Wealth doesn't "trickle down" from the rich to the poor

Your argument doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. I fail to see the connection between the student loan crisis and supply side economics working? Even if there were no more student loans owned to the government, the rich would still keep most of that extra money. The student loan problem just means that the poor and middle class owe more money to the government and are further being harmed. Reaganomics is not ineffective because of the student loan crisis. It is just an ineffective policy from the start. There really isn’t a whole lot more to it. Like I’ve said, Reaganomics is based on a flawed argument. Give more to the rich and they will spend it in a way that benefits the economy as a whole. That hasn’t happened. We haven’t seen noticeable job growth. We have seen wealth inequality and the national debt skyrocket. I feel like I can’t hammer this point enough. “Trickle down” economics was just a big scam to enrich the already rich.Please explain to me how supply side economics working and the student loan crisis are connected. The supply side approach did not work in the 1920s and we didn't have a student loan problem back then. So, why would it work today even without a student loan crisis? Here are some more rebuttals: 1. “But not for them. Why? It's all politics. The Democratic Party is notorious for pushing slavery. Why? It humors the masses on the left. Pander to them and keep power.”The Republican Party may have been the party that fought for civil rights for African Americans in the mid 1800s. However, a century later, which party fought for civil rights for African Americans? The Democrat Party. Lyndon B. Johnson (a Democrat) signed legislation granting African Americans civil rights while many Republicans opposed the idea. Is it a surprise that African Americans have shifted their support from the Republican Party to the Democrat Party? Political parties evolve. The Democrat Party may have supported slavery at one point, but that’s not how it is today. Although I’m not a huge fan of either of our two major parties, look at how much the Republican Party does for the rich. “Trickle down” economics is basically socialism for the rich. The GOP has to sell “trickle down” economics. So, the Republican Party still has to promote propaganda to get support. Look at all the right wing propaganda out there. Fox News is perhaps the most notable, but there are others out there. They try to sell a lot of the Republican beliefs that are there to keep the rich in power. Why does the GOP support Reaganomics? To keep the rich in power. Why does the GOP support cutting entitlement programs? Because it’s a part of the interests of the wealthy. It’s not because of fiscal responsibility. I find it funny how the Republicans blast the Democrats for spending too much on entitlement programs when they cut taxes on the rich and expand the military to the point where they too run colossal budget deficits. They are trying to appeal to the masses so that why they don’t figure out that they are truly trying to keep the rich in power. Of course, I don’t see the Democrat Party as the big hero either. They too have gone corporate as well. But, the Republican Party does it to a much larger extent. Why else is Reaganomics one of the core Republican beliefs? As Thom Hartmann would say, there are two types of Republicans, rich people and suckers. 2. “I think that if you get control of the insanity of student loan debt, you make the usage of Supply Side Economics more viable."Supply side economics and the student loan crisis are two different problems. Even if nobody had student loan debt, supply side economics would not work. The rich would still get richer and the poor would still get poorer. I would say that the amount of debt that students are graduating college with is a problem. A lot of college graduates are sitting around looking for a job yet can’t find one. But even if college was free, the middle class would still be getting pissed on by Reaganomics. 3. “Once the balance becomes stable, I believe Supply Side economics can do fine.”But how would supply side economics work if we didn’t have the student loan crisis to deal with? I don’t see the connection between the two. The rich would still have extra money and not much of that money would be put back into the economy. Income inequality would still be high without the student loan crisis. The nation would still be trillions of dollars in the hole (because we’d still have tax breaks for the wealthy, unnecessary wars, and Wall Street bailouts to pay for). Student loans are not the primary reason why the poor and middle class are struggling these days. 4. “They had went to school, tried to get an education and now are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, and they can never pay it back. Can they buy a house? No. Can they take trips? No. Can they buy stuff? No. So guess what. That money is not going back into the economy.”Not all poor and middle class people have student loan debt. If those without student loan debt had that extra money, they most certainly would be able to put it back into the economy. Although we have a student loan problem, there are still a considerable number of students that have found jobs and are paying back their student loans. In fact, more students are in that position than are not. A lot of students are making progress on their student loans. If they had extra money, they would spend it. At least if a poor or middle class person has extra money, there is a very high chance it will be pumped back into the economy. Even paying back student loans could be considered “pumping it back into the economy.” Give extra money to a rich person and it will more likely than not just sit there. Look where the tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation have got us. Trillions of dollars on the national debt can be accounted for by giving the rich a tax break (because tax breaks for the rich can basically be seen as an expense). GDP growth is said to be slower when the wealthy have more money. We had a recession caused by the deregulation of Wall Street. The poor and middle class are being pissed on by this economic policy. I think that when you mention student loans, you are thinking of a separate issue. I would agree that the amount of loans that students need to take out for college is insane (being more liberal on the fiscal side of things) but I would not agree that this would allow supply side economics to work. How would it? I fail to see the connection. Tell me how this is related. The rich would still get richer regardless of if there was a student loan crisis or not. The student loan crisis only further hurts working class and middle class people. It is not the sole cause of the struggling poor and middle class we see today. 5. “But any "trickling down" that happens is pointless if those recieving it cando nothing with it.”But a lot of poor and middle class recipients of that extra money would put it back into the economy. Even if they did use it to pay off student loans, it would still be a benefit to them because they would have less debt to worry about. The poor and middle class have been forgotten in this day and age, and any little bit of money you give them will make their lives better, even if it’s by a bit. I consider paying off student loans putting the money back into the economy. It’s not like it’s sitting there under one’s mattress. A lot of people who are poor and middle class don’t have any or much of any student loans. There are older adults out there who could use that extra money. They would probably spend it. They could use it. At least there’s a good chance it will be pumped back into the economy if you give it to a poor or middle class person. It’s a lot better than giving it to a rich person who will just let it sit there. Rich people already have a lot of the things they, so why do they need to spend more? There is no “trickling down” if a rich person just keeps onto that money. 6. “They are fighting to make it, they do their taxes, they get a tax return of $5,000.”What if they don’t have student loan debt or are doing fine with their student loans? Then they could use that money to buy other things. This would create demand. If we create enough demand, a business owner would have to hire more people to keep up with the demand. Even if they did spend it on their student loan, it would be better than a rich person just keeping onto it. If they do pay off their student loan, good for them. This would further benefit the poor and middle class. If a rich person gets a large tax return, where does the money go? It typically just sits there. What part of the sector would’ve made money then? What would the economy have seen? Where is the “trickle?"More sources: 1) http://www.foreffectivegov.org... 2) http://www.pewresearch.org... 3) http://www.alternet.org...