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.
I can't believe some moron started this thread.
I cant believe some moron is so low information he had to recycle a clever pic from another poster on the same thread. WHy can't you get your own material?
Garbage in, garbage out. That also applies to education.
Trickle down economics is a pejorative term for the adage that a rising tide lifts all boats, large and small. Also used to denigrate the idea that tax cuts are viable tools for creating a more favorable economic environment that helps grow an economy.
The small minded liberal/socialists cannot get beyond the idea that those who pay the most in taxes get the largest cuts. They like the idea of the 'fair share' when taxes go up, but not so much as taxes come down.
Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well as invest in capital.
In 2003, Alan Murray, who at the time was Washington bureau chief for CNBC and a co-host of the television program Capital Report, declared the debate over supply-side economics to have ended "with a whimper" after extensive modeling performed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted that the revenue generating effects of the specific tax cuts examined would be, in his words, "relatively small."
For years, advocates of supply-side economics have justified repeated calls for tax cuts for high earners by arguing the cuts will pay for themselves by dramatically boosting economic growth and thus tax revenues. They have just as adamantly insisted that if only Capitol Hill's official arbiter of the budgets, the Congressional Budget Office, would evaluate tax cuts through the prism of "dynamic scoring" -- which projects the macroeconomic impact of tax cuts as well as the lost revenues they produce -- their point of view would be vindicated.
Well, CBO has done just that with President Bush's budget, and guess what? In a report prepared under the supervision of a supply-side economist handpicked by the White House and published last week, CBO concluded the president's budget would make long-term budget deficits worse rather than better.
It's taking a while to sink in, but that CBO document pretty much pronounced the death of the supply-side economics.
The Death of Supply-Side Economics (printable version)
This is the same CBO that insisted that Obama Care would reduce the deficit right?
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.
Those are the positions of Communists.
So you're right.
Really, are you being your usual stupid self, or do you really believe the right to organize with others (in a union, a political party, a church, a golf or yacht club) are Communist institutions? Do you really believe, or are you being your usual stupid self to argue that the right to petition the government is a communistic tactic?
The lefties here frequently mock "trickle down economics" as the cause of our slow economy. So what is trickle down economics? I want to hear an explanation. Snarky responses like "it's what the GOP believes" will be thrashed soundly.
Trickle-down economic theory in the nutshell basically asserts that tax breaks for the wealthy will eventually benefit the poor by improving the economy as a whole as well as the additional idea/theory (unproven in any and every real world test) that the tax cuts will eventually pay for themselves.
any attempt to stimulate economic growth by cutting taxes for the rich will do nothing -- it hasn't worked over the past 50 years.
next question.
Except when it did, like under Kennedy, Reagan, and the beginning of Bush's term.
Next.
How do you refuts a cartoon? You are truly a dumbass.Sorry Rabbi
But your threads warrant little more than cartoons
Here is another one that shoots down your beloved "Trickle Down"
See, the Left can only "argue" by posting bumper sticker quotes and cartoons. They think they win if they post the cleverest, or the most or something.
is that why you can't refute the cartoons and post factual evidence that supports your theory ?
ok, you win dumbest poster award
Too Dumb To Refute Cartoons !
The lefties here frequently mock "trickle down economics" as the cause of our slow economy. So what is trickle down economics? I want to hear an explanation. Snarky responses like "it's what the GOP believes" will be thrashed soundly.
Trickle-down economic theory in the nutshell basically asserts that tax breaks for the wealthy will eventually benefit the poor by improving the economy as a whole as well as the additional idea/theory (unproven in any and every real world test) that the tax cuts will eventually pay for themselves.
Wrong. Next. And this is after I posted a correct description.
I can't believe some moron started this thread.
I cant believe some moron is so low information he had to recycle a clever pic from another poster on the same thread. WHy can't you get your own material?
Actually, I didn't know someone had already posted it - therefore, it was my own material. I only scanned your thread title and first post.
It is only through the supply side that innovation can be spurred, Keynes was not so much wrong, as narrow minded in his views; yes, if labor controls the economy, the wealth of labor will increase. Without the markets & supply increasing however, there will be no re input of that wealth. Products & services must increase in order for earned wealth to be reinvested in the economy. Thus Keynes should be discarded, old theory, and incompete.
From what I remember of Keynesian economics, the main concept is government deficit spending can be used to fix an economic downturn. However what we currently do is not Keynesian because the theory states that you remove that debt during economic upturns, i.e. you use the surplus to pay off the debt.
We do not do that now, we use up any surplus to expand the size of government, so we only use the first part of the Keynesian cycle.
You mean since Reaganomics took hold right?
Of course Clinton was on pace to pay off the debt, remember Ayn Rand Greenspan going in front of Congress for Dubya arguing Clinton's policies were in danger of paying the debt down to fast? Dubya/GOP took care of that!
Trickle-down economic theory in the nutshell basically asserts that tax breaks for the wealthy will eventually benefit the poor by improving the economy as a whole as well as the additional idea/theory (unproven in any and every real world test) that the tax cuts will eventually pay for themselves.
Wrong. Next. And this is after I posted a correct description.
Look who gets to decide what the "correct description" is
Here, allow me to educate the brainwashed and indoctrinated who've bought into complete revisionist history.
You know, the way inmates do.
Inflation rates were in double digits during Carter. As high as 19%.
Unemployment rates were in double digits, as high as 12%.
Interest rates were double digit. Close to 20% at times.
Now for those who are NOT paid by unions to come here and pretend the Soviet Union beat the U.S. and Reagan destroyed the economy...but are just not old enough to know the real history....what Reagan did was bring all those rates down to single digits.
Quiz for the liberal LIARS: When you bring rates from double digits for interest rates, unemployment rates, and inflation rates down to single digits, does this impact the average American in the middle class in a POSITIVE WAY or NEGATIVE WAY?
Anyone that says negative will be too stupid to be debated with again.
So how bout it? I'm waiting for the idiots who try to spin that bringing inflation, unemployment and interest rates way down is bad for the middle class. But I'm sure we'll have some.
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.
Here, allow me to educate the brainwashed and indoctrinated who've bought into complete revisionist history.
You know, the way inmates do.
Inflation rates were in double digits during Carter. As high as 19%.
Unemployment rates were in double digits, as high as 12%.
Interest rates were double digit. Close to 20% at times.
Now for those who are NOT paid by unions to come here and pretend the Soviet Union beat the U.S. and Reagan destroyed the economy...but are just not old enough to know the real history....what Reagan did was bring all those rates down to single digits.
Quiz for the liberal LIARS: When you bring rates from double digits for interest rates, unemployment rates, and inflation rates down to single digits, does this impact the average American in the middle class in a POSITIVE WAY or NEGATIVE WAY?
Anyone that says negative will be too stupid to be debated with again.
So how bout it? I'm waiting for the idiots who try to spin that bringing inflation, unemployment and interest rates way down is bad for the middle class. But I'm sure we'll have some.
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.
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
Translation: I'm an idiot.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.
Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well as invest in capital.
In 2003, Alan Murray, who at the time was Washington bureau chief for CNBC and a co-host of the television program Capital Report, declared the debate over supply-side economics to have ended "with a whimper" after extensive modeling performed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted that the revenue generating effects of the specific tax cuts examined would be, in his words, "relatively small."
For years, advocates of supply-side economics have justified repeated calls for tax cuts for high earners by arguing the cuts will pay for themselves by dramatically boosting economic growth and thus tax revenues. They have just as adamantly insisted that if only Capitol Hill's official arbiter of the budgets, the Congressional Budget Office, would evaluate tax cuts through the prism of "dynamic scoring" -- which projects the macroeconomic impact of tax cuts as well as the lost revenues they produce -- their point of view would be vindicated.
Well, CBO has done just that with President Bush's budget, and guess what? In a report prepared under the supervision of a supply-side economist handpicked by the White House and published last week, CBO concluded the president's budget would make long-term budget deficits worse rather than better.
It's taking a while to sink in, but that CBO document pretty much pronounced the death of the supply-side economics.
The Death of Supply-Side Economics (printable version)
This is the same CBO that insisted that Obama Care would reduce the deficit right?
You mean Obamacares that is 100% funded UNLIKE ANYTHING THE GOP EVER BRINGS US?
YES THAT SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMIST DUBYA/CHENEY HAND PICKED SAID IT FAILED., AND?
We see the success of Dubya gutting taxes on the 'job creators' and the millions and millions of jobs that created right?
Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies -1.2+ million PRIVATE jobs in 8 years (not counting the 4+ million lost in 2009 thanks to his regulator failures!)
OBAMA HAS 10+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS SINCE HITTING THE BUSH BOTTOM MARCH 2010
The lefties here frequently mock "trickle down economics" as the cause of our slow economy. So what is trickle down economics? I want to hear an explanation. Snarky responses like "it's what the GOP believes" will be thrashed soundly.
Trickle-down economic theory in the nutshell basically asserts that tax breaks for the wealthy will eventually benefit the poor by improving the economy as a whole as well as the additional idea/theory (unproven in any and every real world test) that the tax cuts will eventually pay for themselves.
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
Was that supposed to be funny or clever?
Because guess which president cut tax rates to stimulate growth.
any attempt to stimulate economic growth by cutting taxes for the rich will do nothing -- it hasn't worked over the past 50 years.
next question.
Except when it did, like under Kennedy, Reagan, and the beginning of Bush's term.
Next.
From what I remember of Keynesian economics, the main concept is government deficit spending can be used to fix an economic downturn. However what we currently do is not Keynesian because the theory states that you remove that debt during economic upturns, i.e. you use the surplus to pay off the debt.
We do not do that now, we use up any surplus to expand the size of government, so we only use the first part of the Keynesian cycle.
You mean since Reaganomics took hold right?
Of course Clinton was on pace to pay off the debt, remember Ayn Rand Greenspan going in front of Congress for Dubya arguing Clinton's policies were in danger of paying the debt down to fast? Dubya/GOP took care of that!
Clinton was not on pace to pay off anything. Those rosy projections were pure fiction, based on economic projections that did not exist. The economy had already flattened out before Clinton left office, and went into recession three months later.
