I’m well aware of what the media said but that doesn’t make it a viable economic theory. Just like borrowing trillions today and calling it inflation reduction. If you want to talk Reagan though maybe we should go back to lbj and start with the great society.
Might want to spend some time listening to Thomas Sowell to get a more balanced view. Just one of many many easily found on your computer.
Actually, Reagan called it “Supply Side Economics”.
I remember well the contrived fuel shortage of the late 1970s. I had colleagues who had big cars that traded then at a loss for economical to run small cars. What surprises me today is that the sale of large pickup trucks hasn’t declined.
Yeah we’ve been through a lot in one lifetime. We had even odd gas sales for while and driving 100 miles a day wasn’t easy so I kept 20 gallons in the garage for emergency. Then 18% car loan in 81. So you won’t find me supporting many of the clowns we’ve had in charge since Ike. Crooks and drug pushers and worse. We luckily missed teddy and jeb, two of the worst. I’m bi-partisan.
This year for Halloween, I gave all of my candy to a few rich kids, because then it will trickle down to the poor kids.
Bing , you are probably going to be Flagged . People do not want to join something just to read an article.
Well mike started it and can’t just let disinformation crap stand.
While I often agree with you, the Economic Theory you’re refering to goes back at least a hundred years, predating the automobile, when Keysian economists derisively referd to it as “Feeding the horses to feed the sparrows”. (Thing about it, the horses eat the corn some of which eventually comes out the other end… 
)
Over the years it kept resurfacing under a lot of different names, “Supply Side Economics”, “Trickle Down Economics”, etc. but with the consistent result that it doesn’t work.
The 2 most recent examples are Kansas’ experiment with tax cutting which plunged the State into debt while reducing government services and most recently, the UK Prime Minister’s proposal to slash top income tax rates which came close to freezing the entire lending markets and resulted in her resignation in an all time record of 44 days.
There’s lots of information on the why’s but for an overly simplistic example, if I cut most peoples taxes by $1,000, most of that money would be immediately spent and go back into the economy but if I did that for Elon Musk that money would be sidelined into savings. I mean how many more lobster tails can the poor guy consume. 
I guess you missed the video of two little kids approaching a porch and seeing the bucket empty. They took candy out of their buckets to put in the empty one. It’s called sharing. Kinda like paying a guys mortgage off who helped a guy with car trouble.
Can’t say I saw the video but what I think you’re missing is the concept of the “Velocity” of money.
Again an overly simplistic example that harkens back to the Great Depression, say you’ve acquired $1,000 and since you have no immediate need you simply stuff the money under your mattress. Well that money just sits there benefitting nobody.
Alternatively, if you immediately spend the money on food, that money immediately benefits the grocer, the trucker who delivered the food and the farmer who grew the food so the economy’s getting 3X the bang for the buck.
My point is NOT that government should hand out money in the form of tax reductions or cash willy nilly but that for the most immediate and strongest economic effect it should be focused on those who will immediately spend it, which is not the ultra wealthy.
.
It has NOTHING to do with what the media says…even the right wing media you listen to. It’s a well established economic theory studied in economic classes from leading universities like Harvard, Yale and MIT. Most Economists agree it’s a theory that is only good for the few at the top of the cycle. And yet the GOP LOVES to promote.
I don’t disagree at all. If you want to increase economic activity, you give it to people that will spend it. Just remember though the government is like a church. They only get their money from contributions and borrowing, whether voluntary or forced. So they have to first take it from someone else before they can give it away.
I have no idea what you are trying to say . As for the Mirage does not fit needs , might be yours but it might be for others .
Government, in a myriad of ways, takes it from those least able to give and “gives it” to those least in need.
Not arguing for communism, just for going back to the days when a millionaire was a “rich person”…now if you ain’t got billions, and can’t literally buy a government, then you’re a nobody. All of these billionaires believe their money makes their views the only views worth considering.
Common sense should dictate that if fuel costs increase high enough, people will try to use less fuel…and that includes changing their driving habits and even replacing larger fuel-inefficient vehicles with smaller fuel-efficient models. If $5/gallon regular gasoline hangs around, people who currently laugh at the idea of a small economy car will happily buy one.
+1
I may or may not be typical, but I began driving in a much more fuel-efficient way when the price of gas increased. Being much more conservative with my driving style allowed me to consistently get ~1.5 more mpg that way. That might not seem to be very significant, but… every little bit helps, IMHO.
And, I am about to trade-in my 12 year old 3.6 liter Outback for a Lexus plug-in hybrid. Since most of my driving is within its 37 mile battery-only range, I should only have to fill the tank once every 2 months or so.
Hybrids make the most sense; glad to see Toyota not abandoning the tech. The 2023 Corolla Hybrid looks wonderful with it’s improved Prius hybrid system:) $26k off the lot…what a deal…52mpg.
I read a while back they put an actual first gear in the CVT to give you a better, more “transmission like”, launch; then switching to the CVT tech to keep it rolling.
This is the old yarn spun. I don’t have the current figures off the top of my head but if you look at total taxes contributed by the top 10% or even 1% compared to what the bottom 10% or even 40%, the bottom half pay little or no tax and the upper 50% pay the large majority of total income taxes. Some think that is great, I think it is dangerous for a huge percentage of the population to have no skin in the game.
Can’t argue with the idea that everyone should do their part in an equitable way to contribute to funding the military & various government programs; but remember that gov’t funding comes from more sources than just income taxes. Property taxes, sales taxes, parking & traffic tickets, building permit fees, gasoline taxes, and all the rest. I’m more concerned with what the gov’t spends the money on, and that the money is spent efficiently. Programs that start with a promised budget of $10 M per year actually wind up costing $100M per year, radio advertising blitzes screaming at business owners : ‘Get your FREE ERC money now!!!’, and the like. If a very poor person was charged $100 income tax just to make a point, they’d have to get $100 more in the EBD card. Nothing accomplished, just a money transfer between accounts.
do you mean like this… 
Yeah, that sort of thing exactly. A lot of negative public comments about that project in this area. It’s not quite as bad as it sounds. That’s for the prototype to be tried out as a test. If the design works the actual batch of toilets presumably would cost considerably less.
More concerning imo is how gov’t project budgets are constantly increasing beyond what was promised when the voters approved the idea. There’s a project going on here in San Jose to extend a subway (BART) to downtown, estimates keep increasing. Most recent estimate was $6.9 B, just heard on the radio today, $9 B. Commonsense says to not increase the budget, but to decrease the project’s functionality to be within the available funding. But this idea isn’t in elected politicians mind-set.