[Liberals say trickle-down economics is just making the rich richer and that taxes give the wealth back to the poor. The greedy rich are restrained by government since Teddy Roosevelt passed anti-monopoly laws and the corrupt often go to prison. But the greedy poor have been voting for their own benefit and support corrupt politicians to do the deed. Prince John is not the Robin Hood they believe him to be. Patriots believe people are entitled to prosper from the businesses they build, but people like Obama who has been taking $1 trillion a year from taxpayers says people don’t need so much wealth.]
Liberal Democrats say trickle-down economics doesn’t work, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Yet the only time in U.S. history that the middle class has lost income has been when Democrats win Supermajorities and institute their policies without Republican opposition. The times when the middle class grows the fastest has always been when Republicans are in power and either lower taxes or balance the budget or both.
Is life any better for Americans today than it was in 1980? Trickle-down that liberals say doesn’t work is when people make millions in their business supplying people with products they want. They don’t stick that money in their mattress, but spend, invest, and give to charity giving that money to other people who make hundreds of thousands providing goods and services to the rich. Those people spend and invest their money creating jobs for millions of people to make tens of thousands of dollars to support their families. And those people spend their money creating jobs for more millions to have jobs cleaning, fixing, repairing, and doing everything else that people need.
But if government taxes that money away from millionaires before they can spend and invest and give to charity, then nothing trickles down because government has it all. Is it any surprise that under Obama that Washington, D.C. and not Silicon Valley is now the richest region in America? Let’s see what the middle class family had under Reagan compared to what they have under Obama.
In 1980 the typical middle class family had one phone on the wall in the house. They had one camera and maybe one movie camera, a record player with stereo speakers, a console tv and maybe a couple of portable cathode ray tube televisions in other rooms with maybe ten channels from which to choose. They generally had two cars that didn’t have electric windows, cruise control, or a passenger side view mirror. GPS was called a map the electrical system didn’t require a computer.
Now everyone is walking around with a phone in their pocket that is a miniature computer more powerful than desktops in Reagan’s day. They all have audio, take photos, and record video. They play music, exchange e-mail, and allow access to surf the Web. At home they have a 7.1 sound systems with surround sound and sub-woofers, 55” wide screen high definition televisions, cable with a thousand channels, internet access to the World Wide Web with vast information, communication, games, careers, and business opportunities, a DVD system with movies on laser discs that don’t deteriorate.
But Barack Obama and the Democrats say the last thirty years of trickle-down economics didn’t work and resulted in government not having enough money to make life better for people. The government that then provided a small percentage of people who couldn’t work with welfare, and assisted those who could not afford healthcare with Medicaid. Now there are 90 million Americans living on one form of welfare or another, and since Democrats were voted to control the economy in 2006 and elected to a Supermajority in 2008, the number of people in poverty and dependent on government welfare has doubled while the number of people in the workforce has decreased by twelve million.
In the 1990s under Reaganomics there was an economic boom when Republicans forced a Democrat president to sign a balanced federal budget for four years while lowering taxes. That prosperity continued into the 2000s despite a viciously contested presidential race, an attack on 9/11 that destroyed a trillion dollars of wealth, and a war with Islamists. Democrats spoiled all that with a crash of mortgage banks under their control and scamming people into giving them absolute power that they used to ram ObamaCare down their throats. Under Obama middle class income has dropped 10%, and he blames everything that his policies have wrought over the last eight years on Republicans not taking enough in taxes from the people.
They say trickle-down prosperity doesn’t work, but they’ve proven that trickle-up poverty works great!
Trickle down doesn’t work, ‘the poor get poorer while the rich get richer’
Related articles;
One Big Ass Mistake America – Why stupid people shouldn’t vote
Liberals Backwards Think 
This is so UNBELIEVABLY biased. You refer the downfall of the middle class in 2008, yes the Great Recession, which followed just right after the Bush Administration. Lets not forget the overextended war cost us nearly 1.6 trillion, along with phenomenal tax cuts that didn’t even ‘trickle’ down. What a great way to attack the Democrats. It is fiscally retarded to not increase spending during a recession, it is literally the best way to stimulate a dying economy. This will definitely appeal to the ‘average’ american, lol.
LikeLike
So your logical thinking is that when you have less money you should spend more? And you attribute the recession to Bush just because it happened at the end of his presidency, but give no credit to Democrats who controlled Congress. You’ll have to find another of my articles that explains this recession has nothing to do with Bush or Republican economic policy. It was deliberately engineered by Democrats who refused to allow their mortgage banks to be restrained in 2003 that would have prevented their crashing. Try looking here and learn how you’ve been duped:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=2003+mccain+reform+fannie+mae
LikeLike
No. It has been proven again and again that short term borrowing and escalated spending during the aftermath of a recession is the best way to stimulate an economy thatt will go under, don’t look at it with face value. I rather save a couple of U.S based Corps. and retain/increease steadily medicare/medicaid & social security than take a masssive spending withdrawl that can affect the lives of millions to ‘balance the budget’. I aattribute the recession to Bush because thrusted us into an uncessary war in Iraq and Afghanistan for years when it was suppose to be a quick operation lasting 2-3 years max.On a side note i can attribute the recession with years of regulation beginning with Reagan, which eventually blew open with the repeal of Glass-Stegal with Clinton and further with Bush.
LikeLike
Sorry, Michael, but the fact that tax money must first be taken out of the economy before it can be put in, and it is always less, belies your point. Government taking from successful corporations to give to failing corporations does not help the economy, it gives a crutch to bad businesses that should go under. As both the 80s and 90s proved, a balanced budget and takes cuts lead to greater business growth which leads to greater revenue. As for the repeal of Glass-Stegal, that was proven to be a Democrat ploy foisted on a foolish Republican to destabilize the mortgage banks and set them up as an economic time bomb to be set off at the right moment, which got Obama elected. The wars were necessary to stomp down Islamists, which Obama’s withdrawal and passivity have reignited. Lastly, if you ever paid attention you would know it is not Republicans heaping crushing regulations on businesses, but Democrats. They have always done so and they always will, just as they will always come up with new taxes. No one talks about the fact that the Income tax is double taxation on people who make more than a starvation wage.
LikeLike
From FB – even my own family members fail to understand that Reaganomics and capitalism are the boon of mankind, not the bane, and that Democrats tear down the economy, not build it up.
Marty KoellhofferDusty Koellhoffer
6 hrs ·
Fact is, neither Clinton OR Gingrich was responsible. Read the FACTS below.
http://www.factcheck.org/…/clinton-and-economic-growth-in-…/
Clinton and Economic Growth in the ’90s
Q: Were Clinton’s policies responsible for the 1990s’ economic growth? A: He deserves part of the credit, but many factors were at work. FULL QUESTION I was wondering if FactCheck can provide me wi…
FACTCHECK.ORG
Like · Comment · Share
Marty Koellhoffer Neither Clinton OR Gingrich, who both claim credit, is responsible for the economic boom of the 90’s. Read the FACTS in the link above.
6 hrs · Like
Dusty Koellhoffer The ’93 budget was what brought about the Republican revolution. It was not a tax cut but an increase. After winning the Congress, in ’95 Gingrich told Clinton to sign a balanced budget or shut down the government. Clinton shut it down for a month until he realized Gingrich wasn’t bluffing. The economic boom of the Internet was only fully realized because Gingrich kept the Democrats from crushing it with taxes right off the bat. This Fact Check does a poor job of putting together the facts. Aside from mentioning reductions in military spending, the price of oil, and Greenspan’s support (the guy who gave us the Stimulus bug that Obama has been using to milk Americans of a trillion dollars a year), he gets it all wrong. Fact Check is to check the truth of a statement, not come up with analysis. Gingrich can claim full credit for balancing the budget, reducing taxes, and catalyzing the greatest economic boom of the last century.
1 min · Edited · Like
LikeLike