Progressive tenets of Jesus Christ

Trickle down economics is another one of those terms that the left coined to deride that which they disagree with. It is utterly useless. What they are in essence attempting to convince people of is that the very economic model that lifted the citizens of the States above those of any other nation, supply side economics, is a failure. Preposterous on its face, isn't it?

Nope, not preposterous at all.

Who actually coined the term "trickle down economics"?

ZHawke wrote: Nope, not preposterous at all.

Who actually coined the term "trickle down economics"?

Will Rogers

Rick wrote:

ZHawke wrote: Nope, not preposterous at all.

Who actually coined the term "trickle down economics"?

Will Rogers

You're right. The term is generally attributed to Will Rogers, not "the left" as PrintSmith asserted. The term has also generally been applied to both "Reaganomics" and "Supply Side Economics" since then by everyone, not just the left. And, according to this article, arguments are pretty much ongoing even today between and amongst economists whether supply side economics works or not:

useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/supply_side.htm

And, ironically, Will Rogers was talking about how the "New Dealers" appropriated all the money for their cronies, in other words took money from the taxpayers to pay back the ones who helped them get elected. Kind of reminds you of how the so called "Stimulus" money was appropriated by the new "New Dealers", doesn't it?

And then we have this:

Economist Thomas Sowell has written that the actual path of money in a private enterprise economy is quite the opposite of that claimed by people who refer to the trickle-down theory. He noted that money invested in new business ventures is first paid out to employees, suppliers, and contractors. Only some time later, if the business is profitable, does money return to the business owners—but in the absence of a profit motive, which is reduced in the aggregate by a raise in marginal tax rates in the upper tiers, this activity does not occur. Sowell further has made the case[5] that no economist has ever advocated a "trickle-down" theory of economics, which is rather a misnomer attributed to certain economic ideas by political critics who either willfully distort or misunderstand the actual stated goals of their political opponents.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

Are you sure you still want to try and say that I am incorrect in my assertion that the left coined the term in an effort to deride that which they disagreed with Z?

Well, P, everything that I've read indicated Rogers supported the New Deal. He distrusted politicians, especially political extremists to the right according to his bio: www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/17...ill-rogers/?page=all

Which "stimulus" are you referring to - the Bush or the Obama stimulus?

The article you provided a link to also says the following:

Today, "trickle-down economics" is most closely identified with the economic policies known as "Reaganomics" (and similar policies). David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts at first but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea: "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory.

In terms of trickle down being an actual economic theory, I found this:

Trickle-down is not really an economic theory; it is an economic rationale for an elitist ideology of privilege that gives primacy to the interests of the rich.

www.huffingtonpost.com/obery-m-hendricks...-pope_b_4557318.html

This article also talks about the Pope's statements on trickle down economics which brings it right back around to being on-topic once again.

Given that the Bush attempt was direct lowering of taxes owed by the individual and Obama's involved taking tax revenues and redistributing them to so-called green energy companies, shovel ready projects that weren't so shovel ready, and State governments to save or create jobs in the public sector, which so called "Stimulus" do you think referenced as closer to the "New Deal" that Rogers was criticizing when he said that the money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy? I'd call that self-explanatory with no need for clarification, but that's just me.

And how does your reference to ""trickle down" being associated with supply-side economics refute what Sowell said in regards to that being a "misnomer attributed to certain economic ideas by political critics who either willfully distort or misunderstand the actual stated goals of their political opponents." It would seem to be an instance of that being done yet again, not an argument that the statement itself is inaccurate given every reference you cite is from the political class.

And then we have this from that same wiki entry referenced earlier:

In a 1962 address to Congress, John F. Kennedy said, “it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”

This was not a new idea. John Maynard Keynes said, back in 1933, that “taxation may be so high as to defeat its object,” that in the long run, a reduction of the tax rate “will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the budget.”

When the author of the very theory the party of Democrats are trying to implement says that lowering a tax rate runs a better chance of balancing the budget over the long term than an increase does, perhaps his devotees ought to pay attention to him rather than ignore him. It also shows the lie that accompanies an attempt to call lowering of taxes, especially when the rates are cut across the board and represent a deeper cut for the lower tax brackets than for the upper ones, as "trickle down" economics.

Not just the representatives on that list,

I didn't realize the pope was an expert in economic theory.

PrintSmith wrote: Given that the Bush attempt was direct lowering of taxes owed by the individual and Obama's involved taking tax revenues and redistributing them to so-called green energy companies, shovel ready projects that weren't so shovel ready, and State governments to save or create jobs in the public sector, which so called "Stimulus" do you think referenced as closer to the "New Deal" that Rogers was criticizing when he said that the money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy? I'd call that self-explanatory with no need for clarification, but that's just me.

First, I don't know where you got your information that the Bush stimulus package was an attempt at a direct lowering of taxes owed by the individual. There is a provision in TARP that addresses "homeowner assistance" very briefly:

Homeowner Assistance

While the Act provides that the Secretary may exercise “any rights received in connection with the troubled assets purchased,” it also specifies that the terms of any residential mortgage loan purchased by TARP shall “remain subject to all claims and defenses that would otherwise apply” — thus indicating that TARP does not have the authority to modify such residential mortgages without homeowner consent.

Meanwhile, the Act directs the Secretary to consent to reasonable requests for loss-mitigation measures, including term extensions, rate reductions, principal write-downs, increases in the proportion of loans allowed to be modified within a trust or other structure, or removal of other limitation on modifications.

The Secretary, and the various federal entities (the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency as conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that may become property managers in connection with mortgages purchased by TARP, are required to implement plans to maximize assistance for homeowners and encourage homeowners to take advantage of existing programs to minimize foreclosures. Among other tools, the Secretary is authorized to use loan guarantees and credit enhancements to facilitate loan modifications and prevent avoidable foreclosures.

Finally, the Secretary is directed to “encourage” both (a) the servicers of underlying mortgages to take advantage of the HOPE for Homeowners Program or other available programs to minimize foreclosures, and (b) the private sector to participate in troubled-asset purchases and investments in financial institutions.

www.foley.com/a-comprehensive-summary-an...-of-2008-10-10-2008/

That's a far cry from anything remotely resembling tax relief being applied directly to the individual in my opinion. For clarification, my wife and I went through this process with one of the large banks being the "servicer" of our mortgage. It took over 4 years along with being very proactive with many state and local offices here in Colorado to finally be granted a modification of our mortgage even though we qualified right up front. In other words, "encouraging" vs "requiring" are two very different animals when it comes down to homeowners (individuals in your vernacular) to actually be able to take advantage of this very vague and nebulous provision in TARP/HOPE. During this period, we were treated as if we were criminals and worse. The levels of stress and anxiety we were subjected to by the servicer were beyond anything we should have been subjected to given that this provision was supposed to be in place to help people like us, not to "criminalize" us. The fact is this bailout was, for all intents and purposes, specifically intended for financial institutions with "lip service" to the average taxpayer/homeowner.

When I also see a provision in TARP that releases Treasury from any and all followup legal ramifications, it gives me pause to wonder why something like that would even be considered a necessity.

As far as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is concerned, if you want to consider it more of a "New Deal" act than anything else, that's your prerogative. I'll accede to that premise in principle. Just more support for the assertion Jesus was a Progressive in my mind.

It's kind of puzzling to me, too, that in one breath, you appear to "support" the idea of pay for work under something akin to a "New Deal" program and in the next appear to decry those very tenets because something also akin to "New Deal" programs was instituted under the ARRA. It might also be posited that because the TARP/HOPE bailout under Bush was intended, as so many conservative trickle down perceptions are, to be geared toward those at the top (Fascism?) while the ARRA was actually intended to help those more in the middle (Socialism?), that might, just might, be why you have a problem with it?

PrintSmith wrote: And how does your reference to ""trickle down" being associated with supply-side economics refute what Sowell said in regards to that being a "misnomer attributed to certain economic ideas by political critics who either willfully distort or misunderstand the actual stated goals of their political opponents." It would seem to be an instance of that being done yet again, not an argument that the statement itself is inaccurate given every reference you cite is from the political class.

It doesn't refute what Sowell said. It wasn't meant to. All I did was also provide another quote from the site you provided. The jury is arguably still "out" on whether or not trickle down economics actually works with benefits as intended. Plenty of economists would argue, and have argued, both for and against, Sowell's position. I could spend all day finding them, but to what purpose? Past experience in previous debates with you has taught me no matter what I put forward, you'll dismiss it out of hand because it represents a "leftist, collectivist" view of the world.

PrintSmith wrote: And then we have this from that same wiki entry referenced earlier:

In a 1962 address to Congress, John F. Kennedy said, “it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”

This was not a new idea. John Maynard Keynes said, back in 1933, that “taxation may be so high as to defeat its object,” that in the long run, a reduction of the tax rate “will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the budget.”

There's a lot of information out there on both Kennedy and Keynes on their respective stances on economics and taxation.

Keynes: www.econlib.org/library/Enc/KeynesianEconomics.html
and,
rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes

are the two I found most informative.

Kennedy:

In 1963, he suggested cutting individual income taxes from a range of 20% to 91% to a range of 14% to 65%. Kennedy wanted to lower the top corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%.

www.marketwatch.com/story/6-lessons-from...ax-policy-2013-11-22

In other words, to imply Kennedy promoted tax cuts only for businesses is disingenuous.

PrintSmith wrote: When the author of the very theory the party of Democrats are trying to implement says that lowering a tax rate runs a better chance of balancing the budget over the long term than an increase does, perhaps his devotees ought to pay attention to him rather than ignore him. It also shows the lie that accompanies an attempt to call lowering of taxes, especially when the rates are cut across the board and represent a deeper cut for the lower tax brackets than for the upper ones, as "trickle down" economics.

This could be interpreted as a gross misrepresentation of what is being put forward.

Nuff said on this.

Christ was a Progressive in my opinion.