Skip to comments.How Mitt Romney Finally Killed Reaganomics
Posted on 11/13/2012 11:19:28 PM PST by ExxonPatrolUs
Trickle-down economics died last Tuesday. The post-election chatter has been dominated by demographics, Latinos, women, and the culture war. But economics played a strong and even pivotal role in this election too, and Reaganomics came out a huge loser, while the Democrats have started to wrap their arms around a simple, winning alternative: the idea that government must invest in the middle class and not the rich. Its middle-out economics instead of trickle-down, and it won last week and will keep on winning.
Supply side was rejected. And in its place, voters went for an economic vision that says: dont invest in the wealthy in the hope that theyll decide to spread the wealth around; invest in the middle class, because its demand from a prosperous middle class that ultimately creates more jobs, and because doing that makes for a healthier society all the way around.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
Daily Beast??? Come on!!!
George W. Bush killed Reaganomics with his New Tone in Washington and Compassionate Conservatism.
Idiot. The Kennedy Tax Rate Cuts cut the top rate from 90% to 70%. The top rate in 1974 was 70%.
The rest of this thing is a tissue of lies and tendentious adjectives.
Michael Tomasky sounds like an economics moron.
No economist ever espoused anything called “trickle down economics.” The point about taxes is that they affect the incentives people have to invest their wealth. High taxes encourage the wealthy to protect their wealth in havens, or buy tax-free bonds; they discourage the wealthy from investing in productive enterprises that have higher risk but which also create jobs in the process of earning them a return.
Additionally, if you’ve read about “Hauser’s Law”, you’ll note that irrespective of how high tax rates are, government always gets about 20% of GDP. Tax rates don’t affect how much revenue goes to government, but they do affect the size of GDP: lower tax rates correlate to higher GDP; higher tax rates with lower GDP. Therefore, by raising tax rates, government actually gets less revenue because it’s getting 20% of a smaller economic pie.
A few months ago, Thomas Sowell wrote an interesting essay on the myth of “trickle down economics”, which you can access here:
And by eventually becoming a free market guy..../s
Remember, progressives never get the concept of incentives or marginal rates. They view all reductions in tax rates as government’s “giving” people money. And who deserves less to be “given” money than “the rich”?
You got it. The most prosperous economies are those in which people have absolutely nothing. How could there possibly be more demand than that?
the idea that government must invest in the middle class and not the rich. Its middle-out economics instead of trickle-down, and it won last week and will keep on winning.
Oh yeah, a real winner. That is until the middle class and the poor are sitting equally miserable waiting on their health care. Begging for a treatment that can’t be justified financially
We can watch the waiting room TV with all the altruistic liberals flying off to have have their medical care elsewhere or watch them sipping champagne and talking about all the good they do for the little people.
Not much will change for the rich... although they may bless us with a few sighs of pity. The media can take photos and document our misery, so that they may win some coveted prize or whatever.
Well said. The moron author of the article, by describing Reaganomics as “government investing in the rich” is doing more harm than Romney...
The economic doctrine of Freeshit won.
The economics of Santa Clause doesn`t “win” a strong economy, because like all forms of crony capitalism, it systemically picks winners and losers.
But it wins elections, because Americans like getting free stuff in their hands. They don`t give two sh*ts about the long-term ramifications of high unemployment, low wages and lessened expectations, because... well... they got some free stuff.
Striving for the long-term prosperity rewards through hard work and perseverance is seen as a last-century value ... anachronistic and at 180-degree odds with the gimme-summa-dat mentality of today.
Exactly. Reagaonimics will always win the day because “Santa’s elves” don’t really work for free after all.
It’s a moral inversion, the belief that my failure to break into your house to steal something is a some sort of giveaway to you.
There is a boatload of demand in countries like Greece, Spain, and Portugal. They must be the poster child of economic growth.
I like your TAGLINE!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.