Conservative's 'trickle down theory' is dead wrong according to study

[BoberFett]

If automation is making workers more productive, then maybe we should move away from a 40 hour work week. Spread the efficiency around rather than requiring one worker to do the work of two people and laying the other person off. Increases in efficiency shouldn't solely benefit the owners of a company. And with that additional free time, people can focus on spending more time raising their children, which is an additional boost to the economy.

Oh, so minimum wage goes to $30 and everyone works 20hours a week?

I'm sure we'll NEVER ship any more jobs overseas at that rate.

 

[BoberFett]

Does it not bother you that the fundamental cornerstone of conservative economic policy for 35 years and counting, supply-side trickle-down, hasn't worked? It is still the Republican economic platform, and it doesn't work. Are you OK with it? It took Russia 70 years to recognize Communism wasn't working, do Republicans need another 35 years to recognize trickle-down isn't working?

Thank you for answering my question. You ARE mentally disabled.

I'm sorry for making fun of you all these years. You try really hard, and that counts for something.

 

[BoberFett]

Go tap a guy who looks like this in the balls and see if you get a equal reaction.

Do you have a point? Or are you just trying to one-up senseamp in the idiot contest?

 

[Cozarkian]

Are you retarded? Seriously, I'm asking you point blank if you're mentally disabled, lettuceboy.

I didn't say trickle down worked. I'm asking why liberals like trickle down from the government, where we give all our money to one entity and then hope that some of it gets to where we want.

A company might have money to hire a worker, but that doesn't mean they have the need for another worker. Thus, the money ends up sitting in investments, which just passes the wealth around between the rich.

In contrast, the government will spend much more of the money, regardless of whether there is a need.

So basically, the government will increase the supply to create demand while the wealthy restrict supply while waiting for demand to increase. Trickle down would probably work in an economy where supply can't meet demand.

 

[theeedude]

Thank you for answering my question. You ARE mentally disabled.

I'm sorry for making fun of you all these years. You try really hard, and that counts for something.

Mentally disabled is doubling down on a failed economic policy, like the Republican party is doing.
Look at Kansas, a founding father of trickle-down, Art Laffer, designed their budget for them. It was an unmitigated disaster.
But have Republicans as a party acknowledged that? Nope, they keep on keeping on.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Do you have a point? Or are you just trying to one-up senseamp in the idiot contest?

Everything in Society does not have an equal and opposite response.

 

[bshole]

If you believe trickle down from the wealthy doesn't work, why do you believe in trickle down from the wealthiest entity of all time: the US government?

The government is there as a safety net when shit goes sideways, it is not an actual economic model.

I think it would be interesting to tie the minimum wage to the poverty level for a single person and turn over keys to health care COMPLETELY over to the government. Employers supplying health care insurance is nonsensical.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Oh, so minimum wage goes to $30 and everyone works 20hours a week?

I'm sure we'll NEVER ship any more jobs overseas at that rate.

Clearly we should adopt Indonesia'a model, set the minimum wage to $0.30 a day and require workers to work 17 hour shifts; the jobs will come POURING in! Extreme exaggeration can go both ways and it's equally stupid. But how about modest increases to the minimum wage coupled with repealing overtime exemptions for employees that target the middle class and have driven the average work week over 40 hours for salaried employees? How about tariffs on goods produced using cheap labor overseas to incentivize companies to open factories domestically? Trickle down economics is giving massive handouts to international corporations at the expense of American workers and it's been an unmitigated disaster for 99% of this country. Maybe we should try something different.

 

[glenn1]

Mentally disabled is doubling down on a failed economic policy, like the Republican party is doing.
Look at Kansas, a founding father of trickle-down, Art Laffer, designed their budget for them. It was an unmitigated disaster.
But have Republicans as a party acknowledged that? Nope, they keep on keeping on.

The concept you're looking for but haven't quite grasped is not that it doesn't work but rather it doesn't scale, just like social welfare spending. If you're in a high tax environment like the 1950s where the top marginal rate was 90% the positive impact of lowering rates is large. If the top rate is already down to 28% then it has little to no impact. Ditto for when social welfare spending was low like pre-FDR, a little bit went a long way. Now we spend such a big portion of our budget on social welfare that extra spending has likewise become ineffective or even counter-productive. Which is why I said way back in post 43 that the primary policy prescriptions of both major political parties are failures.

 

[fleshconsumed]

If you believe trickle down from the wealthy doesn't work, why do you believe in trickle down from the wealthiest entity of all time: the US government?

Are you retarded? Seriously, I'm asking you point blank if you're mentally disabled, lettuceboy.

I didn't say trickle down worked. I'm asking why liberals like trickle down from the government, where we give all our money to one entity and then hope that some of it gets to where we want.

The biggest problem with Reagan version of trickle down is not that it doesn't work, but that it doesn't happen in the first place, period. Wealthy just keep accumulating excess money. Sure, they might spend a little extra, but for every extra dollar they spend, they stash extra three dollars in savings or stock market. When middle/poor class receive those extra 4 dollars, they spend $3.50 and stash 50 cents in college savings for their kids. That is why if we're going to go down the trickle down path, the government path is actually preferable - the money might not go exactly where it needs to go, but most of that money will be put right back into economy instead of an ETF that is not seeing any gains due to stagnating economy.

 

[theeedude]

The concept you're looking for but haven't quite grasped is not that it doesn't work but rather it doesn't scale, just like social welfare spending. If you're in a high tax environment like the 1950s where the top marginal rate was 90% the positive impact of lowering rates is large. If the top rate is already down to 28% then it has little to no impact. Ditto for when social welfare spending was low like pre-FDR, a little bit went a long way. Now we spend such a big portion of our budget on social welfare that extra spending has likewise become ineffective or even counter-productive. Which is why I said way back in post 43 that the primary policy prescriptions of both major political parties are failures.

It doesn't scale to even a small state like Kansas? So what is it good for then? Intellectual masturbation?

 

[JSt0rm]

The biggest problem with Reagan version of trickle down is not that it doesn't work, but that it doesn't happen in the first place, period. Wealthy just keep accumulating excess money. Sure, they might spend a little extra, but for every extra dollar they spend, they stash extra three dollars in savings or stock market. When middle/poor class receive those extra 4 dollars, they spend $3.50 and stash 50 cents in college savings for their kids. That is why if we're going to go down the trickle down path, the government path is actually preferable - the money might not go exactly where it needs to go, but most of that money will be put right back into economy instead of an ETF that is not seeing any gains due to stagnating economy.

Exactly. Trickle down does work if the government does it. Brilliant move on some people who flipped that on its head and told all the poors it was the opposite of reality.

 

[TheSlamma]

Exactly. Trickle down does work if the government does it.

Umm where?

A bunch of welfare recipients running over to Walmart to buy China made crap doesn't ever get back to the 99%'rs in the US. The Walmart and outsource to China company execs are sure grateful I'm sure.

you guys hate the 1% but you keep on feeding them directly and even indirectly.

 

[JSt0rm]

Umm where?

A bunch of welfare recipients running over to Walmart to buy China made crap doesn't ever get back to the 99%'rs in the US. The Walmart and outsource to China company execs are sure grateful I'm sure.

you guys hate the 1% but you keep on feeding them directly and even indirectly.

I dont hate the 1% but my money comes indirectly from consumers.

All government expenditure doesn't come in the form of welfare. You guys keep focusing on this expense because of ideology and people with "interests" wanting to pound it home.

Why after decades of hating welfare is it still here? Even in red states? The reason is because its not "really" an issue. Its only a way to get you to be a single issue voter (or several single issues wrapped into 1 morsel - gun control, gay, welfare). Much easier to control you when these are the top issues in your mind.

Its a hell of a lot cheaper to pass out government cheese then deal with 50 million starving people and everyone with a brain knows it.

 

[JSt0rm]

To talk about trickle down for a minute. Rich people will create jobs when there is a demand for a job. They wont create a job because they have "extra" money. The best way to get money into the economy to create demand is to give it to poor people. They spend ALL of their money. It all ends up back into the economy and brings the multiplier effect.

 

[thraashman]

To talk about trickle down for a minute. Rich people will create jobs when there is a demand for a job. They wont create a job because they have "extra" money. The best way to get money into the economy to create demand is to give it to poor people. They spend ALL of their money. It all ends up back into the economy and brings the multiplier effect.

This is the simplest way to put it. Now convince the people in power of the truth of this. That's the hard part.

 

[JSt0rm]

This is the simplest way to put it. Now convince the people in power of the truth of this. That's the hard part.

Oh they know, the rich ARE the people in power and they aren't giving it up. They will just surround themselves with useful idiots who will think they to will be rich one day.

 

[TheSlamma]

I dont hate the 1% but my money comes indirectly from consumers.

All government expenditure doesn't come in the form of welfare. You guys keep focusing on this expense because of ideology and people with "interests" wanting to pound it home.

Why after decades of hating welfare is it still here? Even in red states? The reason is because its not "really" an issue. Its only a way to get you to be a single issue voter (or several single issues wrapped into 1 morsel - gun control, gay, welfare). Much easier to control you when these are the top issues in your mind.

Its a hell of a lot cheaper to pass out government cheese then deal with 50 million starving people and everyone with a brain knows it.

My point wasn't about the welfare.. it's that I find it impossible that the government in any program is trickling anything down. Most of the money we put into the government never leaves the 1% and when it does it just goes right back up to them with how our system is running.

Government hires Canadian firm to do the Obamacare site (which bagged out day 1) They outsource their security too and it gets breached. 404 USA middle class jobs not found. Look at the Va hospital in Aurora Colorado, the CEO's of that firm taking in massive bonus's and it's overbudget and now looks like it can't even get finished.

Fact is big corporations don't love you and the government that claims it loves you doesn't love you either. The bigger either one of them is the smaller every individual becomes. I get to choose though to not buy into a corporation I think is doing the wrong thing, when the government decides to go to war in a country I don't think poses any threat to us if I don't pay them my taxes I go to jail.

Now I know you and Sensuck are stuck in Dem vs Repub land but there are us moderates out there too that are stuck in the center isle in complete fear of where you both parties are taking us.

 

[JSt0rm]

My point wasn't about the welfare.. it's that I find it impossible that the government in any program is trickling anything down. Most of the money we put into the government never leaves the 1% and when it does it just goes right back up to them with how our system is running.

Then why did the defense industry make sure they have operations happening in every congressional district? How could QE work if it doesnt trickle down? You have this issue completely backwards.

Now I know you and Sensuck are stuck in Dem vs Repub land but there are us moderates out there too that are stuck in the center isle in complete fear of where you guys are taking us.

Really? Complete fear of what? Higher taxes on the rich?

 

[TheSlamma]

Really? Complete fear of what? Higher taxes on the rich?

Jesus you are a complete tard, just told you I don't travel in your sub 100IQ circles of Dem vs Repub. In what way did I ever indicate I would have a problem with higher taxes on the rich?

Find and quote exactly where I indicated that?

 

[JSt0rm]

See this is ideology. You have a study showing trickle down doesnt work and you have the curious case of Kansas also showing trickle down doesnt work and we STILL have people thinking trickle down works. I dont think they honestly think trickle down works, what I think they think is that its not "fair" for the government to tax you for being successful and they say trickle down to sell it.

 

[JSt0rm]

Jesus you are a complete tard, just told you I don't travel in your sub 100IQ circles of Dem vs Repub. In what way did I ever indicate I would have a problem with higher taxes on the rich?

Find and quote exactly where I indicated that?

why dont you answer my question? It was a question. Where do you fear "we" are taking you?

also: when you insult me it just shows we are navigating to parts you find uncomfortable

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The correct answer is somewhere in the middle, like all solutions. Businesses and high earners have hade decades of incentives and all the low hanging fruit has been picked. Now is the time to target tax breaks that encourage US job and its also the time to tax short sellers and actions that reduce US jobs, tax money that has been put on the sidelines to encourage productive investment. This should stand until we no longer see benefits from the above items that is the sign its time to move on and encourage something different.

 

[BoberFett]

The biggest problem with Reagan version of trickle down is not that it doesn't work, but that it doesn't happen in the first place, period. Wealthy just keep accumulating excess money. Sure, they might spend a little extra, but for every extra dollar they spend, they stash extra three dollars in savings or stock market. When middle/poor class receive those extra 4 dollars, they spend $3.50 and stash 50 cents in college savings for their kids. That is why if we're going to go down the trickle down path, the government path is actually preferable - the money might not go exactly where it needs to go, but most of that money will be put right back into economy instead of an ETF that is not seeing any gains due to stagnating economy.

Tell me, what do you think happens to money that's in the stock market or a bank?

 

[BoberFett]

To talk about trickle down for a minute. Rich people will create jobs when there is a demand for a job. They wont create a job because they have "extra" money. The best way to get money into the economy to create demand is to give it to poor people. They spend ALL of their money. It all ends up back into the economy and brings the multiplier effect.

So the poor spend all of their money now, and if they get more money they'll spend all of that too?

On what? What will the poor spend that money on that they don't have now? Where will it come from? How many resources will it require to produce it? Who will make it?