What is "Trickle Down Economics"?

[The Rabbi]

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?

PUNT!
So you wont defend your own chart. What good are you?

 

[Dad2three]

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

RW are you good with averages?

What would happen, for example, to your average of you had three As then got an F?

Now explain to the class what happens to someone's share of income when they have none, for example because we introduce a system of welfare handouts where the bottom 20% no longer have to have income to live.

Simple math question RW. If the bottom 20% had to work back in 1967, but don't have to work in 2014 what is going to change in that chart?

Didn't hear about Clinton's welfare reform and 5 year lifetime limit huh?



Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households


Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.


Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[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.

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.

Bush was POTUS in 09 ?

that explains everything ... except your stupidity

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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 ?

Because this shitty administration was stifling energy supply at the same time. The supply and demand things are mutually dependent. When you enhance one the other is affected. When you quell both you create disaster. That is obama's strategy. Screw up both aspects.

 

[Dad2three]

[

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.

According to EChick (AND HER 'MATH' TIMELINE) Dubya and his 'job creator' policies lost 5+ million PRIVATE sector jobs and Obama and his socialistic policies have created 10+ PRIVATE sector jobs

15+ million jobs difference. HMM

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Since you just conceded a pass for Obama on the first year, perhaps you're not aware that the deficit peaked in 2009, as did government spending, as did the unemployment rate, as did job losses.

That leaves Obama a record of lowering the deficit, cutting government spending, lowering unemployment, and, to use your own word, 'providing' millions of jobs.

 

[Dad2three]

Reagan didn't suddenly turn things upside down.

Your numbers are over to great a span for you make any assertions at all about what is going on.

The first timeframe is post WWII while we were busy rebuilding the nations we just kicked the crap out of. We had no competition (meaning the middle class was on a feeding frenzy).

Now, we have plenty and the rich are making hay out of it.

Our lovely government allows them to do so without regards to it's citizens.

Can you be any more stupid ?

EVERY nation was rebuilt by 1960 OVER 90% of them by 1955!!!

Nothing more pathetic than someone who posts graphs without really knowing what is behind them, what their limitations are, and what other conditions may have caused said results.

You sir, are a moron.

Got it, you tried the simplistic 'other nations were bombed to smithereens' of course the US boomed. DOESN'T account for the 20-25 year period where the US SHARED in the boon (1955-1980). HMM WHAT MIGHT HAVE CHANGED STARTING THEN?

REAGANOMICS?

 

[MikeK]

Trickle down economics

BRILLIANT cartoon!

 

[Siete]

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 ?

Because this shitty administration was stifling energy supply at the same time. The supply and demand things are mutually dependent. When you enhance one the other is affected. When you quell both you create disaster. That is obama's strategy. Screw up both aspects.

riiiiiiiight

the more goods you have in a wear house the more demand you have for said goods.

got it.

(duuuuuurrrrrrrrr)

 

[Dad2three]

[

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?

COOL. Obama has had 10+ million PRIVATE sector jobs created under him AND Dubya lost almost 6 million in his period

GOP Job creator policies 0

Obama and big socialist policies 15,000,000+

 

[Dad2three]

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.

MORE right wing crap. Shocking

Ronnie NEVER spent less than 22.5% of GDP and MANY times 24%+

What if Obama spent like Reagan?

 

[Dad2three]

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.

YOU are doing a fine job there Bubba

 

[Dad2three]

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.

You meant for those making $450,000 a year? lol

LOWEST SUSTAINED EFFECTIVE TAX BURDEN IN 80 YEARS ON THE 1%ERS!!!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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 ?

Because this shitty administration was stifling energy supply at the same time. The supply and demand things are mutually dependent. When you enhance one the other is affected. When you quell both you create disaster. That is obama's strategy. Screw up both aspects.

not exactly a business friendly environment.....especially when you throw in Obamacare and tons of other regulations.....

you can't expect to have recovery in an anti-business atmosphere...which is why that 'tax cut capital' sat on the sidelines....

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Weird, highest energy output in the US in 30+ years, lowest sustained tax burden on the 1%ers for 80+ years


YOU REALIZE DEMAND CREATES MORE DEMAND RIGHT?

When Standard & Poor's are lamenting economic inequality, you know you have a problem

Higher levels of income inequality increase political pressures, discouraging trade, investment, and hiring. Keynes first showed that income inequality can lead affluent households (Americans included) to increase savings and decrease consumption (1), while those with less means increase consumer borrowing to sustain consumption…until those options run out. When these imbalances can no longer be sustained, we see a boom/bust cycle such as the one that culminated in the Great Recession (2).

Aside from the extreme economic swings, such income imbalances tend to dampen social mobility and produce a less-educated workforce that can't compete in a changing global economy. This diminishes future income prospects and potential long-term growth, becoming entrenched as political repercussions extend the problems.


When Standard & Poor's are lamenting economic inequality, you know you have a problem

 

[Listening]

EVERY nation was rebuilt by 1960 OVER 90% of them by 1955!!!

Nothing more pathetic than someone who posts graphs without really knowing what is behind them, what their limitations are, and what other conditions may have caused said results.

You sir, are a moron.

Got it, you tried the simplistic 'other nations were bombed to smithereens' of course the US boomed. DOESN'T account for the 20-25 year period where the US SHARED in the boon (1955-1980). HMM WHAT MIGHT HAVE CHANGED STARTING THEN?

REAGANOMICS?

Mr. RapeAndIceCream strikes again !

There was no boom in the early 70's or in the mid 70's. Carter had the country in a death spiral.

Oh, wait, the country re-elected him because interest rates were so low (and going lower).



BTW:

The slope of the lower lines in figure one inflects and flattens out in the mid to late 1960's. LBJ then ramps up Vietnam and hands that mess to Nixon.

As far as rebuilding countries....another RapeAndIceCream moment.

Rebuilding is more than bricks and mortar. There were many evolutions at work and those countries were hitting mid stride in the early 70's.

Your blowout of an economy took place well before Reagan was elected.

But your fantasies about Jimmy Carter won't let you see that.

 

[Dad2three]

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"

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

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Just like it did. Double digit inflation, unemployment, and interest rates were brought down to single digits.

That benefits the poor and middle class.

And yet the public debt mushroomed. Or did you forget that part of the equation?

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Sure, he ran the country into the ground, asked for TARP to 'Bush: ‘I’ve Abandoned Free Market Principles To Save The Free Market System’


BUT he wasn't responsible for the budgets? lol

 

[Siete]

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 ?

Because this shitty administration was stifling energy supply at the same time. The supply and demand things are mutually dependent. When you enhance one the other is affected. When you quell both you create disaster. That is obama's strategy. Screw up both aspects.

not exactly a business friendly environment.....especially when you throw in Obamacare and tons of other regulations.....

you can't expect to have recovery in an anti-business atmosphere...which is why that 'tax cut capital' sat on the sidelines....

yup, extending the deadlines until January 1, 2015 for some businesses and 2016 for others (for Obamacare) really crushed the business environment didn't it?