Can I get a little help here?
I took Econ 101 in college some 40 years ago
and I actually have a degree in Public Administration
but I am baffled by the continuing adherence by Republicans and "Conservatives" to trickle down economics or Reaganomics.
I need a refresher course in Economics for Dummies
Can anyone help explain this to me
and hopefully arm some others here with arguments to use against their Republican friends?
Seems to me the basic premise behind these tax cuts for the extremely wealthy is this:
1)The wealthy will take that money and invest it in companies that will create jobs and that will then trickle down to the workers as wages increase due to demand for labor.
My problem with this idea is that it doesn't seem to work
Rich people won't invest in companies to build or make products for which there is no demand OR they will invest in companies that outsource production to China
Doesn't it make more sense to give tax breaks to the least endowed of our society and those most apt to spend it? Seems to me:
If we allow those most likely to spend what they receive in tax breaks on goods that will create demand that will make it profitable for investors to fund companies who build or make products to satisfy that demand.
That money will then flow UP the food chain to the coffers of the investors causing a tide on which all the ships will rise.
It would seem as a rule when you provide more spending money for those at the bottom of the economic ladder they will immediately spend that money for things they need or want and that money will work it's way UP the ladder to investors who profit as their investments grow in profitable companies that provide what is purchased.
As a matter of public policy the Republicans are very willing to spend Billions a month on a war in Iraq that seems to only benefit defense contractors and those who work for them or investors in outfits like KBR/Halliburton or The Carlyle Group or Blackwater et al.
I will offer one example of what I think would be a good investment in our future that spends money where it serves to provide jobs and provide a defense benefit of reducing our dependence on oil.
What if we spent some of those IRAQ trillions on our infrastructure for the future?
What if we revamped the US Railroad system to provide high speed rail corridors to cut the cost of transporting goods and people across the country moving people and products for dramatically fewer gallons per mile?
This provides jobs for folks building the system and the trains that would move upon it and long term jobs for those who secure, maintain, and operate the system while dramatically reducing our dependence on burning fossil fuels. It's an investment that pays for itself.
If you could climb on a train in Atlanta and arrive in NYC five hours and 850 miles later traveling at 186MPH with very short stops in Charlotte, NC. Richmond, VA. and Washington, DC. for half the cost of an airplane ticket and a fraction of the gallons per mile per passenger why wouldn't you? Europe is rapidly converting to high speed rail everywhere so people can travel from Paris to Brussels, Madrid, Berlin, and other destinations so why can't the USA do this across the country to reduce our cost of travel and grow an industry that will benefit all Americans?
If Americans invest in transportation systems that use less fuel to cross the country where people can rent hybrid or electric cars to travel the shorter distances everybody wins except the oil people who have made billions over the past 8 years.
This plan should
- Fill the cities with rental electric or hybrid cars and delivery trucks
- Reduce the cost of transportation and increase the speed of delivery for freight using the same rail and corridors for container shipments.
- Reduce the cost of highway maintenance
- Reduce dependence on foreign oil
- Provide jobs for thousands of Americans and investment opportunity for the wealthy
- Allow Americans to travel faster and cheaper without as much risk as air travel
- Improves the environment by reducing the output of carbon emissions.
Long haul truckers would be converted to medium haul delivery from the freight rail terminus to locations not on the high speed corridors.
I'm either very confused or not very smart.
I don't expect we can redistribute the wealth of America but I do think we can reduce the gap between the ultra wealthy and the poor while making life better for all Americans.
I don't get it. Didn't everyone benefit in the days of the Clinton/Gore administration? Didn't the rich get richer while the poor got less poor?
Didn't FDR show us how to recover from recession and depression by wisely investing in public works projects like TVA that served to benefit everyone?
I guess I'm pretty thick since I can't seem to figure out how this isn't an easy sell to rich and poor alike. Anybody out there with the reasons this isn't a good idea or why tax breaks for those most likely to spend the benefit isn't the best way to grow the economy?