What is "Trickle Down Economics"?

[nodoginnafight]

@ Green Bean - your graphs don't contradict rightwingers. They are graphing different data.

 

[RKMBrown]

"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.

Raise minimum wage to what? 100 bucks an hour 1000 bucks an hour? Why limit your goals to what amounts to petty change?

I have a question. Why are you working minimum wage? Around here we don't even pay high school kids minimum wage. Minimum wage means you are not worth more than the absolute minimum. It means you are taking the least valuable job around. It usually means that either something is wrong with you, that or you've never worked before and have to prove you are worth more than the minimum, which normally should only take a day or two. Of course if you raise minimum wage those useless people will get fired.

 

[nodoginnafight]

LMAO, quoting Warren Buffett???

Buffett came from THE most liberal school out there.....he got his Keynesian indoctrination while at Columbia. You know, the school where even Socialists are considered not liberal enough.

Buffett was also part of Obama's original brain trust on the economy. And look at what a disaster.

Buffett needs to stick to making money in the stock market and STFU about the overall economy.

My gawwwd you are slipping ONLY one 'Keynesian' in that post???

It's a buzzword designed to suggest knowledge where obviously none exists.

 

[Siete]

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.)

 

[EconChick]

LMAO, quoting Warren Buffett???

Buffett came from THE most liberal school out there.....he got his Keynesian indoctrination while at Columbia. You know, the school where even Socialists are considered not liberal enough.

Buffett was also part of Obama's original brain trust on the economy. And look at what a disaster.

Buffett needs to stick to making money in the stock market and STFU about the overall economy.

My gawwwd you are slipping ONLY one 'Keynesian' in that post???

That's because I talk about the elephants while you're still yapping about piss ants.

Which is why you've been so wrong in your assessments.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"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.

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?

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Reagan's economic policies, - "Reaganomics" were supply-side economics, and based on trickle-down theory. The idea is that with a lower tax burden and increased investment, Industry could produce more, effectively increasing employment and theoretically wages. One of the primary problems with Trickle-down economics is that those on the low end feel as if they are being "Trickled -On" ... literally - as the incentives and tax cuts are directed to Commerical operations / Business /The Rich .

The Trickle effect also does not occur instantaneously - It sometimes takes years to "trickle-down" to the lower levels of society. As in the case of Reagonomics [And Bush Sr.] - By the time the full effects of Reaganomics hit - it was already the last half of Bush Srs. Administration and the incompetent ass-wipe Slick Willy Clinton got a free ride off of it.

Yeah, NOT that Clinton cut Reagan/Poppy's deficits and got US back to Carter era revenues, it was 'trickle down' sometimes takes time' *shaking head*

YOU REALIZE WHEN THE ECONOMY TANKED UNDER POPPY RIGHT?


"By the time the full effects of Reaganomics hit - it was already the last half of Bush Srs. Administration"


Early 1990s recession

July 1990 – Mar 1991

After the lengthy peacetime expansion of the 1980s, inflation began to increase and the Federal Reserve responded by raising interest rates from 1986 to 1989. This weakened but did not stop growth, but some combination of the subsequent 1990 oil price shock, the debt accumulation of the 1980s, and growing consumer pessimism combined with the weakened economy to produce a brief recession.

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/93-2_34-48.pdf

CLINTON Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote.

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits." — Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994



"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity." — Business Week, May 19, 1997

 

[EconChick]

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.)

Yeah, and the Soviet Union beat the U.S. too, didn't you know?

I notice you didn't source the liberal rag you got that from.

I personally think we need to start taking revisionists to the guillotine knowing how dangerous it is to our Republic that so many gullible dumbasses slurp it up. I think I could make the case for treason if given enough time.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Exactly. Economic statistics have proven that. Economic growth has been higher when taxes were higher.

The economy stagnated for 12 years under high taxes during the depression.

You mean the loose credit and laizze affaire attitude that created the first GOP great depression? Like what Obama has dealt with?


High taxes? lol.

 

[EconChick]

"Trickle Down" refers to stimulating the economy by pouring resources into the top economic strata with the belief that it will "trickle down" until it provides benefits for all.

It's a flawed theory.

Not looting them does not equate to "pouring resources into them." Your post, as always, reflects the liberal view that your net income is a gift from the government.

"trickle down" is just the liberal/commie/fascist name for capitalism.

But didn't you know, B? He doesn't want to be thought of as liberal. Or so he wrote a whole post telling me that.

 

[Erand7899]

Trickle down theory is centuries old. Monarchies believed that if the upper class--the royal family and all noblemen--had the wealth, the poor would benefit when said nobles spent money on their wares or hired them for work. This failed since heavy taxation by the king on nobles meant heavy taxation on the poor within the nobles jurisdictions. Royalty and nobles could basically take what they wanted if they had an army, or force someone into free labor with servitude agreements (for example--your father needs medicine--a noblemen would give you money to buy it for 10 years of free labor--same deals were made for "renting" land to farm).
Even as republics and democracies were formed, this theory was used because wealthy families were the only people considered fit to govern. Poor people were considered ignorant and unable to educate, or dangerous when educated.
Considering the US government is an upgraded version of British government, the same idea is used here. The poor supposedly will benefit from the rich when the rich spend and hire. We all know that is not so since many rich farm out jobs to foreign nations and buy foreign made merchandise, and fill their stores with foreign made merchandise for the poor to buy, and refuse to pay a decent wage to US employees without raising prices.
When today's politicians speak of trickle down, they really have no idea what they are talking about. It is actually an insult to the common man.

You don't know what you're talking about. "trickle down" is just a leftwing pejorative for "capitalism." Anyone who uses the term hates capitalism. When they object to what the call "trickle down" they are objecting to the normal workings of the market economy.

I'm a 4th year political science student. We actually study this shit.

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.

 

[Dad2three]

Trickle Down economics was a Trojan Horse

In the 1980’s Ronald Reagan ushered in a new era in American economics as he cut the top tax bracket from 70% down to 50% and then down again to 28%. In order to get support for doing this from the people, and also from politicians, a very crafty set of lies were produced. As David Stockman, then Reagan’s budget director, put it: giving small tax cuts across the board to all brackets was simply a “Trojan Horse” that was used to get approval for the huge top tax bracket cuts. “Trickle-Down” was a term used by Republicans that meant giving tax cuts to the rich. Stockman explains that:

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

"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."

The impact of Reagans "Trickle Down"

Norton - That Graph you posted is a fantasy - and not based on any factual data - just wishful thinking .

A 2011 study by the CBO found that the top earning 1 percent of households gained about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007


The share of income going to higher-income households rose, while the share going to lower-income households fell.

The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.

Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.
All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points.


Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 - CBO

 

[RKMBrown]

LMAO, quoting Warren Buffett???

Buffett came from THE most liberal school out there.....he got his Keynesian indoctrination while at Columbia. You know, the school where even Socialists are considered not liberal enough.

Buffett was also part of Obama's original brain trust on the economy. And look at what a disaster.

Buffett needs to stick to making money in the stock market and STFU about the overall economy.

quoting the facts Warren knows FAR more about than you do.

Warren is laughing at our tax system. The libs refuse to reform our tax system. What's the point the libs are trying to make here, that their progressive tax system that punishes the upper middle income class while benefiting only the lower income classes and the ultra rich who don't have taxable income?

 

[GreenBean]

@ Green Bean - your graphs don't contradict rightwingers. They are graphing different data.

True - but mine are not are based on a fantasy. I would like to know the source of the graphic - as I don't find it on Google Images

In addition - if you note what he posted - the first [1947-79] deletes the upper 1 % Arrow and adds it only to the second [1979 - 2009] for dramatic and distortional effects.

 

[Wry Catcher]

LMAO, quoting Warren Buffett???

Buffett came from THE most liberal school out there.....he got his Keynesian indoctrination while at Columbia. You know, the school where even Socialists are considered not liberal enough.

Buffett was also part of Obama's original brain trust on the economy. And look at what a disaster.

Buffett needs to stick to making money in the stock market and STFU about the overall economy.

Methinks you ought to take your own advice and "STFU about the overall economy". But then we need people like you and PoliticalChic to offer ad hominem 'arguments', it is so much fun to see so many words used to prove nothing.

 

[Siete]

bottom line ... RW's would rather argue the finer points of FAILURE and accept that as gospel to support their talking points.

TDE has, and will never work.

End of story.

 

[Mustang]

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.

 

[EconChick]

Damn

11 Pages into this thread and our conservatives have not yet posted "I never got a job from a poor person" justification

What a bunch of slackers

Did you ever get a Job from a poor person ? Did it involve the use of Knee Pads ? I didn't say were you ever given a .... Job

That was too funny.

 

[GreenBean]

Damn

11 Pages into this thread and our conservatives have not yet posted "I never got a job from a poor person" justification

What a bunch of slackers

Did you ever get a Job from a poor person ? Did it involve the use of Knee Pads ? I didn't say were you ever given a .... Job

That was too funny.

Please ... No applause ... just throw Money

 

[EconChick]

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.