Man, I hate to say this, but what a cop out. You seem to think you know better than we do, but won't share the 'secret" with us. Makes me doubt your knowledge.
Trickle down economics.............. The Government awards Hallibuton a $7 billion dollar contract (which they were the only company allowed to bid), Dick Cheney sticks $50 million of our tax payer money in his own pocket then buys his cabin, hires a maid and a butler. Of course Dick Cheney is the hero since he's going to pay his 10% in taxes while the butler and the maid are basically going to live off the Government. This is a great plan. :D
i am almost certainly the first conservative, part time poster here to give credit to president jimmy carter for his original appointment of paul volker as chairman of the federal reserve. volker seemed at one time to understand the folly of the continuous monkeying around with money supply and governmental spending in order to stimulate the economy. thus he is credited by me with the total elimination of "keynesian economic" policies that had been thought credible for decades. his changes to monetary policy created market uncertainty that temporarily resulted in inflation, recession and the highest recorded interest rates in our history. imho these temporary impacts unjustly hang around carter's legacy. volker was wisely and thankfully reappointed by newly elected president ronald reagan in 1980. once the free market and its business leaders began to experience the certainty that existed when these new economic policies replaced the mistaken keynesian economics of the past, one of the greatest periods of growth and prosperity in our history began.
also in that period, economist and advisor arthur laffer's curve demonstrated the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues. essentially, a tax rate of zero% generates tax revenues of zero dollars. likewise, a tax rate of 100% generates tax revenues of zero dollars.(since no sane american will go out and work and recieve no income since it is all taken by taxes) laffer proposed that there is a tax tate that will maximize tax revenues by motivating people to produce by allowing them to keep what they earn and at the same time be happy with what is taken from them by their government. to exceed this optimal taxation rate on income creates disincentive to produce and will ultimately result in less total tax revenue.(zero at 100%) the tax act of 1986 followed and eliminated the top marginal tax rates that were previously as high as 70%(i think). total tax revenues skyrocketed with these rate decreases and prosperity and growth skyrocketed too!
now for some reason our current administration has revived the debunked keynesian economic policies of the past where govenment stimulus and manipulation of money are thought answers to economic issues.
"supply side economics" is simple and essentially is thought to state that if government gets out of the way(less regulation on producers) and tax rates are set to maximize both production and tax revenues(a policy debate as to what rate maximizes total revenues) then the free market will competitively produce and supply goods to consumers that are of higher quality and cost less than are possible under any other scenario.
it has been a long time since i took an economics class but things that make good ol' common sense like the laffer curve and supply side economics stay with me a while.
i may not accurately recall what happend in our nations economic history or accurately define "supply side econ", but this i know-if that rich bastard is taxed such that he can't build his house or expand his factory, this general contractor and home builder will not, i repeat, will not be able to continue the derby campaign of his two current competitors or next years pup either and that my friends would be a shame!;-)
would i trade those "dog campaigns" for national debt reductions? sure i would. would i trade those campaigns for entitlements to enable a meth addict or to buy a pack of newport menthols.........
I have not quit my job yet.
ask yourself, how is it that bill and hillary were worth tens of millions even prior to being elected president? hillary worked at a law firm($150k in the '80's), bills best paying job was governor of arkansas($150k for four years). prior to book deals, $100k speaking engagements, etc. good money but not enough to create true wealth. obama and michele, she was at a law firm($200k in the '90's) he a community organizer(what? $35k) and they are worth millions prior to his senate run? why do they do it. BECAUSE IT'S WORTH IT!!!!
corruption is not new......and not limited to political party. but an awarded government contract to haliburton, solyndra or whoever has nothing to do with trickle down economics......that is keynesian economic principles. even if cheney is a free market believer i can assure you when he was walking off with his wheel barrow full of benjamins he didn't refer to that trick as trickle down!
About the trickle down thing.
In 1980, Americans were bearing double-digit interest rates and inflation, growing trade deficits on oil and with export juggernauts Japan and newly industrializing economies in Asia, and stuck in a malaise of self-doubt quite similar to today.
Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, appointed in August 1979, pushed interest rates even higher to halt runaway inflation, the economy suffered two wrenching recessions, and unemployment peaked at 10.8 percent just 22 months into the Reagan presidency.
The Reagan recovery package emphasized putting money and decision making back into the hands of ordinary citizens and private businesses. Immediate tax cuts, followed by tax reform—just three personal income tax rates, a top rate of 28 percent, and fewer special breaks and loopholes.
He removed Carter-era policies that discouraged domestic oil production, and aggressively sought to right-size regulation—not slash and burn, but retaining what was needed to keep business honest and foster competition, and jettisoning the rest.
All, strikingly similar to Governor Romney’s platform.
If my math is correct, that would mean that it took less than 2 years for the economy to show strong recovery using those methods, rather than the ones we've used over the past nearly-4 years.Quote:
When President Reagan faced voters in 1984, the economy was growing at 6.3 percent and unemployment was down to 7.3 percent—it ultimately fell to 5 percent, as Old Dutch engineered a 92 month economic expansion.
Plus, I think we should make anybody who does things like those $800,000 junkets in govt agencies pay dearly for such abuse of their public trust. That gal who just resigned from Homeland Security. There is a lawsuit (I believe) in progress, if that suit proves valid, she should be severely penalized ... also an abuse of her public trust as a govt employee/supervisor.Quote:
Listen to Governor Romney closely—he’s offering Ronald Reagan’s "Morning in America" all over again—not a replay of the inept Bush administration, as Barack Obama would have voters believe.
Your facts are wrong....unemployment fell below 6% in 1996....never saw less that 7% during the reagan/Bush H era.
His growth strategy was triple the national debt; turning his back on farmers to turn plow shears into sords
it was a feeble attempt to quote a lyric (from a well known liberal) Don Henley and his song "End of Innocence"
O' beautiful, for spacious skies
But now those skies are threatening
They're beating plowshares into swords
But it actually comes from the Bible, in more than one reference
Isaiah 2:4 He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes ...
And he shall judge the Gentiles, and rebuke many people: and they shall turn their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into sickles: nation shall not lift up