Even the Right knows "Trickle-Down" doesn't work. Why keep pushing it?

[xsited1]

Even the Right knows "Trickle-Down" doesn't work. Why keep pushing it?

Check out the 2002 study "Fiscal Policy, Profits and Investment" in 18 large economies by Profs. Alesina, Ardagna, Perotti and Schiantarelli. It proves that supply-side economics works. Sorry to rain on your parade.

 

[rdean]

Even the Right knows "Trickle-Down" doesn't work. Why keep pushing it?

Check out the 2002 study "Fiscal Policy, Profits and Investment" in 18 large economies by Profs. Alesina, Ardagna, Perotti and Schiantarelli. It proves that supply-side economics works. Sorry to rain on your parade.

I don't know. Anytime someone on this board has said to me, "Go read a report" they don't quote a single word out of, it always says the opposite of what they think it says. Every single time. I'm not going to go read an entire report they don't even bother to link to. It's too much work to prove someone wrong who is too lazy to actually back up their position. It shows they are not really interested.

 

[rdean]

Its more like trickle up poverty....

Actually, you build from the bottom up, it's called structure. Start by building the towns, make the state attractive to business, low crime, good schools, infrastructure.. Get them working.

Lower the cost of running the business, alternative energy, give business tax breaks but only for real employee training and employee driven results.

Antiquated, tried and failed trickle down is not the answer, it never will be.

Making the state attractive to business requires some of the typical right wing ideas, such as less regulation and lower taxes.

Because afterall, what's attractive about stifling regulations and taxes?

Sounds good. Then every time the right wing takes over the economy, it crashes and burns.

These people are against education. They are not inventive. They have no innovation.

The economy does well when it's expanding. When people are working. When it's supported by research, infrastructure and education. Three things the right laughs at.

The right's idea to shrink the deficit is "stop spending". The real solution is "economic growth" which won't happen because the wealth is controlled by a tiny one percent of the population. We are paying the lowest taxes since the 30's. Trillions in tax breaks were given out only a couple of years ago and recently extended. According to "right wing" economics, our economy should be going through the roof. But it's not.

Worse, how many right wingers blame the EPA? Are they insane?

China has become the most polluted country in the world. With few birth defects to 20% of the worlds birth defects. And right wingers want that here? Seriously? They have to be insane. What else could it be?

chinese birth defects

chinese pollution

Economist's View: Bruce Bartlett: How Supply-Side Economics Trickled Down

How Supply-Side Economics Trickled Down, by Bruce Bartlett, Commentary, NY Times: As one who was present at the creation of “supply-side economics” back in the 1970s, I think it is long past time that the phrase be put to rest. It did its job, creating a new consensus among economists on how to look at the national economy. But today it has become a frequently misleading and meaningless buzzword that gets in the way of good economic policy.

Today, supply-side economics has become associated with an obsession for cutting taxes under any and all circumstances. No longer do its advocates in Congress and elsewhere confine themselves to cutting marginal tax rates — the tax on each additional dollar earned — as the original supply-siders did. Rather, they support even the most gimmicky, economically dubious tax cuts with the same intensity.

 

[rdean]

Maybe rdean should explain his "expected outcome" and of course how to take the country there.

The only thing you've ever explained is how "smart" you think Sarah Palin is.

 

[DiveCon]

Even the Right knows "Trickle-Down" doesn't work. Why keep pushing it?

Check out the 2002 study "Fiscal Policy, Profits and Investment" in 18 large economies by Profs. Alesina, Ardagna, Perotti and Schiantarelli. It proves that supply-side economics works. Sorry to rain on your parade.

I don't know. Anytime someone on this board has said to me, "Go read a report" they don't quote a single word out of, it always says the opposite of what they think it says. Every single time. I'm not going to go read an entire report they don't even bother to link to. It's too much work to prove someone wrong who is too lazy to actually back up their position. It shows they are not really interested.

you mean like you read everything the opposite of what it actually says?
like that pew poll you always talk about

 

[Flopper]

Trickle down economics does work, but if and only if the majority of those investments be it building business's, the nations infrastructure, and the well being of the country is funneled into America and not chasing profits outside the country.

Those that outsource are traitors to this country, especially when they knowingly do it to with the realization it is at the expense to this country especially with scum like this:

The good news—and the bad news—for America is that the nation’s own super-elite is rapidly adjusting to this more global perspective. The U.S.-based CEO of one of the world’s largest hedge funds told me that his firm’s investment committee often discusses the question of who wins and who loses in today’s economy. In a recent internal debate, he said, one of his senior colleagues had argued that the hollowing-out of the American middle class didn’t really matter. “His point was that if the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile means one American drops out of the middle class, that’s not such a bad trade,” the CEO recalled

Then we should cut all 706+ US Military bases across the world that provide safety and security for the financial and global markets, as well as for the military industrial complex and let these jokers and their sons and daughters pay for it, NOT MINE. Either you are for America as a whole or only for your on pockets. FU

I heard a similar sentiment from the Taiwanese-born, 30-something CFO of a U.S. Internet company. A gentle, unpretentious man who went from public school to Harvard, he’s nonetheless not terribly sympathetic to the complaints of the American middle class. “We demand a higher paycheck than the rest of the world,” he told me. “So if you’re going to demand 10 times the paycheck, you need to deliver 10 times the value. It sounds harsh, but maybe people in the middle class need to decide to take a pay cut.”…

Perhaps he should take a paycut inline with his fellow CEO's that get paid much less in the rest of the world if he wants to spout his globalist bull crap! Lets get some visas rolling to take their jobs. Oh thats right, the boardroom members would stand too loose if they paid less to an incoming CEO.

At last summer’s Aspen Ideas Festival, Michael Splinter, CEO of the Silicon Valley green-tech firm Applied Materials, said that if he were starting from scratch, only 20 percent of his workforce would be domestic. “This year, almost 90 percent of our sales will be outside the U.S.,” he explained. “The pull to be close to the customers—most of them in Asia—is enormous.” Speaking at the same conference, Thomas Wilson, CEO of Allstate, also lamented this global reality: “I can get [workers] anywhere in the world. It is a problem for America, but it is not necessarily a problem for American business … American businesses will adapt.”

The CEO - Shareholder Model is dead and needs to be scrapped for the benefit of this nation as a Whole.

They can cut taxes to 0, and it will not matter when workers are making 50 cents a day in other countries

Trickle down economics only works if the tax cuts are large enough and it’s invested in businesses that expand and create jobs, not mutual funds, treasury bills, CD’s, foreign investments, or hard assets like gold or collectables. In other words, people only invest their tax savings in US companies that create jobs, if they believe the economic conditions will improve otherwise they save the money or invest elsewhere. Depending on trickle down requires a lot of faith.

 

[Article 15]

The wealthy became wealthier while the middle class and it's standard of living shrank.

Trickle down economics is a farce.

 

[kiwiman127]

Trickle down economics is basically plutocracy.
Since the trickle down got it's run, the Wealth Gap has grown, if there's a trickle, it's damn small (please note the the extended period of flat wages, despite high productivity).

 

[The Joe]

The wealthy became wealthier while the middle class and it's standard of living shrank.

Trickle down economics is a farce.

Is there really a problem if the middle class is shrinking because they are moving up? I guess what I am trying to say is that your government education is the only farce because you know shit about economics. Sorry, but I am fed up with people ignoring the facts about very basic economic matters.

 

[The Joe]

Trickle down economics is basically plutocracy.
Since the trickle down got it's run, the Wealth Gap has grown, if there's a trickle, it's damn small (please note the the extended period of flat wages, despite high productivity).

What do you expect is going to happen when the people you vote for tax the hell out of businesses. Pretty simple stuff here. More taxes = less money for raises.

 

[kiwiman127]

The wealthy became wealthier while the middle class and it's standard of living shrank.

Trickle down economics is a farce.

Is there really a problem if the middle class is shrinking because they are moving up? I guess what I am trying to say is that your government education is the only farce because you know shit about economics. Sorry, but I am fed up with people ignoring the facts about very basic economic matters.

If that were the case, there would have been real wage growth over the last decade plus (there hasn't been) and the Wealth Gap wouldn't of grown to it's current record levels.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Come one right wing. We know "trickle down" doesn't work. It hasn't worked for the last three Republican presidents. In fact, every time a Republican becomes president, they push that failed policy and the economy gets worse.

Why keep pushing a policy you know doesn't work? What's the "real" reason the right wing supports this failed policy?

What is it that you think did not work? What do you think trickle down is, and can you tell me why it didn't work, or are you simply repeating something you hear without actually understanding it?

You should back up your support of trickle down. This isn't a court of law, it's a political message board. Do you have any evidence that trickle down economics ever trickled past executive levels of businesses?

It was never viable.

I guess that depends on what you mean by trickle down, which is why I asked.

Some facts to consider. Before the Reagan tax cuts that destroyed the economy the unemployment rate was 9.6%. It dropped every year for the nest 6 years, reaching a low of 5.3% in 1989. I will be generous here and assume you are talking about something else when you talk about trickle down, so please explain exactly what it is so I can see why you believe it was not viable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is it that you think did not work? What do you think trickle down is, and can you tell me why it didn't work, or are you simply repeating something you hear without actually understanding it?

You should back up your support of trickle down. This isn't a court of law, it's a political message board. Do you have any evidence that trickle down economics ever trickled past executive levels of businesses?

It was never viable.

Thank you. That was to the point and easy to understand. Somewhere, there are about 50 USMB right wingers thinking "loon" without knowing what a loon is.

If it is so easy to understand explain what you are talking about when you say trickle down so that we are talking about the same thing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The plan has been to concentrate the wealth of the nation among the top 1%. Obviously, if no one else has any money, the economy will never grow.

I'm just wondering what the plan is? What is the expected outcome?

While simultaneously lifting the poverty level. Believe it or not, when Reagan was president it was cheaper to repair TVs than to buy a new one, and only a few rich people had a computer.

Reagan kicked the mentally ill out of institutions and into the street. His greatest legacy.

Reagan drove around the country kicking mentally ill people out of institutions? That is despicable.

 

[kiwiman127]

Trickle down economics is basically plutocracy.
Since the trickle down got it's run, the Wealth Gap has grown, if there's a trickle, it's damn small (please note the the extended period of flat wages, despite high productivity).

What do you expect is going to happen when the people you vote for tax the hell out of businesses. Pretty simple stuff here. More taxes = less money for raises.

The corporate taxes and the capital gains/dividend are lower now than they were when we had real wage growth. Not only that, the top % were also paying much higher taxes. Wall Street has been reporting record profits and Corporate America is realizing record profits.
So, we have experienced the decreased taxes and great financial gainsat the top and yet the trickle down hasn't occurred for the working class who supplied high productivity

 

[Article 15]

The wealthy became wealthier while the middle class and it's standard of living shrank.

Trickle down economics is a farce.

Is there really a problem if the middle class is shrinking because they are moving up? I guess what I am trying to say is that your government education is the only farce because you know shit about economics. Sorry, but I am fed up with people ignoring the facts about very basic economic matters.

I am sick of people spewing a nonsense like the middle class is shrinking because they are moving up. Sorry but I am fed up with people making up their own facts.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Maybe rdean should explain his "expected outcome" and of course how to take the country there.

The only thing you've ever explained is how "smart" you think Sarah Palin is.

Gee I really would like to see that quote. Since I have never said such a thing. I don't consider Palin stupid, but I have never said she was presidential material either. So try getting back to the subject. What is your expected outcome? Are you going to save all the poor? Chicken in every pot? New Caddy in every drive? Free 4 year degree for all? What's it going to be rdean? And don't forget to tell us how the rich are expected to pay for it all.

 

[Flopper]

Trickle down economics is basically plutocracy.
Since the trickle down got it's run, the Wealth Gap has grown, if there's a trickle, it's damn small (please note the the extended period of flat wages, despite high productivity).

What do you expect is going to happen when the people you vote for tax the hell out of businesses. Pretty simple stuff here. More taxes = less money for raises.

Less taxes = more profits

Labor is a business expense just like raw material. The cost of labor is determined by unions, market forces, and government regulations, not taxes. If sales and profits are up for the year, an employer may give employees a bonus or raise to encourage continued good work. Give employees a bonus or raise because the business got a tax break, I don't think so. I ran a small business for 11 years. I certainly wouldn't hire or fire people just because I paid more or less taxes.

 

[Flopper]

The plan has been to concentrate the wealth of the nation among the top 1%. Obviously, if no one else has any money, the economy will never grow.

I'm just wondering what the plan is? What is the expected outcome?

While simultaneously lifting the poverty level. Believe it or not, when Reagan was president it was cheaper to repair TVs than to buy a new one, and only a few rich people had a computer.

Only a few rich people had computers in 80's? During the 80's, millions of low cost computers were sold such as the IBM personal computer introduced in 1981, the Radio Shack TRS-80, and Commodore 64.

 

[xsited1]

Even the Right knows "Trickle-Down" doesn't work. Why keep pushing it?

Check out the 2002 study "Fiscal Policy, Profits and Investment" in 18 large economies by Profs. Alesina, Ardagna, Perotti and Schiantarelli. It proves that supply-side economics works. Sorry to rain on your parade.

I don't know. Anytime someone on this board has said to me, "Go read a report" they don't quote a single word out of, it always says the opposite of what they think it says. Every single time. I'm not going to go read an entire report they don't even bother to link to. It's too much work to prove someone wrong who is too lazy to actually back up their position. It shows they are not really interested.

How lame.

The study found that labor taxes have the largest negative impact on profits and investment, partly because private workers react to tax hikes or more generous transfer payments by decreasing the labor supply or asking for higher pretax real wages. But this study also found that big government spending is inherently bad for economic growth, even aside from taxes. Government hiring and pay raises lure workers from private businesses, which are forced to raise wages even if that means reduced hiring. Higher labor costs per employee depress profits and investment.

But I warn you. You'll need a good understanding of economics and mathematics to really get the full effect of the study. The truth is there. You can either choose to seek the truth or remain in ignorance. Your choice.