How the middle class got screwed for dummies

VivaRevolution

Banned
Banned
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Messages
34,002
Reaction score
1


Cliffs:

1960: 1 income, middle class standard of living, very little debt.

1990: 2 incomes, need debt to make ends meet.

Union busting, outsourcing, and laws like a cap on CEO pay were removed and taxes were lowered. This was accomplished because our government is for sale to the highest bidder.

Get It?

Discuss.......
 
step 1. vote for Trump

.




.


.






.





.




there is no step 2..

200204_story__trump-world-on-fire.gif
 
I have yet to hear a single person propose a reason why trickle-down economics is flawed. It's just become a meme by people who don't know what they're talking about. Reagenomics worked for the most part.
 
I have yet to hear a single person propose a reason why trickle-down economics is flawed. It's just become a meme by people who don't know what they're talking about. Reagenomics worked for the most part.
what?

i mean i can make vague posts to pretend im fucking smart too but homie plz.....

show me this
prove to me this


and when they dont reply either because they chose not to or because you suck you can then claim"victory"

shitposting 101 pal
 
some cherrypicked article from over 20yrs ago ?
<YeahOKJen>

Want an example of how trickle down doesn't work?
look at the state of Kansas and what happened there


Trickle-down economics is a nightmare. Kansas proved it.
For five years, Kansas’s Republican governor, Sam Brownback, conducted the nation’s most radical exercise in trickle-down economics — a “real-live experiment,” he called it. He and the GOP-controlled legislature slashed the state’s already-low tax rates, eliminated state income tax for most owner-operated businesses and sharply reduced vital government services. These measures were supposed to deliver “a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy,” Brownback said.
It ended up being a shot of poison. Growth rates lagged behind those in neighboring states and the nation as a whole. Deficits mounted to unsustainable levels. Services withered. Brownback had set in motion a vicious cycle, not a virtuous one.

Last week, finally, the legislature — still controlled by Republicans — overrode Brownback’s veto of legislation restoring taxation to sane levels. The nightmare experiment is coming to an end.


It was so bad that the Supreme Court had to intervene and force the Gov to stop fucking his own state into the ground

but yeah trickle down is great..


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...611861a988f_story.html?utm_term=.b055b394f58b


It never works. Republicans cannot point to an instance in which this prescription has led to the promised Valhalla of skyrocketing growth. Before Kansas, they could at least argue that the program had only been attempted partially and piecemeal, never in full and unadulterated form. After Kansas, that excuse is gone.

Eliminating business income taxes for owner-operated companies was supposed to induce entrepreneurs to move to Kansas from other states. It didn’t. It turned out that business owners take more than taxes into account when they decide where to locate. They want good health care and first-rate schools for themselves and their employees. They want modern, well-maintained infrastructure. In short, they want a healthy, functioning public sector.

It also turns out that business owners do not decide whether to expand capacity or add employees based solely on the tax rate they must pay. Much more important is whether there is enough demand to justify such growth. If there is not — and the Kansas economy under Brownback was woefully sluggish — then tax savings will not be put to productive use.
 

I tried to look at it. It wants me to give it access to shit. Hell no.

I can tell you what it says though.

Supply side economics. Giving the rich more money means they will invest it, which creates economic growth.

This is BS. It assumes our lack of growth is being driven by a lack of capital investment, which again is utter BS.

We need consumption from real wage growth. If we had more consumption tomorrow, the capital is already available to produce more.
 
some cherrypicked article from over 20yrs ago ?
<YeahOKJen>

Want an example of how trickle down doesn't work?
look at the state of Kansas and what happened there







It was so bad that the Supreme Court had to intervene and force the Gov to stop fucking his own state into the ground

but yeah trickle down is great..


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...611861a988f_story.html?utm_term=.b055b394f58b
It seems to be working just fine for Ireland. There's a big difference between a state of a country and a country implementing economic policies. The reason it failed for Kansas was because the tax cuts were not enough incentives to spark economic growth within Kansas. This would be different if implemented as a country-wide policy because of how taxation works at a federal level. Corporations are taxed based off of total business attributed to conducting business in America as a whole.

Bottom line is Reaganomics worked and was successful in most economic indicators. Theoretically, I have not seen much reason to say that it wouldn't or that wealth does not indeed trickle down.
 
I tried to look at it. It wants me to give it access to shit. Hell no.

I can tell you what it says though.

Supply side economics. Giving the rich more money means they will invest it, which creates economic growth.

This is BS. It assumes our lack of growth is being driven by a lack of capital investment, which again is utter BS.

We need consumption from real wage growth. If we had more consumption tomorrow, the capital is already available to produce more.
The article says that most economic indicators went up during Reagan's term vs. before and after, like real GDP, unemployment rate, real median family income, etc.
 
The article says that most economic indicators went up during Reagan's term vs. before and after, like real GDP, unemployment rate, real median family income, etc.

Right, but there was actually a need for more capital investment before we deregulated the banks, and turned speculative markets into a casino, and when tax rates for the rich were still at 60%.

There was a need in 1980 for more capital investment that doesn't exist today.
 
I would say women being more active in the work force and technological advancements are more responsible for lowering wages in the past 60 years than any political party
 
National debt has gone up during many terms after Reaganomics. Obviously you need to cut some spending which Reagan failed to do, that might be the only criticism of his policy, the fact that he didn't implement spending cuts and instead raised military spending.

Real median household income rose by $4,000 in the Reagan years--from $37,868 in 1981 to $42,049 in 1989. I don't know where they got the statistics for the 2nd picture but real median income during Reagan years rose by 10%. Also the last picture seems to be good, no? Income growth for majority of the brackets. Just because the top 1% got richer doesn't change the fact that other brackets also got very good income growth as well.
 
It seems to be working just fine for Ireland. There's a big difference between a state of a country and a country implementing economic policies. The reason it failed for Kansas was because the tax cuts were not enough incentives to spark economic growth within Kansas. This would be different if implemented as a country-wide policy because of how taxation works at a federal level. Corporations are taxed based off of total business attributed to conducting business in America as a whole.

Bottom line is Reaganomics worked and was successful in most economic indicators. Theoretically, I have not seen much reason to say that it wouldn't or that wealth does not indeed trickle down.
really "its works good for ireland?" but the crusades!!!!!!

your problem is you think you are smart and your copy/paste hack routine is crap

calvinist thinking ftl
 
Back
Top