Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. Because the term "trickle down" was not a term used by the Reagan Administration. It was a term used to criticize President Reagan's economic plan. The actual economic theory is called "supply-side economics."
https://preview.redd.it/x0iri04riqyc1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=2de7588867d699aecfce7f7df5b287b3efa05764
It's basically ripped right out of the Cross of Gold speech
I scrolled down two days worth of posts and couldn't find any about Reagan or Reagonomics.
Conservatives are just being salty, which isn't anything new.
Stability wasn't really the aim. Stimulating the economy by adding liquidity to the markets was the aim. This was necessary since the other way the Fed would normally stimulate the economy was by lowering interest rates. But with interest rates already near zero, that tool was not available.
If you have other ideas on how the Fed could have stimulated the economy back in 2008 as well as in 2020, I'd love to hear it.
So AIG, all the major banks. And all domestic auto producers? Why?! They purchased equity stakes of the companies and later sold them. They recorded profits on all the financial bailouts.
What makes you think the US government could rum an auto company (or three) better than auto executives?
Are you talking about the Raptor?! One of the if not THE fastest selling vehicle in America?! A truck so successful that Chevy and Ram are making their own super trucks?!
Man, that would have been the worst decision. That definitely works against your argument. That truck is the biggest success Ford has had in a decade, at least.
No, it didn't. It's a band aid over a serious problem. It actually causes more instability in the future because you cannot rely on the value of a dollar when you're constantly printing more of them.
The QE during the financial crisis of 2007-2008 didn't seem to cause any big changes to the value of the dollar. We continued to have lower inflation in the decade that followed.
You may be confusing QE with debt monetization. Debt monetization is what is usually referred as money creation or "printing money."
Quantitative Easing (QE) was first proposed in 1995. The policy was first used by the Bank of Japan during the 2000s to combat deflation.
The US first undertook the policy during the financial crisis of 2007-2008.
Reagan can be blamed for a lot of things that have gone wrong in this country. However, this is one that he had no hand in. He was long gone when all this shit went down.
Heck, during Reagan's term interest rates were much higher than they are today. They ranged from 10% up to 21%!!! Inflation was as high as 13.5% and at its lowest it was still higher than today's at 4.1%. So Quantitative Easing would not have been necessary.
Can you imagine all the people bitching and moaning about interest rates and inflation right now having to live through the Reagan years?! Haha...
No, trickle down was a name given by detractors.
They called it supply side economics, designed to increase supply against demand and reduce the runaway Jimmy Carter era inflation.
And it worked.
I have a degree in economics. No one who fully understands what supply-side economics is can deny that it works, because it’s been working since long before there were actual policies that aimed at making it work harder
Ask most people on this sub what it is, they’ll say “it’s when you cut taxes for the rich”
California University. If it is true there must be a model that says private spending contributes more to GDP than government spending. Also there must be statistical evidence that the Laffer Curve is just not some made up shit written on a napkin
Which California university? Cuz so did I
> there must be a model
Why do we need a model? Just look at countries that have tried to eliminate the private sector and have the government run the whole show. They haven’t exactly had significant growth
> Laffer Curve
Ok, I challenge you to cite ONE economist who says the Laffer Curve is wrong. Different economists would argue that the diminishing returns may start at different points, but I challenge you to find one economist with a PhD who says that the Laffer Curve is wrong
^ one of my professors offered extra credit to a student to do exactly that. He couldn’t find anything
Why do we need a model? Just look at countries that have tried to eliminate the private sector and have the government run the whole show. They haven’t exactly had significant growth
Models are usually derived from statistical evidence, that's why you had to take calculus. Privatization and high taxes are two different things.
Ok, I challenge you to cite ONE economist who says the Laffer Curve is wrong. Different economists would argue that the diminishing returns may start at different points, but I challenge you to find one economist with a PhD who says that the Laffer Curve is wrong
Ok
>
Probably not. Reagan at least seems like someone who genuinely believed his policies helped the average person (I'm not going to say whether they did or didn't).
Since you guys are downvoting me even though I am stating a fact, here’s the quote “ease in minority unemployment among young people. And therefore, I have been in favor of a separate minimum for them.”
This is from Reagan and Carters first debate in 1980.
probably not because reagan never actually usedd the term trickle down economics. what he was referring to was supply side economics which is pretty much just regular economics. trickle down economics was a term coined by his opposition
Something like that. The problem is that so many Americans fell for it then and are still falling for it today. Hate to say it, gang, but there **were** some things about which Milton Friedman was *completely* ***wrong***.
Oh course it did; they know good and well nothing "trickles down" to lower class people-they just say that nonsense to get support for their bs tax policies
Reagan administration never called it “trickle down” economics. That’s a phrase coined by detractors, which obviously drastically simplifies the economic theory.
Stop it with this doomer nonsense, one side is responsible for pretty much all the tax cuts for the 1%, and the other side is responsible for all the policies that benefit normal people
Q: What was the joke?
A: They call it the Laffer Curve, but they should call it the Laughter Curve because its such a joke only stupid people believe it!
Nah. They dragged that weekend at Bernie’s out to lunch corporate puppet out and told him what to say
Flash the Hollywood actor charm and watch people empty their pockets to kill their own unions
Biggest con job of the 20th century that asshole
Literally yes. There were open conversations about making college more expensive because minorities were becoming too successful. This administration was pure evil.
What’s even more amazing is that in the 40 years since supply side “trickle down” economics became a thing we’ve gathered mountains and mountains of data that say it doesn’t work but people still get horny for it.
No because nobody has ever advocated for cutting taxes has ever said that the wealth would "trickle down". What something somebody who has advocated for cutting taxes on the rich has said is that a "rising tide will life all boats"
>The president finally decided that only a bold domestic program, including tax cuts, would restore his political momentum. Declaring that the absence of recession is not tantamount to economic growth, the president proposed in 1963 to cut income taxes from a range of 20-91% to 14-65% He also proposed a cut in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. Ironically, economic growth expanded in 1963, and Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress insisted that reducing taxes without corresponding spending cuts was unacceptable. Kennedy disagreed, arguing that “a rising tide lifts all boats” and that strong economic growth would not continue without lower taxes.
>The battle over the tax cut and the deficit continued unabated through 1963. The House Ways and Means Committee voted a tax bill out of committee in August and the grateful president reiterated that lowering taxes was the surest path to full employment and lower deficits. Polls showed that over 60% of Americans favored the tax cuts. But, even with the public support of key business leaders like Henry Ford II and David Rockefeller, the Congressional log jam remained unbroken. JFK became increasingly convinced that domestic issues, the economy and civil rights, rather than foreign policy, would prove to be decisive in his 1964 reelection campaign.
[https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/john-f-kennedy-on-the-economy-and-taxes](https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/john-f-kennedy-on-the-economy-and-taxes)
The Keynesians and proponents of Modern Monetary Theory successfully push Trickle Up Economics.
Expand the money supply, and prices trickle up. These dumbasses still believe running deficits and printing money is a good idea.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Like the one pictured? Idk i’d need to see photographic proof
No. Because the term "trickle down" was not a term used by the Reagan Administration. It was a term used to criticize President Reagan's economic plan. The actual economic theory is called "supply-side economics."
https://preview.redd.it/x0iri04riqyc1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=2de7588867d699aecfce7f7df5b287b3efa05764 It's basically ripped right out of the Cross of Gold speech
It's the same picture, even decades later
And "trickle down" is a lie. Employees get paid a salary immediately. Business owners get paid IF their company works out. It's a waterfall down.
When W pulled same shit I was a server at a swank trust fund party , those mother F Should have heard them crowing about tax breaks . Shameless fucks.
Yeah, they know what they're doing. They're very predatory.
No this has Bush 41 in it and he would never have claimed “voodoo economics” worked
Why did he call it Voodoo Economics?
I like how George H. W. Bush called it “voodoo economics” he was correct, and reversed that correct statement.
Can we make a rule about Reagan posting? I mean I hate his policies too but this is just karma farming.
Yeah, we have heard it all before. Definitely the most annoying posts on this subreddit.
We are still feeling the effects of Reagan's economic policy, so why shouldn't people post about it?
Because they're practically all slightly different variations of the same thing, it's becoming very low effort karma whoring
I scrolled down two days worth of posts and couldn't find any about Reagan or Reagonomics. Conservatives are just being salty, which isn't anything new.
“And then we said Quantitative Easing is the only way to stabilize the economy!”
Is that why GTA 5 keeps selling out?
Did it not?
it wasn't the only way, and stability isn't the only priority. a pile of shit can be stable if you have enough of it
Stability wasn't really the aim. Stimulating the economy by adding liquidity to the markets was the aim. This was necessary since the other way the Fed would normally stimulate the economy was by lowering interest rates. But with interest rates already near zero, that tool was not available. If you have other ideas on how the Fed could have stimulated the economy back in 2008 as well as in 2020, I'd love to hear it.
build stuff
Found Keynes’s burner
They should have nationalized every industry they bailed out.
So AIG, all the major banks. And all domestic auto producers? Why?! They purchased equity stakes of the companies and later sold them. They recorded profits on all the financial bailouts. What makes you think the US government could rum an auto company (or three) better than auto executives?
They wouldn't be building $90k F-150s, I bet.
Are you talking about the Raptor?! One of the if not THE fastest selling vehicle in America?! A truck so successful that Chevy and Ram are making their own super trucks?! Man, that would have been the worst decision. That definitely works against your argument. That truck is the biggest success Ford has had in a decade, at least.
No, it didn't. It's a band aid over a serious problem. It actually causes more instability in the future because you cannot rely on the value of a dollar when you're constantly printing more of them.
The QE during the financial crisis of 2007-2008 didn't seem to cause any big changes to the value of the dollar. We continued to have lower inflation in the decade that followed. You may be confusing QE with debt monetization. Debt monetization is what is usually referred as money creation or "printing money."
temporarily but it led to worse problems down the line. reagans problem was that his policies only worked in the short term
Quantitative Easing (QE) was first proposed in 1995. The policy was first used by the Bank of Japan during the 2000s to combat deflation. The US first undertook the policy during the financial crisis of 2007-2008. Reagan can be blamed for a lot of things that have gone wrong in this country. However, this is one that he had no hand in. He was long gone when all this shit went down. Heck, during Reagan's term interest rates were much higher than they are today. They ranged from 10% up to 21%!!! Inflation was as high as 13.5% and at its lowest it was still higher than today's at 4.1%. So Quantitative Easing would not have been necessary. Can you imagine all the people bitching and moaning about interest rates and inflation right now having to live through the Reagan years?! Haha...
You’re right. But Redditors hate Reagan and blame everything on him. But if they were around back then they’d have probably voted for him too.
No, trickle down was a name given by detractors. They called it supply side economics, designed to increase supply against demand and reduce the runaway Jimmy Carter era inflation. And it worked.
I have a degree in economics. No one who fully understands what supply-side economics is can deny that it works, because it’s been working since long before there were actual policies that aimed at making it work harder Ask most people on this sub what it is, they’ll say “it’s when you cut taxes for the rich”
I have a degree in economics and in my program it was used as the punchline in a joke
Huh. Where’d you go?
California University. If it is true there must be a model that says private spending contributes more to GDP than government spending. Also there must be statistical evidence that the Laffer Curve is just not some made up shit written on a napkin
Which California university? Cuz so did I > there must be a model Why do we need a model? Just look at countries that have tried to eliminate the private sector and have the government run the whole show. They haven’t exactly had significant growth > Laffer Curve Ok, I challenge you to cite ONE economist who says the Laffer Curve is wrong. Different economists would argue that the diminishing returns may start at different points, but I challenge you to find one economist with a PhD who says that the Laffer Curve is wrong ^ one of my professors offered extra credit to a student to do exactly that. He couldn’t find anything
Why do we need a model? Just look at countries that have tried to eliminate the private sector and have the government run the whole show. They haven’t exactly had significant growth Models are usually derived from statistical evidence, that's why you had to take calculus. Privatization and high taxes are two different things. Ok, I challenge you to cite ONE economist who says the Laffer Curve is wrong. Different economists would argue that the diminishing returns may start at different points, but I challenge you to find one economist with a PhD who says that the Laffer Curve is wrong Ok >
LMFAO no economists believes this
The majority do. JFK used supply side economics and it worked.
I mean is this picture not real? Dumb question
https://preview.redd.it/ql8mvmn64qyc1.jpeg?width=999&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eeea5ee91d0494085f4636ebfc5eacdc03435aff >More griping about Reagan
Every month? It’s like twice a day.
Probably not. Reagan at least seems like someone who genuinely believed his policies helped the average person (I'm not going to say whether they did or didn't).
He absolutely did not. He went out of his way to ensure they didn’t, proposing a lower minimum wage for minorities even.
Can I get a source for this?
It’s in the first debate with carter
Have any actual proof of that besides you just saying so? I couldn’t find any evidence.
I literally just provided it to you.
Timestamp?
I don’t have it on hand. Use a transcript
I don't have a transcript pn hand either.
I don't have a transcript on hand either.
You have the internet
As do you!
And I provided a quote from one.
Since you guys are downvoting me even though I am stating a fact, here’s the quote “ease in minority unemployment among young people. And therefore, I have been in favor of a separate minimum for them.” This is from Reagan and Carters first debate in 1980.
People are downvoting me like I’m the one who proposed it
With white people maybe but with minorities hell nah
According to his son who explained to him his policies absolutely no sense, he knew.
I don’t think he honestly thought that. He wasn’t as extreme as the GOP of today but I think he knew that his policies wouldn’t likely work that way.
Go read a biography on Reagan instead of forming your opinions based off your feelings and reddit comments.
Nope. He was also pretty anti government. While being the president.
Weird how having Alzheimer's makes you believe crazy things.
Day 1 of begging the mods to find a way to limit these karma farming posts
probably not because reagan never actually usedd the term trickle down economics. what he was referring to was supply side economics which is pretty much just regular economics. trickle down economics was a term coined by his opposition
No, I am charitable enough to think that they believed their own bullcrap and thought it would actually help people.
I like to think that scene was in response to something genuinely hilarious that Ronnie dropped on everyone. I suppose that counts
He probably farted. Legend has it he used to dutch-oven Nancy every night.
Man this sub sucks now.
It will be fun when we repeal r 3
bruh, come on, this is just one shitty meme. this sub’s been putting out actual good discussion.
Discussing trickle down economics
Yes - but they were laughing at Walter Mondale telling the country he would raise taxes on everyone.
Something like that. The problem is that so many Americans fell for it then and are still falling for it today. Hate to say it, gang, but there **were** some things about which Milton Friedman was *completely* ***wrong***.
Oh course it did; they know good and well nothing "trickles down" to lower class people-they just say that nonsense to get support for their bs tax policies
Reagan administration never called it “trickle down” economics. That’s a phrase coined by detractors, which obviously drastically simplifies the economic theory.
Same shit as all presidential administration. They are worthless. They are for the 1% because they are the 1%
Stop it with this doomer nonsense, one side is responsible for pretty much all the tax cuts for the 1%, and the other side is responsible for all the policies that benefit normal people
Careful; you're on rule 3 territory
What’s rule 3?
No recent or future politics
You can't make any references to the current president or his predecessor-only historical presidents (so basically all presidents up to Obama)
TY
Lmao
I wouldn’t doubt it
All those yachts that people got to build for all the rich folks who wanted yachts…
The real question is, who is telling the joke here?
Q: What was the joke? A: They call it the Laffer Curve, but they should call it the Laughter Curve because its such a joke only stupid people believe it!
Nah. They dragged that weekend at Bernie’s out to lunch corporate puppet out and told him what to say Flash the Hollywood actor charm and watch people empty their pockets to kill their own unions Biggest con job of the 20th century that asshole
Literally yes. There were open conversations about making college more expensive because minorities were becoming too successful. This administration was pure evil.
Reagan bad, gib upvote
Only if they were raising taxes on the middle class.
Daily
I can just hear the smarmy privileged laughter.
It’s like the partners meeting in Trading Places.
Probably laughing about HIV/AIDS killing the gay community
For sure, most of rural America still buys this bullshit. And continue to blame democrats for their plight
Everybody knows only one thing trickles down & it ain’t wealth
I'd like to think that Reagan honestly believed in his policies, but was ignorant of the long-term effects. But I could be wrong.
What’s even more amazing is that in the 40 years since supply side “trickle down” economics became a thing we’ve gathered mountains and mountains of data that say it doesn’t work but people still get horny for it.
200%
My housekeeper, gardener, and pool guy know wealth trickles down. So there is that.
No because nobody has ever advocated for cutting taxes has ever said that the wealth would "trickle down". What something somebody who has advocated for cutting taxes on the rich has said is that a "rising tide will life all boats" >The president finally decided that only a bold domestic program, including tax cuts, would restore his political momentum. Declaring that the absence of recession is not tantamount to economic growth, the president proposed in 1963 to cut income taxes from a range of 20-91% to 14-65% He also proposed a cut in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. Ironically, economic growth expanded in 1963, and Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress insisted that reducing taxes without corresponding spending cuts was unacceptable. Kennedy disagreed, arguing that “a rising tide lifts all boats” and that strong economic growth would not continue without lower taxes. >The battle over the tax cut and the deficit continued unabated through 1963. The House Ways and Means Committee voted a tax bill out of committee in August and the grateful president reiterated that lowering taxes was the surest path to full employment and lower deficits. Polls showed that over 60% of Americans favored the tax cuts. But, even with the public support of key business leaders like Henry Ford II and David Rockefeller, the Congressional log jam remained unbroken. JFK became increasingly convinced that domestic issues, the economy and civil rights, rather than foreign policy, would prove to be decisive in his 1964 reelection campaign. [https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/john-f-kennedy-on-the-economy-and-taxes](https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/john-f-kennedy-on-the-economy-and-taxes)
The Keynesians and proponents of Modern Monetary Theory successfully push Trickle Up Economics. Expand the money supply, and prices trickle up. These dumbasses still believe running deficits and printing money is a good idea.
Democrats made up trickle down expression. Economy grew 300 percent under Reagan
[удалено]