"Trickle down"?

[dahermit]

Ronald Reagan often stated that if the rich had tax breaks they would be able to increase business and and investment that would enable them to allow the money to "trickle down" to the working classes in the nature of increased employment and higher wages.

Although the term is not used much anymore, it is still the basis for the Republican Conservative philosophy of enriching the already rich. However, after eight years of a Republican Conservative administration, the data I have seen indicates that the top 2% or so of (the wealthy) have increased their income in during the Bush Administration, whereas the upper middle class has remained stagnant as to income and all others, including all the working class (not on welfare or unemployed), have lost net income.

Therefore, the term "trickle down" should be replaced in the Republican Conservative lexicon with the term "flow across". The money in the form of tax breaks for the wealth obviously has not benefited the working people and/or the economy. It never exits the upper income bracket; the rich have gotten richer, the working class and poor have gotten poorer. The rich invest in third world counties where they only have to contend with subsistence wages for the workers and channel the income from their foreign investments into off-shore accounts(Re: Dick DeVoss, former contender for Republican Governor of Michigan)where income tax is not paid.

Stand upright and recite the "Pledge of Allegiance", Conservative Republicans, you have done America proud.

 

[BigRob]

Ronald Reagan often stated that if the rich had tax breaks they would be able to increase business and and investment that would enable them to allow the money to "trickle down" to the working classes in the nature of increased employment and higher wages.

Although the term is not used much anymore, it is still the basis for the Republican Conservative philosophy of enriching the already rich. However, after eight years of a Republican Conservative administration, the data I have seen indicates that the top 2% or so of (the wealthy) have increased their income in during the Bush Administration, whereas the upper middle class has remained stagnant as to income and all others, including all the working class (not on welfare or unemployed), have lost net income.

Therefore, the term "trickle down" should be replaced in the Republican Conservative lexicon with the term "flow across". The money in the form of tax breaks for the wealth obviously has not benefited the working people and/or the economy. It never exits the upper income bracket; the rich have gotten richer, the working class and poor have gotten poorer. The rich invest in third world counties where they only have to contend with subsistence wages for the workers and channel the income from their foreign investments into off-shore accounts(Re: Dick DeVoss, former contender for Republican Governor of Michigan)where income tax is not paid.

Stand upright and recite the "Pledge of Allegiance", Conservative Republicans, you have done America proud.

Just to point out a few other notable politicians who have ascribed to this idea as well...

1) John F. Kennedy
2) Ronald Reagan
3) Bill Clinton
4) George W Bush


Among others....

 

[dahermit]

Just to point out a few other notable politicians who have ascribed to this idea as well...

1) John F. Kennedy
2) Ronald Reagan
3) Bill Clinton
4) George W Bush


Among others....

Did you mean to say:
1)
2) Ronald Reagan
3) George Bush (Senior)
4) George W Bush

But then, so what? Do you or do you not agree that policy has failed?
And, you are going to imply that "Trickle down" was the policy of Democrats? How old were you when he Reagan was President? Of course you cannot remember him coining the term.
For sure, you are not going to say That Kennedy promoted that idea, you were not alive when he was president.

 

[BigRob]

Did you mean to say:
1)
2) Ronald Reagan
3) George Bush (Senior)
4) George W Bush

No, I meant the original list.

 

[Pandora]

It is stupid to think that if business has more money to expand and hire more people it won't help Americans have jobs.


One would have to be a true Uber ***** to think taking money from business, thus preventing business to grow could ever help Americans.

 

[dahermit]

It is stupid to think that if business has more money to expand and hire more people it won't help Americans have jobs.

Or, is it stupid to keep insisting businesses are spending the money in the U.S. to expand and hire, when they are using the "more money" to expand and hire in China?

One would have to be a true Uber ***** to think taking money from business, thus preventing business to grow could ever help Americans.

What is being a true Uber Moran is to think that businesses give a **** about anyone but themselves. Wake up...the growing of business is being done in China, with the aid of tax breaks from the American treasury. And only an idiot would not see that corporate welfare (can you say: "oil depletion allowance"?), has not had the positive result that trickle down is supposed to produce...are we better off now, or when slick Willy left office?
The wealthy business, sans control on where they spend their money (Rep.Con.= less government), have spent their and our resources in foreign countries and no amount of your name calling will change that.

 

[dahermit]

No, I meant the original list.

Show me where the Dems advocated more tax breaks for the wealthy(trickle down). I can remember Kennedy's, Clinton's, the Republican president's speeches. Hell, I remember Eisenhower's speeches.

 

[Pandora]

Or, is it stupid to keep insisting businesses are spending the money in the U.S. to expand and hire, when they are using the "more money" to expand and hire in China?
What is being a true Uber Moran is to think that businesses give a **** about anyone but themselves. Wake up...the growing of business is being done in China, with the aid of tax breaks from the American treasury. And only an idiot would not see that corporate welfare (can you say: "oil depletion allowance"?), has not had the positive result that trickle down is supposed to produce...are we better off now, or when slick Willy left office?
The wealthy business, sans control on where they spend their money (Rep.Con.= less government), have spent their and our resources in foreign countries and no amount of your name calling will change that.

Business cares about business that is a true statement. But what does business want to do? GROW! So to some small degree they care about you and me. They want their business to grow, that means hiring you and me, we also buy or use their products. So to some degree we are valuable to them, though in the end business cares about business.

It is true that lots of businesses are going over seas but why? They are over taxed. If I had a business I would not have it here where the retardation of the government over taxes me, I would move my business someplace else.

If the retarded morons in government would get a clue and stop over taxing business, then they would stay, and they would hire, and they would expand, like they used to do.

If the libs think taking money from the wealthy is the correct answer then cut the freaking throat of every wealthy person, don’t take some, just take it all. Every damn dime! It wouldn’t help, the morons in congress would spend it on retarded programs and be broke in a few years and by then a new group of wealthy would rise and I guess they could cut their throats too or they could just lower their taxes so they can help the economy.

If we ever did have a time we could just off the rich and take their money, I hope they start with holywierd.


Oh by the way, even lord god obama the messiah of the liberal cause said recently that raising taxes on the rich does not help the economy, and was worried it could hurt. He said if our economy is dragging once he becomes president (pardon me while I puke) he would not end the Bush tax cuts because he is afraid it would hurt the economy. Since he said he will use those moneys to give health care to the masses, I guess that means he is going to f*&K you out of your health care.


*snickers*

 

[BigRob]

Show me where the Dems advocated more tax breaks for the wealthy(trickle down). I can remember Kennedy's, Clinton's, the Republican president's speeches. Hell, I remember Eisenhower's speeches.

Then you should remember 1963 when Kennedy outlined his tax plan to Congress.

A few big points from this plan:
1) The top income tax rate be brought down from 91% to 65%.
2) Congress enacted the plan after his death in 1964, but only dropped the rate to 70%.
3) This drop is still a much larger drop than Bush enacted.

The result of Kennedy's tax cuts:
1) The biggest gain came for people making between 50-100K a year. Adjusted for today, this is the same as people making 300-600K a year.

You should also remember Kennedy commenting that "A rising tide lifts all boats..."

As for Clinton...

He actually cut the Capital gains tax, which generated more revenue for all those involved. This is opposite of what Obama is proposing...

Further, his taxpayer relief act of 1997, while certainly cannot be looked at as a tax cut for the rich, but it did have many compromises in there that did indeed help the rich and give more incentives to business.. I would argue because the Republican Congress at the time forced the issue.

He also took away the 10% luxury tax on items like yachts, which I do not think the middle class was going around buying.. He increased deductions on housing sales in the price range of 500,000, again not really a middle class item very often...


I think that you most likely already agree that Bush and Reagan cut taxes for upper class people, thus I will not get into them here.

 

[dahermit]

It is true that lots of businesses are going over seas but why? They are over taxed. If I had a business I would not have it here where the retardation of the government over taxes me, I would move my business someplace else.

Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, France all have higher tax rates than we do. Some have higher standards of living. They have not experienced the flight of their businesses to China. It is not the tax rate that causes businesses to leave for China, it is the GREED of the American employer who is seeking to pay only coolie wages for a 12 hour day of work.

If the retarded morons in government would get a clue and stop over taxing business, then they would stay, and they would hire, and they would expand, like they used to do.

Not necessarily. It is more likely the CEO and the chairman of the board would get multi-million dollar bonuses (The statistics show that the ratio for pay for Chairman of the Board and CEO's compared to the American worker is the highest in the world).

If the libs think taking money from the wealthy is the correct answer then cut the freaking throat of every wealthy person, don’t take some, just take it all. Every damn dime! It wouldn’t help, the morons in congress would spend it on retarded programs and be broke in a few years and by then a new group of wealthy would rise and I guess they could cut their throats too or they could just lower their taxes so they can help the economy.

I am in favor or introducing all rich CEO's and Chairmen of the Boards, and Board Members (who vote for the bonuses) to Madame Guillotine. A new group of wealthy would rise...but they should also be introduced to Madame Guillotine.

If we ever did have a time we could just off the rich and take their money, I hope they start with holywierd.

While overpaid, Hollywood stars do not have large employment roles, do not start or move factories to China.

 

[Libsmasher]

Ronald Reagan often stated that if the rich had tax breaks they would be able to increase business and and investment that would enable them to allow the money to "trickle down" to the working classes in the nature of increased employment and higher wages.

Although the term is not used much anymore, it is still the basis for the Republican Conservative philosophy of enriching the already rich. However, after eight years of a Republican Conservative administration, the data I have seen indicates that the top 2% or so of (the wealthy) have increased their income in during the Bush Administration, whereas the upper middle class has remained stagnant as to income and all others, including all the working class (not on welfare or unemployed), have lost net income.

Therefore, the term "trickle down" should be replaced in the Republican Conservative lexicon with the term "flow across". The money in the form of tax breaks for the wealth obviously has not benefited the working people and/or the economy. It never exits the upper income bracket; the rich have gotten richer, the working class and poor have gotten poorer. The rich invest in third world counties where they only have to contend with subsistence wages for the workers and channel the income from their foreign investments into off-shore accounts(Re: Dick DeVoss, former contender for Republican Governor of Michigan)where income tax is not paid.

Stand upright and recite the "Pledge of Allegiance", Conservative Republicans, you have done America proud.

You don't know what you're talking about. Ever since Reagan took over from the disastrous Jimmy Carter super-high unemployment, inflation, and interest rate debacle, and cut taxes sharply, the unemployment trend (other than periodic normal bvusiness cycles) has been DOWN:

 

[Dr.Who]

Although the term is not used much anymore, it is still the basis for the Republican Conservative philosophy of enriching the already rich. However, after eight years of a Republican Conservative administration, the data I have seen indicates that the top 2% or so of (the wealthy) have increased their income in during the Bush Administration, whereas the upper middle class has remained stagnant as to income and all others, including all the working class (not on welfare or unemployed), have lost net income.

What data is that?

Bear in mind that a person making zero income cannot make any less so it is impossible to show that they have lost net income.

That a middle class person who makes more just might be reclassified as rich and so not be part of the data of middle class people anymore.

And that rich people are the only group who can actually increase income while still being a part of the same group they were in before.

 

[dahermit]

Bear in mind that a person making zero income cannot make any less so it is impossible to show that they have lost net income.

I noted in the original post: "...(not on welfare or unemployed),..."

That a middle class person who makes more just might be reclassified as rich and so not be part of the data of middle class people anymore.

Yes, after 8 years of Bush, there are so many more middle class moving into the upper class...Now I know where they are disappearing to!

And that rich people are the only group who can actually increase income while still being a part of the same group they were in before.

And increase their income they are ...in China!

 

[dahermit]

You don't know what you're talking about. Ever since Reagan took over from the disastrous Jimmy Carter super-high unemployment, inflation

The inflation problem was apparent in Jerry Ford's administration; Re: "WIN" (Whip Inflation Now)lapel buttons. That was before Carter's administration.

, and interest rate debacle,

Non-prime interest rate debacle happened in the current presidential administration.

and cut taxes sharply, the unemployment trend (other than periodic normal bvusiness cycles) has been DOWN:

Evidently you did not follow the stock market today. This is one hell of a "normal business cycle"!
Also, if there is a trend for less unemployment, it is because of the large number of people who have lost relatively good paying jobs but are no longer unemployed because they are now working in the service sector for peanuts. A manufacturing job that payed enough to raise a family for a Burger King job that is not sufficient to support a single person(unmarried with not children). The net effect of which is the impoverishment of the working class and their children.

 

[Pandora]

Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, France all have higher tax rates than we do. Some have higher standards of living. They have not experienced the flight of their businesses to China. It is not the tax rate that causes businesses to leave for China, it is the GREED of the American employer who is seeking to pay only coolie wages for a 12 hour day of work.

Not necessarily. It is more likely the CEO and the chairman of the board would get multi-million dollar bonuses (The statistics show that the ratio for pay for Chairman of the Board and CEO's compared to the American worker is the highest in the world).

I am in favor or introducing all rich CEO's and Chairmen of the Boards, and Board Members (who vote for the bonuses) to Madame Guillotine. A new group of wealthy would rise...but they should also be introduced to Madame Guillotine.

While overpaid, Hollywood stars do not have large employment roles, do not start or move factories to China.

I still stand by the statement, if you want to take the money from rich people start with holy weird and just kill all rich people and take all their money. If a huge chunk of their money makes you pretty happy then all of their money should make you really really really happy.

If you don’t like the way business works DO NOT BUY THE PRODUCT. I will not buy Paul Newman’s salad dressings because he gives his money to liberal causes that make me sick. If you don’t like General Mills or the way they treat their CEO then DO NOT BUY PRODUCTS THAT COME FROM THEM.

Nothing to stop you from boycotting anyone you think is greedy or bad. A socialist government is not the answer to the American problem.