Has Trickle Down Economics Failed?

[DontBeStupid]

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.

After the Reagan administration put its' 'trickle down' economic policies in place, the sun rose every single day for the next 8 years.

Clearly this shows Reagan and trickle down caused the sun to rise.

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

After the Reagan administration put its' 'trickle down' economic policies in place, the sun rose every single day for the next 8 years.

Clearly this shows Reagan and trickle down caused the sun to rise.

Its a good thing government never interferes in the economy, We could have been in a down turn.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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When the act was repealed, it allowed those 2 types of banks to merge and do business together.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.

Hold on a minute, why couldn't commercial banks make loans and hand them off to investment banks before GS was repealed?

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.

They? They who? Gamble with someone's mortgage? What does that even mean? Take on so much risk, you mean issue mortgages?

So now you tell me why Glass-Steagall being repealed was not one of the reasons for the financial collapse?

Still waiting for you to show me some proof.

 

[rightwinger]

You just have to he patient.......trickle down will occur in the next ten or twenty years

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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"

OMG! What was the number above the poverty line in 1980 and 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%."

OMG again! What was the real household median income in 1980 and in 1988?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You just have to he patient.......trickle down will occur in the next ten or twenty years

Give Obama more money, he'll trickle on you now!

 

[KissMy]

More than $40 billion flowed out of all forms of mutual funds last week.

39% of Americans believe the current economic downturn is part of a long-term permanent decline and the economy will never fully recover.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I dunno... trickle up poverty seems to be attaining the desired effects though.

 

[DontBeStupid]

OMG! What was the number above the poverty line in 1980 and 1988?

No clue. You should look it up and then explain its relevance.

OMG again! What was the real household median income in 1980 and in 1988?

Again, no clue. You should look it up and explain its relevance.

 

[Urkie]

Hold on a minute, why couldn't commercial banks make loans and hand them off to investment banks before GS was repealed?

Because GS didn't allow that to happen when it was the law. Commercial Banks and Investment banks could not work together under GS.

They? They who? Gamble with someone's mortgage? What does that even mean? Take on so much risk, you mean issue mortgages?

It's extremely complicated and I'll try to simplify it. Commerical Banks write the loans and then sell them to an investment bank to take the default risk off their books. You might ask why? Well, Investment Banks can then bundle these loans (credit default swaps) and sell them later to a third party and make money off the fees.

Research it a bit more if you don't understand. These banks created a system that the average person would never be able to understand.

 

[rightwinger]

The problem with trickle down economics is that we have not given rich people enough money

If we continue to give rich people money, sooner or later they will spend some of it

 

[ShackledNation]

The problem with trickle down economics is that we have not given rich people enough money

If we continue to give rich people money, sooner or later they will spend some of it

I am not a trickle downer, but I have to refute your language. Nobody is advocating giving the rich anything. This implies we are taking money from the poor or someone else to give to the rich. I have never heard a single trickle downer advocate that.

What they advocate is simply not taking away as much money from the rich. In other words, taking less of the rich's own money, not giving them more of someone else's money.

 

[Steelplate]

The problem with trickle down economics is that we have not given rich people enough money

If we continue to give rich people money, sooner or later they will spend some of it

I am not a trickle downer, but I have to refute your language. Nobody is advocating giving the rich anything. This implies we are taking money from the poor or someone else to give to the rich. I have never heard a single trickle downer advocate that.

What they advocate is simply not taking away as much money from the rich. In other words, taking less of the rich's own money, not giving them more of someone else's money.

C'mon man... who are the "wealthy", the "job creators" dependent upon to buy their wares? We(as working and Middle Class Americans) are their biggest customers... we do give them money... we buy their stuff at a very nice profit for them.

Nothing wrong with that right?.... right. Except.... if they aren't willing to invest back into their own suppliers of their wealth... it ain't gonna work. Stop thinking that Capitalism is linear... that the "job Creators" are the only one that matters, and it all begins and ends with them. It is very much a circular system where both the Job creators and the job doers are intertwined. You make it, we'll buy it(if we have the money). If there's a break in the circle... like say... outsourcing, layoffs, etc.... then we can't keep that circle working. Hey.... we'd love to... but if the "Job Creators" aren't willing to pay, we don't have the money to do it. If the "job creators" want to maximize their income by hiring slave labor... we can't do it.

 

[Wiseacre]

The problem with trickle down economics is that we have not given rich people enough money

If we continue to give rich people money, sooner or later they will spend some of it

See, here it is, pure and simple. The left believes the money you earn is theirs, not yours. Out of the goodness of their hearts they're going to give some back to you. Grudgingly, to be sure.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

OMG! What was the number above the poverty line in 1980 and 1988?

No clue. You should look it up and then explain its relevance.

OMG again! What was the real household median income in 1980 and in 1988?

Again, no clue. You should look it up and explain its relevance.

I know you're a liberal and therefore bad at math, so I'll speak slowly.

If people under the poverty level increased 8.4% from 1980 to 1988 but people above the poverty line also increased 8.4%, your point is meaningless. Why don't we find your source and see if you left anything out.....

which means that, as a percentage of the total population, it remained almost stationary, from 12.95% in 1980 to 13% in 1988.

LOL!

You're so typical.

 

[Steelplate]

WTF does 1980 to 1988 mean? Whoopdie freakin' do.

I am talking about 2000-present.

As far as I'm concerned, I already said that I believed in Supply side in the Reagan years. The growth that happened in those heady days have nothing... ZERO... to do with what is happening now. I mean, you can quibble about bullshit all you want... but the truth of the matter is, Big Money has decided that they don't have to trickle down. We as a country are suffering because of THEIR greed.... and in turn, our suffering is turning into the world's suffering... Look at the European Market today. It's all connected, all encompassing. Welcome to the Global economy... one part of it decides to be filthy, greedy pigs.... the rest of the world suffers.

 

[Full-Auto]

WTF does 1980 to 1988 mean? Whoopdie freakin' do.

I am talking about 2000-present.

As far as I'm concerned, I already said that I believed in Supply side in the Reagan years. The growth that happened in those heady days have nothing... ZERO... to do with what is happening now. I mean, you can quibble about bullshit all you want... but the truth of the matter is, Big Money has decided that they don't have to trickle down. We as a country are suffering because of THEIR greed.... and in turn, our suffering is turning into the world's suffering... Look at the European Market today. It's all connected, all encompassing. Welcome to the Global economy... one part of it decides to be filthy, greedy pigs.... the rest of the world suffers.

Our economy is screwed because of government manipulation. Then adding all the job killing regulation this admin intends to impose, MAKES YOUR RANT LAUGHABLE.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hold on a minute, why couldn't commercial banks make loans and hand them off to investment banks before GS was repealed?

Because GS didn't allow that to happen when it was the law. Commercial Banks and Investment banks could not work together under GS.

Banks couldn't sell mortgages to investment banks under GS? Are you sure?

They? They who? Gamble with someone's mortgage? What does that even mean? Take on so much risk, you mean issue mortgages?

It's extremely complicated and I'll try to simplify it. Commerical Banks write the loans and then sell them to an investment bank to take the default risk off their books.

Banks couldn't sell mortgages under GS? Are you sure?

You might ask why? Well, Investment Banks can then bundle these loans (credit default swaps) and sell them later to a third party and make money off the fees.

Bundled mortages are not credit default swaps. They're mortgage backed securities. Maybe you shouldn't try to simply things you don't understand when you're talking to a person who does understand them

Research it a bit more if you don't understand. These banks created a system that the average person would never be able to understand.

Yeah, but enough about you.

 

[Steelplate]

WTF does 1980 to 1988 mean? Whoopdie freakin' do.

I am talking about 2000-present.

As far as I'm concerned, I already said that I believed in Supply side in the Reagan years. The growth that happened in those heady days have nothing... ZERO... to do with what is happening now. I mean, you can quibble about bullshit all you want... but the truth of the matter is, Big Money has decided that they don't have to trickle down. We as a country are suffering because of THEIR greed.... and in turn, our suffering is turning into the world's suffering... Look at the European Market today. It's all connected, all encompassing. Welcome to the Global economy... one part of it decides to be filthy, greedy pigs.... the rest of the world suffers.

Our economy is screwed because of government manipulation. Then adding all the job killing regulation this admin intends to impose, MAKES YOUR RANT LAUGHABLE.

Yeah, right... it's my rant that's laughable, but your bullshit post that's logic... way to go Full auto.

Let me ask you this... who controls government?

 

[Immanuel]

WTF does 1980 to 1988 mean? Whoopdie freakin' do.

I am talking about 2000-present.

As far as I'm concerned, I already said that I believed in Supply side in the Reagan years. The growth that happened in those heady days have nothing... ZERO... to do with what is happening now. I mean, you can quibble about bullshit all you want... but the truth of the matter is, Big Money has decided that they don't have to trickle down. We as a country are suffering because of THEIR greed.... and in turn, our suffering is turning into the world's suffering... Look at the European Market today. It's all connected, all encompassing. Welcome to the Global economy... one part of it decides to be filthy, greedy pigs.... the rest of the world suffers.

Our economy is screwed because of government manipulation. Then adding all the job killing regulation this admin intends to impose, MAKES YOUR RANT LAUGHABLE.

Yeah, right... it's my rant that's laughable, but your bullshit post that's logic... way to go Full auto.

Let me ask you this... who controls government?

It is not the people that is for sure.

Immie