Yes, we must look to glynch to know the inner desires of Ron Paul. "Trickle down" has come to mean a few different things. If by that you mean providing state aid to large businesses or advocating supply-side economics, then no, Ron Paul does not endorse it. However, if by that you mean rolling back on the regulations and taxes for all, including those who have businesses, then yes, Ron Paul endorses it. And if you don't know the difference between the former and the latter, see here: Spoiler "It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." I realize that most in here fume at the idea of less friction in the labor market and a freer flow of resources, but that is his position. Feel free to attack Ron Paul's belief that he and the gang of 535 ought not to have control of your life, but in doing so please attack his actual arguments.
Spoiler Well i can understand why Paulites apparently don't like the "trickle down" idea and perhaps have developed their own peculiar definition of it. "Trickle down" refers to the whole concept that if you get rid of taxes, government services, regulation like minimum wage laws, laws which prevent corporations from firing folks who unionize etc. all or most of the productivity gains flow to the rich. These benefits don't automatically flow to the middle and lower classes. Many garden variety "libertarians" or Paulites would dispute that the wealth would not flow down from the wealthy to the rest despite facts to the contrary under their theories which have never been tested. Factually wealth has not trickled down to the middle class and has in fact flowed upward as more 'libertarian/Paulite" concepts have been applied to US society in the last 30 years. Some of the more hardcore libertarian types just don't care as they are into essentially "social darwinism" , the survival of the fittest, and don't care if the wealth all stays with the wealthy and the rest even just die off.
haha but I could see how young libertarians might think so. No, I am old enough to remember when Reagan first started the reverse transfer of money from the middle class to the wealthy. The term was coined then by opponents, who unlike fundie -market head in the sanders--, realized what the whole deregulation, anti-union, "free trade" defund government services to the middle class would lead to.
