Other Resources The Political Joe » Trickle Down Economics Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 3
 
 
2018-01-09 1:09 PM

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: Trickle Down Economics

Dmillers comment in a different thread got me to thinking about this.

We've always heard the arguments about trickle down economics not working and then the other side talks about trickle down economics not working.  Then the typical examples are pointing to Bush tax cuts or some other obscure (and small) cuts and then picking an arbitrary down turn in the economy at some future date that had nothing to do with the tax cuts as justification.

So, lets put our oars in the water prospectively rather than looking back.  There's no question that a very large tax break was just passed for both companies and individuals.  The company tax cuts are even bigger than the personal tax cuts in many cases.
So, what metrics in your mind would make you say that trickle down economics does work, for those that believe it does not work, what indicators would you say would show that it does not work?

I'll start.  I believe very strongly that Trickle down economics does work because the alternative is trickle down government.  They both work in different ways, but the government shaves a massive portion of the $ off the top to make it worse.
The indicators I am going to look at are:
Personal income increase: wages increases due to scarcity of skilled labor.  I'm already starting to see some of this in my industry, but there's measurements for it.
Employment increase: I'm going to watch for an uptick in the overall labor force that's employed, not just the unemployment rate (which I'll be watching too)
New Home sales increase : if more people have more money they'll be buying more houses.
Retail Sales increase: If we see a noticable uptick in retail sales we'll know people are spending more because they have more.

Let me know if you think there's any I'm missing or what you'll be watching.  I don't want to get into this historical thing or that historical thing I want to talk about today going forward with THESE tax cuts.  If trickle down economics doesn't work then it should be easily provable with such a massive cut.
If you believe there's other forces outside of the tax cuts effecting these numbers then by all means chime in on that too.



2018-01-09 1:46 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics
My thought on this is that money has no value until you spend it.

If I find extra money in my pocket I am not going to put the money in a mayonnaise jar and bury it. I am going to spend it. Maybe I will buy a newer Corvette or maybe take cruise or spend a few days at the Mouse House in Florida. The reason most people live 'hand to mouth' or paycheck to paycheck is because they are living on the hairy edge of their means. It's just human nature. We get a raise at work and pay off some debt......we decide we can afford a bigger house or we can afford a new car.

When people spend money the demand on good and services increases. Jobs are created. Soon companies are having to compete to get employees and will offer higher wages and better benefits.

I think the term 'trickle down' was generated to make it sound like only a small portion (or trickle) of the wealth will flow down. I think 100% of it flows down. Again, money has no value until you spend it and you can't take it with you. When you spend it, you put the money back into the economy. If you put the money in the bank, someone else will borrow it and spend it.
2018-01-09 1:59 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics
Let's start with the basics of trickle down, the idea is to adjust tax policy in such a way that more money is placed in the "supply" side of the equation with the idea that this will stimulate demand by employers hiring more workers and paying them higher wages. The opposite, let's call it "bubble up" economics, has tax policy adjusted so more money goes directly into the hands of workers. Let's put aside arguments of wealth redistribution for the time being (OK Tony?).

The best example of bubble up I can think of was Henry Ford deciding to pay his workers a sufficient wage so they could buy his cars. Other examples was the WPA project during the depression. These examples put money in the hands of people who would buy goods and services thus creating demand. Business responds by increasing supply and the economy is off to the races (until you get inflation).

On the supply side, the money does limited good unless it trickles down to people who will spend the money and drive demand. For the most part the trickle down economy that was put in place during Reagan did little to drive the economy the way it was meant to. What has happened is the money was used for stock buy backs, pay dividends, and big bonuses to top earners. I think it clear that we see now exactly the predictable effects of this policy: Stagnant wages and Wealth inequality.



2018-01-09 2:17 PM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics

Originally posted by Oysterboy Let's start with the basics of trickle down, the idea is to adjust tax policy in such a way that more money is placed in the "supply" side of the equation with the idea that this will stimulate demand by employers hiring more workers and paying them higher wages. The opposite, let's call it "bubble up" economics, has tax policy adjusted so more money goes directly into the hands of workers. Let's put aside arguments of wealth redistribution for the time being (OK Tony?). The best example of bubble up I can think of was Henry Ford deciding to pay his workers a sufficient wage so they could buy his cars. Other examples was the WPA project during the depression. These examples put money in the hands of people who would buy goods and services thus creating demand. Business responds by increasing supply and the economy is off to the races (until you get inflation). On the supply side, the money does limited good unless it trickles down to people who will spend the money and drive demand. For the most part the trickle down economy that was put in place during Reagan did little to drive the economy the way it was meant to. What has happened is the money was used for stock buy backs, pay dividends, and big bonuses to top earners. I think it clear that we see now exactly the predictable effects of this policy: Stagnant wages and Wealth inequality.

OK, so where do you fall on the effects of the tax cuts that came through and how will you determine if they're successful or not.  Also, you broke my rule of looking back.  hah
From what it sounds like you're saying there will be some of each because the people are getting tax cuts to bubble up and the companies are getting large tax cuts.  So, is your measure and prediction that wages will not increase and that companies will not hire new people?  As I said, I'm not trying to argue the academics of trickle down as much as I'm trying to get everyone to put their predictions on the board.  Then we can come back and look at this in the future and see how we did.

2018-01-09 3:43 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Oysterboy Let's start with the basics of trickle down, the idea is to adjust tax policy in such a way that more money is placed in the "supply" side of the equation with the idea that this will stimulate demand by employers hiring more workers and paying them higher wages. The opposite, let's call it "bubble up" economics, has tax policy adjusted so more money goes directly into the hands of workers. Let's put aside arguments of wealth redistribution for the time being (OK Tony?). The best example of bubble up I can think of was Henry Ford deciding to pay his workers a sufficient wage so they could buy his cars. Other examples was the WPA project during the depression. These examples put money in the hands of people who would buy goods and services thus creating demand. Business responds by increasing supply and the economy is off to the races (until you get inflation). On the supply side, the money does limited good unless it trickles down to people who will spend the money and drive demand. For the most part the trickle down economy that was put in place during Reagan did little to drive the economy the way it was meant to. What has happened is the money was used for stock buy backs, pay dividends, and big bonuses to top earners. I think it clear that we see now exactly the predictable effects of this policy: Stagnant wages and Wealth inequality.

OK, so where do you fall on the effects of the tax cuts that came through and how will you determine if they're successful or not.  Also, you broke my rule of looking back.  hah
From what it sounds like you're saying there will be some of each because the people are getting tax cuts to bubble up and the companies are getting large tax cuts.  So, is your measure and prediction that wages will not increase and that companies will not hire new people?  As I said, I'm not trying to argue the academics of trickle down as much as I'm trying to get everyone to put their predictions on the board.  Then we can come back and look at this in the future and see how we did.



But there are such better ways to produce the bubble-up effect other than income tax cuts. The bottom of the economic scale, the people who will drive up demand as they spend 100% of what they get their hands on, doesn't pay much in income taxes. Income taxes are levied on people with tangible income. If you were going to do what Trump said he wanted to do, the most effective way would be to reform the payroll tax. Get rid of the cap, and drop rates for low-end earners. That would inject money into the bottom end of the pay scale and really amp-up demand. As it stands, we can only hope that the money that is injected into top earners ends up trickling down, but historically that just hasn't been the case. But I will admit, that unlike the Bush tax cuts that really dropped rates at the top and increased the floor on paying little to no income taxes, this tax cut does positively effect most of us in the economy (sorry NY, MD, NJ, CA, MA, CT), so there should be some increased demand generated from these cuts.
2018-01-09 4:21 PM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics

Originally posted by Oysterboy
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Oysterboy Let's start with the basics of trickle down, the idea is to adjust tax policy in such a way that more money is placed in the "supply" side of the equation with the idea that this will stimulate demand by employers hiring more workers and paying them higher wages. The opposite, let's call it "bubble up" economics, has tax policy adjusted so more money goes directly into the hands of workers. Let's put aside arguments of wealth redistribution for the time being (OK Tony?). The best example of bubble up I can think of was Henry Ford deciding to pay his workers a sufficient wage so they could buy his cars. Other examples was the WPA project during the depression. These examples put money in the hands of people who would buy goods and services thus creating demand. Business responds by increasing supply and the economy is off to the races (until you get inflation). On the supply side, the money does limited good unless it trickles down to people who will spend the money and drive demand. For the most part the trickle down economy that was put in place during Reagan did little to drive the economy the way it was meant to. What has happened is the money was used for stock buy backs, pay dividends, and big bonuses to top earners. I think it clear that we see now exactly the predictable effects of this policy: Stagnant wages and Wealth inequality.

OK, so where do you fall on the effects of the tax cuts that came through and how will you determine if they're successful or not.  Also, you broke my rule of looking back.  hah
From what it sounds like you're saying there will be some of each because the people are getting tax cuts to bubble up and the companies are getting large tax cuts.  So, is your measure and prediction that wages will not increase and that companies will not hire new people?  As I said, I'm not trying to argue the academics of trickle down as much as I'm trying to get everyone to put their predictions on the board.  Then we can come back and look at this in the future and see how we did.

But there are such better ways to produce the bubble-up effect other than income tax cuts. The bottom of the economic scale, the people who will drive up demand as they spend 100% of what they get their hands on, doesn't pay much in income taxes. Income taxes are levied on people with tangible income. If you were going to do what Trump said he wanted to do, the most effective way would be to reform the payroll tax. Get rid of the cap, and drop rates for low-end earners. That would inject money into the bottom end of the pay scale and really amp-up demand. As it stands, we can only hope that the money that is injected into top earners ends up trickling down, but historically that just hasn't been the case. But I will admit, that unlike the Bush tax cuts that really dropped rates at the top and increased the floor on paying little to no income taxes, this tax cut does positively effect most of us in the economy (sorry NY, MD, NJ, CA, MA, CT), so there should be some increased demand generated from these cuts.

I feel like I'm trying to nail jello to the wall here.   So are you expecting an improvement overall, but primarily due to the extra money that is injected into the lower income brackets?

I am trying to think of how we can quantify the bubble up versus the trickle down effects.  I guess wage increases would be a good barometer of trickle down.



2018-01-09 5:39 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics
Originally posted by Rogillio

My thought on this is that money has no value until you spend it.

If I find extra money in my pocket I am not going to put the money in a mayonnaise jar and bury it. I am going to spend it. Maybe I will buy a newer Corvette or maybe take cruise or spend a few days at the Mouse House in Florida. The reason most people live 'hand to mouth' or paycheck to paycheck is because they are living on the hairy edge of their means. It's just human nature. We get a raise at work and pay off some debt......we decide we can afford a bigger house or we can afford a new car.

When people spend money the demand on good and services increases. Jobs are created. Soon companies are having to compete to get employees and will offer higher wages and better benefits.

I think the term 'trickle down' was generated to make it sound like only a small portion (or trickle) of the wealth will flow down. I think 100% of it flows down. Again, money has no value until you spend it and you can't take it with you. When you spend it, you put the money back into the economy. If you put the money in the bank, someone else will borrow it and spend it.


I failed the assignment too.

I think trickle down will be proven when the average minimum wage increases. Wells Fargo has vomuntarily increased their minimum wage to $15/hr. Others will follow suit when it gets harder and harder to find good employees at the federal or state minimum wage.

BTW the tax package is not all about trickle down. The average tax payer will see more take home pay. Trickle down effect is gravy.


2018-01-09 6:58 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics

the tax cuts expire for the average taxpayer. the ones for corporations do not.  seems a bit backwards if the "trickle down is gravy"

2018-01-09 7:01 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by Rogillio My thought on this is that money has no value until you spend it. If I find extra money in my pocket I am not going to put the money in a mayonnaise jar and bury it. I am going to spend it. Maybe I will buy a newer Corvette or maybe take cruise or spend a few days at the Mouse House in Florida. The reason most people live 'hand to mouth' or paycheck to paycheck is because they are living on the hairy edge of their means. It's just human nature. We get a raise at work and pay off some debt......we decide we can afford a bigger house or we can afford a new car. When people spend money the demand on good and services increases. Jobs are created. Soon companies are having to compete to get employees and will offer higher wages and better benefits. I think the term 'trickle down' was generated to make it sound like only a small portion (or trickle) of the wealth will flow down. I think 100% of it flows down. Again, money has no value until you spend it and you can't take it with you. When you spend it, you put the money back into the economy. If you put the money in the bank, someone else will borrow it and spend it.
I failed the assignment too. I think trickle down will be proven when the average minimum wage increases. Wells Fargo has vomuntarily increased their minimum wage to $15/hr. Others will follow suit when it gets harder and harder to find good employees at the federal or state minimum wage. BTW the tax package is not all about trickle down. The average tax payer will see more take home pay. Trickle down effect is gravy.

I'm not sure that minimum wage is really an indicator of anything.  For workers 16 and over in the US under 2% of them earn the actual minimum wage and of that 2% there's a large percentage that's between the ages of 16 to 20. 

We can already see that income is increasing so I'm curious to watch how it continues to go.  Honestly it's kind of economics 101 to recognize that salaries are going to be going up substantially with increased demand from employers and increased scarcity of qualified employees.  In my field we're already starting to see more scarcity of qualified engineers so I'll be paying more and more for new employees as well as to retaining my existing ones.  It's kind of funny to me that so many people look at things on islands.  Whelp, tony gets more money back on taxes so he just buys back shares and all other things remain the same.  It just doesn't happen that way and there's a million moving parts where I have to adjust and adapt to keep up in the market.  I can take all extra money and spend it, but then my competitors will blow my doors off.

BTW, my one new sales guy finally accepted today and hopefully the next one will be wrapped up next week.  lets go, daddy needs a new jet!!!  ;-) #ThanksTrump

2018-01-09 7:28 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics
Originally posted by dmiller5

the tax cuts expire for the average taxpayer. the ones for corporations do not.  seems a bit backwards if the "trickle down is gravy"




They will expre in 2025 and can easisily be extended with a simple vote in Congress.
2018-01-09 8:29 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics

Originally posted by dmiller5

the tax cuts expire for the average taxpayer. the ones for corporations do not.  seems a bit backwards if the "trickle down is gravy"

We've talked about this before.  Due to the fact that zero Democrats would support cutting taxes the Republicans were forced to stay within the $1.5T reconciliation process where the cuts had to project less that $1.5T deficit over 10 years.  They had to bump the corp cut from 20% to 21% and knock two years off the personal tax cuts in order to make the $1.5T work.  100% of Republicans want to make the personal tax cuts permanent, but it requires a 60 vote majority to make it happen in the Senate.  Several Republican lawmakers have offered to introduce the legislation if they can just get 7 Democrats to support it.  Guess how many Democrats really want to make it permanent?
It's kind of brilliant if you really think about it because Republicans can campaign on making the cuts permanent and Democrats will have to defend raising your taxes in 8 years.  In reality there's a 0% chance that the cuts won't be made permanent in 8 years.  There's no politician on earth from either party that will raise taxes that much on the public.  It might be easier to repeal social security.



2018-01-09 8:57 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics

why the f@ck would the dems support something that they were allowed to see, read, participate in, comment upon, etc. etc. etc. during the entire writing process?

2018-01-09 10:38 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics

Originally posted by dmiller5

why the f@ck would the dems support something that they were allowed to see, read, participate in, comment upon, etc. etc. etc. during the entire writing process?

Are you implying that  Democrats would be for tax cuts.......in any form or matter?  Bro, that's laughable.

2018-01-10 8:38 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics

I'm implying that if you're mad that the dems didn't participate, it might be a good idea to at least extend the hand and invite them to if you want to criticize them for not participating.

 

LB why didn't you come to my birthday party? what a jerk for not coming to my birthday party (was not invited)

2018-01-10 8:42 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by dmiller5

why the f@ck would the dems support something that they were allowed to see, read, participate in, comment upon, etc. etc. etc. during the entire writing process?

Are you implying that  Democrats would be for tax cuts.......in any form or matter?  Bro, that's laughable.



LB, do a google search you will find a number of dems were in favor of cutting the corporate tax rate. Now cutting tax revenues as a prelude to cutting entitlements, no dem is going to support that.
2018-01-10 8:43 AM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics

Originally posted by dmiller5

I'm implying that if you're mad that the dems didn't participate, it might be a good idea to at least extend the hand and invite them to if you want to criticize them for not participating.

 

LB why didn't you come to my birthday party? what a jerk for not coming to my birthday party (was not invited)

Are you implying that I ever attend any birthday parties?



2018-01-10 9:06 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by dmiller5

I'm implying that if you're mad that the dems didn't participate, it might be a good idea to at least extend the hand and invite them to if you want to criticize them for not participating.

 

LB why didn't you come to my birthday party? what a jerk for not coming to my birthday party (was not invited)

Are you implying that I ever attend any birthday parties?




Birthdays are kinda of a odd celebration IMO. You are celebrating the number of complete revolutions the earth has made around the sun since you were born. So the planet Earth is in the same relative position to the sun as it was on the day you were born. Of course we ignore the fact that the whole galaxy is speeding thru space and the planet is nowhere close to where it was.

I'm not a fan of birthdays. Yeah, I get it that it gives you a good metric of how much time you might have left.....which decreases every year....which is actually kind of depressing, not something I want to celebrate!

What ever happened to Bear? Remember "the old curmudgeon"?
2018-01-10 9:09 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by dmiller5

I'm implying that if you're mad that the dems didn't participate, it might be a good idea to at least extend the hand and invite them to if you want to criticize them for not participating.

 

LB why didn't you come to my birthday party? what a jerk for not coming to my birthday party (was not invited)

Are you implying that I ever attend any birthday parties?

it doesn't matter, if I haven't invited you, how could i be mad for you not attending.  If i do invite you, then maybe i have a leg to stand on.

2018-01-10 9:25 AM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by dmiller5

I'm implying that if you're mad that the dems didn't participate, it might be a good idea to at least extend the hand and invite them to if you want to criticize them for not participating.

 

LB why didn't you come to my birthday party? what a jerk for not coming to my birthday party (was not invited)

Are you implying that I ever attend any birthday parties?

it doesn't matter, if I haven't invited you, how could i be mad for you not attending.  If i do invite you, then maybe i have a leg to stand on.

Who's mad?  The Dems?  They don't do B-day parties and, in fact, try to wreck them when they see one, so they can shut up. 

2018-01-10 11:29 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics

tony was criticizing the dems for not participating in the cuts

2018-01-10 11:33 AM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics

Originally posted by dmiller5

why the f@ck would the dems support something that they were allowed to see, read, participate in, comment upon, etc. etc. etc. during the entire writing process?

You need to get off the far left websites.  The Democrats were asked multiple times to participate and they refused.  There's in infamous picture of two empty chairs at the table next to Trump where Nancy and Chuck refused to even attend the meetings about the cuts.

The Republican tax plan from the house was out for several weeks and so was the one from the Senate.  The combined plan was out for more than a week.  It wasn't even that long and I was able to skim through most of it in lest than an hour.
To try and echo the fake excuse of not being allowed to read it or participate in the process is seriously laughable.



2018-01-10 11:34 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics

They NEVER participate in tax cuts.....so who cares?  You could invite them to every b-day party while you grow up, but they're not coming.  Once you get older you just don't invite them anymore.  I don't see the problem.  Last week Wall Street put $20,500 more into my retirement account.  Why would I give a crap what the Dems want?



Edited by Left Brain 2018-01-10 11:36 AM
2018-01-10 11:42 AM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics

Originally posted by dmiller5

tony was criticizing the dems for not participating in the cuts

I guess to use your analogy it would be the equivalent of the Republicans inviting the Democrats to the birthday party on multiple occasions and then when they didn't show up they'd scream that they weren't invited.

What's funny is these bills come through committees and the committees have Democrats and Republicans on the committees and they all get to read them there at the very beginning.  They also have the ability to insert amendments and have them voted on up or down.  The simple fact is there wasn't a single attempt to have any input or changes added to the bill.  Not even a token amendment that was expected to be voted down.  They simply went into full ostrich mode and refused to engage in any way shape or form.  The congress isn't a matter of being invited to participate, everyone who is elected is there and participating.  It's up to them individually to choose how to participate. 

The Democratic leadership made a tactical decision to completely separate themselves from the tax law.  They instructed every member to stay away and vote no on the legislation no matter what.  They feel they can campaign on the issue and win back more power as a result.  It's likely not going to work out the way they wanted it to so they're now forced to try and convince people that they weren't "allowed" to participate.

2018-01-10 11:44 AM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics

Originally posted by Oysterboy
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by dmiller5

why the f@ck would the dems support something that they were allowed to see, read, participate in, comment upon, etc. etc. etc. during the entire writing process?

Are you implying that  Democrats would be for tax cuts.......in any form or matter?  Bro, that's laughable.

LB, do a google search you will find a number of dems were in favor of cutting the corporate tax rate. Now cutting tax revenues as a prelude to cutting entitlements, no dem is going to support that.

One thing I do give credit to the Democratic leadership is their ability to whip people into the party line.  Right or wrong, there's no room for free thinkers in the Democratic party.  You vote the way Nancy and Chuck tell you or you'll have hell to pay.  Unfortunately for the Republicans they have a few free spirits that don't step in line and cause trouble every now and again (McCain, Rand Paul, etc)

2018-01-10 11:59 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: Trickle Down Economics
You guys should remember that a hefty part of the Obama stimulus bill (ARRA) was tax incentives and breaks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act...




(Investmentbubble.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Investmentbubble.jpg (50KB - 6 downloads)
New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Trickle Down Economics Rss Feed  
 
 
of 3