Trickle-down is highly charged language, which is mostly what I was getting at. The supply-side theory is basically what is being discussed when trickle-down is brought up, but using trickle-down can evoke negative feelings (by design) on both sides preventing a good discussion on it, just like using Obamacare instead of ACA; it announces the position of the speaker before any arguing can take place.

As for the results? I agree supply-side hasn't been shown to work perfectly, although no system does. Opponents rightly cite the result of corporations gaining more in the short term than individuals, but long term it's hard to say, particularly if only one part of the system stays (tax breaks) without other ways of addressing the barriers to wealth (frivolous regulations). It isn't cut and dry, which is why I enjoy discussing it, and I appreciate opposing views and data that challenge what I've come to understand and believe about the issues.