‘Trickle-down’ is a Reagan era term.
In any case proof is in the results. Lets see how NYC fares under him.
Trickle down was used long before Reagan.
We don’t give more to the wealthy. They create more, and are compensated more for that wealth creation.
They create wealth by their work, by their courage, by their investments, and to some extent by their luck.
When you see a Marxist asserting that there is surplus value, that just means he has identified something that he wants to steal.
Trickle down was a term used by the media during the
Reagan era. What Reagan said was a rising tide lifts
all boats.
The libtards lie about what it means, and they lie about its success.
They tell people that it means that the government GIVES money to rich people and the rich people are supposed to give it away to poor, but they didn't...
What it really means is that the government DIDN'T TAKE AWAY as much from businesses, and in turn they had more capital to hire and grow their businesses... And that was an ewnormous success! (look at how even the libtards have to acknowledge that the 80’s were a period of huge growth)
I stopped listening to Larry King when I heard him agree with some libtard saying how bad “trickle down’ was and Larry's response was “They didn't trickle...”
I was thinking Nixon.
Trickle down from private citizens to private citizen is better then trickle down from private citizen through government to others.
Trickle down according to the article is that you give the people at the top more. That’s not how it works. You allow everyone to keep more of what they make. A rising tide floats all boats.
Sowell’s point in the article is that “trickle down” is not a theory proposed by any actual person. Rather, it is a parody of "supply side economics” - the unexceptionable point that taxation lowers the supply curve and thus reduces economic activity. ”Trickle down economics” is straw man argument.I call supply side economics “unexceptionable,” but of course “liberals” continually take exception to factual statements about reality. Back when Sen. Spector was doing a fairly passable imitation of a Republican, he questioned a witness about his projection of tax revenue as a function of the rate of a particular tax. Spector asked what would be the revenue of that tax if the rate were set at 10%, and the witness gave a number of dollars. Spector asked what the revenue would be if the rate were set at 20%, and the witness doubled the number of dollars. Spector marched all the way up to 100%, and the witness quoted the original number of dollars, time ten. Spector then said, “I give up.”
The correct response would have been for Spector to go beyond 100% at a geometric rate - he should have asked what the witness projected if the rate were 200%, and 400%, and 800%, and 1600% - continuing on until the witness cracked, or everyone in the room started laughing.