We've all heard of the trickle down theory of economics. By "trickle down" we're referring to Reaganomics, not what happens way too often when you think you are done peeing and whip it back in, cascading your leg with urine. History has shown that trickle down policies seldom lead to economic growth, and many economists have boringly argued the deep flaws in the trickle-logic, which holds that providing tax cuts to the upper echelons (the chuck bass's) will spur investment, leading to cheaper goods, and more jobs for the working classes (the Mathews family from Boy Meets World). Here is an alternative disproof of Reaganomics, which is neither overly complex or boring: the lower-half soaping theory.
If you're a normal person leaning down in the shower to soap your calves, ankles and feet seems as colossal a task as the hajj. We think that if we just extra-clean our thighs, the soap will make its way down to the sections hard to reach. This is Reagan talking, this is our supply-side economist conscience on our shoulder, and they're lying to you. Because my feet and my ankles are dirty, like an R. Kelly party, or is it time to stop making fun of R..
If we think about what parts of our body need cleaning the most, besides our balls, its gotta be the feet and the ankles - our ambassadors to the dust and grime of the world, stuck in sweaty ass shoes, and getting sucked on by sweaty ass girls/boys. Our feet and ankles are in cleanliness-poverty, whereas our thighs are in general just hanging out, sipping lemonade, reading the WSJ.
But what's our soaping policy? We like the trickle down. We give the direct love to those who don't need it, and hope that the benefits will find their way down to the poor. And what happens in the shower scenario happens in the economic version. The thighs get cleaner (the rich get richer), and the feet (the poor) stay grimely.
You have to respond to what's going on; what we should really do is tax the thighs for being naturally clean.
As an alternative to all of this, we could just take baths, which in my metaphor would likely be skewered as socialism. but isn't everything labeled socialist these days.