Guest Author -- Trickle Down, Trickle Out, And Trickle Up
Happy Thursday, everyone!
We are turning over the podium to a guest author today, for perhaps the final installment of our "let the commenters write columns" experiment. The reason is good news, however, as I will be starting to write again on Tuesdays and Thursdays from now on (or until further notice), as I have reached the milestone on my writing project that was the goal for this month already. Woo hoo!
Anyway, we got the following column submission from "michty6" a while back, but didn't even have time to do the formatting required until now. Sorry for the delay! When submitted, the article was preceded by a cartoon which I couldn't use for copyright reasons -- but, thankfully, we had the perfect C.W. Cunningham cartoon to use instead.
Without further ado, I now turn the soapbox over to "michty6" for the day.
-- Chris Weigant
About the Cartoonist | Reprint Policy
Trickle Down, Trickle Out, And Trickle Up
I can't imagine how the rich and wealthy persuaded Reagan to become the biggest advocate for trickle down economics or where they even got the idea from. Personally I imagine a meeting with Mr. Burns and Count Fudge-ula (from the Simpsons) with many other wealthy people up in his castle, sitting 'round the table:
Mr. Burns: We need to work out how we can get even richer.
Fudge-ula et al: I have an idea, why don't we tell people giving us more money is good for them?
Mr. Burns: I don't know if they'll buy that.
Fudge-ula et al: Hold on, let me finish. We'll tell them that if society lets us keep more of our wealth and contribute less to society, it will work out better for people as we'll pass the money down to them...
Mr. Burns: Still needs a little more I think.
Fudge-ula et al: Well we'll throw around terms "job-creators" and such forth to persuade people it's in their best interests. We'll tell them that we will pass the money down to them. If they argue against us, we will accuse them of "class warfare."
Mr. Burns: Surely they won't believe that? I mean are people really that gullible? Isn't what we are doing ACTUAL class warfare?
Fudge-ula et al: It doesn't matter, we control the media and the means to change people's opinion. With enough propaganda we can convince people of anything!
Mr. Burns: You're right! I like it! We need a name for this.
Fudge-ula et al: How about "millionaire money boosting"?
Mr. Burns: I'm not sure that we'll be able to sell that.
Fudge-ula et al: Ok. We need it to sound like it is in their interests, not ours. Like we'll somehow give the money back to them. How about "trickle down"?
Mr. Burns: Exxxx-cellent. Get me the Reagan-phone!
And hence, at least in my mind, the dominant Republican economic policy was born. So dominant that even "Mr. Socialist" himself, Barack Obama, was forced into extending tax cuts for the wealthy in his first term (although this was due to the excessive use of the filibuster by Republicans).
With Reagan began once of the biggest, most flawed economic policies that has led to the biggest inequalities seen in America since the Great Depression. The beauty of Trickle Down is that the wealthy and rich are able to rob society to their face, right in front of everyone. Like Robin Hood, but in reverse and in broad daylight. They don't even have to be sneaky about it -- it's literally the best tax avoidance scheme ever created!
It would be a long article to examine the flaws in Trickle Down economics. Figures and data will be presented, but graphs and statistics can only say so much -- looking at the failed logic and rational behind the policy is better to understand why it has failed.
Trickle Down Flaws
(1) The basic idea that every wealthy person is a "job creator." CEOs often don't own the company they run. Letting them keep more money does absolutely nothing to create jobs. A large number of wealthy citizens don't have employees and don't run their own businesses. Yet "job creators" became one of the favorite lines used by the right to justify this economic policy -- partly because such rhetoric sounds good and no one demanded facts or data to prove it.
(2) The idea that every wealthy person is going to spend their money AND spend it in America. Nobody asked Reagan: What if they just keep the money? What if they don't spend it in America? When Reagan took over in 1980 the richest 1% of Americans were 130 times richer than the average American. Now they are over 225 times richer. CEOs used to receive 30 times the amount of their lowest paid worker in 1980, now it is 243 times. Whoops. The idea that the wealthy would drag the rest of America with them and not just keep it for themselves is now seen as clearly flawed when you look at how wealth has grown since 1980.
(3) When the costs of society and burden of maintaining American society are passed on to the poorer 90% of the country, not benefiting from Trickle Down tax cuts, society as a whole becomes poorer. This means there is even LESS incentive for any "job-creators" to invest in America because there is less money spread throughout society. This will be examined further below in "Trickle Out" and "Trickle Up."
(4) The value of $1 to different groups of society was not considered. $1 to a person on a monthly budget of $100 is considerably more valuable than $1 to a person on a monthly budget of $10,000. By adding value at the top, where it is worth less, the value of $1 is reduced considerably. The wealth and growth of America suffers as a result, as dollars are not used where they are of most value.
(5) The idea that income tax factors into any investment decision is laughable! As someone who works in finance (me) will tell you, it beggars belief that people were made to believe this and actually do still believe this! Sure, some taxes, like the corporate tax, are definitely a (small) factor in some NPV or other financial models. But income tax? Absolutely not. Take a class in finance and investments and you will see income tax is not even mentioned. As Warren Buffet puts it: "I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain." This is because investors look for positive return investments (gains) -- period. If you don't believe me just watch Dragon's Den/Shark Tank and see how many potential investors are asking "What's the income tax rate?" I guarantee you will never hear the words "income tax rate" on these shows.
The following graph illustrates the effects of Trickle Down -- bear in mind this was in 2007 -- BEFORE the Great Recession of 2008-2009 which made things considerably worse (for those not at the top). If by "Trickle Down" you meant "Trickle Down the wealth of everyone else and let the top keep it" then this graph fits this idea perfectly:
Source: CBO -- Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007.
But another major result of Trickle Down economics is that by passing the costs of society on to the 90% of lower earners -- that is those who don't get the same income from society as the wealthy -- the American Dream has slowly died.
America was number one in education in the 1980s. Now they are number 14. Health, crime, salaries and almost every standard of living statistic has gone down for 90% of Americans since 1980 as lower earners struggle to keep up the burden of American society and infrastructure -- whilst the top remain unaffected thanks to their free hand-outs and an economic policy completely tailored to their interests.
This graph below could be called the "American Dream" graph -- it shows correlations between the income quartile you are born into and the income quartile you end up in. The higher the bar in the graph, the more the American Dream dies, as Americans become less likely to progress upwards and reap the rewards of the American Dream. Note in particular what happens after 1980 and "Reaganomics" and consider where this graph has probably got to after the Great Recession of 2008-2009:
A New Addition To The Family: Trickle Out
One of the unintended consequences of trickle-down is what I am calling the "Trickle Out" effect. As the world became more globalized, the wealthy Americans sitting on a ton of cash moved their money out of the country in two distinct ways:
(1) Investing in other countries. As noted in point (3) above, when you decrease the amount of wealth in 90% of American society there is less incentive (because there is less money) to continue to invest in America. Globalization opened up many markets and the "job creators" were on hand with piles of cash to create many jobs... outside of America. This has now become a focal point of the 2012 election, as the candidates both focus on how to get back these "outsourced" jobs.
(2) But even more crucially the idea that people should contribute to society for the benefits they have gained has eroded as greed took over and the wealthy decided that, even though they were paying record low tax rates, they now had international tax avoidance channels with which to avoid paying EVEN these low rates! Hence we end up with a presidential candidate who, despite being a multi-millionaire, has paid a lower percentage tax rate than the average American by quite a margin. I came up with the idea of the term "Trickle Out" to describe this when I saw a recent report showed that somewhere between $20-30 TRILLION dollars has been moved out to tax havens like Switzerland and the Cayman Islands, to avoid taxes -- beginning in the 1980s. Such tax avoidance is another benefit solely available to the wealthy. This accentuated the problem in point (3) above by passing even more cost on to the rest of society.
Under the burden of this additional social cost, American society (and George Bush) responded by taking a relaxed attitude towards debt and personal debt exploded. Eventually most people in society had one key asset -- their house. When this market burst in 2008, thanks to the practices of those at the top, the average American was left to pay a hefty price. And the income gap is so huge now, with society so poor as money was installed at the top that never made it back down, the recovery is going to be tough.
Trickle Up -- Demand Driven Economics
"Trickle Up" is pretty self-explanatory, namely being the exact opposite of trickle down -- economics based on demand rather than supply. It isn't an "attack on wealth" or "envy" or "class war" -- the usual excuses used by the wealthy when you try to take on the system of robbing society that they have created -- but in fact trickle up WILL lead to the wealthy getting wealthier. The difference is that, in doing so, they are FORCED to drag the rest of society with them. I don't have a problem with wealth but I do have a problem with hand-outs to those at the top.
"Trickle down" made it too easy by just handing the wealthy in America cash with no incentive to invest it, keep it in America or, quite frankly, do anything with it; "trickle up" puts the money at the bottom and creates a nice juicy incentive for them to grab the money pot by creating jobs and wealth. It is like throwing in some bait for the big fish "job creators" -- you want more wealth, well come and get it, hand-out season is over!
The practicalities of "trickle up" are such that it doesn't matter how you implement it -- it doesn't have to be "Big Government" but can be done through existing financial models. The choice is up to the person instituting the system. However, tax rates are usually an important part of any "trickle up" model, as they help to keep the money at the bottom ready to be trickled up and stop the free hand-outs at the top. Minimum wages are another method to move more money into the bottom.
The key benefits (which address one by one the flaws of Trickle Down):
(1) Making society as a whole wealthier (median, not average) is more likely to create jobs as it means wealth is not so top-heavy. America was built from the bottom up, not from the top down.
(2) Lower income citizens are much more likely to actually spend extra money, creating a wealthier society and more job creating possibilities. This is because the marginal value of the money is higher to them.
(3) American society will become considerably wealthier throughout society, not just in the top, creating more incentives for job-creators to invest in America and keep jobs here. Thus the "trickle out" pathway is plugged (tax avoidance will continue to be an issue though, this is a separate trickle that needs plugged).
(4) $1 has considerably more value to those at the bottom than the top. This value will be passed through the rest of society, creating wealth on its way to the hands of those at the top -- rather than starting at the top where its marginal value is very low and the incentive to do something with it doesn't exist.
(5) Investment decisions, since they don't rely on income tax, are not altered. However, (1) through (4) show that there are likely to be considerably more +EV or +NPV investment opportunities in America since there is more value at the bottom to be scooped up by those at the top.
The 2012 Election
Obama was blocked in his first term in his fight against the flawed concept of "Trickle Down" economics but he is campaigning on getting rid of these tax hand-outs for the wealthy -- an idea that now has mass public support.
Romney is the poster boy for "trickle-down." He is rich, has rich backers, rich donors and he is part of the "trickle out" problem, clearly moving money out the country to avoid paying tax (how much money, we will never know). As Obama's campaign puts it (although they are referring to another issue) "Romney is not the solution, he is the problem." Yet, despite all this, it is HE who running as "Mr. Economy"!
2012 is crucial in moving away from this flawed economic strategy. Don't be complacent and let people forget (Americans have notoriously short term selective memories) the economic collapse and inequalities caused by "trickle down" and "trickle out." A Romney election would see inequality continue to skyrocket as the wealthy (a.k.a. him and his buddies) become wealthier, whilst the costs of society continue to be passed on to the people who don't get the spoils and every social standard in America continues to decline. Obama is trying to warn people of this. I suggest everyone who cares about this does the same.
-- Michty6
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
One of my favorite quotes observes that "When watching a magician's tricks, don't pay attention to the hand that's waving around nor his patter. It's the OTHER HAND that's setting up the tricks". You do a fine job of focusing on that "other hand" ~ a pleasure to read, tho' it reminds me (I'm an old timer) of Ike's Sec. of Commerce (a former GM Dealer from Flint, Mich.) who observed earnestly "What's good for GM is good for the country," or, even before my time, Coolidge's famous remark: "The business of America is BUSINESS." These people have been with us forever, alas.
Ahem, ahem, cough, cough ~ apologies for my slip (i.e., shoulda checked Wikipedia). Ike appointed Arthur E. Summerfield his Postmaster General (not Sec. of Commerce), but the quote was accurate enough. Summerfield had been a Chevrolet dealer in Flint, Michigan near where I grew up and became chair of the RNC under Ike.
Bravo!
An excellent read and an excellent analysis.
I'm proud to have contributed a cartoon (piss poor as it is) to this fine use of Chrixels (Chris' Pixels).
michty,
I never thought I'd ever say this but, you have encapsulated the Republican cult of economic failure better than even Treasury Secretary Geithner, himself!
Incidentally, that is the greatest of compliments - coming from me, the only Geithner fan on the planet! :)
Well done, indeed!
CWC -
I forgot to tell you your comic was going to be re-run, so I'm glad you saw it! It popped into my mind immediately when I read this article submission, so it certainly is a "memorable" cartoon, one might say!
:-)
HawkOwl -
I've been reading about tariff fights and Jefferson's Embargo Act, so I can say this stuff goes back quite a ways. From one political cartoon of the era:
"O GRAB ME" is embargo spelled backwards...
Not sure what use that particular bit of trivia is, but I did think it was funny...
-CW
A Romney election would see inequality continue to skyrocket as the wealthy (a.k.a. him and his buddies) become wealthier, whilst the costs of society continue to be passed on to the people who don't get the spoils and every social standard in America continues to decline. Obama is trying to warn people of this. I suggest everyone who cares about this does the same.
Hear! Hear!
And, that goes especially for the hard of hearing "professional left"! Which, evidently, includes CW ... :(
...but, certainly not CWC! :)
Michty,
You should submit this to the Huffington Post. They have a section called 'On the Bus' which I think would be an ideal place for this extraordinaty piece to be published.
...extraordinaty and extraordinary, in fact. Heh.
First off, great commentary, Mitchy. I even understood it!! Well, parts of it anyways.. :D
But beyond all the opinions and charts and stats, etc etc etc, one fact is left unsaid..
The Reagan years were GOOD years for this country...
I don't know if trickle down works or doesn't work. Just like, it's really impossible to tell whether Clinton's ideas were good or not. There were so many factors in play, it's impossible to select ONE aspect and say "THAT was the cause" of all the good things that happened or all the bad things that happened..
So, one must simply look at the facts.. The fact was, the Reagan years were good years. Was Trickle Down the cause?? Possible. Possibly not.
It's the same in the Clinton years. The Clinton years were GOOD years. Was it because of the Dot Com boom?? Possible.. Possibly not..
What is ALSO factual is that the Obama years have been BAD years.. Every poll taken that asks Americans if they are better off, the majority says, "NO".. Emphatically and unequivocally "NO"...
Like I have always maintained, I am just a knuckle-dragging ground pounder.. I don't know economic theory from string theory..
But I DO have an abundance of common sense and I can remember history with Presidents such as Reagan, Carter and Clinton.
I don't think the majority of Americans are going to want to continue with the economic policies of President Obama because clearly those policies simply DO NOT work... Yes, ya'all can probably show me stats and charts that "prove" that Obama's economic policies are brilliant and the best thing since frozen pizza..
But then I look at the reality of the here and now, I look at my house that is worth less than half it was worth under Bush and I have to say that those charts and stats are obviously faulty...
It's nothing more than Policy Based Evidence Making. Creating evidence to support a desired policy, rather than creating policy supported by evidence..
Of late, this seems to be the Democrats' modus operandi...
Great read, Mitchy... I mean that. I just don't agree with it.. :D
Michale.....
Thanks for the comments guys. Sorry this one was a tad longer than the last one! This was the original cartoon I used fwiw: http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/y/g/3/Trickle-Down-Economy.jpg but I like your one CWC too! The name 'trickle down' just makes satire so easy!
Liz: I will see if HP wants to do anything with it, thanks for the suggestion.
I'm proud to have contributed a cartoon (piss poor as it is)
Now THAT was funny!! :D
Michale.....
This was the original cartoon I used fwiw: http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/y/g/3/Trickle-Down-Economy.jpg
Isn't it possible that corporations are holding onto their cash, not out of greed, but out of smart business sense, due to the unknown nature of future tax/regulation issues??
I mean, put yourself in a CEO's/Business Owner's position...
Do you take your hard-earned money and invest it NOW, with the very real possibility of losing everything if Obama is re-elected??
Or do you hold onto your capital and wait to see if Romney is elected and THEN invest your hard-earned money into the economy..
I have been a business owner with almost three million dollars in assets and I am a business owner right now with about $20K+ in assets...
The smart move for ANY business owner is to keep their powder dry and wait and see...
Michale
U.S. Incomes Fell More in Recovery, Sentier Says
American incomes declined more in the three-year expansion that started in June 2009 than during the longest recession since the Great Depression, according an analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data by Sentier Research LLC.
Median household income fell 4.8 percent on an inflation- adjusted basis since the recession ended in June 2009, more than the 2.6 percent drop during the 18-month contraction, the research firm’s Gordon Green and John Coder wrote in a report today. Household income is 7.2 percent below the December 2007 level, the former Census Bureau economic statisticians wrote.
“Almost every group is worse off than it was three years ago, and some groups had very large declines in income,” Green, who previously directed work on the Census Bureau’s income and poverty statistics program, said in a phone interview today. “We’re in an unprecedented period of economic stagnation.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-23/u-s-incomes-feel-more-in-recovery-sentier-says.html
I'm just sayin'.....
Michale.....
Excellent Michty!
Never heard of "trickle up" before, at least not by that name. When I was a lad, before MBAs reinvented the business world, everyone accepted that CEOs and corporate officers, for example, were overhead, a drain on production, not producers themselves! As such I've always thought one of the reasons trickle down was such a farce is that it attributes productivity to the unproductive and unproductivity to the productive.
The one-percenters, claiming high-profits are only their due for high productivity, don't actually produce anything, certainly not jobs! The opposite, in fact, they maximize corporate overhead, for personal profit, reducing actual productivity. That's why our economy has steadily eroded.
At least that was business 101 back in the dark ages when business was about supply, demand, and producing products to meet customer's needs; rather than accounting and marketing tricks to lure speculators into the pyramid scheme that is modern Wall Street finance.
Michale,
You keep spouting the (Republican) party line; no matter how ludicrous. Sitting on your capital and doing nothing is the surest way to lose it. There will always be some taxes/overhead/inflation eating away at your capital unless you invest it and manage to make at least as much as taxes/overhead/inflation will cost you.
No business owner with a brain is going to just sit on his hands and watch his capital slowly evaporate because he might profit less if Obama is elected then if Romney wins. Its not even a given that businesses will profit more under Romney. That was part of Michty's point. As trickle down erodes the economy it becomes less profitable to do business in the U.S. in general; for everyone.
Much as you and Republicans love to misinterpret Obama's "you didn't build that" comment, the point is still valid, and inescapable; business doesn't operate in a vacuum. As the economy, and society, as a whole suffers, so does the business environment, and business in general.
The one-percenters have become parasites. They may be able to move on to greener pastures if the damage to us becomes to great to sustain them—or not; either way, though, we'd be fools to simply allow them to suck us dry and move on. Unfortunately, far too many of us do appear to be fools.
You keep spouting the (Republican) party line; no matter how ludicrous. Sitting on your capital and doing nothing is the surest way to lose it. There will always be some taxes/overhead/inflation eating away at your capital unless you invest it and manage to make at least as much as taxes/overhead/inflation will cost you.
Sometimes doing nothing is the BEST way to save your business...
Let me give you an example.
I run a little computer shop. I sell refurbished laptops and do laptops and tablet repairs...
Now let's say that I want to expand my business, hire a tablet tech and start selling tablets... But the owners of the flea market where my shop is at have been making all sorts of weird rules and such. So much so that I am afraid to expand my business for fear a new rule would ruin me..
That's the EXACT climate we face right now. Business owners are scared to expand because they don't know what's coming down the road. If past is prologue and Obama is re-elected, those business owners are going to be in a world of hurt..
So, they hold on to their assets until the climate is more clear...
It's GOOD business sense..
Much as you and Republicans love to misinterpret Obama's "you didn't build that" comment, the point is still valid,
Another load of Leftist horseshit...
Obama's "you didn't build that" was crystal clear to those not drunk on the Obama kool-aid..
Obama's simply playing the class warfare card...
The one-percenters have become parasites.
Interesting. Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi, etc etc..
THEY are all one-percenters as well...
Of course, they are the one-percenters with a '-D' after their name, so they get a pass...
Michale.....
I'm a lifelong Democrat and I might vote for Romney
The guy to my right had already struck up a conversation with another counter dweller and said: “I’ve always voted Democrat, but I’m worried about my business and Obama’s not showing me anything so I’m gonna give the other guy a chance.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/24/im-lifelong-democrat-and-might-vote-for-romney/
Before ya'all poo-poo this away as just another Fox News fantasy, Ron Taub is a featured writer on HuffPo....
This is EXACTLY what the kool-aid drinkers simply CANNOT see...
It's not just the Right who is fed up with Obama's incompetence and class warfare and demonizing businesses....
Democrats are pissed off too...
Michale.....
Here's Ron Taub's latest HuffPo post..
Why Obama May Lose
Increasing taxes on the wealthy is barely a Band-Aid on the exponential growth of Medicare, social security and defense spending. If President Obama wants to defeat Mitt Romney and lead America back to prosperity, then it's his responsibility to stop the negative ads (he's behaving like a Republican) and deal with the country's most pressing issue -- economic reform.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-taub/why-obama-may-lose_b_1770312.html
Get that?? No more ridiculous "legitimate rape" crap... No more "ROMNEY'S A FELON AND A MURDER!!" garbage...
Why are Obama and the Democrats so afraid to talk about the issues that matter to REAL Americans???
Michale.....
FIRST BOX OFFICE: Anti-Obama Movie #1
http://www.deadline.com/2012/08/first-box-office-anti-obama-movie-1/
It's getting worser and worser for Obama....
Michale.....
Somebody correct me if I am wrong..
Didn't SENATOR Obama call President Bush "unpatriotic" for letting the national debt get to FIVE Trillion Dollars???
One has to wonder what SENATOR Obama would call PRESIDENT Obama for allowing the national debt to get to over THREE TIMES that amount??
SIXTEEN ***TRILLION*** dollars...
Once again.... That '-D' after the name seems to make ALL the difference..
Michale.....
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Take a look at that....
It's a real eye opener....
Michale.....
Michty6,
Ronald Reagan gets credit for bringing 'trickle down' economics to America. He gets credit for a lot of stuff he doesn't deserve, while a lot of the harm he has done is ignored. I feel compelled to point this out since Michale suggests that the Reagan years were good years, but that was not his fault. He inherited a country that was in pretty sound shape. The middle class was healthy, wages continued a steady rise, the foundations of American life were strong and vibrant. Other than a wag the dog scenario from OPEC which was a considerable speed bump in the economy, the future was bright, unless someone did something really stupid (Reagan never gets credit for all the really stupid things he has done).
There is a chart in your article, "Intergenerational correlations", which you have referred to as the "American Dream" graph. I'd be lying if I claimed to understand the mathematical significance, though your explanation shows that the higher the bar, the more difficult it is to rise above your lot in life. The reason this chart caught my eye is that it echoes another graph that could easily be laid over that one. The graph I'm discussing shows US debt as a ratio of GDP.
The country Reagan inherited was fiscally responsible. We had the best credit rating possible because we paid our debts, on time, and we didn't borrow except for the best of reasons. Reagan decided to change all of that (he never gets credit for the really stupid things he has done). The seeds of GOP as pure evil had found fertile ground in the Reagan whitehouse and they were intent on destroying the economy so that whenever democrats were in power, they could accuse them of being "tax and spend liberals" and then blame them for the debt that Reagan was about to unleash on the American public. Reagan was the first president in history to have spent more money than all other presidents before him *combined*. It's possible that this was sheer incompetence on his part (Reagan never gets credit for his incompetence), but the GOP knew exactly what they were doing. Their intention was to wrap an anchor around the throat of the American economy and toss it overboard. Their calculations were simple. Anytime the GOP was in power, they could blame the sinking economy on "entitlements" (a poor choice of words, unless your intentions are evil). Whenever the GOP is out of power, they can blame the sinking economy on "Tax and spend liberals", and since the economy is now truly going to hell, the democrats will be unable to pursue any of their own policies, they will instead have to spend their entire time in office trying to put out the fires created by the GOP "borrow and spend" policies.
So it is true that Reagan sold America a bill of goods in that "trickle down" myth, but the real evil is that the public debt started climbing sharply during his reign and has risen steadily ever since (with the exception of a few years of Clinton's reign). So trickle down is just one facet of the GOP's very successful strategy to hollow out the American economy, all the while pretending that they are the only one's capable of fixing it.
People blame Obama for the spending on his watch. I'm certainly disappointed, but I'm not too certain how much leeway he has had. Unlike Reagan, he inherited a country that was going to hell fast. The economy was in a free-fall, there were wars on two fronts that had been funded entirely by borrowing, and the guy who just left office had the dubious distinction of being the second US president in history to have spent more money than all other presidents before him *combined* (do you see the pattern here, sink the economy, blame taxes and the democrats).
Due to a distinct lack of any humor in my last post, I give you Bill Maher. He touches on "supply side" economics and describes GOP "magic thinking" like no-one else could.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/todd-akin-republicans_b_1826617.html
The 1 percenters have always been parasites.
Whether you enslave a thousand, or you employ a thousand, the reason is always the same: Skim the fruits of the labor of as many people as you can. Pretend your "work" earned it.
CWC,
That was extremely well stated. And it needs to be repeated over and over, here and everywhere!
Based on the fact that this election, of all elections, is an apparently close one, the Republican cult of economic failure has been successful beyond even their own wildest imaginings ...
CWC
I feel compelled to point this out since Michale suggests that the Reagan years were good years, but that was not his fault. He inherited a country that was in pretty sound shape
I feel compelled to point out that such a statement is completely nuts and devoid of ANY facts or reference to reality..
If what you are saying is true, why didn't Carter win re-election?? Why did Reagan get swept into office by a landslide...
Granted, Carter didn't screw up this country as much as Obama has..
But that's not saying very much...
The 1 percenters have always been parasites.
But what ya'all simply CAN'T seem to acknowledge is that your Democrat leaders are part of the 1 percent.
So, by ya'alls OWN admission, people like Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi et al are part of the PROBLEM, not part of the solution..
Or are you REALLY going to sit there and tell me that Dem 1-percenters are OK and it's only the GOP 1-percenters that are bad.
If so, you simply prove what I have always maintained.. It's that '-D' after the name that makes ALL the difference...
Michale....
Based on the fact that this election, of all elections, is an apparently close one, the Republican cult of economic failure has been successful beyond even their own wildest imaginings ...
So, the Republicans are to blame for the economic failure...
Obama and the Democrats are blameless..
Once again, it's astoundingly uncanny..
When GOP controls the Government, everything is the GOPs fault.
When DEMs control the Government, everything is STILL the GOPs fault...
Must be nice to live in that world where your chosen ones are COMPLETELY blameless...
"You people just live in your own little world, don't you."
"Yes we do, Professor. We don't have the luxury of living in yours."
-MANHATTAN PROJECT
Michale
Median household income fell 4.8 percent on an inflation- adjusted basis since the recession ended in June 2009, everyone is worse off etc
Median incomes have been flat or fallen since 1980, while GDP per capita grew - because the money was only going to the top 10% (see graph in my article). So 90% of Americans are worse off compared to 1980 - 30 years for nothing - AND the Republicans want to make it another 4...
I am afraid to expand my business for fear a new rule would ruin me..
As LD puts it You keep spouting the (Republican) party line. This 'Obama is regulating businesses to death' is nothing but pure right wing rhetoric on a par with 'he's a socialist'. Obama has actually passed many measures (including the ACA) that REDUCE regulation on small business owners. But 'Obama increased regulations' sounds like a great soundbite so it is repeated over and over again by people on the right with absolutely not a shred of evidence as to how this is true...
Increasing taxes on the wealthy is barely a Band-Aid on the exponential growth of Medicare, social security and defense spending.
Why are Obama and the Democrats so afraid to talk about the issues that matter to REAL Americans???
Did you read my article? Because I made it pretty clear that there are more impacts of Trickle Down (negative economic ones) than it just being a band aid on future potential debt...
Didn't SENATOR Obama call President Bush "unpatriotic" for letting the national debt get to FIVE Trillion Dollars???
One has to wonder what SENATOR Obama would call PRESIDENT Obama for allowing the national debt to get to over THREE TIMES that amount??
SIXTEEN ***TRILLION*** dollars...?
I will correct you. You are 100% wrong. Try and look at the ACTUAL Bush numbers lol.
As CWC pointed out (and I mentioned in my article), it was Reagan and Trickle Down that really started the expansion in national debt in America (the exception is Clinton since he increased taxes on the wealthy and this balance the books - shock horror!).
Reagan TRIPLED the national debt. Bush, well you can't even apply a percentage or factor to what he did since he turned a surplus into the biggest debt and worst economy since 1929...
But what ya'all simply CAN'T seem to acknowledge is that your Democrat leaders are part of the 1 percent.
So, by ya'alls OWN admission, people like Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi et al are part of the PROBLEM, not part of the solution..
Actually you should be thankful there are 1%ers out there like them (and others) who scream TAX ME, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD TAX ME! You know when you have millionaires asking to be taxed more that something is seriously wrong...
If it wasn't for these 1%ers who weren't completely self-centered and greedy wanting to serve only their interests (cough Romney) then America and the world would be really screwed...
When GOP controls the Government, everything is the GOPs fault.
When DEMs control the Government, everything is STILL the GOPs fault...
Well they invented Trickle Down. And when Obama wanted to end the Bush tax cuts they filibustered it. So yes, they are 100% responsible for this failed economic policy and inability to move forward from it. But I'm sure they've learned their lesson. We tried Trickle Down and it failed. What shall we do now? Oh let's cut taxes MORE and create MORE Trickle Down! It beggars belief...
But what ya'all simply CAN'T seem to acknowledge is that your Democrat leaders are part of the 1 percent.
that's actually quite true, in my opinion. for a number of years now, left-right political differences have been a sideshow, while the real conflict in our country is going on between economic classes. in my view that's the real reason why the so-called left have been so ineffective at implementing their purported agenda. republican obstruction is just an excuse. at their core, most democratic leaders don't believe in what they say, and those few who demonstrate otherwise (e.g. russ feingold, tom daschle) become the targets of well-organized, well-funded political hit campaigns.
~joshua
"I run a little computer shop. I sell refurbished laptops and do laptops and tablet repairs...
Now let's say that I want to expand my business, hire a tablet tech and start selling tablets... But the owners of the flea market where my shop is at have been making all sorts of weird rules and such. So much so that I am afraid to expand my business for fear a new rule would ruin me.."
I'm always amused when contradictory Republican talking-points are presented as "serious" policy debates. You claim that Obama's "you didn't build that" is "class warfare"; that no one had any part in building your business but you... And you're, supposedly, afraid to invest in your business because Obama might be reelected?!
If no one is responsible for your success, but you, it doesn't matter what Obama, or anyone else, does; its all about you, right? Why would you worry what "owners of the flea market" might do? They have nothing to do with your business. Right?!
You claim that business has no social responsibility, that their success is entirely do to their own efforts. And yet, for some reason, We The People should pony up our tax dollars and craft our legislation to enable business. Why? They don't need us, according to you, and the Republicans.
Republicans just throw out lie after lie in hopes that something will stick. And the credulous gullible partisan low-information voters who back them will indeed swallow anything. Even if the talking-points are contradictory and mutually exclusive; because recognizing the absurdity of Republican dogma would require critical thinking, and that's something Republicans simply do not engage in, it would undermine their entire platform.
"So, the Republicans are to blame for the economic failure...
Obama and the Democrats are blameless..
Once again, it's astoundingly uncanny..
When GOP controls the Government, everything is the GOPs fault.
When DEMs control the Government, everything is STILL the GOPs fault..."
Once again, in the face of facts you counter with fact-free hyperbole. People, and parties, accrue blame for their actions and the result of their actions not their proximity to power. Republicans are not "in control" of the government, and yet, they are to blame for preventing greater economic recovery, for continuing to worsen the deficit by blocking tax increases and the expiration of tax breaks that, supposedly, were to expire years ago.
They don't get a pass because they "are not in control of the government." Only you are throwing out the red-herring that "Democrats are blameless." And your disingenuous rhetorical slight-of-hand is only persuasive to the willfully-ignorant who already refuse to accept anything that doesn't absolve Republican policies of any responsibility for the tremendous damage they have done, and continue to do, to our nation. Policies which you, and they, want to not only continue but accelerate.
Yes, mitchy and LD..
Democrats are as pure as the driven snow and always right about everything.
Republicans are satan incarnate and wrong in everything they do...
And ya'all accuse ME of being blindly partisan!???
It's mind boggling...
Michale.....
Lol Michale we are discussing failed economic policies that Republicans refuse to leave behind. I don't recall anyone saying that this made them Satan, although many people have argued that it does make them (very) wrong on this.
This is the whole issue: Republicans criticize Obama on the economy when THEY forced him into extending the Bush tax cuts - based on their blind belief in Trickle Down as their number 1 economic policy.
They are basically saying 'Obama failed us on the economy by extending Trickle Down! Vote Romney, who will extend Trickle Down EVEN MORE - that'll fix the economy!'.
Like I said: Romney is the problem - not the solution.
Michale,
Republicans are satan incarnate and wrong in everything they do...
Do you realize that YOU are the ONLY one around here who has ever uttered such nonsense?
The Republicans are not "satan incarnate".
Lately, however - since January 20, 2009, to be sure - congressional Republicans are wrong in almost everything they do.
Deal with it!
Minimum wages are another method to move more money into the bottom.
Looks like Democrats are listening:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/presidential-campaign/246445-dems-hoping-to-make-minimum-wage-hike-a-campaign-issue
Meanwhile, GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney said as recently as January that he supports an increase in the minimum wage. Romney reversed that position a few months later, however, in the face of conservative push-back.
Sigh. Just like every other policy, he caves in. If he'd actually stuck to what he believes he would have a much better chance of getting elected.
Michale
--
(CWC said) I feel compelled to point this out since Michale suggests that the Reagan years were good years, but that was not his fault. He inherited a country that was in pretty sound shape
--
I feel compelled to point out that such a statement is completely nuts and devoid of ANY facts or reference to reality..
--
At first blush, that seems like a rude thing to say. But OK, maybe I'm the only one who thinks America in the mid 20th century was a great and healthy country. Maybe it was my responsibility to point out that the America which Reagan inherited from Carter was the America with the lowest debt since WWII. Maybe it was my responsibility to point out that America was number one in health care, number one in education, number one in manufacturing, number one in high tech. Maybe it was my responsibility to point out that America was pretty much at the top of it's game, because only after referring to *that* reality, and *those* facts, does my claim that, "Reagan inherited a country that was in pretty sound shape", cease to be "completely nuts". So OK, it was my fault. I should have explained the greatness of America before suggesting that it was a great place to be *before* Reagan was elected president.
--
If what you are saying is true, why didn't Carter win re-election?? Why did Reagan get swept into office by a landslide...
Granted, Carter didn't screw up this country as much as Obama has..
But that's not saying very much...
--
Just to keep a grasp on the context of this discussion, we are talking about Reagan's economic policies, so I suppose Carter's presidency has some bearing, even if only in the periphery.
Iran hated Jimmy, and OPEC was more than happy to play along, since that was a very lucrative role to play. There is conjecture that Reagan paid the Iranians to hang on to the hostages they were holding, until after the election, which they did, but I'm not aware of any direct evidence. What I am aware of is that Iran despised Jimmy Carter with a vengeance, but they loved Reagan. Reagan's administration committed crimes just to funnel missiles to Iran in trade for hostages, and they didn't stop there. There were other US laws that they were willing to break in order to fund a terrorist group in South America, with the help of the Iranians. So I think it's very possible that the reason Carter lost the election was due to the influence Iran had over oil prices, and the fact that they were not going to relax that stranglehold until they crushed Jimmy Carter, and Reagan was more than willing to play along.
--
The 1 percenters have always been parasites.
--
But what ya'all simply CAN'T seem to acknowledge is that your Democrat leaders are part of the 1 percent.
So, by ya'alls OWN admission, people like Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi et al are part of the PROBLEM, not part of the solution..
Or are you REALLY going to sit there and tell me that Dem 1-percenters are OK and it's only the GOP 1-percenters that are bad.
If so, you simply prove what I have always maintained.. It's that '-D' after the name that makes ALL the difference...
--
Ok, I admit I'm not sure how to approach all of that. You are clearly having an argument against some imaginary group named ya'all. This imaginary group has apparently refused to acknowledge that Democrats are also in the 1 percent, while at the same time *admitting* that certain democrats (you should check your list) are part of the problem. Finally, you conclude that I have somehow proved your case against ya'all because I 'sat there' and told you something that you imagine y'all has been trying to say.
Well, I can't speak for ya'all, never met them, but I can say that I was out of line to claim that 1 percenters have always been parasites. There have been many 1 percenters who are not interested in sucking their fellow man dry. Also, there are no ideological lines here that separate the good from the bad. Democrats are just as likely to be parasitic as Republicans. The basic facts are that between the two of them, they have hollowed out the US treasury and transferred the most successful manufacturing system the world has ever seen over to communist China.
My point is simply that Reagan's economic policies were a knife dig deep into the healthiest country on earth. Now that Reagan's revolution has brought America to it's knees, are you ready to admit that 'trickle down' is the sound of the 1 percenters sucking America's life blood into their new "One nation, under God(tm)", China?