What is "Trickle Down Economics"?

[Dad2three]

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....

Weird,, RECORD Corp profits almost every quarter under Obama, record low share of wages for Corps and lowest tax burden in 40 years on Corps? Horrible Biz environment!

 

[Vandalshandle]

Some people can't quite visualize trickle down economics. For them, I recommend thinking of a dog, and a fire plug....

 

[Dad2three]

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.

ONCE MORE

". 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?"

Carter? Yeah, Nixon's/Fords wage and price controls then OPEC hurt him, but still had 9+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in his 4 years compared to Ronnie's 14 million in 8? lol

 

[rdean]

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.

Comparing the silliness of failed right wingnut economic policies to "nuclear physics". Now I've heard everything.

The only time I can think of when quantities were created without demand driving that creation was old Soviet Russia. No wonder their economy collapsed. There isn't a single job in the world anywhere ever created that didn't start with demand. Everyone knows that.

Do right wingnuts really believe "trickle down" or do they just want to argue? Next, they will be telling us the world is only 6,000 years old, science is a faith and evolution never happened.

 

[Siete]

Obama signed spending bills because Bush said he would veto them and Obamacare crippled the business sector because the business sector didn't have to pay a dime ..


stay tuned folks, the Cow will be jumping over the Moon any time now.

que the Twilight Zone Music on 3-2-1 ... hit it !

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Under the Reagan Revolution, the rich got richer......everyone else was left behind

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Reagan's own advisor, David Stockman admitted that Supply Side was nothing more than a rebranding of trickle down. There was indeed an increase in productivity, but it never did trickle down to higher wages. Demand decreased because workers wages never increased with the rising tide.
In sum, Reagan's policies destroyed the middle class

 

[RDD_1210]

That's some funny stuff coming from the person who claimed that Bush 'provided' all the jobs that were created during his presidency, and,

that Bush's numbers were great if you only looked at the good years of his presidency.

She's so full of herself I swear she has to be CaliGirl under a new screen name.

Yeahhhh, I'm talking to the dude that's been laid off from the local car wash and has lots of dead time slurping up the handouts because he's not smart enough to get a higher paying job.

Shit! How did you know????

Tell me more about your economic expertise, I can use a hearty laugh.

 

[The Rabbi]

She's so full of herself I swear she has to be CaliGirl under a new screen name.

Yeahhhh, I'm talking to the dude that's been laid off from the local car wash and has lots of dead time slurping up the handouts because he's not smart enough to get a higher paying job.

Shit! How did you know????

Tell me more about your economic expertise, I can use a hearty laugh.

People laugh at what they dont understand.
You laugh an awful lot.

 

[GreenBean]

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

So did these Guys

Untill the Democrats Replaced them with these Guys

Under the Banner of These Guys

A Picture is Worth a THousand Words - aint that right Jack ass ?

 

[2aguy]

Here is an article that compares Reagan's economic results to obama's...Obama doesn't come out well...

PJ Media » Updating the Reagan v. Obama Economic Rout

Obama’s economic policy, with the help of a pliant Federal Reserve, has been built on the notion that massive deficit spending and easy money would bring the economy roaring back and “stimulate” job growth. The former strategy was tried during the 1930s. It only succeeded in lengthening the Great Depression, as the nation’s unemployment rate never fell below 12 percent. The fact that Team Obama insisted on making the same mistakes, while at the same time unleashing the federal government’s regulatory apparatus to harass the economy’s productive participants, is enough to make reasonable people question whether this president and his administration have ever truly wanted to see a genuine recovery occur.

On the other hand, five years of strong, solid and uninterrupted economic performance following a serious recession is how you create a positive economic legacy. Ronald Reagan’s post-recession economy — an economy which faced arguably greater challenges when he took office, particularly double-digit inflation and a prime interest rate of 20 percent — did just that.

Reagan’s economic policy, conducted in the face of necessarily painful anti-inflationary Federal Reserve monetary policy, was premised on supply-side tax cuts and regulatory restraint. A third element, getting federal spending under control, didn’t occur because (surprise) Democrats reneged on promises to cut spending made during budget negotiations. Today, Obama’s crew anticipates annual budget deficits which will never fall below $450 billion and will balloon back to $1 trillion within a decade.

Five years after the early-1980s recession ended, the U.S. economy was almost 26 percent larger. The Obama economy, in the worst five-year recovery since World War II by miles, hasn’t achieved even half of that.

The difference is, well, graphic, as the two images below highlight.

 

[GreenBean]

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

Those Kids used to have Jobs ..... So did these Guys

Untill the Democrats Replaced them with these Guys

Under the Banner of These Guys

Now those Kids Have this

And This ....

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

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

Oddly, she managed to somehow clip the first 2 years off Reagan's terms and the last 2 off Bush's in order to magically come up with better looking numbers for both of them.

Hell, a two year pass at the beginning of a GOP presidency plus a 2 year pass at the end of a GOP presidency...


...lol, if you applied that to George Bush Sr, his presidency would disappear altogether!

 

[Dad2three]

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

So did these Guys

Untill the Democrats Replaced them with these Guys

Under the Banner of These Guys

A Picture is Worth a THousand Words - aint that right Jack ass ?

 

[MikeK]

lol, so you get whatever your professors fill your head with.

Get some real world experience sonny, then talk.

Tell us about your "real world experience" Marty. We can all use a good laugh.

17 years of Engineering work, budgeting for major (50 million plus) public works projects. Managing said projects, doing the basic research for the basis of said projects.

What does your fortunate experience have to do with RDD's accurately erudite observation of the contemporary situation? My experience has been fortunate, too. I'm a retired civil servant with a generous pension and Social Security. I'm quite comfortable and I want for nothing. But your experience and mine will not be typical for today's generation and those to follow -- regardless of education and ambition. And Reaganomics is largely responsible for the decline.

To summarize what RDD explained in detail; "trickle down" is deceptive code for what in reality is siphon up economics -- as history and its numbers will clearly attest.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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....

Weird,, RECORD Corp profits almost every quarter under Obama, record low share of wages for Corps and lowest tax burden in 40 years on Corps? Horrible Biz environment!

NOT due to any great growth....mainly due to cost-cutting......whoopie...

 

[Dad2three]

Here is an article that compares Reagan's economic results to obama's...Obama doesn't come out well...

PJ Media » Updating the Reagan v. Obama Economic Rout

Obama’s economic policy, with the help of a pliant Federal Reserve, has been built on the notion that massive deficit spending and easy money would bring the economy roaring back and “stimulate” job growth. The former strategy was tried during the 1930s. It only succeeded in lengthening the Great Depression, as the nation’s unemployment rate never fell below 12 percent. The fact that Team Obama insisted on making the same mistakes, while at the same time unleashing the federal government’s regulatory apparatus to harass the economy’s productive participants, is enough to make reasonable people question whether this president and his administration have ever truly wanted to see a genuine recovery occur.

On the other hand, five years of strong, solid and uninterrupted economic performance following a serious recession is how you create a positive economic legacy. Ronald Reagan’s post-recession economy — an economy which faced arguably greater challenges when he took office, particularly double-digit inflation and a prime interest rate of 20 percent — did just that.

Reagan’s economic policy, conducted in the face of necessarily painful anti-inflationary Federal Reserve monetary policy, was premised on supply-side tax cuts and regulatory restraint. A third element, getting federal spending under control, didn’t occur because (surprise) Democrats reneged on promises to cut spending made during budget negotiations. Today, Obama’s crew anticipates annual budget deficits which will never fall below $450 billion and will balloon back to $1 trillion within a decade.

Five years after the early-1980s recession ended, the U.S. economy was almost 26 percent larger. The Obama economy, in the worst five-year recovery since World War II by miles, hasn’t achieved even half of that.


The difference is, well, graphic, as the two images below highlight.

"A third element, getting federal spending under control, didn’t occur because (surprise) Democrats reneged on promises to cut spending made during budget negotiations."

START WITH A LIE AND GO FROM THERE HUH?

The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 in taxes for every $3 in spending cuts


The Pinocchio Test

It is time to abandon this myth. Reagan may have convinced himself he had been snookered, but that belief is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal he had reached.

Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis. Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts. In the end, lawmakers apparently did a better job of living up to the bargain than the administration did.

If people want to cite the lessons of history, they need to get the history right in the first place.

Four Pinocchios

The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts - The Washington Post






What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama's first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan's first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush's first 16 quarters


Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.


Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan? - The Washington Post

 

[Dad2three]

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....

Weird,, RECORD Corp profits almost every quarter under Obama, record low share of wages for Corps and lowest tax burden in 40 years on Corps? Horrible Biz environment!

NOT due to any great growth....mainly due to cost-cutting......whoopie...

So more efficient isn't better? Weird, WHY WASN'T THE US BOOMING AFTER 8 YEARS OF DUBYA/GOP 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES? PLEASE explain?

I guess tax rates on Corps don't matter much either then right?

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

We are not talking about outliers in the economy. We are talking about the ENTIRE workforce. You have no data supporting that the lower 20% were working in 1980. In fact, the unemployment rate was similar to what it is today. Go back and come up with a better example

Translation.... you can't answer the question. Why can't you answer the question RW? Why can't you answer the question regarding what happens to the bottom 20% when they are being paid to stay home? This is not hard RW you can do it. Or are you really trying to tell me the bottom 20% are really not below the poverty level? Really? What outlier percentile do you think the poverty level applies to if not the bottom 20% what % do you think it is? Why don't you think zeroes in the bottom 20% affect the bottom 20% ratio with the top 5%?

 

[RKMBrown]

Weird,, RECORD Corp profits almost every quarter under Obama, record low share of wages for Corps and lowest tax burden in 40 years on Corps? Horrible Biz environment!

NOT due to any great growth....mainly due to cost-cutting......whoopie...

So more efficient isn't better? Weird, WHY WASN'T THE US BOOMING AFTER 8 YEARS OF DUBYA/GOP 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES? PLEASE explain?

I guess tax rates on Corps don't matter much either then right?

War in Iraq? Katrina? 911? Expansion of medicare?

What part of these problems do you need an explanation for?