According to conservative doctrine, Kansas and Texas ought to be booming, and California ought to be in the pits. (San Diego: middle-class, attorneys)

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by nmnita

Lets just say, OK earthquakes are one thing, unless one has lived through them and through a real CA earthquake you don't know what it is like. OK feel like trimmers compared to Ca. Comparing Ca. earthquakes to what has happened in the past few years is OK, is almost funny; dumb as well.

I was born and raised in CA. I love my home state though I would not move back, but it's growth and success has more to do with the large urban cities than it does anything else. Kansas doesn't want to be another Ca. Like AR. Kansas wants to be noticed and some growth, but not the kind of growth Ca. has experienced in the past 10 or 20 years: they don't want the High COL, they don't want the state taken over by illegals, and they don't want the liberal politics or the poverty.

ExpatCa: I hope your health problems are not life threatening and good luck with your move: Like you, if I were to move back it would not be OC or anywhere is So Ca I don't think.

Incorrect regarding Kansas. The so called "conservative" Brownback sent the state into a downward spiral with a regressive tax policy that increased taxes on the middle class and poor and lowered them for the wealthy. The result is increasing poverty, declining median household incomes, and job declines- all while just about every state was performing much better. If my personal circle of acquaintances is any indication (former Kansan-like many), the state can't retain many middle aged or younger residents at all. Brownback has proven that supply-side economics and the Laffer curve are an abysmal failure. Who does Trump want as a head financial official in his administration? Larry Kudlow, the CNBC talking head that likes supply side economics.

[MtnSurfer]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

Incorrect regarding Kansas. The so called "conservative" Brownback sent the state into a downward spiral with a regressive tax policy that increased taxes on the middle class and poor and lowered them for the wealthy. The result is increasing poverty, declining median household incomes, and job declines- all while just about every state was performing much better. If my personal circle of acquaintances is any indication (former Kansan-like many), the state can't retain many middle aged or younger residents at all. Brownback has proven that supply-side economics and the Laffer curve are an abysmal failure. Who does Trump want as a head financial official in his administration? Larry Kudlow, the CNBC talking head that likes supply side economics.

Yes, it seems like one the biggest problems with 'trickle down' supply-side economics is that it never really does. Of course billionaires love to convince the masses that its in their best interest to make them richer. In fact, why should the wealthy pay 'any tax at all' when we can tax the poor and middle class instead? Makes perfect sense to me. Warren Buffet was crazy. He should keep all of his money for the good of others.

Here's something worth considering regarding supply-side economics historical performance:

"Bill Clinton reversed Reagan's Supply Side policies, raising taxes on the wealthy and lowering them on the working and middle class. This Demand Side formula was fiercely resisted by Republican leaders in Congress who predicted a stock market crash and another Great Depression. Indeed, every single Republican member of Congress voted against it. It took a tie-breaking vote by Al Gore in the Senate to get the bill passed. What happened?

The economy produced the longest sustained expansion in U.S. history. It created more than 22 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded. Unemployment fell to its lowest level in over 30 years. Inflation fell to 2.5% per year compared to the 4.7% average over the prior 12 years. And overall economic growth averaged 4.0% per year compared to 2.8% average growth over the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations.

It wasn't even close. The economy performed dramatically better in almost every way once Supply Side policies were replaced with Demand Side policies.

The most dramatic outcome was the reversal of the Reagan-era Supply Side deficits. Clinton's Demand Side policies not only paid down the Reagan/Bush deficits, they produced the first budgetary surpluses since 1969. By the time Clinton left office, the government was running surpluses of almost $140 billion per year. This is what he turned over to George W. Bush in January of 2001.

Bush, of course, returned to the Supply Side policies of Reagan and his father. He lowered taxes on the very rich -- his "base" as he calls them. His $1.6 trillion in tax cuts give 45% of the benefits to the top 1% of the population. It is classic Supply Side economics. What happened?

According to the Economic Policy Institute, "By virtually every measure, the economy has performed worse in this business cycle than was typical of past ones." -- A Tale of Two Theories: Supply Side and Demand Side Economics | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

Derek

[AlongTheI-5]

Sheep want to pay taxes so the rich don't have to.

[MtnSurfer]

Originally Posted by AlongTheI-5

Sheep want to pay taxes so the rich don't have to.

[MtnSurfer]

I think old Bernie might have been on to something after all.

[payutenyodagimas]

Originally Posted by MtnSurfer

Clinton's Demand Side policies not only paid down the Reagan/Bush deficits, they produced the first budgetary surpluses since 1969. By the time Clinton left office, the government was running surpluses of almost $140 billion per year. This is what he turned over to George W. Bush in January of 2001.

Bush, of course, returned to the Supply Side policies of Reagan and his father. He lowered taxes on the very rich -- his "base" as he calls them. His $1.6 trillion in tax cuts give 45% of the benefits to the top 1% of the population. It is classic Supply Side economics. What happened?

According to the Economic Policy Institute, "By virtually every measure, the economy has performed worse in this business cycle than was typical of past ones." -- A Tale of Two Theories: Supply Side and Demand Side Economics | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

Derek

the elder Bush called Reaganomics Voodo Economics and he actually raised taxes. remember "read my lips"? that promise was broken and the democratic Congress raised some taxes, probably one of the reason he lost to Clinton

[MtnSurfer]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

the elder Bush called Reaganomics Voodo Economics and he actually raised taxes. remember "read my lips"? that promise was broken and the democratic Congress raised some taxes, probably one of the reason he lost to Clinton

And here's the million dollar question. What do you think the new billionaire Trump dream team will try to do for themselves and their friends first and foremost? Who's making who great again?

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by MtnSurfer

Yes, it seems like one the biggest problems with 'trickle down' supply-side economics is that it never really does. Of course billionaires love to convince the masses that its in their best interest to make them richer. In fact, why should the wealthy pay 'any tax at all' when we can tax the poor and middle class instead? Makes perfect sense to me. Warren Buffet was crazy. He should keep all of his money for the good of others.

Here's something worth considering regarding supply-side economics historical performance:

"Bill Clinton reversed Reagan's Supply Side policies, raising taxes on the wealthy and lowering them on the working and middle class. This Demand Side formula was fiercely resisted by Republican leaders in Congress who predicted a stock market crash and another Great Depression. Indeed, every single Republican member of Congress voted against it. It took a tie-breaking vote by Al Gore in the Senate to get the bill passed. What happened?

The economy produced the longest sustained expansion in U.S. history. It created more than 22 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded. Unemployment fell to its lowest level in over 30 years. Inflation fell to 2.5% per year compared to the 4.7% average over the prior 12 years. And overall economic growth averaged 4.0% per year compared to 2.8% average growth over the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations.

It wasn't even close. The economy performed dramatically better in almost every way once Supply Side policies were replaced with Demand Side policies.

The most dramatic outcome was the reversal of the Reagan-era Supply Side deficits. Clinton's Demand Side policies not only paid down the Reagan/Bush deficits, they produced the first budgetary surpluses since 1969. By the time Clinton left office, the government was running surpluses of almost $140 billion per year. This is what he turned over to George W. Bush in January of 2001.

Bush, of course, returned to the Supply Side policies of Reagan and his father. He lowered taxes on the very rich -- his "base" as he calls them. His $1.6 trillion in tax cuts give 45% of the benefits to the top 1% of the population. It is classic Supply Side economics. What happened?

According to the Economic Policy Institute, "By virtually every measure, the economy has performed worse in this business cycle than was typical of past ones." -- A Tale of Two Theories: Supply Side and Demand Side Economics | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

Derek

Actually Reagan's tax cuts helped. The problem was the Dems in power in congress got him to pass more spending laws and increased the debt. This more than cancelled his gains. If they had not done that it would have been much better. Like under Clinton who worked with the Republican majority to get things fixed.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by MtnSurfer

I think old Bernie might have been on to something after all.

It's not like we needed The Bern to tell us that. He's not saying anything profound that hasn't been said before him.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by MtnSurfer

And here's the million dollar question. What do you think the new billionaire Trump dream team will try to do for themselves and their friends first and foremost? Who's making who great again?

Everyone the Trainwreck-Elect has appointed to his cabinet are blatant corporatists. They're not even pretending to support the fake election platform.