Rich guys having more money in their savings never helped anybody. You should really take some introductory economics classes. There is what is called the Marginal Propensity to Spend and Marginal Propensity to Save, and wealthy people, who tax cuts exclusively benefit, have a very high Marginal Propensity to Save.

If you want to stimulate the economy, give money to people who will spend it to take care of their family, increasing the aggregate demand which is the driver of all goods and services in the United States. You are for some reason at least 30 years behind orthodox economics because you're talking about Trickle Down like it hasn't been disproved in every conceivable way. Supply Side economics are for apologists of the 1%.



Your feelings aren't a statistical argument. We get it though, economics isn't your strength.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jun 19 2017 08:36am

ah yes the consume as fast as possible = economic prosperity = economics = mass redistribution is great talking point
i didnt miss that you threw in "trickle down" as if thats a serious representation of the alternative.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Jun 19 2017 08:51am

Well we know that giving money to rich guys does not create jobs, and causes very minute economic benefits compared to increased demand due to households having more money on average across the board.

When applied Supply Side economics is trickle down. Those are the two competing schools of thought, Neo-Keynesian vs. Chicago School. There are no others seriously considered.

We also know that giving money to Unions neither creates jobs nor boosts the economy -- Obama Stimulus.

Bank execs have a union?

Rand paul is a pale shadow of his father.