History siding with Obama's Economic Policies

[yaaarrrgg]

Intuitively, it makes sense to me that if you want a healthy economy, you help the middle class and small business.

I suppose you could call it "trickle-up economics." As opposed to the something like Reagan's "trickle-down economics" ... where you help the richest people, and hope that wealth trickles down in the form of investment and jobs.

I never had much evidence it worked other than intuition and anecdotal evidence, but looks like history is siding with trickle-up economics:




from:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/busin ... ref=slogin

[Lon]

I hear rhetoric from Obama but I don't believe I have really heard any sound economic policy other than tax the top 10 %. That's economic policy????

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

yaaarrrgg;974143 wrote: Intuitively, it makes sense to me that if you want a healthy economy, you help the middle class and small business.

I suppose you could call it "trickle-up economics." As opposed to the something like Reagan's "trickle-down economics" ... where you help the richest people, and hope that wealth trickles down in the form of investment and jobs.

I never had much evidence it worked other than intuition and anecdotal evidence, but looks like history is siding with trickle-up economics:




from:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/busin ... ref=slogin


Given the economy doesn't turn on a dime, to make any credible sense of this you would have to know the world situation and you would have to know the order of the presidents and a lot more that affects the economy, most of which is not affected by any president. In addition, are we talking gross or net income, making more doesn't mean you get to keep more and that's what really matters.

[yaaarrrgg]

Lon;974211 wrote: I hear rhetoric from Obama but I don't believe I have really heard any sound economic policy other than tax the top 10 %. That's economic policy????


There's more to it than that.

He's raising some taxes (oil companies, businesses outsourcing overseas,. upper income bracket) and lowering some (middle class, small business). He's also investing billions in green energy .. Really, he's put the details on his site, which are about the most comprehensive description of any of the candidates.

McCain is doing some of the same things. But the biggest difference I see between Obama's plan and McCain's ... McCain is basically focusing on deregulation and tax cuts. That's pretty much the same approach we've been doing over the last eight years though. Those huge tax cuts for McCain's wife didn't go back in the economy, as much as paying for her $300,000 dress she wore the other night (I'm totally not kidding on the price).

Obama economic policy details:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

McCain economic policy details:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/jobsforamerica/

[qsducks]

yaaarrrgg;974299 wrote: There's more to it than that.

He's raising some taxes (oil companies, businesses outsourcing overseas,. upper income bracket) and lowering some (middle class, small business). He's also investing billions in green energy .. Really, he's put the details on his site, which are about the most compressive description of any of the candidates.

McCain is doing some of the same things. But the biggest difference I see between Obama's plan and McCain's ... McCain is basically focusing on deregulation and tax cuts. That's pretty much the same approach we've been doing over the last eight years though. Those huge tax cuts for McCain's wife didn't go back in the economy, as much as paying for her $300,000 dress she wore the other night (I'm totally not kidding on the price).

Obama economic policy details:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

McCain economic policy details:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/jobsforamerica/


The $300,000 puke green dress that just happened to match McLame's background last night?

[yaaarrrgg]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;974291 wrote: Given the economy doesn't turn on a dime, to make any credible sense of this you would have to know the world situation and you would have to know the order of the presidents and a lot more that affects the economy, most of which is not affected by any president. In addition, are we talking gross or net income, making more doesn't mean you get to keep more and that's what really matters.


That's totally plausible I think. One could say Carter, for example, inherited a peak oil problem, or problems from the previous administrations (for example going off the Gold standard). Or that Clinton inherited the good investments of G. H. W. Bush.

Still the pattern is there.

I wonder what evidence there is to suggest that Bush's economic policies actually will work, or ever return on the investment. I thought they were crazy when he proposed them, and am not surprised by the current state of the economy.

The reason is that if you cut taxes for the middle class, for example, most all that gets spent, and pushed back into the economy .. trickling back up the food chain. Helping the middle class helps everyone (what's the phrase .. a rising tide raises all ships). In the 90's at least, wealthiest people made more and kept more, despite being taxed more. Overall, the upper earners came out ahead .. more than what the Bush tax cuts alone have given them.

[yaaarrrgg]

qsducks;974305 wrote: The $300,000 puke green dress that just happened to match McLame's background last night?


It was a yellow one that looks somewhat like a flight suit... although she might have more than one $300,000 dress.

To fair of course, McCain's economic policies probably make perfect sense from her perspective. If you have that much money to blow, what is there to worry about, expect taxes, or some loony suicide bomber destroying your beer business?

[qsducks]

yaaarrrgg;974323 wrote: It was a yellow one that looks somewhat like a flight suit... although she might have more than one $300,000 dress.

To fair of course, McCain's economic policies probably make perfect sense from her perspective. If you have that much money to blow, what is there to worry about, expect taxes, or some loony suicide bomber destroying your beer business?


Oh the umbrella dress. Tacky dress. Obviously she has wads of cash to blow but no fashion sense. She has got to watch "What Not to Wear and Project Runway" in her off time.:wah:

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

I wonder what evidence there is to suggest that Bush's economic policies actually will work, or ever return on the investment. I thought they were crazy when he proposed them, and am not surprised by the current state of the economy.


Exactly what policies are we talking about?

[yaaarrrgg]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;974399 wrote: Exactly what policies are we talking about?


It all strikes me as trickle-down reagonomics.

Bush's main economic policy has been to push for global tax cuts and deregulation. Neither of which are particularly geared towards helping middle class. Beyond that, he's not proactive on addressing any particular kind of problem.

I don't have a problem cutting taxes, as long as the budget is balanced. Otherwise, it just drives inflation. (who gets hit the hardest?) Or creating budget shortfalls that then force state level taxes up. The deregulation, as well, doesn't protect consumers or small business.

Also he's consistently sided with large businesses. I work for a smaller telecom company as a software engineer (<1000 people). He passed some FCC changes that cost the company I work for over $1,000,000 a month (relating to CLEC's).

[yaaarrrgg]

Also, I should add, Reagan didn't actually cut taxes. He just offset the cost onto the next generation. It's a hidden tax...

[Accountable]

yaaarrrgg;974143 wrote: Intuitively, it makes sense to me that if you want a healthy economy, you help the middle class and small business.



I suppose you could call it "trickle-up economics." As opposed to the something like Reagan's "trickle-down economics" ... where you help the richest people, and hope that wealth trickles down in the form of investment and jobs.



I never had much evidence it worked other than intuition and anecdotal evidence, but looks like history is siding with trickle-up economics:






from:



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin
Thanks for showing me this thread. I'd missed it.



I like the article you cited. Gets one to thinking. Showing dem vs repub shows a misleading picture, though, because each president had his own unique system and impacted the economy differently. This 1995 report by the Congressional Joint Economic Committee found that Reagan's system was better than Clinton's.





This graphic also doesn't show the whole picture because it doesn't address percentiles as yours does. Looking at median income is better but still incomplete. This from the same report:







But one point the report makes that I think is significant to us is this:

These observations are consistent with economic theory. In a slowdown or a recession, the wealthy can take care of themselves through their savings and investments. Data show that the wealthy derive a much greater portion of their income from capital investments.[9] Low-income individuals, however, derive most of their income from wages and salaries, which typically decline during recessions. Since they have less savings to draw on, low-income individuals bear the burden of anemic growth far more than the wealthy. Low-income individuals are further hurt by the fact that wage and salary growth is contingent on economic growth.

This point definitely supports Obama's tax plan, if not his spending plan.



eta: I'd missed that last post, but I don't think it really changes my point.