Trickle-down wealth--A myth adhered to by BOTH parties

[The Rabbi]

"Trickle-down" economics is the greatest economic policy failure in our history. If "trickle-down" works, why has what followed been the highest income inequality and wealth inequality since the Great Depression? In the 1990s, economic growth averaged 3.8% a year--the strongest in 30 years; 23 million jobs were created, unemployment fell to its lowest in 30 years; and record budget deficits turned into record surpluses. And this occurred after tax increases on the wealthy in 1990 and 1993.

You still have not defined what "tricle down " economics is. Probably because you can't.
And yes, Bill Clinton sure got lucky having had 3 Reagan terms before him. Too bad he left a recession for W.

 

[BluesLegend]

When I need the opinion of a moron

When Blues needs an opinion from a moron....he looks in the mirror and talks to himself. LOL

That's original /sarcasm /eyeroll somebody take care of my light work here.

 

[kiwiman127]

Newsflash, wealth is earned you have to get off your fat lazy welfare ass and work.

Inequality has grown over the last 30 years which mirrors how long wages have been flat and add in offshoring American jobs and walla we have wealth inequality at record levels.
Answer this question, who benefits from low wages and offshoring jobs? People are not sitting on their lazy asses, people are working, profits are at record levels. The profits are staying at the top even though the workforce is working at record levels of productivity.
Why do you hate the American worker and the working middle class? My bet is you are a middle class working stiff, you just haven't quite realized that your wages have been flat (in Real Dollars) and your employer is laughing all the way to the bank at you.

 

[BluesLegend]

Newsflash, wealth is earned you have to get off your fat lazy welfare ass and work.

Inequality has grown over the last 30 years which mirrors how long wages have been flat and add in offshoring American jobs and walla we have wealth inequality at record levels.
Answer this question, who benefits from low wages and offshoring jobs? People are not sitting on their lazy asses, people are working, profits are at record levels. The profits are staying at the top even though the workforce is working at record levels of productivity.
Why do you hate the American worker and the working middle class? My bet is you are a middle class working stiff, you just haven't quite realized that your wages have been flat (in Real Dollars) and your employer is laughing all the way to the bank at you.

Stop lying to yourself and stop electing lying lowlife scum liberals. Who repeatedly throws middle class jobs under the bus in favor of their ideology? Yes the left. Who enacts policy after policy, regulation after regulation by the thousands that throw middle class jobs under the bus? Yes the left. And who enables these assholes? Yes incredibly stupid idiots like you. Eat it.

 

[Skylar]

Newsflash, wealth is earned you have to get off your fat lazy welfare ass and work.

Inequality has grown over the last 30 years which mirrors how long wages have been flat and add in offshoring American jobs and walla we have wealth inequality at record levels.
Answer this question, who benefits from low wages and offshoring jobs? People are not sitting on their lazy asses, people are working, profits are at record levels. The profits are staying at the top even though the workforce is working at record levels of productivity.
Why do you hate the American worker and the working middle class? My bet is you are a middle class working stiff, you just haven't quite realized that your wages have been flat (in Real Dollars) and your employer is laughing all the way to the bank at you.

Don't bother. A rational conservative is entirely possible. But these aren't them. You're dealing with folks that have gobbled the Kool-aid and equate money with morality. If you have it, you're a hard worker, have character, are a maker, a contributor, a winner. If you don't, you're lazy, lack character, are a leech and a loser.

There's no one in between in this mindset. With effort and sacrifice being annoying irrelevancies. The moral weight of cash is a core tenet of modern conservatism. The RNC based their convention on the theme. And the Kool-aid drinkers gobbled it down.

 

[mikegriffith1]

FYI, as anyone can confirm by looking at the tax brackets for 2000 and 2005, the Bush tax cuts gave the largest rate cuts to low-income and middle-income earners.

But, of course, liberals demagogued the Bush tax cuts by hammering on the gross dollar amounts of the tax cuts for each bracket. Conservatives and intelligent centrists didn't fall for this misleading argument, but most liberals did.

If you give a 5% rate cut to a guy who makes 300K per year, he will get back 15K in gross dollars, whereas if you give a 10% rate cut to a guy who makes 40K per year, he will get back 4K in gross dollars. With a 10% rate cut, the guy who makes 40K is getting back a larger share of his income than the guy who makes 300K. So the guy who makes 40K is getting a much better deal because he's getting back a much larger share of his paycheck (twice as much as the "rich" guy), but his gross dollar cut, as a function of simple math, will be less than the guy who makes 300K, because 10% of 40K is less than 5% of 300K.

So when liberals run around saying that the rich benefited the most from the Bush tax cuts, they are making an argument that is both factually wrong and very misleading.

 

[Dragonlady]

It would be much easier to listen to this if the current economy was doing well but it ain't and the only time the economy was doing well was when it was in the hands of conservatives. Just compare bush to Obama....or just compare Obama to any American president after 1980 and you will see that the free market is the only thing that works. Unfortunately, a great many people in this country listen to your side which means that this will continue indefinitely until people stop listening to you.

The economy wasn't doing well under conservatives. Not in job growth, not in increased levels of poverty, and certainly not in terms of the deficit.

 

[gipper]

To proclaim income inequality is the fault of one political party is nonsensical. Both Rs and Ds are responsible along with the fools who run the Fed. But what do you expect? The two parties are owned by the wealthy elite...so they do the bidding of the wealthy elite.

 

[mikegriffith1]

It would be much easier to listen to this if the current economy was doing well but it ain't and the only time the economy was doing well was when it was in the hands of conservatives. Just compare bush to Obama....or just compare Obama to any American president after 1980 and you will see that the free market is the only thing that works. Unfortunately, a great many people in this country listen to your side which means that this will continue indefinitely until people stop listening to you.

The economy wasn't doing well under conservatives. Not in job growth, not in increased levels of poverty, and certainly not in terms of the deficit.

This is simply factually wrong. In virtually every category, the Bush economy outperformed the Obama economy--the U6, median family income, LFR, etc., etc.. And, FYI, Bush had the deficit down to below 200 billion by 2007, but then the Democrats took control of Congress and exploded spending (and Obama signed most of the FY 2008 spending measures).

And it's important to keep in mind that the reduction in the deficit over the last couple years has been in spite of Obama, not because of him. The Republicans finally forced Obama to sign some spending bills that slowed the rate of growth in spending, and Obama has been unable to push through more of his disastrous "stimulus" spending measures. If Obama had gotten his way on spending, the deficit would be much larger than it is now.

 

[Dragonlady]

It would be much easier to listen to this if the current economy was doing well but it ain't and the only time the economy was doing well was when it was in the hands of conservatives. Just compare bush to Obama....or just compare Obama to any American president after 1980 and you will see that the free market is the only thing that works. Unfortunately, a great many people in this country listen to your side which means that this will continue indefinitely until people stop listening to you.

The economy wasn't doing well under conservatives. Not in job growth, not in increased levels of poverty, and certainly not in terms of the deficit.

This is simply factually wrong. In virtually every category, the Bush economy outperformed the Obama economy--the U6, median family income, LFR, etc., etc.. And, FYI, Bush had the deficit down to below 200 billion by 2007, but then the Democrats took control of Congress and exploded spending (and Obama signed most of the FY 2008 spending measures).

And it's important to keep in mind that the reduction in the deficit over the last couple years has been in spite of Obama, not because of him. The Republicans finally forced Obama to sign some spending bills that slowed the rate of growth in spending, and Obama has been unable to push through more of his disastrous "stimulus" spending measures. If Obama had gotten his way on spending, the deficit would be much larger than it is now.

There was no deficit when Bush took office. And W's deficits never included his spending on the wars so his figures were false to begin with.

Bush created the deficit with his tax cuts and there was no way to cut the deficit without ending the Bush tax cuts, which Republicans in the House refused to do.

Had Obama's stimulus spending passed, the recession may not have lasted so long or been as deep. Other countries which used more stimulus spending certainly recovered faster than the U.S.

Sadly the U.S. economy will continue to decline overall as long as you cling to supply side economics as the basis for your programs.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

 

[The Rabbi]

Newsflash, wealth is earned you have to get off your fat lazy welfare ass and work.

Inequality has grown over the last 30 years which mirrors how long wages have been flat and add in offshoring American jobs and walla we have wealth inequality at record levels.
Answer this question, who benefits from low wages and offshoring jobs? People are not sitting on their lazy asses, people are working, profits are at record levels. The profits are staying at the top even though the workforce is working at record levels of productivity.
Why do you hate the American worker and the working middle class? My bet is you are a middle class working stiff, you just haven't quite realized that your wages have been flat (in Real Dollars) and your employer is laughing all the way to the bank at you.

Inequality has grown under Obama faster than anytime else.
The word is "voila", not walla, which is an Indian word for someone who works at something.
WHo benefits from lower costs? Consumers, that's who. You want to buy $500 VCRs?
There is record low workforce participation and record high levels of disability. Yes, people are sitting on their asses because there arent many jobs.
Wages have been flat because the Obama Economy has sucked the life out of business, by taxing and demonizing the very people who create opportunities.
You need to post a graph to complete your stupidity.

 

[The Rabbi]

It would be much easier to listen to this if the current economy was doing well but it ain't and the only time the economy was doing well was when it was in the hands of conservatives. Just compare bush to Obama....or just compare Obama to any American president after 1980 and you will see that the free market is the only thing that works. Unfortunately, a great many people in this country listen to your side which means that this will continue indefinitely until people stop listening to you.

The economy wasn't doing well under conservatives. Not in job growth, not in increased levels of poverty, and certainly not in terms of the deficit.

This is simply factually wrong. In virtually every category, the Bush economy outperformed the Obama economy--the U6, median family income, LFR, etc., etc.. And, FYI, Bush had the deficit down to below 200 billion by 2007, but then the Democrats took control of Congress and exploded spending (and Obama signed most of the FY 2008 spending measures).

And it's important to keep in mind that the reduction in the deficit over the last couple years has been in spite of Obama, not because of him. The Republicans finally forced Obama to sign some spending bills that slowed the rate of growth in spending, and Obama has been unable to push through more of his disastrous "stimulus" spending measures. If Obama had gotten his way on spending, the deficit would be much larger than it is now.

There was no deficit when Bush took office. And W's deficits never included his spending on the wars so his figures were false to begin with.

Bush created the deficit with his tax cuts and there was no way to cut the deficit without ending the Bush tax cuts, which Republicans in the House refused to do.

Had Obama's stimulus spending passed, the recession may not have lasted so long or been as deep. Other countries which used more stimulus spending certainly recovered faster than the U.S.

Sadly the U.S. economy will continue to decline overall as long as you cling to supply side economics as the basis for your programs.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

There has been no supply side economic policies for the last 25 years. we have had demand side policies, like Obama's stimulus, that have failed, as they always fail.
The US economy will decline as long as Democrats have anything to do with running this country. Fortunately those days are limited.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Newsflash, wealth is earned you have to get off your fat lazy welfare ass and work.

Inequality has grown over the last 30 years which mirrors how long wages have been flat and add in offshoring American jobs and walla we have wealth inequality at record levels.
Answer this question, who benefits from low wages and offshoring jobs? People are not sitting on their lazy asses, people are working, profits are at record levels. The profits are staying at the top even though the workforce is working at record levels of productivity.
Why do you hate the American worker and the working middle class? My bet is you are a middle class working stiff, you just haven't quite realized that your wages have been flat (in Real Dollars) and your employer is laughing all the way to the bank at you.

Inequality has grown under Obama faster than anytime else.
The word is "voila", not walla, which is an Indian word for someone who works at something.
WHo benefits from lower costs? Consumers, that's who. You want to buy $500 VCRs?
There is record low workforce participation and record high levels of disability. Yes, people are sitting on their asses because there arent many jobs.
Wages have been flat because the Obama Economy has sucked the life out of business, by taxing and demonizing the very people who create opportunities.
You need to post a graph to complete your stupidity.

This is the chart you need:

American workers have not been fairly compensated for their increased productivity for 40 years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It would be much easier to listen to this if the current economy was doing well but it ain't and the only time the economy was doing well was when it was in the hands of conservatives. Just compare bush to Obama....or just compare Obama to any American president after 1980 and you will see that the free market is the only thing that works. Unfortunately, a great many people in this country listen to your side which means that this will continue indefinitely until people stop listening to you.

The economy wasn't doing well under conservatives. Not in job growth, not in increased levels of poverty, and certainly not in terms of the deficit.

This is simply factually wrong. In virtually every category, the Bush economy outperformed the Obama economy--the U6, median family income, LFR, etc., etc.. And, FYI, Bush had the deficit down to below 200 billion by 2007, but then the Democrats took control of Congress and exploded spending (and Obama signed most of the FY 2008 spending measures).

And it's important to keep in mind that the reduction in the deficit over the last couple years has been in spite of Obama, not because of him. The Republicans finally forced Obama to sign some spending bills that slowed the rate of growth in spending, and Obama has been unable to push through more of his disastrous "stimulus" spending measures. If Obama had gotten his way on spending, the deficit would be much larger than it is now.

There was no deficit when Bush took office. And W's deficits never included his spending on the wars so his figures were false to begin with.

Bush created the deficit with his tax cuts and there was no way to cut the deficit without ending the Bush tax cuts, which Republicans in the House refused to do.

Had Obama's stimulus spending passed, the recession may not have lasted so long or been as deep. Other countries which used more stimulus spending certainly recovered faster than the U.S.

Sadly the U.S. economy will continue to decline overall as long as you cling to supply side economics as the basis for your programs.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

There has been no supply side economic policies for the last 25 years. we have had demand side policies, like Obama's stimulus, that have failed, as they always fail.
The US economy will decline as long as Democrats have anything to do with running this country. Fortunately those days are limited.

Bush cut taxes twice.

 

[danielpalos]

Indeed, over the years -- at least since the 1980s Reagan era -- the idea of trickle down wealth has been more quasi-religious belief than empirically supported fact. The Republican right just wants to believe that "trick down" works, and seem immune to both argument and research that points to the contrary. I doubt there's anything that will lead them to change their mind.

Perhaps more pernicious is the current policy of the Federal Reserve (and central banks around the world). By keeping interest rates artificially low they have herded money into the stock market. The capital gains thus produced disproportionately benefit the 1%, and in turn create greater economic inequality. Interestingly, this is a policy that is supported as much by liberals as conservatives. One observes the ludicrous situation of Janet Yellen lecturing against rising inequality at the same time the policies she is enacting is one of the principal drivers of said inequality.

Only the right claims to believe in bailing out the wealthiest and then letting it trickle down.

Some on the left believe we should solve simple poverty and invest it up not let it trickle down.

 

[The Rabbi]

Indeed, over the years -- at least since the 1980s Reagan era -- the idea of trickle down wealth has been more quasi-religious belief than empirically supported fact. The Republican right just wants to believe that "trick down" works, and seem immune to both argument and research that points to the contrary. I doubt there's anything that will lead them to change their mind.

Perhaps more pernicious is the current policy of the Federal Reserve (and central banks around the world). By keeping interest rates artificially low they have herded money into the stock market. The capital gains thus produced disproportionately benefit the 1%, and in turn create greater economic inequality. Interestingly, this is a policy that is supported as much by liberals as conservatives. One observes the ludicrous situation of Janet Yellen lecturing against rising inequality at the same time the policies she is enacting is one of the principal drivers of said inequality.

Only the right claims to believe in bailing out the wealthiest and then letting it trickle down.

Some on the left believe we should solve simple poverty and invest it up not let it trickle down.

Sorry but who bailed out Chrysler, GM, and a bunch of other companies? Yeah that was Obama.

 

[nat4900]

Indeed, over the years -- at least since the 1980s Reagan era -- the idea of trickle down wealth has been more quasi-religious belief than empirically supported fact. The Republican right just wants to believe that "trick down" works, and seem immune to both argument and research that points to the contrary. I doubt there's anything that will lead them to change their mind.

Perhaps more pernicious is the current policy of the Federal Reserve (and central banks around the world). By keeping interest rates artificially low they have herded money into the stock market. The capital gains thus produced disproportionately benefit the 1%, and in turn create greater economic inequality. Interestingly, this is a policy that is supported as much by liberals as conservatives. One observes the ludicrous situation of Janet Yellen lecturing against rising inequality at the same time the policies she is enacting is one of the principal drivers of said inequality.

Only the right claims to believe in bailing out the wealthiest and then letting it trickle down.

Some on the left believe we should solve simple poverty and invest it up not let it trickle down.

Sorry but who bailed out Chrysler, GM, and a bunch of other companies? Yeah that was Obama.

Bailing out hundred of thousands of auto workers IS what a responsible government should do.....

Bailing out a few banks, hedge fund managers and CEOs through tax breaks with the questionable hope that they'll create jobs in the future, is succumbing to the bribery of congressional whores.

 

[BluesLegend]

Newsflash, wealth is earned you have to get off your fat lazy welfare ass and work.

Inequality has grown over the last 30 years which mirrors how long wages have been flat and add in offshoring American jobs and walla we have wealth inequality at record levels.
Answer this question, who benefits from low wages and offshoring jobs? People are not sitting on their lazy asses, people are working, profits are at record levels. The profits are staying at the top even though the workforce is working at record levels of productivity.
Why do you hate the American worker and the working middle class? My bet is you are a middle class working stiff, you just haven't quite realized that your wages have been flat (in Real Dollars) and your employer is laughing all the way to the bank at you.

Don't bother. A rational conservative is entirely possible. But these aren't them. You're dealing with folks that have gobbled the Kool-aid and equate money with morality. If you have it, you're a hard worker, have character, are a maker, a contributor, a winner. If you don't, you're lazy, lack character, are a leech and a loser.

There's no one in between in this mindset. With effort and sacrifice being annoying irrelevancies. The moral weight of cash is a core tenet of modern conservatism. The RNC based their convention on the theme. And the Kool-aid drinkers gobbled it down.

What a load of manure. I'm sorry if we expect able bodied people to get off their giant lard asses and work like the rest of us.

 

[BluesLegend]

Newsflash, wealth is earned you have to get off your fat lazy welfare ass and work.

Inequality has grown over the last 30 years which mirrors how long wages have been flat and add in offshoring American jobs and walla we have wealth inequality at record levels.
Answer this question, who benefits from low wages and offshoring jobs? People are not sitting on their lazy asses, people are working, profits are at record levels. The profits are staying at the top even though the workforce is working at record levels of productivity.
Why do you hate the American worker and the working middle class? My bet is you are a middle class working stiff, you just haven't quite realized that your wages have been flat (in Real Dollars) and your employer is laughing all the way to the bank at you.

Inequality has grown under Obama faster than anytime else.
The word is "voila", not walla, which is an Indian word for someone who works at something.
WHo benefits from lower costs? Consumers, that's who. You want to buy $500 VCRs?
There is record low workforce participation and record high levels of disability. Yes, people are sitting on their asses because there arent many jobs.
Wages have been flat because the Obama Economy has sucked the life out of business, by taxing and demonizing the very people who create opportunities.
You need to post a graph to complete your stupidity.

You will never get these asshole liberals to respond to facts, ever. Time and again I point out the thousands of jobs killing regulations and policies passed by the left and its total crickets from these fools. They just run to the next thread and troll the same shit about wealth inequality and corporations.

 

[BluesLegend]

Newsflash, wealth is earned you have to get off your fat lazy welfare ass and work.

Inequality has grown over the last 30 years which mirrors how long wages have been flat and add in offshoring American jobs and walla we have wealth inequality at record levels.
Answer this question, who benefits from low wages and offshoring jobs? People are not sitting on their lazy asses, people are working, profits are at record levels. The profits are staying at the top even though the workforce is working at record levels of productivity.
Why do you hate the American worker and the working middle class? My bet is you are a middle class working stiff, you just haven't quite realized that your wages have been flat (in Real Dollars) and your employer is laughing all the way to the bank at you.

Inequality has grown under Obama faster than anytime else.
The word is "voila", not walla, which is an Indian word for someone who works at something.
WHo benefits from lower costs? Consumers, that's who. You want to buy $500 VCRs?
There is record low workforce participation and record high levels of disability. Yes, people are sitting on their asses because there arent many jobs.
Wages have been flat because the Obama Economy has sucked the life out of business, by taxing and demonizing the very people who create opportunities.
You need to post a graph to complete your stupidity.

This is the chart you need:

American workers have not been fairly compensated for their increased productivity for 40 years.

How do companies compensate computers and robots?