Because, you know, it’s all those people with no freaking money who make the economy run, create jobs, and open businesses. After his Typical Whining about Republicans, mischaracterizing the proposals, we get
(UPI) “I believe we should do everything we can to help our entrepreneurs succeed,” the president said. “I want our companies to be as profitable as they can be. But that alone is not enough. Because the central challenge we face right now — the challenge that we’ve faced for over a decade — is that bigger profits haven’t led to better jobs. Bigger profits haven’t led to higher incomes.”
The president said American prosperity has always come from “a strong and growing middle class, and all those people who are striving and working to get into the middle class.”
“We don’t need more top-down economics,” he said. “What we need is some middle class-out economics, some bottom-up economics.”
What we need is more money flowing down to the middle and lower classes, yet, Obama’s own policies and proposed policies keep money from getting into the hands of the middle and lower classes. Trickle down is not perfect, but money and prosperity comes from those who have the money. They provide seed money for business ventures that those in the lower and middle class might start. When those with money are confident in the policies coming from the government, they spend money and invest money. When the job market isn’t in the crapper, salaries rise. Money flows around the economy.
As Bluegrass Pundit points out “Obama thinks if you give low income workers tax credits, extend unemployment and otherwise redistribute some of this countries wealth to lower income individuals, the economy will take off.” Yet, his massive stimulus programs haven’t produced more than temporary jobs which disappeared the minute the money dried up. Take a guy like Mitch: he was got a job painting bridges for minimum wage thanks to the Stimulus. It lasted a couple months. He was able to buy some groceries. And then the job ended. Mitch is not taking the money and really spreading it around the economy.
Then we can take a guy, let’s call him…John Kerry. He buys an expensive yacht. Because John is one of those evil rich. Someone made a lot of money building and selling John the yacht. The salesperson made a nice commission, and now can go buy a new BMW. The salesperson who sold the Beemer makes money, and can now afford to take the family to Disney World instead of taking a staycation. People at Disney make money because the salesperson is spending it. They now have money to spend on other goods. John has to berth the yacht, and a company makes money doing that and maintaining the yacht. Money flows around the economy. Oh, and tax money is flowing into the State coffers along the way. Mitch is not the guy who starts the chain, but Mitch now works at a hotel at Disney, and gets a lot of tips because people are now coming to Disney because money is flowing. But, Obama’s policies, which create too much uncertainty within the market place, stop all that.
Obama is right on one point, we do need a strong middle class, one that sees the possibility of moving up into the upper class. And then those same middle class people have to worry about being demonized, insulted, and taxed for achieving.
Obama cautioned supporters that Republicans will “spend more money than we have ever seen in the history of the Republic” on political ads “telling you that the economy is bad, it’s all my fault, and I can’t fix it because government is always the answer, according to me.”
“Or because I didn’t make a lot of money in the private sector, or because I’m in over my head, or because I think everybody is doing just fine,” the president said, eliciting laughter from the crowd.
“And that may be their plan to win an election, but it’s sure not a plan to create jobs,” he said.
And what’s Obama’s plan? More blue collar workers repaving roads with money we don’t have because the economy stinks. I’d call Obama a one trick pony, but that would probably be deemed raaaaacist.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
You make it sound like this isn’t a theory that has had any success in the past. Like all economic theories, they work in different times in different ways. Since “trickle down” economics of the Reagan years we’ve seen a huge shift away from the 90% and to the 1%.
And right now the 1% have 100’s of billions sitting on the sidelines. Why give them more money via tax breaks so they can take more money out of the economy and have it sit in some swiss bank?
And basically… we’ve had top down economics for the last 30 years and we are in alot of trouble! To mock another tactic at this point with the view that you KNOW the right way flies in the face of alot of data.
It has nothing to do with good and evil, though that is a trendy attack line now. It is about numbers. And the numbers are ugly.
Mitt used to be for bottom up. Now he’s more for top down. Just like every major issue. He used to be one side of it, now he’s on the other. Gay marriage, gun control, raising taxes (fees), healthcare, iraq, the fed,
Here’s a serious question… we’ve basically had the same tax plan for about 15 years, and with even lower taxes for the wealthy for the last 9, and the economy has imploded. Why stick with that theory? Shouldn’t we adjust based on the data we are seeing? Should we look at what has worked in the past in these situations? Shouldn’t we say…. hey… this isn’t working? Why stick with it. The GOP got just about everything they wanted tax wise from 2000-2006 and it led to the biggest economic implosion since the Depression. OWN THAT! If you don’t, you can’t learn from your mistakes.
[…] Original Page: http://www.thepiratescove.us/2012/06/23/obama-what-we-need-is-bottom-up-economics/ Related Stories Did Obama Just Commit High Treason?!? BRAVE NEW WORLD 2009 You vote obama […]
Adjust to what? People with no money do not create wealth. They can’t.
Here’s a serious question… we’ve basically had the same tax plan for about 15 years, and with even lower taxes for the wealthy for the last 9, and the economy has imploded. Why stick with that theory?
Here’s a serious answer:
Because there is more to the economy than at what rates taxes are paid.
There are more and more regulations for businesses that cost the economy nearly 2 trillion a year. That means instead of paying salaries and expanding, businesses are forced to pay fees which add nothing to the economy.
In fact, many people look to the regulations that forced banks to loan money based on “disparate impact” and “redevelopment” rather than sound fiscal policy that lead to the housing collapse.
Furthermore, when Obama took office, the amount of cash as a percentage of assets in companies was around 7.4%. Today, that percentage is down to 5.3%. (And those numbers are according to the Feds.)
The same thing happened in the Great Depression. Banks and businesses were over regulated and so they held onto their money. It wasn’t until WWII when businesses started to make things the economy took off. It wasn’t due to the influx of cash by the government either. In fact, at the start of the war, the government proved uniquely adept at screwing up every order, every contract and every business. It wasn’t until the free market system was instituted that the economy took off.
There is nothing wrong with “bottom up” or “top down” economies. Both have their place and both can work. The type of economy is not the issue. The issue is the overreach by the government that is keeping banks from loaning, businesses from expanding and people getting back to work.
THAT is the failure of the Obama administration.
[…] a guy’s got to do what a guy’s got to do, even if he sounds like a fool.Much more at The Pirate’s Cove.google_ad_client = "ca-pub-1395656889568144"; /* 300×250, created 8/11/08 */ google_ad_slot = […]
[…] more at The Pirate’s Cove. Tweet vaso […]
BWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
That was hilarious. I’m sorry. But, first let’s correct your misconceptions and mis-reality.
The 2000-2007 was a period of great economic growth despite 9/11/01 and fighting 2 wars. The downturn came when reality hit after the housing market began to crash along with various other country’s economies began to falter.
The stimulus plan to spend trillions exacerbated the issue. The spending of trillions more on health care and unemployment and welfare further capped down any possibility of economic self-repair.
And, I love how you blame lowering taxes on the rich is the reason for an economic collapse. LOL. Do you not realize that the top 25% of wage earners pay over 86% of the taxes? How is that fair? How is it fair that over 50% of people don’t pay any taxes at all? Wouldn’t it be fair if we all paid the same rate?
And if Obama is so pro-working class, then why did OUR taxes go up this past year? Why are expenses on necessary commodities going up without inflation?
Gitarcarver, your argument seems to want to dismiss any and all Bush era policies and pretends that President Obama entered office and then promptly slammed the corporte world with new and unheard of regulations that ultimately brought thier profits to an all time low. That’s some pretty week tea.
In reality, corporate profits are up by 60+ % while middle class and lower income worker’s wages are down by 5%. Like it or not, 70% of the economy is driven by middle class consumption.
I can agree with you that “there is more to the economy than at what rates taxes are paid” but we should be realisic that it’s an important driver. And it should be pointed out that taxes are at a 65 year low while corporate profits are at the highest in history. And after 10+ years, it isn’t working. And please spare me the invoking of the Confidence Fairy. Confidence needs to be with all consumers. Wages are down for the middle class because minimum wages have not kept pace, they have lost a great deal of bargaining power, and the coprorate world has no need to raise wages as there are no tax penaltis that would apply. Over 20 of the top Fortune 500 companies piad NEGATIVE taxes for the 2011 year, making them actual corporate welfare participants. The majority of the rest paid less than 1%.
Now let me reiterate that wages are down because corporate faces no tax penalties. In prior years when they paid taxes, they were in a “use it or lose it” situation. They reinvested, hired, gave pay raises, expanded, and so on because they needed tax write offs. Today they don’t.
Ronald J. Ward,
The number of regulations and impact of those regulations has doubled under the Obama administration. At a time when people should be looking to release restraints from companies, the Obama administration has tried to shackle them. The problem is that these new regulations don’t produce anything, and in fact result in companies holding money back from investments. Right now the number one reason companies are not investing or expanding is because of ACA, which will hit companies hard.
Corporate profits are up in terms of dollars, but down in terms of percentages. And as for the companies that paid “negative taxes,” that is due to credits for re-investing. Please spare me the tears over companies that do what you want them to do, and then seek to slam them for doing it.
As for wages, most economists agree that raising the minimum wage hurts low income families and untrained workers. The fact that you would advocate a “tax” on not paying a wage shows you aren’t interested in growing the economy, but rather simply growing taxes.
Last year alone, the Congress and Obama signed bills that put another trillion dollars and 10,000 pages of regulations onto companies. When those who wonder why banks don’t have money to lend, look at the regulations.
As for “corporate welfare,” you and others act as if corporations are not made of people and investors. Over 60% of Americans have financial ties to corporations through stock investments and yet you keep wanting to slam the corporations. While slamming corporations, you are perfectly happy to have 49% of the population pay no taxes at all.
I agree the economy can be driven by the middle class and it is the policy of Obama to drive people out of the middle class and into government dependency.
Are you actually hoping to be taken seriously? It would be most interesting for you to give some sources to your quite wild and exaggerated claims. So, “regulations has doubled under the Obama administration”? Says who? You? “The number one reason companies are not investing or expanding is because of ACA”? That’s an interesting news flash. Please elaborate with some credible links. “Most economists agree that raising the minimum wage hurts low income families and untrained workers”. While that doesn’t address the effect on the economy in general, I’m unaware of that and can provide volumes of credible economists that think quite differently, as well as history itself that proves otherwise.
I never “advocated a tax for not paying a wage”. Wages are deductible and accordingly, higher wages would give someone a higher deduction. Eliminating a need for deductions eliminates that incentive. And finally, you impute opinions of me that I do not have, or you cannot know I have as I’ve never said such things. Aside from the rhetoric, your claim that I am “perfectly happy to have 49% of the population pay no taxes at all” makes no sense and to put it mildly, is simply made up nonsense as obviously your arguments have no merit on there own. There is simply no evidence that you can provide to support such a grasp. That seems consistent with your overall arguments. When you try to pass off such blatant nonsense as fact, it’s hard to give credence to anything you say.
I frankly don’t care if you take me seriously or not, sir.
I always find it amazing when people demand of others what they will not do themselves.