There is NO school of economics that justifies tax cuts for the 'trickle down' effect. Let me make it very simple for you. Conservatives believe that money in the private sector is more productive than money in the government's hands. Therefore money in the public sector should be limited ;taxes and government spending minimalized as much as possible. That is the policies of Hayek ,and Friedman ,and Laffer among others.
Your policies by contrast guarantee statist capitalism with all the cronyism you decry . In fact ,I would say that it is Keynesian economics that is really a so called 'trickle down ' theory . The Leviathan takes wealth from producers and trickles a small portion of it through their patronage machine to give a small percentage back to 'the Public' in the form of payoffs .

I said nothing of tax cuts. But the redeeming quality of Reagan was being flexible with raising revenues in times of needs. We are no longer flexible and the time in need is NOW.

A vigorous society has to be flexible and not stuck in the ideology divide. We are all capitalist, but to keep it strictly in the hands of a few capitalist does us no good. LOL, even Reagan raised taxes, and grew government, and had deficit spending during economic downturns.

He didn't try to shrink government so small the country wouldn't grow and expand to meet the needs of a few. I can't believe I am defending a conservative president's fiscal policy to a conservative!!!!!!

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

---

Conservatives believe that money in the private sector is more productive than money in the government's hands.

---

If what you believe is true, we ought to be at FULL EMPLOYMENT. The private sector has TONS and TONS of money. But, it ain't trickling down.

What are they DOING with their cash??? They're buying their own stock back. That doesn't create jobs. It keeps the CEO's salary high, because he's paid in stock.

excon

yeah the buy back puts cash in the hands of the investors . Thanks for proving my point. What will the investors do ? They will use the money in the economy .

Quote:

---

What will the investors do ? They will use the money in the economy .

---

The chinese economy.

The option would be more expensive consumer products . Do you really think there would be a thriving textile industry in the US if foreign imports were banned ? No way. The fact is that the US has had a history of textile protectionism and it did nothing to save American textile jobs. For years we've had import quotas ,antidumping restrictions,safeguard mechanisms, carve outs, and rules of origin in trade agreements and “Buy American” provisions written into legislation . The same is true in most industries where we compete in the globe . At least Clete's argument to protect strategic industries makes a degree of sense. Protectionism beyond safety measures punishes the consumer .

Well you pretty much just proved that big corp sucks in wealth and holds on to it by spending as little as possible, usually outside the US.

Quote:

---

At least Clete's argument to protect strategic industries makes a degree of sense. Protectionism beyond safety measures punishes the consumer

---

Well thank you for that backhanded accolade Tom I didn't think anyone reads what I write. I have never denied we want a strong private sector but when the private sectors idea of investment is to do it some place else it is time to take stock and say this open borders policy for goods isn't working. Those who are making money in our economies are importing goods at rediculously low prices and gouging profits under the disguise of enterprise. You say money in thier hands provides a general benefit from which the majority will benefit through investment and employment. Look around, it isn't happening because that economic model is outdated. the consequence of freeing the slaves is the slave owners looked elsewhere for those they could exploit, it took a long time but it happened

IN 50 years of asking this question, a Gallup poll shows more Americans than ever - 72% - see “big government” as our biggest threat:

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gal...lfbphys0qq.png

I'm in that group, along with 56% of Democrats.

Since you've lost control of your government to big corp that ship has sailed and cannot be fixed.

Yes, big government and big business are an inseparable partnership.

Then why do lib/progressive statists think they can keep big government without the influence of big business ?

It has nothing to do with "lib/progressives". Both parties are at fault - this you need to realize. It's non-partisan.

Why can't they work together and be effective and FAIR instead of just self serving selectively?

Quote:

---

It has nothing to do with "lib/progressives". Both parties are at fault - this you need to realize. It's non-partisan.

---

Assuming again.

Quote:

---

Why can't they work together and be effective and FAIR instead of just self serving selectively?

---

Why can't government be fair? The IRS targeting conservatives, DOJ carving out millions for community organizers when it should go to the taxpayers, giving people with more a handout while taking everything back from poor people?

Quote:

---

Assuming again.

---

Assuming what? It's what he posted. Did I stutter?

No, I understood this quite clearly.

Quote:

---

Both parties are at fault - this you need to realize. It's non-partisan.

---

unfortunately there are big statist Repubics too .Schmucks like Speaker Bonehead and Paul Ryan ,and John McCain ,who , in the spirit of "compromise "(aka sellout ),would stab disabled Vets in the back

99% of them are like that.