When does the trickle come from trickle down economics?

Question

how long does it take for the profit making of those who saved millions from Bush tax cuts to find its way down to ordinary americans and make the economy be prosperous and grand for all...as we were promised?

NOt that I am holding my breath waiting for this. I am personally doing fine,but I am thinking about the great majority of americans and when they can expect to get the trickle. Obviously the record breaking profits have come for big business, and the numbe of billionaires is rising, so surely the first half of the equation did happen, but now...how about the second part that was promised...when do you think it will come?

By the way, do you think its true when some people say "they lied to take us to war in iraq"? Do you think our own leaders would lie to us and exaggerate intel to make us go to war??

Answer 1

1. sadly, it may never trickle down.

2. Yes, they lied.

Answer 2

The only "trickle" we'll ever see is when we are being p*ssed on by the super wealthy. And in answer to the second part of your question...Yes and h**l Yes.  

Answer 3

the trickle never comes. the rich just get richer. i'm not hurting too bad either...but i'm sick of only a small circle of the populous benefitting from economic policy. seems like if that had to be the case then the biggest circle should benefit, the everyday working people.

bush and cheney DID manipulate intelligence to build their case for war. yes, it's true. they don't figure we little people need to know the truth...their "divine judgment" is the only thing that mattered to them.  

Answer 4

To answer the "loaded" part of your question:  You get the trickle whenever you stop complaining about being a perpetual victim and go out and get it for yourself.  Start taking control of your own life, stop waiting for the trickle to get to you and go get it for yourself.  

The economic answer:  Immediately upon the capital that was directed and kept in the private sector either being invested or spent the trickle starts.  The investment provides capital to businesses that hire people, purchase equipment (that is created by people), and/or purchase services (that are performed by people).  The beneficiaries of those funds follow the same pattern and the economy expands as does revenue with each subsequent level of new taxation.  Investors receive a return on their capital investments, taxed at a lower rate, and reinvest because it is in their own best interest to get richer.  Economic growth that benefits everyone in the economy is a fortunate byproduct of their effort.  The second part happens every day in the US and every one of them will tell you the same thing.  They learned to rely on themselves and stopped falling victim to self pity and the chorus of failures telling them they could never do it.  Oh, by the way, the capital investment that they used to bring their idea to market was probably provided by an existing millionaire who saw an opportunity for success.

The idea from the government's perspective is to take the least amount of taxes possible from the most amount of people - a system that is accretive to revenue.  Instead of taking the highest amount of taxes from the least amount of people - a system that reduces revenue.  It recognizes the free market ideal of private property rights and the private entity's right to control it's own resources combined with the idea that governments are not capable of allocating resources as efficiently as the private sector.  The promise of opportunity is not a promise of success.

Although it doesn't seem like you want a timeline on the run up to the Iraq war - every international intel agency agreed on possession of and desire to use wmd by Iraq.  While it turned out to be wrong, the stockpiles itemized after the last set of UN inspectors were forced to leave Iraq was never accounted for.  This administration botched the execution of what could have been a very manageable situation with the right size force.   But in answer to your question - I don't entirely agree characterizing the entire case as a lie is remotely accurate.  Although to think any nation would refrain from attempting to use some level of hyperbole to gain popular support for a war is naive at best.