Are most Dems really "trickle down" believers?

Like the saying of a "Rising Tide Lifts All"? I've heard it from both sides.

Is there some intellectual dishonesty going on here? Are we really just Guilty (Guilty about the inequities, whereas the Repukes don't care)) Free Marketers?

This should probably be GD but frankly I'm too lazy to C&P it over there:-)

But not consciously. The right has succeeded so well in narrowing the range of debate in this country that those who (rightly) question the reasoning behind "free market" economics are ignored.

This really has me wondering as to how they can possibly be the defenders of those that don't already have a buttload of services available to them...

Because, just in case we've forgotten, we are supposed to be the Party of the People!

Who are the "People"? I would surmise that they're the "bottom" 90%(Or 75%, or 50%, that doesn't really matter).

How do we reconcile those dichotomies?

An employer takes away health care from a hundred employees and then spends the extra on ten extra people adding ten feet to his yacht.

The hundred will cost society via hospitals hundreds of thousands of dollars over many years since they'll avoid pre-emptive care. The yacht will give tens of thousands in income, for roughly three months.

Trickle down is ecomomic water torture.
Those who sharpen class distinctions sharpen the guillotine.
Off with their heads, off with their heads.

And I haven't even gotted started on the topic

In fact I think that "a rising tide lifts all boats" is exactly the opposite of trickle-down economics.

Trickle-down says that if you increase the wealth of the richest they will spend more in the economy and ultimately stimulate the economy so that it benefits the poorest members of the economy.

"A rising tide lifts all boats" to me means that if you provide every American with the opportunity to have a good education, job, health care, etc. all of society will benefit.

Any true liberal knows that the way to boost a nation's economy is from the bottom up. Putting more income in the lower and middle classes encourages them to buy the things that sustain economies: big-ticket, long-term purchases.

Just an opinion from a guy with 6 semester hours of JuCo economics.

The rising tide line, apropos a liberal thinking economist, has nothing to do with finances and wealth. It has to do with the health of the MACROECONOMY!

Supply side assumes that if the rich get richer (this is finance not economics) it will percolate down to the masses. (This is really a microeconomic thought process. That's the prime reason it is so flawed as a macroeconomic principle.)

It is an absolute truth that if the whole economy is sustainably strong, everyone benefits in the long run. Some may have to wait longer than others, naturally. But, high productivity, low unemployment, strong growth, within control import levels (high, but not so as to impinge on internal production), and low inflation result in strong gains for the middle class.

Higher gov't revenues in such a case, obviate the need for cuts in assistance programs. That's good for the poor.

So, it is true based upon pure economics. It's not true when the "economic" initiative is solely rooted in finance.
The Professor

After 15 or so years of on and off "trickle down" economics, I am convinced the only thing that is trickling down on the lower and middle classes is not something that we would like to take a shower in.

Trickle down economics tends to piss on those that could benefit from a tax cut the most, IMHO.

Enlarges the pocket books of the fatass rich (not to be confused with the hard-earned, deserving rich), allowing them to afford better lawyers to fight the inevitable corruption lawsuits. That's about it, as far as benefits.

Drawbacks? Balloons the deficit, gives the populace a false sense of prosperity, and places the weight of today's standard of living on the backs of our children and grandchildren. Not too freakin' smart, if you ask me.

But that's just my 1/50th of a dollar...

I'm a filthy pinko. :evilgrin:

As in "Give the rich guys champagne and let the poor get rained on."

There is a certain logic to the idea, but in practice it is inefficient.