Success Happy - Why do cons think trickle down economics was a big success?

Why do cons think trickle down economics was a big success?

...then complain about the 48% of Americans that are too poor to pay Federal income taxes?

Public Comments

Look around you....look at all that stuff your parents bought for you that you now take for granted... Mobile phones, personal computers, big-screen TVs....those were all around in 1981 but reserved for the very wealthy. Now, what made them "necessities"....Your bloated sense of entitlement or all that massive capital investment that was encouraged in the 1980s? What decade brought about Apple, Intel, Microsoft......use any of their stuff? Gain any benefits from their existence? You're welcome...
Trickle down is another name for capitalism and it works sorry. I know you would rather be babysit by the government your whole life but you are outnumbered.
It's because we look at things like expanding prosperity across all income groups - especially for the lower ones, and - crazy us - we thing that's a success. You knew that. It's the same reason you oppose it.
Most don't. You just hear it from the small minority extremists on here.
They don't. They just CLAIM it's a success - because - well - - - it's blasphemy to claim otherwise. Remember - Modern Republicanism is a RELIGION. A Far Right - Fascist Religion. Thanks!
Because they need something to feel accomplished for.
Trickle Down had nothing to do with poverty
Historical revisionism, they simply refuse to accept that Reagan engaged in deficit spending that would have made Keyne's hair curl.
I believe in freedom of the individual to decide his or her own destiny. Throwing money at the rich encourages greed and throwing money at the poor provides them with no reason to work. Clearly, both trickle down and trickle up are a load of horse crap.
Because most are not college educated and never read about the Laffer Curve theory. It was written on a napkin. It only applied to extremely high levels of taxes that were in place back in the early 1980s. We haven't been back of those tax levels since then but the Right swears trickle down economics still applies.
I have no idea. When you find out let me know.
The fact that government has made tax laws that let 48% of the population pay zero income tax has zero to to with the fact that supply side economics has work every time to increase economic activity.
It has been more successful than anything Obama has tried.
You really have no idea, do you? Trickle down works every day, and you don't even know it. If it didn't work, our country would be divided up into a small group of super wealthy elite, and everyone else would be poor. The fact that we have a large middle class only proves trickle down is in operation.
They don't complain about the poorer people not paying taxes. They complain about the frauds, embezzlers, and extortionists in the capitols sucking everyone and everything else dry for their Ponzi schemes and protection rackets.
Do you understand that a central bank is unconstitutional?
Just returned from a luxurious Rehab Hospital. Not one face of color among the Staff while some of the "Inmates" complained about "blacks" not wanting to work. Get out the applications and give them a chance - sorry they have been shredded. And plenty of qualified non-whites have put in their applications - I can verify that. Trickly down - sharing - works but is being defeated by the Republicans. They do not want anything to work at this time.
Look at what is going on in not only our country but the world. We are the only country in the world who was prosperous and it was for a reason, trickle down economics. Now we are doing the opposite and look around you, people are unemployed everywhere, there are flash mobs and people are just pissed off in general. Is trickle up really working? No. No its not.
Trickle down economics always results in drought
Because they are brainwashed. Bush's trickle down has filed to provide jobs in 9 and a half years of tax cuts.
When I got to the stop sign exiting the parking lot at Walmart, there was a homeless guy standing there panhandling. I rolled down my window and asked him for a job. Imagine it! Me, a college grad. who owns a business getting a job from a guy who sleeps under a bridge in a cardboard box! Yep *sigh* trickle up economics offers so much hope and change!
Look, I'm with you, it's like watching Jones Town all over again. I don't get how so many smart people can be so stupid. I'm a republican and even I can see the hypocrisy and blind arrogance the GOP heralds. Don't get me wrong, I'm for ending Social Security, but I'm also for ending FICA which seems to put me in the 1% category of Republicans with integrity and values. Yes, I want to see the debt reduced, but I also know that reducing social security spending will not affect our debt. I also know that not 1% of deficit has been added by social security or medicare. And yes I know that the GOP has taxed on 100s of billions in costs to social security and medicare to raid the coffers and speed up fund depletion, pulling money out for county level operations. I also know that trickle down does not work. It's one of those weird things where the GOP does it, then after doing it they blame the Libs for the stupid programs we set in place. Look, I believe the best govt is the least govt, which means that getting involved in stimulating the govt like Obama and Bush did was wrong. I think they both are off track, but with that in mind, I also recognize that Obama was following a conservative ideology of his fiscal advisors. Yes, he may have done the wrong thing but he did so from a right sided direction. So, Ok, I agree, trickle down sucks, but I do believe that reducing govt cost, especially waste, while maintaining a faire and safe set of rules for society and industry to follow is the best way to have a successful nation.
Tinkle down doesn't work. It never has. It was a scam from the Reagan years.
When former President Reagan signed sweeping tax cut legislation in the 1980’s, total tax revenue increased by 99.4 percent. Even though the tax cuts were working, the Democrats continued to say they were not working, and that “trickle-down economics” only benefited the rich. What a familiar tune even today! This administration and previously Democrat-controlled Congress did just enough to tickle the economy in the closing days of the 111th Congress, instead of bold consumer-direct stimulus solutions. Extending the current tax rates for two years wasn’t even a tax cut, and the two-percentage-point payroll tax holiday for employees will be barely noticeable in their paychecks. So a major boost to the economy is unlikely. The administration and its media allies are now telling the American people to get used to systemic high unemployment, which is now a resounding 9.4 percent. Also, the administration has invented new terminology to create the perception that we are in an economic recovery — calling it a “jobless recovery.” How stupid are we supposed to be ? When an economy is not producing any significant net new job growth, it is not a recovery. It’s treading water. This so-called jobless recovery is really reflective of huge productivity improvements made by American businesses over the last three years to survive ineffective economic policy. As a result, this economy is not expected to be much better nor much worse in the next two years. That’s not good news for the 15 million people who are unemployed, or for those who are getting discouraged and tempted to give up. The administration and the Democrats have been focused on making government bigger, more bureaucratic and more intrusive in our lives, especially in the last two years. They did not listen to the American people. Worse yet, they believe their agenda is the right direction for the country. Maybe the president and the Democrats will move toward the will of the people with a new Republican majority in the House during the 112th Congress. But based on their actions in the closing days of the 111th Congress, I can’t imagine that would happen. So instead of having a thriving economy over the next two years, we will see a surviving economy that will continue to trickle along. The phrase: permanent, across-the-board cuts in marginal tax rates for the wealthy. Such cuts were championed by Presidents Reagan, Kennedy, and Coolidge. But Obama prefers – indeed, he insists on – temporary, targeted cuts that don’t reduce actual tax rates. Why is he sticking with this policy? I’ll get to that after breaking down the parts of the Reagan-JFK-Coolidge type cuts. Start with the wealthy. As a group, they’re the most economically productive people in the country. That’s why they’re rich. They’re the biggest investors in the economy – in companies, in startups, in entrepreneurs – because they’ve got the discretionary funds to do so. It’s their investments that produce private sector jobs. Despite this, Obama would punish them by raising taxes on income, capital gains, dividends, and estates as of January 1, 2011, for individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000. If his goal is to stir economic growth and create jobs, his policy is counterproductive. Next, marginal tax rates. These are the ones that affect potential investors the most. (The top rate is critical to wealthy investors.) Cutting them reduces the rate on the next dollar earned. This, in turn, creates a strong incentive to invest because the investor will earn more than he would have if rates were higher. Higher marginal rates, which Obama would impose, are a disincentive to invest. But why must the cuts be across-the-board? First, these are the cuts that historically have had the greatest economic impact. Second, they incentivize everyone. Third, they’re the least complicated and easiest to apply. Fourth, they eliminate uncertainty – a strong disincentive all by itself – about who is eligible for lower tax rates and who isn’t. Fifth, they’re more effective than targeted cuts and less subject to the biases and fads of the political class. Lastly, tax cuts that are permanent. They’re a no-brainer. But the prospect of lasting gains – which investors crave most of all – is unparalleled as a catalyst for investment. So what is Obama’s problem? His grounds for opposing permanent, across-the-board cuts in marginal tax rates are three-fold: ideology, economic inexperience, and political control. He wants growth and jobs, but he’s fearful, as many liberals are, of the rich becoming richer. He’s not inclined to rely on them to boost the economy. That would be “trickle down economics.” And he’s especially against cutting the tax rate on capital gains, even if tax revenues rise as a result. That would violate “fairness.” While the president has lived many places, he’s yet to work in the profit-making sector.