Will Rogers and Al Sharpton on the Conservatives' Supply-Side Economics

[Glen Contrarian]

The question remains, so what? Why does it matter if someone has more money than someone else?

Ever live in a third-world nation? I have - I have a house in one. If you did, I doubt that you'd really feel the need to ask that question.

Bear in mind that socialized democracies generally have significantly LOWER levels of income inequality, and ask yourself two questions:

1 - Is it better to live in a nation with a high standard of living, or a nation with a low standard of living? and

2 - Why is it that ALL - repeat, ALL - the non-OPEC nations with the highest standard of living are socialized democracies.

Is this just an accident?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Are you kidding me that is what Capitalism is all about.

People were asked would you rather have $50 if everyone else had $25 or $100 if everyone else had $200.

Almost everyone asked said they would rather have $50 even though it is less because having more then someone else is better.

See comment #26.

 

[froggigger]

Then explain how the rate of poverty was cut in half in the sixties, cumulating with the advent of LBJ's Great Society. I mean, if that was all smoke and mirrors, explain how things got consistently better when taxes were much higher...and why there's been precious little improvement for those not already rich ever since Reagan slashed taxes in 1981.

"...because it is right, because it is wise, and because, for the first time in our history, it is possible to conquer poverty, I submit, for the consideration of the Congress and the country, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964."

"The Act does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty. It can be a milestone in our one-hundred eighty year search for a better life for our people."

I provided LBJ's words for context. The government was already saying that poverty was in decline from the previous decade, but LBJ believed poverty was a "root cause" for many of our social problems and set out to "fix" it by creating welfare programs. He said it would take years and he was right. It continues to this day with the same old rhetoric. The poor can't move up because of the greedy rich at the top having too much. LBJ and the welfare state he expanded did not "conquer poverty" by any stretch of the imagination, but it did increase the size and scope of government.

Btw, Reagan did not slash taxes as we have been led to believe.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yeah, becasue a tenth grade dropout and racist crook huckster are exactly the two we should be listening to for economic advice. :mrgreen:

ever notice that some of the biggest pimps pushing for socialist income redistribution have pretty much become rich without doing one damn productive thing in their lives

sharpturd should have been sued into poverty by those white detectives etc whom he blamed for that faux rape years ago.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

"...because it is right, because it is wise, and because, for the first time in our history, it is possible to conquer poverty, I submit, for the consideration of the Congress and the country, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964."

"The Act does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty. It can be a milestone in our one-hundred eighty year search for a better life for our people."

I provided LBJ's words for context. The government was already saying that poverty was in decline from the previous decade, but LBJ believed poverty was a "root cause" for many of our social problems and set out to "fix" it by creating welfare programs. He said it would take years and he was right. It continues to this day with the same old rhetoric. The poor can't move up because of the greedy rich at the top having too much. LBJ and the welfare state he expanded did not "conquer poverty" by any stretch of the imagination, but it did increase the size and scope of government.

I don't think any sane person believes we can end poverty, but we can certainly minimize it. After the advent of the Great Society, the poverty rate continued to fall until something like 1970 or so...and it stayed low until the advent of Reaganomics. From the early 1950's through the 1970's, all income levels rose in constant dollars roughly at the same rate...but ever since Reagan took over until now, the bottom sixty percent has stayed stagnant, whereas the income of the rich skyrocketed. The point at which everything changed was in 1981...so what happened?

Btw, Reagan did not slash taxes as we have been led to believe.

No...and yes. Reagan initially slashed taxes for everyone, and all of a sudden the 1982 Recession hit - and it was then the worst recession since the Depression. Paul Volcker advised him that the government needed more revenue, so Reagan did increase taxes - most of them targeted to certain areas - to increase revenue, and this helped somewhat...but he had dropped the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 35%, and never raised it back up from there. This meant that instead of reinvesting their income into their companies (and in their people working in those companies) in order to avoid paying the high tax, the rich were able to keep the money. That, sir, is the root of the income disparity that has (with a couple drops along the way) risen ever since Reagan took over.

 

[ReformCollege]

I'm no fan of Al Sharpton, but he got it right when he said, ""I first heard it when Ronald Reagan went in, 1980. We in the twenty-first century. How long are we gonna wait for the trickle? I mean we been waiting, and waiting, and waiting. It never got down to us. Thirty years later, we got the down, but we never got the trickle."

Back in 1932, Will Rogers pointed out why this is: "The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands.”

That's what those who support extremely low taxes don't get - the rich aren't going to hurt either way...but when taxes are higher and those taxes are used to build our nation's infrastructure in everything from education to roads to electrical grids to helping the sick and disadvantaged, the people become better off, and the nation becomes stronger as a whole...and as Will Rogers pointed out, the people will have the money again soon enough anyway - but at least it will have passed through the poor fellow's hands.

Simple. It trickled down fine, just to the poor in other countries rather then our own. Business expanded globally, and much of the wealth that was gained in the US was coming from business done overseas. Which is why more then 70 million people are lifted out of poverty every year and the global middle class population is set to grow to 5 billion people by 2030. The world’s middle class will number 5 billion by 2030 – Quartz

 

[froggigger]

I don't think any sane person believes we can end poverty, but we can certainly minimize it. After the advent of the Great Society, the poverty rate continued to fall until something like 1970 or so...and it stayed low until the advent of Reaganomics. From the early 1950's through the 1970's, all income levels rose in constant dollars roughly at the same rate...but ever since Reagan took over until now, the bottom sixty percent has stayed stagnant, whereas the income of the rich skyrocketed. The point at which everything changed was in 1981...so what happened?

If no sane person believes we can end poverty, then LBJ is either insane or a liar. He did say, after all, that "for the first time in our history, it is possible to conquer poverty".

I'm not going to check your poverty figures because it doesn't address my original point. Government taking our money and handing it over to the poor unfortunate is trickle-down economics and differs little from the accepted definition of trickle-down. The rich have the cash and it trickles down, the government has the cash and it trickles down. In both cases, it should more accurately be called tinkle-down because those on the bottom are taking a golden shower. As to what happened in 1981, it's blamed on tax cuts, but, as usual when dealing with government, there's a lot more to the tax cut story.

No...and yes. Reagan initially slashed taxes for everyone, and all of a sudden the 1982 Recession hit - and it was then the worst recession since the Depression. Paul Volcker advised him that the government needed more revenue, so Reagan did increase taxes - most of them targeted to certain areas - to increase revenue, and this helped somewhat...but he had dropped the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 35%, and never raised it back up from there. This meant that instead of reinvesting their income into their companies (and in their people working in those companies) in order to avoid paying the high tax, the rich were able to keep the money. That, sir, is the root of the income disparity that has (with a couple drops along the way) risen ever since Reagan took over.

Tax rates for the highest income brackets were cut, but taxes for the average person went up. This was due to bracket creep and increasing Social Security taxation. Then, Greenspan was brought into the mix to see what needed to be done to save SS and, as usual, the answer was higher taxes. Taxes were also increased every year but were not called tax increases. It was raising fees, closing loopholes, revenue enhancements, anything but a tax increase. Compared to GDP, taxes did fall a bit, but I have made it clear previously what I think about comparing anything to GDP.

 

[jonny5]

Ever live in a third-world nation? I have - I have a house in one. If you did, I doubt that you'd really feel the need to ask that question.

Bear in mind that socialized democracies generally have significantly LOWER levels of income inequality, and ask yourself two questions:

1 - Is it better to live in a nation with a high standard of living, or a nation with a low standard of living? and

2 - Why is it that ALL - repeat, ALL - the non-OPEC nations with the highest standard of living are socialized democracies.

Is this just an accident?

You didnt answer the question.

 

[jonny5]

Are you kidding me that is what Capitalism is all about.

People were asked would you rather have $50 if everyone else had $25 or $100 if everyone else had $200.

Almost everyone asked said they would rather have $50 even though it is less because having more then someone else is better.

Capitalism is tool to enable us to pursue happiness. Only if having more than someone else makes you happy is capitalism relavent.

 

[blaxshep]

Capitalism is tool to enable us to pursue happiness. Only if having more than someone else makes you happy is capitalism relavent.

No Capitalism is about those with all the capital owning the means of production so by definition it is about having more than someone else. Socialism by contrast is about public ownership of the means of production. There is no mistaking one for the other.

 

[jonny5]

No Capitalism is about those with all the capital owning the means of production so by definition it is about having more than someone else. Socialism by contrast is about public ownership of the means of production. There is no mistaking one for the other.

No, capitalism is a system with the purpose of accumulation of capital. It has nothing to do with one persons relative capital to others. This is the claim you made.

Are you kidding me that is what Capitalism is all about.

 

[blaxshep]

No, capitalism is a system with the purpose of accumulation of capital. It has nothing to do with one persons relative capital to others. This is the claim you made.

What is the purpose of accumulating capital if it is not to have more than others?

 

[Mr.Nick]

I'm no fan of Al Sharpton, but he got it right when he said, ""I first heard it when Ronald Reagan went in, 1980. We in the twenty-first century. How long are we gonna wait for the trickle? I mean we been waiting, and waiting, and waiting. It never got down to us. Thirty years later, we got the down, but we never got the trickle."

Back in 1932, Will Rogers pointed out why this is: "The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands.”

That's what those who support extremely low taxes don't get - the rich aren't going to hurt either way...but when taxes are higher and those taxes are used to build our nation's infrastructure in everything from education to roads to electrical grids to helping the sick and disadvantaged, the people become better off, and the nation becomes stronger as a whole...and as Will Rogers pointed out, the people will have the money again soon enough anyway - but at least it will have passed through the poor fellow's hands.

Government doesn't allow the trickle to occur because it's confiscated in other ways such as regulations..

The government will say: "Hey here's a tax break, but sorry this new regulation just kicked in so you gotta pay for that so give me that money back." That is just one example of how government gives and steals... Hell, sometimes the federal government gives tax breaks and the state steals the money right back from the business, other times its the state giving the tax breaks and the federal government swooping in and taking the savings... Other times government gets on the soap box and claims they're giving tax breaks that are impossible to get.

In order for trickle down economics to work as a whole those who support the theory would have to have 65-70% control over the federal and state governments for a substantial amount of time because the opposition always as a creative way of recouping what they believe is owed to the government (hence themselves and their voting base).

 

[blaxshep]

Government doesn't allow the trickle to occur because it's confiscated in other ways such as regulations..

The government will say: "Hey here's a tax break, but sorry this new regulation just kicked in so you gotta pay for that so give me that money back." That is just one example of how government gives and steals... Hell, sometimes the federal government gives tax breaks and the state steals the money right back from the business, other times its the state giving the tax breaks and the federal government swooping in and taking the savings... Other times government gets on the soap box and claims they're giving tax breaks that are impossible to get.

In order for trickle down economics to work as a whole those who support the theory would have to have 65-70% control over the federal and state governments for a substantial amount of time because the opposition always as a creative way of recouping what they believe is owed to the government (hence themselves and their voting base).

This all stems from the idea that contemporary jurisprudence applies to the constitution. There is no constitutional authority for almost all of that which you posted.

 

[Mr.Nick]

This all stems from the idea that contemporary jurisprudence applies to the constitution. There is no constitutional authority for almost all of that which you posted.

Well I would argue that congress has no constitutional authority to tax income however, that is routinely overlooked.

Besides, are you trying to imply these retards in government give a **** about the constitution anyways?

 

[jonny5]

What is the purpose of accumulating capital if it is not to have more than others?

To enable someone to pursue happiness. Now how does someone else having more capital than me unfairly affect my pursuing happiness? Thats the crux of this entire thread.

 

[blaxshep]

To enable someone to pursue happiness. Now how does someone else having more capital than me unfairly affect my pursuing happiness? Thats the crux of this entire thread.

Ok then why does money effect your happiness at all? There are millions upon millions of people the world over that have nothing and they are happy.

 

[jonny5]

Ok then why does money effect your happiness at all? There are millions upon millions of people the world over that have nothing and they are happy.

Thats exactly my point!

 

[iguanaman]

The rich pay 60% of income taxes (more than ever before). 70% of the budget goes to the non rich. So I guess wealth redistribution isn't working either as people are still poor. Trickle down has proof though. The economy has tripled since the 80s. Median income has almost doubled. We have twice as many jobs. Even democrats practice trickle down. Kennedy lowered top tax rates. Clinton signed rate cuts. Obama extended top rates because it would HURT the economy.

Clinton raised income tax rates and Obama returned to Clintons rates for the top brackets. At least get something right.

 

[jonny5]

Clinton raised income tax rates and Obama returned to Clintons rates for the top brackets. At least get something right.

Clinton lowered tax rates too, or at least signed a Republican led bill which cut the capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20%. He got a lot right economically in his second term.