Once again, an America hating lefty denying the truth. I watched 3 individuals start a small business during the Reagan years. All three are still in business and doing ok. They all did work for people that had more money than they did.
Pogo,
Fine, as long as you realize that when you say "trickle down doesn't work," you are making a political comment and not a comment with any economic foundation.
Fine, as long as you realize that when you say "trickle down doesn't work," you are making a political comment and not a comment with any economic foundation.
Here is a real life situation.
A Fortune 500 company in Nashville needs to do some advertising. They hire the company I work for.
My boss gets the account. He works with the company to develop a strategy and sponsorship opportunities.
I work on productions to create the advertising. Because of this, the department I work in achieves the expected revenue and surpasses it.
When times started getting bad, other people who do the same job I do got laid off. Because we had the Fortune 500 company buy advertising and production, our department shows viability and my job is safe.
I take my wife out to dinner to my favorite locally owned restaurant. I always leave a good tip and I always get good service. The restaurant owner can afford to keep the staff and the server makes money.
Long story short. Big company spends money, it goes to my company, my boss, and me. Then it goes to the local business owner, then their employee. My job stays safe, I earn a living, and I can spend my money locally. That's how trickle down economics work. You can say it doesn't, but I've seen it actually happening in the real world.
A Fortune 500 company in Nashville needs to do some advertising. They hire the company I work for.
My boss gets the account. He works with the company to develop a strategy and sponsorship opportunities.
I work on productions to create the advertising. Because of this, the department I work in achieves the expected revenue and surpasses it.
When times started getting bad, other people who do the same job I do got laid off. Because we had the Fortune 500 company buy advertising and production, our department shows viability and my job is safe.
I take my wife out to dinner to my favorite locally owned restaurant. I always leave a good tip and I always get good service. The restaurant owner can afford to keep the staff and the server makes money.
Long story short. Big company spends money, it goes to my company, my boss, and me. Then it goes to the local business owner, then their employee. My job stays safe, I earn a living, and I can spend my money locally. That's how trickle down economics work. You can say it doesn't, but I've seen it actually happening in the real world.
Yep... Trickle down works just fine! And then the oligarchs just snatch it back up to the top.
aka... too big to fail
aka... too big to fail
The only problem with trickle down is way too much of it trickles right on through to the dim-voting welfare millions (diddly).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
dolemitejb
[quote]Fine, as long as you realize that when you say "trickle down doesn't work," you are making a political comment and not a comment with any economic foundation.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I am making a statement based on reality
dolemitejb
[quote]Fine, as long as you realize that when you say "trickle down doesn't work," you are making a political comment and not a comment with any economic foundation.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I am making a statement based on reality
quote:I am making a statement based on reality
No you aren't, because "trickle down" doesn't exist amongst economists.
It "exists" among politicians who carry out such policies and I remeber Milton Freeman and Laffer both defending such policies under the Reagan administration.
First, it's "Friedman," not "Freeman." Second, "trickle-down" is still not an economic school of thought. Please provide evidence to the contrary.
quote:Originally posted by dolemitejb:
First, it's "Friedman," not "Freeman." Second, "trickle-down" is still not an economic school of thought. Please provide evidence to the contrary.
If I'm not mistaken, "trickle-down" was coined by liberal dimocrats.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
dolemitejb
[quote]First, it's "Friedman," not "Freeman." Second, "trickle-down" is still not an economic school of thought. Please provide evidence to the contrary.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sorry for the mistake in spelling but it was getting late and I was getting tired. I saw Milton Friedman many times on TV justifying his policies
Trickle down may not be an economic school of thought but is a term that I beleieve was coined by republicans to explain Reagan's tax cuts favoring the wealthy, like Bush's, that would stimulate the economy and eventually help the average person. It didn't work. I lived through that era and Reagan's military spending, like Bush's, ran up the debt to the highest level we had known at the time. Credit Cards fueled the economy until the 87 market crash.
I remember a debate between William F Buckley and John Kenneth Galbrath. Galbrath kept making fun of the term but also pointing out you can't cut revenue and increase spending on military which only produces jobs for a minority but high profits for CEO's and the Market and does little for the average American.
I also remember Laffer, I forget his first name, defending these policies and a term the "Laffer Curve."
Either way they are political realities that were used by government.
dolemitejb
[quote]First, it's "Friedman," not "Freeman." Second, "trickle-down" is still not an economic school of thought. Please provide evidence to the contrary.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sorry for the mistake in spelling but it was getting late and I was getting tired. I saw Milton Friedman many times on TV justifying his policies
Trickle down may not be an economic school of thought but is a term that I beleieve was coined by republicans to explain Reagan's tax cuts favoring the wealthy, like Bush's, that would stimulate the economy and eventually help the average person. It didn't work. I lived through that era and Reagan's military spending, like Bush's, ran up the debt to the highest level we had known at the time. Credit Cards fueled the economy until the 87 market crash.
I remember a debate between William F Buckley and John Kenneth Galbrath. Galbrath kept making fun of the term but also pointing out you can't cut revenue and increase spending on military which only produces jobs for a minority but high profits for CEO's and the Market and does little for the average American.
I also remember Laffer, I forget his first name, defending these policies and a term the "Laffer Curve."
Either way they are political realities that were used by government.
quote:Trickle down may not be an economic school of thought but is a term that I beleieve was coined by republicans to explain Reagan's tax cuts favoring the wealthy, like Bush's, that would stimulate the economy and eventually help the average person. It didn't work. I lived through that era and Reagan's military spending, like Bush's, ran up the debt to the highest level we had known at the time. Credit Cards fueled the economy until the 87 market crash.
I remember a debate between William F Buckley and John Kenneth Galbrath. Galbrath kept making fun of the term but also pointing out you can't cut revenue and increase spending on military which only produces jobs for a minority but high profits for CEO's and the Market and does little for the average American.
I also remember Laffer, I forget his first name, defending these policies and a term the "Laffer Curve."
You're kind of all over the place, and I don't really know what your point is. Tax cuts combined with deficit spending is bad. I have never said anything to the contrary.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
dolemitejb
[quote]You're kind of all over the place, and I don't really know what your point is. Tax cuts combined with deficit spending is bad. I have never said anything to the contrary.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Tax cuts to the rich does not benefit tyhe average worker. It didn't work under Reagan or Bush bith who also, beside the tax cuts, ran up military spending and increased the debt.
dolemitejb
[quote]You're kind of all over the place, and I don't really know what your point is. Tax cuts combined with deficit spending is bad. I have never said anything to the contrary.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Tax cuts to the rich does not benefit tyhe average worker. It didn't work under Reagan or Bush bith who also, beside the tax cuts, ran up military spending and increased the debt.
Alabama redneck right wing racists opinion on parade
quote:Tax cuts to the rich does not benefit tyhe average worker.
Yeah, probably not directly and not as much as Republicans claim, but it doesn't matter if it benefits the average worker. That's a poor defense of high taxes - "we can steal more of your money because stealing less wouldn't benefit the average worker."
quote:beside the tax cuts, ran up military spending and increased the debt.
A tax cut has nothing to do with increase military spending. They are two seperate things.
quote:Originally posted by dolemitejb:quote:Plus, rather than work, millions of Americans have chosen to be poor. Unfortunately you can't force people to work. Instead, we feed them, house them and reward them with money they didn't earn.
I know this is a big thing with you, but it really seems more emotional than logical. First, subsidizing poverty, while not a good thing, isn't the most egregious misallocation of resources. When the government interferes with its most productive citizens, incentives are out of line, and resources are misused. When the government interferes with its least productive citizens, they haven't lost too much by subsidizing their poverty. Second, the per capita cost for those who take advantage of the system is likely to be extremely low. I'm not condoning it, but I'm also far from convinced it is the greatest threat to our future economic prosperity.
You're only calculating a narrow set of costs when you do your analysis. Since welfare breeds crime, you have to assess the mountainous amounts of money it cost Americans every year in theft and higher insurance rates. Urban housing developement is just code for providing places to live for the welfare population. That comes out of our pockets too. Since they don't have to work for anything, welfare recipients tend to blow the money they are given on dope, booze, gambling, fancy wheels, etc causing them to seek even more government money or commit more crimes. You really do underestimate how far the tentacles of the welfare state stretches and it's strangling America.
kperk,
That's all fine and I don't care to dispute any of it, but that wasn't really my point. There are many people, yourself included, who look at the welfare state as the greatest enemy of economic prosperity. I'm not advocating the welfare state, but I just disagree with that assessment. Look at it this way.
Take the worst case example that people in your court cite - someone who uses welfare to feed addiction and commits crime. What do you think that person would be doing in the absense of the welfare state? Do you think they would be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company?
Now consider a relatively bright, hardworking individual who works for, let's say, the Congressional Budget Office. That person, instead of using their talents and resources to work for Congress, could be working for private enterprise and doing something that actually benefits society as a whole.
My contention is that we haven't lost too much by subsidizing the "laziness" of our least productive citizens. We lose considerably more by misallocating resources when we incentivize productive, talented people to work for the government. The government creates nothing; it just takes from those who do create and uses what they take for their own benefit.
That's all fine and I don't care to dispute any of it, but that wasn't really my point. There are many people, yourself included, who look at the welfare state as the greatest enemy of economic prosperity. I'm not advocating the welfare state, but I just disagree with that assessment. Look at it this way.
Take the worst case example that people in your court cite - someone who uses welfare to feed addiction and commits crime. What do you think that person would be doing in the absense of the welfare state? Do you think they would be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company?
Now consider a relatively bright, hardworking individual who works for, let's say, the Congressional Budget Office. That person, instead of using their talents and resources to work for Congress, could be working for private enterprise and doing something that actually benefits society as a whole.
My contention is that we haven't lost too much by subsidizing the "laziness" of our least productive citizens. We lose considerably more by misallocating resources when we incentivize productive, talented people to work for the government. The government creates nothing; it just takes from those who do create and uses what they take for their own benefit.
quote:Originally posted by dolemitejb:
kperk,
That's all fine and I don't care to dispute any of it, but that wasn't really my point. There are many people, yourself included, who look at the welfare state as the greatest enemy of economic prosperity. I'm not advocating the welfare state, but I just disagree with that assessment. Look at it this way.
Take the worst case example that people in your court cite - someone who uses welfare to feed addiction and commits crime. What do you think that person would be doing in the absense of the welfare state? Do you think they would be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company?
Now consider a relatively bright, hardworking individual who works for, let's say, the Congressional Budget Office. That person, instead of using their talents and resources to work for Congress, could be working for private enterprise and doing something that actually benefits society as a whole.
My contention is that we haven't lost too much by subsidizing the "laziness" of our least productive citizens. We lose considerably more by misallocating resources when we incentivize productive, talented people to work for the government. The government creates nothing; it just takes from those who do create and uses what they take for their own benefit.
Of course I don't think they would become a CEO but I do believe that millions of lazies would be reduced to thousands and that would mean more savings to the country. Most of the reproduction industry the welfare population works in would come to a halt if they had to take care of their own product. Thanks for reminding me of more ways the welfare state is destroying America. I had forgotten about that point.
Everybody that was paying taxes got a tax cut under Reagan and W.
quote:Most of the reproduction industry the welfare population works in would come to a halt if they had to take care of their own product.
What???