What is "Trickle Down Economics"?

[Siete]

Very interesting point. So we won't count that first year against Reagan?

Fair enough, for sake of argument. We won't count that first year against Obama either.

Actually, it too almost and two and a half years of huge deficits for the "Reagan Recovery" to kick in.

That's a flaky statement. He left office having won the Cold War, great growth (sometimes 8% quarters unlike O's 1% avg), a highly reduced inflation rate, a highly reduced interest rate, and highly reduced unemployment of 5.2%.

And that was at just the fraction of deficit spending that Obama has done to provide a shitty economy.

ahhhh, the economy is shitty even though the Tax Cuts from 01-03 are still in place ..

glad you finally cleared that up ..

Obama lowered the deficit btw

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Got the bills Reagan presented that 'cut spending'? GOP had Senate for 6 years BTW, AND NO RONNIE DIDN'T MAKE A DEAL WITH THEM FOR $1-$3 CUTS!

 

[The Rabbi]

Welcome to a Rabbi thread

You get to debate his undisclosed and make believe view of the world

You get the same chance. Show how stupid I am. Explain what your chart shows.

Oh yes! The joys of a Rabbi thread

He never actually explains what he means but spends the entire thread telling everyone how wrong they are

Go ahead and explain what your chart shows. Go ahead. SHow everyone how stupid I am.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're wearing out that trick...

...Claim that someone is not reading a chart correctly but never offer a single word towards an alternative reading, the imaginary one you're pretending to know,

and pretending is the correct one.

Your stupidity grows more boring every day.

OK Here's your chance to show the board that I'm a complete idiot. You explain to me what that chart shows.

the chart shows trickle down economics never work.

study up !

OK one more chance before I simply ignore you.
How does the chart prove "trickle down" economics never work?

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually, it too almost and two and a half years of huge deficits for the "Reagan Recovery" to kick in.

That's a flaky statement. He left office having won the Cold War, great growth (sometimes 8% quarters unlike O's 1% avg), a highly reduced inflation rate, a highly reduced interest rate, and highly reduced unemployment of 5.2%.

And that was at just the fraction of deficit spending that Obama has done to provide a shitty economy.

ahhhh, the economy is shitty even though the Tax Cuts from 01-03 are still in place ..

glad you finally cleared that up ..

Obama lowered the deficit btw

Lo-Lo Poster. The Bush era tax cuts were repealed.
Next.

 

[rightwinger]

You get the same chance. Show how stupid I am. Explain what your chart shows.

Oh yes! The joys of a Rabbi thread

He never actually explains what he means but spends the entire thread telling everyone how wrong they are

Go ahead and explain what your chart shows. Go ahead. SHow everyone how stupid I am.

Rinse, Repeat



Rabbi Threads 101


Rabbi: You cannot define X

Numerous posters: Proceed to thoroughly define X

Rabbi: See? You cannot define X

So, lets review Rabbi 101

He never actually says what his opinion is but demands that others declare theirs. He then dismisses your opinion as wrong
__________________

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Trickle down is basic economics. The less overhead required the more spending money created. The more spending money the more demand. The more demand the more productivity. The more productivity the more the economy expands like a snowball.
The real driver in addition to relieving tax burdens is energy supply. Right now we have the perfect storm of economic bullshit because democrats increase overhead through taxation and add to that mostly through squeeze down of energy supply.
Don't expect democrat posters to understand this. They're horrible at math and logic.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

"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"

So HIS tax cut you Klowns rave about that took effect July 1981 belong to Carter? Got it. Hurray, Carter created the booming economy.

OF COURSE you'll give Obama the same grace period right? AND Reagan hit 10.8% 13 months after his first budget, and it didn't go below 8% for 19 more months


" 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."


I'M SORRY, CARTER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 1981 (though HIS unemployment NEVER went above 7,8%, you know WHEN YOU LIED ABOUT IT) BUT BUSH ISN'T FOR 2009 WHERE WE LOST 4+ MILLION JOBS? THAT'S ON OBAMA? lol

Weird, 'Carter policies' according to YOU ended Sept 1981 10.1% unemployment, Reagan took it to 10.8% right? lol

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh yes! The joys of a Rabbi thread

He never actually explains what he means but spends the entire thread telling everyone how wrong they are

Go ahead and explain what your chart shows. Go ahead. SHow everyone how stupid I am.

Rinse, Repeat



Rabbi Threads 101


Rabbi: You cannot define X

Numerous posters: Proceed to thoroughly define X

Rabbi: See? You cannot define X

So, lets review Rabbi 101

He never actually says what his opinion is but demands that others declare theirs. He then dismisses your opinion as wrong
__________________

You must be terrified of me that you wont even defend your own chart. You're dismissed for the day. I'm full up with stupid for one day from you.

 

[rightwinger]

Go ahead and explain what your chart shows. Go ahead. SHow everyone how stupid I am.

Rinse, Repeat



Rabbi Threads 101


Rabbi: You cannot define X

Numerous posters: Proceed to thoroughly define X

Rabbi: See? You cannot define X

So, lets review Rabbi 101

He never actually says what his opinion is but demands that others declare theirs. He then dismisses your opinion as wrong
__________________

You must be terrified of me that you wont even defend your own chart. You're dismissed for the day. I'm full up with stupid for one day from you.

Still waiting for you to provide your definition of Trickle Down......

 

[Siete]

That's a flaky statement. He left office having won the Cold War, great growth (sometimes 8% quarters unlike O's 1% avg), a highly reduced inflation rate, a highly reduced interest rate, and highly reduced unemployment of 5.2%.

And that was at just the fraction of deficit spending that Obama has done to provide a shitty economy.

ahhhh, the economy is shitty even though the Tax Cuts from 01-03 are still in place ..

glad you finally cleared that up ..

Obama lowered the deficit btw

Lo-Lo Poster. The Bush era tax cuts were repealed.
Next.

in 2010 the tax cuts were extended until 2012 ... in 2012 taxes were raised for couples making more than 450K and individuals making more than 400k ... why?

to avoid the country from falling off the fiscal cliff ....

why didn't tax cuts and trickle down economics save the country ?

 

[The Rabbi]

Rinse, Repeat



Rabbi Threads 101


Rabbi: You cannot define X

Numerous posters: Proceed to thoroughly define X

Rabbi: See? You cannot define X

So, lets review Rabbi 101

He never actually says what his opinion is but demands that others declare theirs. He then dismisses your opinion as wrong
__________________

You must be terrified of me that you wont even defend your own chart. You're dismissed for the day. I'm full up with stupid for one day from you.

Still waiting for you to provide your definition of Trickle Down......

There's no such thing. I already wrote about supply side in Post 73.
Now, are you going to defend your own chart or just chicken out and deflect like always?

 

[The Rabbi]

ahhhh, the economy is shitty even though the Tax Cuts from 01-03 are still in place ..

glad you finally cleared that up ..

Obama lowered the deficit btw

Lo-Lo Poster. The Bush era tax cuts were repealed.
Next.

in 2010 the tax cuts were extended until 2012 ... in 2012 taxes were raised for couples making more than 450K and individuals making more than 400k ... why?

to avoid the country from falling off the fiscal cliff ....

why didn't tax cuts and trickle down economics save the country ?

So they were repealed in 2012.
Now, why dont you explain why the chart posted shows tricjle down economics never works. Last chance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Reagan's budget director David Stockman explains trickle down/supply side to writer William Greider:

"The hard part of the supply-side tax cut is dropping the top rate from 70 to 50 percent—the rest of it is a secondary matter," Stockman explained. "The original argument was that the top bracket was too high, and that's having the most devastating effect on the economy. Then, the general argument was that, in order to make this palatable as a political matter, you had to bring down all the brackets.

But, I mean, Kemp-Roth was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate."

A Trojan horse? This seemed a cynical concession for Stockman to make in private conversation while the Reagan Administration was still selling the supply-side doctrine to Congress.

Yet he was conceding what the liberal Keynesian critics had argued from the outset—

the supply-side theory was not a new economic theory at all but only new language and argument to conceal a hoary old Republican doctrine: give the tax cuts to the top brackets, the wealthiest individuals and largest enterprises, and let the good effects "trickle down" through the economy to reach everyone else.


Yes, Stockman conceded, when one stripped away the new rhetoric emphasizing across-the-board cuts,

the supply-side theory was really new clothes for the unpopular doctrine of the old Republican orthodoxy.

"It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,'" he explained, "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."

The Education of David Stockman - William Greider - The Atlantic

 

[Erand7899]

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.

Nobody with any business knowledge, would argue that having more money in one's pocket would affect the price of a product. Product prices are calculated from many factors, including the cost of manufacturing the product, the cost of selling the product, and competition. Competition shrinks the profit margin, not having money in one's pocket.

Not to mention that sales volume can have significant effect on the cost of manufacturing the product. If a factory and its work force is capable of turning out "x" number of units, maximum manufacturing efficiency would be "x" number of units, then the sales goal would be to sell "x" number of units, and prices might well be adjusted to do just that.

BTW, everyone who did not have a job, and now has a job, has benefited from the tax cut.

 

[GreenBean]

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

Oh so the 'free markets' which NEVER existed ANYWHERE EVER should be taken seriously because somehow the USSR failed? lol

I believe that we have here is a FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE , some men you just can't reach ..... but I think you're "Special"

 

[Dad2three]

"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.

So YOU are saying Carter was responsible for Reagan's tax cuts that went into effect July 1981 AND that since Dubya was responsible for he economy until Oct 1, 2009 Obama POLICIES created 15+ MILLION more private sector jobs than Dubya's policies?

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[rightwinger]

You must be terrified of me that you wont even defend your own chart. You're dismissed for the day. I'm full up with stupid for one day from you.

Still waiting for you to provide your definition of Trickle Down......

There's no such thing. I already wrote about supply side in Post 73.
Now, are you going to defend your own chart or just chicken out and deflect like always?

OK

Stop the presses. Here is Rabbis view of "Supply Side" (Not to be confused with Trickle Down")

In contrast Reagan's advisors championed looking at the supply side. They suggested that creating incentives through the tax code to change behavior to encourage greater productivity would cause higher incomes and eventually more demand.
In sum the Reaganauts were correct. Their policies worked. The Reagan tax cuts were not targeted temporary cuts but permanent cuts to income taxes and others. It encouraged peoplel to work more and earn more.

Shall we discuss?

 

[Dad2three]

Under liberal thinking if someone is on unemployment insurance and therefore in the lowest 5th, and then gets a job and moves into the third or fourth fith then the loss of income in the lowest fifth means people are poorer. That is exactly what happened under Reagan. Some tranches declined in income because the members moved up into the higher income brackets.
They dont get it.

Good Times on Wall Street

It was that explosive growth in the stock market that drove the overall prosperity of the Reagan years. The great bull market of the 1980s came fast on the heels of one of the bleakest periods in the history of Wall Street; between 1967 and 1982, the Dow Jones Industrial Average declined by some 23%. Factoring in the high inflation of the period, that represented a real decline in value of nearly 70%


Not-Quite-So-Good Times Off Wall Street

But the expansion of stockownership to nearly 30% of American households still left more than two-thirds of the country shut out of direct benefits from the great bull market of the Age of Reagan. For the 70% of American households that still lacked any stake at all in the stock market, the Reagan economy was not quite so lustrous as it seemed to those enjoying the fruits of rising equity values.


Real wages, which had increased steadily from 1945 to 1972 but then stalled through the stagflation era, remained flat through the 1980s as well. Unemployment declined from the atrocious highs of the late 1970s and early 1980s, but the high-paying blue-collar industrial jobs that had been the mainstay of the midcentury economy continued to disappear.


The uneven distribution of benefits from the Reagan boom reflected a growing trend toward what has been called the "financialization" of the American economy


Economy in The Reagan Era

 

[Erand7899]

[

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%.

Very interesting point. So we won't count that first year against Reagan?

Fair enough, for sake of argument. We won't count that first year against Obama either.

I didn't. I wouldn't count it for any president. They can't be held responsible for something when they weren't even inaugurated at the time. What's so surprising there?

Except for the fact that most of the fiscal year 2009 spending bills were signed by Obama, because Bush had threatened to veto them.