NationStates Jolt Archive

In the recent debate, Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden said the wealthy would gain by paying higher taxes to lift up the middle class. The theory is that a healthy middle class is necessary for the wealthy class to thrive. Let's call that Trickle Up Economics.

Viewed in that light, the unwealthy are more like an investment opportunity than a tax burden. If you can make the poor and middle class more educated, healthy, and better employed, everyone wins. That makes sense, to a degree. But would the wealthy gain enough financially to make the extra taxes a good investment? I wonder if that has ever been studied.

Perhaps there are too many variables to make any kind of general statement about the benefits of taxing the rich. If the government raises taxes on the wealthy and pisses away the money on sketchy wars and pork, that's probably a poor investment. If the money goes into education, healthcare, and alternative energy, that starts looking a lot more like an investment with a 10-year payoff.

Obviously higher taxes on the rich are counterproductive if it stops them from building new factories, or causes them to invest overseas. Maybe corporate taxes have to remain low no matter what, or everyone moves their operations to Ireland. You can always tax the individuals, since most people won't leave the country just to save money on taxes.

Henry Ford famously paid his factory workers more than the market rate so they would be able to afford cars. I've never seen a study of how that worked out for him. Does anyone have a link to tell me if investing in poor people benefits the rich?

What thinks NSG?

The requisite link (http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/trickle_up_economics/)

i think that trickle down -- or the focus on coddling the rich in the assumption that they will take care of the rest of us -- has been a disaster.

im willing to try it the other way around for a while to see what happens.

Before going over it properly, putting money into education, certainly does help everybody including the rich. It allows the economy to grow in the short run and in the long run will allow the economy to be sustainable at a higher level.

i think that trickle down -- or the focus on coddling the rich in the assumption that they will take care of the rest of us -- has been a disaster.

im willing to try it the other way around for a while to see what happens.
I thought the assumption was that everyone could take care of themselves. Success or failure sort of depends on how you measure it, doesn't it? Be careful not to mix too many causes in the hope of finding a result.

Tax cuts have repeatedly yielded increased tax revenues -- that seems relatively successful, in my opinion.

Anyhow, trickle up "poverty" will be a resounding success. We'll all be poor, soon.

Before going over it properly, putting money into education, certainly does help everybody including the rich. It allows the economy to grow in the short run and in the long run will allow the economy to be sustainable at a higher level.
Are you saying that higher taxes results in a better economy? That's silly AND counter-intuitive.

It certainly makes more sense than the trickle down crap we've had to put up with for years.

Tomáš Baťa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1%C5%A1_Ba%C5%A5a)
"Let's bear in mind that the chances to multiply wealth are unlimited. All people can become rich. There is an error in our understandings - that all people cannot become equally rich. Wealth can not exist where the people are busy with mutual cheating, have no time for creating values and wealth. It is remarkable that we can find the greatest number of wealthy tradesmen and a population on a high standard of living in countries with a high level of business morality. On the other hand, we can find poor tradesmen and entrepreneurs and an impoverished population in countries with a low standard of business morality. This is natural because these people concentrate on cheating one another instead of trying to create value.
We are granting you the profit share not because we feel a need to give money to the people just out of the goodness of the heart. No, we are aiming at other goals by this step. By this measure we want to reach a further decrease of production costs. We want to reach the situation that the shoes are cheaper and workers earn even more. We think that our products are still too expensive and worker's salary too low."

Are you saying that higher taxes results in a better economy? That's silly AND counter-intuitive.

No I am saying the government investing in education results in a better economy. And sometimes higher taxes are needed in an economy.

No I am saying the government investing in education results in a better economy. And sometimes higher taxes are needed in an economy.
Well, the money does need to come from somewhere. I know the government can print it, but that's bad, too.

Does throwing more money at education really help? The amount spent, as a percentage of GDP, has increased from 1.1% to 1.9% over the last 20 years. Has education nearly doubled in quality? What is the right percentage? Just "more" isn't the right answer.

Well, the money does need to come from somewhere. I know the government can print it, but that's bad, too.

They can issue government bonds to raise money.

Does throwing more money at education really help? The amount spent, as a percentage of GDP, has increased from 1.1% to 1.9% over the last 20 years. Has education nearly doubled in quality? What is the right percentage? Just "more" isn't the right answer.

Yes the quality of education is also important, and one way to raise it is to get more money. But to put it simply means a more educated workforce means a more productive workforce. Increase in productivity means an increase in GDP.

Are you saying that higher taxes results in a better economy? That's silly AND counter-intuitive.

Why is it counter-intuitive? Are you so cynical to believe that no one is as charitable as you? Would you contribute more charity if taxes were lower?

Are you saying people are electing irresponsible representatives?

Why is contributing to the nation through taxes such a sin, especially if responsibly spent? What is the government responsible for in paying your taxes? A nation's health,a nation's security, a nation's education, a nation's roads, a nation's companies, a global stability?

Are people incapable of trickle up economics?

Why is it counter-intuitive? Are you so cynical to believe that no one is as charitable as you? Would you contribute more charity if taxes were lower?

Are you saying people are electing irresponsible representatives?

Why is contributing to the nation through taxes such a sin, especially if responsibly spent? What is the government responsible for in paying your taxes? A nation's health,a nation's security, a nation's education, a nation's roads, a nation's companies, a global stability?

Are people incapable of trickle up economics?

To be fair Barry, he may have some understanding of economics, in that lowering taxes places more money raises their disposable income, they will spend this money which will help to grow the economy.

Well, I don't know about the megacorporations that benefit so much from a class of low income poorly educated masses, but the 'small businesses' that are such a buzzword this election cycle would easily benefit more from a larger base of middle class clientele with more expendable income than the extra taxes they'd pay. *nod*

They can issue government bonds to raise money.Aren't they in enough debt already?

Aren't they in enough debt already?

Well maybe, but if they need to spend money then maybe they will need to borrow money. But regardless that is one way for governments to raise money.

To be fair Barry, he may have some understanding of economics, in that lowering taxes places more money raises their disposable income, they will spend this money which will help to grow the economy.

Well maybe that leads towards perfect competition where the margins become so small that it's simply unsustainable, cheating and corruption arrive, a crash occurs.

Pure free market economy runs out of energy.

I thought the assumption was that everyone could take care of themselves. Success or failure sort of depends on how you measure it, doesn't it? Be careful not to mix too many causes in the hope of finding a result.

Tax cuts have repeatedly yielded increased tax revenues -- that seems relatively successful, in my opinion.

Anyhow, trickle up "poverty" will be a resounding success. We'll all be poor, soon.
no.

the theory of trickle down is that if you take care of the rich they will generate more wealth and that that prosperity will trickle down to the rest of us.

Well maybe that leads towards perfect competition where the margins become so small that it's simply unsustainable, cheating and corruption arrive, a crash occurs.

Pure free market economy runs out of energy.

What? Sorry it may be late, but I don't understand what this has to do with my post.

With perfect competition, yes the profit margins become small and the only way to make a profit is to lower your long run marginal cost. This in turn lowers prices in the long run. I don't know why I posted that but I don't understand what you are trying to refute. If indeed that is what you are doing.

How does one cheat in perfect competition? What type of corruption in a perfect competition?

It depends on which "wealthy" we're talking about. If it's wealthy people whose businesses depend on the average person having more extra spending money due to the nature of their products, then yeah, they'll benefit. However, if it's wealthy people whose businesses depend on low competition, maybe not, seeing as how if people have more money to get a better education and climb the social ladder, there will be more people of higher status with better ability to compete with them.

Something tells me the real concerns against spreading the wealth aren't so much about rich people losing a slightly bigger fraction of their immediate money as about more people having more of a head start who would be more inclined to work against them than for them.

Just seems like a long term take on demand side economics. Though pitched to the middle class for votes.

It depends on which "wealthy" we're talking about. If it's wealthy people whose businesses depend on the average person having more extra spending money due to the nature of their products, then yeah, they'll benefit. However, if it's wealthy people whose businesses depend on low competition, maybe not, seeing as how if people have more money to get a better education and climb the social ladder, there will be more people of higher status with better ability to compete with them.

Something tells me the real concerns against spreading the wealth aren't so much about rich people losing a slightly bigger fraction of their immediate money as about more people having more of a head start who would be more inclined to work against them than for them.
Yes, that does seem to be the difference in whether one supports "trickle up" versus "trickle down."

Trickle Up seems to be the philosophy of those who think wealth should be generated and moved about by many people in a market model that would encourage free competition based on people's abilities. Trickle Down seems to be the philosophy of those who think wealth should be held by only a few people and doled out, piecemeal, to the many if the few think they've done enough to earn anything, a market model that discourages competition, preferring to consolidate market control into the hands of the few, regardless of individual ability. Ironic, isn't it, that the same people who espouse Trickle Down also claim to support a "free market"?

To be fair Barry, he may have some understanding of economics, in that lowering taxes places more money raises their disposable income, they will spend this money which will help to grow the economy.

But that comes with implicit assumptions like assuming that the rich spend money locally instead of in the golbal economy. It also assumes that they will reinvest the increase in the economy, which may not be the case. It also assumes that this reinvestment in local economies is on such a scale so as to impel the economy more than an equal investment in the income of poorer people.

If there is anything the financial crisis should have taught us, it is to look very carefully at the supposed wisdom of traditional economic policy, the same policy that put us where we are now.

In case it wasn't obvious from my first post, I vote "yes, please" on Trickle Up economics. I agree with Ashmoria that, after the nearly 3 decades of disaster that Trickle Down gave us, I'd like to try it the other way and see what happens.

Furthermore, I believe Trickle Up is the actual original model of capitalism, which itself is based on a kind of expanding spiral model of manufacturing based industrialism. The key element being that the spiral is expanding, not contracting, meaning that as wealth spreads around, it creates more opportunities to make more of it. I would like very much to test this theory by investing in the general population in such a way -- providing the tools and services to assist individual advancement -- that people can generate wealth, not just consume it.

Also:
Tomáš Ba?a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1%C5%A1_Ba%C5%A5a)
"Let's bear in mind that the chances to multiply wealth are unlimited. All people can become rich. There is an error in our understandings - that all people cannot become equally rich. Wealth can not exist where the people are busy with mutual cheating, have no time for creating values and wealth. It is remarkable that we can find the greatest number of wealthy tradesmen and a population on a high standard of living in countries with a high level of business morality. On the other hand, we can find poor tradesmen and entrepreneurs and an impoverished population in countries with a low standard of business morality. This is natural because these people concentrate on cheating one another instead of trying to create value.
We are granting you the profit share not because we feel a need to give money to the people just out of the goodness of the heart. No, we are aiming at other goals by this step. By this measure we want to reach a further decrease of production costs. We want to reach the situation that the shoes are cheaper and workers earn even more. We think that our products are still too expensive and worker's salary too low."
Quoted just for the sheer beauty of the sentiment. Those words make me so happy, I would seriously consider making a holiday card out of them. I mean it.

And if this is the guy who gave us the magic retail numerology of $29.99, then anything he says about how to make money is gospel to me. :D *plans to research more about this person*

I had something... something deep and insightful about the OP, possibly something life changing for everyone on NSG. The I got breakfast... and I don't remember it. Now that my stomach is full I am too tired to think on this subject and the words are quickly becoming gibberish... I'm sorry for wasting your time with this pointless post.

But that comes with implicit assumptions like assuming that the rich spend money locally instead of in the golbal economy. It also assumes that they will reinvest the increase in the economy, which may not be the case. It also assumes that this reinvestment in local economies is on such a scale so as to impel the economy more than an equal investment in the income of poorer people.

Economics is all about assumptions :wink:

But what I was saying was talking about general tax cuts to most people. Now I don't understand what you are saying in your last sentence. However, investment is a good way to help the economy grow, it puts more money into the economy which will be either spent on capital or labour, this gives more money to consumers (through the money they earn for working) and this will be spent, prompting more demand and an increase in production, more money will be spent on these goods and services, giving more people money who will spend this money and so continues the cycle. Giving a tax break to people is a way of giving them more money to spend thus increasing demand and increasing the economy. Those that are able to invest, invest in order to make a profit due to this increase on demand and so they also place more money into the economy.

If there is anything the financial crisis should have taught us, it is to look very carefully at the supposed wisdom of traditional economic policy, the same policy that put us where we are now.

Well not quite as there is plenty of economic thought that would have made a difference to economic policy and there would have been a different outcome

Are you saying that higher taxes results in a better economy? That's silly AND counter-intuitive.

way to state the obvious

way to state the obvious

Well that's why he was asking what I meant. Come on people don't give Mym a hard time.

it seems to me that restructuring the tax system so that more money remains in the hands of the middle class (at the expense of those of higher income but not onerously so) is far more beneficial to the economy than they way it is now.

when the middle class gets more money, it spends it. right here and right now. the lower the income the more local the spending.

that means more business for local business. that means more profits for the business owners.

AND that means that those businesses have to maintain a certain level of employees (that the extra revenue pays for), they have to buy more inventory, and everyone pays more taxes. the "rich" guy doesnt get a hand out; he does what he does best. he works for his money and gets more of it in the end. he cant just take the tax refund and spend it on himself. it has to benefit everyone as it travels up to him.

Anyhow, trickle up "poverty" will be a resounding success. We'll all be poor, soon.

Uh huh. What do you think of welfare capitalism then?

The sad part is how accurate that trillion-dollar-bill Simpsons episode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Trillions) was to trickle-down economics...

...okay, it's been a while since I saw it (so it may not be that accurate), but it explains really well how reaganomics ignores the inherent greed and corruption...

Are you saying that higher taxes results in a better economy? That's silly AND counter-intuitive.

Not really.

GDP is calculated from four variables: Production, Investment, Government Spending, and International Trade

Increasing taxes lowers investment by wealthy individuals, but increases government spending, in theory. The problem is, if transfer payments are focussed to the middle class, the demand curve of the middle class shifts to the right (Change in Income), leading to a rightwards shift in Aggregate Demand. Increased Aggregate Demand increases the income of corporations, increasing the funds they have to invest, shifting investment out to the right. Thus, the GDP grows.

Now, this is a short term picture. But thing to keep in mind is that the imaginary money that our banks claim as asset is a much less stable commodity than cold, hard cash in the hands of the middle class. Supply side economics increases the money supply artificially, and makes a lot more "fake" money in the hands of banks.

Well, I don't know about the megacorporations that benefit so much from a class of low income poorly educated masses, but the 'small businesses' that are such a buzzword this election cycle would easily benefit more from a larger base of middle class clientele with more expendable income than the extra taxes they'd pay. *nod*

How does a low income dumbass benefit anybody?

How does a low income dumbass benefit anybody?

Substandard Goods producers. If you're McDonalds, low income "dumbass"es are your bread and (Carcinogenic) butter.

The sad part is how accurate that trillion-dollar-bill Simpsons episode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Trillions) was to trickle-down economics...

...okay, it's been a while since I saw it (so it may not be that accurate), but it explains really well how reaganomics ignores the inherent greed and corruption...

Greed is good. Corruption is bad. I am all for encouraging greed. Nobaody wants corruption. What is your basis for believing that corruption is caused by lower taxes?

Substandard Goods producers. If you're McDonalds, low income "dumbass"es are your bread and (Carcinogenic) butter.

I dont know that all McDonalds shoppers are low income dumbasses. Two weekends ago I pulled off the highway to stop at a McDonalds and change drivers with my wife. We used the bathroom and I bought her an ice cream cone and I bought some chicken nuggets. I am not rich but I make a good income. I have a law degree and she has a masters degree. We are pretty well educated and we shop at McDonalds. If we had less money maybe we would shop there less often.

I dont know that all McDonalds shoppers are low income dumbasses. Two weekends ago I pulled off the highway to stop at a McDonalds and change drivers with my wife. We used the bathroom and I bought her an ice cream cone and I bought some chicken nuggets. I am not rich but I make a good income. I have a law degree and she has a masters degree. We are pretty well educated and we shop at McDonalds. If we had less money maybe we would shop there less often.

Not saying all McDonalds consumers are low income, low education consumers. Actually, McDonalds is a bad example because it is has marketed itself to a larger audience. I was talking about folks who buy cheap, low quality products because they have no other choice. Producers like that benefit from a larger underclass, because were that underclass to become wealthier, it would buy better products.

I dont know that all McDonalds shoppers are low income dumbasses. Two weekends ago I pulled off the highway to stop at a McDonalds and change drivers with my wife. We used the bathroom and I bought her an ice cream cone and I bought some chicken nuggets. I am not rich but I make a good income. I have a law degree and she has a masters degree. We are pretty well educated and we shop at McDonalds. If we had less money maybe we would shop there less often.

You have a law degree?

You have a law degree?
He got it in a Happy Meal.

He got it in a Happy Meal.

I can assure you that law school was not a happy time.

I can assure you that law school was not a happy time.
Especially for your professors.

(Do you intend to keep serving up these soft balls all day?)

Greed is good...

If greed is good, does that make it morally correct to shoot people in the head so that you can take their stuff?

If greed is good, does that make it morally correct to shoot people in the head so that you can take their stuff?

Of course. Where have you been for the last 8 years?

Of course. Where have you been for the last 8 years?

Apparently not paying attention to the leader of the free world. My bad.

Apparently not paying attention to the leader of the free world. My bad.

Not your fault, it's not as if anyone can stand to hear the guy speak for more than a few minutes.:p

Not your fault, it's not as if anyone can stand to hear the guy speak for more than a few minutes.:p
True. I have not heard his voice in 7 years -- and the mute button on my tv remote is getting worn out.

How does a low income dumbass benefit anybody?
By voting for the candidate that will promise to give them the most for the least amount of effort.

i think that trickle down -- or the focus on coddling the rich in the assumption that they will take care of the rest of us -- has been a disaster.

im willing to try it the other way around for a while to see what happens.

Why make the assumption?

I never got a job from a homeless person. Only jobs I have had come from what the poor call the rich.

If greed is good, does that make it morally correct to shoot people in the head so that you can take their stuff?

No. Greed is good if it motivates you to make more money by providing goods or services that others want and are willing to pay you for.

It certainly makes more sense than the trickle down crap we've had to put up with for years.

Yes, well without the 'rich' you will simply have to spend more time in lines waiting for your handout.

By voting for the candidate that will promise to give them the most for the least amount of effort.

Yes, $500 credit if you vote for me, $1000 for me, $ok $1500 ....

Not your fault, it's not as if anyone can stand to hear the guy speak for more than a few minutes.:p

Yes after Clinton, most had to take a shower after being showered with his BS.

the funny thing about the rich paying more in taxes is that not only can they afford to pay them more but they see the benefits of the taxes they pay in the very business's thatthey own.

when there employees come in on time to work because of a good affordable public transport system.

there employees spend less time off work because public health services are better and provide a good quality of care for all irreguardless of wealth,

there employees are well educated and capable of performing a higher quality of work making the end product of the business more profitable and the business itself better able to adapt and stay competitive due to innovation

there employees feel more valued and lead more full lives because more opportunities are afforded to them.

because these employees are more valued they earn more money they then magically do this thing called spending and because they spend there is a greater market for the goods sold by companies in the first place and thus by enriching more people the rich themselves get richer.

hmmm seems to me the rich are being very foolish when they refuse to help fund the worse off in society especially when its the rich who sponge off the poor not the other way round!

God, now I remember why I stay out of these threads. All the stupidity makes my head hurt. And its from the usual suspects too. Predictable.

No. Greed is good if it motivates you to make more money by providing goods or services that others want and are willing to pay you for.

So, if it motivates me to work as an assassin, that's fine?

the funny thing about the rich paying more in taxes is that not only can they afford to pay them more but they see the benefits of the taxes they pay in the very business's thatthey own.

Not all that funny. If they have to pay MORE in taxes, they will reduce their offset to accomodate it by say firing an employee.


when there employees come in on time to work because of a good affordable public transport system.


Maybe the employee needs to get up earlier and get to work on time.


there employees spend less time off work because public health services are better and provide a good quality of care for all irreguardless of wealth,


Public health services? I woul dhope they provide private health insurance as part of the employment or the employee buys it on their own. Not the responsibility of the taxpayer.


there employees are well educated and capable of performing a higher quality of work making the end product of the business more profitable and the business itself better able to adapt and stay competitive due to innovation


The employees are educaied by the school system or better yet by private school education. This is not the responsibility of the employer. Innovation is key to continued employment.


there employees feel more valued and lead more full lives because more opportunities are afforded to them.


They would feel more valued by producing and achieving accolades and salary increases. By taxing the company, it restricts this possible growth an dincreases the possibility of the employee losing their job.


because these employees are more valued they earn more money they then magically do this thing called spending and because they spend there is a greater market for the goods sold by companies in the first place and thus by enriching more people the rich themselves get richer.


Yes working harder and taxing the company less would accomplish this goal.


hmmm seems to me the rich are being very foolish when they refuse to help fund the worse off in society especially when its the rich who sponge off the poor not the other way round!

Yes those damn rich people. We only get jobs from them and the ability to earn a living!

Why make the assumption?

I never got a job from a homeless person. Only jobs I have had come from what the poor call the rich.
Let's talk about assumptions, shall we? I notice you assume that "not rich" means homeless. Interesting. I suppose you think there's no such thing as a "middle class"? It would explain a lot -- like why people who think the way you do never do anything to support a middle class economy. It's because you don't know what the middle class is.

This separation of the world into only two economic classes -- rich and poor -- is part of what drives economic disasters like what we are dealing with right now. When people refuse to acknowledge that the engine that drives economies consists of the middle and working classes who do the bulk of the manufacturing and the bulk of the buying of goods, they end up destroying that very engine. Middle and working class people just do not have enough cash to qualify as "rich," so people with this two-cubbyhole mindset end up pushing all of them down to the level of "poor." We see the results.

Not all that funny. If they have to pay MORE in taxes, they will reduce their offset to accomodate it by say firing an employee.



Maybe the employee needs to get up earlier and get to work on time.



Public health services? I woul dhope they provide private health insurance as part of the employment or the employee buys it on their own. Not the responsibility of the taxpayer.



The employees are educaied by the school system or better yet by private school education. This is not the responsibility of the employer. Innovation is key to continued employment.



They would feel more valued by producing and achieving accolades and salary increases. By taxing the company, it restricts this possible growth an dincreases the possibility of the employee losing their job.



Yes working harder and taxing the company less would accomplish this goal.



Yes those damn rich people. We only get jobs from them and the ability to earn a living!
Except, of course, that none of the above is true. We have seen time and again in real application throughout modern history that what Qarkleflurg (great name btw) describes produces the results he/she claims, while what you describe produces nothing but poverty, infrastructure decay, lost revenue, and eventually collapse of the very business systems you claim are so good for society.

Oh, and:
The employees are educated by the school system or better yet by private school education.
Fixed. No charge this time.

Not all that funny. If they have to pay MORE in taxes, they will reduce their offset to accomodate it by say firing an employee.

not necessarily, they may just reduce there own over-inflated wages!

Maybe the employee needs to get up earlier and get to work on time.

so having a system that gets you to work cheap and on time is a bad idea?!?

Public health services? I would hope they provide private health insurance as part of the employment or the employee buys it on their own. Not the responsibility of the taxpayer.

well judging by the difference in the amount of money used by Europe's public health systems and the amount of money used by the private American one, and the fact that the European systems are ranked as better by the WHO I disagree, just go and look at the stats and the $4000 per capita difference in investment in health between England and the US


The employees are educaied by the school system or better yet by private school education. This is not the responsibility of the employer. Innovation is key to continued employment.

all private school education results in is better education for the rich and an ability for the owners of these schools to warp the education offered to fit there own political/social ends. it also results in massive student debt. It's an immoral system and a backward one that just ingrains social injustices

They would feel more valued by producing and achieving accolades and salary increases. By taxing the company, it restricts this possible growth an dincreases the possibility of the employee losing their job.

I'm not taxing any company I'm taxing income, just income.

Yes working harder and taxing the company less would accomplish this goal.

you have to provide people with the means to better themselves before they can actually do it and the most efficient way of doing this is through local government as first choice and national as second

Yes those damn rich people. We only get jobs from them and the ability to earn a living!

so yes damn those lazy poor people and there inability to work hard and give more to the rich THE POOR ARE ALL OBVIOUSLY LAZY

My objection to most economic plans is the foundational premise that the government needs to actively mold society instead of simply protecting the people from theft and fraud.

Ok, so if trickle down economics works as it's supposed to, then cutting taxes on the rich should have had the following effects:

1. Increasing employment, as companies should be able to hire more people using the money they would otherwise have spent in taxes.

2. Increasing investment. Meaning more venture capital available for new businesses to start. Also, more investment in existing businesses, making them expand, hire more staff, enter new markets, etc.

We have been under the policies of trickle down economics for the last 30 years or so. Therefore we should have seen some positive effects since then. But we haven't. To those who would say that it needs more time to work properly - how long are we supposed to wait? 30 years is a very long time in anyone's lifetime. At best, it's a third of your life, although in less developed countries, it's more like half.

Let's take care of point 1 first. Employment hasn't increased much at all. In fact, for most of the last 30 years or so, especially between 1985 and 1995, the economy was losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every few months or so, as companies downsized themselves, cutting staffing levels and shutting down production plants wherever they could. Why did they do this? It certainly wasn't because they couldn't afford to keep their staff, or keep the factories running. They could. It wasn't because they were being taxed too much, because they weren't. It was simply an exercise in driving down costs, in order to maximise profits. The incentive for doing so was that said profits were no longer being heavily taxed - therefore there was much more to gain in the short term.
Downsizing caused increased unemployment, which had many negative effects. First, there were more people claiming benefits, and at the same time, less people paying taxes due to being unemployed. This caused a double whammy for the government, which was already suffering a deficit caused by cutting taxes on the rich in the first place.
Secondly, all those people unemployed had massively reduced spending power, leading to less money flowing around the economy.
Thirdly, the increase in unemployment meant much more competition for what jobs were left, which meant employers could make deep cuts in wages - people were desperate for jobs, and would take a lower paid job instead of no job at all. This leads to lower real wages for the entire working class, reducing their spending power even further - again leading to less money flowing around the economy.
But still, rich increased their profit margins in the short term, which is all that matters, right?

Let's now take care of point 2. Does cutting taxes for the rich really lead to more investment? Or does it just lead them to pocket the difference as profit?
Given that human nature is to be greedy, and that those who are rich are by their very nature more greedy than most, I would say that the latter is way more likely - and that is in fact what happens. Ok, yes, some companies do benefit - those who make and sell luxury items - supercars, yachts etc. But they are only a small part of the economy. The economy can't survive by selling luxury cars to plutocrats.
General Motors is a prime example of this. The Bush Tax cuts gave them, on average, an extra $800 million each year. Now can anyone tell me, with a straight face, that this will lead to General Motors hiring more staff or making more investments when they are already sitting on $8 Billion in cash?
I don't think so.

The theories behind trickle down are all complete bollocks. It's nothing more than an excuse to cut taxes for the rich.

Trickle up, on the other hand, is not based on bullshit, and therefore has a sporting chance of working as described. Taxing the rich proportionately more (which is what a progressive tax system is supposed to do) doesn't actually hurt them that much. It might mean that they have to get by with a porsche instead of a ferrari, or a sixty foot yacht instead of a 100 foot yacht. But on the whole, unless the taxation is ridiculously high (such as the 97% tax rate in the UK in the 1970's), it doesn't lead to them all emigrating. Neither does it lead to them firing workers, or reducing the amounts they invest very much.

Giving tax cuts to the lower or middle class is a bona fide way of boosting the economy. Why? Because it puts money in the hands of people who are the most likely to spend it. Ok, some of them will be thrifty and put a bit more into savings. But on the whole, they spend it. This has nothing but good effects. It puts more money into the economy, leading to more demand for just about everything. This leads to more production of everything, which needs more people, leading to higher employment. Higher employment means less spent by the government in unemployment benefits, and more tax revenues gained from the payroll tax at the least. Hence, the tax revenues from the lower and middle classes actually end up increasing, simply because a greater proportion of them are employed and hence paying into the system, rather than unemployed and draining the system. This frees up taxpayer money to either cut taxes further, or to invest in better education and public infrastructure, which has so many benefits for every part of the economy that there isn't room to list them all here.

The side effect is that the rich get taxed a bit more than they have been for the last 30 years. It's really not that much to ask, is it?

Why make the assumption?

I never got a job from a homeless person. Only jobs I have had come from what the poor call the rich.
homeless people would not be the beneficiaries of a change in income tax structure.

It's called "Keynesian economics". Surprisingly enough, there has been some research on it.

And goddammit people, if you're going to talk about "trickle down" economics, please make sure you know what it is. It doesn't mean "the rich will take care of everyone". It doesn't assume compassion or anything like that. In fact, "trickle down" economics the way the media invented it doesn't exist.

It's called "Keynesian economics". Surprisingly enough, there has been some research on it.

And goddammit people, if you're going to talk about "trickle down" economics, please make sure you know what it is. It doesn't mean "the rich will take care of everyone". It doesn't assume compassion or anything like that. In fact, "trickle down" economics the way the media invented it doesn't exist.
In fact, "supply-side" economics coins a term that referred to reducing only marginal tax rates -- not all taxes. Back in the day, 1977, or so, marginal tax rates were stifling. Cutting these rates did increase revenues during the Reagan years and again after the cuts in 2003. One can see that cutting other taxes, such as paying rebates, adding kiddie credits, and similar pandering, have no effect on marginal tax rates and should not be expected to raise tax revenues.

Let's talk about assumptions, shall we?


Great idea.

I notice you assume that "not rich" means homeless. Interesting.

It would be if it was true. You see the whole idea is 'rich' against everyone else. Whether that is 'middle' or 'lower' gets lost in the pedantic liberal argument. You are welcome to the assumption because I am sure it is the basis for your entire argument.

I suppose you think there's no such thing as a "middle class"? It would explain a lot -- like why people who think the way you do never do anything to support a middle class economy. It's because you don't know what the middle class is.


Lets see: There is no standard definition, and in fact, an overwhelming majority of Americans say they are "middle class" or "upper-middle class" or "working class" in public opinion polls. Hardly anybody considers themselves "lower class" or "upper class" in America.

So basically one could say middle class may exist between those who pay no tax and those who make over an arbitrary number annually. Democrats have set this number as low at 70k and as high as 250k in the last few years.

The way to support the 'middle class' is to cut taxes.

This separation of the world into only two economic classes -- rich and poor -- is part of what drives economic disasters like what we are dealing with right now.


The liberal mindset of 'rich' and 'poor' is a poor comparison as it is so arbitrary. Poor in the USA means only have one car and cable tv to most. Poor in Africa means your house is made of cardboard. So this 'economic disater' as you put it is exasperated by raising taxes. So guess what, they intend to raise taxes. They claim they will only raise it on those above 250k, or was it 150k, or was it 100k. They keep lowering it. The problem is even with 100% tax on those in the top 1% would not pay the bills. So they have to tax everyone actually paying taxes a higher rate, but they would never admit it in a campaign.

When people refuse to acknowledge that the engine that drives economies consists of the middle and working classes who do the bulk of the manufacturing and the bulk of the buying of goods, they end up destroying that very engine.


People know the score, most want to ignore it on the left. The middle and working classes are the same in the liberal mindset. They have to be. If they weren't we would never need to 'redistribute' wealth. The 'poor' pay no taxes in the system, yet they get a refund. Therefore they are socialized. So you cannot include everyone that has a job because not all of them make enough to pay taxes. The people who drive the economy the most are the so called 'rich'. The more yachts they buy put people to work building them, they become less poor and they contribute to the system at that point.

Middle and working class people just do not have enough cash to qualify as "rich," so people with this two-cubbyhole mindset end up pushing all of them down to the level of "poor." We see the results.

No you see what you want to see. Lets take a guy who makes 250k a year. He has a big house, of which he pays a ton of taxes on, He is taxes at the highest marginal rates. He probably invests so he makes capital gains, of which he pays again a ton of tax on. He goes on vacations, buys expensive cars, yachts maybe, if he has a lot of extra money maybe a plane. Jet fuel, food, a house staff. He employs tons of people to support his lifestyle. So lets say his car pays the salaries of 5 people, his yachts 20, house staff maybe 10... So 35 people can earn a living in this example because of him.

Now lets look at the guy who makes 20k a year. he emplys no one, his combined salary over a year might pay the salaries of 3 people at the food mart. He makes car payments on his 1975 chevy chevelle, rents an apartment, and his opulent lifestyle means going to the beer barn on fridays.

Or lets now look at the unemployed student. They draw student loans which they may or may not ever pay back, maybe they are on food stamps or welfare, they have government medicaid, they keep a few college professors emplyed on the government teat at their local state community college. Any spare change is spent on beer.

So the point is, without the 'rich' guy, none of this exists. The government debt would get higher with the welfare line swelling. So I guess the middle class guy gets laid off to join the unworking and draw a check. Makes perfect sense this 'trickling up'.

homeless people would not be the beneficiaries of a change in income tax structure.

They do if they file a return.

Great idea.



It would be if it was true. You see the whole idea is 'rich' against everyone else. Whether that is 'middle' or 'lower' gets lost in the pedantic liberal argument. You are welcome to the assumption because I am sure it is the basis for your entire argument.



Lets see: There is no standard definition, and in fact, an overwhelming majority of Americans say they are "middle class" or "upper-middle class" or "working class" in public opinion polls. Hardly anybody considers themselves "lower class" or "upper class" in America.

So basically one could say middle class may exist between those who pay no tax and those who make over an arbitrary number annually. Democrats have set this number as low at 70k and as high as 250k in the last few years.

The way to support the 'middle class' is to cut taxes.



The liberal mindset of 'rich' and 'poor' is a poor comparison as it is so arbitrary. Poor in the USA means only have one car and cable tv to most. Poor in Africa means your house is made of cardboard. So this 'economic disater' as you put it is exasperated by raising taxes. So guess what, they intend to raise taxes. They claim they will only raise it on those above 250k, or was it 150k, or was it 100k. They keep lowering it. The problem is even with 100% tax on those in the top 1% would not pay the bills. So they have to tax everyone actually paying taxes a higher rate, but they would never admit it in a campaign.



People know the score, most want to ignore it on the left. The middle and working classes are the same in the liberal mindset. They have to be. If they weren't we would never need to 'redistribute' wealth. The 'poor' pay no taxes in the system, yet they get a refund. Therefore they are socialized. So you cannot include everyone that has a job because not all of them make enough to pay taxes. The people who drive the economy the most are the so called 'rich'. The more yachts they buy put people to work building them, they become less poor and they contribute to the system at that point.



No you see what you want to see. Lets take a guy who makes 250k a year. He has a big house, of which he pays a ton of taxes on, He is taxes at the highest marginal rates. He probably invests so he makes capital gains, of which he pays again a ton of tax on. He goes on vacations, buys expensive cars, yachts maybe, if he has a lot of extra money maybe a plane. Jet fuel, food, a house staff. He employs tons of people to support his lifestyle. So lets say his car pays the salaries of 5 people, his yachts 20, house staff maybe 10... So 35 people can earn a living in this example because of him.

Now lets look at the guy who makes 20k a year. he emplys no one, his combined salary over a year might pay the salaries of 3 people at the food mart. He makes car payments on his 1975 chevy chevelle, rents an apartment, and his opulent lifestyle means going to the beer barn on fridays.

Or lets now look at the unemployed student. They draw student loans which they may or may not ever pay back, maybe they are on food stamps or welfare, they have government medicaid, they keep a few college professors emplyed on the government teat at their local state community college. Any spare change is spent on beer.

So the point is, without the 'rich' guy, none of this exists. The government debt would get higher with the welfare line swelling. So I guess the middle class guy gets laid off to join the unworking and draw a check. Makes perfect sense this 'trickling up'.
1) There most certainly is such a thing as a "middle class" in the US. Economic brackets are NOT merely matters of opinion, ego, or personal experience. They are determined by economists every year. Your attempt to claim that it's all a matter of perception is nothing but a dodge.

2) We are not discussing Africa; we are discussing the US, which is where the "trickle up" phrase in being floated in politics right now. So your reference to the difference between "poor" in the US and "poor" in Africa is irrelevant. It is also another dodge.

3) Sprinkling your post with buzzwords like "liberal" and "left" is just attempt to be dismissive of your opponents and to belittle their arguments. This reveals your inherent bias and indicates that you are thinking about this issue ideologically, not practically.

4) Your attempt to explain your argument is nothing but a collection of talking points and catchphrases. Merely reciting the talking points list does not an argument make. There is no logic or explanation in what you say, nothing that shows WHY or HOW your preferred system does what you say it does. This is especially glaring in contrast with the historical evidence that, in fact, it does not do what you say it does. I notice you do not address the history at all.

5) Because of the above flaws, I say you have not carried your argument about why Trickle Down is good and Trickle Up is bad.

They do if they file a return.
The homeless, for the most part, do not pay income tax, so even if they file, they will not be affected by either higher or lower income taxes. I'm surprised that someone as knowledgable as you about economics forgot that.

No. Greed is good if it motivates you to make more money by providing goods or services that others want and are willing to pay you for.

So greed isn't good per se as its why people some steal, embezzle, take and give bribes, ect.

Except, of course, that none of the above is true. We have seen time and again in real application throughout modern history that what Qarkleflurg (great name btw) describes produces the results he/she claims, while what you describe produces nothing but poverty, infrastructure decay, lost revenue, and eventually collapse of the very business systems you claim are so good for society.


Chuckle. So economics is not your bag. If you eliminate the top earners, or reduce their incomes by taxing them inordinately 'because they 'can afford it', it kills innovation and they tighten their belts. So for the good of society the 'poor' lose their jobs because without the 'rich' investors and business owners with money to spent and invest, they lose the capital to continue.

What I describe produces an economy. There is poverty, differently defined in different countries, there is infrastructure building, increased revenue, and a foundation of businesses and services that spring up. The American dream realized.

Tax the hell out of anyone who makes a buck, it kills it. Over regulate it, it kills it. So there has to be the one element that liberal pit everyone against to have a robust economy: top earners with the disposable wealth to perpetuate the system.

"That hasn't happened" or "Unemployment is skyrocketing" claims just aren't true. media hype.

In 1985 the mean unemployment rate in the US was 7.19. In 2008 it is currently 4.60. The overall average from 1985-2008 is 5.81. These are actual figures, not some made up nebulous crap.

The highest iannual in all that time was 7.49 in 1992. The average during the Clinton 'administration' was 5.80. Reagans last 4 was 6.5. Bush Sr was 6.31, and Bush Jr is 5.62.

So basically the jobless rates in the current administration is lower than the clinton administration. Wow, that 30 years of trickle down is really not working? Uh huh.

Nothing but poverty. Hmmm. 1985 12.6%. (25,729,000) 2006 (Last year currently compiled) 10.6%. (25,915,000)

So 186,000 less people in poverty. Hmm crate poverty? Hmmm. Guess you did not take into account the population increase.

Lost revenue? Well currently it appears in Washington there is a liberal safety net for those companies hit by this 'economic downturn'. I am changing my name to Chrysler. Thanks Arlo.

So basically your points have been debunked with some casual glances at the actual data.

Chuckle. So economics is not your bag. If you eliminate the top earners, or reduce their incomes by taxing them inordinately 'because they 'can afford it', it kills innovation and they tighten their belts. So for the good of society the 'poor' lose their jobs because without the 'rich' investors and business owners with money to spent and invest, they lose the capital to continue.

What I describe produces an economy. There is poverty, differently defined in different countries, there is infrastructure building, increased revenue, and a foundation of businesses and services that spring up. The American dream realized.

Tax the hell out of anyone who makes a buck, it kills it. Over regulate it, it kills it. So there has to be the one element that liberal pit everyone against to have a robust economy: top earners with the disposable wealth to perpetuate the system.

"That hasn't happened" or "Unemployment is skyrocketing" claims just aren't true. media hype.

In 1985 the mean unemployment rate in the US was 7.19. In 2008 it is currently 4.60. The overall average from 1985-2008 is 5.81. These are actual figures, not some made up nebulous crap.

The highest iannual in all that time was 7.49 in 1992. The average during the Clinton 'administration' was 5.80. Reagans last 4 was 6.5. Bush Sr was 6.31, and Bush Jr is 5.62.

So basically the jobless rates in the current administration is lower than the clinton administration. Wow, that 30 years of trickle down is really not working? Uh huh.

Nothing but poverty. Hmmm. 1985 12.6%. (25,729,000) 2006 (Last year currently compiled) 10.6%. (25,915,000)

So 186,000 less people in poverty. Hmm crate poverty? Hmmm. Guess you did not take into account the population increase.

Lost revenue? Well currently it appears in Washington there is a liberal safety net for those companies hit by this 'economic downturn'. I am changing my name to Chrysler. Thanks Arlo.

So basically your points have been debunked with some casual glances at the actual data.
You're funny. I refer you to today's economy headlines for the bottom line on all of the above.

1) There most certainly is such a thing as a "middle class" in the US. Economic brackets are NOT merely matters of opinion, ego, or personal experience. They are determined by economists every year. Your attempt to claim that it's all a matter of perception is nothing but a dodge.

Please provide this irrrefutable definition from these nebulous economists.

2) We are not discussing Africa; we are discussing the US, which is where the "trickle up" phrase in being floated in politics right now. So your reference to the difference between "poor" in the US and "poor" in Africa is irrelevant. It is also another dodge.


So you are starting to debunk yourself. Please continue.

3) Sprinkling your post with buzzwords like "liberal" and "left" is just attempt to be dismissive of your opponents and to belittle their arguments. This reveals your inherent bias and indicates that you are thinking about this issue ideologically, not practically.


Well if they are unfair please show them to be. Your inherent bias is clear. I myself believe in Conservative libertarianism. How about you? Straight Democratic ticket I presume?

4) Your attempt to explain your argument is nothing but a collection of talking points and catchphrases. Merely reciting the talking points list does not an argument make. There is no logic or explanation in what you say, nothing that shows WHY or HOW your preferred system does what you say it does. This is especially glaring in contrast with the historical evidence that, in fact, it does not do what you say it does. I notice you do not address the history at all.


I addressed history quite a bit, In fact I have now brought out the US data on the subject. When you get around to an argument I will be happy to refute it.

5) Because of the above flaws, I say you have not carried your argument about why Trickle Down is good and Trickle Up is bad.

Ok, well based on everything you have said I would say you haven't addressed a single issue and therefore have not proven nor refuted any point yet.

You're funny. I refer you to today's economy headlines for the bottom line on all of the above.

Of course you do. Looking up the data involves work and you prefer to regurgitate what is fed to you in the media.

The homeless, for the most part, do not pay income tax, so even if they file, they will not be affected by either higher or lower income taxes. I'm surprised that someone as knowledgable as you about economics forgot that.
Isn't there a huge contradiction up there? Yes, there is.

"The homeless, for the most part, do not pay income tax..." allows for the possibility that some do pay income tax. That doesn't square with "... they will not be affected by ... income taxes". I certainly don't expect to get a job from the homeless, but I do expect them to pay their fair share of taxes.

You're funny. I refer you to today's economy headlines for the bottom line on all of the above.
I'm hardly agreeing with Naughty's argument completely, but you have to do far, far better than that.

The homeless, for the most part, do not pay income tax, so even if they file, they will not be affected by either higher or lower income taxes. I'm surprised that someone as knowledgable as you about economics forgot that.

Well as smart as you claim to be I am surprised you did not know that people making no income can file a zero return, get a 6000 tax credit and qualifiy for the stimulus check. I would prefer they did not get money since they did not pay into the system but sadly that is not the case.

You're funny. I refer you to today's economy headlines for the bottom line on all of the above.
I think the argument was that supply side economics caused the current economic conditions. Hardly a provable statement, considering what supply-side actually means. Even with the broader and misleading definition that the media has applied, tax revenues were still increasing into this year.

As I said in a much earlier post, be careful not to draw the wrong conclusions from the data that you have. You have certainly not taken that advice.

In fact, "supply-side" economics coins a term that referred to reducing only marginal tax rates -- not all taxes. Back in the day, 1977, or so, marginal tax rates were stifling. Cutting these rates did increase revenues during the Reagan years and again after the cuts in 2003. One can see that cutting other taxes, such as paying rebates, adding kiddie credits, and similar pandering, have no effect on marginal tax rates and should not be expected to raise tax revenues.

Erm, no they did not. Income tax revenues as a whole declined about 9% between 1981 and 1982, forcing an increase of taxation and deficit spending to cover the difference. Narrowly speaking, however, tax revenues from the wealthy did increase, suggesting either increased wealth generation efforts or decreased efforts to avoid taxation. But it wasn't nearly what the Laffer Curve would have predicted.

Please provide this irrrefutable definition from this nebulous economist.
No, because I didn't say "economist." I said "economists," as in the ones who work for the IRS and the Fed and who advise the Congress from time to time. Selective reading is funny when it gets down to individual letters.

So you are starting to debunk yourself. Please continue.



Well if they are unfair please show them to be. Your inherent bias is clear. I myself believe in Conservative libertarianism. How about you? Straight Democratic ticket I presume?
I don't have to defend myself or anyone else against your off-topic attack attempts, and I do not intend to. I will not assist you in dodging the issue of the thread topic.

Economic systems are pragmatic, not political -- at least, when they are real, not just theoretical. It is perfectly possible to judge whether a system that has been in application for 30 years works or not without any reference to a political ideology of any kind. I judge Trickle Down based on what it has actually done. You are juding it based on what you think it should do, based on your politically biased interpretation of the theory of it.

I addressed history quite a bit, In fact I have now brought out the US data on the subject. When you get around to an argument I will be happy to refute it.
Yes, I saw the numbers you posted. My argument concerning them is that you are not actually using them in any way. You merely post them and say, in essence, "Voila! My system works." But you do not actually show the connection between your system and the numbers.

Ok, well based on everything you have said I would say you haven't addressed a single issue and therefore have not proven nor refuted any point yet.
Oh, really? Then what did you respond to, point by point, above? You continue to amuse me.

I think the argument was that supply side economics caused the current economic conditions. Hardly a provable statement, considering what supply-side actually means. Even with the broader and misleading definition that the media has applied, tax revenues were still increasing into this year.

As I said in a much earlier post, be careful not to draw the wrong conclusions from the data that you have. You have certainly not taken that advice.
I did not take that advice because it came from you.

And if this is the guy who gave us the magic retail numerology of $29.99, then anything he says about how to make money is gospel to me. :D *plans to research more about this person*

You may also research the town of Zlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zlin) in Czech Republic Bat'a had it built for him by a team of architects.
Bata had whole quarters of the town built to be housing (standalone houses, mind you, not condos or slums) for the workers of his company. The wiki article is not very accurate but alas it is a starting point.
Also he founded the Bat'a echonomics school where gifted students from his emplyees family could get a degree in management and be subsequently enrolled as managers in the firm. Note that in those years and up to 1948 a degree from this school was regarded as more useful than a degree in echonomics from any University in central Europe.

You may also research the town of Zlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zlin) in Czech Republic Bat'a had it built for him by a team of architects.
Bata had whole quarters of the town built to be housing (standalone houses, mind you, not condos or slums) for the workers of his company. The wiki article is not very accurate but alas it is a starting point.
Also he founded the Bat'a echonomics school where gifted students from his emplyees family could get a degree in management and be subsequently enrolled as managers in the firm. Note that in those years and up to 1948 a degree from this school was regarded as more useful than a degree in echonomics from any University in central Europe.
Very interesting, thank you. :)

Economic systems are pragmatic, not political -- at least, when they are real, not just theoretical. It is perfectly possible to judge whether a system that has been in application for 30 years works or not without any reference to a political ideology of any kind. I judge Trickle Down based on what it has actually done. You are juding it based on what you think it should do, based on your politically biased interpretation of the theory of it.

No i am basing it on the actual numbers posted by the IRS, Census Bureau, National Debt, GAO, and other credible sources over the past 30 years.

I judge it for what it has actually done based in reality. You are the one applying some misinterpretation and twisted media theory. Do you plan on citing a vast right wing conspiracy on the data that the government posted from the last 30 years next?

Oh, I do enjoy when econ students lecture NS.

Isn't there a huge contradiction up there? Yes, there is.

"The homeless, for the most part, do not pay income tax..." allows for the possibility that some do pay income tax. That doesn't square with "... they will not be affected by ... income taxes". I certainly don't expect to get a job from the homeless, but I do expect them to pay their fair share of taxes.
well theres one expectation met.

the homeless do pay their fair share of taxes.

which means $0 income tax for the most part.

well theres one expectation met.

the homeless do pay their fair share of taxes.

which means $0 income tax for the most part.

They still pay VAT on anything they buy...

well theres one expectation met.

the homeless do pay their fair share of taxes.

which means $0 income tax for the most part.

But then again, if taxes drive the place that gives free food to the homeless out of business, it might effect them. They might have to walk a few extra miles. They might not be able to. It could be a death sentence for those people. But all idle speculation. I am sure the government will send them a check for booze.

They still pay VAT on anything they buy...
yeah.

sales tax here.

But then again, if taxes drive the place that gives free food to the homeless out of business, it might effect them. They might have to walk a few extra miles. They might not be able to. It could be a death sentence for those people. But all idle speculation. I am sure the government will send them a check for booze.
when the soup kitchen is done in by taxes, ill protest.

they are in more trouble from their usual sources of support not being able to give help due to their own personal economic woes.

when the soup kitchen is done in by taxes, ill protest.

they are in more trouble from their usual sources of support not being able to give help due to their own personal economic woes.

True and tax them higher, they give even less.

True and tax them higher, they give even less.

Only if they have less money. Which, of course, isn't actually the case. Transfer Payments focussed on growing the size and stability of the middle class (the consumer base), will help to expand the economy by creating a more confident, more liquid consumer base. Because of this, the income of the upper-class expands, and, low and behold, they make up the difference.

Supply-side is a short-sighted read of a much more complex macroeconomic reality. Focusing on growth through technological improvement, improvement of population factors of production, and focusing on demand by expanding the consumer class are a much more stable and healthy method of doing so.

The games in the sky played with fake money in the banks are the great danger of investment-fueled growth. Eventually the amount of real money per-unit liabilities is so low, that the banks are too fragile, and come crumbling down.

Monetary policy. It's what we fucked up, and now we're paying. That isn't to say that supply side is at fault: poor protection of a shoddily regulated market is at fault, but supply side certainly increases the risk.

Just a sidenote on US unemployment rates.
IRC in 2000 the US census bureau changed the methodology in assessing unemployment. Data might not be consistent.

Since the OP didn't take the poll options very seriously, I didn't take my poll response very seriously. But I will add this:

If we make a sincere attempt to dig the U.S. economy out of the hole we have created over the past several decades, the president will almost certainly have to take the unpopular step of raising taxes significantly on everybody. The per-capita share of the national debt is $34,951.90 (nation debt clock), about the same as the per-capita GNP, so if we set everybody's taxes to 100% for one year and eliminate all government spending, we should be all set :p

Unrealistic I admit but no more so than having foreign powers with contrary interests own shares of our debt.

Maybe we can convince China to buy some states on the west coast at a premium to forgive our debt.

Trickle-up economics should work as long as it's temporary. If we leave that ideology in place in perpetuity, there will be less incentive to be entreprenurial, leading to loss of productivity, jobs, and wealth. However, by the same token, it seems trickle-down economics has led to economic stagnation at the expense of the many. Maybe we should alternate between two different fiscal policies every 4 to 8 years?

Just a sidenote on US unemployment rates.
IRC in 2000 the US census bureau changed the methodology in assessing unemployment. Data might not be consistent.

Yeah, but that said, there has been economic growth in the long term, not necessarily due to, but in part influenced by trickle-down economics. It isn't that they are baseless or stupid, in fact, the basis of trickle down theory, that investment expands the economy and produces a larger real GDP isn't false. It does.

The problem is that there are negative externalities associated with that policy. The first is that the rich-poor gap expands, leading to a less stable economy, because the middle-class moves to shakier ground, and is more likely to constrict, and stop consuming (see now for an example). The second is that a lot of "fake" money gets created in the monetary system, because of larger savings. Now savings are good for the economy, because they allow for the expansion of business through investment. The problem is that the way the banking system works, a lot of illusory money gets created, and eventually the banks have so much less real money than they have liabilities, that they come tumbling down. This can easily be avoided by encouraging long term stability through stricter regulation, and the requirement of larger reserve holdings, but that again slows economic growth through investment.

Since the OP didn't take the poll options very seriously, I didn't take my poll response very seriously. But I will add this:

If we make a sincere attempt to dig the U.S. economy out of the hole we have created over the past several decades, the president will almost certainly have to take the unpopular step of raising taxes significantly on everybody. The per-capita share of the national debt is $34,951.90 (nation debt clock), about the same as the per-capita GNP, so if we set everybody's taxes to 100% for one year and eliminate all government spending, we should be all set :p

Unrealistic I admit but no more so than having foreign powers with contrary interests own shares of our debt.

Maybe we can convince China to buy some states on the west coast at a premium to forgive our debt.

Trickle-up economics should work as long as it's temporary. If we leave that ideology in place in perpetuity, there will be less incentive to be entreprenurial, leading to loss of productivity, jobs, and wealth. However, by the same token, it seems trickle-down economics has led to economic stagnation at the expense of the many. Maybe we should alternate between two different fiscal policies every 4 to 8 years?

It is much simpler than that. Eliminate social security, medicare and all the government freebees, all the corporate welfare, and all the social welfare. Get the government back to military, police, fire, roads etc.

That should cut spending by a good 80%. Then we can cut taxes to the bone as we won't need nearly as much. Eliminate income tax and go to a flat 5% tax on sales. That should do it.

Unrealistic I admit but no more so than having foreign powers with contrary interests own shares of our debt.

I wouldn't necessarily say that China is a contrary interest. It might be better to describe China and the US as two drunks, leaning on one another, stumbling down the street. China is as dependent upon us for a market and FDI as we are upon them for cheap labor and easy loans.

Maybe we can convince China to buy some states on the west coast at a premium to forgive our debt.

While I am not particularly pleased with the state of California at the moment, the west coast is still the best part of the US by far. Sell Wyoming. It's not like anybody lives there, anyway.

Trickle-up economics should work as long as it's temporary. If we leave that ideology in place in perpetuity, there will be less incentive to be entreprenurial, leading to loss of productivity, jobs, and wealth. However, by the same token, it seems trickle-down economics has led to economic stagnation at the expense of the many. Maybe we should alternate between two different fiscal policies every 4 to 8 years?

Nah. See, that would be the case if we were talking about a massive increase in tax levels to the rate that they were at under Carter, but we aren't. We're talking more about changing the spending model of the US government to focus more on the growth and stability of the middle class, than anything else.

That should cut spending by a good 80%. Then we can cut taxes to the bone as we won't need nearly as much. Eliminate income tax and go to a flat 5% tax on sales. That should do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#Critiques_of_the_Laffer_curve


Edit: Had the right link at first.

No i am basing it on the actual numbers posted by the IRS, Census Bureau, National Debt, GAO, and other credible sources over the past 30 years.

I judge it for what it has actually done based in reality. You are the one applying some misinterpretation and twisted media theory. Do you plan on citing a vast right wing conspiracy on the data that the government posted from the last 30 years next?
And by your reasoning, I suppose you are rubber and I am glue, eh? Is this all you have -- a couple of "no, you"'s and a strawman? I am still waiting for you to show the causation behind the numbers you cited.

Since the OP didn't take the poll options very seriously, I didn't take my poll response very seriously. But I will add this:

If we make a sincere attempt to dig the U.S. economy out of the hole we have created over the past several decades, the president will almost certainly have to take the unpopular step of raising taxes significantly on everybody. The per-capita share of the national debt is $34,951.90 (nation debt clock), about the same as the per-capita GNP, so if we set everybody's taxes to 100% for one year and eliminate all government spending, we should be all set :p

Unrealistic I admit but no more so than having foreign powers with contrary interests own shares of our debt.

Maybe we can convince China to buy some states on the west coast at a premium to forgive our debt.

Trickle-up economics should work as long as it's temporary. If we leave that ideology in place in perpetuity, there will be less incentive to be entreprenurial, leading to loss of productivity, jobs, and wealth. However, by the same token, it seems trickle-down economics has led to economic stagnation at the expense of the many. Maybe we should alternate between two different fiscal policies every 4 to 8 years?
Regardless of whether we should or not, we usually do alternate fiscal policies. There is little danger of one system remaining in place in perpetuity.

But it wasn't nearly what the Laffer Curve would have predicted.
Because the Laffer curve effect has been estimated time and time again to only work at extreme levels of taxation. Every economist knows that, but many "economics correspondents" and virtually no opinionated talking heads seem to have gotten that memo.

Oh, I do enjoy when econ students lecture NS.
To be fair, I don't think the lecturing comes from econ students today. Econ students would know that the OP talks about Keynesian economics, which has been around for more than 80 years.

It works in the short term to move economies around a trend level, but it doesn't affect the trend level because it's not concerned with changing microeconomic variables (such as the propensity to spend and invest) and therefore investment behaviour as a whole. Good economic management uses a combination of demand-side and supply-side policies. Most governments do the former relatively well, it's the structural issues they have difficulties with.

It is much simpler than that. Eliminate social security, medicare and all the government freebees, all the corporate welfare, and all the social welfare. Get the government back to military, police, fire, roads etc.

That should cut spending by a good 80%. Then we can cut taxes to the bone as we won't need nearly as much. Eliminate income tax and go to a flat 5% tax on sales. That should do it.
oh im not interested in destroying the country.

the bare bones government country that you propose would not be worth living in.

nor would it be as prosperous and great to live in as it is today.

That should cut spending by a good 80%. Then we can cut taxes to the bone as we won't need nearly as much. Eliminate income tax and go to a flat 5% tax on sales. That should do it.

Not if you still plan on having military, fire, police, etc.

Since the OP didn't take the poll options very seriously, I didn't take my poll response very seriously.

Consider me officially offended, I spent hours on that poll.

How much real social movement is there in America, my feeling is that most the money swirls around the top, another large chunk swirls around the middle and the scraps from the table swirl around the bottom, not that I'm singling out America, which probably has a better record than most.

That's the problem with assuming benefit to the rich accrues to the poor over time, it assumes money is equally spent, I'd say it's spent in a loop.

America's economy isn't the best example, much of the success is the natural product of a new country expanding in economy and population, one might say it's beginning to hit reality in terms of managing an economy rather than managing growth, though I'd guess there's still a lot to be extracted.

Anyway, my point is that spending on health and education seems to be viewed as a burden not an investment, why is that?

Sounds interesting and plausible.

I don't really care what the wealthy think about paying higher taxes, though. They can suck it.

Sounds interesting and plausible.

I don't really care what the wealthy think about paying higher taxes, though. They can suck it.

This.

This.

Until, of course, that new middle class starts to rise in to the upper class and suddenly they are all pissed off that they have to pay higher taxes to support those lazy bums below them...

And the whole thing comes full circle.

Until, of course, that new middle class starts to rise in to the upper class and suddenly they are all pissed off that they have to pay higher taxes to support those lazy bums below them...

And the whole thing comes full circle.

I don't really give a damn, because I'm never going to be rich.

Until, of course, that new middle class starts to rise in to the upper class and suddenly they are all pissed off that they have to pay higher taxes to support those lazy bums below them...

And the whole thing comes full circle.

Indeed, the system is maintained by everyone thinking they're better than the person below them, that's the promise under which we contract ourselves to the 9-5, except we don't even get a contract these days, we have to sign to an agency.

Until, of course, that new middle class starts to rise in to the upper class and suddenly they are all pissed off that they have to pay higher taxes to support those lazy bums below them...

And the whole thing comes full circle.
You have something against circles?

You have something against circles?

I'm more of a pyramid fan myself.

I don't really give a damn, because I'm never going to be rich.

Then you're really fucked.

I'm more of a pyramid fan myself.
Heh, I was never that into schemes. ;)

Isn't there a huge contradiction up there? Yes, there is.

"The homeless, for the most part, do not pay income tax..." allows for the possibility that some do pay income tax. That doesn't square with "... they will not be affected by ... income taxes". I certainly don't expect to get a job from the homeless, but I do expect them to pay their fair share of taxes.

In general, the homeless earn less than the minimum taxable income bracket. Are you proposing a special "screw the poor even more by getting every last penny out of them and they starve to death" tax?

In general, the homeless earn less than the minimum taxable income bracket. Are you proposing a special "screw the poor even more" tax?

Im sure its on Myrmi's agenda.

Then you're really fucked.

Not really. I don't see what's wrong with not being rich. As long as I can afford a decent place to live, I'll be fine. I never so much point to wealth.

Not really. I don't see what's wrong with not being rich. As long as I can afford a decent place to live, I'll be fine. I never so much point to wealth.

Not being wealthy means things are just going to get harder as you get older...

Not being wealthy means things are just going to get harder as you get older...

Not really. From what I've seen with my grandparents, retirement looks quite pleasant.

Not being wealthy means things are just going to get harder as you get older...

There are plenty of "unhealthy" people who happen to live happy, fullfilling lives.

To be fair, I don't think the lecturing comes from econ students today. Econ students would know that the OP talks about Keynesian economics, which has been around for more than 80 years.
That's what I was thinking. Wow, I feel so...smart. It's a pleasant feeling.

Good economic management uses a combination of demand-side and supply-side policies. Most governments do the former relatively well, it's the structural issues they have difficulties with.
What do you mean by "structural issues?"

Isn't there a huge contradiction up there? Yes, there is.

"The homeless, for the most part, do not pay income tax..." allows for the possibility that some do pay income tax. That doesn't square with "... they will not be affected by ... income taxes". I certainly don't expect to get a job from the homeless, but I do expect them to pay their fair share of taxes.
They do pay their fair share. That share is zero, as the vast majority earn far less than the taxable minimum.

I'm hardly agreeing with Naughty's argument completely, but you have to do far, far better than that.
No I don't because I am not making any assertions about how good trickle down economics is.

NSG claimed that trickle down is generally good. He posted numbers that he claimed supported that. But apart from his assertions, he did not show any actual causal relationship between those numbers and trickle down economic policies. On that basis, I asserted that he had failed to carry (iow, prove) his argument.

As for my own opinion about trickle up economics, all I have said is that I would like to try it and see what happens, and that in my opinion, it seems closer to the original concept of capitalism than trickle down does. One is a personal preference and the other is a personal opinion not offered as a counter to or proof of anything. So, I don't need to do a damn thing, data-wise, since I asserted no facts.

Now if you're going to claim that I am failing to provide evidence of current economic problems being linked to pre-existing policies by leading economic experts in the US, well, I'm sorry, but I am disinclined to link to CNN's coverage of this weeks congressional hearings with Paulson and Bernanke. If you or NSG want to argue that these problems are not the result of 30 years of trickle down policies, then go ahead and argue that. My opinion is that they are. But if you're going to claim you are unaware of the current situation, then I'm not going to cater to such an act.

Well as smart as you claim to be I am surprised you did not know that people making no income can file a zero return, get a 6000 tax credit and qualifiy for the stimulus check. I would prefer they did not get money since they did not pay into the system but sadly that is not the case.
And I'm surprised, seeing how smart you are, that you think homeless people get such checks.

They can issue government bonds to raise money. The country is bonded out so to say, Bush sold bonds to everyone he could in order to fund his war without taxing his rich buddies.

Our Bond Credit is shot.

What do you mean by "structural issues?"
Well, you know, corporate ownership structures and industrial policy, welfare, healthcare all that sort of stuff. The general legal framework within which the economy operates.

Part of that would be covered by supply side economics, but not fully: the clear-cut cases are usually irrefutable regardless of ideology, things like specific policies affecting investment in new mining infrastructure here in Queensland for example. But some of that other stuff - that's where governments find it tricky to work out a good way of doing things.

Now if you're going to claim that I am failing to provide evidence of current economic problems being linked to pre-existing policies by leading economic experts in the US, well, I'm sorry, but I am disinclined to link to CNN's coverage of this weeks congressional hearings with Paulson and Bernanke. If you or NSG want to argue that these problems are not the result of 30 years of trickle down policies, then go ahead and argue that. My opinion is that they are. But if you're going to claim you are unaware of the current situation, then I'm not going to cater to such an act.
Hey, all I saw is him pointing out improvements in some economic statistics having occured during this past period, which both of you seem to associate with this "trickle down economics". As you said, that doesn't constitute solid proof, but nailing that down is a bitch regardless of policy or result, as you well know.

But your counter suggested that all of this is meaningless because things are bad right now. That carries with it a huge load of assertions, from the relative value of a long good time vs a very bad one now to the actual link between policies and crash. It may well be that you only consider this an opinion and don't intend to convince, but in that case you didn't make this very clear in how you phrased the sentence.

Anyways, this isn't my debate. If you want to talk crisis, go to the new thread I just made.

Not really. From what I've seen with my grandparents, retirement looks quite pleasant.

Depending on how old you are, Social Security's going to be gone in addition to pensions, which are already dead. That leaves you with 401ks and IRAs, both of which require you to make a good amount of money to live comfortably in retirement.

Depending on how old you are, Social Security's going to be gone in addition to pensions, which are already dead. That leaves you with 401ks and IRAs, both of which require you to make a good amount of money to live comfortably in retirement.
You are clearly forgetting about the time value of money. What comfortable retirement really takes is living below your means when you are younger. Put the extra money aside and repeat... TVM makes it into a fortune when you are ready to retire. It's the catching up that takes lots of money.

You are clearly forgetting about the time value of money. What comfortable retirement really takes is living below your means when you are younger. Put the extra money aside and repeat... TVM makes it into a fortune when you are ready to retire. It's the catching up that takes lots of money.

Isn't there the conflicting issue of the loss of value to inflation to consider, though? I mean, yes, you should put money aside from any job, but at some point, unless you're earning a positive Real Interest Rate on your savings, you're losing money.

You are clearly forgetting about the time value of money. What comfortable retirement really takes is living below your means when you are younger. Put the extra money aside and repeat... TVM makes it into a fortune when you are ready to retire. It's the catching up that takes lots of money.

Wait, why would you invest for the future? Surely invest now to achieve growth?

Where's the best returns, the casino, bet your house on it.

Uh oh

Wait, why would you invest for the future? Surely invest now to achieve growth?

Where's the best returns, the casino, bet your house on it.

Uh oh

Lottery tickets are your best bet for retirement -- if you're ignorant.

Isn't there the conflicting issue of the loss of value to inflation to consider, though? I mean, yes, you should put money aside from any job, but at some point, unless you're earning a positive Real Interest Rate on your savings, you're losing money.
Losing money compared to what? Buying booze? A better investment? Inflation?

Look, the market is usually up in just about any 20 year period you can find. Find a good fund, trickle in the money, convert it to annuities when you get close to retirement and then retire rich.

Consider this in contrast to the "generous" $2000 per month I can receive from social security, if I wait until I'm 72 to start drawing.

Not if you still plan on having military, fire, police, etc.

Y'all are talking about different taxes and different sources. Military = federal revenue = federal taxes(income primarily). Public safety is a local and state issue and the taxation is different. Some income, some sales, some property.

I hate it when people can't keep the accounting right.

We could cut federal income taxes to zero and still run the country the way it is now with the FairTax. We could keep the federal income tax system and dramatically reduce the rates, cut spending, and still keep the parts that really demand federal involvement -- like roads, defense, courts, etc. Look at the Constitution for a better list. Note that it doesn't include things like digital tv converters, giveaway programs, education giveaways, and many other "entitlements".

Lottery tickets are your best bet for retirement -- if you're ignorant.

Seems to have been the policy of one party for a while, free up credit and investment and let's see where that whirlwind takes us.

Hey, all I saw is him pointing out improvements in some economic statistics having occured during this past period, which both of you seem to associate with this "trickle down economics". As you said, that doesn't constitute solid proof, but nailing that down is a bitch regardless of policy or result, as you well know.

But your counter suggested that all of this is meaningless because things are bad right now. That carries with it a huge load of assertions, from the relative value of a long good time vs a very bad one now to the actual link between policies and crash. It may well be that you only consider this an opinion and don't intend to convince, but in that case you didn't make this very clear in how you phrased the sentence.

Anyways, this isn't my debate. If you want to talk crisis, go to the new thread I just made.
You are right. I failed to make myself clear. I referred to "today's headlines" only to suggest that his argument that Trickle Down works the way he says it does cannot be supported unless he can show that the current situation is the result of not applying Trickle Down policies. And if he wanted to make that argument, then he would have to show that the earlier, better numbers WERE the result of applying Trickle Down policies. I wanted to make that argument because I read his statements as suggesting that Trickle Down was the cause of the good numbers.

Heh, I was never that into schemes. ;)

Schemes like "trickle up economics"? Sounds like a pyramid scheme to most rational people. Will Ed McMahon present the checks?

Schemes like "trickle up economics"? Sounds like a pyramid scheme to most rational people. Will Ed McMahon present the checks?
I'd be interested to hear your explanation of how it sounds like a pyramid scheme. Nothing that I have heard about the concept sounds that way.

EDIT: Oh, and does this change of topic mean that you have given up trying to defend your baseless claims about the benefits of trickle down economics?

I'd be interested to hear your explanation of how it sounds like a pyramid scheme. Nothing that I have heard about the concept sounds that way.

EDIT: Oh, and does this change of topic mean that you have given up trying to defend your baseless claims about the benefits of trickle down economics?

It's funny how he claims the "Trickle Up" is a Pyramid Scheme when Trickle Down has all but screamed itself to be a Ponzi.

:tongue:

It's funny how he claims the "Trickle Up" is a Pyramid Scheme when Trickle Down has all but screamed itself to be a Ponzi.

:tongue:
Well, I guess his experiences with Trickle Down would make him an expert on scams. ;)

I'd be interested to hear your explanation of how it sounds like a pyramid scheme. Nothing that I have heard about the concept sounds that way.

EDIT: Oh, and does this change of topic mean that you have given up trying to defend your baseless claims about the benefits of trickle down economics?

Honostly, Im suprised he lasted that long. With me he just does a hit and run or two about Clinton gettin BJs and runs off.

So greed isn't good per se as its why people some steal, embezzle, take and give bribes, ect.

Greed is not necessarily good. However, we would be in world of shit if greed did not exist. Greed is a powerful force that can be the motivation for good or ill. On the whole, I bet that greed has caused more good than harm simply because crime is relatively rare compared to legitimate business and the fruits thereof. The greatest thing about capitalism is that it harnesses greed and uses it to achieve great things in an efficient manner.

Greed is not necessarily good. However, we would be in world of shit if greed did not exist. Greed is a powerful force that can be the motivation for good or ill. On the whole, I bet that greed has caused more good than harm simply because crime is relatively rare compared to legitimate business and the fruits thereof. The greatest thing about capitalism is that it harnesses greed and uses it to achieve great things in an efficient manner.

Can you please define greed for me? You seem to be defining it as any desire to own or use something. This seems a bit vague.

My wish to feed and clothe my children makes me get up and sell my skills which in turns partially impels the economy. This has nothing to do with greed. So, we see that greed is not necessary to capitalism or legitimate business.

How much greed is good greed?

Can you please define greed for me? You seem to be defining it as any desire to own or use something. This seems a bit vague.

My wish to feed and clothe my children makes me get up and sell my skills which in turns partially impels the economy. This has nothing to do with greed. So, we see that greed is not necessary to capitalism or legitimate business.

How much greed is good greed?

Greed is the desire for more, more, and more. It is the desire to want something better and to improve your lifestyle and or degree of financial freedom. It is the condition of being disatisfied with a mere subsistance lifestyle. It is also the condition of not being content to stay in your present economic condition even if you are already wealthy.

There is never enough good greed.

Not really. I don't see what's wrong with not being rich. As long as I can afford a decent place to live, I'll be fine. I never so much point to wealth.

I see the point to being wealthy. It is financial freedom. Why dont you want to be free? I believe that someone is wealthy when their passive income stream equals their lifestyle plus an amount necessary to keep reinvesting into your income stream to keep the income rising to keep up with inflation.

If you were wealthy, you could work because you wanted to, not because you had to. You could use your surplus to give to charities of your choice to make the world a little better in accordacne with your own value system.

This is why I think it is the duty of every person to become wealthy. It just shows that if you want to make the world a better place, become wealthy. Until you become wealthy you are not making the world a better place, you are just part of the problem.

Greed is the desire for more, more, and more. It is the desire to want something better and to improve your lifestyle and or degree of financial freedom. It is the condition of being disatisfied with a mere subsistance lifestyle. It is also the condition of not being content to stay in your present economic condition even if you are already wealthy.

There is never enough good greed.

So, when I want something better for my community and I donate my time fixing shelves at my local daycare, that is greed, according to you. When I eat a sandwich, that is greed. When I go dancing with friends and let them buy me a drink, that is greed.

Your definition is so vague that it's useless. Try again.

So, when I want something better for my community and I donate my time fixing shelves at my local daycare, that is greed, according to you. When I eat a sandwich, that is greed. When I go dancing with friends and let them buy me a drink, that is greed.

Your definition is so vague that it's useless. Try again.

I fail to see how your examples fit my definition of greed. Volunteering at your local daycare is volunteerism and civic pride. Eating is subsitance. Letting someone buy you a drink is part of ordinary social activity. I think you are just trying to be a pain in the ass instead of really trying to have a discussion. Care to prove me wrong with an explanation?

Greed is the desire for more, more, and more. It is the desire to want something better and to improve your lifestyle and or degree of financial freedom. It is the condition of being disatisfied with a mere subsistance lifestyle. It is also the condition of not being content to stay in your present economic condition even if you are already wealthy.

There is never enough good greed.

I just grabbed the first things I thought of when I read the bolded bits.

I want something better in terms of the local daycare services.

Having nutritional energy is an improvement to my lifestyle if I have none before. So I eat a sandwich.

Not having to buy my own drinks means I don't have to worry. it provides a degree of financial freedom.

Honostly, Im suprised he lasted that long. With me he just does a hit and run or two about Clinton gettin BJs and runs off.

So you are back to the Clinton BJ again. When will you ever wake up and realize it was about perjury and obstruction of justice? (Never presumably) Getting blown in the whitehouse is a liberal smokescreen. You libs are so worried about BJ's for some reason. Every post from you is BJ this, BJ that. Get over the friggin BJ already.

Well, I guess his experiences with Trickle Down would make him an expert on scams. ;)

That would be true. Which is why trickle up has no chance as trickle down seems to be tried and true when not hampered by liberal intervention.

I'd be interested to hear your explanation of how it sounds like a pyramid scheme. Nothing that I have heard about the concept sounds that way.

EDIT: Oh, and does this change of topic mean that you have given up trying to defend your baseless claims about the benefits of trickle down economics?

Well it is a swindle, any way you slice it.

My not wanting to engage you because you are a greased pig proves neither pro or con on the subject. It just means as an arm chair economist you should find another profession. In other words, it is not baseless, it is just that you have no basis to debate from. You offer nothing to the conversation but opinion and hyperbole. It is pretty easy when evidence is presented to just claim foul, as you continue to do offering nothing in return.

Maybe this is the point you and your friend should claim a BJ in the white house.

That would be true. Which is why trickle up has no chance as trickle down seems to be tried and true when not hampered by liberal intervention.

corpses just aren't fresh, huh Mur?

Joe Biden is the man!

That would be true. Which is why trickle up has no chance as trickle down seems to be tried and true when not hampered by liberal intervention.
HAHAHAHA!!! Tell me something: Is there anything in the world you don't blame on liberals? If it rains on a little girl's 6th birthday party, making it impossible for her to have a pony ride, is it the fault of liberals?

Oh, and you're right, Trickle Down is tried and true -- a tried and true failure.

corpses just aren't fresh, huh Mur?
I know, really, they go stale so fast. :D

Well it is a swindle, any way you slice it.

My not wanting to engage you because you are a greased pig proves neither pro or con on the subject. It just means as an arm chair economist you should find another profession. In other words, it is not baseless, it is just that you have no basis to debate from. You offer nothing to the conversation but opinion and hyperbole. It is pretty easy when evidence is presented to just claim foul, as you continue to do offering nothing in return.

Maybe this is the point you and your friend should claim a BJ in the white house.
More lulz. I'm starting to like you. I think I should invite you to parties to entertain my guests. Let's see what you've given us this time:

1) You don't actually have any explanation or information against Trickle Up economics.

2) You refuse to "engage" me because you can't actually answer my objections to your assertions, and so you fall back on just trying to insult me (but not doing very well at that).

3) And as your parting shot you try to lump me in with KoL (a) as if that would be a bad thing and (b) as if you know anything at all about me.

Well done.