Trickle down economics is not supply side economics. JFK was the first supply side President. The supply side theory was proven true by JFK’s policies. He believed that we can grow the economy without causing inflation by giving incentives that motivate investment into more productive capacity( capital investment) thus increasing supply and keeping a lid on inflation. JFK used investment tax credits to spur investment into capital equipment used here in the USA. Trump’s plan is a wealth hoarding plan. You can call it trickle down, but there is no incentive to invest in more productive capacity and innovate like there is with JFK’s investment tax credits. Trump Just lowers taxes for high earners and leaves it up to them how to use. As we saw last time Trump was President, the extra cash was used to consolidate ownership and hoard wealth. Biden’s ITCs for renewables were a form of supply side economics and it worked to increase the supply of electricity.
You're caught up in this narrative that I'm just some rich guy's cheerleader, but let's be real. I'm not here to defend the elite; I'm here to stand up for everyday Americans who get squeezed by a government that's too big for its britches.
I'm not just picking on diversity musicals or comic books for kicks. I'm highlighting how our government uses our tax dollars like it's Monopoly money. I want transparency, accountability. I want to know that when we send money overseas, it's not just for show but for strategic gains that keep America strong and safe. We're not talking about cutting aid; we're talking about making sure every cent is spent wisely.
You think I'm pushing for trickle-down economics? Think again. I'm advocating for an environment where businesses, big or small, can thrive without being choked by red tape. When companies grow, they hire more people, they innovate, they compete. That's not just good for the rich; it's good for everyone. The tax cuts under Trump? They didn't just make the rich richer; they gave breathing room to small businesses, to families. And yeah, stock buybacks happened, but so did job creation, so did wage increases.
I'm not some isolationist; I believe in America first. That doesn't mean we shut our doors, it means our priorities should be our people first. When I talk about globalism, I'm questioning why our money is being spent on projects that don’t directly benefit us or align with our values. It's not about being anti-foreign aid; it's about being pro-American worker.
I'm not interested in a system where the government decides who gets what. I want a system where your success is determined by your hard work, not by how many loopholes you can exploit or how much you can milk from government programs. Cutting red tape means more jobs, more innovation, and yes, a chance for everyone to get a piece of the American dream, not just the ones at the top.
I’m not defending the rich; I’m defending the right for anyone to become rich through their own merit. The real question is, why do some want to keep us shackled to a system that benefits inefficiency and bureaucracy over freedom and opportunity?
I appreciate you taking the time to engage with this topic and with me.
I hear what you’re saying—you want policies that benefit everyday Americans and ensure our tax dollars are spent wisely. That’s a goal most people would agree with. But the approach you’re advocating tends to benefit the wealthy far more than the working class, even if that’s not the intention.
For example, when we talk about cutting regulations, that often means fewer protections for workers, consumers, and the environment. While reducing unnecessary bureaucracy is a good thing, many of these regulations exist for a reason—to prevent corporations from exploiting workers, avoid financial crises, and protect public health. If we remove them without considering the consequences, we end up with lower wages, worse working conditions, and more corporate misconduct.
The same goes for tax cuts. The Trump tax cuts may have helped some small businesses, but the biggest benefits went to large corporations and the wealthiest Americans. Much of the money from those cuts went to stock buybacks rather than wage increases or job creation. If the goal is to help working people, why not focus on tax relief that directly benefits them instead of hoping the benefits “trickle down”?
As for accountability, I completely agree that government spending should be transparent and efficient. But that accountability should apply across the board—including to corporate subsidies, defense spending, and tax loopholes that allow massive companies to pay little to nothing in taxes. If wasteful spending is a concern, we should be looking at all areas, not just programs that assist the public.
And when it comes to foreign aid, while it’s fair to question how our money is spent, it’s also important to recognize that aid often serves strategic interests—strengthening alliances, preventing conflicts, and maintaining global stability, which ultimately benefits us. It’s a small fraction of the budget compared to other expenditures, yet it gets a disproportionate amount of scrutiny.
If the goal is to create an economy where hard work truly determines success, then we need policies that ensure everyone has a fair shot—not just those who already have wealth and influence. That means investing in education, healthcare, and worker protections alongside fostering a business-friendly environment. It’s not about more government vs. less government—it’s about smart government that prioritizes the well-being of all Americans.
Bro I’m loving your posts
Thank you!
Trickle down economics is not supply side economics. JFK was the first supply side President. The supply side theory was proven true by JFK’s policies. He believed that we can grow the economy without causing inflation by giving incentives that motivate investment into more productive capacity( capital investment) thus increasing supply and keeping a lid on inflation. JFK used investment tax credits to spur investment into capital equipment used here in the USA. Trump’s plan is a wealth hoarding plan. You can call it trickle down, but there is no incentive to invest in more productive capacity and innovate like there is with JFK’s investment tax credits. Trump Just lowers taxes for high earners and leaves it up to them how to use. As we saw last time Trump was President, the extra cash was used to consolidate ownership and hoard wealth. Biden’s ITCs for renewables were a form of supply side economics and it worked to increase the supply of electricity.
Interesting input! Thank you
You're caught up in this narrative that I'm just some rich guy's cheerleader, but let's be real. I'm not here to defend the elite; I'm here to stand up for everyday Americans who get squeezed by a government that's too big for its britches.
I'm not just picking on diversity musicals or comic books for kicks. I'm highlighting how our government uses our tax dollars like it's Monopoly money. I want transparency, accountability. I want to know that when we send money overseas, it's not just for show but for strategic gains that keep America strong and safe. We're not talking about cutting aid; we're talking about making sure every cent is spent wisely.
You think I'm pushing for trickle-down economics? Think again. I'm advocating for an environment where businesses, big or small, can thrive without being choked by red tape. When companies grow, they hire more people, they innovate, they compete. That's not just good for the rich; it's good for everyone. The tax cuts under Trump? They didn't just make the rich richer; they gave breathing room to small businesses, to families. And yeah, stock buybacks happened, but so did job creation, so did wage increases.
I'm not some isolationist; I believe in America first. That doesn't mean we shut our doors, it means our priorities should be our people first. When I talk about globalism, I'm questioning why our money is being spent on projects that don’t directly benefit us or align with our values. It's not about being anti-foreign aid; it's about being pro-American worker.
I'm not interested in a system where the government decides who gets what. I want a system where your success is determined by your hard work, not by how many loopholes you can exploit or how much you can milk from government programs. Cutting red tape means more jobs, more innovation, and yes, a chance for everyone to get a piece of the American dream, not just the ones at the top.
I’m not defending the rich; I’m defending the right for anyone to become rich through their own merit. The real question is, why do some want to keep us shackled to a system that benefits inefficiency and bureaucracy over freedom and opportunity?
I appreciate you taking the time to engage with this topic and with me.
I hear what you’re saying—you want policies that benefit everyday Americans and ensure our tax dollars are spent wisely. That’s a goal most people would agree with. But the approach you’re advocating tends to benefit the wealthy far more than the working class, even if that’s not the intention.
For example, when we talk about cutting regulations, that often means fewer protections for workers, consumers, and the environment. While reducing unnecessary bureaucracy is a good thing, many of these regulations exist for a reason—to prevent corporations from exploiting workers, avoid financial crises, and protect public health. If we remove them without considering the consequences, we end up with lower wages, worse working conditions, and more corporate misconduct.
The same goes for tax cuts. The Trump tax cuts may have helped some small businesses, but the biggest benefits went to large corporations and the wealthiest Americans. Much of the money from those cuts went to stock buybacks rather than wage increases or job creation. If the goal is to help working people, why not focus on tax relief that directly benefits them instead of hoping the benefits “trickle down”?
As for accountability, I completely agree that government spending should be transparent and efficient. But that accountability should apply across the board—including to corporate subsidies, defense spending, and tax loopholes that allow massive companies to pay little to nothing in taxes. If wasteful spending is a concern, we should be looking at all areas, not just programs that assist the public.
And when it comes to foreign aid, while it’s fair to question how our money is spent, it’s also important to recognize that aid often serves strategic interests—strengthening alliances, preventing conflicts, and maintaining global stability, which ultimately benefits us. It’s a small fraction of the budget compared to other expenditures, yet it gets a disproportionate amount of scrutiny.
If the goal is to create an economy where hard work truly determines success, then we need policies that ensure everyone has a fair shot—not just those who already have wealth and influence. That means investing in education, healthcare, and worker protections alongside fostering a business-friendly environment. It’s not about more government vs. less government—it’s about smart government that prioritizes the well-being of all Americans.