The following indictment of trickle-down economics comes from someone of a little higher pay grade your favorite liberal South Dakota blogger:
"The rich are always going to say that, you know, 'Just give us more money, and we'll go out and spend more, and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you.' But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on."
Who said that in a discussion of the need to extend the Bush tax cuts to save boost business and coddle capitalism?
Dennis Kucinich? Well, he has said things like that since the beginning of the Bush tax cuts, but the above quote isn't his.
The Socialist Party of America? No, the quote isn't from them—they have somewhat larger visions of economic reform.
Ariana Huffington? Well, her website republished the quote, and she'd agree, but the words above aren't hers.
Who says trickle-down economics doesn't work? A man in a position to do a lot of trickling: Warren Buffett.
Buffett must be having too many secret meetings with George Soros to plot the downfall of America, right?
Two, out of three, south dakotans still won't understand or believe that message - if they allow themselves to be exposed to it.
Maybe, someday, they will win the lottery, and they don't want to pay a bunch of taxes when they do. In the meantime, they don't want to be confused with reality.
Try this one:
The rich don't spend beyond their desires. Wanna jump start the economy? Give the middle class more money. They'll spend it. It trickles "up'!
South Dakota is behind the curve. Cory, your Governor's Club buddies are already banking on Canadian Pacific and BSNF spending money in Pierre soon and Valhalla is likely a busy place.
It's important to remember that nearly every railroad right of way in South Dakota strewn with toxic spills and winked into history, leach into waterways while obfuscation and ethics for hire elects another round of Republicans playing pocket pool.
In my opinion, the Bush tax cuts should never have occurred.
Neither should banks have issued loans to people who could not afford the payments.
I tend to side with moderate Dems on the tax-cut issue. Extend them permanently for the middle class; phase them out for the rich over a few years.
Implement the Simpson-Bowles plan immediately; opt for some pain now rather than economic disaster later.
This makes so much sense since poor people do all the hiring in the economy...
It's not like we can look through historical recessions and depressions and easily point to governmental actions intended to help causing or worsening the situation. The great depression wasn't caused because of Smoot-Hawley and Hoover's insistence on a monetary policy of sterilization to fight inflation, it was caused by greedy wall street capitalists. FDR didn't perpetuate a problem for a decade that should have ended in 2 years by abandoning the gold standard and creating the NRA to stomp private business, it was just those greedy capitalists again. Price controls in 1973 on gas and California's energy price controls had nothing to do with brownouts and shortages. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in conjunction with Greenspan's monetary policy didn't enable the housing market to mutate into a property-flipping casino. Once again you just need to blame capitalism and create more regulation.
I know regulation isn't the same thing as taxes but the talk of trickle-up and trickle down comes from the same root idiocy: that the government has either the authority or the ability to manage and mold the economy. None of it is their money, whether it comes from the rich or the middle-class or the poor. I should never have to defend anyone's right to keep their own money. The government is obligated to justify their power to take it, and a citizen's ability to pay does not constitute that justification.
Buffet is so wrong. It's the poor people that use the services and the rich people that create jobs. The poor should start to pay a higher percentage and the wealthy pay less or even zero in many cases since they create the jobs. That would really get this economy going again.
JohnSD: Yes, we should just toss that ridiculous moldy piece of paper that talks about all people being created equal and face the practical reality that some people just deserve to have more provided and other are more obligated to give it. American exceptionalism is nonsense. We need to be more like China.
Rog, you mean the moldy document that does not include women, implies that Negroes are 3/5 of a person, and calls Native Americans savages?
Larry, it sounds like the perfect document. Like the Bible how could we ever considering interpreting it other than word for word. Things just don't change.
JohnSD There are adjectives for people who's principles change according to how the winds blow. They aren't nice. I don't think we need to hold to old words out of stubborn traditional arrogance. But I'm afraid I would require something more than "times change" to justify ignoring the foundations of our society. Do you think you could do better than that?
Larry, the 3/5 compromise was made against slave states who wanted to have all their slaves counted so they could inflate the number of representatives they were given in congress. It wasn't a judgment on the value of black people. You need to stop reading Howard Zinn and pick up a history book. You also need to try to comprehend that the principle of equality should apply to more than gender and skin color.
Like repealing DADT, for example? And raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans?
Howard Zinn is great, so are Gore Vidal, Naomi Klein and Cory Heidelberger.
It's always great to hear from you, Rog. Where ya been?
There is a "sweet spot" for taxation that benefits all. Conservatives will claim that tax cuts increase revenue and liberals of course say the opposite. The Laffer curve says if taxes are too low, government revenue suffers, and if it's too high, revenue suffers. Many conservatives point to the Reagan era when he inherited super high tax rates and a dead economy. Lowering the top marginal rates resulted in a huge increase in revenue from the richest payers but, surprise, resulted in less revenue from the lower half of payers.
I think the debate about the tax cuts needs to center more around the income ceiling. I believe there are too many small businesses that would be hurt at the 250,000 level. I think somewhere in that million plus is about right and as a compromise for raising taxes for 1 million plus, you lower and reform the corporate tax rate. Grant a small window to bring in international wealth at a reduced rate ( I know your head is already spinning Cory).
We also need some serious immigration reform to allow the best and brightest immigrants to come and stay here. Our intellectual capital fell off a cliff after 911 and has gone down from there. The developing countries are taking more of (not only our natural resources as they develop) but also our human resources. People still want to come to America but as other nations develop, that draw won't be as powerful.
I'm not trying to argue though that the government needs more income because I believe we have plenty. It's our spending that needs reform and it needs to start with entitlements which we all know will never happen because it's political suicide.
cut military spending
replace all income taxation with a combination of a consumer tax and flat tax as well as a balanced 4-year budget amendment.
remove all corporate taxes from companies either existing solely in the US or following all US regulations in their international branches.
Heavily penalize employers of illegal immigrants:civil and criminal penalties. Remove caps on legitimate immigration with zero tolerance for most criminal activity.
Larry: Id happily eliminate DADT, but wealthy Americans are no more obligated to pay taxes than the poorest of us, equality would demand lowering their income taxes to around 15%, right?
Comments are closed.