What is "Trickle Down Economics"?

[rightwinger]

More effects of Reagans "Trickle Down" on the middle class

 

[The Rabbi]

Come on Rabbi.....Tell us

Tell us the level JFK cut taxes to

Come on Rabbi, what was the tax rate after JFK 'cut" taxes?

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.

 

[Siete]

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

STUPID QUESTION ALERT !

Dumbass alert!
So were rates higher or lower after the cut? Simple question, right?

SAME STUPID QUESTION ALERT !!!!

 

[GreenBean]

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.

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

 

[Peach]

Except when it did, like under Kennedy, Reagan, and the beginning of Bush's term.
Next.

Did the Reagan administrtion apply true supply side economics? Massive defense spending boosted the economy, unlike under Bush II, that money was spent mostly in the US. The 20-21% interest rates were during Reagan's first year in office also, before the huge defense spending.

Massive defense spending could not account for the country's subsequent economic performance. Interest rates were raised to combat the endemic inflation. That was also successful. The combination of permanently lower tax rates, a simplified tax code, and higher rates followed by lower rates resulted in higher growth, higher employment and lower inflation.
Reagan inherited a mess and left a model economy. Obama inherited a problem and made it worse.

I agree on the second point, to an extent; deficits skyrocketed under Reagan, and did not go down. I see slight improvement under Obama, but again at the cost of huge debt.

 

[Erand7899]

"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 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.

 

[GreenBean]

STUPID QUESTION ALERT !

Dumbass alert!
So were rates higher or lower after the cut? Simple question, right?

SAME STUPID QUESTION ALERT !!!!

Are you able to answer it , or would you like some help ?

 

[nodoginnafight]

So creating more supply will eventually spur more demand? And you call people tard and moron? You have it bass ackwards fool. How can you not see how stupid that sounds?

Exactly, some may argue that with extra money in their pockets, they can now lower their price and create more demand. But selling more product is not the goal - making more money is. So if you can make more money by charging what the market will bear and producing what the market will bear, then the only thing accomplished with your government provided goody is more profit.

That's why the graph shows that during the period when trickle down theory was put into practice, the very wealthy were the only ones who benefited.

 

[The Rabbi]

Did the Reagan administrtion apply true supply side economics? Massive defense spending boosted the economy, unlike under Bush II, that money was spent mostly in the US. The 20-21% interest rates were during Reagan's first year in office also, before the huge defense spending.

Massive defense spending could not account for the country's subsequent economic performance. Interest rates were raised to combat the endemic inflation. That was also successful. The combination of permanently lower tax rates, a simplified tax code, and higher rates followed by lower rates resulted in higher growth, higher employment and lower inflation.
Reagan inherited a mess and left a model economy. Obama inherited a problem and made it worse.

I agree on the second point, to an extent; deficits skyrocketed under Reagan, and did not go down. I see slight improvement under Obama, but again at the cost of huge debt.

Deficits increased because a Democratic Congress would not cut spending.
But even so as a percentage of GDP the deficits decreased.

 

[EconChick]

19%?

12%?

LOL

Carter 1977

Jan 7.5%
Feb 7.6
March 7.4
April 7.2
May 7.0
June 7.2
July 6.9
Aug 7.0
Sept 6.8
Oct 6.8
Nov 6.8
Dec 6.4

1978
Jan 6.4
Feb 6.3
March 6.3
Apr 6.1
May 6.0
Jun 5.9
July 6.2
Aug 5.9
Sep 6.0
Oct 5.8
Nov 5.9
Dec 6.0

1979
Jan 5.9
Feb 5.9
Mar 5.8
Apr 5.8
May 5.6
Jun 5.7
Jul 5.7
Aug 6.0
Sept 5.9
Oct 6.0
Nov 5.9
Dec 6.0

1980
Jan 6.3
Feb 6.3
Mar 6.3
Apr 6.9
May 7.5
Jun 7.6
Jul 7.8 CARTER'S PEAK
Aug 7.7
Sept 7.5
Oct 7.5
Nov 7.5
Dec 7.2

01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


AGAIN, CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8

The mistake most assholes make is assuming the POTUS's policies are the primary driver of the economy.

The primary drivers of the economy are the welfare programs (incentive to not work), business, and other stuff like wars. The tech boom drove unemployment down in the 70s this was a bubble. The tech boom bubble popped while Regan was president. The dot com boom drove a big bubble during the Clinton years. The dot com bubble popped as Bush was entering office. Then the realestate bubble popped. Bubbles come and go. That's why we call them bubbles. Bush's economic screw ups were expanding welfare and starting needless wars.

Weird, so Dubya taking US to less than 15% of GDP revenues didn't hurt US after Clinton took Reagan's revenues back to Carters 20%+

NOR Dubya ignoring regulator warnings and cheering on the Bankster bubble?

Incentives NOT to work? Hell I though the LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN IN 80 YEARS, JOBS WOULD BE ALL OVER THE PLACE? WHAT HAPPENED?

The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.
P. J. O'Rourke

Once again, lots of bullshit by the linear left.

First of all, even if we use all of your stats AND your spin, we still have everything caused by Carter being double digits.

Let's start with unemployment numbers based on what YOU have given here.

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%.

5) That shows a clear correlation between HIS budget taking effect and steadily dropping to 5.2%. The height of Unemployment was due to Carter's policies. And it didn't go up and down like Obama's has.

Now, let's look at the inflation numbers. Fine, let's use YOUR adjusted inflation numbers for now. But look at what you also revealed. Your graph shows a drastic drop in inflation during the Reagan years.



Soooooooooooo, like I said, double digit unemployment (the 10.8% in YOUR chart a result of Carter's policies), double digit inflation, and double digit interest rates were brought down to single digits. That clearly helps the poor and middle class.



And we did that all using YOUR numbers, skippy.

 

[Lakhota]

Reaganomics

Fiscal consequences
The nominal national debt rose from $900 billion to $2.8 trillion during Reagan's tenure, an average national budget deficit per year of $237.5 billion, as compared to an average national budget deficit per year of $56.9 billion during Carter's tenure. The federal deficit as percentage of GDP rose from 2.65% of GDP in 1980, Carter's final budget year, to 3.04% of GDP in 1988, Reagan's final budget year.

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reagan was a spendthrift - proving once again that government austerity is not the solution to a recession.

 

[The Rabbi]

So creating more supply will eventually spur more demand? And you call people tard and moron? You have it bass ackwards fool. How can you not see how stupid that sounds?

Exactly, some may argue that with extra money in their pockets, they can now lower their price and create more demand. But selling more product is not the goal - making more money is. So if you can make more money by charging what the market will bear and producing what the market will bear, then the only thing accomplished with your government provided goody is more profit.

That's why the graph shows that during the period when trickle down theory was put into practice, the very wealthy were the only ones who benefited.

So we've got a misunderstanding coupled with an unsupported assertion of fact. Brilliant.

 

[zeke]

So creating more supply will eventually spur more demand? And you call people tard and moron? You have it bass ackwards fool. How can you not see how stupid that sounds?

We know how stupid you sound. Day after day.

They dont get it. Of course it sounds stupid. Nuclear physics sounds stupid if you dont understand what an atom is.

Damn rabbit. An honest answer. We get it. Of course your bullshit theory of simply increasing supplies of everything will somehow spur demand for anything is stupid. How many weeks have I been telling you that?

And please don't come out now and claim to be a nuclear physicist? Everybody knows rabbits don't study economics.....or physics.

 

[GreenBean]

"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.

- Can we increase the number of jobs by raising taxes on the wealthy?
I don't think so either - but as per our Constitution All men are created Equal so why should a Milionaire pay only 2 or 3 % and a middle Class person pay 10 - 20 % - wouldn't it be more equitable and fair if everybvody paid a minimum flat PERCENTAGE

- Can we increase the number of jobs by raising the minimum wage?
Definitely Not - we simply devalue the Money and reduce purchasing power.

- 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. --- See Can we increase the number of jobs by raising the minimum wage?

 

[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.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Self proclaimed victories are so shallow.....Don'tya think?

 

[Peach]

Massive defense spending could not account for the country's subsequent economic performance. Interest rates were raised to combat the endemic inflation. That was also successful. The combination of permanently lower tax rates, a simplified tax code, and higher rates followed by lower rates resulted in higher growth, higher employment and lower inflation.
Reagan inherited a mess and left a model economy. Obama inherited a problem and made it worse.

I agree on the second point, to an extent; deficits skyrocketed under Reagan, and did not go down. I see slight improvement under Obama, but again at the cost of huge debt.

Deficits increased because a Democratic Congress would not cut spending.
But even so as a percentage of GDP the deficits decreased.

The increased value under supply theory should have impacted debt; of course, I regard John Stuart Mill as the most accurate in economic reality; abstract theory must be coupled with historic custom.

 

[Siete]

Dumbass alert!
So were rates higher or lower after the cut? Simple question, right?

SAME STUPID QUESTION ALERT !!!!

Are you able to answer it , or would you like some help ?

I refuse to answer a question with an OBVIOUS answer contained IN THE QUESTION.


maybe the rw dolts simply don't understand the definition of tax CUT and need help ..

 

[EconChick]

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

"The rising tide now only lifts the yachts" ... a fair example of the typical Liberal comprehension of Science and Economics . I bet if Obama told you he could send a wave to sink all the Yachts and leave the dingies afloat you would believe him - right ?

That's exactly what he's been telling you from Day One . Guess what Norton - it can't work , the dingies are the first to sink ... Welcome to Reality Pal .... and you guys down in the Sewer - fahgettaboutit ...

Who has the "rising tide" of the Reagan revolution helped?

Show me what Reagan did to the middle class

How many times do you revisionists have to be told.

All of Carter's double digits for unemployment, inflation, and interest rates brought down to single digits.

If that doesn't directly affect the middle and poor class, I don't know what the hell does.