Trickle down economics does not work

[trenchfoot]

And every single rightie in here without fail conveniently forgets what happened after eight years of "trickle down" economics brought to us by Bush and Cheney.

What's that? Bush and Cheney had no effect or control of the economy? Well then, the same should apply for Obama too huh?

 

[shortylickens]

The 80's and 90's were 2 of our best decades ever. Trickle down economics doesn't work?

Only if the tops 1% reinvest their profits and make small businesses and jobs. They didnt do that starting in the mid 90s.

 

[BoberFett]

Using a variation of Willard's campaign/debate soundbite "trickle down government" saying it's the same as "trickle down" economics. Probably a Luntz or Rove invention.

I have yet to hear a satisfactory differentiation.

 

[Agent11]

Trickle down economics is a dinosaur. You could probably trace the origin of this way of thinking to the days of industrialism.

Most industrialists were pretty patriotic in ye goode olde days though, manifest destiny and whatnot, and super protectionism was the norm.

 

[buckshot24]

And every single rightie in here without fail conveniently forgets what happened after eight years of "trickle down" economics brought to us by Bush and Cheney.

What's that? Bush and Cheney had no effect or control of the economy? Well then, the same should apply for Obama too huh?

What caused the meltdown? Bush policies? Low taxes? No? Then shut the f*** up. (trying to be kinder and gentler) ()

 

[Acanthus]

Except it makes sense because they use it as an excuse for stimulating the economy and the people they want to take the money from are which? Oh that's right those AT THE TOP. Or do you not realize we have a "progressive" tax system? Take from the top invest to help the bottom, sounds like trickle down to me. In fact I even called such non-sense trickle down before Mr. Romney decided to throw that bullshit around. Just because his dumbass is using it too doesn't make it any less valid. Fact is BOTH the Republicans and Democrats are central planning social statists, they simply disagree on which plan is more efficient. You idiots gobble it up like there's actually a fucking difference between the two. lol @ you.

Holding back the personal attacks... you are ignorant of the facts. One works, the other doesn't.

Or is Moodys too "left wing" for you?

 

[Acanthus]

What caused the meltdown? Bush policies? Low taxes? No? Then shut the f*** up. (trying to be kinder and gentler) ()

The repeal of Glass-Steagal
Failure to regulate the derivatives market (still ongoing)
Failure to enforce existing antitrust laws (still ongoing)
Failure to enforce existing fraud laws (some action but just fines, and too little, too late, there should be dozens if not hundreds of people in jail)
Government backing of home loans creating a risk-free environment (FNM, FRE)
Failure to improve trade agreements or penalize bad trade partners

While a lot of this happened on Bush's watch, Obama has failed to fix these problems as well.

 

[CPA]

That's what I've been saying...The Republicans fuck up the economy...people elect Democrats to fix it...(sometimes it takes a few years to un-do the damage) then for some silly reason, people elect Republicans again...




http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/05/democrats-v-republicans-debt-and.html


Democrats are better for investors:

Democrats are better at job creation:

http://www.bloomberg.com/chart/isqi31tjaZFo/

and in general, the country fares better with Democrats at the helm...

http://www.foxbusiness.com/investin...shows-markets-gdp-outperform-under-democrats/

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...t-republicans-on-11-of-12-economic-indicators

What a bunch of nonsense. Let's look at S&P averages and GDP to determine who had a better administration while not looking at the underlying reasons for those increases. Truman and Roosevelt economies had huge government spending and British Lend-Lease programs to rely on, thanks to WWII.

Then, Eisenhower takes office after WWII and the economy had to deal with A) women in the workforce and B) influx of soldiers returning home looking for work, and C) the mass reduction of government spending on military, does it surprise you that we hit a recession?

And for Reagan, who are you trying to kid? He came in with interest rates near 20% thanks to Carter. Pinning the 1980 recession on Reagan is ludicrous, at best.

 

[cybrsage]

I blame Obama for the economic mess because he claimed he could both fix it in 3 years AND cut the deficit in half at the same time. Either he knew thought the American public are completely stupid and lied to us or he thought he could do it and therefor is so much a moron it is frightening. Neither option is very good.

 

[Exterous]

Hmmm...looks to me that this starts the minute they take office. I am pretty sure the AT P&N Democrats have determined that is not a valid comparison to make. We need one offset by 1-2 years

 

[soulcougher73]

The trickle up economics of Republicans is still better than the fuckup economics of Democrats. If giving tax breaks to the rich doesn't stimulate growth, then "social spending" like giving welfare to inner city crackheads sure as shit won't either.

Come back to us when you know what you are talking about.

 

[EagleKeeper]

How do you intend on increasing spending by the lower class?

Handouts?

 

[soulcougher73]

I heard conservative after conservative argue that Republican ideologies work and are better than the Democratic alternative.

There's a problem with this argument. It's simply NOT true. There is NO proof or historical data to support the assumption that trickle down economics is a good economic philosophy or that it is in any way, shape, or form better than the Democratic alternative. In fact, history shows us that Democratic policies have been better for the economy overall.

So again I ask, if there is no historical data that shows trickle down economics has ever worked in this country why do you continue to support this economic policy? Why do you think it will be different this time around? Answer the question without mentioning Democrats please.

You think they care about things like PROOF or FACTS? They are mostly religious nut bags which should explain all you need to know of them.

 

[Throckmorton]

Then why does the evidence show that the dem's trickle-down gov't works and repubs trickle-down economics never works better?

It's more like trickle-up government. You're paying government workers and contractors who are paying their workers to do a job. That's completely different from giving tax cuts to the investment class, who produce nothing.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Yet the government end has waste because there is no incentive for them to be efficient.

 

[BoberFett]

It's more like trickle-up government. You're paying government workers and contractors who are paying their workers to do a job. That's completely different from giving tax cuts to the investment class, who produce nothing.

You think the government cuts checks to contractors?

Or does the CEO who's a buddy with the senator get a lucrative deal for his company that happens to create a few new low wage jobs while the CEO pockets a massive bonus?

Any way you slice it, it's still a failure of an idea.

 

[Matt1970]

Trickle down, trickle up, hands off, whatever, at this point it doesn't matter. We are sending the better part of a trillion dollars overseas every year via trade deficits. Untill we fix that any stimulus or economic relief is nothing more than a band aid, and a weak one at that. Yes corporations are at fault too but until you can get the average consumer to shell out a few extra dollars to buy American you can have all the manufacturing jobs here you want, the products will not sell and the factories will close.

Just making our trade deficit near zero will be like putting a trillion dollars of stimulus back into the US economy every year. And with a near zero trade deficit that money is more likely to stay in the US trading hands.

 

[nehalem256]

That's what I've been saying...The Republicans fuck up the economy...people elect Democrats to fix it...(sometimes it takes a few years to un-do the damage) then for some silly reason, people elect Republicans again...




http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/05/democrats-v-republicans-debt-and.html

Funny how Reagan is being blamed for the Jan–July 1980 recession huh? Just like he is blamed for starting Reagonomics in the 1970s

Do Democrats even know when he was president?

Democrats are better for investors:

This has got to be one of the most biased charts ever. At first I could not even figure out how the invest return for Republicans was so low. Then I realized there was a Herbet Hoover way on the right which obviously drags down the whole thing.

I wonder how things would fair if Hoover wasn't there?

EDIT: Which would be more fair. Last 6 Republicans vs. last 6 Democrats. Obviously Herbert Hoover is proof that Reagonomics doesn't work

 

[Acanthus]

Funny how Reagan is being blamed for the Jan–July 1980 recession huh? Just like he is blamed for starting Reagonomics in the 1970s

Do Democrats even know when he was president?



This has got to be one of the most biased charts ever. At first I could not even figure out how the invest return for Republicans was so low. Then I realized there was a Herbet Hoover way on the right which obviously drags down the whole thing.

I wonder how things would fair if Hoover wasn't there?

EDIT: Which would be more fair. Last 6 Republicans vs. last 6 Democrats. Obviously Herbert Hoover is proof that Reagonomics doesn't work

you can't read charts and we need to include your input in this discussion? excluding hoover is on the chart.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Liberals hate trickle down economics if the trickling down comes from rich people, but they love trickle down economics if the trickling down comes from a government owned and controlled by rich people.

LOL, idiots...

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Again, no Republican can come to the table with any facts or economic studies that back trickle down supply side economics.

I just want you to admit that the economic philosophy touted by your party simply doesn't work. And I want you to explain to me why, given the overwhelming evidence that it doesn't work, you think it will be different this time around if Romney becomes President? Answer this question without bringing up Democrats or liberals.

 

[nehalem256]

you can't read charts and we need to include your input in this discussion? excluding hoover is on the chart.

I read it just fine. But when you chart essentially says Herbert Hoover, who was president 80 years ago, was bad for the stock market, therefore Republicans are bad for the stock market....

Yeah you might want to rethink your beliefs.

Especially when you also claim that Reagan was president in 1980.

 

[Juddog]

I will never understand it. You have economic policies that have been proven time and again to not work (Republican), and policies that have been proven time and again do work (Democrat). Yet still there are people who insist on trying the Republican policies again and again. Is it some kind of psychological reward system thing where you think the rich deserve to be rewarded for becoming rich? Seriously, I don't get why anyone would intentionally continue to do something so stupid despite there being absolutely no way you could think it would work. Is it a brain damage thing, do all GOP voters have brain damage? I mean clearly cybrsage does, but do the rest of you?

It has to do with a certain mindset where people that aren't rich think of themselves as rich. Take for example an issue which affects only the top 1% of income earners - you'll have poor people that would directly benefit from a policy that negatively affected the top 1%, yet they would vote against something that affected the top 1% and treat it as if it's an issue that affects them, when it doesn't.

The top 1% has a huge ton of money, overflowing amounts of money, to spend on ads to defend their position, where the bottom 99% does not. No matter how many times this reoccurs throughout history, it's like watching Groundhog Day, people will vote in favor of policies that negatively affect them because they're not willing to put aside the mental effort to figure out how something actually works.

It's a type of thinking that affects many people in America - people just don't want to put forth the effort when they can be mentally lazy about it instead. Look at cooking, as an example, there is a percentage of the populace that would rather eat microwave meals that were worse for them, cost more, yet take a lot less time to make, versus cooking their own dinner that would be way healthier, even if they had all the time to do it. These people just believe whatever they are told while listening to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity without actually looking up anything to see if it's right or not - they are the mentally lazy of the country.

 

[buckshot24]

The repeal of Glass-Steagal
Failure to regulate the derivatives market (still ongoing)
Failure to enforce existing antitrust laws (still ongoing)
Failure to enforce existing fraud laws (some action but just fines, and too little, too late, there should be dozens if not hundreds of people in jail)
Government backing of home loans creating a risk-free environment (FNM, FRE)
Failure to improve trade agreements or penalize bad trade partners

While a lot of this happened on Bush's watch, Obama has failed to fix these problems as well.

Glass - Steagal was repealed by Clinton.

 

[buckshot24]

Hmmm...looks to me that this starts the minute they take office. I am pretty sure the AT P&N Democrats have determined that is not a valid comparison to make. We need one offset by 1-2 years

In some cases it needs to be offset by 4 years.