Skip to comments.Sowell: The 'Trickle-Down' Lie
Posted on 01/06/2014 12:02:09 PM PST by jazusamo
New York's new mayor, Bill de Blasio, in his inaugural speech, denounced people "on the far right" who "continue to preach the virtue of trickle-down economics." According to Mayor de Blasio, "They believe that the way to move forward is to give more to the most fortunate, and that somehow the benefits will work their way down to everyone else."
If there is ever a contest for the biggest lie in politics, this one should be a top contender.
While there have been all too many lies told in politics, most have some little tiny fraction of truth in them, to make them seem plausible. But the "trickle-down" lie is 100 percent lie.
It should win the contest both because of its purity no contaminating speck of truth and because of how many people have repeated it over the years, without any evidence being asked for or given.
Years ago, this column challenged anybody to quote any economist outside of an insane asylum who had ever advocated this "trickle-down" theory. Some readers said that somebody said that somebody else had advocated a "trickle-down" policy. But they could never name that somebody else and quote them.
Mayor de Blasio is by no means the first politician to denounce this non-existent theory. Back in 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama attacked what he called "an economic philosophy" which "says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else."
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
‘Trickle-down’ is a Reagan era term.
In any case proof is in the results. Lets see how NYC fares under him.
The libs use the term trickle down to torpedo ANY effort to let the taxpayers keep more of their OWN money.
It is regrettable that the Pope now demagogues using the same types of terms in his attacks on free market capitalism. I expect this from Democrats, but not from the leaders of my own Church.
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
I’m sure no one is advocating “giving” the wealthy or him income earners more, just taking/stealing less of what they make. Course expecting a liberal to understand the difference between “giving more” and “stealing less” is like trying to teach a pig calculus.
Yep, liberals always put it terms of “giving” more to the rich and they know they’re lying.
They might not be “lying”, but just representing the case from their assumption that all wealth belongs to the collective and not the individual who earned it.
OK, over at MSNBC which has the best and brightest minds LOL they keep saying its those who spend most of their $$$ who REALLY create the wealth, like those getting unemployment comp and earning minimum wage, which ‘stimulates economic activity’.
And more wealth that is created by ‘putting more $$$ in their pockets’, by taking it from the rich.
And the rich take ‘unfair’ advantage of that by making too much $$.
You disagree ?/
Also what is annoying is even when you explain to leftists that lower tax rates yield HIGHER revenues, they are still opposed to lowering rates because their desire to punish people exceeds a desire for an efficient economy. BHO did precisely this in 2008. When someone explained to him in a debate that lower capital gains taxes yielded higher revenues, he STILL wanted the higher rates in place.
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...”
“It’s a matter of fairness” I believe was the direct quote - by which he meant, it’s necessary to punish YT.
You may well be right, they are for the most part socialists.
I was thinking Nixon.
The choice is clear:
Trickle down wealth or flooding up poverty.
Did you catch that? Like the 'fortunate' are fortunate because its been given to them.
Most leftists see the government as an instrument of punishment and plunder to be used against the people they envy and those that refuse to recognize their superiority.
I’ll concede that. :-)
Nixon had pretty liberal policies.
That's what we have now with these Bankster Bailouts, Solyndra type government contract frauds, Obamacare exemptions for connected companies, mortgage security scams and all these other Crony Corporatist schemes that are made possible by FEDGOV cooperating or looking the other way.
The Insiders are getting richer at the expense of the middle-calss now, under Obama.
The problem all these socialist face is that the bar to be called “rich” keeps getting lower and lower.
A little taking is never enough. The appetite for tax money grows larger every day. Soon anyone with a job making more than 15 and hour will be called rich.
Then, and only then will the government grab become real to people.
Wikipedia has an interesting section on the history of the term trickle down economics. It also refers to an alternative theory which is “loot and plunder” which I suggest we use to describe RAT plans for tax increases on “the rich”.
Of course if the RATS were interested in a “fair” tax system they would support the flat tax.
Down Chrissy’s Leg?
You have to listen carefully.
Libs define any tax cut as the government giving money away.
That is what they mean when they claim that oil companies get billions of dollars in subsidies from the Fed gov, while the oil companies are paying many fortunes in taxes to that same Fed gov(IRS).
The money only goes one direction to them, to the gov, but libs call it a gift to the oil company.
......This way they could all adhere to their own philosophy and have the rest of the money that would normally be paid to them could be compassionately redistributed to the needy like they say the rest of America should do. Because apparently ...... any money earned above minimum wage never makes it's way down the chain and .... according to them...... is wasted.
Only in the fevered leftist mind can believe that “letting people keep their money” is “giving them money.”
“It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down,’” Stockman told the interviewer. “So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.”
William Greider, “The Education of David Stockman,” The Atlantic Monthly, December 1981, pp. 46-47.
It's a very telling philosophy. It tells who they believe money belongs to. We think it belongs to the earner, they think money belongs to the gummint, except what they think we should be allowed to keep. Whenever you hear *any* politician, of *any* party use the phrase "Tax Expenditure," they are giving their game away. They're calling a tax cut an expenditure.
Trickle down from private citizens to private citizen is better then trickle down from private citizen through government to others.
Many of them openly admit that.
They say we all benefit from this *rich nation* and are like part of an ecosystem where some create jobs and others consume(like the bees spreading pollen), which in turn creates demand that makes the rich guys $$$. We all do our part even those on welfare.
So when economic inequality gets too large the whole system breaks down. Like an invasive species taking over.
Then the government has to ‘level the playing field’ for everyone’s well being.
We will see how it goes in NYC.
It has finally dawned on me that the real “trickle down” economics is socialism. Government confiscates rich people’s wealth, and “trickles it down” to the poor.
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.
I heard some clown mention “income inequality” the other day. I said, “Congratulations! You’ve just moved from ‘Socialist’ to ‘Communist.’”
“’Give’ more to the most “fortunate’”?
The mentality that a refund of YOUR money is “giving” money out of thin air has penetrated government spin itself.
Thank you for the post and ping, Jaz.
It makes me wonder who said it first. Was it just some commie lib trying to make fun of tax cuts, not believing that they increase revenue every time they’re tried?
I guess we’ll never know.
John Kennedy said that.
I think we must develop our natural resources. You cannot bring industry into Ohio unless you have clean rivers. I think the greatest asset that has happened to Ohio during the last few years, except for Governor Di Salle's election, was the building of the St. Lawrence Seaway, and I was proud, though I came from Massachusetts, to vote for it, because it is a national asset and a rising tide lifts all boats. If Ohio moves ahead, so will Massachusetts. [Applause.] Good water, power, transportation, those are necessary to develop the economy of the United States in the 1960's.
The milk analogy of communism, and our current government:
Government confiscates the milk from the middle class,
skims the cream off for themselves and their wealthy friends,
and gives some milk to the dogs to keep the cows in line.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
You know what amazes me. Talking to a leftist recently and mentioned how much I liked Sowell. Was told that Sowell is “insane” “crazy” “stupid.” I was shocked. I asked whether Sowell had ever been read and was answered affirmatively.
It is like an alternate universe out there.
Leftists do not live on the same planet as reality
Sowells 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.
Dr. Sowell is hated by the left. I have a google email alert for him and it’s amazing how many letters to the editors are written by leftists belittling him, they’re pathetic.
As opposed to the utter failure of the Dem’s Trickle Up Economics. Nothing is nothing is nothing. Trickle Up is a bad joke.
Idiots all. Wealth is created, not by those who spend, but by those who save their income and invest it in new production. The little cretins at MSNBC wouldn't have jobs if some capitalist somewhere hadn't save some of his "ill-gotten-gains" to put up the capital that pays their little red butts each week.
The time is long overdue for people to ask themselves why it is necessary for those on the left to make up a lie if what they believe in is true.
I remember that from the debates that went on after the GOP took the congress ~ 1995. They were accused of trickle down when they talked about supply side.