TRICKLE DOWN THEORY: A Billionaire on Top of a Billion Dollars of Gold. And it’s Trickling Down to the peasants standing all around the Gold. And what’s he tossing down to them? PEANUTS. Just plain ordinary peanuts…and it pains him to be doing it. Only peanuts trickle down.

Trickle Down Theory Politics can go stick it up someone else’s Butt. I’m sick of the Billionaire Lies! It’s not a Big Beautiful Tax Bill for 🇺🇸. Just for 902 Billionaires. And future generations of Our Beautiful Children will be so

S C R E W E D!

You’re absolutely right to question the “trickle-down” theory, and it’s frustrating when policies are presented as universally beneficial when your own experience, and independent analyses, suggest otherwise. It’s not about you being stupid; it’s about a persistent economic theory being pushed despite a mountain of evidence that often contradicts its promises for the average person.

Let’s call it what it is: “Trickle-down economics” has largely failed to deliver for the vast majority of Americans. The idea that if you give massive tax breaks to the wealthiest individuals and largest corporations, their newfound riches will somehow “trickle down” to the rest of us in the form of jobs, higher wages, and broad prosperity simply hasn’t materialized in any meaningful way.

Here’s why you’re not seeing the trickling, and why it feels like blinders are being put on:

• The “Trickle” is a Myth or a Drip: When the rich get richer from tax cuts, where does that money go?
  • Stock Buybacks and Dividends: Corporations often use increased profits or repatriated overseas cash (as seen after the 2017 tax cuts) to buy back their own stock, which inflates stock prices and benefits shareholders (who are disproportionately wealthy), or to issue higher dividends. This directly enriches investors, not necessarily workers.
  • Executive Compensation: A significant portion flows into higher salaries, bonuses, and perks for top executives, further concentrating wealth at the very top.
  • Increased Savings/Investment in Financial Assets: The wealthy might save or invest their increased wealth in financial markets, which doesn’t directly translate into new factories, equipment, or broad job creation that would benefit the working class.
  • No Wage Growth for Most: If “trickle-down” worked, we’d see booming wages for the middle class and lower-income workers. But decades of data show that while productivity has soared, wages for most Americans have stagnated or grown minimally, while the cost of living (housing, healthcare, education) has skyrocketed. The gains have largely gone to the top.
• It’s a Concentration of Wealth, Not a Distribution: Instead of spreading prosperity, these policies tend to accelerate the concentration of wealth at the very top. The gap between the richest and everyone else has widened significantly over the past few decades, precisely during periods when supply-side policies have been dominant. If wealth were truly trickling, we’d see this gap shrinking, not expanding.
• The “Future Costs and Pain” are Real and Immediate for Many: While the wealthy get their tax breaks, the rest of us often face the consequences:
  • Gutted Social Safety Nets: To partially offset the lost tax revenue from these massive cuts, programs vital to millions of families – like Medicaid (healthcare), SNAP (food assistance), and potentially housing aid or education funding – are often targeted for deep cuts. This means less support for those who need it most, leading to direct hardship.
  • Ballooning National Debt: Tax cuts without corresponding revenue streams mean the government borrows more. That debt is eventually borne by all taxpayers, including future generations, through potentially higher taxes, reduced services, or economic instability.
  • Underinvestment in Public Goods: Less revenue means less money for infrastructure (roads, bridges, internet), education, scientific research, and other public investments that benefit everyone and are crucial for long-term economic competitiveness and quality of life.
• It Treats You Like You’re Stupid Because it Ignores Your Reality: When politicians tout these policies as beneficial for everyone, despite clear evidence that they disproportionately benefit a small segment of the population and often come at the expense of others, it feels insulting. It dismisses the lived experiences of millions of people who are struggling with stagnant wages, rising costs, and reduced access to essential services. It suggests that if you’re not seeing the benefits, you’re somehow misunderstanding the “genius” of the policy, rather than acknowledging the policy itself might be flawed or designed to benefit specific interests.

You’re not stupid for seeing through the illusion of “trickle-down.” You’re simply observing what the data and your own experiences are telling you: that this economic model has largely served to amplify inequality, not to uplift the broad middle class. It’s a strategy that has proven far more effective at concentrating wealth at the top than distributing it throughout society.

902 BILLIONAIRES WIN! WE LOSE! FUTURE GENERATIONS ARE SCREWED!

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/budget-office-republicans-megabill-give-rich-richer-take-poor-rcna208175

This article describes a situation where congressional Republicans in 2025 are pushing for a “giant reconciliation package” without waiting for a cost assessment from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The article draws a parallel to 2017, when Republicans similarly passed tax breaks without CBO scores.

Despite the Republicans’ choice to proceed without a CBO analysis, congressional Democrats requested the CBO to scrutinize the House Republicans’ proposal. The CBO’s findings, as reported by The Associated Press, were “quite brutal.”

Here are the key findings from the CBO’s analysis of the Republican proposal:

• Deficit Increase: The tax provisions would increase the federal deficit by $3.8 trillion over a decade.
• Spending Reductions: Changes to Medicaid, food stamps, and other services would lead to $1 trillion in reduced spending.
• Impact on Income Brackets:
  • Lowest-income households would see their resources drop (2% in the short term, 4% by 2033).
  • Highest-income households would see a boost, primarily due to Republican tax breaks.
• Healthcare: Roughly 15 million Americans would lose healthcare benefits.
• Medicaid Cuts: Approximately $700 billion would be cut from Medicaid.
• SNAP (Food Stamps) Cuts: $267 billion would be cut from SNAP.

Democratic Rep. Brendan Boyle criticized the proposal, stating it would benefit “billionaire donors” while harming “children go hungry and families get kicked off their health care,” calling it a betrayal of the middle class.

But let’s take a closer look, shall we?

It’s impossible for me to “analyze all 1000 pages of the proposed New Tax Bill” in real-time, as I don’t have access to current, constantly updated legislative documents of that length, nor the ability to process and interpret them in the same way a human policy analyst or economist would. Legislative bills are complex legal documents.

However, based on recent news and analyses about the proposed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (the House Republican tax and spending reconciliation package) from reputable sources like the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Tax Policy Center, Tax Foundation, and others, here’s a summary of what’s being reported and what you can generally expect to find:

I. Core Provisions & Extensions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA):

A major focus of this bill is to permanently extend many of the individual and some business tax cuts from the 2017 TCJA that are scheduled to expire at the end of 2025. These include:

• Individual Income Tax Rates: Making the current lower marginal tax rates (with the top rate at 37%) permanent.
• Standard Deduction: Permanently extending the increased standard deduction amounts, with temporary additional increases for 2025-2028. For example, the standard deduction for single filers would rise from $15,000 to $16,000, and for married couples filing jointly, from $30,000 to $32,000, for those years.
• Child Tax Credit: Extending the $2,000 Child Tax Credit permanently, with a temporary increase to $2,500 per child for 2025-2028. It would remain non-refundable, meaning low-income parents with little or no income might not fully benefit.
• Qualified Business Income (QBI) Deduction (Section 199A): Increasing this deduction for pass-through businesses (like partnerships and sole proprietorships) from 20% to 23% and making it permanent.
• Estate and Gift Tax Exemption: Permanently extending the increased exemption amounts. Starting in 2026, single filers could exempt $15 million and married couples $30 million from estate taxes, indexed for inflation.
• Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) Exemption: Permanently increasing the AMT exemption amounts and phase-out thresholds, which would continue to reduce the number of taxpayers subject to AMT.
• Limitation on Qualified Residence Interest: Making the $750,000 limitation on home mortgage interest deduction permanent.
• Casualty Loss Deduction: Permanently restricting this deduction to losses from federally declared disasters.
• Miscellaneous Itemized Deductions: Permanently eliminating several itemized deductions that were suspended under the TCJA (e.g., unreimbursed business expenses, tax preparation fees).

II. New Tax Breaks & Campaign Promises:

The bill also includes some new tax breaks that align with recent campaign promises, many of which are temporary (lasting through 2028):

• “No Tax on Tips”: Introducing an above-the-line deduction for qualified tips received by individuals in traditionally tipped industries.
• “No Tax on Overtime Pay”: Creating an above-the-line deduction for the premium portion of overtime pay.
• Deduction for Senior Citizens: Adding a new $4,000 deduction for individuals 65 and older, with income limits ($75,000 for single, $150,000 for joint filers). This can be used whether itemizing or taking the standard deduction.
• Car Loan Interest Deduction: Allowing deductions for up to $10,000 in interest payments on car loans (for vehicles assembled in the U.S.), with income phase-outs.
• Elimination of 1099-K Reporting Rule: Abolishing the controversial rule requiring payment platforms like Venmo or PayPal to send 1099-K tax forms for transactions over $600.
• MAGA Accounts: Creating a new type of savings account for children, automatically opened and funded by the federal government with $1,000 for every U.S. citizen born from 2025-2028.
• Expanded Childcare Credits: Further expanding employer-provided childcare credits.

III. Offsets and Spending Cuts:

To partially offset the cost of the tax cuts, the bill includes:

• Repealing or Phasing Out Clean Energy Tax Credits: Rolling back or accelerating the phase-out of various clean energy tax credits enacted during the Biden administration (e.g., clean electricity production and investment tax credits, hydrogen production credit).
• Increased Excise Tax on Private University Endowments and Private Foundations: Replacing current excise taxes with tiered systems based on the institution’s “student-adjusted endowment” or total assets, leading to increased taxes for larger entities.
• Medicaid Cuts: Proposing nearly $800 billion in reduced spending in the Medicaid program. This includes new “community engagement requirements” (80 hours/month of work, education, or service) for able-bodied adults without dependents, taking effect in 2029, and requiring semi-annual eligibility verification.
• SNAP (Food Stamps) Cuts: Shifting some of the costs of the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program (SNAP) to states, requiring states to shoulder a portion of benefit costs (5% by FY2028) and administrative costs (75%). It also expands work requirements for food aid to adults up to age 64 and limits exemptions for parents.

IV. Fiscal and Economic Impact (Based on Analyses):

• Deficit Increase: Multiple analyses (CBO, Tax Policy Center, Tax Foundation, Yale Budget Lab, Bipartisan Policy Center, Penn Wharton Budget Model) project that the tax cuts will significantly increase the federal deficit. Estimates range from $3.3 trillion to $5.2 trillion over the next decade, with tax cuts far exceeding any spending reductions.
• Distributional Impact:
  • High-Income Earners: Would be the biggest beneficiaries of the tax cuts, receiving a disproportionate share of the savings. The richest 20% of households are projected to receive over two-thirds of the tax cuts, with the top 1% receiving a substantial average net tax cut.
  • Low-Income Households: Are expected to see their resources drop, particularly due to cuts in Medicaid and SNAP. Some analyses suggest they would experience net losses after factoring in spending reductions.
  • Middle-Income Households: Would see average tax cuts, but a smaller percentage of their after-tax income compared to higher earners.
• National Debt: The bill is projected to add trillions to the national debt, potentially leading to slower economic growth in the long run.
• Healthcare: Millions of Americans (estimated around 8.6 million) are projected to lose health insurance due to changes in Medicaid and the expiration of Affordable Care Act marketplace tax credits.
• IRS Direct File/Free File: The bill would eliminate the IRS’s Direct File program and end the “Free File” program, replacing them with a new public-private partnership.

Important Caveats:

• Preliminary Analysis: Many analyses are based on preliminary drafts of the bill. The final text and its scoring could change.
• Temporary Provisions: Many of the new tax breaks are temporary (expiring in 2028). The long-term fiscal impact depends heavily on whether these provisions are eventually made permanent.
• Dynamic vs. Conventional Scoring: Different analyses might use “conventional” (static) or “dynamic” (accounting for economic feedback) scoring, leading to varying revenue estimates.
• No CBO Score at Passage: As noted in your initial text, House Republicans might push the bill through without a full CBO score, as they did in 2017, meaning a comprehensive, non-partisan governmental assessment might not be available until after passage.

In essence, the proposed bill appears to be a significant package aimed at extending and expanding tax cuts for individuals and businesses, while implementing substantial spending reductions in social safety net programs. The consensus among independent analyses is that it would substantially increase the national debt and disproportionately benefit higher-income households.

No, your income tax refund will not necessarily stop going directly into your bank account. However, the proposed changes to the IRS’s Direct File and Free File programs could affect how you file your taxes, and therefore, indirectly, how you arrange for your refund.

Here’s a breakdown:

1. Direct Deposit of Refunds:

• This is separate from how you file. Direct deposit of tax refunds is a long-standing and widely used method by the IRS. It’s the fastest and most secure way to receive a refund. When you file your taxes (whether through a private software, a tax preparer, or even a future public-private partnership), you provide your bank account and routing numbers, and the IRS deposits the refund there.
• The new tax bill is not eliminating direct deposit. In fact, there’s a recent executive order (as of March 25, 2025) directing the U.S. Department of the Treasury (which includes the IRS) to phase out paper check disbursements by September 30, 2025. This means direct deposit is becoming even more the standard for refunds.
• You will still be able to elect direct deposit. Regardless of the filing method, the option to have your refund directly deposited into your bank account is expected to remain.

2. What the Proposed Changes to Direct File and Free File Mean:

The concern isn’t about direct deposit itself, but about access to free, direct-to-IRS filing options.

• IRS Direct File: This was a pilot program, and then made permanent for the 2025 tax season, allowing eligible taxpayers to file their federal tax returns directly with the IRS for free, online. It was a government-run, no-cost option. If eliminated, this specific free service would no longer be available.
• IRS Free File: This is a long-standing program where the IRS partners with private tax software companies (like TurboTax, H&R Block, etc.) to offer free filing services to taxpayers who meet certain income thresholds. The companies agree to provide free federal tax preparation and e-filing. If this program is ended and replaced, the nature of these “free” services could change.

3. “New Public-Private Partnership”:

If Direct File and Free File are eliminated, they would be replaced by a “new public-private partnership.” The details of this new partnership are crucial but not yet fully defined.

• What it could mean for you:
  • Loss of a purely government-run free option: If Direct File is eliminated, the direct pipeline to the IRS for free filing would be gone.
  • Reliance on private companies: You would likely become entirely dependent on private tax software companies or tax preparers to file your taxes.
  • Potential for increased costs: While some private companies currently offer “free” filing for simple returns through the Free File program, a new partnership might have different terms. There’s a concern among some advocates that eliminating government-provided free options could drive more taxpayers to paid services, or that the “free” options from private companies might become harder to find or more restrictive.
  • No impact on direct deposit: Even with a new public-private partnership, the mechanism for direct deposit of your refund would still be handled by the IRS, based on the bank information you provide through whatever filing method you use.

In summary: The proposed tax bill’s changes to IRS Direct File and Free File are about how you can file your taxes for free, and who provides that service (government vs. private companies). It’s not about eliminating the ability to have your tax refund directly deposited into your bank account. Direct deposit is a separate payment method that will almost certainly remain available and, in fact, is being pushed as the standard for all federal payment.

When analyzing how much money eliminating the IRS Direct File and Free File programs saves the government, it’s important to look at both the direct costs to the IRS and the broader economic impacts.

1. Direct Costs to the IRS (and perceived savings):

• IRS Direct File: This is the program that has a more direct, quantifiable cost to the government because the IRS built and ran the software.
  • According to a March 2025 report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), the IRS stated it spent $24.6 million on Direct File “thus far.” However, TIGTA also noted this figure omits an additional $7.3 million for detailees from other agencies, $1.5 million for user account creation, and unknown costs for other supporting employees.
  • The National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF) criticized Direct File as “not cost-effective,” stating that while the IRS claimed it would cost about $26.60 per user, TIGTA found it cost $78.87 per user “thus far.”
  • Proponents of ending Direct File often cite these “tens of millions of taxpayer dollars per year” as a justification for the savings.
• IRS Free File: This is a public-private partnership where private tax software companies (like TurboTax, H&R Block, etc.) agree to offer free federal filing services to eligible taxpayers.
  • The direct cost to the government for Free File is relatively low because the IRS isn’t building or maintaining the software itself. The IRS’s role is primarily in administering the partnership and directing taxpayers to the free options on its website.
  • However, the IRS has also been criticized in the past (by GAO) for failing to adequately promote Free File, which meant many eligible taxpayers weren’t aware of it.

Therefore, eliminating these programs would primarily save the government the direct operational costs associated with the Direct File program (in the tens of millions per year) and the administrative costs of managing the Free File program.

2. Broader Economic and Taxpayer Impact (and potential cost to taxpayers):

While the government might see a direct “saving” in its budget by cutting these programs, many analyses argue that this comes at a significant cost to taxpayers and the broader economy, which ultimately can lead to lost revenue for the government in other ways.

• Increased Costs for Taxpayers:
  • The IRS estimates the average person spends about $160 and nine hours to file their taxes each year.
  • Direct File saved its pilot users an estimated $5.6 million in federal tax preparation fees in its first year alone.
  • At full scale, Direct File was projected to save taxpayers up to $11 billion annually in filing fees and time costs.
  • If taxpayers are forced to use paid commercial software or tax preparers, they will incur these costs. This effectively shifts the burden of filing costs from the government (which was providing a free service) to individual taxpayers.
• Lost Tax Credits and Increased Burdens on Low-Income Individuals:
  • Free filing options like Direct File and Free File are crucial for low- and moderate-income families, helping them access tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit.
  • Direct File was projected to help taxpayers access an additional $12 billion a year in federal tax credits at scale, simply by making filing easier and more accessible. When eligible individuals don’t claim these credits, it’s a loss of benefits that could stimulate the economy and reduce poverty.
  • If filing becomes more complex or costly, fewer eligible people might file, meaning the government might “save” money by not paying out these credits, but it also means those intended benefits aren’t reaching their recipients, potentially increasing reliance on other social services.
• Reduced Government Efficiency in the Long Run:
  • Proponents of Direct File argued it built in-house capacity within the IRS to modernize its systems and improve overall efficiency. Losing this capacity could lead to long-term costs in terms of slower modernization and less effective service delivery.
  • A more efficient and easy filing system can also reduce errors, which saves the IRS resources in audit and correction processes.

Conclusion:

From a purely budgetary perspective, eliminating IRS Direct File and Free File could present a direct “saving” of tens of millions of dollars annually for the government, primarily from no longer funding the Direct File software and its associated operations.

However, from a broader economic and taxpayer perspective, many argue that this “saving” is offset by:

• Trillions of dollars in additional federal deficit due to the large tax cuts in the reconciliation package.
• Hundreds of millions (or billions at scale) in increased tax preparation costs for American taxpayers.
• Lost opportunities for low- and moderate-income individuals to claim billions in eligible tax credits, which are intended to reduce poverty and stimulate the economy.

Therefore, whether it truly “saves” the government money depends on whether one considers only the direct line-item budget for these programs or the wider economic and societal costs and benefits. Critics often contend it’s a “gift to the tax-prep industry” at the expense of ordinary taxpayers.

I understand why the “MAGA Accounts” proposal might give you pause. It’s a new and somewhat unusual concept for federal government involvement in individual savings, and it brings up several points that could be concerning or simply “creepy” to some.

Let’s break down why this particular provision might evoke that feeling:

1. Automatic Account Opening and Funding: The idea that the federal government would automatically open and fund a savings account for every U.S. citizen born during a specific period (2025-2028) is a significant departure from traditional government roles.
   • Loss of Agency/Privacy: For some, this feels like an intrusion into personal financial matters and a lack of individual or parental agency. It’s a system initiated by the government, rather than an opt-in program.
   • Data Collection Concerns: The automatic nature implies the government will be tracking births and connecting them to Social Security numbers and then initiating financial accounts. This level of automatic data linkage and financial action by the government can raise privacy concerns for some.
   • “Big Brother” Feeling: The notion of the government automatically setting up a financial account for a newborn, even with good intentions, can evoke a “Big Brother” feeling – that the state is reaching into the earliest stages of life and controlling financial aspects from birth.
2. “MAGA” Acronym: While the bill states “MAGA” stands for “Money Accounts for Growth and Advancement,” its clear association with the “Make America Great Again” political slogan can be jarring and politicize what would otherwise be a financial program. For those who don’t align with that political ideology, seeing their child’s government-funded account tied to a specific political movement could be unsettling or unwelcome.
3. Long-Term Control/Access: The money is deposited at birth, but generally, the funds cannot be accessed until age 18, and even then, often with restrictions (e.g., higher education, first-time home purchase). Full access might not be available until age 30.
   • Limited Parental Control: Parents don’t have immediate access or full control over these funds, which are intended for the child’s future. While the intent is to prevent misuse, it can feel like the government is dictating future financial use.
   • Uncertain Future Use: The idea of a child’s money being locked away for decades, with the government initially seeding it, raises questions about how useful such a small initial sum will be in the distant future, and if the rules for access might change.
4. Comparison to “Baby Bonds”: This proposal is similar in concept to “baby bonds,” which have been proposed by Democrats (e.g., Senator Cory Booker) to address wealth inequality by providing a savings account for every child, particularly those from low-income backgrounds. However, the MAGA accounts have specific eligibility requirements (U.S. citizens born between 2025-2028, and a parent with a work-eligible SSN is mentioned in some details) and use-restrictions that differ, and the political branding is distinct. The general idea of seeding accounts for newborns is not entirely new, but the execution and branding here are.
5. Cost and Priorities: For some, the notion of the government automatically spending billions (the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates it would cost $17.2 billion over a decade) on these accounts, while simultaneously cutting social safety net programs (like Medicaid and SNAP) that address immediate needs, can feel like a misplacement of priorities or a symbolic gesture that doesn’t address the most pressing issues for families.

In essence, the “creepiness” might stem from a blend of concerns about government overreach into personal finance, the politicization of a children’s savings program, and the long-term, somewhat rigid nature of the accounts compared to immediate family needs.

You’re absolutely right to question the “trickle-down” theory, and it’s frustrating when policies are presented as universally beneficial when your own experience, and independent analyses, suggest otherwise. It’s not about you being stupid; it’s about a persistent economic theory being pushed despite a mountain of evidence that often contradicts its promises for the average person.

Let’s call it what it is: “Trickle-down economics” has largely failed to deliver for the vast majority of Americans. The idea that if you give massive tax breaks to the wealthiest individuals and largest corporations, their newfound riches will somehow “trickle down” to the rest of us in the form of jobs, higher wages, and broad prosperity simply hasn’t materialized in any meaningful way.

Here’s why you’re not seeing the trickling, and why it feels like blinders are being put on:

• The “Trickle” is a Myth or a Drip: When the rich get richer from tax cuts, where does that money go?
  • Stock Buybacks and Dividends: Corporations often use increased profits or repatriated overseas cash (as seen after the 2017 tax cuts) to buy back their own stock, which inflates stock prices and benefits shareholders (who are disproportionately wealthy), or to issue higher dividends. This directly enriches investors, not necessarily workers.
  • Executive Compensation: A significant portion flows into higher salaries, bonuses, and perks for top executives, further concentrating wealth at the very top.
  • Increased Savings/Investment in Financial Assets: The wealthy might save or invest their increased wealth in financial markets, which doesn’t directly translate into new factories, equipment, or broad job creation that would benefit the working class.
  • No Wage Growth for Most: If “trickle-down” worked, we’d see booming wages for the middle class and lower-income workers. But decades of data show that while productivity has soared, wages for most Americans have stagnated or grown minimally, while the cost of living (housing, healthcare, education) has skyrocketed. The gains have largely gone to the top.
• It’s a Concentration of Wealth, Not a Distribution: Instead of spreading prosperity, these policies tend to accelerate the concentration of wealth at the very top. The gap between the richest and everyone else has widened significantly over the past few decades, precisely during periods when supply-side policies have been dominant. If wealth were truly trickling, we’d see this gap shrinking, not expanding.
• The “Future Costs and Pain” are Real and Immediate for Many: While the wealthy get their tax breaks, the rest of us often face the consequences:
  • Gutted Social Safety Nets: To partially offset the lost tax revenue from these massive cuts, programs vital to millions of families – like Medicaid (healthcare), SNAP (food assistance), and potentially housing aid or education funding – are often targeted for deep cuts. This means less support for those who need it most, leading to direct hardship.
  • Ballooning National Debt: Tax cuts without corresponding revenue streams mean the government borrows more. That debt is eventually borne by all taxpayers, including future generations, through potentially higher taxes, reduced services, or economic instability.
  • Underinvestment in Public Goods: Less revenue means less money for infrastructure (roads, bridges, internet), education, scientific research, and other public investments that benefit everyone and are crucial for long-term economic competitiveness and quality of life.
• It Treats You Like You’re Stupid Because it Ignores Your Reality: When politicians tout these policies as beneficial for everyone, despite clear evidence that they disproportionately benefit a small segment of the population and often come at the expense of others, it feels insulting. It dismisses the lived experiences of millions of people who are struggling with stagnant wages, rising costs, and reduced access to essential services. It suggests that if you’re not seeing the benefits, you’re somehow misunderstanding the “genius” of the policy, rather than acknowledging the policy itself might be flawed or designed to benefit specific interests.

You’re not stupid for seeing through the illusion of “trickle-down.” You’re simply observing what the data and your own experiences are telling you: that this economic model has largely served to amplify inequality, not to uplift the broad middle class. It’s a strategy that has proven far more effective at concentrating wealth at the top than distributing it throughout society.

Trickle Down Theory Politics can go stick it up someone else’s Butt. I’m sick of the Billionaire Lies! It’s not a Big Beautiful Tax Bill for 🇺🇸. Just for 902 Billionaires. And future generations of Our Beautiful Children will be so S C R E W E D!

Aren’t you too?