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

[Timmy]

Trickle down worked? After Ronnie left the economic shit hit the fan in the early 90s.

 

[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.

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

fuck you .. I posted content,the last paragraph of the article, AND the link..

go back to sleep dumbass.

 

[Iceweasel]

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

Jumping from 21k to 33.5k from '80 to '90 wasn't an increase?

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

You start a thread with a made up source and then pretend you made some sort of point. Cute.

 

[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.

Found it,

Very good, kudos! There is hope for you after all.

and Table 678 shows Completely different info.

It shows the same info now, as when I looked at it. See what I wrote in the OP, instead of piling your own wrong assumptions upon wrong assumptions and then pretending your mistakes are my fault.

 

[JBond]

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

I wonder why Bush brought in more revenue after his tax cuts (in inflation adjusted dollars) than Clinton did under his higher rates? Clinton had the internet boom. Bush had to deal with Katrina and 9/11.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Liberals can't explain why they think trickle down economics doesn't work but for some reason, trickle down taxation does.

When you think about it, all commerce is trickle down.

 

[Iceweasel]

Trickle down worked? After Ronnie left the economic shit hit the fan in the early 90s.

Supply side and free markets always work. Pinning every bad thing on Reagan or Bush is stupid, especially since obama isn't responsible for any negative outcome.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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.

You start a thread with a made up source and then pretend you made some sort of point. Cute.

See?

 

[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

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,

Very good, kudos! There is hope for you after all.

and Table 678 shows Completely different info.

It shows the same info now, as when I looked at it. See what I wrote in the OP, instead of piling your own wrong assumptions upon wrong assumptions and then pretending your mistakes are my fault.

[/QUOTE]

Where did you get the chart from? I would love to see the shit eating ring wing blog you pulled that from.

 

[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

I wonder why Bush brought in more revenue after his tax cuts (in inflation adjusted dollars) than Clinton did under his higher rates? Clinton had the internet boom. Bush had to deal with Katrina and 9/11.

and I wonder why all that revenue magically disappeared ..... because it magically appeared I.m sure

 

[Little-Acorn]

For those who continue to believe liberals are telling the truth:

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)

[/QUOTE]

 

[WaitingFor2020]

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.

Hahahahaha.....Can't and won't even provide the link. OK, provide the search terms/words you used.
In the meantime, the comment about the recession in the 70's being far worse than 2008 is pure horse manure. This graphic was first circulated in 2008
and shows the income gap from 1917 through 2006 when the meltdown began.

Plutocracy Reborn: U.S. Wealth Inequality Gap Largest since 1928 - EcoLocalizer

 

[Little-Acorn]

and I wonder why all that revenue magically disappeared ..... because it magically appeared I.m sure

We appear to have among us a person who believes that simple mathematical calculations are "magic".

This is common in some prehistoric societies. Apparently one got away.

 

[JBond]

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

I wonder why Bush brought in more revenue after his tax cuts (in inflation adjusted dollars) than Clinton did under his higher rates? Clinton had the internet boom. Bush had to deal with Katrina and 9/11.

and I wonder why all that revenue magically disappeared ..... because it magically appeared I.m sure

LOL. You think economics is magic. I suppose it would appear so to those that lack any understanding.

So, care to provide a real answer to my question?

 

[WaitingFor2020]

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.

You're not much for transparency or verification yourself.

 

[BluesLegend]

Increasing taxes and allowing an incompetent government which managed to rack up a $20 trillion dollar debt without anything to show for it spend it, is beyond stupid. Hence Hillary and her tax and spend dumb asses can pound sand.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Trickle down worked? After Ronnie left the economic shit hit the fan in the early 90s.

Indeed. Ronald Reagan was in favor of outsourcing jobs overseas. His trickle down bullshit was trickle OUT, not trickle down.

The Economics Behind Offshoring
The Death of American Manufacturing
Reagan Set Up the Death of the Middle Class, But China Was the Clincher | Huffington Post

 

[Little-Acorn]

Isn't it fascinating the variety of distractions, accusation, and lies the liberals come up with when they don't like the truth?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Indeed. Ronald Reagan was in favor of outsourcing jobs overseas. His trickle down bullshit was trickle OUT, not trickle down.

And hasty changes of subject.