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

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So, you do not believe that the Reagan admin developed the idea of using trickle down

No, it was the economically illiterate Dems who coined trickle down.

I see. And your link for this???

I lived thru illiterate Dems calling the Reagan tax cuts "trickle down".

yes while what they really want is trickle down welfare

 

[kiwiman127]

No, trickle down was used by the economically illiterate, not to sell supply side.

So, you do not believe that the Reagan admin developed the idea of using trickle down to sell supply side? Who are the economically illiterate you are speaking of?? I am sure you have a link to that concept.

So, you do not believe that the Reagan admin developed the idea of using trickle down

No, it was the economically illiterate Dems who coined trickle down.

No it was Will Rogers who said during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."[2] The term is mostly used ironically or as pejorative.
Trickle-down economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Flopper]

"trickle down" is in fact "flood down" since the poor today have more than the rich had 50 years ago.

We could also say that the poor have more than the rich had 400 years ago. However this line of thinking only leads to the conclusion that economic progress improves the living standard of all both rich and poor.

A 2011 study by the CBO on the distribution of income in the US from 1979 to 2007 found that after taxes, the top earning 1% of households gained about 275% and that the lower earning 80% had seen their share of total income in America reduced to less than half.

A rising tide may lift all boats, but the economic tide in American has lifted the yachts a lot more than the dinghies . Since 1979, the share of the wealthy claimed by the rich has increased considerable at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, you do not believe that the Reagan admin developed the idea of using trickle down to sell supply side? Who are the economically illiterate you are speaking of?? I am sure you have a link to that concept.

So, you do not believe that the Reagan admin developed the idea of using trickle down

No, it was the economically illiterate Dems who coined trickle down.

No it was Will Rogers who said during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."[2] The term is mostly used ironically or as pejorative.
Trickle-down economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fine, illiterate Dems recycled it to try to disparage Reagan's supply side tax cuts.

 

[rdean]

They needed the money to move business to China. They appreciate the help. No, really.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"trickle down" is in fact "flood down" since the poor today have more than the rich had 50 years ago.

We could also say that the poor have more than the rich had 400 years ago. However this line of thinking only leads to the conclusion that economic progress improves the living standard of all both rich and poor.

A 2011 study by the CBO on the distribution of income in the US from 1979 to 2007 found that after taxes, the top earning 1% of households gained about 275% and that the lower earning 80% had seen their share of total income in America reduced to less than half.

A rising tide may lift all boats, but the economic tide in American has lifted the yachts a lot more than the dinghies . Since 1979, the share of the wealthy claimed by the rich has increased considerable at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

Obviously, because the rich only get rich at the expense of the poor.

How many billions did Bill Gates steal from welfare mothers?
All of his billions, because wealth is a zero sum game.

 

[rdean]

"trickle down" is in fact "flood down" since the poor today have more than the rich had 50 years ago.

We could also say that the poor have more than the rich had 400 years ago. However this line of thinking only leads to the conclusion that economic progress improves the living standard of all both rich and poor.

A 2011 study by the CBO on the distribution of income in the US from 1979 to 2007 found that after taxes, the top earning 1% of households gained about 275% and that the lower earning 80% had seen their share of total income in America reduced to less than half.

A rising tide may lift all boats, but the economic tide in American has lifted the yachts a lot more than the dinghies . Since 1979, the share of the wealthy claimed by the rich has increased considerable at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

Obviously, because the rich only get rich at the expense of the poor.

How many billions did Bill Gates steal from welfare mothers?
All of his billions, because wealth is a zero sum game.

Bill Gates sells software to welfare mothers???? Who knew?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We could also say that the poor have more than the rich had 400 years ago. However this line of thinking only leads to the conclusion that economic progress improves the living standard of all both rich and poor.

A 2011 study by the CBO on the distribution of income in the US from 1979 to 2007 found that after taxes, the top earning 1% of households gained about 275% and that the lower earning 80% had seen their share of total income in America reduced to less than half.

A rising tide may lift all boats, but the economic tide in American has lifted the yachts a lot more than the dinghies . Since 1979, the share of the wealthy claimed by the rich has increased considerable at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

Obviously, because the rich only get rich at the expense of the poor.

How many billions did Bill Gates steal from welfare mothers?
All of his billions, because wealth is a zero sum game.

Bill Gates sells software to welfare mothers???? Who knew?

He must have stolen it from someone.
The rich are always stealing from the poor, why not Bill Gates from welfare mothers?
Why would he need to sell them anything to steal from them?

 

[Flopper]

"trickle down" is in fact "flood down" since the poor today have more than the rich had 50 years ago.

We could also say that the poor have more than the rich had 400 years ago. However this line of thinking only leads to the conclusion that economic progress improves the living standard of all both rich and poor.

A 2011 study by the CBO on the distribution of income in the US from 1979 to 2007 found that after taxes, the top earning 1% of households gained about 275% and that the lower earning 80% had seen their share of total income in America reduced to less than half.

A rising tide may lift all boats, but the economic tide in American has lifted the yachts a lot more than the dinghies . Since 1979, the share of the wealthy claimed by the rich has increased considerable at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

Obviously, because the rich only get rich at the expense of the poor.

How many billions did Bill Gates steal from welfare mothers?
All of his billions, because wealth is a zero sum game.

I wouldn't say the rich stole the wealth from the poor because the poor never had it to start off with. The rich created the wealth with the help of the working class and most of that wealth was kept by the rich with only crumbs falling to the poorer classes. Government keeps the poor's share of wealth about the same and rich expand their share of the wealth and thus the middle class shrinks.

 

[rdean]

Obviously, because the rich only get rich at the expense of the poor.

How many billions did Bill Gates steal from welfare mothers?
All of his billions, because wealth is a zero sum game.

Bill Gates sells software to welfare mothers???? Who knew?

He must have stolen it from someone.
The rich are always stealing from the poor, why not Bill Gates from welfare mothers?
Why would he need to sell them anything to steal from them?

Because poor people buy so many computers and software?

Stop pretending to be such a ******* fool. You ARE pretending, right?

 

[editec]

In the pockets of the Transnational corporations.

Wrong. It's being vacuumed up by our statist government.

They're two sides of the same damned coin, Boed.

 

[editec]

If the working class has too much money that's BAD for the supply side.

If the supply side has too much money, that's bad for the demand side.

Why you people have difficulty understanding this I surely do not know.

Right now, thanks to taxation and insane government spending (read government making monopolists richer) the SUPPLY side has too much money.

Fifty years ago the shoe was on the other foot.

Honestly read some economic history and erducate yourselves.

GOOD efficient Economics and government policies is NOT a football game.

It's a balancing act between competing class interests.

Too much help to either class is unhealthy.

 

[rdean]

If the working class has too much money that's BAD for the supply side.

If the supply side has too much money, that's bad for the demand side.

Why you people have difficulty understanding this I surely do not know.

Right now, thanks to taxation and insane government spending (read government making monopolists richer) the SUPPLY side has too much money.

Fifty years ago the shoe was on the other foot.

Honestly read some economic history and erducate yourselves.

GOOD efficient Economics and government policies is NOT a football game.

It's a balancing act between competing class interests.

Too much help to either class is unhealthy.

When has the working class ever had "too much money"?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If the working class has too much money that's BAD for the supply side.

If the supply side has too much money, that's bad for the demand side.

Why you people have difficulty understanding this I surely do not know.

Right now, thanks to taxation and insane government spending (read government making monopolists richer) the SUPPLY side has too much money.

Fifty years ago the shoe was on the other foot.

Honestly read some economic history and erducate yourselves.

GOOD efficient Economics and government policies is NOT a football game.

It's a balancing act between competing class interests.

Too much help to either class is unhealthy.

Thanks to our Founders we have freedom in this country not Nazi liberal elites ripping off one class to help another!!

A liberal simply lacks the IQ to understand freedom so should not be allowed to vote as per the Constitution.

 

[Dragonlady]

No we have the conservative elites enacting policies to stifle union activity and suppress wages which has the effect of increasing poverty.

We have a food stamp program which requires beneficiaries to shop at big box chains and purchase only prepackaged foods made by corporate America.

We have earned income credits instead of a minimum wage with real purchasing power.

All of these programs have reduce the purchasing power and options of the working poor to the benefit of the wealthy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No we have the conservative elites enacting policies to stifle union activity and suppress wages which has the effect of increasing poverty.

pure illiterate liberal ignorance right out of the box, as usual I might add!! Unions raise wages which raises poverty, not to mention they shipped 30 million jobs off-shore to further increase poverty!!!

Slow?????????

 

[Rshermr]

So, you do not believe that the Reagan admin developed the idea of using trickle down

No, it was the economically illiterate Dems who coined trickle down.

I see. And your link for this???

I lived thru illiterate Dems calling the Reagan tax cuts "trickle down".

Well, Toddster, I lived through that time too. About 10 years after my degree in economics. So, I was really interested in Reaganomics, and how in hell it was supposed to work.

So, what you are saying is that you have no links that back up what you have said. No one really BELIEVES that dems came up with the idea. But there are at least 50 bat shit crazy con web sites trying to say that it WAS the case. Which I am sure you are aware of. So, I was wondering if you would take the method you used in addressing the issue, or if you would trot out a good con tool site. One of the many that are saying EXACTLY THE SAME THING. But with no source. Just as you have no source.

So, what source should I pick. Could start with Wikipedia, just to get a start and see where that leads:

Today, "trickle-down economics" is most closely identified with the economic policies known as Reaganomics or laissez-faire. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts at first but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea: "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."
Trickle-down economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ya think we should check out this guy, Stockman?? He was Budget Director for Reagan. Hell, he would know!!! And as a reference, he would rate as the gold standard:

But trickle-down economics was a wish, not a reality. It’s never worked. Lower taxes don’t generate more revenue. They generate deficits.
Reagan knew it. So did Stockman. So did their guru, Friederich von Hayek. The deficits were intentional all along. They were designed to “starve the beast,” meaning intentionally cut revenue as a way of pressuring Congress to cut the New Deal programs Reagan wanted to demolish. “The plan,” Stockman told Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan at the time, ” was to have a strategic deficit that would give you an argument for cutting back the programs that weren’t desired. It got out of hand.”
David Stockman: How Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes and their GOP Demolished the Economy - David Stockman on Deficit Spending | FlaglerLive - Your News Service for Flagler County News Palm Coast News Bunnell Flagler Beach Beverly Beach and Marineland

Now, there is much, much more. From others who had a reason to know. But the bottom line is that trickle down was a theory that had been around for years. It was once known as the horse and sparrow theory, in which you fed the horse (the wealthy) a bag of grain, and the sparrow (those not wealthy) benefited from the seed in the horse crap.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But the bottom line is that trickle down was a theory that had been around for years.

yes its a updated name for capitalism. America has the most capitalism and the richest population on earth while France for example as the per capita income of Arkansas, about our poorest state.

Our poor today have more wealth the the rich had just 50 years ago so trickle down might better be called "flood down." Gates can't get really rich unless he can sell to every poor person on earth. Ever wonder why Toyota is so much bigger than Rolls Royce

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I see. And your link for this???

I lived thru illiterate Dems calling the Reagan tax cuts "trickle down".

Well, Toddster, I lived through that time too. About 10 years after my degree in economics. So, I was really interested in Reaganomics, and how in hell it was supposed to work.

So, what you are saying is that you have no links that back up what you have said. No one really BELIEVES that dems came up with the idea. But there are at least 50 bat shit crazy con web sites trying to say that it WAS the case. Which I am sure you are aware of. So, I was wondering if you would take the method you used in addressing the issue, or if you would trot out a good con tool site. One of the many that are saying EXACTLY THE SAME THING. But with no source. Just as you have no source.

So, what source should I pick. Could start with Wikipedia, just to get a start and see where that leads:

Today, "trickle-down economics" is most closely identified with the economic policies known as Reaganomics or laissez-faire. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts at first but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea: "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."
Trickle-down economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ya think we should check out this guy, Stockman?? He was Budget Director for Reagan. Hell, he would know!!! And as a reference, he would rate as the gold standard:

But trickle-down economics was a wish, not a reality. It’s never worked. Lower taxes don’t generate more revenue. They generate deficits.
Reagan knew it. So did Stockman. So did their guru, Friederich von Hayek. The deficits were intentional all along. They were designed to “starve the beast,” meaning intentionally cut revenue as a way of pressuring Congress to cut the New Deal programs Reagan wanted to demolish. “The plan,” Stockman told Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan at the time, ” was to have a strategic deficit that would give you an argument for cutting back the programs that weren’t desired. It got out of hand.”
David Stockman: How Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes and their GOP Demolished the Economy - David Stockman on Deficit Spending | FlaglerLive - Your News Service for Flagler County News Palm Coast News Bunnell Flagler Beach Beverly Beach and Marineland

Now, there is much, much more. From others who had a reason to know. But the bottom line is that trickle down was a theory that had been around for years. It was once known as the horse and sparrow theory, in which you fed the horse (the wealthy) a bag of grain, and the sparrow (those not wealthy) benefited from the seed in the horse crap.

You lived thru it and don't remember libs calling it trickle down?

The deficits were intentional all along. They were designed to “starve the beast,” meaning intentionally cut revenue

The tax cuts reduced revenue? When?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But the bottom line is that trickle down was a theory that had been around for years.

yes China just switched from liberalism to "flood down" capitalism and now 15 million a year can buy cars whereas under liberalism 15 million a year starved to death.