Trickle-down economics is a turn of phrase that I've always found particularly annoying. The trickle-down theory is an economic philosophy Republicans love to champion when pushing tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. They claim that if taxed less, the very rich will spend more money and it will trickle-down to the rest of us.
Consider the word trickle. Webster's definition is to "issue or fall in drops." If it were actually something good, wouldn't you name it "flow-down or stream-down economics" or something else that signifies a charitable amount of money? That is because trickle-down was originally coined by Will Rogers during the great depression; he said that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."
Here's my version of the trickle-down theory at work: a hedge fund billionaire with an approximate tax rate of 15% buys a piece of art for 70 million dollars. The proceeds of that transaction will trickle-down to the liquor store supplying the cases of champagne to the gallery owner and the artist, who will also hopefully leave large tips to their gardeners, chauffeurs servants, busboys and other various people in their employ.
Sam Walton once said something to the effect that there are more poor people than rich people. This is true, yet the GOP seeks to not only to cut social programs but to eliminate them altogether. Most Republican candidates are so oblivious to our economic woes that their campaigns focus on abortion, gay marriage and religious issues. The one viable Republican presidential candidate is Mitt Romney, who has never had the full support of his party because he's not conservative enough on social issues.
Republicans can continue to relentlessly criticize the president all they want, but the GOP is out of touch with the American people and that is why President Obama will be reelected.