What is "Trickle Down Economics"?

[The Rabbi]

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.

OK Here's your chance to show the board that I'm a complete idiot. You explain to me what that chart shows.

 

[Dad2three]

Bush's tax cuts were larger for the middle class. In fact many people with a middle class income got a 100% tax cut. Still others got a tax rebates that amounted to them being paid to have a job, by reversing the tax system into payments. For example, some people not only didn't have to pay an effective tax they got a check at the end of the year instead.

Bush bottom ROFL you mean the democrat bottom right? Democrats were running BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS for Bush's last two years, ya retard.

Yes, Dubya tax cuts GREATLY cut US treasury revenues, from Clinton's 20%+ of GDP to below 15%. DID IT DO ANYTHING TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY?

"Bush bottom ROFL you mean the democrat bottom right? Democrats were running BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS for Bush's last two years, ya retard."

ANY bills Dems passed that changed Dubya's policies Jan 2007-Jan 2009? OOPS

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

Enter...sir Spamelot.

Got it, you can't refute Dubya/GOP policy drove US into a recession. Thanks

 

[The Rabbi]

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

You get the same chance. Show how stupid I am. Explain what your chart shows.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Trickle down economics" is a disparaging description of economic policies designed to enhance the overall level of prosperity in the country (e.g., a tax cut - which, of mathmatical necessity, would go mainly to high-earners). According to critics, the only way "the common man" would benefit from such a measure would be when The Rich spend their additional take-home income on services and locally-manufactured goods, vacation homes and whatnot, thereby creating employment for The Common Man.

Progressives, on the other hand, favor policies whereby The Common Man is empowered to demand more from The Rich and from Corporate America - increases in the Minimum Wage, increased unionization, greater public and quasi-public employment.

Allow me to speak for all Progressives (which is arrogant, but since you did...) and edit your remarks:

The Common Man has the right to end the exploitation of his/her labor by demanding an increase in the Minimum Wage, the right to organize and join with others to earn fair wages and benefits, and to strike for the same while petitioning the support of the public and his and her's political representatives.

Raise minimum wage to what? 100 bucks an hour 1000 bucks an hour? Why limit your goals to what amounts to petty change?

I have a question. Why are you working minimum wage? Around here we don't even pay high school kids minimum wage. Minimum wage means you are not worth more than the absolute minimum. It means you are taking the least valuable job around. It usually means that either something is wrong with you, that or you've never worked before and have to prove you are worth more than the minimum, which normally should only take a day or two. Of course if you raise minimum wage those useless people will get fired.

Why not lower all taxes to zero and run all governments on zero revenues,

if lower taxes are such a good idea?

 

[Dad2three]

Bush's tax cuts were larger for the middle class. In fact many people with a middle class income got a 100% tax cut. Still others got a tax rebates that amounted to them being paid to have a job, by reversing the tax system into payments. For example, some people not only didn't have to pay an effective tax they got a check at the end of the year instead.

Bush bottom ROFL you mean the democrat bottom right? Democrats were running BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS for Bush's last two years, ya retard.

Yes, Dubya tax cuts GREATLY cut US treasury revenues, from Clinton's 20%+ of GDP to below 15%. DID IT DO ANYTHING TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY?

"Bush bottom ROFL you mean the democrat bottom right? Democrats were running BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS for Bush's last two years, ya retard."

ANY bills Dems passed that changed Dubya's policies Jan 2007-Jan 2009? OOPS

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

ROFL democrats did nothing the democrat says. Wait. Are you saying that Bush did nothing because the democrat congress didn't let him? Oh yeah well maybe that caused the bubble to pop. ROFL what a retard you are.

Nah the bubble popped because that's what happens to bubbles ya dumb ass. That's why we call them bubbles.

Got it, You can't bring ONE policy the Dems had that changed Dubya's policies 2007-2009

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's nothing but a delusion held by leftist moonbats.

It doesn't exist, it never did. Part and parcel of the modern day leftist... delusions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

You get the same chance. Show how stupid I am. Explain what your chart shows.

Why would you first claim to know what it shows, and now need to have it explained to you?

 

[Mustang]

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.

Conservatives are generally incredibly ignorant about economics, social sciences in general, and any discipline where real world, verifiable evidence is required to bolster an argument or refute the argument of an opposing idea. Fortunately (unfortunately for the rest of us), conservatives have found what's commonly referred to as a workaround to that problem. Know what it is? Here it is: Attribute ANY good news to a Republican, either a Republican President, or a Republican Congress. It could be years after the fact. It doesn't matter. Any bad news gets blamed on a Democrat. It can be a Democrat President or a Democrat Congress. Again, it doesn't matter.

As one might imagine, there's a real world problem to that partisan viewpoint. You may very well win converts, but you also might just end up giving credit where credit is NOT due, and you might end up attributing blame where it is unwarranted. Ultimately, that leads to the very real possibility that a political party will embrace unworkable solutions and/or reject ideas that actually work in practice. Guess what happens next! A wrecked economy and massive debt which is exactly what we have thanks to policies enacted by Reagan in the 1980s and Bush in the new millennium.

 

[Dad2three]

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

Start with this Rabbi

JFK cut the highest marginal tax rate from 90% to 70%

Tell us how much you admire the JFK tax rate again

It is irrelevant what the numbers were. What matters is the direction. I realize that is beyond your capability to understand but there it is.
So lowering rates created economic growth under JFK and and under Reagan. Raising rates under Clinton and Obama created stagnation and lower growth.
Seems pretty simple. Unless you're a brain dead partisan ignorant ass wipe.

Yeah, Clinton had a hell of a bad economy, shaking head*

 

[EconChick]

[

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.

I didn't. I wouldn't count it for any president. They can't be held responsible for something when they weren't even inaugurated at the time. What's so surprising there?

 

[Peach]

[

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.

Actually, it too almost and two and a half years of huge deficits for the "Reagan Recovery" to kick in.

 

[The Rabbi]

Allow me to speak for all Progressives (which is arrogant, but since you did...) and edit your remarks:

The Common Man has the right to end the exploitation of his/her labor by demanding an increase in the Minimum Wage, the right to organize and join with others to earn fair wages and benefits, and to strike for the same while petitioning the support of the public and his and her's political representatives.

Raise minimum wage to what? 100 bucks an hour 1000 bucks an hour? Why limit your goals to what amounts to petty change?

I have a question. Why are you working minimum wage? Around here we don't even pay high school kids minimum wage. Minimum wage means you are not worth more than the absolute minimum. It means you are taking the least valuable job around. It usually means that either something is wrong with you, that or you've never worked before and have to prove you are worth more than the minimum, which normally should only take a day or two. Of course if you raise minimum wage those useless people will get fired.

Why not lower all taxes to zero and run all governments on zero revenues,

if lower taxes are such a good idea?

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy.
Rabbi rules!

 

[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.

Conservatives are generally incredibly ignorant about economics, social sciences in general, and any discipline where real world, verifiable evidence is required to bolster an argument or refute the argument of an opposing idea. Fortunately (unfortunately for the rest of us), conservatives have found a what's commonly referred to as a workaround to that problem. Know what it is? Here it is: Attribute ANY good news to a Republican, either a Republican President, or a Republican Congress. It could be years after the fact. It doesn't matter. Any bad news gets blamed on a Democrat. It can be a Democrat President or a Democrat Congress. Again, it doesn't matter.

As one might imagine, there's a real world problem to that partisan viewpoint. You may very well win converts, but you also might just end up giving credit where credit is NOT due, and you might end up attributing blame where it is unwarranted. Ultimately, that leads to the very real possibility that a political party will embrace unworkable solutions and/or reject ideas that actually work in practice. Guess what happens next! A wrecked economy and massive debt which is exactly what we have thanks to policies enacted by Reagan in the 1980s and Bush in the new millennium.

What? Go back to jacking off, sweety. There's nothing wrong with it. It just doesn't apply to an economic discussion.

 

[Dad2three]

I do believe you are wrong - but since your the knucklehead who makes definitive blanket statements such as " unproven in any and every real world test " how about some examples - Sorry your opinion may be valid , but it doesn't suffice as evidence.

A Critique of the Chicago School of Economics:

CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST



Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.

The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.

The results were exactly what liberals predicted.


Chile: the laboratory test

Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator,"

Are you Talking about Obama ?

I didn't read the entire article , just skimmed and although I will concede it is an impressive case - it does not address the actual issue at the heart of this debate which can be boiled down to Conservatism vs. Liberalism re: economics.

The undertakings of the Allende Regime and the Chicago Boys were radical interference that worked against free-market forces whioch is a primary reason it failed and will fail if attempted again. By the same token socialism and liberal economics - which is basically Communism-Lite are also Radical interference that have worked against free market forces . I don't need to post any links as I am sure you are aware of the plight of the former Soviet Union and its puppet states under Radical interference in Free Market Forces

Oh so the 'free markets' which NEVER existed ANYWHERE EVER should be taken seriously because somehow the USSR failed? lol

 

[rightwinger]

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

You get the same chance. Show how stupid I am. Explain what your chart shows.

Oh yes! The joys of a Rabbi thread

He never actually explains what he means but spends the entire thread telling everyone how wrong they are

Rabbi Threads 101
Rabbi: You cannot define X

Numerous posters: Proceed to thoroughly define X

Rabbi: See? You cannot define X
__________________

 

[EconChick]

[

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.

Actually, it too almost and two and a half years of huge deficits for the "Reagan Recovery" to kick in.

That's a flaky statement. He left office having won the Cold War, great growth (sometimes 8% quarters unlike O's 1% avg), a highly reduced inflation rate, a highly reduced interest rate, and highly reduced unemployment of 5.2%.

And that was at just the fraction of deficit spending that Obama has done to provide a shitty economy.

 

[Siete]

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.

OK Here's your chance to show the board that I'm a complete idiot. You explain to me what that chart shows.

the chart shows trickle down economics never work.

study up !

 

[The Rabbi]

[

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.

Actually, it too almost and two and a half years of huge deficits for the "Reagan Recovery" to kick in.

That's simply a lie. I posted the chart on GDP growth on the last page. You are simply wrong.

 

[Dad2three]

"Trickle down economics" is a disparaging description of economic policies designed to enhance the overall level of prosperity in the country (e.g., a tax cut - which, of mathmatical necessity, would go mainly to high-earners). According to critics, the only way "the common man" would benefit from such a measure would be when The Rich spend their additional take-home income on services and locally-manufactured goods, vacation homes and whatnot, thereby creating employment for The Common Man.

Progressives, on the other hand, favor policies whereby The Common Man is empowered to demand more from The Rich and from Corporate America - increases in the Minimum Wage, increased unionization, greater public and quasi-public employment.

Allow me to speak for all Progressives (which is arrogant, but since you did...) and edit your remarks:

The Common Man has the right to end the exploitation of his/her labor by demanding an increase in the Minimum Wage, the right to organize and join with others to earn fair wages and benefits, and to strike for the same while petitioning the support of the public and his and her's political representatives.

That all sounds good, except for the fact that there are more comman men than common jobs, and that leaves some of those common men out in the cold.

So, you work on improving the lot of the common men with common jobs, and I will work on increasing the number of jobs and getting the rest of those common men out of the cold.

- Can we increase the number of jobs by raising taxes on the wealthy? I don't think so.
- Can we increase the number of jobs by raising the minimum wage? I don't think so.
- Can we increase the number of jobs by extending umemployment insurance? I don't think so.
- Can we increase the number of jobs by mandating 'fair' wages? I don't think so.

To increase the number of jobs available, and get those common men out of the cold, we need to induce the entities that have capital to invest that capital in an enterprise that does create new jobs. So, how do we induce entities with capital to invest to actually invest that capital in job creating enterprises within the United States of America?

- Can government mandate that entities with capital to invest, invest it here? No.
- Can government shame entities with capital to invest, into investing it here? No.
- Can government make it more profitable to invest here than anywhere else? Yes.

Obviously, the third option is the answer to more jobs in America, and more common men in out of the cold.

The right wing ideology, at its roots, is based on fear instead of reason


If you are left with a purchasing power far beyond what is required to live the most indulgent of lives then your tax rate is irrelevant. People who are motivated to accrue ever-more wealth beyond these excesses are deficient, and are using a busily-bodied chase as a surrogate to broader developmental obligations


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

 

[rightwinger]

[

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.

I didn't. I wouldn't count it for any president. They can't be held responsible for something when they weren't even inaugurated at the time. What's so surprising there?

Lets look at your numbers then

The first year ends in Oct 1981 at the end of the fiscal year. Everything after that is on Reagans watch. Why do you give Reagan until Dec 1982 until you start counting?