In keeping with yesterday’s entry about the Republican notion that tax cuts are a panacea for all that ails our nation’s economy:
The “Trickle Up” theory of economics
20 thoughts on “The “Trickle Up” theory of economics”
Comments are closed.
In keeping with yesterday’s entry about the Republican notion that tax cuts are a panacea for all that ails our nation’s economy:
Comments are closed.
Please tell me why bloated government spending on public projects is so much better than stimulating the economy by letting people keep more of their own money? Which one is going to get the economy going again long term? Come on, it’s not a hard question!
My stance is that a balance is the best solution. Now that said my opinion more often than not aligns with the Democrats than Republicans, but I’d be more tempted to vote for a third party if it had a middle ground and actually had a chance of beating the Republican party (I won’t vote Republican period in the party’s current form, so I’m not so much “blue” as I want to keep the red out of power).
And that non-existent third party would offer both a smaller public stimulus AND a private tax cut?
More importantly it would be more fiscally conservative while being socially liberal. I can’t stomach the Republican party’s indifference at best to personal liberties and equality.
You mean like those socially liberal college campuses that are only tolerant of personal liberties and independent thought as long as one agrees with the one accepted group opinion? no thanks.
any examples here?? My college (Beloit) was pretty tolerant of all thoughts…
Are you kidding? The examples abound! Here’s a very recent one:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-student-sues-university-lgbt-sensitivity-training/story?id=11261490
I guess all colleges aren’t like Beloit in being tolerant of all thoughts.
Whoa whoa, this isn’t about being “tolerant of thoughts.” Her intolerance would interfere with her job! This would be no different than a vocal member of the KKK being advised on her sensitivity to black people, Jewish people, or whatever else it is hat the KKK thinks is inferior.
People still have a right to be in the KKK, as disgusting as it is.
You’ve simply blown my mind to be honest. You honestly think the Republican party’s open policies in some states of actively wanting to break into bedrooms and jail people that support “homosexuals” compare to this? You honestly think the Republican party of Texas wanting to shut down any “sexually oriented” business is freedom? You think their desire to dispel “the myth of the separation of church and state” represents freedom?
Point blank you won’t see the Democrats trying to legislate private lives on the level you see Republicans do it. It’s really quite hypocritical how so many Republicans want the government into private bedrooms and shutting down businesses their religion doesn’t approve of, and then call it an attack on freedom when liberals oppose their lording over everyone else. I’m not quite sure how policing every aspect of your private life is smaller government, but the fact you think your link even compares to someone not being allowed to claim the body of their life partner since the law sees them as total strangers for example, or police breaking into their homes to arrest them for their private activities for example in any way compares to that story you linked.
You honestly think protecting civil liberties and protecting people from malicious bigotry is the same as legislating that “homosexuality tears at the fabric of society?” What can I say to that? If you think protecting freedom is no different than lording over the private lives of others?
More importantly you’ve missed a key fact: This was a university’s policy and not liberals trying to legislate that she cannot hold her (fictional) belief at home. I mean the fact that in this day and age someone could STILL think homosexuality or bisexuality are disorders or choices is just dumbfounding. How does such brainwashing that isn’t rooted in fact at all last so long?
You’re comparing this to some Republicans wanting to make it a felony nation wide to marry two people in a loving relationship, and a felony for those people to be intimate to begin with. I’m just aghast that you really think that compares at all.
why a smaller stimulus? when most economists(not associated with Heritage foundation) agree we need a larger stimulus.
How big? How much debt are you comfortable with? Just start printing money I guess.
My objection is not solely based on size, but what is done with the money. Plus a lot of the projects will have long term debt for state and locals long after the fed money has tried up (example: medium-speed choo choo train).
Yup. No such thing as a bad government program – they don’t fail, they’re only underfunded.
If your answer to any question on the federal level is “not enough spending” you’re most certainly asking the wrong question. $800 million on a train – how’s that doing on stimulating things?
Spending billions and billions is foolish when the actual stimulus effect is only pennies on the dollar. Stimulus on necessary infrastructure that needs to be done at some point anyway (oh I don’t know, like separating waste & rain sewers) would be a good thing. Instead millions of dollars the state got for bridges went to ones that received little traffic – including $400K for a bridge that gets 3 vehicles over it a day. See the McCain & Coburn report on the 100 worst Stimulus Projects.
You’re right. It’s not a hard question. It’s a trick question. But for some unexplainable reason, when the government put more money in our pockets since 2003 under the Bush tax cuts while deferring the cost of wars, the economy did expand despite trade imbalances ranging from $300 to $700 billion each year. The muffler I got every year was made in China while the Lexus the rich folks got was re-invested as play money into their global portfolios. But something happened. Their wealth grew exponentially while I was lucky if I flat-lined with inflation. Not to mention my house lost about 20% of its value. Although I don’t define seven years as long term, I would think we should be on the cusp of the greatest period of job expansion right now from all that extra dough in our pockets. Instead, the tax cuts helped seed the fastest growing damage control deficits ever while the disappearance of jobs in America have very little to do with tax policy. So, I do believe putting more money in my pockets should work – but history tells me otherwise.
So you would say we should have neither public nor private stimulus? For me, aside from any economic benefit, allowing people to keep their own money is a moral issue.
similar to the moral issue of making sure everyone has healthcare, just as Jefferson envisioned!
I would love everyone to have good healthcare. But neither I nor Jefferson want the federal government controlling how we do it, but we can it cannot do it efficiently or with high quality.
whoops, that last part is supposed to read: we know it (the federal government) cannot do it efficiently or with high quality.
Somewhere in the middle of all the satire and diverging political views is the best compromise solution.
I think government should tax appropriately for what it needs to do its job. I’m not going to explain what that means.
At the same time, we have a deficit problem and a contracting economy coming on the heels of the private stimulus Bush tax cuts. As much as I’d like to have a few extra dollars in my pocket, I believe it is our moral responsibility as a nation to reverse the direction. Injecting capital here in public infrastructure and entities instead of in offshore economies seems to be the logic behind the stimulus. I support that plan until a better one comes along. So far I haven’t heard one.
“Government should tax appropriately for what it needs to do its job” All well and good, except liberalism is a bottomless pit of ideas for what government should provide and be in charge of to do its job. How about we tax less and start cutting some stuff. Government is doing too much and is not doing “its job” very well at all.
Extra dollars in your pocket would mean injecting money into the private economy and get things moving again. And then you get to decide the direction and focus of what is stimulated in our economy.