Trickle Down Economics works!

[Burgold]

It seems to me that after more than ten years of tax cuts, we can finally say that Trickle Down Ecomomics works. Well, it works as it is supposed to. The richer are more wealthy than ever and the streams and tributeries of the middle class have all dried to a trickle. For those below middle class they will soon be considered fortunate if they even get that.

Trickle down is damming up and allowing a trickle through.

[Thiebear]

If you half ass run any program and spend 8million dollars to create each job sure.
Fast and Furious points out the 2nd amendment is not working?
Banks are showing that giving them tons money to lend makes loans easier to get?
The 2nd Stimulus showed only giving money to those that make less than 75k was a complete disaster.
DC is showing that record income on camera's won't get you a streetcar program so you have to beg the Chinese.
Not passing a budget for 3 years makes it difficult for business' to decide what to do for the upcoming years...
Obamacare failing shows passing a healthcare bill behind closed doors without working out the details transparently will cause massive setbacks for years to come.
We just throwing statements out there as a thread starter without a link or story to go with said random morning shower revelations?

[Burgold]

C'mon... we've created a perfect trickle down environment, TB. We've kept taxes artificially lower for 10 plus years, we've reduced interest rates to practically zero to stimulate bank lending, and legislatively we've bent over backwards to keep the corporations happy (both parties)

What is the result? Enormous profits for the largest corporations, an expansion in wealth disparity, and a tremendous surge in unemployment even after the recession ends and businesses are making money.

Clearly, trickle down works... as it is supposed to. It's just not meant to work for us. Look at the 8-8-8 plan. These plans are geared to sound good to the middle and lower classes, but in actuality are designed to primarily or almost exclusively benefit one group.

[Pedro]

And those at the top say those beneath them should pay their way :ols:

Classic do as I say not as I do.

[Hubbs]

This thread seems rather drive-by....

[SkinsHokieFan]

Are taxes "artifically" low?

I never understood that concept of taxes "artifically low"

What is the ideal tax level? 100 years ago you weren't having any money taken out of your paycheck. 60 years ago you were having 60 percent of your paycheck held by the government.

[Burgold]

Not so much drive by as observational. We've seen the dem and repub version of td. Both work perfectly

[Thiebear]

Better than Europe. Not as good as say being a communist China that can move entire villages at night, or have an awesome child labor force and change their money whenever they want... Ohh to be as good as they are.. one day, one day.
I'll be happy to have our crappy system another 30 years hopefully.

[Larry]

Are taxes "artifically" low?

I never understood that concept of taxes "artifically low"

Valid point. "artificially low" is a statement of opinion. (In my opinion. :) )

Would you settle for "the lowest since WW2"? I mean, since that's a fact and all?

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/usgs_line.php?title=Total%20Direct%20Revenue&units=p&size=l&year=1950_2012&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_b&spending0=14.82_16.72_20.04_19.57_19.94_17.34_18.5 9_18.88_18.41_16.87_18.96_18.60_17.02_17.25_16.97_ 16.24_16.61_17.88_16.81_18.98_18.57_16.61_16.75_16 .70_17.55_17.04_16.34_17.51_17.42_18.08_18.55_19.1 7_18.99_16.99_16.95_17.40_17.25_18.04_17.83_18.08_ 17.79_17.61_17.21_17.31_17.76_18.23_18.54_18.95_19 .58_19.54_20.35_19.36_17.41_16.00_15.86_17.06_17.9 9_18.31_17.57_15.10_14.89_15.26_15.82


100 years ago you weren't having any money taken out of your paycheck

True. (Although, funny how the subject shifted from "taxes" to "well, if you pretend that there's only one tax that exists.")


60 years ago you were having 60 percent of your paycheck held by the government.

Uh, I strongly suspect that 60 years ago no one was "having 60 percent of [their] paycheck held by the government".

Yes, decades ago, nominal tax rates were really high. But I strongly suspect (but, I'll admit, can't prove) that very few, if any, people actually paid anywhere close to that.

----------

Oh, and Burg,

We've been trying trickle down economics for 30 years.

(And, according to our many GOP cheerleaders, it's been proven to work.)

[Burgold]

30[/u] years.

(And, according to our many GOP cheerleaders, it's been proven to work.)

too true. Why except for that period on the 90's when that doofus Clinton broke ranks. Everything's been ducky

[alexey]

Nothing will change unless we change the way campaigns are financed.

Money can get you speech, highest quality marketing, stickiest talking points, and a great number of important people using them. If you are going to fight against this situation, you better stick with a simple and popular issue that has the potential to change the way things are done. I'm thinking campaign finance reform.

[JMS]

Are taxes "artifically" low?

I never understood that concept of taxes "artifically low"


All taxes are "artificial" since they are made by man and not by God or nature... Tax revenues are however at historic lows. We primarily have Republican lawmakers to thank for these "historic low taxes", while they also created historically high spending by the federal government...

It's basically what happens to "conservatives" when you put social conservatives and fiscal idiots in charge of your political ideology...

We have micro examples of this in California where thanks to this combination of high spending and historically low revenue the 8th largest economy in the world can't pay for it's own government....




What is the ideal tax level? 100 years ago you weren't having any money taken out of your paycheck. 60 years ago you were having 60 percent of your paycheck held by the government.

Yes 100 years ago you are correct.... 95 years ago however we pay about half the top rate as they did. And over the last 80 years, since we've become a super power with global interests to protect, our top tax rate is running at historically low levels.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

[The Evil Genius]

Nothing will change unless we change the way campaigns are financed.

Money can get you speech, highest quality marketing, stickiest talking points, and a great number of important people using them. If you are going to fight against this situation, you better stick with a simple and popular issue that has the potential to change the way things are done. I'm thinking campaign finance reform.

Well, SCOTUS just reaffirmed Citizens United - so I don't expect any changes soon.

[JMS]

Well, SCOTUS just reaffirmed Citizens United - so I don't expect any changes soon.

Who is the oldest Republican Judge?

Antonin Scalia 76
Anthony Kennedy 75
Clarence Thomas 65 + 3 days

Ruth Bader Ginsburg however is 79 and a recent cancer survivor.

I could see the next president either Obama or Romney appointing replacements for two judges... I think Obama will likely get to replace Ginsburg.

[Koolblue13]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/539356_332692703476020_18594692_n.jpg

[Destino]

Nothing will change unless we change the way campaigns are financed.

Money can get you speech, highest quality marketing, stickiest talking points, and a great number of important people using them. If you are going to fight against this situation, you better stick with a simple and popular issue that has the potential to change the way things are done. I'm thinking campaign finance reform.

Campaign finance is a great place to start. Law makers spend more time fund raising than they do reading and debating changes to American law.

[zoony]

I think some well thought-out, well executed Demand-Side stimulus would be an outstanding idea right now. Actually, I've been saying it for the past 2 years or so. It's evident that Supply Side stimulus is not going to get us out of this mess. We're in a textbook liquidity trap right now, have been for years.

[Mad Mike]

Nothing will change unless we change the way campaigns are financed.

Money can get you speech, highest quality marketing, stickiest talking points, and a great number of important people using them. If you are going to fight against this situation, you better stick with a simple and popular issue that has the potential to change the way things are done. I'm thinking campaign finance reform.

I have to agree. There are more issues but until *real* campaign finance reform is accomplished, nothing else will be.

Note to Mr. Romney... No. Corporations are not people. And on this principle, you will never get my vote.

---------- Post added June-25th-2012 at 05:09 PM ----------


I think some well thought-out, well executed Demand-Side stimulus would be an outstanding idea right now. Actually, I've been saying it for the past 2 years or so. It's evident that Supply Side stimulus is not going to get us out of this mess. We're in a textbook liquidity trap right now, have been for years.

Start with alternative energy development and infrastructure.

[martytheman]

I have to agree. There are more issues but until *real* campaign finance reform is accomplished, nothing else will be.

Note to Mr. Romney... No. Corporations are not people. And on this principle, you will never get my vote.

---------- Post added June-25th-2012 at 05:09 PM ----------




Start with alternative energy development and infrastructure.

Like Solyndra?

Or alternatively, stop regulating the **** out of the EXISTING energy infrastructure and let us have cheap energy gas/coal/nuclear.

You want to develop unicorn piss as an alternative energy, fine, do it on your own dime. Don't make me subsidize your "hopes and dreams"

[alexey]

Like Solyndra?

Or alternatively, stop regulating the **** out of the EXISTING energy infrastructure and let us have cheap energy gas/coal/nuclear.

You want to develop unicorn piss as an alternative energy, fine, do it on your own dime. Don't make me subsidize your "hopes and dreams"
Solyndra is an example of a supply-side stimulus. He argued for a demand-side stimulus, where consumers would make choices with the resources. Government would not be picking winners and losers. Familiar slogan, actually makes sense in this case.

As for your alternative energy point... Fossil fuels and unsustainable practices have hidden costs. Fossil fuels are cheaper now because significant portions of their costs are not factored in. Our children will have to pay for them. You ought to think about that If you like the slogan of reducing the government debt in the name of our children.

Our children will be cleaning up the great garbage patch, figuring out what to do now that the fossil fuels are running out, figuring out what to do with the climate, and all along saying WTF were you thinking you ****ing selfish baby boomers. All of this stuff was right in your face and you wasted time arguing about bull****.

[The Evil Genius]

Like Solyndra?

Or alternatively, stop regulating the **** out of the EXISTING energy infrastructure and let us have cheap energy gas/coal/nuclear.

You want to develop unicorn piss as an alternative energy, fine, do it on your own dime. Don't make me subsidize your "hopes and dreams"

Deregulation of energy is a godsend. Look what it did for California circa Summer 2000.

[Yusuf06]

Nothing will change unless we change the way campaigns are financed.

Money can get you speech, highest quality marketing, stickiest talking points, and a great number of important people using them. If you are going to fight against this situation, you better stick with a simple and popular issue that has the potential to change the way things are done. I'm thinking campaign finance reform.
Agreed. Just one small problem. Money can also buy protection for its influence. We might as well cut the tax rate on the "job creators" and corporations to zero now and get it over with.


Like Solyndra?

Or alternatively, stop regulating the **** out of the EXISTING energy infrastructure and let us have cheap energy gas/coal/nuclear.

You want to develop unicorn piss as an alternative energy, fine, do it on your own dime. Don't make me subsidize your "hopes and dreams"
Buying the old line about us drilling our way to cheap gas, 'eh? Sorry but that ain't gonna happen. Absent some new huge easily accessed discovery, gas can only get so cheap. The problem is that all the low hanging fruit has been picked. Nowadays oil is expensive to find and get to market. So if the price drops beyond a certain point many sources are no longer profitable and they go offline until the price comes back up. I suspect we could drive prices down marginally if we went the drill baby drill route but nothing like what many think.

As for the unicorn piss, you're correct that we're subsidizing the hell out of it. Who knew it was black though?
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/46151665/Energy%20Subsidies.png

[PeterMP]

And let's be clear, the fossil fuel industry has been getting tax breaks to make their business profitable for decades.

[Burgold]

And let's be clear, the fossil fuel industry has been getting tax breaks to make their business profitable for decades.

Well, to be fair... it's clear oil has never been a profitable business. :rolleyes: