s/o Poverty: Economics and Politics

[blink]

Can we talk economics and politics for a bit? I'm young and ignorant and I know next to nothing about anything before 2000.

From my understanding of trickle-down economics, corporations and the top tax brackets get greater tax breaks and their tax rate was lowered. They then theoretically use the money they aren't spending in taxes to create jobs by opening businesses and putting the money back into the economy. It is also my understanding that despite this Reagan raised taxes for the lower brackets and actually raised taxes overall. Why is he regarded as such a hero, then?  I'm also confused as to why this policy (and Reagan) in general is lauded as such a hero, when from the looks of it the past two decades of that general theory have sent us into a recession, increased the federal deficit and allowed the stereotyped 1%ers to exist. What am I missing? Why is he considered a hero? Is it because during his terms as President the GDP did increase and inflation went down, despite the Federal deficit increasing?

Further, is the scandal the only reason Clinton never seems to be mentioned by the public for his economic policies? I know he opposed tax cuts to the wealthy and he worked to create a budget surplus and unemployment was at its lowest for him.

I just feel like I'm missing something because, to me, it doesn't appear that cutting taxes for the rich to maybe, possibly, if they feel like it to feed the poor is really working. It seems much more logical to increase the standard of living and put more money into the economy for the lower tax brackets (and I don't mean just taxes but safety net programs as well) since they are the ones that are more likely to put the money back into the economy and out of bank accounts. And you know, the whole I hate to see children starve and go without so why shouldn't we.

So what is the other side? What has corrupted trickle-down economics to create the state we are in now? Or what am I missing? (Also if anyone has any recommended reading regarding the past presidencies in general, that would be exponentially helpful as well.)

[mominatrix]

I honestly wish I knew the answer.


So far, the best explanation I have is this:

[rugbywife]

I don't know a lot about economics so this is based purely on…well, nothing really, just what I think…

Economy works in cycles…I think the 80s were an upswing in the cycle…

I don't believe in the trickle down effect. I believe that if you pay people more, they will have more to spend and that having more to spend will help propel the economy. I do not trust companies to create jobs because I think this last recession was a good example of people losing jobs, those who still had jobs did more work to make up for it (and to keep their jobs) and then companies were all like, "holla, why would we hire more people when things get better when people are willing to work harder…let's just leave things as they are, have fewer employees and bigger dividends. I am going to go out an buy a new car come to think of it". Meanwhile, their employees still make shit and need assistance from the government to make ends meet.

Also, I think that things have changed a lot because of globalization, improvements in transportation and communications and the like, making it easier for companies to outsource business to countries where people will work less. I don't think the US economy can really bounce back from that.

But I could be full of shit.

[ESF]

From my understanding of trickle-down economics, corporations and the top tax brackets get greater tax breaks and their tax rate was lowered. They then theoretically use the money they aren't spending in taxes to create jobs by opening businesses and putting the money back into the economy

Yes.

It is also my understanding that despite this Reagan raised taxes for the lower brackets and actually raised taxes overall.

Not sure about that.


I'm also confused as to why this policy (and Reagan) in general is lauded as such a hero, when from the looks of it the past two decades of that general theory have sent us into a recession, increased the federal deficit and allowed the stereotyped 1%ers to exist. What am I missing? Why is he considered a hero? Is it because during his terms as President the GDP did increase and inflation went down, despite the Federal deficit increasing?

My understanding is that he is considered a hero because he lowered taxes, and certain economic indicators suggested his policies worked, there were some pro-business incentives passed under him many of which were still in place, he nominated Scalia to the Supreme Court, he had a zero tolerance attitude towards unions, the Cold War ended on his watch, and he was not Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, or Walter Mondale.

And also because many people still believe (or at least, parrot the line that it works, since it's making them rich) trickle down economics actually works.  Those people tend to blame the economic ills on over-regulation, taxes, Carter, Clinton, Obama, the welfare state, and a million other factors -- basically everything but trickle down economics.

[NewOrleans]

Lol asdfjkl

[blink]

Jul 28, 2014 18:39:15 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

I do not have time for.this to night. Do not. People need to post this shit at 10 am. Got it? I need time for my WOTs.

In place of my WOTs, please read The Man Who Sold The World (can't remember the author), The Robber Barons By Matthew Josephson (or Joseph Mathewson. I always forget), the wiki entries on The Laffer Curve, Keynesian economics, neo-classical economics, and Glass-Steagal. Then YouTube the scene from Ferris Bueller where Ben Stein is doing the econ lecture.

Sorry I can't spell.

This is more than useful enough and much appreciated. Thanks.

Oh ESF. The welfare state is the one I've heard the most, but I've always found myself at a loss because I don't know as much as I would like yet.

[NewOrleans]

forums.thenest.com/discussion/5244984/for-mer-and-steph-things-i-blame-on-reagan