This is not an attempt to insult conservative economists but I have to ask;
1) How is a 'trickle down' economy supposed to work?
2) How do lower taxes help when looking at the bigger picture?

1) I don't know much about this, but I think its supposed to work something like this; the rich get tax breaks; they invest this in the economy; the poor feel the benefit of a strengthened economy. Surely the rich would just spend it on another yacht or use it to pay their kids private schooling for a term or whatever, rather than buying shares.

2) Surely this would mean cuts in social security, health, education, and (god forbid) defence, destroying everything which makes America great, and therefore the economy, so that capital floods out of the country at an even greater rate, making even more people unemployed with no money to sustain them.

Like I have said before, I am no economist, but could you please explain these two policies to me?

__________________
"I see no reason why...there should not arise a United States of Europe" Winston Churchill, 1946

how about trickle up economics?

if the average joe blow had more money to spend, there'd be bigger incentive for the enterprising genius to find ways to make goods/services.

Ultimately the economy depends on the middle class buyin goods & services,

__________________
I have something to hide.

I'm no expert but I'll give it a shot.

1. Trickle down is simply giving breaks to big companies/industries, and giving them fewer regulations, because they have the potential to create high paying jobs. Around that big company will form housing sub-divisions, restaurants, blockbusters, and shopping malls, etc., so the money trickles all around.

2. If taxes were at 0%, government would have no cash. If it were at 100%, no one would work. So it's easy to see at some point in between the two is a perfect medium, where both the people are happy to work because taxes are low, and the government gets enough to do its business.

If taxes are raised too high, people have less money to spend, and people find ways to get around paying their taxes, like cheating on their taxes, companies outsourcing jobs, people forming their own company so they can avoid medicare payments (like John Edwards did), etc. Taxes can also be raised so high that it's pointless to work because it's just not worth the effort.

Kennedy cut the highest tax rate from 90% to 28% when he was president. He thought that taxes were too high. You can agree with him or not, doesn't matter. Since Kennedy, taxes steadily went up until Reagan again cut them back down. Since Reagan, they steadily went up until now again and Bush cut them. They simply believed that cutting taxes would increase the amount of taxes the government would take in, because more people would work. I don't believe Bush cut taxes expecting a smaller amount of money coming in to the government. He instead expected an increase due to the stimulation in the economy.

The problem today though, is that taxes aren't the biggest problem with hireing new employees, it's the health benefits. Since they are really getting expensive, employers know that for everyone they hire they will need to give benefits plus pay the social security taxes for that employee. This is why, in my opinion, that the tax cuts don't seem to be as effective as expected.

The whole point though, is that mathematically, there is some point where the taxes are just right for the economy. When I have more cash to spend, like most people, I spend it. That money is taxed, and also gives someone else more money to spend, who goes and spends it, and it's taxed, and that person goes and spends it, and on and on and on. Low taxes increases the cycle of taxation many times, while high taxes keeps the cycle short but tries to make up for it with big amounts of taxes. Somewhere in the middle is the right spot. Hard to tell where though.

First, do not take my answers to be "conservative economics". I am not a conservative, but I was an economist. My answer are merely Economics, not conservative or liberal economics.

You have a fundamental problem above. You see, buying a yacht and sending kids to private school IS investing in the economy. Example? When Clinton was in office he instituted a luxury tax on things like expensive cars and yachts. Guess who was hurt? Union workers at the yacht factory! You hardly need $15.00-$22.00 an hour yacht builders if no one is buying yachts. And were the rich hurt by the tax? Hell no. They just stopped buying things that had the tax. Hence, the tax is no more. There are only a few things you can do with money. The top two are spend it or save it. Both benefit the economy. The government can only do one of the two, hence it's a benefit to have more money in the hands of the people-rich or poor.

I can't really respond to this one! It simply makes no sense.

Like I have said before, I am no economist, but could you please explain these two policies to me?

__________________
Some days it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

It depends on everyone buying all sorts of things. The theory of "trickle down" as liberals call it is actually economically sound. The poor by and large do not pay income taxes. Most pay exactly $0, in fact. They do pay other taxes, of course, but I want to keep it simple. Hence, there is nothing to "give back" to them. They have all their money already. Now, it's true that they spend money. Every dime they have as it turns out. But consider this: You cannot go to the store to buy a hat if there is no hat store. Poor people do not open hat stores. People with money do. If you take the money from the people that open hat stores they cannot open any more stores. Stores where poor people can both find a job and shop. Putting money in the hands of poor people keeps the economy going. Putting it in the hands of people who invest in the economy GROWS the economy.

__________________
Some days it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.