Can't have it both ways; if Bush still to blame then obama is just irrelevant

[Procrustes Stretched]

David Stockman isn't even an economist to the best of my knowledge...Thomas Sowell on the other hand is a brilliant one. I had a class with him at Amherst College and learned an incredible amount.

Davis Stockman was Reagan's Budget Director

look up what that entails

Is Stockman an economist? He majored in history and then went to Seminary school before going into politics. Once he got canned by Reagan he went into business and managed to take several investment businesses into bankruptcy...performing so badly as a CEO that he was indicted for securities fraud.

Reagan wasn't an economist and he was the last one of his circle to come around to supply side.

Stockman? A brilliants young conservative who Reagan put in charge of his budget and more. Of all the Americans at that time Reagan chose Stockman

Political career

He served as special assistant to United States Representative and 1980 U.S. presidential candidate John Anderson of Illinois, 1970–1972, and was executive director, United States House of Representatives Republican Conference, 1972–1975.


Congress

Stockman was elected to the United States House of Representatives for the 95th Congress and was reelected in two subsequent elections, serving from January 3, 1977, until his resignation January 21, 1981, to accept appointment as Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.


Office of Management and Budget

Stockman became one of the most controversial OMB directors ever, which lasted until his resignation in August 1985. Committed to the doctrine of supply-side economics, he assisted in the passage of the "Reagan Budget" (the Gramm-Latta Budget), which Stockman hoped would be a serious curtailment of the "welfare state". He thus gained a reputation as a tough negotiator with House Speaker Tip O'Neill's Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and Majority Leader Howard Baker's Republican-controlled Senate. During this period, Stockman became well known to the public during the contentious political wrangling concerning the role of the federal government in American society.


Stockman's influence within the Reagan Administration was negatively affected after the Atlantic Monthly magazine published the infamous 18,246 word article, "The Education of David Stockman",[7] in its December 1981 issue, based on lengthy interviews Stockman gave to reporter William Greider.


Stockman was quoted as referring to Reagan's tax act as: "I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... 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."[7] Of the budget process during his first year on the job, Stockman was quoted as saying: "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers," which was used as the subtitle of the article.[7]


After "being taken to the woodshed by the president" due to his candor with Atlantic Monthly's William Greider, Stockman became concerned with the projected trend of increasingly large federal deficits and the rapidly expanding national debt. On 1 August 1985, he resigned OMB and later wrote a memoir of his experience in the Reagan Administration titled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, in which he specifically criticized the failure of congressional Republicans to endorse a reduction of government spending to offset large tax decreases, in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an increasing national debt.

David Stockman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

As you noted...Reagan put Stockman in charge of his budget...which is not the same thing as putting him in charge of the economy...nor did Reagan take his economic cues from him. Laffer is the economist that Reagan based his economic theory on...not Stockman.

Go back to what this is all about, the Reagan budget, and the Fed Chair Volker was reappointed by Reagan. Get yer timelines and facts straight.

Reagan did NOT have an economic theory you dunce. He was not an economist.

Senator Paul Laxalt from Nevada (Reagan's First Friend) and Stockman ... learn the facts.

The Supply-siders pushed Stockman on Reagan as their man... learn yer facts

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

As you noted...Reagan put Stockman in charge of his budget...which is not the same thing as putting him in charge of the economy...nor did Reagan take his economic cues from him. Laffer is the economist that Reagan based his economic theory on...not Stockman.

In Dante's files: Reagan's Santa Claus act...

IN THE NATION
IN THE NATION; And Still No Santa

By Tom Wicker

Published: December 25, 1981

In this season when everyone wishes there were a Santa Claus, here's a good measure of President Reagan's economic and political dilemma:


Mr. Reagan has given Representative Glenn English, an Oklahoma Democrat, a written pledge that he will not demand a windfall tax if natural gas prices are deregulated. And Senator Paul Laxalt, Mr. Reagan's close friend, says the President will honor that pledge unless Mr. English releases him.


The Oklahoman is having none of that. He told Howell Raines of The New York Times that if the Administration wanted new taxes, it would have to concede that supply-side economics had failed. After all, he pointed out, Mr. Reagan's argument for a 25 percent income tax cut had been that it would produce sufficient economic growth, hence revenues, to avoid deficits.


...


...


Having sold his tax program as the key to an economic boom, and his package of budget and tax cuts as providing ''all the essential elements of recovery,'' Mr. Reagan is now faced with the possibility of having to increase taxes to avoid what his Budget Director and Republican Senate leaders fear will be ruinous deficits over the next few years. What a bitter Christmas present for last summer's smiling leader!


Proponents of a tax increase, of course, are not necessarily correct. Some who argue against them suspect Budget Director Stockman's deficit figures may again be designed to support his case. Supply-siders insist that the expected boom in investment and production will yet appear if Mr. Reagan sticks to his guns. Monetarists contend that the deficits don't matter all that much; other voices add that, anyway, it's the current recession that's running up the red ink.


Besides, according to House Republican leaders, for Mr. Reagan to raise taxes now might prolong that recession, when the scheduled 10 percent cut in income tax rates in July might help the economy rebound (just in time for the November elections, too).


...


Mr. Reagan, moreover, is known to have faith in his own program - which may be one of the reasons he oversold it. To reverse course would not only be damaging politically; it would be a personally wrenching intellectual switch as well.


...


No one has done more over the years than Ronald Reagan and the Republicans to make ''deficit'' a bad word in the American political lexicon...


To avoid or limit those deficits, the President can cut back his military buildup, which he insists he won't do; or slice deeply into expensive entitlement programs like Social Security, which would be exceptionally difficult and politically damaging; or raise taxes. Or he can let Congress do some or all of those things over his protest.


The Senate majority leader, Howard Baker, and Mr. Laxalt are among those urging Mr. Reagan to raise taxes, although they were among last summer's leaders in urging him to cut them. Adding to his dilemma is the counsel of House leaders that he stick with the tax program already enacted. The President's own advisers are divided on the question, too - but no doubt united in renewed belief that there is no Santa Claus.

note: found it. it still exists in the cyber space: IN THE NATION; And Still No Santa​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How many straw men does it take to put out a fire at a Tea Party?

Too many to count

Simple question, Dante...show me a business model where trickle down economics is used?

I bet you consider weather reporters climate change scientists

you confuse national economic policies and economic models and theories with business plans?

I'm not confused about anything. You on the other hand confuse a derogatory term used by liberals to denigrate Supply Side economics with an actual economic model...and then completely FAIL when asked to show where "trickle down" is employed!

again,
I bet you consider weather reporters climate change scientists

you confuse national economic policies and economic models and theories with business plans?

Again you duck the question.

It's a simple concept, Dante...show us where "trickle down" theory exists anywhere but in the minds of liberals trying to denigrate Supply Side economics?

What's ironic is probably the closest thing to "trickle down" theory is when the Government takes citizen's assets and then redistributes those assets back to citizens...after wasting a huge amount through inefficiency. We give them a whole bunch of money and they give us back a lot less money. THAT is trickle down.

Some of the people Dante has quoted who refer to it as Trickle down, are/were not liberals. They were conservatives. Get a life

next

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Concerning Paul Volcker, I recall looking to buy my first house just after Reagan took office but the 21% home interest rates held me back. Being a COBOL programmer I never lacked for a job and so it was easy for me to stomach the continuing medicine Volcker had us on to induce a recession and curb inflation . By '83 happy days were here again, inflation had finally been tamed and I bought a home. When I hear "Reagan Recession" I just count myself fortunate to have been in position where I could take it as non-political.

thank Volker who Reagan reappointed in 1983

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

difficult to get through thread as many posts are right wingers praising each other

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Concerning Paul Volcker, I recall looking to buy my first house just after Reagan took office but the 21% home interest rates held me back. Being a COBOL programmer I never lacked for a job and so it was easy for me to stomach the continuing medicine Volcker had us on to induce a recession and curb inflation . By '83 happy days were here again, inflation had finally been tamed and I bought a home. When I hear "Reagan Recession" I just count myself fortunate to have been in position where I could take it as non-political.

Yeah our First house was purchased in 83... I remember the Realtor chronically using the term "Creative Financing". We signed at an unprecedentedly low, LOW 30 year fixed Rate of 13.5%.

This down from the 26% that we were told was the best anyone could do, in 1981 when we first started looking go buy.

A few years later we refinanced for 7.95%. Thanks to "Reganomics" overriding the catastrophic effect of Socialist Policy established by Jimma Cawtuh... who was THE WORST PRESIDENT in US History, until 1993 when Clinton took office; who took over that slot... until 2009 when the Brown Clown slithered into position.

There's little chance that the US will survive the subversion that the Left has planted through the sitting of a Muslim Chief Executive in the midst of the War with Islam.

No. Reaganomics sucked. Paul Volker was in charge of the Fed. In 1983 Reagan reappointed Carter's Fed Chair

 

[Oldstyle]

David Stockman isn't even an economist to the best of my knowledge...Thomas Sowell on the other hand is a brilliant one. I had a class with him at Amherst College and learned an incredible amount.

Davis Stockman was Reagan's Budget Director

look up what that entails

Is Stockman an economist? He majored in history and then went to Seminary school before going into politics. Once he got canned by Reagan he went into business and managed to take several investment businesses into bankruptcy...performing so badly as a CEO that he was indicted for securities fraud.

Reagan wasn't an economist and he was the last one of his circle to come around to supply side.

Stockman? A brilliants young conservative who Reagan put in charge of his budget and more. Of all the Americans at that time Reagan chose Stockman

Political career

He served as special assistant to United States Representative and 1980 U.S. presidential candidate John Anderson of Illinois, 1970–1972, and was executive director, United States House of Representatives Republican Conference, 1972–1975.


Congress

Stockman was elected to the United States House of Representatives for the 95th Congress and was reelected in two subsequent elections, serving from January 3, 1977, until his resignation January 21, 1981, to accept appointment as Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.


Office of Management and Budget

Stockman became one of the most controversial OMB directors ever, which lasted until his resignation in August 1985. Committed to the doctrine of supply-side economics, he assisted in the passage of the "Reagan Budget" (the Gramm-Latta Budget), which Stockman hoped would be a serious curtailment of the "welfare state". He thus gained a reputation as a tough negotiator with House Speaker Tip O'Neill's Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and Majority Leader Howard Baker's Republican-controlled Senate. During this period, Stockman became well known to the public during the contentious political wrangling concerning the role of the federal government in American society.


Stockman's influence within the Reagan Administration was negatively affected after the Atlantic Monthly magazine published the infamous 18,246 word article, "The Education of David Stockman",[7] in its December 1981 issue, based on lengthy interviews Stockman gave to reporter William Greider.


Stockman was quoted as referring to Reagan's tax act as: "I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... 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."[7] Of the budget process during his first year on the job, Stockman was quoted as saying: "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers," which was used as the subtitle of the article.[7]


After "being taken to the woodshed by the president" due to his candor with Atlantic Monthly's William Greider, Stockman became concerned with the projected trend of increasingly large federal deficits and the rapidly expanding national debt. On 1 August 1985, he resigned OMB and later wrote a memoir of his experience in the Reagan Administration titled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, in which he specifically criticized the failure of congressional Republicans to endorse a reduction of government spending to offset large tax decreases, in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an increasing national debt.

David Stockman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

As you noted...Reagan put Stockman in charge of his budget...which is not the same thing as putting him in charge of the economy...nor did Reagan take his economic cues from him. Laffer is the economist that Reagan based his economic theory on...not Stockman.

Go back to what this is all about, the Reagan budget, and the Fed Chair Volker was reappointed by Reagan. Get yer timelines and facts straight.

Reagan did NOT have an economic theory you dunce. He was not an economist.

Senator Paul Laxalt from Nevada (Reagan's First Friend) and Stockman ... learn the facts.

The Supply-siders pushed Stockman on Reagan as their man... learn yer facts

So now you're claiming that Reagan did not have an economic theory and the reason he didn't was that he was not an economist...but Stockman did have an economic theory even though he had a degree in history and theology and wasn't an economist either? Do you have any idea how stupid that posit is? Laffer was Reagan's favorite economist because Laffer gave Reagan the Laffer Curve which matched Reagan's economic beliefs to a Tee!

 

[Oldstyle]

As you noted...Reagan put Stockman in charge of his budget...which is not the same thing as putting him in charge of the economy...nor did Reagan take his economic cues from him. Laffer is the economist that Reagan based his economic theory on...not Stockman.

In Dante's files: Reagan's Santa Claus act...

IN THE NATION
IN THE NATION; And Still No Santa

By Tom Wicker

Published: December 25, 1981

In this season when everyone wishes there were a Santa Claus, here's a good measure of President Reagan's economic and political dilemma:


Mr. Reagan has given Representative Glenn English, an Oklahoma Democrat, a written pledge that he will not demand a windfall tax if natural gas prices are deregulated. And Senator Paul Laxalt, Mr. Reagan's close friend, says the President will honor that pledge unless Mr. English releases him.


The Oklahoman is having none of that. He told Howell Raines of The New York Times that if the Administration wanted new taxes, it would have to concede that supply-side economics had failed. After all, he pointed out, Mr. Reagan's argument for a 25 percent income tax cut had been that it would produce sufficient economic growth, hence revenues, to avoid deficits.


...


...


Having sold his tax program as the key to an economic boom, and his package of budget and tax cuts as providing ''all the essential elements of recovery,'' Mr. Reagan is now faced with the possibility of having to increase taxes to avoid what his Budget Director and Republican Senate leaders fear will be ruinous deficits over the next few years. What a bitter Christmas present for last summer's smiling leader!


Proponents of a tax increase, of course, are not necessarily correct. Some who argue against them suspect Budget Director Stockman's deficit figures may again be designed to support his case. Supply-siders insist that the expected boom in investment and production will yet appear if Mr. Reagan sticks to his guns. Monetarists contend that the deficits don't matter all that much; other voices add that, anyway, it's the current recession that's running up the red ink.


Besides, according to House Republican leaders, for Mr. Reagan to raise taxes now might prolong that recession, when the scheduled 10 percent cut in income tax rates in July might help the economy rebound (just in time for the November elections, too).


...


Mr. Reagan, moreover, is known to have faith in his own program - which may be one of the reasons he oversold it. To reverse course would not only be damaging politically; it would be a personally wrenching intellectual switch as well.


...


No one has done more over the years than Ronald Reagan and the Republicans to make ''deficit'' a bad word in the American political lexicon...


To avoid or limit those deficits, the President can cut back his military buildup, which he insists he won't do; or slice deeply into expensive entitlement programs like Social Security, which would be exceptionally difficult and politically damaging; or raise taxes. Or he can let Congress do some or all of those things over his protest.


The Senate majority leader, Howard Baker, and Mr. Laxalt are among those urging Mr. Reagan to raise taxes, although they were among last summer's leaders in urging him to cut them. Adding to his dilemma is the counsel of House leaders that he stick with the tax program already enacted. The President's own advisers are divided on the question, too - but no doubt united in renewed belief that there is no Santa Claus.

note: found it. it still exists in the cyber space: IN THE NATION; And Still No Santa​

So you quote an article written at the beginning of Reagan's governance...depicting the unease and uncertainty as the nation attempted to recover from the Stagflation that Ronald Reagan inherited from Jimmy Carter. There was indeed gnashing of teeth among some Republicans who were skeptical of Reagan's approach with the economy. They were feeling the pressure from their constituents over unemployment since Reagan first sought to curb inflation by getting the Fed to raise interest rates. That led to higher unemployment numbers and added to the heat that Reagan was under.

Yet through all that...Reagan remained convinced that his economic theories were going to work and that Supply Side would lead to an economic surge...so he stuck to his guns and didn't raise taxes. So who was right? Reagan's policies led to intense growth in the economy. He was right and the naysayers were silenced as Reagan achieved a runaway reelection.

 

[Oldstyle]

Simple question, Dante...show me a business model where trickle down economics is used?

I bet you consider weather reporters climate change scientists

you confuse national economic policies and economic models and theories with business plans?

I'm not confused about anything. You on the other hand confuse a derogatory term used by liberals to denigrate Supply Side economics with an actual economic model...and then completely FAIL when asked to show where "trickle down" is employed!

again,
I bet you consider weather reporters climate change scientists

you confuse national economic policies and economic models and theories with business plans?

Again you duck the question.

It's a simple concept, Dante...show us where "trickle down" theory exists anywhere but in the minds of liberals trying to denigrate Supply Side economics?

What's ironic is probably the closest thing to "trickle down" theory is when the Government takes citizen's assets and then redistributes those assets back to citizens...after wasting a huge amount through inefficiency. We give them a whole bunch of money and they give us back a lot less money. THAT is trickle down.

Some of the people Dante has quoted who refer to it as Trickle down, are/were not liberals. They were conservatives. Get a life

next

If all these people are referring to "trickle down" economic theory...then SURELY you should be able to give me an example of trickle down economic theory in action, Dante! Yet you can't...which should tell you something.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Almost missed this one Rocko

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So now you're claiming that Reagan did not have an economic theory and the reason he didn't was that he was not an economist...but Stockman did have an economic theory even though he had a degree in history and theology and wasn't an economist either? Do you have any idea how stupid that posit is? Laffer was Reagan's favorite economist because Laffer gave Reagan the Laffer Curve which matched Reagan's economic beliefs to a Tee!

How you've come to these conclusions is for a team of Psychiatrists and Neurologists to decide.

you are the one who started the 'who is an economist' tactic "David Stockman isn't even an economist to the best of my knowledge." I merely pointed out neither was Reagan

You also argued with much confusion, that supply side/laffer curse was about a business model as opposed to an economic theory -- "Dante...show me a business model where trickle down economics is used" -- and you confused economic theories with business models
---

In 1975:
Laffer, wrote out his 'curve' on a napkin (so appropriate) during a dinner with Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, of the Ford White House. WSJ's Jude Wanniski and Arthur former was a former chief economist at --- the Office of Management and Budget.


For your next assignment:
Supply-Side Economics and Austrian Economics | Foundation for Economic Education

Bruce Bartlett is the E. L. Wiegand Fellow in Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. D.C. He participated in the development of supply-side economics while on the staff of Congressman Jack Kemp and as Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. He is the author of Reaganomics: Supply Side Economics in Action (1981).

The term “supply-side economics” was coined in 1976 by Professor Herbert
Stein of the University of Virginia​

Sen Paul Laxalt , Reagan's *first friend, was the most powerful advocate of supply side.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I bet you consider weather reporters climate change scientists

you confuse national economic policies and economic models and theories with business plans?

I'm not confused about anything. You on the other hand confuse a derogatory term used by liberals to denigrate Supply Side economics with an actual economic model...and then completely FAIL when asked to show where "trickle down" is employed!

again,
I bet you consider weather reporters climate change scientists

you confuse national economic policies and economic models and theories with business plans?

Again you duck the question.

It's a simple concept, Dante...show us where "trickle down" theory exists anywhere but in the minds of liberals trying to denigrate Supply Side economics?

What's ironic is probably the closest thing to "trickle down" theory is when the Government takes citizen's assets and then redistributes those assets back to citizens...after wasting a huge amount through inefficiency. We give them a whole bunch of money and they give us back a lot less money. THAT is trickle down.

Some of the people Dante has quoted who refer to it as Trickle down, are/were not liberals. They were conservatives. Get a life

next

If all these people are referring to "trickle down" economic theory...then SURELY you should be able to give me an example of trickle down economic theory in action, Dante! Yet you can't...which should tell you something.

The failure of Reaganomics

 

[Oldstyle]

So now you're claiming that Reagan did not have an economic theory and the reason he didn't was that he was not an economist...but Stockman did have an economic theory even though he had a degree in history and theology and wasn't an economist either? Do you have any idea how stupid that posit is? Laffer was Reagan's favorite economist because Laffer gave Reagan the Laffer Curve which matched Reagan's economic beliefs to a Tee!

How you've come to these conclusions is for a team of Psychiatrists and Neurologists to decide.

you are the one who started the 'who is an economist' tactic "David Stockman isn't even an economist to the best of my knowledge." I merely pointed out neither was Reagan

You also argued with much confusion, that supply side/laffer curse was about a business model as opposed to an economic theory -- "Dante...show me a business model where trickle down economics is used" -- and you confused economic theories with business models
---

In 1975:
Laffer, wrote out his 'curve' on a napkin (so appropriate) during a dinner with Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, of the Ford White House. WSJ's Jude Wanniski and Arthur former was a former chief economist at --- the Office of Management and Budget.


For your next assignment:
Supply-Side Economics and Austrian Economics | Foundation for Economic Education

Bruce Bartlett is the E. L. Wiegand Fellow in Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. D.C. He participated in the development of supply-side economics while on the staff of Congressman Jack Kemp and as Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. He is the author of Reaganomics: Supply Side Economics in Action (1981).

The term “supply-side economics” was coined in 1976 by Professor Herbert
Stein of the University of Virginia​

Sen Paul Laxalt , Reagan's *first friend, was the most powerful advocate of supply side.

You were the person who stated Reagan couldn't have an economic theory because he wasn't an economist and I simply pointed out how ironic that stand was since the person you seem to LOVE when it comes to economics is David Stockman who wasn't an economist either and went to Seminary school! Why is it that Reagan's opinion on economics doesn't matter yet Stockman's does?

What I "argued" was that there is no such thing as "trickle down economics" except in the minds of liberals who don't know a thing about business or economics! The reason you can't give me an example of trickle down economics in practice...is that it doesn't exist! I might as well ask you to show me a unicorn!

 

[Oldstyle]

And I've not confused business models with economic models. All I did was give you the option of providing an example of "trickle down" theory from either...something that you STILL are unable to do!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You were the person who stated Reagan couldn't have an economic theory because he wasn't an economist...

in response to you dismissing Stockman's statements on the trickle down economics behind the budget he was put in charge of by Reagan, saying Stockman was not an economist.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And I've not confused business models with economic models. All I did was give you the option of providing an example of "trickle down" theory from either...something that you STILL are unable to do!

Reaganomics = trickle down theory

 

[Oldstyle]

And I've not confused business models with economic models. All I did was give you the option of providing an example of "trickle down" theory from either...something that you STILL are unable to do!

Reaganomics = trickle down theory

Another evasive answer! I know that's what you progressives have LABELED Reaganomics, Dante but what is it that "trickles down" from lower marginal tax rates? From reducing regulation? From tightening the money supply to reduce inflation? From slowing the growth of government spending? Those four things are the basis of Reagan's economic plan. How do any of those things equal "trickle down theory"?

Wouldn't it be more descriptive to say that Government increasing taxes on taxpayers...wasting much of that money on a bloated governmental structure and then doling what remains back to taxpayers is the REAL trickle down theory? Or wouldn't the steadily increasing level of debt that each American owes because of runaway Government spending be another REAL trickle down theory? The Federal Government spends money it doesn't have and the increased debt trickles down to each and every American tax payer! Of course that's not really a "trickle"...is it? I guess we'd need to call that "flooding down theory"?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Another evasive answer! I know that's what you progressives have LABELED Reaganomics, Dante but...

but...

Conservatives have called it Reaganomics

end of story

 

[Oldstyle]

Another evasive answer! I know that's what you progressives have LABELED Reaganomics, Dante but...

but...

Conservatives have called it Reaganomics

end of story

Conservatives HAVE called it Reaganomics! Liberals however refer to Reagan's economic plan as "trickle down economics" in what has always been a derogatory term that was never been based on reality. There is no such thing as "trickle down" economic theory except in your mind.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Another evasive answer! I know that's what you progressives have LABELED Reaganomics, Dante but...

but...

Conservatives have called it Reaganomics

end of story

Conservatives HAVE called it Reaganomics! Liberals however refer to Reagan's economic plan as "trickle down economics" in what has always been a derogatory term that was never been based on reality. There is no such thing as "trickle down" economic theory except in your mind.

GHW Bush called it Voodoo Economics. If you think he was alone in this opinion in conservative circles you are insane