Why do people say supply side economics didnt work?

tsuke

New member
worked exactly as advertised. Tax cuts for the rich they immediatly generated jobs for the poor.
 
That defies liberal understanding of economics. They think that there is a finite pool of wealth, and therefore there are rich at the expense of the poor.
 
No, you didn't really. Because that gap continues to grow. And that's a pretty sad reflection on supply side.

Well since BO is not supposed to be a fan of supply side, how is it that this gap expanded so much quicker on his watch ?
 
Because the plutocracy makes all the monetary gains while wage stagnate? Trickle down is bullcrap.
You gotta raise GDP - while allows expansion of the wealth.

Which candidate is focused on raising GDP, and which on making everything left over more equal.

Quit the EZ offshoring - generate good jobs, and not swell the labor pool with millions that shouldn't be here to begin with.
Oh.and renegotiate/end shitty deals like NAFTA - and go back to bilateral trade agreement
 
Has there been a year since Reagan where the gap between the rich & the poor didn't increase?

wut. if you look at the stats the income for the very rich and the income for the very poor have been increasing dramitcally worldwide.

Now most if not all of america is in the middle so it hasnt helped them much but those supporting clinton and globalization should absolutely love trickle down.

Can you give me any stats that show the income for the very poor worldwide has not increased dramatically?
 
Because the plutocracy makes all the monetary gains while wage stagnate? Trickle down is bullcrap.
You gotta raise GDP - while allows expansion of the wealth.

Which candidate is focused on raising GDP, and which on making everything left over more equal.

Quit the EZ offshoring - generate good jobs, and not swell the labor pool with millions that shouldn't be here to begin with.
Oh.and renegotiate/end shitty deals like NAFTA - and go back to bilateral trade agreement

yes but trickle down is "working" as designed. Its unfair to say it is not when it was never meant to help people in the middle
 
No, you didn't really. Because that gap continues to grow. And that's a pretty sad reflection on supply side.

Obama is no supply sider and income inequality is increasing under his watch and in reality is going to continue to grow in this technology driven Information Age.
 

I should have qualified: sad for anyone who doesn't think that the gap between the very rich & the rest should grow as it has.

If you'd like to see wages stagnate for the majority of Americans will billionaires continue to grow their wealth, this is definitely a happy time.
 
wut. if you look at the stats the income for the very rich and the income for the very poor have been increasing dramitcally worldwide.

Now most if not all of america is in the middle so it hasnt helped them much but those supporting clinton and globalization should absolutely love trickle down.

Can you give me any stats that show the income for the very poor worldwide has not increased dramatically?

Wages have stagnated in the U.S. for years. Buying power is what is important. And why are you talking worldwide?
 
yes but trickle down is "working" as designed. Its unfair to say it is not when it was never meant to help people in the middle
OK fine. But it's still crap. without a viable middle class you wind up with oligarchs and poverty
 
I should have qualified: sad for anyone who doesn't think that the gap between the very rich & the rest should grow as it has.

If you'd like to see wages stagnate for the majority of Americans will billionaires continue to grow their wealth, this is definitely a happy time.

It's funny that your party is supported by the billionaires and the poor alike. Does that give you a clue as to what really causes such a huge gap?
 
Back
Top