Isn't it time we called Supply Side Economics by its proper name?

A FRAUD. This fraudulent theory has succeeded in transferring wealth from the poor and middle calsses to the wealthy without so much as a protest or a whimper from the victims. How is that for getting screwed by your own self? Is there any precedence in history for this?

This devastating theory, sold to us by the smiling fraud, Ronald Reagan, has as its basic premise that if the rich were given huge tax cuts, they will have extra money available for investment that will produce a job stampede which in turn will produce so much excess tax revenues Alan Greenspan will have multiple orgasms all the way to his grave.

In the near thirty years that this fraud has been ongoing, all we have seen are massive deficits, red ink as far as the eyes can see.The only time the deficits were reduced was when Clinton restored taxes, balanced the budget, produced huge suprluses.The one man wrecking crew, Bush II, has not merely reversed it with his Supply Side on Steroids,he has made it impossible for us to balance the budget within our lifetime. He will continue to waste our money on wars,send out our money to outsourcing companies or waste it on Cheney's retirement plan at Halliburton.

That all this has been done at a time when the world is so interconnected that even the tax cuts are winding up in India or China does not seem to occur to any of the talking heads on TV.
How can we increase our tax revenues when India or China are the beneficiaries of investments that are being financed by our tax cuts? We are in the position of losing out on tax revenues due to the tax cuts and losing out again on jobs because that money is flowing out of the country. Can we get any stupider than that?

who is slightly smarter than his demon seed, had the sense to call it "voodoo economics". :eyes: The best part of dumbya ran down the crack of bab's ass.

Supply Side Economics is Fascism

...even Hitler promised the German workers that they would all benefit in some way through their sacrifices. Dubya has promised nothing to the working people, in fact he has sold the American dream of becoming part of this ownership society and having that nest egg to pass along to your grandkids, while stealing 40% of future social security benefits from everyone over the next 50 years and killing the social security safety net altogether for the youth of America today, AND reneging on the social security surplus federal notes!

The Republicans have made a promise to the American people; they can HATE GAY PEOPLE. LEGALLY.
They can also pocket a few dollars that their children and grandchildren can pay back while dealing with a near-bankrupt government.
Oh yeah, they can also look forward to a religious based, perma-war. What red blooded American wouldn't be overjoyed at this deal?

That's what the wealthy expect. It has nothing to do with helping average Americans.

Those at the bottom of the economic totem pole get drown in the tinkle from those above.

You're absolutely right. I had a republican economics professor in the eighties who was all hot in the shorts over supply side economics until I decided to do my term paper about it from both an accounting and an anthropological stand point relating it to America as a whole. The numbers just don't work out. It is a numerical impossibility. Correct simple mathematics cannot lie. Obviously there isn't a republican in the country that knows how to add.

(btw- Reagan was a traitor for the Arms for Hostages deal...well...that's one reason out of many he should have been imprisoned.)

and getting stronger everyday.

Now think about that for a moment. And you realize Supply Side Economics is bullshit.

The myth allows the wealthiest to say that if you give them even more breaks the economy will improve...which defies the empirical evidence of 'marginal propensity to consume' which favors the masses of lower income people.

Q.E.D.

<snip>
March 03, 2003
The Real Supply Siders

The first comes from William Niskanen. Alex Robson quotes a passage from William Niskanen's Reaganomics:

Supply side economics, however, was not a new economic theory. As of 1981 there was no distinctive supply-side texts, no courses, no distinguished scholar, and no school of supply-side economists. This body of analysis does not conclude that a general reduction in tax rates would increase tax revenues, nor did any government economist or budget projection by the Reagan administration ever make this claim. Arthur Laffer...once drew a curve on paper napkin to demonstrate that a reduction of some high tax rates could increase revenue; the existence of a "Laffer curve", however, was neither new (except by that name) nor controversial. Jude Wanniski of the Wall Street Journal and other journalists who promoted the Laffer curve as a symbol of supply-side economics unfortunately trivialized the substantive contribution of the micro effects of fiscal policy. Supply side economics does not address the effects of government borrowing; specifically, it does not provide a basis for concluding that deficits do not matter... In summary, there was no "supply-side revolution" in economic theory...

<snip>

CEA Chair-Designate Greg Mankiw. Mankiw wrote, in the first edition of his Principles of Economics textbook:

An example of fad economics occurred in 1980, when a small group of economists advised Presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan, that an across-the-board cut in income tax rates would raise tax revenue. They argued that if people could keep a higher fraction of their income, people would work harder to earn more income. Even though tax rates would be lower, income would rise by so much, they claimed, that tax revenues would rise. Almost all professional economists, including most of those who supported Reagan's proposal to cut taxes, viewed this outcome as far too optimistic. Lower tax rates might encourage people to work harder and this extra effort would offset the direct effects of lower tax rates to some extent, but there was no credible evidence that work effort would rise by enough to cause tax revenues to rise in the face of lower tax rates....
<more>
<link> http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/000837.html

Just smoke and mirrors republican people who pander to the wealthiest in society, providing them with greater and greater tax cuts using junk economic theory while all the time lying to the American people by promising an economic stake in the American dream. It is a sucker play equivalent to taking the monthly mortgage payment to Atlantic City hoping that this time you can make it big and be rich also.

As far as supply-side economics resulting in properly-designed tax cuts would boost real GDP through supply-side channels by between $1 and $2 for every $1 of notional static-estimate revenues loss from the tax cut, that is total Bushit. It hasn't ever happened and is not ever likely to happen just by pure chance (the invisible hand of free trade). In fact, every effort at this from Ronald Reagan, to Bush I and now Bush II, for every $1 in tax cuts to the wealthy no more than $0.50 has been generated as GDP. That is pretty poor economics for the country, but really great for the wealthy. Supply-side economics is a TOTAL FRAUD and is in fact misnamed, because there is nothing economic about it regardless of which side it comes from. I believe that it is really welfare for the rich paid for by the working middle class and the poor.

It is unfortunate that economics has become so politicised. In any
economy, there is a supply and a demand side, and indeed a good
economic manager works both.

In fact, the practices of the bush junta are called military keynsiansim,
where a huge subsidy is doled out to the "supply side" to create jobs
in the military sector. Compare this to similar subsidies doled out
to the supply side during FDR's time that similarly created lots of
jobs in civilian industry. Both used supply side reforms. Your
politicized argument might make you feel good, but it is poorly
grounded.

The tax act of 1986, that radically simplified creating companies and
such, was a boom to the wealth of americans. This was as well a
supply side reform, and we must not get tooo partisan here lest we
spite our own feet and become the party of stupid.

Tony Blair has, like bush, doled out a huge keynsian cash injection in
to national healthcare for all british residents. This has created
millions of jobs, and is seen generally as a left-wing good thing, so
rather you're complaining that the republicans are in power, and that
they are squandering resources on a silly empire, rather than making
common sense about economics.

What i read in your comments are the increasing decline of american
universities as subjects become politicised and education becomes
partisan. Then the universities teach the propaganda of the state and
not balanced ability to learn things like economics. Economics,
the dismal science, has no business with partisans, it uses data,
theories, proof and scientific study like any science... i'm a big
fan of such things... that it's been relegated to the propaganda zone
is indeed unfortunate.

"In the near thirty years that this fraud has been ongoing, all we have seen are massive deficits, red ink as far as the eyes can see."

You're not supposed to notice! Return to bashing gays or liberals or environmentalists or feminists or whatever the scapegoat de jour is.

Corporate media has replaced thought with slogans. It never did make any sense that Americans with mortgages could "compete" with people living in shacks; the supply side theory being that they would become more like us, but the truth is we're becoming more like third world citizens.

And what a hoot that business is so cozy with Communist China. Again, the theory was that China would become more democratic, but the truth is we've become more totalitarian.

supply - to give or furnish, to furnish with what is needed, satisfy..to supply a demand. The act of supplying.

economic - pertaining to the development and management of the material wealth of a government or community, pertaining to financial matters.

So what do deficit spending, multitrillian dollar military budgets, booming gas prices, cuts in education, and the free market have to do with supply-side economics?

What does a crashing stock market, high unemployment, and Medicare cuts have to do with Social Security reform? Nothing immoral about honest brain-washing..:smoke:

Why?

allowing Republican incumbents to dodge questions with sweet talk and fantasy, and who ultimately pays the price?