1082
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
1082 points (99.6% liked)
politics
19100 readers
4106 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is this going to be like UBI studies, where the news pretends every one of hundreds of studies is the one that is breaking this news for the first time? My economics professor was taking the piss out of supply side economics over a decade ago.
Endorsement of trickle-down is usually made for the same reason as criticisms of UBI... Conservative voters are ignorant of the concept of elasticity in economics, and their politicians know it.
Some people are either unaware or like being trickled upon. Somehow there still seems to be widespread support for tax cuts to the wealthy. Somehow people seem to remember “tax cut” while either being unaware or not remembering whose taxes were cut. Somehow they already forgot when Warren Buffet made a big deal of his tax rate being lower than his secretary’s and that we should fix that. As recently as this summer I found someone surprised that the Trump tax “cuts” increased my taxes
"Trickle-Upon Economics" really does capture the vibe and the reality of the experience.
The goldfish memory of news organizations doesn't help. If they reported this accurately it would be, "Another Study Confirms Trickle Down Doesn't Work"
No. It doesn't seem to me that the article pretends this one study is breaking any news for the first time. It cites other studies and individuals that have expressed the same idea for a long time. Possibly this is the first rigorous study of the 50 years from 1965 to 2015, I dunno.
This is what's before the fold. Combined with the headline, most people are not going to come away with the sense that this is a long known thing.
When it does get into it below the fold it talks about the pandemic. When it could talk about how we've known this for literal decades. (I love the second one. It's six years after Reagan is elected and written by a pro-trickle down economist whose having to move the goal posts to keep defending it.)