I feel compelled to point out that such a statement is completely nuts and devoid of ANY facts or reference to reality..
--

At first blush, that seems like a rude thing to say. But OK, maybe I'm the only one who thinks America in the mid 20th century was a great and healthy country. Maybe it was my responsibility to point out that the America which Reagan inherited from Carter was the America with the lowest debt since WWII. Maybe it was my responsibility to point out that America was number one in health care, number one in education, number one in manufacturing, number one in high tech. Maybe it was my responsibility to point out that America was pretty much at the top of it's game, because only after referring to *that* reality, and *those* facts, does my claim that, "Reagan inherited a country that was in pretty sound shape", cease to be "completely nuts". So OK, it was my fault. I should have explained the greatness of America before suggesting that it was a great place to be *before* Reagan was elected president.
--

If what you are saying is true, why didn't Carter win re-election?? Why did Reagan get swept into office by a landslide...

Granted, Carter didn't screw up this country as much as Obama has..

But that's not saying very much...
--

Just to keep a grasp on the context of this discussion, we are talking about Reagan's economic policies, so I suppose Carter's presidency has some bearing, even if only in the periphery.

Iran hated Jimmy, and OPEC was more than happy to play along, since that was a very lucrative role to play. There is conjecture that Reagan paid the Iranians to hang on to the hostages they were holding, until after the election, which they did, but I'm not aware of any direct evidence. What I am aware of is that Iran despised Jimmy Carter with a vengeance, but they loved Reagan. Reagan's administration committed crimes just to funnel missiles to Iran in trade for hostages, and they didn't stop there. There were other US laws that they were willing to break in order to fund a terrorist group in South America, with the help of the Iranians. So I think it's very possible that the reason Carter lost the election was due to the influence Iran had over oil prices, and the fact that they were not going to relax that stranglehold until they crushed Jimmy Carter, and Reagan was more than willing to play along.

--
The 1 percenters have always been parasites.

--
But what ya'all simply CAN'T seem to acknowledge is that your Democrat leaders are part of the 1 percent.

So, by ya'alls OWN admission, people like Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi et al are part of the PROBLEM, not part of the solution..

Or are you REALLY going to sit there and tell me that Dem 1-percenters are OK and it's only the GOP 1-percenters that are bad.

If so, you simply prove what I have always maintained.. It's that '-D' after the name that makes ALL the difference...
--

Ok, I admit I'm not sure how to approach all of that. You are clearly having an argument against some imaginary group named ya'all. This imaginary group has apparently refused to acknowledge that Democrats are also in the 1 percent, while at the same time *admitting* that certain democrats (you should check your list) are part of the problem. Finally, you conclude that I have somehow proved your case against ya'all because I 'sat there' and told you something that you imagine y'all has been trying to say.

Well, I can't speak for ya'all, never met them, but I can say that I was out of line to claim that 1 percenters have always been parasites. There have been many 1 percenters who are not interested in sucking their fellow man dry. Also, there are no ideological lines here that separate the good from the bad. Democrats are just as likely to be parasitic as Republicans. The basic facts are that between the two of them, they have hollowed out the US treasury and transferred the most successful manufacturing system the world has ever seen over to communist China.

My point is simply that Reagan's economic policies were a knife dig deep into the healthiest country on earth. Now that Reagan's revolution has brought America to it's knees, are you ready to admit that 'trickle down' is the sound of the 1 percenters sucking America's life blood into their new "One nation, under God(tm)", China?

Sigh. Just like every other policy, he caves in. If he'd actually stuck to what he believes he would have a much better chance of getting elected.

Looks like Democrats are listening:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/presidential-campaign/246445-dems-hoping-to-make-minimum-wage-hike-a-campaign-issue

Republicans are satan incarnate and wrong in everything they do...

Do you realize that YOU are the ONLY one around here who has ever uttered such nonsense?

The Republicans are not "satan incarnate".

Lately, however - since January 20, 2009, to be sure - congressional Republicans are wrong in almost everything they do.

Deal with it!

This is the whole issue: Republicans criticize Obama on the economy when THEY forced him into extending the Bush tax cuts - based on their blind belief in Trickle Down as their number 1 economic policy.

They are basically saying 'Obama failed us on the economy by extending Trickle Down! Vote Romney, who will extend Trickle Down EVEN MORE - that'll fix the economy!'.

Like I said: Romney is the problem - not the solution.

Democrats are as pure as the driven snow and always right about everything.

Republicans are satan incarnate and wrong in everything they do...

And ya'all accuse ME of being blindly partisan!???

It's mind boggling...

Michale.....

When DEMs control the Government, everything is STILL the GOPs fault..."

Once again, in the face of facts you counter with fact-free hyperbole. People, and parties, accrue blame for their actions and the result of their actions not their proximity to power. Republicans are not "in control" of the government, and yet, they are to blame for preventing greater economic recovery, for continuing to worsen the deficit by blocking tax increases and the expiration of tax breaks that, supposedly, were to expire years ago.

They don't get a pass because they "are not in control of the government." Only you are throwing out the red-herring that "Democrats are blameless." And your disingenuous rhetorical slight-of-hand is only persuasive to the willfully-ignorant who already refuse to accept anything that doesn't absolve Republican policies of any responsibility for the tremendous damage they have done, and continue to do, to our nation. Policies which you, and they, want to not only continue but accelerate.

Now let's say that I want to expand my business, hire a tablet tech and start selling tablets... But the owners of the flea market where my shop is at have been making all sorts of weird rules and such. So much so that I am afraid to expand my business for fear a new rule would ruin me.."

I'm always amused when contradictory Republican talking-points are presented as "serious" policy debates. You claim that Obama's "you didn't build that" is "class warfare"; that no one had any part in building your business but you... And you're, supposedly, afraid to invest in your business because Obama might be reelected?!

If no one is responsible for your success, but you, it doesn't matter what Obama, or anyone else, does; its all about you, right? Why would you worry what "owners of the flea market" might do? They have nothing to do with your business. Right?!

You claim that business has no social responsibility, that their success is entirely do to their own efforts. And yet, for some reason, We The People should pony up our tax dollars and craft our legislation to enable business. Why? They don't need us, according to you, and the Republicans.

Republicans just throw out lie after lie in hopes that something will stick. And the credulous gullible partisan low-information voters who back them will indeed swallow anything. Even if the talking-points are contradictory and mutually exclusive; because recognizing the absurdity of Republican dogma would require critical thinking, and that's something Republicans simply do not engage in, it would undermine their entire platform.

that's actually quite true, in my opinion. for a number of years now, left-right political differences have been a sideshow, while the real conflict in our country is going on between economic classes. in my view that's the real reason why the so-called left have been so ineffective at implementing their purported agenda. republican obstruction is just an excuse. at their core, most democratic leaders don't believe in what they say, and those few who demonstrate otherwise (e.g. russ feingold, tom daschle) become the targets of well-organized, well-funded political hit campaigns.
~joshua

Median household income fell 4.8 percent on an inflation- adjusted basis since the recession ended in June 2009, everyone is worse off etc

Median incomes have been flat or fallen since 1980, while GDP per capita grew - because the money was only going to the top 10% (see graph in my article). So 90% of Americans are worse off compared to 1980 - 30 years for nothing - AND the Republicans want to make it another 4...

I am afraid to expand my business for fear a new rule would ruin me..

As LD puts it You keep spouting the (Republican) party line. This 'Obama is regulating businesses to death' is nothing but pure right wing rhetoric on a par with 'he's a socialist'. Obama has actually passed many measures (including the ACA) that REDUCE regulation on small business owners. But 'Obama increased regulations' sounds like a great soundbite so it is repeated over and over again by people on the right with absolutely not a shred of evidence as to how this is true...

Increasing taxes on the wealthy is barely a Band-Aid on the exponential growth of Medicare, social security and defense spending.
Why are Obama and the Democrats so afraid to talk about the issues that matter to REAL Americans???

Did you read my article? Because I made it pretty clear that there are more impacts of Trickle Down (negative economic ones) than it just being a band aid on future potential debt...

Didn't SENATOR Obama call President Bush "unpatriotic" for letting the national debt get to FIVE Trillion Dollars???
One has to wonder what SENATOR Obama would call PRESIDENT Obama for allowing the national debt to get to over THREE TIMES that amount??
SIXTEEN ***TRILLION*** dollars...?

I will correct you. You are 100% wrong. Try and look at the ACTUAL Bush numbers lol.

As CWC pointed out (and I mentioned in my article), it was Reagan and Trickle Down that really started the expansion in national debt in America (the exception is Clinton since he increased taxes on the wealthy and this balance the books - shock horror!).

Reagan TRIPLED the national debt. Bush, well you can't even apply a percentage or factor to what he did since he turned a surplus into the biggest debt and worst economy since 1929...

But what ya'all simply CAN'T seem to acknowledge is that your Democrat leaders are part of the 1 percent.
So, by ya'alls OWN admission, people like Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi et al are part of the PROBLEM, not part of the solution..

Actually you should be thankful there are 1%ers out there like them (and others) who scream TAX ME, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD TAX ME! You know when you have millionaires asking to be taxed more that something is seriously wrong...

If it wasn't for these 1%ers who weren't completely self-centered and greedy wanting to serve only their interests (cough Romney) then America and the world would be really screwed...

When GOP controls the Government, everything is the GOPs fault.
When DEMs control the Government, everything is STILL the GOPs fault...

Well they invented Trickle Down. And when Obama wanted to end the Bush tax cuts they filibustered it. So yes, they are 100% responsible for this failed economic policy and inability to move forward from it. But I'm sure they've learned their lesson. We tried Trickle Down and it failed. What shall we do now? Oh let's cut taxes MORE and create MORE Trickle Down! It beggars belief...

So, the Republicans are to blame for the economic failure...

Obama and the Democrats are blameless..

Once again, it's astoundingly uncanny..

When GOP controls the Government, everything is the GOPs fault.

When DEMs control the Government, everything is STILL the GOPs fault...

Must be nice to live in that world where your chosen ones are COMPLETELY blameless...

"You people just live in your own little world, don't you."
"Yes we do, Professor. We don't have the luxury of living in yours."
-MANHATTAN PROJECT

I feel compelled to point this out since Michale suggests that the Reagan years were good years, but that was not his fault. He inherited a country that was in pretty sound shape

I feel compelled to point out that such a statement is completely nuts and devoid of ANY facts or reference to reality..

If what you are saying is true, why didn't Carter win re-election?? Why did Reagan get swept into office by a landslide...

Granted, Carter didn't screw up this country as much as Obama has..

But that's not saying very much...

The 1 percenters have always been parasites.

But what ya'all simply CAN'T seem to acknowledge is that your Democrat leaders are part of the 1 percent.

So, by ya'alls OWN admission, people like Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi et al are part of the PROBLEM, not part of the solution..

Or are you REALLY going to sit there and tell me that Dem 1-percenters are OK and it's only the GOP 1-percenters that are bad.

If so, you simply prove what I have always maintained.. It's that '-D' after the name that makes ALL the difference...

Michale....

That was extremely well stated. And it needs to be repeated over and over, here and everywhere!

Based on the fact that this election, of all elections, is an apparently close one, the Republican cult of economic failure has been successful beyond even their own wildest imaginings ...

Whether you enslave a thousand, or you employ a thousand, the reason is always the same: Skim the fruits of the labor of as many people as you can. Pretend your "work" earned it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/todd-akin-republicans_b_1826617.html

Ronald Reagan gets credit for bringing 'trickle down' economics to America. He gets credit for a lot of stuff he doesn't deserve, while a lot of the harm he has done is ignored. I feel compelled to point this out since Michale suggests that the Reagan years were good years, but that was not his fault. He inherited a country that was in pretty sound shape. The middle class was healthy, wages continued a steady rise, the foundations of American life were strong and vibrant. Other than a wag the dog scenario from OPEC which was a considerable speed bump in the economy, the future was bright, unless someone did something really stupid (Reagan never gets credit for all the really stupid things he has done).

There is a chart in your article, "Intergenerational correlations", which you have referred to as the "American Dream" graph. I'd be lying if I claimed to understand the mathematical significance, though your explanation shows that the higher the bar, the more difficult it is to rise above your lot in life. The reason this chart caught my eye is that it echoes another graph that could easily be laid over that one. The graph I'm discussing shows US debt as a ratio of GDP.

The country Reagan inherited was fiscally responsible. We had the best credit rating possible because we paid our debts, on time, and we didn't borrow except for the best of reasons. Reagan decided to change all of that (he never gets credit for the really stupid things he has done). The seeds of GOP as pure evil had found fertile ground in the Reagan whitehouse and they were intent on destroying the economy so that whenever democrats were in power, they could accuse them of being "tax and spend liberals" and then blame them for the debt that Reagan was about to unleash on the American public. Reagan was the first president in history to have spent more money than all other presidents before him *combined*. It's possible that this was sheer incompetence on his part (Reagan never gets credit for his incompetence), but the GOP knew exactly what they were doing. Their intention was to wrap an anchor around the throat of the American economy and toss it overboard. Their calculations were simple. Anytime the GOP was in power, they could blame the sinking economy on "entitlements" (a poor choice of words, unless your intentions are evil). Whenever the GOP is out of power, they can blame the sinking economy on "Tax and spend liberals", and since the economy is now truly going to hell, the democrats will be unable to pursue any of their own policies, they will instead have to spend their entire time in office trying to put out the fires created by the GOP "borrow and spend" policies.

So it is true that Reagan sold America a bill of goods in that "trickle down" myth, but the real evil is that the public debt started climbing sharply during his reign and has risen steadily ever since (with the exception of a few years of Clinton's reign). So trickle down is just one facet of the GOP's very successful strategy to hollow out the American economy, all the while pretending that they are the only one's capable of fixing it.

People blame Obama for the spending on his watch. I'm certainly disappointed, but I'm not too certain how much leeway he has had. Unlike Reagan, he inherited a country that was going to hell fast. The economy was in a free-fall, there were wars on two fronts that had been funded entirely by borrowing, and the guy who just left office had the dubious distinction of being the second US president in history to have spent more money than all other presidents before him *combined* (do you see the pattern here, sink the economy, blame taxes and the democrats).

Take a look at that....

It's a real eye opener....

Michale.....

Didn't SENATOR Obama call President Bush "unpatriotic" for letting the national debt get to FIVE Trillion Dollars???

One has to wonder what SENATOR Obama would call PRESIDENT Obama for allowing the national debt to get to over THREE TIMES that amount??

SIXTEEN ***TRILLION*** dollars...

Once again.... That '-D' after the name seems to make ALL the difference..

Michale.....

It's getting worser and worser for Obama....

Michale.....

Why Obama May Lose
Increasing taxes on the wealthy is barely a Band-Aid on the exponential growth of Medicare, social security and defense spending. If President Obama wants to defeat Mitt Romney and lead America back to prosperity, then it's his responsibility to stop the negative ads (he's behaving like a Republican) and deal with the country's most pressing issue -- economic reform.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-taub/why-obama-may-lose_b_1770312.html

Get that?? No more ridiculous "legitimate rape" crap... No more "ROMNEY'S A FELON AND A MURDER!!" garbage...

Why are Obama and the Democrats so afraid to talk about the issues that matter to REAL Americans???

Michale.....

Before ya'all poo-poo this away as just another Fox News fantasy, Ron Taub is a featured writer on HuffPo....

This is EXACTLY what the kool-aid drinkers simply CANNOT see...

It's not just the Right who is fed up with Obama's incompetence and class warfare and demonizing businesses....

Democrats are pissed off too...

Michale.....

Sometimes doing nothing is the BEST way to save your business...

Let me give you an example.

I run a little computer shop. I sell refurbished laptops and do laptops and tablet repairs...

Now let's say that I want to expand my business, hire a tablet tech and start selling tablets... But the owners of the flea market where my shop is at have been making all sorts of weird rules and such. So much so that I am afraid to expand my business for fear a new rule would ruin me..

That's the EXACT climate we face right now. Business owners are scared to expand because they don't know what's coming down the road. If past is prologue and Obama is re-elected, those business owners are going to be in a world of hurt..

So, they hold on to their assets until the climate is more clear...

It's GOOD business sense..

Much as you and Republicans love to misinterpret Obama's "you didn't build that" comment, the point is still valid,

Another load of Leftist horseshit...

Obama's "you didn't build that" was crystal clear to those not drunk on the Obama kool-aid..

Obama's simply playing the class warfare card...

The one-percenters have become parasites.

Interesting. Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi, etc etc..

THEY are all one-percenters as well...

Of course, they are the one-percenters with a '-D' after their name, so they get a pass...

Michale.....

You keep spouting the (Republican) party line; no matter how ludicrous. Sitting on your capital and doing nothing is the surest way to lose it. There will always be some taxes/overhead/inflation eating away at your capital unless you invest it and manage to make at least as much as taxes/overhead/inflation will cost you.

No business owner with a brain is going to just sit on his hands and watch his capital slowly evaporate because he might profit less if Obama is elected then if Romney wins. Its not even a given that businesses will profit more under Romney. That was part of Michty's point. As trickle down erodes the economy it becomes less profitable to do business in the U.S. in general; for everyone.

Much as you and Republicans love to misinterpret Obama's "you didn't build that" comment, the point is still valid, and inescapable; business doesn't operate in a vacuum. As the economy, and society, as a whole suffers, so does the business environment, and business in general.

The one-percenters have become parasites. They may be able to move on to greener pastures if the damage to us becomes to great to sustain them—or not; either way, though, we'd be fools to simply allow them to suck us dry and move on. Unfortunately, far too many of us do appear to be fools.

Never heard of "trickle up" before, at least not by that name. When I was a lad, before MBAs reinvented the business world, everyone accepted that CEOs and corporate officers, for example, were overhead, a drain on production, not producers themselves! As such I've always thought one of the reasons trickle down was such a farce is that it attributes productivity to the unproductive and unproductivity to the productive.

The one-percenters, claiming high-profits are only their due for high productivity, don't actually produce anything, certainly not jobs! The opposite, in fact, they maximize corporate overhead, for personal profit, reducing actual productivity. That's why our economy has steadily eroded.

At least that was business 101 back in the dark ages when business was about supply, demand, and producing products to meet customer's needs; rather than accounting and marketing tricks to lure speculators into the pyramid scheme that is modern Wall Street finance.

“Almost every group is worse off than it was three years ago, and some groups had very large declines in income,” Green, who previously directed work on the Census Bureau’s income and poverty statistics program, said in a phone interview today. “We’re in an unprecedented period of economic stagnation.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-23/u-s-incomes-feel-more-in-recovery-sentier-says.html

I'm just sayin'.....

Michale.....

Isn't it possible that corporations are holding onto their cash, not out of greed, but out of smart business sense, due to the unknown nature of future tax/regulation issues??

I mean, put yourself in a CEO's/Business Owner's position...

Do you take your hard-earned money and invest it NOW, with the very real possibility of losing everything if Obama is re-elected??

Or do you hold onto your capital and wait to see if Romney is elected and THEN invest your hard-earned money into the economy..

I have been a business owner with almost three million dollars in assets and I am a business owner right now with about $20K+ in assets...

The smart move for ANY business owner is to keep their powder dry and wait and see...

Michale

Now THAT was funny!! :D

Michale.....

Liz: I will see if HP wants to do anything with it, thanks for the suggestion.

But beyond all the opinions and charts and stats, etc etc etc, one fact is left unsaid..

The Reagan years were GOOD years for this country...

I don't know if trickle down works or doesn't work. Just like, it's really impossible to tell whether Clinton's ideas were good or not. There were so many factors in play, it's impossible to select ONE aspect and say "THAT was the cause" of all the good things that happened or all the bad things that happened..

So, one must simply look at the facts.. The fact was, the Reagan years were good years. Was Trickle Down the cause?? Possible. Possibly not.

It's the same in the Clinton years. The Clinton years were GOOD years. Was it because of the Dot Com boom?? Possible.. Possibly not..

What is ALSO factual is that the Obama years have been BAD years.. Every poll taken that asks Americans if they are better off, the majority says, "NO".. Emphatically and unequivocally "NO"...

Like I have always maintained, I am just a knuckle-dragging ground pounder.. I don't know economic theory from string theory..

But I DO have an abundance of common sense and I can remember history with Presidents such as Reagan, Carter and Clinton.

I don't think the majority of Americans are going to want to continue with the economic policies of President Obama because clearly those policies simply DO NOT work... Yes, ya'all can probably show me stats and charts that "prove" that Obama's economic policies are brilliant and the best thing since frozen pizza..

But then I look at the reality of the here and now, I look at my house that is worth less than half it was worth under Bush and I have to say that those charts and stats are obviously faulty...

It's nothing more than Policy Based Evidence Making. Creating evidence to support a desired policy, rather than creating policy supported by evidence..

Of late, this seems to be the Democrats' modus operandi...

Great read, Mitchy... I mean that. I just don't agree with it.. :D

Michale.....

You should submit this to the Huffington Post. They have a section called 'On the Bus' which I think would be an ideal place for this extraordinaty piece to be published.

Hear! Hear!

And, that goes especially for the hard of hearing "professional left"! Which, evidently, includes CW ... :(

...but, certainly not CWC! :)

I forgot to tell you your comic was going to be re-run, so I'm glad you saw it! It popped into my mind immediately when I read this article submission, so it certainly is a "memorable" cartoon, one might say!

:-)

HawkOwl -

I've been reading about tariff fights and Jefferson's Embargo Act, so I can say this stuff goes back quite a ways. From one political cartoon of the era:

"O GRAB ME" is embargo spelled backwards...

Not sure what use that particular bit of trivia is, but I did think it was funny...

-CW

I never thought I'd ever say this but, you have encapsulated the Republican cult of economic failure better than even Treasury Secretary Geithner, himself!

Incidentally, that is the greatest of compliments - coming from me, the only Geithner fan on the planet! :)

Well done, indeed!

An excellent read and an excellent analysis.

I'm proud to have contributed a cartoon (piss poor as it is) to this fine use of Chrixels (Chris' Pixels).