Why is trickle-down economics still with us?
- Thread starter BidenPresident
- Start date
Of course both demand and supply are important but I could produce and supply a million buggy whips and it wouldn't drive demand up. Demand drives supply not the other way around. Why do you think government's job is manipulating demand and supply?
I am always amused when lying dimwits on the left pretend they know economics.
What we know is this; you cannot tax a nation into prosperity. Neither can you redistribute a nation into prosperity. Government dependency does not raise anyone out of poverty, instead, it ensures it.
So those are just a few truths. Oh, corporations do not pay taxes either. YOU, the consumer of their goods and services pay them because the basic concept of business is you pass on all your costs and add a small profit to your goods. If you had been properly educated, you would understand this most basic economic concept.
So, when I see a leftist who supports the stupidity of Democratic policies, I see someone who is ignorant about economics and basic human history. There isn't a single Nation that abides by Socialist/Marxist ideologies that has not imprisoned and impoverished its citizens.
Nothing is more embarrassing than a smarmy dumbass. But alas, you're too stupid to even know you should be embarrassed.
Increased government spending causes inflation?
An interesting argument that completely ignores history.
The federal expenditures in the 1960s were comparable as percentages of the GDP to what the government was spending as % of GDP from 1952-1959.
Table 1.2 at https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/hist_fy21.pdf
What is this increased spending you are talking about? The government usually increases spending DURING a recession in order to get us out of the recession.
Then from 1976-1994, government spending was never below 20% of GDP. Where is this recession that should have happened in the late 90s if your theory is at all valid? Recessions happen for a lot of reasons. Government spending may contribute sometimes but it is not the only reason and and hardly the reason for most recessions. Economic bubbles or black swan events are more likely to be the cause of recessions.
Are you really arguing that the tax rate is the same in all EU countries? That would be like arguing that high income taxes in NY affect the entire US and are the reason for the low US unemployment. If you want to argue that taxes and social programs cause the high inflation and unemployment then you have to be able to look at the taxes and social programs in specific countries since the EU collects no taxes and provides no social programs.
Gosh Poopiehead, do you sleep with that strawman you love so much? No one argued that a country can tax itself into prosperity. However no country has become prosperous without taxing. It is necessary to make the economy work because the government provides many things that society needs for a working economy, roads, police, a standing army, records of property ownership, a court system to decide disputes. How large do you think the US would be without taxation? They would not have had the money to make the Louisiana Purchase without the ability to tax. For that matter, they never would have had the money to raise an army and fight for their independence.
If businesses don't pay taxes but always add on a profit does that mean that a business can never go bankrupt since they always add on a profit? Your argument is idiotic. A business pays taxes out of profits. A business does not always have profits. The business also pays their employees and pays taxes on those employee's wages. Does that tax come out of the employee or the customer? What if an employee is also a customer? Your argument quickly falls into a ridiculous circular idiocy if you claim a business never pays taxes because we end up in a cycle where no one can be paying taxes even though someone is. The business pays the employees from the money it gets from customers but the employee is also a customer so where does the money the employee have come from? Can they just stop working for the business and be richer since they would just be paying themselves?
Is that you hiding your face in embarrassment? Maybe you aren't as much of a smarmy dubass as you pretend to be.Nothing is more embarrassing than a smarmy dumbass. But alas, you're too stupid to even know you should be embarrassed.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Yep, hence my reminding everyone of Nixon's financial plan implementation. When Jimmy Carter came along and publicly stated how f'ed up our economy was, he was vilified in the press and fought tooth and nail by the GOP in Congress to make any changes. But he was right. Then Reagan came along, and the rest is history.
The country has had a debt its entire history except for 1835.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Hmm, you could say that. However, there was that post WW2 "boom", then the "growth spurt" from the mid to late 1960's. But with all said and done, what I previously posted remains valid.
Agreed, but the U. S. was still running a deficit and increasing the debt all those years. Even when Clinton balanced the budget the debt continued to grow due to intergovernmental debt.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Really? I vaguely remember the papers saying that the debt dropped by about what, 16 percentage points. Mind you, the debt was still with us, but damned if it didn't improve under the Slickster.
When the budget is balanced there is no deficit and no increase in the public debt, but the SS trust fund still buys securities with the SS surplus revenue. Those securities represent debt that must be repaid to the SS trust fund.
1992: $4
1993: $4.4
1994: $4.6
1995: $4.9
1996: $5.2
1997: $5.4
1998: $5.5
1999: $5.65
2000: $5.67
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/historical-debt-outstanding/historical-debt-outstanding
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
And there lies the rub....because if everyone left SocSec alone to just do what it was designed to do, we wouldn't be going through this dithering about keeping it solvent.
And so it goes.
It is still doing what it was designed to do, the problem was caused by 1) decline in the birth rate which decreased the ratio of workers to beneficiaries. Government couldn't really do anything about this. 2) increased life expectancy.
3) Adding new benefits. It was originally designed for workers only, but we added surviving spouses, widows and orphans, disability, cost of living adjustments, people divorced but were married for ten years, early retirement at 62 (about 70% now retire early), full benefits for a person reaching full retirement age (now 66) even if they are still working full-time regardless of income with no penalty. All these things greatly increased the benefit cost of the SS program.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
True enough, but a major contributing factor is the somewhat convoluted system that allows the Fed to "borrow" money from Soc Sec....payback that can be stymied by an overall bad economy. Since there is no real "banking" of SocSec money that is derived from paychecks, everyone can claim "not my fault" as a replenishing of the system stumbles.
Or as a friend of my says, "A hot mess".
Theywillneverlearn!
Verified User
That was all passed by Democrat controlled Congress. Speak the truth you lying sack of welfare collecting democrat shit,
I don't think that's correct. The original Social Security law requires any surplus be placed in special securities. So, payroll taxes purchase securities which are held until needed. The government has never failed to make a payment on debt.
If this was not done, government would have purchased treasuries on the open market which would have still created a debt that had to be repaid.
This makes more sense with the SS funds earning 2% (?) interest than just sitting in the trust fund. So, the trust fund has more money to spend when it redeems the securities than if the money had not been placed on in those securities.
During the retirement of baby boomers (2010-2030) the trustees knew there would not be enough revenue to pay all benefits, and so the SS taxes were increased to produce the $2.6 trillion surplus that will be used to cover the shortfall. They may already be using some of these funds, I'm not sure.
There is nothing the Fed, Congress, or anybody else did that contributed to this problem; except when Congress added all the additional SS benefits that created a shortage of revenue to cover those benefits.
We have a consumer based system, so based from the bottom. Stalinism is trickle down.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
But again, you are ignoring the FACT that time and again these special securities have been tapped into for other purposes by the Fed, and if the general economy hits dire straits for other reasons, Soc Sec feels the pinch as well. Coupled with what you point out, and it's a hot mess. A matter of fact and history, no matter what political party was in power.
I don't think the Fed used any of the securities in the SS trust fund.
This from the Social Security Administration regarding SS myths:
"Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."
https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
I can find no information about any Fed involvement in SS trust funds. If you have that information please post a link.