have republicans ever tried to explain when trickle-down economics is going to start working? we've been waiting since reagan....

damn you Jake Havechek

One day, I hope subby will learn to read.

See, in order to think this is a valid question, you have to ignore the last three years of what Obama and the Democrats have been saying, as well as the last three years of the Republicans and tea partiers hating what he's been saying.

So in short, this will be coming to a FW;FW;FW;FW;FW;FW;FW;FW;FW;FW;FW;FW;FW chain email near you.

More tax cuts for the wealthy!

Vote GOP!

If only there was a similar episode in this country's not-so-distant past that we could look to for answers. Something about malfeasance on Wall Street that led to economic collapse, and how we got out of that one by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans and concentrating on rebuilding our infrastructure.

Darn.

Oh FFS.

-1

It's a good article. It's just a retarded headline. Go, ahead, read the article.

It would be nice if trickle down led to job growth here in America. Instead it has led to cuts in spending for infrastructure, such as roads, rails and schools, things American businesses need to succeed. At the same time, instead of investing in exporting goods and services, those at the top are using their money to export jobs and wealth to other countries.

MorrisBird: It's a good article. It's just a retarded headline. Go, ahead, read the article.

I did because you said to. You were right.

Hobodeluxe: otherwise they were just fools.

Judges?

...

Yes, we will accept that answer.

Jake Havechek: Notice how during the Clinton years, things like bridges and roads got repaired and we had full employment(labor shortage in teabagger-speak). When Bush got in, he swept all that away and the country went into decline again.

To tie it back to the headline, Clinton also got more people off welfare, knowing that more people participating in the economy was a good thing. That's how more money for the lower and middle classes benefits both them and the economy as a whole. $50 to me is more likely to be spent than would be $50 given to Warren Buffet.

In other news, Obama needs to fire all of his speechwriters, as he obviously can do a far better job himself.

Good stuff.

I don't think anyone realized that there were people out there who needed it explained. I doubt that the politicians pushing "trickle down economics" believe that it works.

It's about the model, people. Has nobody here ever studied nature. Well, I do. I study it all the time.

What you need to think about is a flood over a desert. Have you ever seen a flood over a desert? No, of course you haven't, because you don't study nature like I do. But let's imagine that you have a long stretch of completely parched, dry land. And then you open up the floodgates and just let a Niagra's worth of water flow out over it. You'd feel pretty good about yourself, right? You've irrigated the desert, you naturalist hero.

But you haven't. Because you know what that water's going to do? It's going to flow over that dry land and keep on flowing until it's spread so thin that it all just evaporates. Poof, gone. And you know how many plants will have grown from that quick deluge? None, that's how many. Still feel good about yourself?

But now, change that Niagra flood to a slow trickle. Close the gates so that instead of the entire waterfall flooding the land, it's just a slow but steady stream. Now you know what's gonna happen? Why, that water's going to start to soak in. It's going to start to penetrate deep in to the parched and thirsty earth. And once that happens -- green, baby.

This is the difference between liberal economics, which take the micro-economic, "let's unleash Niagra all at once" view, and conservative economics, which take the macroeconomic, "we must trickle to have lasting effect" view. The problem with the trickle, of course, is that it takes longer -- you have to be patient, you have to wait for that slow stream to spread its tendrils across the earth. Sure, you could open the floodgates and unleash the deluge -- but then the money is gone, and the desert is still parched, and to whom will you cry then?

Shaggy_C: Do we need stimulus or do we need to focus on debt reduction?

How about both?

Stimulus will increase economic output, which will increase revenue, which will reduce the debt. In theory.

Taxpayers are already paying for unemployment and welfare, why not use that money instead to put people to work?

Satanic_Hamster: Awesome troll headline, trollmitter.

Indeed.

Hobodeluxe: Bushco worked for the Chinese and were tasked with destroying our economy.
it's the only thing that makes sense.
otherwise they were just fools.

The only thing? What about the PNAC plan to create endless war in the Middle East while plundering the domestic economy leaving a burned out shell of a country for a Democrat to inherit and no choice but to gut social programs while looking weak and ineffectual opening the door for a GOP return to power to continue the cycle?

Though I'm with you on the part about them just being fools as a valid explanation.