Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did not click on all your links, but I read one (The first one, I think), and all it did was say how it's a lie, but never said what the truth is. The fact is that both Reagan and Trump based their economic strategy on the trickle-down effect. I think Reagan called it "Supply side economics", but in both cases, the case was made that if you leave employers and other ultra rich with more money, they'll spend it to cause more demand, and trump specifically said employers will use it to hire more people. They didn't. Call it whatever you want, the premise of my argument is taken from the source.
No President in the last 90 years has presided over supply side economic policy in the US. The closest we've ever come is Calvin Coolidge and before him, the 1st Cleveland administration. Yes, good economic governance is that rare. One of the two key, foundation components of supply side economics is a REDUCTION IN SIZE/COST OF GOVERNMENT. It isn't supply side economics without it, no matter what any particular person chooses to call their "cut taxes/spend even more" policies.
Part 1) Cut taxes in accordance with the Laffer Curve and Hauser's Law (look them up).
Part 2) Reduce the size, cost, and scope of government across the board. Not "spend a smidgen less than we planned, which is still more than last year" but actually spend less this year than you did last year. Cut the size, cost and scope of government. If government cost $4 trillion this year, supply side economics in action would see government cost $3.6 trillion next year. A 10% reduction in total government outlay is a cut.
That is supply side economics. Not one president or Congress has come anywhere near doing BOTH key parts in your lifetime or mine. Same for Keynesian demand-side economics. Not one president or Congress has ever done that right, with the rare exception of the NASA programs of the 1960s for a moon landing, but that was wrecked because prior to the expansion of government spending, Kennedy actually cut taxes. In Keynesian demand-side economics, you do two things:
Part 1) Raise taxes SPECIFICALLY to raise extra revenue for...
Part 2) ....government doing/producing something not already being done by the private sector.
Again, the space race in the 60s is as close to that as we have ever come, and when taxes did get raised near the end of the 60s, it was to fund the welfare state, which negates Keynesian economic policy because the government and private sector had already been doing that, and the government wanted more money to push private charity to the curb and do all welfare more poorly.
Now I can type all that again if it helps you get it, but nobody has implemented anything close to supply side economics in the US since the 1920s. When the tax rates go down and the total federal outlay for one year is less than than the total from the year before, then yeah, that is supply side and we'll see what happens. Until BOTH things happen, it is simply more failed cronyism under either a Republican or Democrat banner, and they are misusing fancy economic words they don't understand so people like you can straw man their ideological opponents with them.
So the whole premise of Trickle Down Economics, and the current Trump Tax increase on the middle class so he can give cuts to the ultra-rich is that if you make the rich, richer, they will create jobs and it will benefit the middle and lower class. Is that right?
So tell me this: If that's what they were going to do with the tax cuts (spoiler: They didn't, they pocketed it and bought back their own stocks), then why would you advocate for the government to forcefully take the money from the middle class, give it to the rich, so they can just give it back to the working class?
Be honest here. If a liberal politician had come up with this plan, to take money from people, give it to other people, and trust them to give it back to the people you forcefully took it from, would you support it? Or do you only support it because it's a Republican plan?
I'm sure many will be tempted to deflect by telling me what the Liberals and Dems would (or do) do, but the question is not about that. Tell me, without deflecting, why it's a good idea to forcefully take money from the working class, give it to the rich, and expect them to give it back to the working class. If you can explain that, then explain to me why they would give it back, and when we might expect that to start. If you can't answer those two questions, then maybe you can tell us why you still think it's a good idea, or alternately, if you've changed your mind about that, tell us why.
Your presumption that people's money is first the property of the government, and not their own, is deeply flawed.
The government does not "give" anything- it takes. Individuals earn money, only to have it taken by the feds and used for purposes other than for the benefit of that individual.
Only a lib would assume that all wealth and money is the property of the government and that they let us "keep" some of it.
it isnt the conservatives that want to redistribute the wealth, its the liberals. remember they are the ones that are pushing tax increase, welfare, free college tuition, free health care, etc. and since there is no such thing as a free lunch, someone has to pay for all that free stuff, and that ends being anyone paying taxes.
Yes. The OP pulled a fast one with that "redistribute the wealth" in the thread title.
Your presumption that people's money is first the property of the government, and not their own, is deeply flawed.
The government does not "give" anything- it takes. Individuals earn money, only to have it taken by the feds and used for purposes other than for the benefit of that individual.
Only a lib would assume that all wealth and money is the property of the government and that they let us "keep" some of it.
how was money taken from the middle class? what planet are you on?
Tariffs erased any savings from Trump’s tax bill. Republicans like regressive taxes like tariffs, they hit middle and low earners, not the donor class.
Your presumption that people's money is first the property of the government, and not their own, is deeply flawed.
The government does not "give" anything- it takes. Individuals earn money, only to have it taken by the feds and used for purposes other than for the benefit of that individual.
Only a lib would assume that all wealth and money is the property of the government and that they let us "keep" some of it.
Yet, money has value because the Fed created it. Are you paid in Bitcoin?
I did not click on all your links, but I read one (The first one, I think), and all it did was say how it's a lie, but never said what the truth is. The fact is that both Reagan and Trump based their economic strategy on the trickle-down effect. I think Reagan called it "Supply side economics", but in both cases, the case was made that if you leave employers and other ultra rich with more money, they'll spend it to cause more demand, and trump specifically said employers will use it to hire more people. They didn't. Call it whatever you want, the premise of my argument is taken from the source.
Don't believe me, see the VERY NEXT POST:
I will give you that the money never entered the beaurocracy, but it does not negate my premise. The "money saved" was never spent as promised, and the cost to tax payers was HUGE. Just the bureaucratic expense of redoing the tax laws at the last minute cost us all. As did the cost of increasing the defecit, which this ill-conceived policy did. I know you'll defend it anyway, so I'll leave it at that.
WRONG: If you have a deficit, and you decrease revenue, your deficit grows faster than it would have otherwise. For your stupid analogy, it is more like saying that my spending all my savings on lotto tickets, while ignoring that I was already in debt caused me to go bankrupt. Because that is exactly what Trump is doing. He's gambling on something that has a proven track record of failure, while we are already badly in debt. It is more like voluteering for a pay cut when you are in debt, and then scratching your head trying to figure out why you are closer to bankruptcy.
I got it from my 1040. The decrease in my refund more than offset any amount more I took home. And that does not take into account that my so-called 'cut' is temporary, while the corporate giveaway is permenent. So while I lost moderate amounts this year, in future years, when the full tax increase is in effect, it will be worse. #winning.
The tax cuts didn't decrease revenue, though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
