Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller for April 01, 2010

Well, at least the first crook said “thanks”.

<< I have to laugh to keep from crying. >>

unclear on the concept, part #…

Tha folks is trickle-UP economics at work (or not).

trickle down economics has always been that, a trickle.

Remember the architect … Less is More.

NEVER panhandle in Washington DC…

RODNEY I agree. Leave that to the professionals on Capital Hill.” I’ll sign the bill if Nevada never has to pay a dime”

They must be either bankers or politicians.

It’s a pretty twisted mindset which equates letting someone keep their hard earned money with theft. Especially since even after a tax cut the rich are paying a far higher percentage of income than the poor. Miller’s got some funny characters, but he knows about as much about economics as Rosie ODonnell knows about metallurgy.

Money trickles down but it pours up.

obi-wandreas: if the ones making more than 120,000 paid the same percentage in payroll taxes and were not allowed such outrageous deductions or shelter their money i might agree with you…

Remembering that rich folks pay more but they also take much much more. They not only often don’t pay at all (GE, for example, pays almost nothing in taxes), but they receive huge government subsidies – and have for years.

Americans - rich Americans - traditionally pay less than nearly all other industrialized nations yet whine about it more. Why? Because they are greedy. They make vast amounts of money that have little to do with what they actually do – and why? Because they and their friends make the rules.

By the way, conservatives claim this is a Christian country. If that is the case, then we are all obligated to serve the poor and possess less. Need I cite all the Gospel passages? Of course, they don’t really want a Gospel based society because that would undermine their amassing obscene amounts of money.

Obi-Wandreas, who among us knows what Rosie O’Donnell does in her spare time? :)

As for supply-side economics, the idea was: tax the wealthy less, they’ll spend more, and eventually everyone will benefit – hence, “trickle-down”. But “hard-earned” applies only to people who actually labor to do something useful to others and get paid for it, which pretty much leaves the wealthy out of it. No doubt they “earn” what they get, since someone else is willing to pay it, so that someone must somehow be getting what they think is value received…that’s how a market works. But “hard”? Please.

Over a century ago, William Jennings Bryan remarked, “No one ever made a million dollars honestly.” It was a bit of a broad statement, since he was running for office at the time, but it should give one pause to think.

And before you ask, yes, I *am* an economist by profession.

Whenever wiley has injected politics into his strips it looses any and all of its humor, like today. I second Obi.

If you folk’s don’t believe that the rich pay more in taxes, you need to wake up. For those who say the rich should pay more, are you really that dense? Do you really think they’ll just say “oh well, guess we’ll just have to take a hit in our profits!” No! They will just pass that on down to us. They always have and always will. Raising taxes on the rich, raises taxes on us all. It’s time for a fair tax!

I wonder if Wiley intended todays strip to be funny, or perhaps thought provoking. Clearly, the thought was lost on some folks.

^^^It was Nancy who consulted the psychics. Probably didn’t matter since she ran the show anyway.

Us’ns on the bottom never did understand trickle down economics, but look where it got us.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not…..(Thomas Jefferson)

Dog, i still get trickled on every day by Reaganomics, the grift that keeps on taking.

Cartoonwise, I do believe the first was a banker and the last was the taxman. Both decorating their houses with the drapes of Roth no doubt. (If Allen Sherman wasn’t already dead…)

SCAATY_423

The pause would be long enough to figure out that the dollar is only worth 5% of what is was 100 years ago. Plenty of honest people make $50,000 now days. Just not on my street.

An economist (whose name I can’t remember) once said that the “Trickle Down Theory” was much like birds picking grain out of horse manure.

If trickle down works so well, the massive tax cuts for the wealthy under Bush would have made us all rich. Y’all rich?

pawnraider: “Whenever wiley has injected politics into his strips it looses any and all of its humor, like today. I second Obi.”

Nah, it’s just the fundamental law of the Conservation of Humor. Each strip contains a finite amount of funniness. Sometimes, like today, certain people (like me) consume more than our fair share of the funniness, leaving less for people like yourself. It’s a lot like capitalism, really.

First of all Whatroughbeast, if you hypothesize that the dollar is worth 5% of what it was worth in Bryan’s day, then the proper translation of his statement would be that “no one ever made $20 million honestly.” But even if you left the number at 1 million of today’s dollars, the point stands.

Anyone who is in a position to shovel that much money into their bank account has benefited hugely from the socioeconomic level, educational opportunities, family environment, plain old luck, and myriad other advantages of their birth.

Bill Gates (net worth $50 billion) is not 1 million times harder working than those neighbors of yours who might have a net worth of 50 grand.

The WaitingMan Dictionary: Trickle-Down Economics - The rich urinate on the poor.

I always wanted to do that, but I was afraid that the blind beggar would see what I was doing, and the quadruple amputee would get up and run after me.

Reagan and Bush both were prejudiced against the poor. Unfortunately there were and are no laws against it.

Good Thursday to you all, we’re on furlough tomorrow (and we’re in CA, but not state employed)

He needs a bigger cup. One that’s too big to fail.

WOW! A Have taking from a Have-not! This is why we should all cross the border into Mexico and sign up for their welfare and peso stamps!

‘As for supply-side economics, the idea was: tax the wealthy less, they’ll spend more, and eventually everyone will benefit – hence, “trickle-down”.’

Hey, I’m old enough to remember the 80s.

The Wikipedia definition of supply-side economics is pretty legit: “argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services.” “Trickle down” was coined by detractors, who stereotyped producers as “the rich” - many are not, and many would-be producers start out at lower economic strata.

The detractors also passed off the myth that supply-side was the only game in Reagan’s econ playbook. The Kemp-Roth tax cuts were across-the-board to EVERYONE, a 25% cut phased in over three years.

Economic growth requires a mix of both - get the boot off both the consumer and the producer. You can’t leave out supply-side - making goods and services less costly to produce benefits both sellers and buyers.

What the cartoon really illustrates is the welfare system. The money gives to taxpayers money that the government gets from taxpayers.

The reason trickle down economics doesn’t work is that when the rich get a windfall - whether it’s a tax break or a bailout, they don’t spend it. They have no need to; they can afford whatever they want anyhow. So they hoard it; it just gets dumped into paper. No economic stimulus.

When you give working people a tax break, a raise or a windfall, they go out and spend it. They replace their refrigerator, or their tires, or maybe they take the kids out to dinner. That does stimulate the economy.

Anybody notice any change in banking since banks were ‘bailed out’? In fact, have you noticed any difference in their policies since the new ‘regulations’?

I got a letter the other day about overdraft fees and policies from one of my banks, which required me to sign the form and return it asap. In fact, they called me to make sure I was going to do it. The fees are the same, but the policies only apply to some transactions; if I want to opt in to all transactions, I have to sign. The fees are the same, still exorbitant, the difference appears to be that they now have to have my explicit permission to charge them.

This isn’t bank regulation, folks. And it’s not helping the economy.

Richard said, “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not…..(Thomas Jefferson)”

I give place to none in my admiration for Thomas Jefferson. But like many people of wealth and privilege (as were many of the Founding Fathers), he seemed to assume that, if someone were needy, it must somehow be their fault, and they chose not to work to support themselves – i.e., they were lazy moochers. Sound familiar?

Sure, there are such out there, but they’ve never been more than a small minority. Believe differently if it makes you feel more smug about yourself, but that doesn’t change what is.

There are too many millions of our fellow citizens who are desperately trying to hold their homes and families together in the face of bad health, bad luck, or a bad decision (which anyone else might have made in their situation). And there are too few of us who are not within one bad day of joining them for anyone to be arrogant and uncaring.

Money in a system is money in a system.

Everyone argues, “If I have more money, the system will be better off.” How does it really matter whether someone keeps more of their capital gains, buys a yacht and keeps the yacht makers in business, or whether someone in a union gets a $2 raise, and gets the trees trimmed in his yard, giving a landscape company work, or whether the government spends money on building a bridge, and construction workers all have a job? In each case, money is spent and moves around in the system.

The more important question is, who gets to decide how new money in the system is created, and who gets to choose who gets to spend the new money into use?

Well, sure y’all, but accurate or inaccurate - it’s a pretty funny comic today!!!!

grapfhics said, about 14 hours ago

“trickle down economics has always been that, a trickle”

Well, perhaps in the short run. On the other hand, the middle and working classes have things pretty good compared to, say, 300 to 800 years ago. Goods and wealth really do penetrate downward. In 1900, only the really rich could afford a car, and getting fuel was tough. By 1920, most families could afford cars. By 1990, everyone could afford one, or several, and fuel was available in every town. And car safety was pretty good, with airbags and crumple zones in all cars.

By historic standards, our “working poor” are rich. By any standard, our rich are obscene.

Aaah! Christmas Season! People helping themselves. Doesn’t it just make you feel all warm inside?

Grim; While your statement is correct I guess Warren Buffett and folk like myself are really pretty dense. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

Lessened regulations (of which S-SE espouses) is what got us into this mess to begin with. Economists back in ‘98 were saying this would happen after “C” removed the regulations on banks. At this point I wonder if a return to Keynesian economics isn’t the temporary answer; it did get us out of the Great Depression. Bah, we need to clean up the current mess before we discuss what economic system will work. When folks have roofs over their heads and food on their plates again. Think of it like a doctor trying to break a patient’s fever before operating; sometimes you have to get the symptoms under control before going after the source, or it will have been all for naught.

Where does trickle down fit in Bmonk? It was Uniions getting a living wage for workers that opened up the economy. Increased demand, increased production, increased employment, raised standards of living. The only thing the rich did was get richer!

Unions!

I agree with JP. The rise of the middle class is what brought a better life. The way the middle class happened here, was through people uniting with other people……you know, unions…..believe it or not, it isn’t a four letter word….

I love Wiley’s wry humour (& penmanship) & everyone’s diverse comments. The views are very divergent, some extreme or self-indulgent, but I always enjoy finding the gems amongst them; the delightfully witty to the insightful. As an example of the latter I applaud the comments of “SCAATY_423” for his balance & well tempered comments.

Apparently Wiley doesn’t understand it either.

Some people think that conservatives want to do away with the middle class, but the conservatives feel “they are the middle class,” no matter how much money they have.

According to a recent survey, EVERYBODY thinks they’re “middle class,” even folks just a few dollars away from the poverty line. It’s “shameful” to admit you’re lower class, and “arrogant” to say you’re upper class. Image is more important than people, it seems.

Evidently Miller doesn’t understand it either.

Evidently Miller doesn’t understand it either.

Some birdbrains need to understand the there is no such thing as “trickle down” economics outside of the media.

Find that term in a economic text…you can’t.

As for supply side, it’s NOT that the rich will spend more, it’s that they’ll INVEST more. SCALLY is hardly an economist.

He is an artist. It works equally well from all angles. A completed thought embodies all sides. I’m usually too lazy to look beyond my first convenient thought, though. It’s hard.