationalists, racists, and other anti-government organizations to push their agenda. In a nutshell, this "supply side economics" agenda provides an excuse for tax policies that favor non-labor wealth over the working class. In fact, there is no evidence whatever--or whenever--that "supply side" economics has ever worked. In fact, it tends to shatter economies--going back to the days of the French revolution, an era and a place when brave workers rose up and demanded economic justice.

American workers are very tamed and controlled compared to most of the world (except, perhaps, the Chinese). We have a heritage of slavery that somewhat defines the working conditions in America.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner!
The dumbest statement of the month!!

 

[Rshermr]

The goal of oligarchs and gilded aristocrats is power. Power comes from control, and money gives them control of workers. (Workers are, in reality, the entire source of any nation's wealth. They are extremely powerful--but unorganized.)

American oligarchs and gilded aristocrats use the political ideology of the Republican Party to acquire a voting base of religious fundamentalists, right wing "libertarians," nationalists, racists, and other anti-government organizations to push their agenda. In a nutshell, this "supply side economics" agenda provides an excuse for tax policies that favor non-labor wealth over the working class. In fact, there is no evidence whatever--or whenever--that "supply side" economics has ever worked. In fact, it tends to shatter economies--going back to the days of the French revolution, an era and a place when brave workers rose up and demanded economic justice.

American workers are very tamed and controlled compared to most of the world (except, perhaps, the Chinese). We have a heritage of slavery that somewhat defines the working conditions in America.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner!
The dumbest statement of the month!!

Was that ding noise coming from something loose in your head? Do you ever, ever, ever have anything with actual facts behind what you say? Jesus, what a waste of space.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It explains that the upper 1% of income earners have been getting 93% of income growth. And why, and how. And what it has done to income inequality.

Nice substantive article that is a welcome change to the propaganda coming from the right wingers.

these numbers are always goofy and wrong!!

1) if the bottom 99% can buy all the latest innovations like jet travel, plazma TV, and smart phones it proves their standard of living is going way way up, regardless of quibbling over nominal versus real income.

2) in fact a poor man today is far better off than a rich man just 50 years ago. This is because of the distributive beauty of capitalism. For example, for Bill Gates to give one billion to charity he must sell $100 billion in software to the 99%

3) those supposed inequality numbers don't count the money Gates, Buffett, Jobs, Turner and the rest give back as charity in the end to the 99%, so income inequality is really non-existent as long as they don't burn the money.

4) also the numbers do not include savings. The top 1% save a lot, savings =investment and so 100% of economic growth from which the bottom 99% profit handsomely come from those who save


5)Then, consider the case of a retired couple who own their home outright and who live off of savings. Clearly, their income will not reflect their tremendous material well-being they enjoy.


6) Lastly, the income of the 99% does not count trillions and trillions in entitlements

Recently, Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, testified before the House Budget Committee on the growth of the 10-largest “means tested” federal programs that serve people who qualify by various definitions of poverty.


Here’s what Haskins reported: From 1980 to 2011, annual spending on these programs grew from $126 billion to $626 billion (all figures in inflation-adjusted “2011 dollars” dividing this by the number of people below the government poverty line, spending went from $4,300 per poor person in 1980 to $13,000 in 2011. In 1962, spending per person in poverty was $516.


Haskins’s list includes Medicaid, food stamps (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP), the earned-income tax credit (a wage subsidy for some low-income workers), and Pell Grants. There are other, smaller programs dedicated to the poor. A report from the Congressional Research Service estimated the total number at 83; Haskins puts the additional spending on programs below the 10 largest at about $210 billion. The total of all programs for the poor exceeds $800 billion.

To be sure, some spending reflects the effects of the Great Recession. But most doesn’t. As Haskins shows, spending on the poor has increased steadily for decades. Consider food stamps. There are now about 45 million Americans receiving an average of $287 a month in food stamps, up from 26 million in 2007, according to a new Congressional Budget Office report. But the number in 2007, when the economy was healthy, was roughly 50 percent higher than in 2001.

And programs for the poor pale beside middle-class transfers. The giants here are Social Security at $725 billion in 2011 and Medicare at $560 billion. Combine all this spending -- programs for the poor, Social Security and Medicare — and the total is nearly $2.1 trillion. That was about 60 percent of 2011 non-interest federal spending of $3.4 trillion.

 

[wjmacguffin]

Giving $1 more to the upper class does not mean $1 reaches the poor,

this is true its more like $500 reaches the poor .

That gave my brain cancer.

There is no way for $1 to magically change into $500 (unless we're talking about a long-term, lucky investment, which we're not). If that were true, the poor wouldn't be poor.

 

[wjmacguffin]

1) if the bottom 99% can buy all the latest innovations like jet travel, plazma TV, and smart phones it proves their standard of living is going way way up, regardless of quibbling over nominal versus real income.

That's not the argument nor question. (And wrong--since 2007, US standard of living has fallen due to the recession.) The question is this: If trickle-down works, why haven't the poor and middle classes benefited as much as the rich in recent years?

2) in fact a poor man today is far better off than a rich man just 50 years ago. This is because of the distributive beauty of capitalism. For example, for Bill Gates to give one billion to charity he must sell $100 billion in software to the 99%

Bullcrap. A rich man in 1963 never had to worry about how to feed his children. This statement is just dumb.

3) those supposed inequality numbers don't count the money Gates, Buffett, Jobs, Turner and the rest give back as charity in the end to the 99%, so income inequality is really non-existent as long as they don't burn the money.

Ha! You're actually arguing that income inequality doesn't exist because a few billionaires give to charity? Then why are there millions of Americans living in ghettos, needing gov't handouts to survive? Why aren't they buying mansions and jetting to Ibiza?

4) also the numbers do not include savings. The top 1% save a lot, savings =investment and so 100% of economic growth from which the bottom 99% profit handsomely come from those who save

Savings does equal investments, and I agree that because the rich have more savings, they are responsible for banks having more money to loan and invest. But saying the 99% "profit handsomely" is insane. They get a benefit, I don't doubt that--and like I said earlier, wealth does trickle down from the top. But tax cuts to the wealthy does not spur economic growth--that's been proven--so you cannot say the poor are profiting handsomely.

5)Then, consider the case of a retired couple who own their home outright and who live off of savings. Clearly, their income will not reflect their tremendous material well-being they enjoy.

My God, do you even know how people live? How many retired couples have tremendous material well-being? Just the rich.

6) Lastly, the income of the 99% does not count trillions and trillions in entitlements

Yes it does, at least it does in most measures of income that I have seen.

It must be nice to live in a fantasy world like yours. According to your logic, the poor in this country have nothing to worry about! They can buy anything they want! They have a smartphone, so that means they're rich too!

As I said above, cutting taxes for the rich to spur economic growth has been debunked. I'm trying to understand why--where does the rich's money go to if it's not reaching the poor in a significant amount. (Please note "significant amount".) So far, it seems that the money (from both rich individuals and rich businesses) is mostly in banks and investments while some--a paltry amount--continues to trickle down as always.

 

[Rshermr]

1) if the bottom 99% can buy all the latest innovations like jet travel, plazma TV, and smart phones it proves their standard of living is going way way up, regardless of quibbling over nominal versus real income.

That's not the argument nor question. (And wrong--since 2007, US standard of living has fallen due to the recession.) The question is this: If trickle-down works, why haven't the poor and middle classes benefited as much as the rich in recent years?

2) in fact a poor man today is far better off than a rich man just 50 years ago. This is because of the distributive beauty of capitalism. For example, for Bill Gates to give one billion to charity he must sell $100 billion in software to the 99%

Bullcrap. A rich man in 1963 never had to worry about how to feed his children. This statement is just dumb.

Ha! You're actually arguing that income inequality doesn't exist because a few billionaires give to charity? Then why are there millions of Americans living in ghettos, needing gov't handouts to survive? Why aren't they buying mansions and jetting to Ibiza?

Savings does equal investments, and I agree that because the rich have more savings, they are responsible for banks having more money to loan and invest. But saying the 99% "profit handsomely" is insane. They get a benefit, I don't doubt that--and like I said earlier, wealth does trickle down from the top. But tax cuts to the wealthy does not spur economic growth--that's been proven--so you cannot say the poor are profiting handsomely.

5)Then, consider the case of a retired couple who own their home outright and who live off of savings. Clearly, their income will not reflect their tremendous material well-being they enjoy.

My God, do you even know how people live? How many retired couples have tremendous material well-being? Just the rich.

6) Lastly, the income of the 99% does not count trillions and trillions in entitlements

Yes it does, at least it does in most measures of income that I have seen.

It must be nice to live in a fantasy world like yours. According to your logic, the poor in this country have nothing to worry about! They can buy anything they want! They have a smartphone, so that means they're rich too!

As I said above, cutting taxes for the rich to spur economic growth has been debunked. I'm trying to understand why--where does the rich's money go to if it's not reaching the poor in a significant amount. (Please note "significant amount".) So far, it seems that the money (from both rich individuals and rich businesses) is mostly in banks and investments while some--a paltry amount--continues to trickle down as always.

Ed just post drivel, usually loosely connected to conservative dogma.
The net was shown in the study that I provided showing that 93% of revenue gains went to the upper 1%. Ed, of course, dismisses that study, and suggests that we should listen to him. Odd. Believe a serious study of the subject, or Ed, the mental midget and con tool. Which is just plain funny.
Now, you could simply bypass all of the studies, and look at the % of wealth owned by the upper 1% compared to the rest of us. And wonder why the poverty class has grown, but the middle class has decreased over the past 35 years or so. But that is too rational. Ed prefers to post conservative dogma. Because he is a con tool. And he is paid to post the con dogma that he posts.
One should never take Ed seriously. Simpler to just ignore him. Those with a brain already know he is a tool, and the rest are con tools themselves. Rational thought is not a tool in their bag.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That gave my brain cancer.

because a liberal will simply not have the IQ to understand capitalism. Sad but true.

There is no way for $1 to magically change into $500 (unless we're talking about a long-term, lucky investment, which we're not).

dear, when a car was sold Henry Ford got $1.49 and the buyer $1000 in wealth, a car, he never would have had with out the supply side genius of Henry Ford. We all should thank God every day that Ford had the supply side capital to start his company(something evil and ignorant Democrats would happily tax away) because for every dollar he got, his customers, many of whom were poor, got $500. Such is the pure distributive beauty of capitalism.

I heard Jeff Bezos ( Amazon founder worth many billions) on Charlie Rose say the most imortant $25,000 in his life was the $25,000 he needed, but could not find, to found the company. Every time billions of folks all over the world avoid gas, time,trouble, and expense, to buy a book or something we can all thank God libturds did not tax away the venture capital Bezos needed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If that were true, the poor wouldn't be poor.

dear, todays poor are rich!!


The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from a variety of government reports:

46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100-percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But, even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have “enough” food to eat, while only two percent say they “often” do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR, or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all of the nation’s poor: There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. A third of “poor” households have both cell and land-line telephones. A third also telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, approximately one-tenth of families in poverty have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

Much official poverty that does exist in the United States can be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and their fathers are absent from the home.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If trickle-down works, why haven't the poor and middle classes benefited as much as the rich in recent years?

Too stupid but 1000% liberal !!Jobs, Gates, Bezos, and Ellison create life and our standard of living with their inventions so should benefit more. Would you want the best basketball player to get the same pay as the worst when folks naturally want to appreciate and pay to see the very best?

Now you can perhaps see why we say a liberal will simply lack the IQ to understand capitalism?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Bullcrap. A rich man in 1963 never had to worry about how to feed his children. This statement is just dumb.

dear, today, thanks to the distributive beauty of capitalism a poor person has state of the art life saving medical care than a rich man could not find in 1960, he has an Iphone , LCD TV, jet travel, air conditioning, GPS, etcetc all of which were unavailable in 1960 to the rich.

Therefore thanks to the beauty of distributive capitalism our policy toward the poor should be to help them with trickle down, really flood down, capitalism. Could anybody say that crippling near genocidal liberal welfare programs help the poor the way supply side capitalism does????????

 

[Papageorgio]

Imam having trouble why liberals are having issues with companies hold on to their profits and not reinvesting.

In 2008, Liberals were pissed companies for over extending themselves and getting into trouble by not having the cash stored up and having risky investing. Microsoft was a beacon because of their huge cash reserves.

Now, the liberals are pissed off for holding on to their cash and being prudent about investing.

I am looking into buying a business and I will tell you, the changes in tax laws, in health care and other areas have me very reluctant to pull the trigger. Owning and operating a business is not easy. The stakes are high and the reward is low.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ha! You're actually arguing that income inequality doesn't exist because a few billionaires give to charity?

dear, they all sign the pledge and they all give. A few don't but if they divide it among family at death it soon is lost or squandered anyway just as it would be if the liberals stole it.

Then why are there millions of Americans living in ghettos, needing gov't handouts to survive? Why aren't they buying mansions and jetting to Ibiza?

Dear, top 1% have net worth of only $16 million per household. If libturds stole all that money they could give $128,000 to each household in America. Not enough to buy mansions on Ibiza. Sorry!!

Plus, if you stole all that money the rich might not bother to earn it back again if libturds were only going to steal it. Sorry

Plus, 61% of that 16 million is in business ownership so the entire economy would collapse if you tried to sell all those businesses for a one shot crippling welfare hand out.

Plus, if you figure Federal state and local governemt already spends
5 trillion a year to help the poor thats $200,000 for each poor family each year if you figure 25% of families are poor!! You can easily see the only real governemnt role is to cripple familes to create a dependent voting block, not help them!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But tax cuts to the wealthy does not spur economic growth--that's been proven--so you cannot say the poor are profiting handsomely.

simplest example but even that a liberal cant understand:

In venture capital we talk about shots on goal. The more shots we take the more successes like Apple Google Intel Amazon and Facebook we will have. If libturds raise taxes on capital gains they are raising taxes on venture capital and reducing the shots on goal we can take.

Still over a liberals head -right??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It must be nice to live in a fantasy world like yours. According to your logic, the poor in this country have nothing to worry about! They can buy anything they want! They have a smartphone, so that means they're rich too!

dear, not just a smart phones etc etc etc but they get free state of the art health care, free education, and free housing. Ask 2 billion poor in China India and Africa how'd they like to be that poor! or ask average Americans 100 years ago if they like to be that poor!!

See why we are 1000% positive a liberal will be very very slow!!



[/QUOTE]

 

[kiwiman127]

This[supply side economics] all makes logical sense. Yet, when you look at recent data, taxes on the wealthy were lowered (Bush tax cuts), giving job creators more money. But unemployment rose afterwards

too stupid!!!!! and perfectly 100% liberal. Dear, there are other variables like a massive housing recession, the worst since the Great Depression!!! Did you hear about it??? Did you hear about out- sourcing job creation in China and India???? Did you hear we have a communist president who voted to the left of Bernie Sanders and passed Obamacare???? Did you hear we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world??

See why we are 100% sure a liberal will be slow, so very very slow? Sorry!!

If one looks back to right after Capital Gains/Dividend taxes decreases, about as many jobs were created offshore compared with the domestic job creation. In real terms outsourcing jobs started to jell in the 1980s.
Here's a link, why don't educated yourself or you could continue being a hand puppet,,,,it's your choice.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32461.pdf

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

DISCLAIMER: Yes, I consider myself a liberal. But I also consider myself independent and this post is an honest quest for understanding. Trolls need not apply.

Trickle down theory--the idea that cutting taxes for businesses and upper-middle to rich folks, or the "job makers", will lead to economic growth and wealth "trickling down" to the lower class--seems to make sense. If the people who make business decisions have more money, they will be more likely to expand their business, thereby generating more work and wages in general. It's logical!

Today, there's plenty of signs that the job makers are doing significantly better: Dow is at record highs, business profits are up, etc. Yet wages for the average worker are stagnant. The Bush II tax cuts didn't improve the economy, at least not in the short run, and helped spur record deficits. (Not cause, but help.) The gap between the poor and the rich has widened.

So here's my question: Where is the money?

Again, I mean that sincerely. If supply side is real, money should be trickling down to the workers--but it's not. That said, the money has to be somewhere! Are the job makers hording cash in banks? Overseas investments? What???

You have a bad definition, try this one.


Supply-side economics emphasizes economic growth achieved by tax and fiscal policy that creates incentives to produce goods and services. In particular, supply-side economics has focused primarily on lowering marginal tax rates with the purpose of increasing the after-tax rate of return from work and investment, which result in increases in supply.

Supply Side Economics Emphasizes Economic Growth

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Here's a link, why don't educated yourself

about what exactly????????? you clean forgot to say?????

 

[kiwiman127]

Here's a link, why don't educated yourself

about what exactly????????? you clean forgot to say?????

Outsourcing jobs overseas. Try to keep up.