A Fact About Trickle-Down Economics Republicans Really Don’t Want You to Think About

TrickleDownPretty much anyone who follows politics knows that the economic theory Republicans subscribe to is something called trickle-down economics, sometimes referred to as “Reaganomics” since Ronald Reagan is most responsible for unleashing this economic ideology on the United States.

Any mention of raising taxes or ending the gigantic scam of trickle-down economics causes Republicans to spin off into some angry rant about the end of American capitalism and the rise of socialism/communism/fascism in this country.  (They use the terms interchangeably because most of them don’t realize that they’re all different.)

You can throw unions in with this as well.  The thought that any organization would fight for the rights of the American worker — forcing companies to actually provide things like safe working conditions, benefits, health care and respectable pay — is “un-American” and “violates the principles of capitalism.”

Yet every time I hear one of these people spout this nonsense I can’t help but think to myself, “So, prior to 1980, were we living in a socialist/communist/fascist society?  Were presidents like Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy and Nixon socialists/communists/fascists?”

However, the answers are simple — of course we weren’t and of course they weren’t.

But wait a minute, current Republicans claim that raising taxes and having strong unions violates the rules of capitalism!

Here’s a fun fact: Prior to 1980, before the true dawn of trickle-down economics, the United States was still a country with an economy driven by and based on capitalism.

Capitalism that thrived with much higher taxes and stronger unions.

See, trickle-down economics has nothing to do with capitalism.  It can be a part of capitalism, but it does not define capitalism in any way.  We were a capitalist country long before trickle-down economics was forced on Americans and we were much better off overall.

Trickle-down didn’t usher in capitalism into the United States, it just allowed 2% of Americans to screw over the other 98%.

This is a simple fact Republicans never mention and pretend doesn’t exist.  Go ahead, ask one of them, “If trickle-down economics is so vital for American growth, why did our country experience incredible growth long before anyone had ever heard of the scam of trickle-down economics?”

You’ll rarely get an answer.  And even if you do, it won’t make a whole lot of sense.

But to Republicans, they act as if trickle-down economics is what defines capitalism.  Any mention of going against this well-crafted con is met with horror stories of socialism or communism.  Yet, when they respond with such nonsense, are they trying to say that prior to 1980 we were a socialist or communist nation?

I doubt it.

It’s just a good thing for the Republican party that conservative voters prefer to be told what to think instead of doing it for themselves.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • jimhummel

    The last sentence of the article says it all.

  • strayaway

    Trickle down economic theory is alive and well after five years of President Obama. We just don’t mention it anymore. The Federal Reserve ‘prints’ $85B/month, backed by the future earnings of our children and grandchildren, and distributes that money to its owner banks. Those banks loan it out for interest. This is a nice racket having a monopoly on being able to make interest on something that was created out of thin air. All this newly created money needs a home. It seems a lot of it has buoyed the stock market and is driving up the price of luxury goods. Perhaps some of it will eventually trickle down to the rest of us.

    • Excellent summation.

    • JohnB

      The damage was done by the continued implementation of “trickle down” economic policies in the US over the last 30+ years, and barring complete economic collapse or violent revolution I can’t see the US government or corporations redistributing wealth back to the citizens.

      It has always puzzled me why the US dollar hasn’t depreciated as an effect of the printing of many billions of dollars each month for the last 4+ years (so called quantitative easing), QE1, QE2, QE3. Currently running at $85 billion per month).
      Recently it has occurred to me that the most likely reason for this lack of currency inflation is due to US citizens being now so poor and needy.
      According to statistics I have seen, on some measures over 50% of US citizens are living at or about ‘poverty level’.

      Significant domestic mid-level small business interactivity in the US is greatly diminished – localised activities that in earlier times would pass the cash stimulus back and forth many times, paying wages, taxes etc and providing social support structures on the way through.

      This means that most of the money that is injected into the US economy is quickly spent by the needy masses of population – and unfortunately this ‘spent’ money quickly is soaked up by remote big businesses – only adding further to the vast accumulated wealth of the 1%.
      There is now no longer a strata of middle class or small family type business activity that would pass the money back and forth as they trade, work and pay taxes.

      When the money is gathered by the 1%, it is effectively taken back out of the US economy, with minimal tax being paid as the money is moved offshore to invest in cheaper labour and resources.
      It is a well known fact that over 50% of world trade is conducted via tax havens where no or minimal tax is paid – ensuring the host nation will slowly but surely bleed to economic death.

      Broadly, there is no ‘demand’ pressure within the US economy, as with 50% of population at near poverty level it follows that people without money can’t buy.
      Profitable multinationals are flooding the US with ‘cheap’ goods imported from their overseas factory investments – there is more ‘goods’ on the supply side than US people now have money to buy.
      Thus there is no supply pressure, an oversupply of goods with not enough money in the hands of consumers to purchase – hence no inflation pressure on the US economy- however that does nothing to improve the living standards for US citizens – and never will in my opinion, as most multinational corporations return next to nothing back to the US national domestic economy.

      Given the way the US the domestic economy is now structured, I fear for the future of its many financially struggling citizens when “quantitative easing” is removed, and the impact this will have both nationally and internationally.
      They are the sad facts.

      Is my analysis wrong ??

      I further suggest that the next biggest threat to egalitarian society and citizens welfare in general, is a governments unhealthy embrace of multinational corporations – or perhaps more accurately expressed, allowing multinational corporations to buy control of ‘democratic’ governments.
      Corporate desire for unbridled implementation of “trickle down” economic policies, together with adoption of the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement currently being negotiated serves only one interest – their profits – citizens interests are not in the equation.

      The TPP gives multinationals more freedoms to play one country against another for cheapest supply -of course this means playing one countries labour rates against another too, opening yet another front to attack pay-rates in advanced organised economies.

      Welcome to the third world.

      • strayaway

        Good analysis John. Internationalizing the supply of labor is destroying our middle class. I have only one point of disagreement with you, that there is inflation. You skirted around it. The rich are driving up the price for things rich people buy like art works, stocks, and upper end housing all of which is off the visible spectrum for most of us. Also, other countries are similarly inflating their currencies It’s more politically palatable than raising taxes. China has to ‘print’ money just to keep its currency down with the dollar and uses it to buy the world’s resources and infrastructure while we print to buy debt. Packaging goods in smaller containers for the same price and adjusting government statistics also help hide main street inflation.

      • JohnB

        My comment on $US inflation was from an international (Australian) perspective .
        The strong US exchange rate has caused other countries currencies to be overvalued – leading to distortions/disruptions in domestic economy structures -commonly known as “Dutch disease”.

  • HappyJack

    Trickle down economics got mentioned during the 1896 Presidential Campaign. In his Speech of Gold, Democratic Presidential nominee William Jennings Bryant said “There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it” Of course the big topic was mostly in regards to the hotly contested issue over the nation’s monetary standard, gold or bimetallism.

    Then of course there’s George Reisman, an American economist and Professor Emeritus of Economics at Pepperdine University, an advocate of free market or laissez-faire capitalism. He said “Of course, many people will characterize the line of argument I have just given as the ‘trickle-down’ theory. There is nothing trickle-down about it. There is only the fact that capital accumulation and economic progress depend on saving and innovation and that these in turn depend on the freedom to make high profits and accumulate great wealth. The only alternative to improvement for all, through economic progress, achieved in this way, is the futile attempt of some men to gain at the expense of others by means of looting and plundering. This, the loot-and-plunder theory, is the alternative advocated by the critics of the misnamed trickle-down theory.” Reisman was a student of Ayn Rand, enough said.

    Maybe Will Rogers, humorist during the Great Depression said it wisely enough, “money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy.”

  • suburbancuurmudgeon

    Whenever a conservative brings up “job killing tax hikes” I like to point out that during the 1950s, an era which conservatives laud as the greatest of the 20th century, Eisenhower managed to build bridges, hospitals, schools and the interstate highway system, even though the top federal income tax rate was 91%. I either get a blank stare or a lot of sputtering.

    • Charles Vincent

      That’s the marginal tax rate bud the actual tax rate was 50% nice try at spinning though.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Then argue with Business insider. I’m comparing apples and apples; it was still far higher than now and we did rather well. I think you are referring to “average” rather than “actual” tax rate.

        “Today’s government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years.
        Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut.

        Today’s income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, op-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.

        Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe,
        super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%–and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

        Read more: http://www DOT businessinsider DOT com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1#ixzz2nTgRtgwi

      • Charles Vincent

        Hmm the actual tax rate now is ~38% that’s only 12% difference.You’re not comparing apples to apples you’re spouting sophistry in an attempt to put over on people who don’t know better;

        http://online DOT wsj DOT com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324705104578151601554982808

        http://conversableeconomist DOT blogspot DOT com/2012/03/top-marginal-tax-rates-1958-vs-2009 DOT html

        http://www DOT manhattan-institute DOT org/html/ib_19 DOT htm# DOT Uq14h-KncaY

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Nope, marginal tax rate is 39.6%. All figures from taxfoundation DOT org, courtesy of the IRS so, yes. I’m being consistent. The point is we had higher taxes in the 1950s and did OK. The bigger point is no one pissed and moaned about taxes the way people do now.

      • Charles Vincent

        Because individuals currently pay more than corporations than they did in the 1950’s.


        2011 individual income tax totaled 1.1 trillion dollars

        2011 corporate tax totals ~181 billion dollars

        1958 individual taxes totaled 40.7 billion dollars

        1958 corporate taxes totaled 697 billion

        http://www DOT irs DOT gov/pub/irs-soi/58cocrar Dot pdf
        have an excel spreadsheet with the ’58 individual numbers.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        No argument there. My point remains. No one pissed and moaned about paying taxes.

      • Charles Vincent

        They did piss and moan it just wasn’t as loud. Taxes are unnecessary this is evidenced here;

        Thomas Jefferson repealed all internal taxes and ran the government solely from trade tariff revenue.

        “1800 – With the assistance of his Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, newly elected Republican President Thomas Jefferson sought to reorient the fiscal policy of the United States. Jefferson’s four main goals included: (1) a reduction in government expenditures, (2) a balanced budget; (3) a decrease in the size of the national debt, and
        (4) alleviation of the tax burden. The latter two objectives seemed to conflict with one another; specifically, Jefferson’s desire to abrogate
        Hamilton’s funded debt plan and retire all government obligations as judiciously as possible required a steady stream of revenue.
        Nevertheless, Jefferson abolished all internal taxes, including the whiskey excise tax and the land tax. Meanwhile, the Napoleonic Wars in
        Europe, though a diplomatic minefield for American statesmen, proved a significant stimulus to the economy of the United States. Vigorous
        commerce enriched merchants while customs duties swelled the federal Treasury. By 1808 the national debt had been reduced from $80 million to
        $57 million, even though the Louisiana purchase had added an $11 million liability. By 1806, duties proved so lucrative that Gallatin and
        Jefferson fretted about what to do with the surplus above that required for debt retirement. Treasury reserves increased from $3 million to $14
        million between 1801 and 1808.”

        http://www DOT tax DOT org/Museum/1777-1815 DOT htm

        “Jefferson got repealed all the direct federal taxes passed by the
        Federalists and boasted that ordinary Americans would never see a
        federal tax collector in their whole lives.”

        http://www DOT friesian DOT com/presiden.htm

        “In his term, Jefferson wanted to limit the national government’s power.He also wanted to cut the federal budget and lower taxes. Jefferson
        promised to pay off the national debt, which at that time was $83 million. He encouraged agriculture and trade. To help cut spending, he
        appointed Albert Gallatin as secretary of treasury. Gallatin worked in the House of Representatives and was a brilliant financer. He greatly
        cut military and naval spending. Gallatin also cut the staff of the executive branch. Together, he and Jefferson cut the national debt to $43 million. This allowed Jefferson to repeal exise taxes on whiskey and other products and ended all internal taxes.”

        “When Thomas Jefferson was elected President in 1802, direct taxes were abolished and for the next 10 years there were no internal revenue taxes
        other than excises.”

        http://www DOT ustreas DOT gov/education/fac…es/ustax DOT shtml

        (Note: the government’s site is inaccurate on details. Jefferson was elected in 1800 and the excise taxes were repealed also.)

        And after Jefferson’s repeals, the Federal Government continued to operate without any permanent internal taxes until 1860:
        “Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention
        [see Federalist Paper #45] reveal clearly that the framers of the Constitution believed for some time [and wrote this requirement into the Constitution] that the principal, if not sole, support of the new
        Federal Government would be derived from customs duties and taxes connected with shipping and importations. Internal taxation would not be
        resorted to except infrequently, and for special [emergency] reasons.The first resort to internal taxation, the enactment of internal revenue laws in 1791 and in the following 10 years, wasoccasioned by the exigencies of the public credit. These first laws were repealed in 1802. Internal revenue laws were reenacted for the period 1813-17, when
        the effects of the war of 1812 caused Congress to resort to internal taxation. From 1818 to 1861, however, the United States had no internal revenue laws and the Federal Government was supported by the revenue from import duties and the proceeds from the sale of public lands. In 1862 Congress once more levied internal revenue taxes.
        This time the establishment of an internal revenue system, not exclusively dependent upon the supplies of foreign commerce, was

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        That was 200 years ago. Times changed. Taxes are necessary. You benefit from them. End of story.

      • Charles Vincent

        “That was 200 years ago. Times changed.”

        This argument is invalid here is why.
        The constitution is ~320 years old and no one suggests that the bill of rights is outdated simply because its old that’s puerile at best

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        The Second Amendment is outdated. And we were talking about the necessity (or not) of taxes. Times change. You still benefit from taxes. And check your math.

      • Charles Vincent

        The Natural right of self defense will never be out dated you fail. The constitution only enumerates it as one that cannot be violated by government or other individuals.
        But lets carry that argument to the rest of the 10 original amendments so I can show you the absurdity of your puerile argument.

        Hmm the first amendment is outdated because it allows people to instigate violence against minorities e.g. Nazis or the KKK so therefore we need to repeal it so those who spread hate and discontent can be silenced and charged with crimes against humanity. And as all liberals know those RWNJ’s shouldn’t be able to speak their brand of poisonous rhetoric.

        Let us repeal the third amendment cause as citizens we should embrace quartering our nations soldiers(at our individual expense) because after all its the least we can do for those who fight and die so we can have it good.

        We also need to repeal the 4th amendment after all if you haven’t done anything wrong who cares if the search you or your home/ possessions right?

        And the 5th amendment definitely is outdated we all know who the criminals are and no one wants them getting off on a technicality and i am sure any property they have can be redistributed to the government and be used in a more effective manner and with out the 5th amendment we could retry OJ and get a conviction we all know he did it.

        The 6th is definitely outdated criminals don’t deserve to have a lawyer after all they were arrested for a crime and should pay for it.

        The 7th amendment is also outdated we have volumes of statutory law therefore we have no need for common law and therefore we should repeal the 7th amendment.

        The 8th amendment id useless we give homeless people 50,000 dollar bails for loitering and pan handling for food just repeal it already.

        And with the first 8 amendments repealed the 9th and 10th amendments are useless as we have repealed everyone’s rights and therefore the last two are irrelevant and unnecessary.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        “Well-regulated militia.” We don’t need no stinkin’ well regulated militia. We do need more regulation and that’s where your argument fails.

        If the Constitution is so great, why are there 27 amendments.

        First amendment is about GOVERNMENT making laws “abridging the freedom of speech.” Nazis and KKK are entitled to right to free speech.

      • Charles Vincent

        We have plenty of regulation ala the recent shooting in the school in arapahoe here in Colorado you know they just passed stricter laws to regulate that so it wouldn’t happen right and guess what it still happened and was stopped by an armed resource officer in just 80 seconds, and the shooter was rabidly anti gun socialist and had Molotov cocktails and perpetrated the act because his debate teacher took him off the team your argument fails because law even more strict didn’t prevent it and two it was a lefty anti gun kid that did the shooting we need less regulation and more education bud.

        The same argument can be applied to the rest of the amendments they are all outdated the shall not be abridged applies to al ten of the amendments in the original bill of rights further more the second amendment states shall not be infringed. The first amendment should be repealed as there were not tv and phone and radio when they wrote it your argument is absurd and full of gross sophistry I only highlighted it with those other nine examples.

      • DoctorButler

        It’s like you only hear certain socio-political buzzwords and go off on a barely-legiible, fully-irrelevant tangent about complete nonesense.

        When he said the second-amendment was outdated, he meant we no longer need to form a civilian-militia. No one is taking your precious guns away, which btw, private gun ownership is not actually protected by the 2nd amendment, only the right to form an army in the absence/sparsity of the US military. I know, your poor pre-conceived notions are so damaged. Try reading documents, before you argue about them next time.

        But, I digress, you then went on an enormous tangent about domestic-terrorism, which sprung from the word “regulation”, which was in reference to regulations on corporations, not gun-rights. But, once again, you misinterpreted his argument.


      • Charles Vincent

        Yeah tell that to Connecticut the state violated federal law with its new gun registration law. I read Heller and what sub was talking about isn’t what your saying we have had this conversation before on a number of threads so it is you that doesn’t know whats going on here.

      • meatwad_SSuppet

        YOU, are an ignorant on the second amendment. The first half only states a natural fact, there is no right mentioned in the first half of it. The right of the people is the only RIGHT the second amendment mentions. Go on tell us differently. Idiots, I’ll tell you.

      • Charles Vincent

        Thought this might spark some interest based on a discussion we had a while back.

        http://www DOT thefederalistpapers DOT

      • meatwad_SSuppet

        The first amendment is far more than free speech. Listen up, you are out of your league here with what Charles has done to you so far.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        There are, I believe, 4 parts to the first amendment. Charles was discussing the free speech part. And he’s done nothing to me. Sorry, I still live in the real world.

      • Charles Vincent

        HMM wrong again on taxes they aren’t necessary, they got record tax revenue in 2013 and guess what they still out spent that gain by ~750 billion(deficit) dollars, the more you give them the more they spend period. They do not need more taxes and the sure as hell could do with the tax structure Thomas Jefferson used to reduce the debt(and the bureaucracy) by ~1/3 during his presidency. the majority of the stuff on your list either didn’t come from taxes or came from an excise tax which is constitutionally recognized tax, taxes on income are not period you can blather all you like but at the end of the day your list is inaccurate and shows you have no clue what your taxes get you.

        http://www DOT bing DOT com/search?q=Record+tax+revenues+in+2013+but+still+a+deficit+of+700+billion&form=U147DD&pc=U147D

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Record compared to what? I like taxes.

      • Charles Vincent

        Compared to other tax years did you even read the article? This isn’t about you liking taxes, cause if it were I would have excoriated you on the rampant waste of tax dollars. Pretending that you don’t know is juvenile and beneath you.

      • DoctorButler

        “The Rampant Waste of Tax Dollars”

        Yeah, it’s wasted on:
        -two wars
        -tax cuts for millionaires
        -corporate welfare

        and let’s not forget, the right-wing CEO’s hire lobbyists to keep wages at an all time low, so let’s throw in those food stamps and social security you cons hate so much.

        So, in short, you and everyone like you is a cancer. Please do America a favor and drop dead.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Yeah, it’s wasted on:
        -two wars
        -tax cuts for millionaires
        -corporate welfare”

        Hmmm two wars that Obama has continued;
        http://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=8mA4HYTO790
        Corporate welfare that the democrats have been voting for.
        my my my you’re myopic waaaah waaaaah the republicans are bad you sir are ignorant both parties do that stop drinking the MSM party line bullshit. Take your own advice douchebag.,

      • Patrick Scott

        Two wars that he is ending. Corporate welfare solidified by lobbies tied to congressional Republicans. Welfare and food stamps because of Republican obstruction to infrastructure rebuilding. The party of “NO” has proven over and over that they are a party of treasonous, lying, hypocrits. They have gone on record boasting about their lack of compromise with this President. They tried to hold the American people hostage in the last shut down. They only people it hurt were workers and small businesses. They spout family values but exhibit little to none on anyone who differs with them.

      • Charles Vincent

        The democrats dole out plenty of corporate subsidies Patrick. Oh goody hypocrisy that’s my favorite word don’t be leaving out the democrats cause they are just as big on hypocrisy as the republicans. Good they should be obstructing the president and so should the democrats Obama is not fit to hold that office.

        And you can apply this “They tried to hold the American people hostage in the last shut down.
        They only people it hurt were workers and small businesses. They spout family values but exhibit little to none on anyone who differs with them.”
        to the Democrats as well they have cause shut downs as well, and have a penchant for preaching tolerance and then showing how bigoted they can be.

        And this is the Cherry on your little turd sundae “Two wars that he is ending.”
        Ending really? Then why are we still in Afghanistan and why did he start a military conflict in Libya
        and why did he carry on proxy wars in Egypt and Syria? All contrary to his platform during his first election campaign.

      • Patrick Scott

        Charles I rarely respond to those that try and trash President Obama because common sense and civility are lacking in most that try and attack him. You chose to not deal with any of the points I raised even going so far as to give a pass to Republican obstructionism because you feel President Obama should not be in office. I don’t agree with you on your talking points but there needs to be some common ground.
        President Obama has indeed ended the war that we never should have been in in Iraq. He has also started the process to end the war in Afghanistan. Both wars were started because the treasonous republicans chose to put party line over American lives. They consistently lied to us all saying that they had proof of weapons of mass destruction. A lie that was never proven true. They also started sending our troops into battle without the proper equipment. And it shows your mentality when you scoff at American workers and small businesses being hurt because of the Republicans government shutdown to defeat the ACA. So throw out any blog or conversation you had with your 3rd cousin from Mississippi and understand what you think does anyone any good when it is not backed up with facts.

      • Charles Vincent

        5 years later and Iraq just about 4 years in. You didn’t raise any points you just filled space with party line rhetoric.

        “They consistently lied to us all saying that they had proof of weapons of mass destruction. A lie that was never proven true.”

        Hmmm sort of like you can keep your insurance and your doctor right?

        Facts? I think you should check yourself Chief, you’ve uttered nothing but party line bullshit mixed with your own ignorant opinion.
        So far your tactic seems to be blame Bush so Obama doesn’t look like a totally incompetent president. But heres the skinny Chief nothing you can do will make Obama look good.

        Noam Chomsky

        https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=8mA4HYTO790

        https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=f5pur4-dfiY

        https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=63HNuL2tfNc

        Jonathan Turly

        https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=AjDMO1Np6ik

        https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=41kij0HuOmw

        https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=Unr-hiEmSZs

      • Matthew Reece

        If you like taxes, then you like receiving the proceeds of armed robbery but are too much of a coward to wield the guns yourself.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        So, Matthew, have you found a country yet that doesn’t tax its citizens? Let me know when you do. In the meantime, STFU because you are a beneficiary of said taxes.

      • Matthew Reece

        Whether or not a theory is currently practiced has no bearing on its truth value. Logic overrules observation.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        What logic? You have none.

      • Matthew Reece

        Base assertion fallacy.

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        not always matt baybeee,,,,,,,,not always–

      • Matthew Reece

        Logic is absolute and universal. So yes, always.

      • gian keys LOVES shemale porn

        try using LOGIC solely upon a shark when its chasing you, try using LOGIC in an illogical situation ( say,,,and insane girlfriend) ,,,,,LOGIC has more merit by itself than most; but it is not flawless in some applications
        religion is NOT logical; but it flourishes

      • Matthew Reece

        Logic is always valid, but there are beings who are unable or unwilling to understand and accept it.

      • gian keys LOVES shemale porn

        im not saying logic isnt valid: im saying its application is not always perfect ; logic has limitations . a being which doesnt understand it still can overcome it by sheer forces of nature and intangibles also

      • Matthew Reece

        By your logic, an abolitionist in the antebellum South should STFU about slavery if he is wearing a cotton shirt. (reductio ad absurdum)

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        alternative coices in shirt fabrics back then>? hemp? silk?? chain mail?

      • littleamb3

        I bet you don’t even pay federal. BTW, no one likes taxes, but it is a part of life

      • Matthew Reece

        Not paying federal is a good thing, especially if one has enough economic activity off the books to sustain oneself. Taxes do not have to be part of life, and were not for the first 190,000 years or so that modern humans have existed.

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        kinda like Halliburton executives in relation to IRAQ?

      • Matthew Reece

        That would be one example.

      • DoctorButler

        Jesus, how dense are you? Laws and rights don’t “inflate”; Money does that’s why things get more expensive, warranting federal and state taxes to provide amenities that you use.

        False equivalency.

      • Charles Vincent

        Money is inflating because of the monetary policy of the fed laws inflate wtf are you smoking. I said laws and regulations expand as in they pass more and more every year go check your reading comprehension Chief.

      • j

        it actually is outdated to be fair.

      • Charles Vincent

        It wasn’t when I posted it six months ago.

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        320 yrs old?

      • Charles Vincent

        typo sorry

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        no worry Charles: many of us liberals still luv ya!

      • Charles Vincent

        Haha I am fairly certain that’s an exaggeration T.

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        actually it is truthful,,,,,,,,,,,,,, considered U are pretty much an erudite guy

      • Charles Vincent

        Eh I try to learn as much as I can about whats happening around me, and try to keep an even keel while doing that. Sadly it doesn’t always work out that way, but at least I try hehe.

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        !! you and I both!!
        please note the amount of ” coalition” countries Obama has already fighting the ISIS/ISIL scumbags,,,,,,,,,,,
        Im really hoping we blow them to those 72 virgins( mules)

      • Matthew Reece

        The claim that taxation is necessary is a positive claim which carries a burden of proof. Prove the case.

        It does not matter whether people benefit from evil. It is still evil.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Who pays for your highways, cops, firefighters, education, air traffic controllers, military, meat inspectors, environmental protection, disaster relief, and so on? Ain’t the private sector. Feel free to stop paying taxes and see what it gets you. In the meantime STFU because you benefit from all the above.

      • Matthew Reece

        Are you claiming that because things currently are a certain way, that they therefore must be that way? Making such a claim is a logical fallacy.

        If I stop paying taxes, armed agents will kidnap and cage me. If I defend myself, they will murder me.

        Again, it does not matter whether people benefit from evil because morality does not depend on consequences.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        There are several problem here.
        1.You and I do not agree on the definition of evil.
        2. You are free to leave but don’t.
        3. They will not kidnap and cage you; they’ll just garnish your wages (if you even have any).
        4. You need to take your meds if that is truly how you think.

      • Matthew Reece

        1. Evil is objectively defined as any violation of logical rights. Logical rights are those rights which cannot be argued against without committing a contradiction.
        2. A prisoner can be free to move to another cell in the prison, but this is not true freedom.
        3. Yes they will. Look at Irwin Schiff, Larken Rose, etc.
        4. Ad hominem admits defeat and ignorance.

      • wheldon rumproast

        If you hate “evil”: taxes…so much, why don’t you move to Somalia, or some other African 3rd world area? These areas the epitome of all you desire: no taxes, small ineffective government, unlimited guns possessed by unregulated “militias” (criminals): you’d be in heaven! However, a few of the things…paid for by those “evil” tax $$$ might also be missing, but what do you care? You’d be in Libertarian heaven! Maybe the rest of us here could take up a collection for your 1-way ticket.

      • Matthew Reece

        I refer you to point #2 above, which didn’t seem to get through your apparently thick skull.

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        hey matt,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, by your own post wouldn’t your ^^^ above ” ad hominum” post lay claim that Uadmit defeat?

      • unStunned

        Mr. Vincent, you’re hopeless. To put a positive spin on it, you’re a hopeless romantic, maybe, but hopeless is still the operative word. And by the way–you never did acknowledge the huge gap between your word, actual, and the correct word, average.

        Libertarians and anti-tax fantasists are just silly, and that’s as close as they get to a real-world political virtue.

      • Charles Vincent

        Historical fact isn’t spin good luck with that remedial reading comprehension course chief you’ll need it.

    • DoctorButler

      Consider yourself lucky.

      All of the mentally handi-… I mean, “conservatives” I have to deal with, have a cop-out method for disregarding people who have bested them in debate: LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!

      Prove someone wrong with concrete facts from an official, bipartisan source? Liberal Media Bias!

      Prove someone wrong with common-goddamn-sense? Liberal Media Bias!

      Anything to pretend they’re right.

  • Tim F

    Trickle down economics is nothing more the the ELITE MONARCHY telling the serfs that YOU WILL GET WHAT WE ALLOW YOU TO HAVE AND NOTHING MORE.

  • Jim Bean

    Well, the Democrats are getting they’re way and we’re trying out trickle-up poverty (socialism). In a decade, we’ll do a study to see who they blamed for its failures.

    • Don

      Your “trickle up poverty” comes from companies offshoring American jobs, neutralizing unions, and service industries paying sub-poverty level wages. All aided & abetted by years of Republican leadership. What it’s going to take to fix all this is more government intervention, not less. Unfortunately, “the Democrats” you refer to are held back from correcting the situation by the obstructionists in Congress…or most specifically, the Teapublican-heavy House.

      • Jim Bean

        Its ironic that you prescribe the same tonic (government intervention) to cure the disease(offshoring American jobs, neutralizing unions, and service industries paying sub-poverty level wages) that causes the disease, except in bigger doses. Quinn’s Law(s) Of Liberalism #10. Liberals never think what they are doing is wrong, they only think they haven’t done enough of it yet or it is underfunded.

      • Don

        We’ve had 30+ years of hands-off policy from the government, thanks to Republicans, and you’re seeing where it landed us. Reagan started it, Bush continued (Clinton didn’t help with NAFTA) and Bush II made it far far worse. De-regulation and pandering to the corporate elite and their lobbyists destroyed the middle class, and you right-wing sheeple worship at the altar. Amazing…

      • Jim Bean

        The increase in the number of below-middle-class households is absolutely consistent with the increase in single parent households. When a household has two working members, they are, almost without exception, earning a middle class income even if they are only stocking shelves at WalMart.

        The decline in the standard of living for lower-class families is exacerbated primarily by the Dems/Obama’s policy of printing more money which devalues the dollar and drives up the price of all globally traded commodities such as food and energy.

      • Don

        Sooo…according to you, 2 people working, and making 30k, total, for both of them, that’s ok??? ($7.50 per hr, 2000 hrs, x 2 people) No person…NO person…that works full time should have a wage that’s below the federal poverty line. If both elect to work…and absorb the additional costs of childcare, etc …then that should be a choice, not necessary to survive.

        What we have today: large profitable companies paying less than poverty level wages, with the government picking up the tab for their childcare, WIC, foodstamps, healthcare…is welfare for those corporations that don’t pay a living wage. And is funded by you and me…the taxpayer. THAT (corporate welfare) is what needs to be stopped.

      • Jim Bean

        A person working full time (2060 hrs)at $7.50/hr makes $15,450/yr. The poverty threshold for one person is $11,490/yr. Two working full time is $30,900/yr, well above the poverty threshold for a family of five.

        You’re argument is that you should have the freedom to make whatever lifestyle choices you want and it then becomes an employers obligation to see that you are adequately financed. That’s just nuts.

        And, btw, I despise the corporate greed as much as you, and if you can instill a sense of compassion in them, I’ll cheer you on. On the other hand, if you get heavy handed as you always have in the past and drive them toward more automation, foreign outsourcing, and sheltering their earnings, I’m going to call you on it when you then try to blame it on someone else. Saying, “well, at least we meant well” after you’ve burned the house down doesn’t cut it.

      • Don

        If you can live on that…(I know I couldn’t) then more power to ‘ya. The rich aren’t going to be talked into doing the correct thing, or having a sense of compassion. They spend millions on lobbyists, and buying politicians, to make sure they can screw the masses. They won’t be giving up their ill-gotten gains without a fight. The only organization with enough influence to get them to do the correct thing is the government, that’s been my point all along. But the politicians need to grow a spine and stand up to the wealth and clout that has run our government since Reagan’s great “trickle down” con…

      • Jim Bean

        Ever since Obama threatened that he was going to find a way to make them do the ‘right’ thing (with Joe the plumber), they’ve been sheltering their money with a fervor. That’s MY point. I don’t like it, but that’s just the way it is. To think the government is more powerful than the rich people in a global economy is foolish. You’ll have to entice them to get it, and that’s what the Pubs have been telling you. Doesn’t matter whether you find it distasteful, that’s just the way it is.

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        would that be the dollar which has risen dramatically lately james???

  • skywryter

    Worst case of societal Stockholm Syndrome since Nazi Germany.

  • Bernie Gill

    Trickle Down economics is “VooDoo Economics” as George H.W. Bush once said. It has Never worked….Unfortunately, rather than trickle down, the US economy for the past 30 years has been an updraft to the wealthy!

  • deanrd

    Someone said taxes are unnecessary. Yea, if we followed that line of reasoning, we would all be speaking German and Japanese.

    • Jillian Brown

      We would also be the equivalent of a third world country with no infrastructure and a population of illiterate, uneducated serfs. But I’m sure the 1% would prefer that.

  • david h

    Corporations and businesses only pay 39 percent income tax on 1 percent of the companies gross revenues, because everything is deductible and written off the profit margins in a tax code they wrote and bribed into existence with campaign cash from k street over the last 30 years, they paid 7 percent of federal revenues on income taxes collected last year, how would they like it if we only paid taxes on 1 percent of our gross income and 99 percent of our income was deducted as a business living expense

  • Matthew Reece

    We have been living in a socialist/communist/fascist society since government has had control over money and the granting of corporate status, so the United States has always been such a place.

  • Mrs_oatmeal

    The article is about ” trickle down” economics. It does not work as proven over the past 30+ years. It has not worked. The people at the top (job creators) have just become greedy and the middle and lower classes are sliding into the abyss. People on food stamps are not any lazier than the corporate welfare given to the corporations. Mitt Romney’s family was once on welfare. Paul Ryan received government assistance. Are they just above anyone else who may need help? How very “Christian” of them.

  • Dale Rogers

    Trickle down is the flower of the Southern Strategy, were all slaves now.

  • John M

    I love reading all the trolls trying to defend the conservative view. The point out that the effective tax in the 50’s was only 50%, not 90%. Then they compare that to todays top tax rate of 38% and go “see it’s only 12% points less. Not taking into account that this is not the effective top tax. That would be closer to 15%. The seem to enjoy Making unequal comparisons. Yes, Reagan simplified the tax code. That’s because it was extremely complicated for the top 1% to do there taxes. They had to jump through hoops to find all the loopholes so as to give themselves the tax breaks they wanted. They seem to ignore simple facts and replace them with their own. If you want to make comparisons, make accurate ones. Don’t compare America from 200 year ago to today. It just doesn’t work. Unless you want to go back to a time when a certain percent of the population were slaves. When we had no roads, railroads, planes and 90% of your consumer goods were produced and bought from someone that lived in the same town or at least same state as you. A time when it took months for another country to attack us. Today, in the 21st century, we live in a more complicate and more expensive world. Now I you don’t want to pay taxes and you want to live in the type of country that has complete freedom from government, one with no highways, airports, police or fire departments, no safe water, food or merchandize, move to Somalia. Because that’s the world you want. And guess what, that’s what America was 200 years ago, we were a third world country where most people lived in squaller. You know when things started getting better? When the government stopped sitting on their collective asses. Would you like a list of government overreach that changed America for the better? How about Washington sending federal troops to crush the Whiskey rebellion? How about the Louisiana purchase? Or Alaska? Or supporting the Texas rebellion against Mexico. Or the most important one of all, the United States Constitution!? Yes, the Constitution was a deliberate move to take control of the country. We were a country for nearly 12 years before the Constitution was written. The reason for it was not to provide rights to the people. It was to take power from the state and, here’s the big one, allow the federal government the power to forcefully collect taxes (look up the Whiskey rebellion). Up until that point America wasn’t working. We couldn’t pay our debts and were on the verge of collapse because each state thought of themselves as more important that the country as a whole. And guess what, even though the original government failed miserably, it was tried again. They called themselves the Confederate States of America. And yes, they collapsed miserably. Why? The government had no power to control it’s own troops and troop movements. If an army from Georgia didn’t want to go to Virginia, they didn’t have to. And if they wanted to leave a battle, they could. Oh yeah, and they Confederate government didn’t have any money! Why? No power to collect taxes! So all you anti-tax people can go to hell. Why do we have the greatest military in the world? Taxes! Why did we have the greatest highway system (past tense being important here)? Taxes! Education, police, firemen, public safety, all paid for through taxes. So welcome to reality. Welcome to the 21st century. In this day and age we need taxes more than ever before. Or do you think aircraft carriers pay for themselves?

  • littleamb3

    I find it amazing that many of the GOP supporters that piss and moan about the taxes they pay are so low income that they have ZERO federal tax liability. It is quite laughable. The old coots sitting on street corners with their signs “NO MORE TAXES” are paying next to nothing anyway.

  • Arthur C. Hurwitz

    The truth is really worse than that. Tax cutting for the very wealthy allows them to keep more cash on hand, and that means that they have less interest in investing their money in economically-productive ventures. That means that they are lest vested in the growth and development of the economy as a whole and for the society as a whole. This is especially true because their investment income is only taxed at 15%. Tax cutting is anti-capitalist and is actually a part of a policy vision which slouches towards Neo-Feudalism.