Craig A Russelburg Trickle down economics: Tax breaks for corporate America in theory benefits the working class. Reality: Corporate America lobbies government, buying our government. And then "rewards" the working class by lobbying the Republicans to lower/eliminate minimum wage. What's really trickling down is urine, folks.
GlennDL
Bush, Sr. called it 'voodoo economics' before becoming Reagan's running mate. Reagan's budget director has since called it a sham.
The irony of 'trickle down' is that if it worked it would in fact be the thing that conservatives claim to abhor. Bread crumbs from the table of the rich falling to the masses below, in other words 'handouts', i.e.., entitlements.
The rich are not going to build a refrigerator factory [supply] if the masses can't afford to buy the refrigerators [demand]. But, if you give jobs to the masses where they can buy refrigerators [demand] then building factories [supply] makes since.
But in a country where the rich see no civic responsibility to support the country, economy and the masses that enrich them the rich will always seek to invest their tax savings in foreign factories and jobs.
Taxing them may turn out to be the only way of keeping that money in the country to create jobs?
Scott Wilder just to set the record straight....during the reagan administration, the democrat controlled house, at the urging of president reagan, cut the tax rate on the highest income bracket from 70% to 28%, the theory being that if businesses and c...orporations had more income for use as investment capital, this would result in expansion and more jobs. did it work? i suppose your answer would depend on whether or not you made any money. i know a lot of people, republicans AND democrats, who did. there are pros and cons on both sides of this theory, but the fact remains the democrats are the ones who passed the tax cuts, thereby making supply-side economics a reality. it's simply ludicrous that, 30 years later, the democrats are still trying to blame this on the republicans. one more thing.....if this country has a democratic president, and a democratic controlled congress, why would 'corporate america' lobby only republicans? don't you think they lobby democrats, too?
Some do and have, Scott. The tobacco industry lobbied both. I remember seeing it was something like 75% to the GOP as opposed to about 25% big tobacco money going to the Dems. That's just an illustration but it does support your thought, ...Scott. I also believe that a lot has happened in the 30 years retroactive of of Regan's deal with the House. Corporations are not satisfied with standing pat. Goal-oriented business requires corporations to raise the bar fiscal year after fiscal year to increase revenue, resulting in a better bottom line. When's the last time a corporate board met and said, "Let's try to earn next year what we earned last year!" Never. And in a rough economy, it's the worker who sacrifices to meet his business's goals. As for a Democrat-dominated congress and a Democrat president, the fact is this group of Democrats are not lock-step on the same page as the president. It's divided. The blue-dog Democrats (i.e. Blanche Lincoln) are closer to being moderate Republicans than other Democrats in the House and Senate. That isn't the case with the Republicans as the conservatives have effectively removed nearly all moderate Republicans and put into place right-wingers who appear to be clones on one platform.
GlennDL
Reagan had a wide appeal to moderates on both sides of the isle, thus the Blue Dog democrats, but I don't think anyone now is arguing for a return to 70% tax brackets. Then and now that would be oppressive.
A tax cut and supply side economics are not synonymous. There's more to supply side than just that. Going back 30 years to criticize the birth of supply side economics is fair game when it is still being foisted upon us, especially when Republicans continually go back those same 30 years to claim those tax cuts as Reagan's.
Yes, corporations lobby democrats too, they also make donations to them both, even dem/rep opponents get money from the same lobbyist, but there is little doubt who they prefer in Congress. Only Congressmen and lobbyist are for lobbyist. Most Americans Dem and Rep would love to see them go.
I don't believe, as is to often the case that a lot of people making money is the true measure of whether or not trickle down works or not. People made money off of the calamity we now refer to as the great recession.
The assumption that businesses and corporations would invest in capitol has been undercut by globalization. I don't know if the savings from tax cuts results in investments but apparently they don't result in domestic investments. On what grounds does anyone make the assumption that corporate America, or the wealthy, will point their investments towards the welfare of this country. Its as unfounded as the idea that free markets have a conscience and will correct themselves based on anything other than the profit motive.
The questions are: Should the people who benefit the most from this country contribute the most? Should the markets be free and deregulated or regulated and 'fair'? Should the country be built, as it always has, from the ground up or should it be maintained from the top down?
Yes the Dems are divided, this reflects one of the more obvious differences between the Dems and Reps. Because of the Dems big tent they have more diversity of thought. So agreement and compromise are harder to come by. That’s one of the things I like about liberals, progressives and democrats. The discussions and debates encourage discours, but they can be passionate without being loud and mean.
The Reps on the other hand tend to be more focused and narrow in their objectives. This narrow focus lends itself to a sharper presentation of their goals but there passion leads to less compromise, not just with others but each other. It also makes them more vulnerable to hot button issues since their unwillingness to reach compromise makes them more fearful of the consequences of anything less than total victory. Just look at the history of the anti-abortion issue, lots of passion but the only thing accomplished is more unproductive passion [every four years].
well, i'm sure not a right-winger, nor am i far-leftist. (as you may have already guessed.) i like to think that i'm a middle of the road moderate, probably just a little left of center. what bothers me most is the constant playing of the... 'blame game' by one group against another; the contant harping against the wealthy, and the promotion of 'class envy'. most corporations play by the rules, what ever those rules may be, as laid down by federal law. they're entitled to make a profit. you can't lump them all into one group and label them as 'greedy' or 'bad'. pepsico is a major contributor to the NAACP; coca-cola sponsors the special olympics. many charitable organizations receive the bulk of their contributions from 'corporate america'. how is this greedy or bad? (but we've all been conditioned to think of them as greedy and evil, haven't we? who benefits from that?) one thing i've noticed in the past 40 or so years is that there is no longer a discernible difference between the democratic party and the republican party. the democrats are no longer the 'peoples' party', and the republicans are no longer the conservative 'G.O.P.' the democrats rail against the republicans for the war in the middle east, but they voted for it, too. the republicans rail against the democrats for the social-welfare government give-away programs, but they haven't done anything to repeal any of them. what they've all done is a good job of diviiding this country into population groups according to race, income, and religion, and playing these groups against each other. people are easier to control if you know what group they belong to, and what their values are. it's the old roman tactic of divide and conquer. why do you think it is that whites get so upset when they see other whites marching and agitating alongside blacks, and blacks get so upset when they see other blacks siding with conservative whites? it's because we've been conditioned to think and act a certain way, and when we think and act outside that box, it pisses people off. neither the leaders of the democratic party nor the republican party give two shits about the welfare of the population of this country: their only concern is staying in power, and they will say and do whatever they have to to stay there. i'm not a big fan of the tea partyists, but they're sure getting someones' attention, aren't they? i think it's because the vast majority of the people of this country are sick and tired of the same old crap being done the same old way, with the same old results, and they want a change.
GlennDL
Thank you, I too have always considered my self as a left-of-center moderate. A bleeding heart moderate to be exact. The problem is that the extremes of both parties tend to dominate the discourse too much, and that is a pendulum swinging. At this time because of the influence of conservative radio and TV it is over on the conservative extreme at the moment. That's why I, still living in Indiana [a red state], without changing my position over the last 15 years have gone from being a moderate to being a liberal. The extreme shift, at least in Indiana, to the right has redefined many even though their position has not changed. Would Nixon still be welcome in the Republican party? Even Reagan would be to moderate now, especially on immigration.
The problem with corporations isn't that they are all crooks, and yes most follow the law, as written, but too many of them are writing to many of the laws. I look at most of their civic minded spending as questionable, at least to the extent that they can write it off on taxes or an ego trip. But by the same token not all unions are corrupt or service workers 'thugs'.
I always find it interesting how people are unaware of the similarities between corporations and unions. Corporations are formed by people pooling their resources, capitol and education, in order to capitalize on those shared resources. Unions also pool their resources, skills and labor, to accomplish the same. But with those similarities comes their biggest difference: Corporations are formed to reduce responsibilities and liabilities, Unions are formed to share and accept responsibilities and liabilities. Both are inherently run by people, good and bad, are at least easily diverted.
Paulette Condon also commented on Craig A Russelburg's status.
Paulette wrote:
"Let's see. The partial list..CCC, TVA,WPA,PWA, GI BIll, FDIC, Social Security, Medicare Medicaid, Pell Grants, FHA, ARC, Manpower Act of 1965, Health Education Act 0f 1963 (which hepled pay for my nursing education), Vista, Peace Corps, Fedaral Student Loan Program, and FDR's REA (Rural Electrification). The REA can be considered one of the most successful government programs of all time. My list is partial. While a few of the programs under Johnson did have some bipartisan support, they still required a lot of arm-twisting. I am just looking at which President was in office at the time these progams were realized. I forgot the FHA. It is amazing the number of home loans that were made to under this program. The REA brought most of us out of the dark. I think Republicans should invest in some stronger light bulbs.(:"
