While liberals scream "Trickle down economics didn't work", the facts tell a different story

[Little-Acorn]

I keep hearing from liberals (no surprise), that the economics Reagan relied upon, didn't work. They claim that they benefited only the top few percent of the population.

Reagan was elected in Nov. 1980, took office in 1981, and his first budget become effective in 1982.

How did people's income change from 1982 onward? Don't count "increases" due to inflation, count the REAL increase in what they earned.

In fact, ALL segments of the population increased significantly after Reagan passed his tax cuts, not just "the rich".

Another liberal lie refuted.

Sorry, libs, this blows your entire "Conservatism doesn't work" meme. In fact, conservatism provides more prosperity for ALL income groups, than any other.

(Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2007, Table 678 and calculations)

 

[Pop23]

Yeah, that amazed me as did the comment about how bad (and what caused) the last recession.

Worst then then the 30s?

Good God, this was nothing compared to the 70s.

High unemployment
High inflation, and
Incredibly high interest rates.

This last one was pud in comparison.

 

[Little-Acorn]

How odd. No liberals are posting on this thread.

I thought they were interested in the results of trickle-down economics.

Or were they only interested in lying about the results of trickle-down economics?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

How odd. No liberals are posting on this thread.

I thought they were interested in the results of trickle-down economics.

Or were they only interested in lying about the results of trickle-down economics?

Liberals, the most worthless creatures in existence, are only interested in propaganda, not facts. Silly Acorn.

 

[RDD_1210]

Can you link to your actual source please.

http://inequality.stanford.edu/sotu/SOTU_2014_CPI.pdf

 

[Little-Acorn]

Here you go.

(Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2007, Table 678 and calculations)

 

[RDD_1210]

Here you go.

(Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2007, Table 678 and calculations)

View attachment 91241

Do you understand what a link is? I actually did search for your reference and it couldn't be found. So where did you get it from? Please share the link.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I actually did search for your reference and it couldn't be found.

It can be found easily. Took me about 7 seconds. My sympathies for your computer illiteracy.

Back to the subject:
Liberals have long lied about the results of Reagan's tax cuts and reductions in regulations. They have insisted that it helped "only the rich", when in fact it helped all income levels.

They have based all of their "We must change our economic system" scheme, on this lie.

Debunking it pulls the rug out from under most of liberalism.

Too bad, so sad. But liberals can at least comfort themselves with one fact: They deserve it.

 

[Siete]

Overall, data from the past 50 years strongly refutes any arguments that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will improve the economic standing of the lower and middle classes or the nation as a whole. To be sure, the economic indicators examined in this report are dependent on a variety of factors, not just tax policy. However, what this study does show is that any attempt to stimulate economic growth by cutting taxes for the rich will do nothing -- it hasn't worked over the past 50 years, so why would it work in the future? To put it simply and bluntly, Bush's top-bracket tax cut is an ineffective attempt at stimulus that will not cause any growth -- unless, of course, if you're talking about the size of the deficit.


Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work

 

[edthecynic]

Here you go.

(Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2007, Table 678 and calculations)

View attachment 91241

Do you understand what a link is? I actually did search for your reference and it couldn't be found. So where did you get it from? Please share the link.

He didn't link to it because there is no "Table 678."

https://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/07statab/pop.pdf

 

[Little-Acorn]

Overall, data from the past 50 years strongly refutes any arguments that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will improve the economic standing of the lower and middle classes or the nation as a whole.

TRANSLATION: I have no idea where to find the facts (Or I simply don't want to find it). So I will pretend my ignorance refutes your facts.

 

[RDD_1210]

I actually did search for your reference and it couldn't be found.

It can be found easily. Took me about 7 seconds. My sympathies for your computer illiteracy.

Back to the subject:
Liberals have long lied about the results of Reagan's tax cuts and reductions in regulations. They have insisted that it helped "only the rich", when in fact it helped all income levels.

They have based all of their "We must change our economic system" scheme, on this lie.

Debunking it pulls the rug out from under most of liberalism.

Too bad, so sad. But liberals can at least comfort themselves with one fact: They deserve it.

So share the link please. Why can't you?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Here you go.

(Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2007, Table 678 and calculations)

View attachment 91241

Do you understand what a link is? I actually did search for your reference and it couldn't be found. So where did you get it from? Please share the link.

He didn't link to it because there is no "Table 678."

https://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/07statab/pop.pdf

TRANSLATION: I will look in only the first section of the 2007 StatAbs. Then I will use my mistake and failure as an excuse to pretend you failed instead.

 

[Siete]

Overall, data from the past 50 years strongly refutes any arguments that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will improve the economic standing of the lower and middle classes or the nation as a whole.

TRANSLATION: I have no idea where to find the facts (Or I simply don't want to find it). So I will pretend my ignorance refutes your facts.

I posted the damn link you dumbass ...

don't blame me for handing you your ass ... history handed it to you.

 

[RDD_1210]

Here you go.

(Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2007, Table 678 and calculations)

View attachment 91241

Do you understand what a link is? I actually did search for your reference and it couldn't be found. So where did you get it from? Please share the link.

He didn't link to it because there is no "Table 678."

https://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/07statab/pop.pdf

Of course. We all know she made it up. Hence the refusal to share.

 

[Iceweasel]

Overall, data from the past 50 years strongly refutes any arguments that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will improve the economic standing of the lower and middle classes or the nation as a whole.

Wrong. A rising tide lifts all boats. Taxing business more will absolutely be a jobs killer but if they are free to innovate and grow that means jobs, then it means competitions for employees, which means better pay and benefits, which they can offer with increased business.

That's how economies work, liberals are just so greedy they can't stand to see a dollar go by without a cut. They kill the economy and do stupid shit like blame Ronald Reagan in the 80s.

 

[Siete]

I actually did search for your reference and it couldn't be found.

It can be found easily. Took me about 7 seconds. My sympathies for your computer illiteracy.

Back to the subject:
Liberals have long lied about the results of Reagan's tax cuts and reductions in regulations. They have insisted that it helped "only the rich", when in fact it helped all income levels.

They have based all of their "We must change our economic system" scheme, on this lie.

Debunking it pulls the rug out from under most of liberalism.

Too bad, so sad. But liberals can at least comfort themselves with one fact: They deserve it.

So share the link please. Why can't you?

do you really need to ask?

s/he's a joke.

 

[edthecynic]

Here you go.

(Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2007, Table 678 and calculations)

View attachment 91241

Do you understand what a link is? I actually did search for your reference and it couldn't be found. So where did you get it from? Please share the link.

He didn't link to it because there is no "Table 678."

https://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/07statab/pop.pdf

TRANSLATION: I will look in only the first section of the 2007 StatAbs. Then I will use my mistake and failure as an excuse to pretend you failed instead.

Found it, and Table 678 shows Completely different info.

Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2007

 

[Little-Acorn]

So share the link please. Why can't you?

I can. I just don't coddle deliberate obtuseness.

Back to the subject: Liberals are terrified of their whole fabric of lies coming undone. A trend that debunks their entire theory of economics, is the crack of doom to them. Hence the simple lies like "Trickle down didn't work" when in fact it did, is all that most of them can throw up to ward off the truth.

 

[Iceweasel]

Overall, data from the past 50 years strongly refutes any arguments that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will improve the economic standing of the lower and middle classes or the nation as a whole.

TRANSLATION: I have no idea where to find the facts (Or I simply don't want to find it). So I will pretend my ignorance refutes your facts.

I posted the damn link you dumbass ...

don't blame me for handing you your ass ... history handed it to you.

Post some content dumbass. If you are too lazy or stupid then give it up because it's careless and sloppy.