Had you read and/or comprehended the entire listing from Wikipedia that you clipped, you would have learned that the term "trickle down economics" is a derisive term created by the left...................so in that context, yes, that is what our President misrepresents as the position taken by his fiscal opposites.

Perhaps you haven't read all of the posts from the beginning, and I wouldn't blame you as it's a long thread, you would have seen the post where I have referenced Federal data that shows each time tax RATES have been reduced in any segment of our economy, actual REVENUES have increased. The only reason your side of the discussion has been able to demagogue that issue is that SPENDING has also increased with the increased income to the government, usually in excess of the revenue increase (with the exception of the last half of the last decade of the 20th century when the Gingrich led House of Reps forced a responsible budget on the government). Your fellow travelers on the left have chosen to ignore those factual data posted that proves the opposite of the outcomes claimed and continue with the party line from the left.............perhaps you will too.

As for the "Big Bird" cuts, again, you are parroting the leftist media and White House spin, which certainly is your choice and free speech right. However, something to consider that might save you some potential embarassment if you were to encounter a thoughtful person. We are spending 40% more than we take in as a government. If we taxed the entire income of those who earn over 1 million bucks a year, we still wouldn't cover the shortfall. Cuts in spending are necessary even if totally irresponsible taxing were to occur. To use your own example, if PBS is able to cover 85% (some insiders claim upwards of 92%) of it's own operating budget through licensing of Big Bird and other characters (which it does), as well as other donations from Corporations and individuals, along with othert sources of income, what better candidate would there be for cutting of funding that is entirely borrowed than one that "requires" so little public assistance. Surely an effective management team could find a way to cut 10% (choosing a middle figure) of operating costs in order to survive.....................private corporations are often forced by various government intrusions to do so, and manage to survive. The question could be asked, "How serious are you about lliving within a budget if you're unwilling to defund a small portion of such a nearly wholly self sufficient organization as PBS?"