Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by Cigar, Nov 27, 2017.
what actually happens is 130 million Americans have smart phone super computers in their pockets that trickled down from silicon valley. the liberal instead believes in trickle down welfare.
Yup. It's BS. During the Reagan Administration, it seemed like trickle-down economics worked. His policies, known as Reaganomics, helped end the 1980 recession.
Reagan cut taxes significantly. The top tax rate fell from 70 percent (for those earning $108,000+) to 28 percent (for anyone with an income of $18,500 or more). Reagan also cut the corporate tax rate from 46-40 percent.
Trickle-down economics was not the only reason for the recovery, though. Reagan also increased government spending by 2.5 percent a year. That almost tripled the federal debt.
G.W. Bush used trickle-down theory to address the 2001 recession. He cut income taxes with EGTRRA. That ended the recession by November of that year. But unemployment rose to 6 percent. That is because unemployment is a lagging indicator. It takes time for companies to start hiring again, even after a recession has ended. Nevertheless, Bush cut business taxes with JGTRRA in 2003.
It appeared that the tax cuts worked. But, at the same time, the Federal Reserve lowered the fed funds rate. It fell from 6 percent to 1 percent. It's unclear whether tax cuts or another monetary policy caused the recovery.
Trickle-down economics says that Reagan's lower tax rates should have helped people in all income levels. In fact, the opposite occurred. Income inequality worsened. Between 1979 and 2005, after-tax household income rose 6 percent for the bottom fifth. That sounds great until you see what happened for the top fifth. Their income increased by 80 percent. The top 1 percent saw their income triple. Instead of trickling down, it appears that prosperity trickled up.
Trickle down doesn't improve on innovation. It merely increases inefficient rent
So does that mean you want to steal from the rich at gunpoint to finance trickle down welfare?
trickle down capitalism means you perish in competition if you are not the most innovative in the entire world.
That is drivel. Nothing to do with trickle down. That is a reference to competition in orthodox economics (most of whom think trickle down is a crock of...)
trickle down is when Jobs and Gates invent great new stuff that trickles down to the entire world which desperately wants to buy it to improve their standard of living. It is what Republican capitalists encourage while libcommies encourage only trickle down welfare programs that harm everybody. Now do you understand?
And I have to agree.
What is trickle-down is taxation. It trickles into government coffers and then is spent by means of "budgets". And who gets the fat-ass part of that Federal Discretionary Budget?
trickle down is really flood down. You invent capitalism, human history is transformed, and enough wealth floods or trickles down so that the planet can suddenly support 8 billion people.
PS: Of the Federal Discretionary Budget, The Dept. of Education gets a measly 6%! (And since it is now run by a woman who championed private schooling, nothing will change.)
And Americans wonder why their kids can't find better-paying jobs? Moreover, Unemployment may be down below 5%, but the Employment-to-population Ratio is showing how difficult it will be to get back to the "good-ole-days" when it was at 63% of the population and nowadays it is recovering but just barely at 60.3%* (See here ... and note that it is going to take a great long while for the US to crawl back up to the level at which it was in 2008!)
Just who is in that 60.3%? It is everybody 16-years of age or older. Those just coming out of high-school, who are still finding it difficult to get jobs - since most work is going to those who have a marketable skill set.
So, when we look at uniquely the 25/54 age-set that has career credentials behind them, the Employment-to-population Ratio looks Very Different Indeed - see here. What do we learn from that modified statistic? That the age-set below 25 and over 54 are the most unemployed!
Which is why I am back to my factual hobby-horse: Until we allow kids in high-school and/or below 25 years of age to get into free Tertiary Education, then nothing will change.
Nothing ... !!!!
1) state schools make it almost free
2) it is free on-line and available to all
3) if you give something away free it is not appreciated but rather wasted
The innovation process (often about stealing mind you, given your examples) is not about trickle down. Indeed, if anything, that argues for reduced inequalities (given risk aversity). Why do you think making up stuff is going to be relevant?
Sure it is, you just don't know it. Mostly they talk about tax cuts but that is just short hand because it is far easier to understand.
Like $1.3t in QE per year for four years being given to the large investments banks, while removing the crappy investments from their books and placing them onto the books of the Fed? That kind of trickle down?
Who you calling liberal? Get your **** straight.
This was given to the banks under Obama's regime and that **** has never made money and still resides on the books of the fed, never to be sold. But if you call em up I bet they'll sell you a tranche of CDOs based on defaulted mortgages. Go on, get em while they're hot
And who went to jail for the humongous fraud perpetrated by Main Street banks of the fraudulent mortgages that never should have been written for frenzied speculators trying to make real-estate quick-buck.
Which were packaged and distributed to the world as "Triple-A" investments by Investment Banksters, which were never in fact researched and investigated by the rating agencies. Did they pay in any fines to learn a lesson?
The entire process was a monstrous fraud and nobody went to jail.
Rob a bank down-town and see what it gets you ... !
PS: And now we are rewarding these Investment Banksters with lower tax-rates. Stop the world I wanna get off!
"Given", me arse. Get your history right!
Had the banks not been refunded, the Great Recession would have been Great Depression 2. Obama was obliged to react upon taking office in 2009 (in the midst of the recession) due to the stoopidity of the previous administration (DubyaDunce) when all the damage had already occurred.
Read an effing history-reference, will you ... ?
How surprising. Another comment begging for free college for the free loaders.
Lets not forget that the US govt spending on education is one of the highest in the world and standards and acheivement are among the lowest. Or that private schooling and even home schooling offers better results for the same per capita cost or even lower in the case of home schooling.
Lets also notice that he wants free college for everyone but offers no way to pay for it.
Bullshit it wasn't given.
Their banks should gave been stripped from them. Bush(and Clinton) being corporatist whores for the wall street finance banks is not an excuse for Obama to do the same
Separate names with a comma.