When did trickle down economics become Democratic policy?

[last1standing]

First, Democrats gave trillions to the banks with no strings attached in the hopes that they would lend some of it to small businesses and individuals. Of course what we got was a lot of bank mergers and mega bonuses while small business closed shop and families continued to be tossed out of their homes.

Now Democrats are debating the idea of taxing good health insurance plans and using the theory that forcing insurance companies and businesses to lower the quality of these healthcare plans will somehow trickle down to the average worker's paycheck.

Didn't Reagan prove that trickle down doesn't work? Aren't we in the worst economic disaster in 80 years because of bush's* trickle down policies? Why do some posters at DU think that this failed policy will magically work now that Democrats are in charge?

It doesn't matter who's in the office if the economic theory doesn't change, folks. Trickle down doesn't work. Never has and never will.

It's time to remind ourselves that we are Democrats because of our beliefs; we do not hold our beliefs because we are Democrats.

[jobycom]

1. Amen. nt

[Vidar]

2. K&R.

[Starry Messenger]

3. Strange days here we come.

I guess it's kinder gentler Reaganomics.

[Little Star]

4. Good Question. n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

5. It's always been DLC policy

...of course they aren't actually Democrats.

[IndianaGreen]

10. DLC's god Scoop Jackson was a warmonger on Vietnam

and his Presidential ambitions were rejected by the people.

[Sebastian Doyle]

14. And to paraphrase the Dixie Chicks

I'm ashamed that Scoop Jackson was from my state. Especially since some of those PNAC shitheads worked for him. :evilfrown:

[Goldstein1984]

6. I don't know exactly, but it was pretty obvious with Clinton

NAFTA
CATT
Repeal of Glass-Steagall

Where are the jobs programs to employ people and build infrastructure? It's pretty obvious to me from the bailouts that President Obama also buys into the Milton Friedman nonsense, too.

[TheBigotBasher]

15. It is not Freidmanite economics

The US/UK went far beyond that. His ideas were killed off probably by 1983.

This is a horrible "third way" prostitution of Keynes and Austrian economics.

Central banks would have unregulated uncontrolled unaccountable (to be read as not politically motivated) control of the economy. The Central banks were to decide levels of acceptable inflation and growth.

The fiscal and trade deficits would only matter in as much as the banking system allowed it to matter.

By the 1990s key elements of the economy were removed from the inflation indexes of the UK and US, in particular property. By removing property from the inflation index, booms in property could be ignored in wage rates, in the same way as booms in share prices are.

"Inflation" was defeated. Wages did not rise. Homeowners however felt richer. Tis bubble was always going to burst, the sad thing is politicians got away with blaming it on the poor.

The debt to bail out the property bubble will not be reduced by inflation. It will be paid back in full.

[Goldstein1984]

27. The elements of Friedmanite economics I was thinking of are

Privatization,
Deregulation, and
Cuts to social services.

Where it seems to depart from Friedman is the socialization of losses. It's like Keynesian economics aimed at the welfare of the corporations rather than the economy as a whole.

I'm not an economist, so the limits of my understanding are a reading of Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" and a basic book on Keynes--"Keynes: The Return of the Master."

Thanks for the additional information. Something to ponder.

[Clio the Leo]

7. So then why are we advocating the continued subsidization of expensive health care plans?

At the price of $250 billion a year?

[last1standing]

8. We aren't. We're advocated for proper healthcare that isn't watered down.

We're also advocating against taxing the middle class for receiving that insurance.

Sorry you don't understand the difference.

Edited to add: Since you've decided to spread your debunked "information" here, I'll just repeat what I've been saying. We do not "subsidize" these healthcare plans, we just don't tax them...yet. Putting the onus of this insurance care plan on the backs of the middle class is disgusting and a prime example of trickle down economics.

[IndianaGreen]

9. You mean taxing union health plans won in lieu of higher wages

I dare say that there is an infestation of Reaganism among some of the self-described liberals.

[mkultra]

39. None of the union plans pay over 28K a year for insurance.

Your protecting the wealthy and pretending to be for the worker. Only high level CEOs have that level of coverage.

[TheKentuckian]

44. Bullshit, there is a plan to ACTUALLY tax the rich sitting there on the table

but you'd rather pretend to be doing something noble and pro-worker despite the broad agreement that almost as soon as this turkey is in effect the 2-4% of people affected that is being pitched like it somehow justifies taxing benefits before profits will be up to a 1/5 of the population and up to a 1/3 10 years from now at which point benefits will be slashed.

People want health care reform so fucking bad that anything with the title will work for them no matter what it actually does and who suffers for it.

You're defending the wealthy, you're the one trying to gurantee their profits and place in the catbird seat. You're the one that refuses to make the ones that made out the past eight years pay while pretending to support workers no matter how much unions cry out against it.

You want and Obama want to tax the rich then fucking tax 'em instead of pitching a pig in a poke.

[mkultra]

47. Stop defending the wealthy

You suffer from peasant mentality. The insurance plans of your lords and ladies is being threatened and you take up their banner. Fuck the rich and tax their luxury insurance plans. Stop defending them.

[last1standing]

18. No response, Clio?

I thought you'd have a bevy of facts to share. :sarcasm:

Or maybe you're in other threads praising people for insulting people. :shrug:

[Clio the Leo]

25. I was watching my boys (BCS Spoiler)

whoop up on Texas.... sure, technically they limped through .... but a win is a win.

You were saying? Did you get a chance to read those Tax Committee Reports yet? (And you'll need to speak loudly because its hard to hear you way up on my Crimson cloud.) ;)

[last1standing]

26. The propaganda from your post has been debunked in several threads.

Many of them yours. Why do you continue to spread propaganda you know to be false?

[Clio the Leo]

28. Yes I am TOTALLY wrong.... I'm the wrongest person in America!!! lol

.... with the possible exception of Lee Corso.

You feel better? ....... I wish I could GIVE you some of the joy I feel right now ..... because it wouldn't matter at the moment if Obama declared tomorrow he was going to start beating us all with billy clubs.

If you're trying to piss me off, you might want to pick another night. ;)

(for the record, I dont actually think I'm wrong, but I'm feeling particularly benevolent at the moment.)

[last1standing]

29. I don't know Lee Corso, so I'll give you that. Otherwise your post is just silly.

I'm not trying to piss you off, I just want you to stop spreading information you know is false. It's sad that when cornered you resort to snark and silliness, but I guess it's all that could be expected. :shrug:

[mkultra]

40. The bullshit from yours has been debunked by the Kaiser foundation

Look it up. regular working class people pay around 13K NOT 28K

[last1standing]

43. Many posts proved the info in your thread was misleading. You should read them.

n/t

[mkultra]

46. many posts proved YOUR info is flat wrong

in addition, your stand doesn't make any sense.

We know CEOs own the Cadillac plans
cutting expenses for companies will NOT result in wage increase for workers(only a dumbass would believe that)

[last1standing]

52. Only a dumbass would believe every lie he's told.

n/t

[mkultra]

53. i agree, thats why im looking for stats

instead of trusting you.

[harun]

11. When Reagan won 49 states in 1984.

[last1standing]

12. Power over policy. Maybe that should become the new slogan.

I'd at least respect the honesty.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

34. The latter is meaningless without the former. (nt)

[TheBigotBasher]

13. Since George BushI

Bill Clinton and on.

Economic policy of the US has not changed since at least 1988.

[bvar22]

16. 1992

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[last1standing]

17. At least Clinton wasn't so obvious about it.

He hid it from view. Now, we have hack economists and hack politicians who call themselves Democrats openly calling for it.

[Zynx]

19. I have had enough of this bullshit.

Have you looked at te items of the stimulus bill and what it does? There is absolutely massive assistance to the poor and the disadvantaged. I can go through all the items if you really want me to, but under no definition is Obama's economic agenda trickle down. Anyone who posts this shit should be ashamed.

P.S. I have actually worked with the stimulus programs for our state. I know how much good they have done and most DUers don't have a fucking clue what they are talking about.

[last1standing]

20. The stimulus plan (40% tax cuts versus investment) isn't the same as the bank bailout.

If you're tired of the bullshit, learn what you're talking about and quit spewing it.

[Zynx]

21. The vast bulk of the tax cuts went to the poor. It was either the flat rebate, EITC expansion,

or a number of other items. There is a big difference between those and marginal rate cuts for the rich. The cuts were by no means trickle down. You are spewing ill informed crap.

Tax cuts for individuals
Total: $237 billion
$116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.<27>
$70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.<27>
$15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
$14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
$6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.<39>
$4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
$4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers — for families with at least three children.
$4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
$1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.

I don't see supply-side there.

Healthcare:
Total: $147.7 billion
$86.6 billion for Medicaid
$24.7 billion to provide a 65 percent subsidy of health care insurance premiums for the unemployed under the COBRA program
$19 billion for health information technology
$10 billion for health research and construction of National Institutes of Health facilities
$1.3 billion for medical care for service members and their families (military)
$1 billion for prevention and wellness
$1 billion for the Veterans Health Administration
$2 billion for Community Health Centers
$1.1 billion to research the effectiveness of certain healthcare treatments
$500 million to train healthcare personnel
$500 million for healthcare services on Indian reservations

Education
Total: $90.9 billion
$44.5 billion in aid to local school districts to prevent layoffs and cutbacks, with flexibility to use the funds for school modernization and repair (State Equalization Fund)
$15.6 billion to increase Pell Grants from $4,731 to $5,350
$13 billion for low-income public schoolchildren
$12.2 billion for IDEA special education
$2.1 billion for Head Start
$2 billion for childcare services
$650 million for educational technology
$300 million for increased teacher salaries
$250 million for states to analyze student performance
$200 million to support working college students
$70 million for the education of homeless children

I don't see supply-side there


Aid to low income workers, unemployed and retirees (including job training)
Total: $82.5 billion
$40 billion to provide extended unemployment benefits through Dec. 31, and increase them by $25 a week
$19.9 billion for the Food Stamp Program
$14.2 billion to give one-time $250 payments to Social Security recipients, people on Supplemental Security Income, and veterans receiving disability and pensions.
$3.95 billion for job training
$3 billion in temporary welfare payments
$500 million for vocational training for the disabled
$400 million for employment services
$120 million for subsidized community service jobs for older Americans
$150 million to help refill food banks
$100 million for meals programs for seniors, such as Meals on Wheels
$100 million for free school lunch programs

I don't see supply-side there.

Look me in the face and tell me Ronald Reagan would have passed this bill.

[last1standing]

22. I never used the stimulus bill as an example of trickle down. That's your spin entirely.

I said that it had 40% tax cuts and that tax cuts don't work as well as investment into jobs. I believe the difference is around 99%/145% or something like that.

So not only did you start out with a bullshit post, you didn't even bother to read the OP to see if you'd make an ass of yourself by trying to argue a point that was never made.

You must be very embarrassed of yourself right now. Either that or you have no shame.

[Zynx]

23. You did by conveniently exlcuding it and your dishonesty is breathtaking.

Don't play dumb. I am willing to bet you aren't actually that dumb which means that you are actually just dishonest.

By ignoring massive economic aid that mainly goes to the poor or toward job creation you are framing the discussion in a way that suits your insane argument.

Also, we have recovered most of the money we lent the banks. That money will be recycled for other purposes. How the healthcare bill is trickle down is beyond me.

You have not made a single substantive policy argument here and have ignored those policies that don't suit you. Thank God you're not a policymaker. Your inability to objectively analyze would doom us all.

[last1standing]

24. I included it by excluding it? Wow!

I can't argue with that. You've got me beat.

:freak:

[TheKentuckian]

45. The money recovered is the TARP money aka the small potatoes

TARP is a distraction from the trillions that went out from the FED and Treasury.

The stimulus that we all knew was too small but as always we had to take our quarter loaf, is fair liberal policy despite being scattershot and too heavy on the taxcuts when considering the pressing infrastructure needs we've had for years.

[last1standing]

30. Kicking for the morning crowd.

n/t

[uponit7771]

31. ****THE TAX IS FOR PLANS THAT COST OVER 23,500 A YEAR ONLY 4% OF THE COUNTRY HAVE THOSE****

I get sick of people leaving out the important facts but I rec the post because the corporations are in no way going to pass the savings to their employees or customers

[last1standing]

41. I'd respond but I can't hear you through all the screaming.

n/t

[boppers]

48. Where did you get that number?

I've been looking for it.

[JohnnyBoots]

32. When our party got infested and eventually taken over by Republicans in Sheep's clothing. NT

[invictus]

33. Since January 20, 1993.

[robertpaulsen]

35. Shit, Harding-Coolidge-Hoover proved trickle down doesn't work!

But that's kind of the point, it's not supposed to work for us. Neo-cons and neo-libs are just opposing players in the same crap game. They jab at and jostle each other, but when someone comes along trying to threaten the existence of the crap game, isn't it funny how they act alike?

[Jamastiene]

36. Not long ago I actually heard several posters on DU complaining about "redistribution of wealth"

when talking about the one good part of this new HWR, aka HCR, the Medicaid Expansion. They were complaining about the Medicaid Expansion and calling it "redistribution of wealth."

That is SUCH a Republican talking point. "Redistribution of wealth" to the upper income earners seems fine with the same people who complain when our government does ANYTHING to help the poor, which it really hasn't done in zillions of years now.

Trickle down economics is pissing on the poor and middle class. We've been doused in piss for decades now. It doesn't work. It just pisses us off and now, we are more pissed off than ever. It is the one type of welfare you never hear Blue Dogs, Republicans, or LINOs complain about. That's a fact.

On a positive note, once the government have given ALL the freaking money to the wealthy in their reverse Robin Hood scheme, they'll have a shittier economy than they currently have and their stock portfolios will tank. Then, they'll want our labor to do some dirty work for them and they'll ask us for money for their campaign. That's when we can tell them sorry the GayTM is closed, the Po'TM is closed, the middleclassTM is closed.

Why is this important?

Those of us who are poor are poor all the time anyhow. We survive the worst living conditions possible the best of anyone, because it's been this way for us for decades now. We have adapted. Those who are rich or close to it will crumble like a stack of cards if they have to face even 1 hour without the luxuries their riches afford them.

That's when they'll want us to fix their shitting assed mess. Sorry...That's when we can tell them sorry the GayTM is closed, the Po'TM is closed, the middle class TM is closed.

Without the money incentive to stay in office, the money grubbers will fold and walk away, then real grassroots "of the people, by the people, for the people" candidates can restore this country to a level playing field. If they won't listen to those of us who are trying to tell them the truth, let the money grubbers follow their corporate masters over the cliff.

[last1standing]

42. Starve the disease!

Agreed, Jamastiene. I'm done giving my money and time to parasites who exist only to take from me. When they support me, I'll support them.

[boppers]

50. Spoken like Reagan.

Would Gandhi say: "I'm done giving my money and time to parasites who exist only to take from me. When they support me, I'll support them."

I think not.

I think the first problem is the de-humanization of others,and calling them "parasites".

[last1standing]

51. Reagan had your views on unions, so fuck off scab.

n/t

[blueworld]

37. When Droopy Lieberworst & the Blue Dogs opened the DC beer concession...n/t

[phiddle]

38. "Suck it up" economics

[Politicub]

49. Doesn't it seem hopeless when 90% of the people in congress seem to subscribe to this view?

I still haven't lost hope for the Obama admin to use the bully pulpit to turn this trend around, but it sure doesn't seem like economic issues are being addressed from a position of fairness. In fact, it's like the Obama admin promotes and accepts trickle down.

It seems like a daunting task to overcome so much legislation and congressional opinion that goes against the interests of the people. The teabaggers, if they had a lick of sense, would adopt more a more populist attitude around the economy. But they are so obsessed with their hate of Obama (mostly based on racism, IMHO), that they protest against nothing but a person.