Trickle Down

[xsited1]

Why is he wrong?

He's trying to combine supply-side economics with increased government spending to say that the 'trickle-down' economic theory always results in a deficit. The opposite is true. It results in increased government revenues. It's like taking tylenol for a headache while hitting your head with a hammer and then claiming the tylenol doesn't work.

 

[Chris]

Increased government spending. Increase spending without a way to pay for it and you'll go into debt. Do I need to show you the sock puppet?

You are living in a fantasy world. Supply side economics was used as an excuse to lower taxes on the rich and combined with a huge increase in military spending, that created the National Debt. Bush and Reagan are responsible for $9 trillion dollars of the debt. Check out this link....

ReaganBushDebt.org

 

[xsited1]

You are living in a fantasy world. Supply side economics was used as an excuse to lower taxes on the rich and combined with a huge increase in military spending, that created the National Debt. Bush and Reagan are responsible for $9 trillion dollars of the debt. Check out this link....

ReaganBushDebt.org

Stop embarrassing yourself. This is over your head. Just admit that there are some things you will just never understand.

 

[sealybobo]

He's trying to combine supply-side economics with increased government spending to say that the 'trickle-down' economic theory always results in a deficit. The opposite is true. It results in increased government revenues. It's like taking tylenol for a headache while hitting your head with a hammer and then claiming the tylenol doesn't work.

This is why I hate economics, even though you might be technically right, Chris is more right. LOL. I don't know if what you are saying is WRONG, but I know what he is saying about Reagan's spending is right.

 

[Chris]

Stop embarrassing yourself. This is over your head. Just admit that there are some things you will just never understand.

Personal attacks will not make the truth go away.

Reagan and Bush created 90% of the National Debt. Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, said that the tax cuts were a "trojan horse" to lower taxes for the rich.

ReaganBushDebt.org

 

[bigdaddygtr]

Personal attacks will not make the truth go away.

Reagan and Bush created 90% of the National Debt. Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, said that the tax cuts were a "trojan horse" to lower taxes for the rich.

ReaganBushDebt.org

Trickle Down Economics = Bullshit way for the rich to get richer

 

[Care4all]

Trickle Down Economics = Bullshit way for the rich to get richer

Bush 1 is the one that labeled it "voodoo economics" I thought?

hmmmm....maybe i am wrong, but i thought it was Bush 1?

 

[Care4all]

yeah....it was bush 1 that labeled it:

Voodoo Economics

A slanderous term used by President George H. W. Bush in reference to President Reagan's economic policies known as Reaganomics.

Before President Bush became Reagan's Vice President, he viewed his eventual running mate's economic policies less then favorably.

Reagan was a proponent of supply-side economics, favoring reduced income and capital gains tax rates.

 

[Chris]

Two thirds of the tax savings from a capital gains tax reduction would go to people who made over one million dollars a year.

That is why the Republicans want it so badly, to help their rich friends.

 

[bigdaddygtr]

Bush 1 is the one that labeled it "voodoo economics" I thought?

hmmmm....maybe i am wrong, but i thought it was Bush 1?

Exactly

 

[John Galt]

It trickles down alright, you just better be standing in the right spot.

Never worked, never will. Started with Reagan and continued under Bush.

Bubble up from 70% of the population will work. Get the middle class healthy and able to purchase again and it will do more than any small percent of rich trickle downing.

I'm tired of getting pissed on from above and the GOP tells me it's raining.

 

[xsited1]

This is why I hate economics, even though you might be technically right, Chris is more right. LOL. I don't know if what you are saying is WRONG, but I know what he is saying about Reagan's spending is right.

No, Chris isn't 'more right'. Chris is wrong. Supply-side economic theory always results in increased government revenues. Now I will admit the paper I posted is highly technical and most will probably not understand it (like Chris), but it clearly proves the point and is based on decades of data for 18 large economies.

As far as Reagan's spending goes, Reagan did increase military spending. That is true. He believed that the only way to win the Cold War with the Soviet Union was to match their military build-up. And in order for the Democratically-controlled Congress to go along with it, they increased spending on social programs. So is it totally Reagan's fault that spending increased? Of course not. This however has NOTHING TO DO with supply-side economics. That's why Chris is wrong. He can't separate the two and apparently neither can you. I don't want to sound insulting, but I wish Chris would just admit (as you did) that he doesn't fully understand the issue.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Of course it doesn't work. Our current economy is the perfect example. Cutting capital gains tax did not make companies hire more people, it only allowed them to shunt more money into their golden parachutes and executive salaries. AND it allowed the culture of greed on Wall Street to flourish--lending out bad money, turning around and selling your risk, and laughing all the way to the bank because of a lower tax rate.

And now McCain wants to lower the tax to 7.5%. What an ass.

The ONLY way for a government to encourage job creation in America is to offer direct tax relief in that area, such as taxing business at 15% of net and allowing salaries and benefits to be the ONLY deduction from gross to net.

Giving rich people money and hoping they'll build a business that creates jobs is like giving poor people money and hoping they'll spend it on education... It is still based on our hope in human nature instead of our expectations.

-Joe

 

[bigdaddygtr]

No, Chris isn't 'more right'. Chris is wrong. Supply-side economic theory always results in increased government revenues. Now I will admit the paper I posted is highly technical and most will probably not understand it (like Chris), but it clearly proves the point and is based on decades of data for 18 large economies.

As far as Reagan's spending goes, Reagan did increase military spending. That is true. He believed that the only way to win the Cold War with the Soviet Union was to match their military build-up. And in order for the Democratically-controlled Congress to go along with it, they increased spending on social programs. So is it totally Reagan's fault that spending increased? Of course not. This however has NOTHING TO DO with supply-side economics. That's why Chris is wrong. He can't separate the two and apparently neither can you. I don't want to sound insulting, but I wish Chris would just admit (as you did) that he doesn't fully understand the issue.

The Cold War was already almost over when Reagan took over. He just wanted to try and smash the USSR, but the Kremlin was already falling apart before Gorbachev(a good man who was into diplomacy) came to power. Its that whole Republican premise of "my dick's bigger than yours" bullshit that got us nowhere but a recession that the Tech boom of the 90's and Bill Clinton had to save us from. This is why people think we act like Cowboys

Personally, I don't think you have any ground to stand on talking to Chris about not understanding issues based on all of the moronic, flat out BS that you've said.

 

[xsited1]

The Cold War was already almost over when Reagan took over. He just wanted to try and smash the USSR, but the Kremlin was already falling apart before Gorbachev(a good man who was into diplomacy) came to power. Its that whole Republican premise of "my dick's bigger than yours" bullshit that got us nowhere but a recession that the Tech boom of the 90's and Bill Clinton had to save us from. This is why people think we act like Cowboys

Personally, I don't think you have any ground to stand on talking to Chris about not understanding issues based on all of the moronic, flat out BS that you've said.

I'm not supporting what Reagan did, nor am I supporting what the Democratically controlled Congress did at the time. I'm just posting facts.

I realize economics is a difficult subject to understand for most as is obvious by the number of misinformed posters in this thread. There is at least one person who admits they don't understand the paper I posted. I wish other people, yourself included, would at least admit that they don't understand supply-side economics. Instead, you chose to stick your head in the sand and say 'IT DOESN'T WORK!' That's just silly and extremely closed-minded. Our country is crumbling and everyone seems to be pointing a partisan finger at each other. Ridiculous.

 

[editec]

There is no SUPPLY-SIDE shortage for crimminies sakes.

What is in short supply is money in the pockets of the consumers.

Now I realize some people who think they understand economicz might have trouble understanding that, because, after all the University of Chicago (Supply SIDE Headquarters) hasn't understood it yet and they've been studying the problem for the last fifty years.

But here we are again, just as we were were in the years leading up to the last great depression.

Too much money in the hands of the investor class, and since they cannot spend it fast enough, they invest it, thus inflating the prices of investments beyond those investments ability to make enough profits to justify the rising prices of those investments.

Eventually, the bubble bursts (when the markets wake up from their delusions) and all the supply siders can do is whine that if only but the rich were just a little richer, everything would be right with our economy.

Idealogues, what does it take to wake them up?

Reality certainly doesn't, that's for damned sure.

I am convinced that monetary policy is too important to leave in the hands of bankers and economists.

Nice folks, most of them, but not to be trusted with something so important as the health of the nation's economy.

 

[sealybobo]

No, Chris isn't 'more right'. Chris is wrong. Supply-side economic theory always results in increased government revenues. Now I will admit the paper I posted is highly technical and most will probably not understand it (like Chris), but it clearly proves the point and is based on decades of data for 18 large economies.

As far as Reagan's spending goes, Reagan did increase military spending. That is true. He believed that the only way to win the Cold War with the Soviet Union was to match their military build-up. And in order for the Democratically-controlled Congress to go along with it, they increased spending on social programs. So is it totally Reagan's fault that spending increased? Of course not. This however has NOTHING TO DO with supply-side economics. That's why Chris is wrong. He can't separate the two and apparently neither can you. I don't want to sound insulting, but I wish Chris would just admit (as you did) that he doesn't fully understand the issue.

Ok, as far as supply side econ, he may be wrong and you may be right about it equating to more government revenue, but here is what your theory leaves out. They took that extra revenue and blew it on some other bullshit.

As far as social programs. I like social programs more than I do defense spending.

And, we now know that about half of our defense spending today is waste/fraud/stolen/lost/unaccounted for money. And we know we spend more than the rest of the world COMBINED on defense. So therefore we know that we spend way too much on defense. It's not even arguable. So, we know that Republicans aren't really conservative if they continue to let this happen. HALF spent on waste. Yet none of you even care to address this. You'd rather bitch about social programs that don't even compare to the amount these rich war mongers are blowing on bombs and airplanes.

Stop telling us you want a fiscally responsible government if you refuse to speak out against this waste. It's easy to be anti welfare, but can you stand up to DEFENSE spending? They'll call you weak on defense and all sorts of names but if you are true to your conservative word, you won't buy it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

There is no SUPPLY-SIDE shortage for crimminies sakes.

What is in short supply is money in the pockets of the consumers.

Now I realize some people who think they understand economicz might have trouble understanding that, because, after all the University of Chicago (Supply SIDE Headquarters) hasn't understood it yet and they've been studying the problem for the last fifty years.

But here we are again, just as we were were in the years leading up to the last great depression.

Too much money in the hands of the investor class, and since they cannot spend it fast enough, they invest it, thus inflating the prices of investments beyond those investments ability to make enough profits to justify the rising prices of those investments.

Eventually, the bubble bursts (when the markets wake up from their delusions) and all the supply siders can do is whine that if only but the rich were just a little richer, everything would be right with our economy.

Idealogues, what does it take to wake them up?

Reality certainly doesn't, that's for damned sure.

I am convinced that monetary policy is too important to leave in the hands of bankers and economists.

Nice folks, most of them, but not to be trusted with something so important as the health of the nation's economy.

That is an interesting way to look at it... I hadn't really considered it in these terms but it fits the evidence.

Thanks, Editec!

-Joe

 

[editec]

That is an interesting way to look at it... I hadn't really considered it in these terms but it fits the evidence.

Thanks, Editec!

-Joe

Interesting, creative, and the theory fits all the available historic evidence, too.

There's three kisses of death for any iconoclastic theory, eh?

Clearly (according to most experts in economics) what we should do is continue doing what we've been doing that hasn't worked ...EVER.

After all, these supply siding economists can't be possibly wrong, can they?

Remember kiddies, when the stock market pricing goes up wildly, even if profits aren't going up in those companies AT ALL, that NOT inflationary nonsense.

No, it's only inflationary when people serving the master class coffee get a twenty-five cent an hour raise that the FED must ratchet up the cost of money to dampen that terrible inflationary pressure those selfish servants of ours are putting on the economy

We have always been at war with the proletariat

Happily, we have armies of mendacious economists to convince them we're killing them slowly for their own good.