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

[Little-Acorn]

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

I'd say so. For the first 8 years or so, we practiced it, and all economic groups' prosperity increased across the board.
Then we stop practicing it, and prosperity stopped.

I'm convinced: Trickle down worked.

Unfortunately, we stopped practicing it after the 1980s, and things have been poor ever since.

Except for a period when a Republican Congress forced Clinton to sign Welfare Reform and cut the Capital gains taxes. Then the economy took off again for a while.

But it seems liberals never learned, and soon went back to heavy regulation, higher taxes, etc., and messed up the economy again.

But what happened in 1982-1989 was clear: Reagan cut taxes and reduced govt regulation, and everyone's prosperity increased, year after year.

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

 

[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.

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.

Public college costs doubled just under Bush. Reagan started it, and Bush gave college loans to the banks and made them much more expensive. How do you say Dems did it lol?

 

[nat4900]

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.

Here's an example of why the O/P is full of shit........

Under Reagan, he lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%;........and we got all the "wonderful" bullshit that the O/P stated.....

NOW, the marginal tax rate is 39.6% which is .....OBVIOUSLY.....lower than Reagan's 50% and we are still struggling with the after shocks of a recession......

Can someone else explain the "logic" of the O/P (if any) ????

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Public college costs doubled just under Bush. Reagan started it, and Bush gave college loans to the banks and made them much more expensive. How do you say Dems did it lol?

What does that tell you? Once the loans became easy to get colleges raised prices sky high..

 

[francoHFW]

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

I'd say so. For the first 8 years or so, we practiced it, and all economic groups' prosperity increased across the board.
Then we stop practicing it, and prosperity stopped.

I'm convinced: Trickle down worked.

How about you?

By huge defense spending, a corrupt S+L bubble, and tripling the deficit, and inequality of wealth and the ruin of the middle class and our infrastructure has increased ever since. All to save the bloated GOP rich, dupe.

 

[imawhosure]

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?

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.

So here we go--------------->the revenue rose, is that true or not? ANSWER: Yes, tremendously after adjusted for inflation, just as it did after President Kennedy's, and GW Bush.

Did the deficit rise? ANSWER: Yes it did, but we must ask, according to our constitution, which branch of government controls spending? And, after we decide who does this, who controlled THIS branch of government at that time! (Conversely, who controlled the spending branch of government when the balance was ALMOST balanced during Bill Clintons Presidency?)

In a double converse question--------->which party controlled congress when spending went through the roof during the 1st few years of Obama? And now, who controls the branch of congress as the administration contends that the deficit is falling?

In all honesty, I believe that BOTH branches of congress has failed us during the Obama administration, from BOTH sides of the aisle. They are NOT, did NOT, use the power that our constitution gave them to throttle back, or put forth the ideas they claimed they wanted against the will of the President. How many of YOU know, that the Presidential branch of the government was purposely designed to be the weakest of the 3! The thought process was------>that many with diverse ideas, could come to a better conclusion collectively, than 1 man, or 1 woman. How many of you would disagree with that? And if you do because you think Obama was the end all, be all; remember your choice if Trump happens to be elected, and invokes the power Obama did, certainly against almost everything you believe. You can NOT have it both ways------------->go against the spirit of the constitution on the power of the Presidency when a lefty is in office, and scream like stuck pigs when one is not!

 

[francoHFW]

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.

Here's an example of why the O/P is full of shit........

Under Reagan, he lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%;........and we got all the "wonderful" bullshit that the O/P stated.....

NOW, the marginal tax rate is 39.6% which is .....OBVIOUSLY.....lower than Reagan's 50% and we are still struggling with the after shocks of a recession......

Can someone else explain the "logic" of the O/P (if any) ????

Actually, he lowered it to 28%.

 

[nat4900]

Unfortunately, we stopped practicing it after the 1980s, and things have been poor ever since.

NO.....again the marginal tax rate under Reagan was 50%....now its less than 40%........So, you figure out the disconnect.

 

[kiwiman127]

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?

Oh?

 

[nat4900]

Actually, he lowered it to 28%.

TRUE......but that was in 1986 AFTER almost 6 years of trying trickle down at 50% and finding that it wasn't working as expected. Kind of doubling down on a bad hand.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Unfortunately, we stopped practicing it after the 1980s, and things have been poor ever since.

NO.....again the marginal tax rate under Reagan was 50%....now its less than 40%........So, you figure out the disconnect.

Actually, he lowered it to 50%, and then to 28%.

But facts aren't liberals' strong suit. They have no use for them.

 

[francoHFW]

Unfortunately, we stopped practicing it after the 1980s, and things have been poor ever since.

NO.....again the marginal tax rate under Reagan was 50%....now its less than 40%........So, you figure out the disconnect.

Looked it up- I was wrong sort of- he lowered it to 28% in 1988.
http://webarchive.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/toprate_historical.pdf

 

[Little-Acorn]

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

So, the income of the next-highest 20% group, was NOT 5 percent higher in 1984 than it was in 1982?
Can you prove this?

(Hint: He can't. The chart is correct. He's just trying to distract attention from the fact that his entire party has been wrong since the 1980s.)

Well?

This liberal has gotten very quiet on this subject since I asked him to support his statement.

Not hard to guess why.

The chart is correct, the data is correct. And the liberal doesn't have the honesty or character to admit he was wrong.

But in fact, all economic groups experience steadily increasing prosperity from 1982-1989 once Reagan cut taxes and reduced regulation.

Something else the liberals don't have the honest or character to admit. It gets in their way, of clamping down more and more control on the American people.

 

[nat4900]

Looked it up- I was wrong sort of- he lowered it to 28% in 1988.
http://webarchive.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/toprate_historical.pdf

You're correct (I was wrong that he lowered it to 28% in '86)...it was 1988....Sort of a parting "gift" to Reagan's cronies?

 

[nat4900]

Actually, he lowered it to 50%, and then to 28%.

But facts aren't liberals' strong suit. They have no use for them.

Apply some logic, if possible........Reagan lowered the tax marginal tax rate from 70 to 50 throughout MOST of his administration...and we got whatever "wonderful" results you're touting....
Now, Reagan ALSO more than tripled the federal deficit......
Given that latter reality, WHY the hell did he lower the rate to 28% during his last year in office???

 

[Little-Acorn]

Reagan lowered the tax marginal tax rate from 70 to 50 throughout MOST of his administration...and we got whatever "wonderful" results you're touting....

Here we have a liberal questioning whether rising prosperity for all is a good thing or not. A telling admission.

Now, Reagan ALSO more than tripled the federal deficit......

Reagan greatly increased tax revenue to the govt when he cut tax rates, as prosperity took off and people paid lower rates of MUCH higher incomes (including those who left the unemployment rolls and got new jobs).

It was Congress who began spending wildly, and threatened to vote against Reagans tax rate cuts and military buildup unless he let them do it. He caved and signed, and the deficit exploded.

Given that latter reality, WHY the hell did he lower the rate to 28%

So that the same could happen some more, hopefully without Congress spending like drunken sailors again.

Back to the subject:
Looks like the liberals have finally conceded what the history book already show (or at least the libs ran out of dodges and excuses to ignore it): Reagan cut taxes and reduced regulation, and all economic groups saw a steady increase in prosperity in 1982-1989, not just "the rich".

That's progress.

 

[rdean]

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

 

[Tehon]

 

[rdean]

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

So you are saying trickle down works?

 

[francoHFW]

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

I'd say so. For the first 8 years or so, we practiced it, and all economic groups' prosperity increased across the board.
Then we stop practicing it, and prosperity stopped.

I'm convinced: Trickle down worked.

Unfortunately, we stopped practicing it after the 1980s, and things have been poor ever since.

Except for a period when a Republican Congress forced Clinton to sign Welfare Reform and cut the Capital gains taxes. Then the economy took off again for a while.

But it seems liberals never learned, and soon went back to heavy regulation, higher taxes, etc., and messed up the economy again.

But what happened in 1982-1989 was clear: Reagan cut taxes and reduced govt regulation, and everyone's prosperity increased, year after year.

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

Seems like it worked with a top rate of 50% 1982-88, then feqed up when he lowered it to 28%, eh? Great idea!