Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinate812
I lived through Ford, and Carter, and Reagan, and Bush, Clinton, and Bush.
You can argue the "purest" point all you want, but you are the only one discussing it.
We are looking at the results of what 3 out of the last 4 Presidents have practiced. Reagan started this with his "version" of trickle down economics. The small step taken toward full trickle down economics started the dwindling spiral we now call the National Debt. 11.5 trillion and counting. Brought to you in large part by the Republican Party and the push TOWARD trickle down economics.
If it really works, then even moving toward the pure system would have been positive. The numbers just don't show it.
|
You're way of thinking about economics isn't right, first of all. The easiest way to explain it is that you are using the
post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. Economics is an infinitely complex field of study, with thousands of variables. To change one with no way of keeping the others constant proves nothing about the effect of changing that one variable. To take this example, the Republican economic policy. This goes even beyond what I just explained, as changing an entire economic policy changes many variables, not just one, and that is in addition to not having any of the others held constant. Add into this the fact that economic growth is periodic (business cycle), the fact that its infinite complexity invalidates any linear or non-sign altering derivates (I don't quite know how to say that in non-math speak) predictions one could come up with, and you have absolutely no claim at all.
Quote:
|
I say, lower taxes for the middle class, which will eventually push up demand, and see how that does for the economy.
|
That's what Bush did, that's what McCain would do, that's what Obama would do, and that's what makes sense from an economic standpoint. Lowering taxes for
anyone makes sense economically, so long as you can run the fundamental services of the government.