Gay Patriot Header Image

Trickle-down government

Democrats loves to call Ronald Reagan’s successful economic policies as “trickle-down” economics.  President “Obama [has] criticized the GOP for promoting what he called a ‘top down’ economic system and said those policies were ‘central to Gov. Romney and … central to his running mate.’

That notion of “top down” economics better describes the policies the Democrats advocate than the ones the Republicans promote.  Democrats’s policies always involve a greater role for government, “stimulating” the economy by directing taxpayer (or borrowed) dollars to favored industries.

In his column on Friday, George Will dubbed these policies “trickle-down government“:

With Americans, on average, worth less and earning less than when he was inaugurated, Barack Obama is requesting a second term by promising, or perhaps threatening, that prosperity is just around the corner if he can practice four more years of trickle-down government.

We need give this notion greater currency.

Share

11 Comments

  1. How about let´s call it trickle down poverty? More families are living below the poverty line than four years ago. I know that I´m not as financially well off as I was four years ago. That´s why I chose to live with my family south of the border. Even here my dollar doesn´t go far because we are dollarized. Gas just went up another 15 cents to $4.47 a gallon for regular; and I brought my Buick with me. Obama will tout that his stimulus worked and that the auto industry is viable today because of his bailout. Who profited? The union! The taxpayer is on the hook for GM´s low priced stock. Has everybody forgotten Kash For Klunkers? How much has that cost the taxpayers?

    Comment by Roberto — September 4, 2012 @ 1:51 pm - September 4, 2012

  2. Trickle-down government, brilliant! George Will was finally good for something. 😉 And, trickle-down poverty, thank you Roberto!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 4, 2012 @ 1:58 pm - September 4, 2012

  3. A poll just said that something like 31% of Americans are better off than they were four years ago.

    Well, we know who: Government employees. And, employees of favored unions and favored banks. (Not all unions, and not all banks; just the politically-connected ones.) Plus Solyndra ‘investors’.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 4, 2012 @ 2:01 pm - September 4, 2012

  4. #3.. the 31% represents the population that would “favor” Obama even after he killed a batch of kittens with a baseball bat on the steps of the Capital. The 31% represents the population that believe a black man can do no wrong.

    Comment by TnnsNE1 — September 4, 2012 @ 3:08 pm - September 4, 2012

  5. I feel like expanding on this:

    “top down” economics better describes the policies the Democrats advocate than the ones the Republicans promote. Democrats’s policies always involve a greater role for government, “stimulating” the economy by directing taxpayer (or borrowed) dollars to favored industries.

    Democrats won’t say it, but they want a centrally planned economy (with them as the planners). The housing bubble is a classic example. The bubble was created – that is, planned – by government:

    1) the Federal Reserve forcing down interest rates, making vast quantities of cheap loan money available for speculation
    2) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac creating the “securitized” mortgage market
    3) Government regulators telling banks to lower their standards (lest they be ‘racist’)
    4) Laws under which C. O. Barry H’Obama and others could sue banks for being ‘racist’, if they didn’t lower their standards and make more bad loans.

    Sadly, Republicans were in on it too. But Bush, to his credit, at least tried to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and saw his efforts blocked, by both parties in Congress but mainly the Democrats).

    Dodd-Frank is another example of the Democrats trying to achieve a centrally-planned economy, by the back door. Dodd-Frank gives the so-called “Too Big To Fail” banks a special status, in which they are indeed considered “Too Big To Fail” and effectively guaranteed to receive future bailouts. It is NOT an accident that in 2008, Goldman-Sachs employees were Obama’s top donors.

    And it is not an accident that the Democratic president derides the contribution of small business (“you didn’t build that”), while the Republicans celebrate small business. America is run by a Big Government / Big Banking / Big Labor nexus. Sadly, it has captured both parties to a large extent; but Democrats the most. I don’t know if Small Business – that is, BOTTOM-UP, TRICKLE-UP economics – has any chance in America, but if it does, well, “not with the Democrats.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 4, 2012 @ 4:26 pm - September 4, 2012

  6. ILC,

    Help! Obama has always claimed that the economy grows from the bottom up. That is how barter economies work, is it not? When “bankers” such as the Medici, the Fuggars, the Berenbergs and the lending by goldsmiths and fractional reserve banking by the Dutch and the Court Jews all got in the picture, capitalism was born and the economy grew based on investment and supply and demand. Eventually, barter gave way almost entirely to capitalism and monetary policy.

    When Obama talks of the economy growing from the bottom up, I hear him talking as an anti-colonialist who is making the case that “money” economies steal their wealth from underdeveloped peoples by exploitation, and looting by premeditated, planned and deliberately executed theft. The oil, for instance, in Venezuela is theirs and their’s alone for when the economy has reached the level in which it is useful to them and them alone. (Although, from a world perspective, Venezuela has the “obligation” to share their oil with countries lacking oil by some sort of one-world nexus of understanding of how universal wealth transfer is accomplished.)

    My confusion is that I begin to see trickle-down and trickle-up and top-down and bottom-up taking on different meanings if you are talking about capitalism or communism or anti-colonialism.

    I am concerned that we not start using terms so interchangeably that we murder their specific meanings.

    What are your thoughts?

    (One other note: The leftists who are after the 1% see them as robber barons who (in Alinsky’s words) are: “materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, warmongering, brutalized and corrupt.” Dodd-Frank, the rich paying their “fair” share and “redistribution” as part of “fundamentally transforming America” all indicate to me that Obama and the leftists want America cut down to size and to become an unexceptional player on the world stage with a standard of living that is commensurate with the world in general. They just don’t have the guts to preach it openly and honestly.)

    Comment by heliotrope — September 4, 2012 @ 5:42 pm - September 4, 2012

  7. heliotrope, fair enough. My point is that all economic growth starts with the individual: her initiative. It trickles up from there. Unless, of course, government (plus Big Banking and Big Labor) continually steals from her, through currency debasement which bails them out.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 4, 2012 @ 6:02 pm - September 4, 2012

  8. Agreed. But I don’t think Obama has any concept of the individual in his “bottom up” banter. He only sees peasants harnessed by government power as in Egyptian commoners (never say slave) building the pyramids to glorify the state. God bless Obama, he has such a high opinion of his lot in life. (And no so much for yours.)

    Comment by heliotrope — September 4, 2012 @ 6:06 pm - September 4, 2012

  9. […] http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/09/04/trickle-down-government/ Share this:FacebookTwitterLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in Government and tagged big government, Obama, Reagan, top down, trickle down. Bookmark the permalink. ← How I wish I knew the story […]

    Pingback by Quote of the day, on “trickle down government” | Thoughts of a citizen — September 4, 2012 @ 10:40 pm - September 4, 2012

  10. Oh, and mike, here’s something you ought to read. It’s called math.

    Basically, your Barack Obama screams that “the rich” are the problem and that we need to confiscate their wealth in the name of “fairness”.

    Next, as was aptly pointed out, the total of the Obama deficits for the past three years, even with a generous adjustment, is $3.43 trillion dollars.

    As Mary Katherine Ham so helpfully calculated, the grand total of wealth of every single one of the US’s billionaires is $1.3 trillion — or, put differently, a mere 38% of the total generously-adjusted Obama deficit.

    Clearly, not enough. So let’s go even deeper than that. Let’s tax everyone who makes over $200k at 100% of their income.

    That would raise a grand total of $2.4 trillion — or 71% of the total generously-adjusted Obama budget.

    Do you understand that, mike? If you confiscated the total income of every single taxpayer making over $200k annually in the United States, you couldn’t even pay the entire generously-adjusted deficit that your “progressive” Obama Party and Barack Obama have run up just in their three years in office.

    And that doesn’t even get into the economic effect of confiscating every single dollar of income that anyone making over $200k has.

    You have a child’s view of economics, mike, as does your Barack Obama. You see the economy as your parent’s wallet — an inexhaustible supply of funds that you didn’t have to lift a finger to earn and that belongs to you to spend as you like, and if they refuse you, they’re hateful bigots who abuse their child and want you to starve.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 5, 2012 @ 2:32 am - September 5, 2012

  11. The greater irony, though, is that, for all of the derision and vilification directed by Dems at “trickle-down” economics, or whatever other moniker they use, as an economic policy, it works. In a capitalist system, economic growth, job creation (and by implication, tax revenue) are created by investors and entrepreneurs who have capital and invest it to start businesses, or expand existing ones. The middle class spends money, which obviously has an economic effect, but it generally isn’t starting businesses. And, guess what — without the jobs created by corporations and the “rich,” the middle class doesn’t won’t have money to spend.

    Comment by Guy Jones — September 8, 2012 @ 9:25 am - September 8, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.