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

[Iceweasel]

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?

Except it doesn't say that. The bottom 20% went from $22,581 in 1980 to $22,244 in 1985, after which St Ronnie abandoned trickle down.

There's no such thing as trickle down. Supply side works, when was it abandoned?

 

[francoHFW]

Sure for a little while, but just made for inequality and the ruin of the nonrich and the country in the long run, and it rolls on, thanks to the greedy idiot GOP rich and the dupes.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release - Financial Accounts of the United States - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

You people want everyone to be poor and dependent on government, its not fair that some people work hard and become wealthy.

and dumbasses like you believe tax cuts are the answer to everything under the sun.

Oh God the irony, and increasing taxes so the government can piss it all away on nothing that's your big idea talk about brain dead.

Every time Republicans cut taxes, the deficits explode.

Cut spending idiot its not rocket science. While you are at it get your millions of welfare deadbeats off their big fat lard asses and stop mooching off the rest of us.

Yup, we must stop investing in the middle class and infrastructure to save the bloated GOP rich, dupe... lol. Of course, spending money on our bloated military is a great idea.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

And what was spending like under demigod Reagan?

Who is demigod Reagan? Spending went up due to military and Democrats but it bankrupted the soviets trying to keep up the arms race. That's the real reason leftists will never forgive him.

 

[francoHFW]

Except it doesn't say that. The bottom 20% went from $22,581 in 1980 to $22,244 in 1985, after which St Ronnie abandoned trickle down.

So we have one liberal who agrees my chart is correct, while trying furiously to examine one tree and simultaneously ignore the forest. That's progress. I think. For liberals, anyway.

Perhaps the rest of you liberals who say you don't understand the data or how to find it, should ask this one about it. He found it.

Your chart doesn't prove anything about trickle down economics. All it proves is that when economies contract, wages fall, and when economies expand, wages rise.

Especially with a corrupt S+L bubble, and huge military spending and tripling the deficit. lol

 

[Iceweasel]

Yup, we must stop investing in the middle class and infrastructure to save the bloated GOP rich, dupe... lol. Of course, spending money on our bloated military is a great idea.

What does 'investing in the middle class" mean to you?

 

[francoHFW]

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.

And what was spending like under demigod Reagan?

Who is demigod Reagan? Spending went up due to military and Democrats but it bankrupted the soviets trying to keep up the arms race. That's the real reason leftists will never forgive him.

We're lucky his bluster and bs didn't bring back USSR hardliners. Gorby brought down the USSR.

 

[BluesLegend]

You people want everyone to be poor and dependent on government, its not fair that some people work hard and become wealthy.

and dumbasses like you believe tax cuts are the answer to everything under the sun.

Oh God the irony, and increasing taxes so the government can piss it all away on nothing that's your big idea talk about brain dead.

Every time Republicans cut taxes, the deficits explode.

Cut spending idiot its not rocket science. While you are at it get your millions of welfare deadbeats off their big fat lard asses and stop mooching off the rest of us.

Yup, we must stop investing in the middle class and infrastructure to save the bloated GOP rich, dupe... lol. Of course, spending money on our bloated military is a great idea.

That's not what they do with the money fool, they pocket it. That's why you people are still waiting for your share of the loot 50 years and counting.

 

[francoHFW]

Yup, we must stop investing in the middle class and infrastructure to save the bloated GOP rich, dupe... lol. Of course, spending money on our bloated military is a great idea.

What does 'investing in the middle class" mean to you?

Not expensive bank loans for college, but cheap community college and public colleges/training for 3-6 million tech jobs. Anathema to the greedy GOP rich.

 

[Timmy]

Remember when W gave everyone $300 to spur the economy ?

Imagine if a dem did that!!

 

[francoHFW]

and dumbasses like you believe tax cuts are the answer to everything under the sun.

Oh God the irony, and increasing taxes so the government can piss it all away on nothing that's your big idea talk about brain dead.

Every time Republicans cut taxes, the deficits explode.

Cut spending idiot its not rocket science. While you are at it get your millions of welfare deadbeats off their big fat lard asses and stop mooching off the rest of us.

Yup, we must stop investing in the middle class and infrastructure to save the bloated GOP rich, dupe... lol. Of course, spending money on our bloated military is a great idea.

That's not what they do with the money fool, they pocket it. That's why you people are still waiting for your share of the loot 50 years and counting.

WTH are you talking about, dupe. lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

And what was spending like under demigod Reagan?

Who is demigod Reagan? Spending went up due to military and Democrats but it bankrupted the soviets trying to keep up the arms race. That's the real reason leftists will never forgive him.

How many nukes do the Russians have now?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sure for a little while, but just made for inequality and the ruin of the nonrich and the country in the long run, and it rolls on, thanks to the greedy idiot GOP rich and the dupes.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release - Financial Accounts of the United States - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

You people want everyone to be poor and dependent on government, its not fair that some people work hard and become wealthy.

and dumbasses like you believe tax cuts are the answer to everything under the sun.

Oh God the irony, and increasing taxes so the government can piss it all away on nothing that's your big idea talk about brain dead.

Every time Republicans cut taxes, the deficits explode.

Cut spending idiot its not rocket science. While you are at it get your millions of welfare deadbeats off their big fat lard asses and stop mooching off the rest of us.

Republicans never cut spending. They just stop paying for it.

 

[Iceweasel]

Yup, we must stop investing in the middle class and infrastructure to save the bloated GOP rich, dupe... lol. Of course, spending money on our bloated military is a great idea.

What does 'investing in the middle class" mean to you?

Not expensive bank loans for college, but cheap community college and public colleges/training for 3-6 million tech jobs. Anathema to the greedy GOP rich.

Lots of businesses would get on board with that. But it's the libs that jacked up college tuition so their buds can live large off of capitalism while preaching socialism. They have to be laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[Iceweasel]

You people want everyone to be poor and dependent on government, its not fair that some people work hard and become wealthy.

and dumbasses like you believe tax cuts are the answer to everything under the sun.

Oh God the irony, and increasing taxes so the government can piss it all away on nothing that's your big idea talk about brain dead.

Every time Republicans cut taxes, the deficits explode.

Cut spending idiot its not rocket science. While you are at it get your millions of welfare deadbeats off their big fat lard asses and stop mooching off the rest of us.

Republicans never cut spending. They just stop paying for it.

They cut spending growth recently, it's the only reason things aren't worse.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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)

View attachment 91241

Further proof that Republicans have no business being in control of anything – in this case failed, wrongheaded conservative fiscal dogma.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Trickle down economics didn't work"

Liberals are correct:

“Wealth does not trickle down from the rich to the poor. Period.

That's not Senator Elizabeth Warren talking. That's the latest conclusion of new research from the International Monetary Fund.

In fact, researchers found that when the top earners in society make more money, it actually slows down economic growth. On the other hand, when poorer people earn more, society as a whole benefits.

The researchers calculated that when the richest 20% of society increase their income by one percentage point, the annual rate of growth shrinks by nearly 0.1% within five years.

This shows that "the benefits do not trickle down," the researchers wrote in their report, which analyzed over 150 countries.”

The "trickle down theory" is dead wrong

 

[Little-Acorn]

Here's one from Pew Research using figures from the Department of Labor:
View attachment 91275

What a nice picture. Too bad it has little to do with the subject of the thread. But I expect changes of subject from liberal.

I would care to bet, that there isn't a economist alive, who isn't a political hack, that would agree with Acorn's analysis.

I haven't analyzed anything, just told you what government data for 1982-1989 shows. Since you bring in "other economists", perhaps you should ask them what they think of it. Instead of guessing and pretending you know something you don't.

Back to the subject:
In fact, all economic groups saw an increase in prosperity after Reagan cut taxes and regulations, as the government's Statistical Abstract data show. So far we've had no, none, zero liberals refute it (kind of hard to refute raw govt records). All we've had is 60-plus posts screaming hatred, trying to change the subject, telling lies, calling names, and trying to hand out insults.

Could it be that, much as they dislike what it says, they CAN'T refute it?

Could it be that Reagan's economic policies DID increase prosperity across the board... contrary to oft-repeated liberal wishful thinking?

 

[Siete]

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)

View attachment 91241

Sure for a little while, but just made for inequality and the ruin of the nonrich and the country in the long run, and it rolls on, thanks to the greedy idiot GOP rich and the dupes.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release - Financial Accounts of the United States - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

You people want everyone to be poor and dependent on government, its not fair that some people work hard and become wealthy.

and dumbasses like you believe tax cuts are the answer to everything under the sun.

Oh God the irony, and increasing taxes so the government can piss it all away on nothing that's your big idea talk about brain dead.

pissing it away is called paying for shit you buy ... something RW dipshits know noting about ... like you.

 

[Little-Acorn]

So far we've had no, none, zero liberals refute it (kind of hard to refute raw govt records). All we've had is 60-plus posts screaming hatred, trying to change the subject, telling lies, calling names, and trying to hand out insults.

pissing it away is called paying for shit you buy ... something RW dipshits know noting about ... like you.

See?

Could it be that, much as they dislike what the govt data says, they CAN'T refute it?

Could it be that Reagan's economic policies DID increase prosperity across the board... contrary to oft-repeated liberal wishful thinking?

 

[nat4900]

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)

View attachment 91241

Isn't THIRTY-FIVE years of the "experiment" with trickle down economics enough???

The proof is in the fact that it has been a driving economic theory for the past 35+ years, yet in that time the rich have gotten tremendously wealthier while the middle class and poor have fallen behind relative to the rich and relative to what productivity gains would suggest. That's more than long enough to disprove the theory.