Do you believe in trickle down economics?

[SuperDemocrat]

No, and neither does any economist who wants to be taken seriously.

The books written by Karl Marx are the only ones that should be read.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, because the rich include screwing the not-rich in their agenda.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, because the rich include screwing the not-rich in their agenda.

Yeah, those Dem politicians are awful!

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Do I believe it or support it?

Yes, I believe it. Trickle down economics bottles up wealth at the top and allows just a tiny trickle to flow back down. In that, it should really be called neo-feudalism since it acts so aggressively against the sorts of middle class assumptions that were common in my youth. It works exactly as intended by creating economic stratification resembling that of a third world nation rather than a first -- the only difference being in the amount of wealth spread around rather than the manner in which it is spread.

Do I support it, though? No. The fact that we were once a middle class society is what made us great. We are no longer great because our system does not deliver the greatest good to the greatest number of people.

neo-feudulism? I kind of thought that propping up companies that are about to go under since they are best friends with the ruling politicians of this country is kind like the dukes being able to keep their monopoly on land because they were the the third cousin of the king.

The guy who actually works hard for something and could actually lose it because someone came along and did it better is hardly a feudal lord. Stop reading Karl Marx.

 

[Mac1958]

Do tax breaks and bigger incomes for the wealthy benefit all of us in the end?

No, I believe in (a) finding a proper equilibrium between taxation that does not too negatively impede dynamic economic growth on one hand, and a strong safety net that does not too negatively impede dynamic personal growth on the other hand, and (b) not listening to politicians, politicos, pundits and partisans who allow their narcissistic ideology to turn their "economic theories" into shallow, simplistic bumper-sticker platitudes which do zero (0) to advance the conversation.
.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I would say that the only way new wealth is created is by trickle-down. Do you really think that their is a enough money in the middle-class to provide jobs for themselves? I remember the days when we had unemployment way below the levels we have now.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

There is no such thing as "trickle down economics". It's an entirely made up term.

Now, if you want to discuss "Supply Side" economics, let me know.

Supply Side economics is taken as seriously in the field of economics as unicorns are in paleontology.

Supply side economics is a direct result of the failure of demand side economics, so, you'd be wrong. That being said, both theories have their merits. To dismiss one entirely is ludicrous.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No, because the rich include screwing the not-rich in their agenda.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

 

[Disgruntled_American]

Do tax breaks and bigger incomes for the wealthy benefit all of us in the end?

Do higher taxes and more and more regulations harm all of us in the end?

Define what "harm" you are talking about. Because regulations such as safety standards HAVE saved lives. Not all regulations or taxes are bad.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do tax breaks and bigger incomes for the wealthy benefit all of us in the end?

Do higher taxes and more and more regulations harm all of us in the end?

Define what "harm" you are talking about. Because regulations such as safety standards HAVE saved lives. Not all regulations or taxes are bad.

Define what "harm" you are talking about.

Loss of jobs, loss of tax revenue.

Because regulations such as safety standards HAVE saved lives.

And at a certain point, an extra 10,000 pages of regulations don't help anymore.

Not all regulations or taxes are bad.

Not all regulations or taxes are helpful.

 

[Contumacious]

Do tax breaks and bigger incomes for the wealthy benefit all of us in the end?

Do higher taxes and more and more regulations harm all of us in the end?

Define what "harm" you are talking about. Because regulations such as safety standards HAVE saved lives. Not all regulations or taxes are bad.

All taxes and government regulations are bad.


.

 

[Disgruntled_American]

Do tax breaks and bigger incomes for the wealthy benefit all of us in the end?

Do higher taxes and more and more regulations harm all of us in the end?

Define what "harm" you are talking about. Because regulations such as safety standards HAVE saved lives. Not all regulations or taxes are bad.

All taxes and government regulations are bad.


.

So you are for anarchy then. Got it.

 

[FJO]

"Trickle down" economy certainly benefited me,

Since I don't have the despicable envy most liberals seem to possess, I am happy with my gains without comparing them to the gains of people who are smarter or harder working than I am.

I stuck it out with the same employer for close to forty years, in spite the fact that there were times when I was close to sing them the famous song by Johnny Paycheck.

I told nobody to shove it, so nobody told me to shove it either. I am comfortable to go back to the office any time and say hello to every body and feel welcomed. I am also comfortable with my pension. I am content that life gave me back what I gave to it.

And, yes, things started to look up for me when Ronald Reagan started his first term. I got to stop paying Jimmy Carter's 18% mortgage rate. I enjoyed paying less for everything than I did during Carter's term. enjoyed my vacations in Florida more because I saw a nation who once again had hope and optimism.

What trickled down to me was the result of my own hard work and the fact that if we don't bitch we prosper.