What is "Trickle Down Economics"?

[rightwinger]

More effects of Reagans "Trickle Down" on the middle class

Another one who cant read a chart. This is like an epidemic of stupidity.

Lets splain the chart to Rabbi

We start off with everyone being more or less equal (+ or - 5%) before the Reagan "revolution" and then one group gets left behind

Can you tell us which group got left behind Rabbi? There are 5 bonus points in it for you

 

[EconChick]

You libs are being TROUNCED here. Just throw in the towel.

We clearly showed Reagan supercharged the economy.

He clearly helped all boats, large and small, rise.

The poor and middle class were clearly helped. Plus they were exuberant.

Then look at the disastrous polls for Obama today. It's like watching Carter-Reagan all over again.

Just give up.

Self proclaimed victories are so shallow.....Don'tya think?

LOL, I have a long record of being correct.

 

[The Rabbi]

Under liberal thinking if someone is on unemployment insurance and therefore in the lowest 5th, and then gets a job and moves into the third or fourth fith then the loss of income in the lowest fifth means people are poorer. That is exactly what happened under Reagan. Some tranches declined in income because the members moved up into the higher income brackets.
They dont get it.

 

[Erand7899]

cp


It is true that growth increased drastically after the 1982 tax cut, reaching as high as 7.3% in 1984. However, as the Reagan-Bush, Sr. administrations went on and taxes for the rich were slashed even further, growth fell to negative levels during 1991, at the heart of the last recession. And, two of the three years with the highest growth were during the 1950s, when the top tax rate was 91%. Overall, there seems to be no close relationship between the top tax rate and the GDP growth rate, and statistical analysis backs this up: the correlation coefficient between the two variables is 0.03, meaning that there is essentially no connection. (If tax cuts were strongly related to GDP growth, we would see a coefficient close to -1.)

So cuts in tax rates that you agree caused growth we sure havent seen in this recovery somehow is responsible for a recession 7 years later?? Seriously? That's your view.
Then again you probably think repealing Glass-Steagal in 1997 caused the recession in 2008.

you're an idiot.

in spite of further tax cuts the country still went through a a recession


comprehension is you friend ...

Imagine that, taxes are only one of many facets of an economy. Who would have thunk it? Once tax cuts settle in, they become less and less important to the calculations that determine where and when capital is invested. Other factors such as regulations, red tape, cost of capital, energy prices, labor prices, and material prices become bigger parts of the overall picture.

 

[The Rabbi]

SAME STUPID QUESTION ALERT !!!!

Are you able to answer it , or would you like some help ?

I refuse to answer a question with an OBVIOUS answer contained IN THE QUESTION.


maybe the rw dolts simply don't understand the definition of tax CUT and need help ..

Are you afraid maybe this is a trick question and if you answer you'll be shown to be an idiot/ Because I've got news for you. It's too late.

 

[rightwinger]

You libs are being TROUNCED here. Just throw in the towel.

We clearly showed Reagan supercharged the economy.

He clearly helped all boats, large and small, rise.

The poor and middle class were clearly helped. Plus they were exuberant.

Then look at the disastrous polls for Obama today. It's like watching Carter-Reagan all over again.

Just give up.

Self proclaimed victories are so shallow.....Don'tya think?

LOL, I have a long record of being correct.

And she comes back with another self proclaimed victory. You are going to have to do better than that

 

[Siete]

"The rising tide now only lifts the yachts" ... a fair example of the typical Liberal comprehension of Science and Economics . I bet if Obama told you he could send a wave to sink all the Yachts and leave the dingies afloat you would believe him - right ?

That's exactly what he's been telling you from Day One . Guess what Norton - it can't work , the dingies are the first to sink ... Welcome to Reality Pal .... and you guys down in the Sewer - fahgettaboutit ...

Who has the "rising tide" of the Reagan revolution helped?

Show me what Reagan did to the middle class

How many times do you revisionists have to be told.

All of Carter's double digits for unemployment, inflation, and interest rates brought down to single digits.

If that doesn't directly affect the middle and poor class, I don't know what the hell does.

you continue to argue the economy is tanking, yet you insist that tax cuts (still in place) help the economy to grow.

which one is it ?

were you dumber before you woke up today, or after you woke up ?

 

[RKMBrown]

More effects of Reagans "Trickle Down" on the middle class

RW are you good with averages?

What would happen, for example, to your average of you had three As then got an F?

Now explain to the class what happens to someone's share of income when they have none, for example because we introduce a system of welfare handouts where the bottom 20% no longer have to have income to live.

Simple math question RW. If the bottom 20% had to work back in 1967, but don't have to work in 2014 what is going to change in that chart?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Under liberal thinking if someone is on unemployment insurance and therefore in the lowest 5th, and then gets a job and moves into the third or fourth fith then the loss of income in the lowest fifth means people are poorer. That is exactly what happened under Reagan. Some tranches declined in income because the members moved up into the higher income brackets.
They dont get it.

Hey idiot. If a person's income moves them out of the lowest fifth, then they are out of lowest fifth. That person's place in the lowest fifth is filled by whoever is lowest in the next to lowest fifth.

A fifth of the population does not become a smaller fifth. Jesus.

 

[Peach]

The mistake most assholes make is assuming the POTUS's policies are the primary driver of the economy.

The primary drivers of the economy are the welfare programs (incentive to not work), business, and other stuff like wars. The tech boom drove unemployment down in the 70s this was a bubble. The tech boom bubble popped while Regan was president. The dot com boom drove a big bubble during the Clinton years. The dot com bubble popped as Bush was entering office. Then the realestate bubble popped. Bubbles come and go. That's why we call them bubbles. Bush's economic screw ups were expanding welfare and starting needless wars.

Weird, so Dubya taking US to less than 15% of GDP revenues didn't hurt US after Clinton took Reagan's revenues back to Carters 20%+

NOR Dubya ignoring regulator warnings and cheering on the Bankster bubble?

Incentives NOT to work? Hell I though the LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN IN 80 YEARS, JOBS WOULD BE ALL OVER THE PLACE? WHAT HAPPENED?

The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.
P. J. O'Rourke

Once again, lots of bullshit by the linear left.

First of all, even if we use all of your stats AND your spin, we still have everything caused by Carter being double digits.

Let's start with unemployment numbers based on what YOU have given here.

1) Reagan took office in Jan of 1981, right?

2) You show a 10.8% rate hitting in Dec of 1982, right?

3) Reagan, like all presidents, didn't get a chance to write his first budget till Fiscal Year 1982, which was September of 1981.

4) So your chart shows the increasing UE rate during the time that Reagan had not even done a budget yet, peaking in 1982 at 10.8%. Yet, once his policies took effect, it started dropping every month until he left office at 5.2%.

5) That shows a clear correlation between HIS budget taking effect and steadily dropping to 5.2%. The height of Unemployment was due to Carter's policies. And it didn't go up and down like Obama's has.

Now, let's look at the inflation numbers. Fine, let's use YOUR adjusted inflation numbers for now. But look at what you also revealed. Your graph shows a drastic drop in inflation during the Reagan years.



Soooooooooooo, like I said, double digit unemployment (the 10.8% in YOUR chart a result of Carter's policies), double digit inflation, and double digit interest rates were brought down to single digits. That clearly helps the poor and middle class.


And we did that all using YOUR numbers, skippy.

The "recovery" which BEGAN after 2.3 years , followed massive spending increases, try again. And read "Of Competition & Custom" if you have the slight interest in economics you profess.

 

[rightwinger]

"The rising tide now only lifts the yachts" ... a fair example of the typical Liberal comprehension of Science and Economics . I bet if Obama told you he could send a wave to sink all the Yachts and leave the dingies afloat you would believe him - right ?

That's exactly what he's been telling you from Day One . Guess what Norton - it can't work , the dingies are the first to sink ... Welcome to Reality Pal .... and you guys down in the Sewer - fahgettaboutit ...

Who has the "rising tide" of the Reagan revolution helped?

Show me what Reagan did to the middle class

How many times do you revisionists have to be told.

All of Carter's double digits for unemployment, inflation, and interest rates brought down to single digits.

If that doesn't directly affect the middle and poor class, I don't know what the hell does.

Then maybe you can explain your numbers to us?

Did the drop in inflation, unemployment and interest rates lead to increased wages or wealth of the poor and middle class?

 

[rightwinger]

More effects of Reagans "Trickle Down" on the middle class

RW are you good with averages?

What would happen, for example, to your average of you had three As then got an F?

Now explain to the class what happens to someone's share of income when they have none, for example because we introduce a system of welfare handouts where the bottom 20% no longer have to have income to live.

Simple math question RW. If the bottom 20% had to work back in 1967, but don't have to work in 2014 what is going to change in that chart?

We are not talking about outliers in the economy. We are talking about the ENTIRE workforce. You have no data supporting that the lower 20% were working in 1980. In fact, the unemployment rate was similar to what it is today. Go back and come up with a better example

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

1) Reagan took office in Jan of 1981, right?

2) You show a 10.8% rate hitting in Dec of 1982, right?

3) Reagan, like all presidents, didn't get a chance to write his first budget till Fiscal Year 1982, which was September of 1981.

4) So your chart shows the increasing UE rate during the time that Reagan had not even done a budget yet, peaking in 1982 at 10.8%. Yet, once his policies took effect, it started dropping every month until he left office at 5.2%.

Very interesting point. So we won't count that first year against Reagan?

Fair enough, for sake of argument. We won't count that first year against Obama either.

 

[Dad2three]

JFK once commented on how "a rising tide lifts all boats"

This is how Reagan fixed that problem

The rising tide now only lifts the yachts

Reagan didn't suddenly turn things upside down.

Your numbers are over to great a span for you make any assertions at all about what is going on.

The first timeframe is post WWII while we were busy rebuilding the nations we just kicked the crap out of. We had no competition (meaning the middle class was on a feeding frenzy).

Now, we have plenty and the rich are making hay out of it.

Our lovely government allows them to do so without regards to it's citizens.

Can you be any more stupid ?

EVERY nation was rebuilt by 1960 OVER 90% of them by 1955!!!

 

[Peach]

Who has the "rising tide" of the Reagan revolution helped?

Show me what Reagan did to the middle class

How many times do you revisionists have to be told.

All of Carter's double digits for unemployment, inflation, and interest rates brought down to single digits.

If that doesn't directly affect the middle and poor class, I don't know what the hell does.

Then maybe you can explain your numbers to us?

Did the drop in inflation, unemployment and interest rates lead to increased wages or wealth of the poor and middle class?

I think you know the answer, massive debt led to up & down swings until 1990, then a meltdown.

 

[martybegan]

JFK once commented on how "a rising tide lifts all boats"

This is how Reagan fixed that problem

The rising tide now only lifts the yachts

Reagan didn't suddenly turn things upside down.

Your numbers are over to great a span for you make any assertions at all about what is going on.

The first timeframe is post WWII while we were busy rebuilding the nations we just kicked the crap out of. We had no competition (meaning the middle class was on a feeding frenzy).

Now, we have plenty and the rich are making hay out of it.

Our lovely government allows them to do so without regards to it's citizens.

Can you be any more stupid ?

EVERY nation was rebuilt by 1960 OVER 90% of them by 1955!!!

Nothing more pathetic than someone who posts graphs without really knowing what is behind them, what their limitations are, and what other conditions may have caused said results.

You sir, are a moron.

 

[NYcarbineer]

More effects of Reagans "Trickle Down" on the middle class

Another one who cant read a chart. This is like an epidemic of stupidity.

You're wearing out that trick...

...Claim that someone is not reading a chart correctly but never offer a single word towards an alternative reading, the imaginary one you're pretending to know,

and pretending is the correct one.

Your stupidity grows more boring every day.

 

[The Rabbi]

How many times do you revisionists have to be told.

All of Carter's double digits for unemployment, inflation, and interest rates brought down to single digits.

If that doesn't directly affect the middle and poor class, I don't know what the hell does.

Then maybe you can explain your numbers to us?

Did the drop in inflation, unemployment and interest rates lead to increased wages or wealth of the poor and middle class?

I think you know the answer, massive debt led to up & down swings until 1990, then a meltdown.

That's a gross mischaracterization. So much as to be simply a lie.

 

[rightwinger]

More effects of Reagans "Trickle Down" on the middle class

Another one who cant read a chart. This is like an epidemic of stupidity.

You're wearing out that trick...

...Claim that someone is not reading a chart correctly but never offer a single word towards an alternative reading, the imaginary one you're pretending to know,

and pretending is the correct one.

Your stupidity grows more boring every day.

Welcome to a Rabbi thread

You get to debate his undisclosed and make believe view of the world

 

[Dad2three]

Was that supposed to be funny or clever?
Because guess which president cut tax rates to stimulate growth.

Come on Rabbi.....Tell us

Tell us the level JFK cut taxes to

Come on Rabbi, what was the tax rate after JFK 'cut" taxes?

Irrelevant.
Were rates higher or lower after the tax cut?

Effective or marginal?

The true cost of the 1964 tax cut is thus somewhat less than 1.6 percent, since part of the tax cut merely offset a tax increase assumed in the baseline. The proportion of the 1964 tax cut attributable to this factor is likely to be relatively small, however, because inflation was low in the early 1960s. Nonetheless, even using the 1.6 percent of GDP estimate, the Kennedy tax cut was somewhat smaller than the proposed Bush tax cut.

Second, the distribution of Kennedy tax cut was dramatically different from the proposed Bush tax cut. According to estimates of the Kennedy tax cut that the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation made at the time, the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution received 18 percent of the personal income tax cut from the 1964 act, and the bottom 85 percent received 59 percent of the tax cut. The top 2.4 percent of the income distribution received 17.4 percent of the tax cut, and the top 0.4 percent of the income distribution received six percent of it. By contrast, under the proposed Bush personal income tax reductions, the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution would receive only six percent of the tax cuts, and the bottom 80 percent of the distribution would secure 38 percent of the tax reductions. At the other end of the income spectrum, the top one percent of the distribution would receive 31 percent of the personal income tax cuts.*

The Kennedy tax cut thus differed significantly from the proposed Bush tax cut. It was both somewhat less expensive and much less unevenly distributed

The Bush Tax Cut Is Now about the Same Size As the Reagan Tax Cuts - 4/19/01