Would like an explanation of how supplyside economics works.

Is there any evidence out there that trickle up economics DOESN'T work?

0 Replies

so by the silence, i take it no conservatives here can deny the myth of supplyside economics over demandside economics

0 Replies

Bump.

Eight years of all the supply siding the republican could throw at us, and the results, a grand economic crash.

And now the people are counting on democrats to clean up the grand mess that the GOP made with their idiotic economic policies.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

Bump.

Eight years of all the supply siding the republican could throw at us, and the results, a grand economic crash.

And now the people are counting on democrats to clean up the grand mess that the GOP made with their idiotic economic policies.

The Dems bought into is as well. Supplyside was the only theory that offered any justification for continually taking decisions that had as their only motive sustaining growth, no matter what that growth looked like nor no matter how many people got hurt in the process. Thing is if the economy does not sustain growth it falls apart the way that it is now put together, and with it goes the corrupt political system. Growth had to be propped up no matter what.

The cost: we are loaded up with more debt than we or our kids can ever pay, we have a nasty crack habit (oil), our factories went to China so the best jobs went bye-bye, our social cohesion is in the sh*tter, our national infrastructure is falling apart because we have not taken care of it, and our Government is pretty much nonfunctional. Our kids are going to so hate us.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

You claim that the wealthy individuals who already have millions in the bank will be motivated by a few thousands to invest in a new project. This might come as news to you. But rich people don't decide to invest like that.

This may come as news to you, but when you have an income of millions of dollars, a tax increase of 5% doesn't amount to only 'a few thousand dollars'.

And when you are part of a group of the upper 5% of earners that ALREADY pays over 50% of all taxes, then it is not justifiable as simply making the rich 'pay their fair share'.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

And when you are part of a group of the upper 5% of earners that ALREADY pays over 50% of all taxes, then it is not justifiable as simply making the rich 'pay their fair share'.

It was only a generation ago the the most advanced countries made the most wealthy pay 50% of their income onto taxes, and it was considered the "right" thing to do not only by those who were not wealthy but also those who were. The wealthy paying so little as they do now is what is abnormal and not supportable, as we watch the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the country become a broken down debtor nation on a massive scale.

Societal wealth belongs to the society, individuals are sometimes allowed the privilege of holding on to it and taking care of it for awhile. The wealthy have not been such good stewards of our wealth, I'd say it is time to take it back. The wealthy have not been such good stewards of our nation either after they used the money they are holding to corrupt the political process and the public sector institutions...I'd say it is time for the common man to take it all back...to make other arrangements.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

real life wrote:
And when you are part of a group of the upper 5% of earners that ALREADY pays over 50% of all taxes, then it is not justifiable as simply making the rich 'pay their fair share'.

It was only a generation ago the the most advanced countries made the most wealthy pay 50% of their income onto taxes, and it was considered the "right" thing to do not only by those who were not wealthy but also those who were. The wealthy paying so little as they do now is what is abnormal and not supportable, as we watch the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the country become a broken down debtor nation on a massive scale.

Societal wealth belongs to the society, individuals are sometimes allowed the privilege of holding on to it and taking care of it for awhile. The wealthy have not been such good stewards of our wealth, I'd say it is time to take it back. The wealthy have not been such good stewards of our nation either after they used the money they are holding to corrupt the political process and the public sector institutions...I'd say it is time for the common man to take it all back...to make other arrangements.

So if the majority of your neighbors decide that you have not been a good steward of the things you own, is it ok for them to take whatever they wish from you as well?

If the issue is 'stewardship', then surely it applies to all.

If one doesn't perform up to the expectations of one's neighbors, well...................

...............one better expect to become a target, eh?

btw who decides, and on what basis, what is and what is not 'proper stewardship' ?

And who decides , and on what basis, who is and who is not 'wealthy' ?

What if we decided wealth wasn't all about money and started taking one's time from them as we saw fit?

If we saw someone not using their time properly, then they could be forced to do what 'society' dictated should be done with their time.

Isn't that called slavery?

What is the difference between time and money?

Isn't money simply the representation of the value of your time?

0 Replies

I know that I am just a poor socialist, but the majority of the material societal wealth that I hold is in the form of a house. If I am not a good steward of this house I will get jammed by either the homeowners association or the city, or both. My next most valuable thing is my cars, and if i don't keep them in running order i will get stopped by the police and possibly have them impounded. The most wealth that I have control over however is my kids, and if I am poor stewards of them I will get a knock on the door from child welfare.

These rules apply to everyone, everyone is compelled by laws and regulations to be reasonably good stewards. The assumption is made at the front end that people are basically good, that they will do unto others as they would want others to do unto them. Innocent until proven guilty. Judgement day does come around eventually though. There will be some splaining to do about how hard you have tried to do the right thing, and if you deserve another chance.

0 Replies

Whatever you guys are talking about I don't know. But as a working class guy, can I just drop out of the whole thing and trade and barter with my neigbor? We are free, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

Whatever you guys are talking about I don't know. But as a working class guy, can I just drop out of the whole thing and trade and barter with my neigbor? We are free, right?

Sure, so long as you get your barter professionally appraised and you pay sales tax and if real-estate property taxes on it....barter away. You'll probably want to get legal representation on retainer though.

0 Replies

Supply side is all about encouraging certain behaviors. One aspect of it is that what you want more of you tax less. What you want less of you tax more.

Taxing the rich less frees up real estate, investment capital, and money for R & D, development, creation of new products, industries, and jobs. Taxing the rich more imbeds more money where neither the tax man nor the economy can have access to it, and thus, treasury revenues as well as all those other things decline.

Bush 41 went along with a Democratic initiative to substantially raise taxes on the rich on condition that Congress would cut spending two dollars for every new dollar raised through the tax increase. One of the cornerstones was luxury taxes on rich man's toys: private boats, private planes, high value jewelry etc.

Result? The American boat building industry was virtually destroyed and 50,000 jobs were lost in the first six months. The American private plane industry was similarly decimated while European markets benefitted enormously. High value jewelry moved offshore to places like the Cayman Islands. The advantage to the US treasury was less money in the wake of a mostly artificially triggered deep recession and much grief to the American working class stripped of all that 'rich man's money'.

Bush 41 dissolved some of the highest presidential approval ratings in history with that gambit.

And those spending cuts? We never saw one.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Supply side is all about encouraging certain behaviors. One aspect of it is that what you want more of you tax less. What you want less of you tax more.

Taxing the rich less frees up real estate, investment capital, and money for R & D, development, creation of new products, industries, and jobs. Taxing the rich more imbeds more money where neither the tax man nor the economy can have access to it, and thus, treasury revenues as well as all those other things decline.

Bush 41 went along with a Democratic initiative to substantially raise taxes on the rich on condition that Congress would cut spending two dollars for every new dollar raised through the tax increase. One of the cornerstones was luxury taxes on rich man's toys: private boats, private planes, high value jewelry etc.

Result? The American boat building industry was virtually destroyed and 50,000 jobs were lost in the first six months. The American private plane industry was similarly decimated while European markets benefitted enormously. High value jewelry moved offshore to places like the Cayman Islands. The advantage to the US treasury was less money in the wake of a mostly artificially triggered deep recession and much grief to the American working class stripped of all that 'rich man's money'.

Bush 41 dissolved some of the highest presidential approval ratings in history with that gambit.

And those spending cuts? We never saw one.

Can you say 'Democratic congress' ? Yup, Fox, you're right.

0 Replies

Uh, under our current crop of Republicans, the problem has been far, far worse.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Centroles,

Just wanted to say, I CALLED IT.

Trickle down economics doesn't work. We should be strengthening the middle class (so they can pay their mortgages), not the upper class. These past few days and months are proof of that.

Trickle down economics is bull crap.

Reagen tried it for eight years, cranked up a huge national debt. And the economy went into a slump because none of that money actually trickled down. Ever wonder why Bush lost in 1992, it's the economy stupid, the slumped economy that Reagenomics brought about.

Bush similarly tried out this trickle down economics mumbo jumbo. And again none of that money actually trickled down. Rich people got richer. The middle class actually earned lower wages, even before you adjust for inflation.

Money doesn't trickle down like that.

A multimillionaire getting a 50,000 tax break is NOT going to be convinced to start a business because he has another 50,000 to throw around.

Rich people aren't stupid. They won't start a business just because tehy have money lying around. If they see potential to make more money, yes they will start a business, even if they have to borrow money in order to do it. So an extra 50,000 tax cut does exactly jack crap.

But a working class american getting even 5000 can use that money to send their kid to college, and you end up with an educated person who could productively contribute to the economy.

Compare McCain now to Bush in 2000. They sound IDENTICAL. Seriously. Lower the taxes on the rich... blah blah blah... lower the estate tax... blah... lower capital gains tax... blah... privatize social security (McCain said this multiple times during the debates, thank god we didn't do it or a lot of people would've been even more pissed off on Monday)...

The republicans are a one note party. They keep offering up the same old solutions, the same old policies.

And yet those policies failed under Reagen and they failed under Bush.And yet, they want to try them yet AGAIN. Why? Could it be that the bulk of their funds come from multimillionaires. Could it be that they are just stubborn a***** that are out of touch with reality. It sure explains there stance against homosexuality too.

"You can't just keep sending in the same people with the same answers to do the same job and expect a different result."

In countries like India, China, even Europe, the middle class got the bulk of the money from globalization. The middle class exploded and became much stronger.

In the US, because of Bush's regressive taxation and policies, the middle class actually lost money! Almost all of the money globalization generated went to the richest 5% of the population.

Republicans, uptill just a few months ago said that that's fine and dandy. It's okay that the rich got richer because ultimately, that strengthens wall street and the stock market.

Monday, we found out yet again just how wrong they were.

1 Reply

@Centroles,

Centroles wrote:

Just wanted to say, I CALLED IT.

Well, thank Fudd somebody had the guts to point out that supply side economics doesn't work.

0 Replies

Would like an explanation of how supplyside economics works.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know