- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Have conservatives figured out that Reagan era trickle down economics is a farce yet?
Posted on 8/6/25 at 12:06 pm to wackatimesthree
Posted on 8/6/25 at 12:06 pm to wackatimesthree
I’m asking you to explain whether the economic boom and ensuing federal income tax windfall following the Reagan era was lower taxes feeding the economy, aka trickle down, or Clinton and HW jacking those Reagan era tax rates back up and spending more money every year they were in office.
1
Posted on 8/6/25 at 12:13 pm to BuckI
What a stupid question. That’s typical for you though.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 12:23 pm to roadGator
Those who yell the loudest are usually the fellows.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 12:30 pm to BuckI
You weirdos call anything you don’t like yelling.
But, what the frick did I tell about.
But, what the frick did I tell about.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 12:32 pm to Powerman
The theory isn't actually "trickle down" - it's "a rising tide lifts all boats" and, since it does, it's true.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 12:33 pm to Powerman
quote:
You're talking about inevitable tech advances and not policy
Inevitable? Why didn’t they happen somewhere else? What were the odds these developments happened here? Pretty good when you look at the environment Reagan helped create.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 12:34 pm to Powerman
Do foreign war profits trickle down wealth to all or is it just an excuse for the rich to use the taxpayers money and military to take control of a country so private sector businesses can enter said markets after and monopolize the spoils?
Posted on 8/6/25 at 12:41 pm to Powerman
You're the real farce. You have 167K posts in 21 years. This equates to 21.86 posts per day, everyday of the 21 years.
Get a job.
Get a job.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 12:57 pm to Powerman
Yet not a single link to support the OP was provided by the OP.
What fun.
What fun.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 1:02 pm to BuckI
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Where have I heard that before?
Posted on 8/6/25 at 1:05 pm to BuckI
quote:
Those who don't work also do not eat.
Many who work, also don’t eat
Posted on 8/6/25 at 1:19 pm to Powerman
quote:
Maybe you could do some research to refute me
Pathetic and typical response of a low-IQ Leftwinger. Reaganomics isn't the problem, Democrat greed, ignorance, and dishonesty is.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 1:19 pm to Revelator
quote:
Many who work, also don’t eat
Hell no. Eating makes you fat.
Don't eat. Stay skinny.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 1:55 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
I’m asking you to explain whether the economic boom and ensuing federal income tax windfall following the Reagan era was lower taxes feeding the economy, aka trickle down
I don't know.
Look, if you want to claim that raising taxes somehow supercharges the economy and is better for the middle class than allowing everyone to keep more of their money, just say that. I've asked that question straight up several times now. Just answer it yes or no instead of playing games.
I will repeat my earlier question, however. If your claim is that the HW and Clinton tax increases—which, as has been pointed out, were only modest increases in the context of how much they were lowered during the Reagan administration—negated the effects of Reagan's tax lowering, then how do you know whether supply side economics works or not?
According to you, we haven't tried it yet.
Also, if spending more money every year is part of the formula for economic success, explain how that is a sustainable model.
This post was edited on 8/6/25 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 8/6/25 at 2:19 pm to wackatimesthree
Study the Laffer curve and see how it brought and end to the malaise in our economy during the Ford and Carter years.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 2:28 pm to miketiger
Just three quick questions to ChatGPT about McDonald’s including franchises and corporate owned restaurants.
What was McDonald’s total income worldwide in 2023?
Roughly 130 Billion
What was McDonalds total profit worldwide in 2023?
Roughly 8.4 Billion
What was the total payrolls worldwide for McDonald’s in 2023 just for frontline cooks and restaurant employees only?
Roughly 38.4 Billion
You could say that thru McDonald’s almost $40 Billion “trickled down” to actual people’s checking accounts in 2023.
What was McDonald’s total income worldwide in 2023?
Roughly 130 Billion
What was McDonalds total profit worldwide in 2023?
Roughly 8.4 Billion
What was the total payrolls worldwide for McDonald’s in 2023 just for frontline cooks and restaurant employees only?
Roughly 38.4 Billion
You could say that thru McDonald’s almost $40 Billion “trickled down” to actual people’s checking accounts in 2023.
This post was edited on 8/6/25 at 2:31 pm
Posted on 8/6/25 at 2:30 pm to troyt37
quote:Marx borrowed from the Book of Acts.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Where have I heard that before?
Under Marxism, supply and demand could deliver what is needed, but humans take more than they need, which leads to a dictatorship to divide everything. It is slavery under a new scheme.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 2:33 pm to Powerman
Take $1, then compound it annually 6%.
Take $2, tax it at 35%, and compound it at 5% annually.
It would still take 2 generations for the family with $1 to have as much as the family that started with $2
Take $2, tax it at 35%, and compound it at 5% annually.
It would still take 2 generations for the family with $1 to have as much as the family that started with $2
Posted on 8/6/25 at 2:38 pm to Powerman
Now take $1, compound by 6%, and determine the value in 100 years=$339.30
Take $2, and compound it by 6% for 100 years=$678.60
Now, take out .$50 annually for COL. the numbers will be shockingly different!
Point is, wealth disparaty grows based on compounding, pure and simple
Take $2, and compound it by 6% for 100 years=$678.60
Now, take out .$50 annually for COL. the numbers will be shockingly different!
Point is, wealth disparaty grows based on compounding, pure and simple
Posted on 8/6/25 at 2:39 pm to jrobic4
quote:
It would still take 2 generations for the family with $1 to have as much as the family that started with $2
This is your justification to take someone else’s money by force?
I can use the same mental leap to say “it’s totally fine to steal the diamond on bezos’ wife’s neck. He can file ins and can buy another one in less time than it would take me to monetize the theft so he’s still ahead”
This post was edited on 8/6/25 at 2:43 pm
Page 9 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News