Trickle-Down or Trickle-Up I'm not an economist, but I believe I'm intelligent enough to follow many economic arguments. Am I mistaken or isn't Trickle-Down economics, the most recent incarnation appearing in George W. Bush's tax bill, a canard. If one believes that tax cuts will spur the economy (as Bush seems to profess), then why not make them where they'll do the most good, directly to people who will stimulate the economy, the bottom of the economic class. For example, if I'm the CEO of a corporation that makes waffle irons, giving my company a tax break, will mean possibly more profits to my shareholders, or more likely in the current climate, more bonuses to upper management. (What upper management does with the money is open to speculation) There's no need for my company to expand production, because no additional people are buying waffle irons (I'm assuming upper management has all they need). Instead if the tax cut is directed to the masses of people in the lower economic classes, almost all that money will be spent immediately (on food, clothing and perhaps waffle irons). If it's true capitalism and my company makes better waffle irons than the competition, then my company make more sales, I can higher more workers, give more upper management well deserved bonuses and everyone is happy. To me Trickle-up works better than Trickle-down. That is unless you don't trust free enterprise.