Thinker101
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2017
- 24,824
- 15,095
Creating more debt and giving more to the uber rich
Wow, someone sure seems to want to be more equal with the slugs that don't want to work.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Creating more debt and giving more to the uber rich
"trickle down" is a euphemism leftwingers created that literally means "the free market."Study is from the London school of economics.
Here's a link to someone besides wapo.
![]()
Huge new study shows trickle-down economics makes inequality worse, researchers say
The concept of cutting taxes to generate more revenue was a key foundation of Reaganomics.thehill.com
Thanks for a non-pay walled source.
But you still failed to explain this "trickle down economics" you speak of.
Edit: What utter pablum. About what I expect from the moron left. The only thing of value in the babble was the acknowledgment that "Trickle Down" is a phrase Will Rogers used in a comedy skit and has no relation to any school or principle of economics.
Notice that there's no reference to the institution or people who did the so-called "study."A study by WAPO and some commie professors?
It's nothing but propaganda, of course.
ChiCom Creepy posted a non-pay walled version.
![]()
Huge new study shows trickle-down economics makes inequality worse, researchers say
The concept of cutting taxes to generate more revenue was a key foundation of Reaganomics.thehill.com
It's laughably childish - big bright colors like a comic book to excite the leftists, with nothing but childish slogans behind it.
There is no such thing as trickle down tax cuts. The debt is due to out of control spending. You could tax all of the wealthy people at 100% and it would not put a dent in the debt.
Creating more debt and giving more to the uber rich
There is no such thing as trickle down tax cuts. The debt is due to out of control spending. You could tax all of the wealthy people at 100% and it would not put a dent in the debt.
Creating more debt and giving more to the uber rich
No the debt is due to out of control spending way beyond whatever gubmint could bring in on income taxes. It doesn't matter if you tax wealthy folks at 30 or 40 or 100% of their income it will not put a dent in the debt. Wealthy folks would just off shore their money/income/move etc.There is no such thing as trickle down tax cuts. The debt is due to out of control spending. You could tax all of the wealthy people at 100% and it would not put a dent in the debt.
Creating more debt and giving more to the uber rich
The debt is due to lack of revenue coming in period as those tax cuts produce no revenue and have not led to more people getting more money besides the rich.
There is no such thing as trickle down tax cuts. The debt is due to out of control spending. You could tax all of the wealthy people at 100% and it would not put a dent in the debt.
Creating more debt and giving more to the uber rich
The debt is due to lack of revenue coming in period as those tax cuts produce no revenue and have not led to more people getting more money besides the rich.
No the debt is due to out of control spending way beyond whatever gubmint could bring in on income taxes. It doesn't matter if you tax wealthy folks at 30 or 40 or 100% of their income it will not put a dent in the debt. Wealthy folks would just off shore their money/income/move etc.There is no such thing as trickle down tax cuts. The debt is due to out of control spending. You could tax all of the wealthy people at 100% and it would not put a dent in the debt.
Creating more debt and giving more to the uber rich
The debt is due to lack of revenue coming in period as those tax cuts produce no revenue and have not led to more people getting more money besides the rich.
How did you miss the fact Obama did this more than any other President in History... exponentially.People have only been using that phrase to describe republican gifts to the wealthy for 30 years.
How did you miss it?
Oh please, the concept is so simple even you can understand it with a little effort.People have only been using that phrase to describe republican gifts to the wealthy for 30 years.
How did you miss it?
Leftists have used it, yet they can never define what it means. Lefty hack Mac1958 at least pointed to Arthur Laffer, though he misrepresented and distorted what the Laffer Curve is.
Leftist bleat rote dogma with zero grasp what it means.
You can no more explain what "trickle down ecomomics" is than my dog can recite the periodic table.
Further, that laughably lame article the OP references notes that the phrase in fact goes back to the 1920's with Will Rogers defaming Herbert Hoover.
Don't be stupider than.....You mean commies have been publishing propaganda that says it. That's what the word "study" means.Studies have been finding that since good old Ronny Raygun.
Creating more debt and giving more to the uber rich
Don't expect the republicans to pay any attention.
Liberal Dictionary:
===============================
Study - Leftwing propaganda
Oh please, the concept is so simple even you can understand it with a little effort.People have only been using that phrase to describe republican gifts to the wealthy for 30 years.
How did you miss it?
Leftists have used it, yet they can never define what it means. Lefty hack Mac1958 at least pointed to Arthur Laffer, though he misrepresented and distorted what the Laffer Curve is.
Leftist bleat rote dogma with zero grasp what it means.
You can no more explain what "trickle down ecomomics" is than my dog can recite the periodic table.
Further, that laughably lame article the OP references notes that the phrase in fact goes back to the 1920's with Will Rogers defaming Herbert Hoover.
Trickle down economics is simply the belief that if you make the wealthy wealthier they will pass it down the chain to the mess wealthy, wether by direct purchases (spending increases economic activity) or by investing in expanding existing businesses or starting new ones.
There are several problems with this, the most notable being that they usually don't spend or invest it.
What makes you think I was a fan of that?How did you miss the fact Obama did this more than any other President in History... exponentially.People have only been using that phrase to describe republican gifts to the wealthy for 30 years.
How did you miss it?
And don't give me that "he saved the economy" bullshit... no. His administration continued to funnel upwards of $70 BILLION per MONTH to wealthy corporations and investment banks all the way to 2014. Despite the fact these companies were making record profits.
You miss that?
Oh please, the concept is so simple even you can understand it with a little effort.
Trickle down economics is simply the belief that if you make the wealthy wealthier they will pass it down the chain to the mess wealthy, wether by direct purchases (spending increases economic activity) or by investing in expanding existing businesses or starting new ones.
There are several problems with this, the most notable being that they usually don't spend or invest it.
Oh please, the concept is so simple even you can understand it with a little effort.People have only been using that phrase to describe republican gifts to the wealthy for 30 years.
How did you miss it?
Leftists have used it, yet they can never define what it means. Lefty hack Mac1958 at least pointed to Arthur Laffer, though he misrepresented and distorted what the Laffer Curve is.
Leftist bleat rote dogma with zero grasp what it means.
You can no more explain what "trickle down ecomomics" is than my dog can recite the periodic table.
Further, that laughably lame article the OP references notes that the phrase in fact goes back to the 1920's with Will Rogers defaming Herbert Hoover.
Trickle down economics is simply the belief that if you make the wealthy wealthier they will pass it down the chain to the mess wealthy, wether by direct purchases (spending increases economic activity) or by investing in expanding existing businesses or starting new ones.
There are several problems with this, the most notable being that they usually don't spend or invest it.
You are talking outta yer ass. That's exactly what it is. I do realize republican economists would not describe it in those words. They will say things like "supply side" and "reganomics" but they are the same thing.Oh please, the concept is so simple even you can understand it with a little effort.
Trickle down economics is simply the belief that if you make the wealthy wealthier they will pass it down the chain to the mess wealthy, wether by direct purchases (spending increases economic activity) or by investing in expanding existing businesses or starting new ones.
There are several problems with this, the most notable being that they usually don't spend or invest it.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
And who believes your bullshit?
You make up an absurd "belief" that you paint onto cartoon cutouts.
No economist in history has advocated anything remotely like the idiocy you spew.
So to recap; "trickle down" is a bullshit term invented by leftists to paint a caricature of capitalism in a clumsy attempt to defame market forces.
Saved. That's the word you're looking for.Oh please, the concept is so simple even you can understand it with a little effort.People have only been using that phrase to describe republican gifts to the wealthy for 30 years.
How did you miss it?
Leftists have used it, yet they can never define what it means. Lefty hack Mac1958 at least pointed to Arthur Laffer, though he misrepresented and distorted what the Laffer Curve is.
Leftist bleat rote dogma with zero grasp what it means.
You can no more explain what "trickle down ecomomics" is than my dog can recite the periodic table.
Further, that laughably lame article the OP references notes that the phrase in fact goes back to the 1920's with Will Rogers defaming Herbert Hoover.
Trickle down economics is simply the belief that if you make the wealthy wealthier they will pass it down the chain to the mess wealthy, wether by direct purchases (spending increases economic activity) or by investing in expanding existing businesses or starting new ones.
There are several problems with this, the most notable being that they usually don't spend or invest it.
There are several problems with this, the most notable being that they usually don't spend or invest it.
What are the other choices for saved money?
The deficit is the result of politicians spending every dime the government gets, and then 3 dollars more. The idea that lack of revenue is the problem is utterly absurd.There is no such thing as trickle down tax cuts. The debt is due to out of control spending. You could tax all of the wealthy people at 100% and it would not put a dent in the debt.
Creating more debt and giving more to the uber rich
The debt is due to lack of revenue coming in period as those tax cuts produce no revenue and have not led to more people getting more money besides the rich.
There are several problems with this, the most notable being that they usually don't spend or invest it.
What are the other choices for saved money?
Correct.Oh please, the concept is so simple even you can understand it with a little effort.People have only been using that phrase to describe republican gifts to the wealthy for 30 years.
How did you miss it?
Leftists have used it, yet they can never define what it means. Lefty hack Mac1958 at least pointed to Arthur Laffer, though he misrepresented and distorted what the Laffer Curve is.
Leftist bleat rote dogma with zero grasp what it means.
You can no more explain what "trickle down ecomomics" is than my dog can recite the periodic table.
Further, that laughably lame article the OP references notes that the phrase in fact goes back to the 1920's with Will Rogers defaming Herbert Hoover.
Trickle down economics is simply the belief that if you make the wealthy wealthier they will pass it down the chain to the mess wealthy, wether by direct purchases (spending increases economic activity) or by investing in expanding existing businesses or starting new ones.
There are several problems with this, the most notable being that they usually don't spend or invest it.