The theory of trickle-down economics posits that ECONOMIC GROWTH benefits all members of society, including the poor. One analogy is the idea that “a rising tide raises all ships,” suggesting that when the economy expands, everyone benefits. Logically, if economic growth benefits everyone in society, then efforts by government to stimulate economic growth are good for society. Most associated with the Reagan administration and SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS, trickle-down economics justifies tax cuts for wealthy citizens and incentives for business INVESTMENT. Since the wealthy are more likely to save and thereby provide funds for investment, and incentives for business (which critics call CORPORATE WELFARE) stimulate business expansion, trickle-down economic logic suggests benefits eventually will flow to everyone in the economy. Critics of trickle-down economics sometimes use a horse-and-sparrow metaphor: If a horse is fed well, some of the nutrients will pass through it and be available on the ground to benefit sparrows. But if the goal is to benefit sparrows, then why not do it directly? Most critics of trickle-down theory advocate DIRECT INVESTMENT in poorer groups through education, training, and small-business development. In the United States, supporters of trickle-down economics point to the tax cuts of 1981 and 1986, which were followed by upswings in the economy, as evidence to support their ideas. Opponents note that while the economy grew, business and household SAVING did not. Instead, investment during that period was due largely to the flow of foreign CAPITAL into the U.S. economy.