As spending by wealthy weakens, so does economy

[Cancel 2018. 3]

its clear nigel didn't read his own link....

that graph proves nothing regarding taxes...i guess you're now going to support reagan's economy due to that graph

good lord, i really thought you were competent to talk about the economy, i am far from an expert, but its clear my grasp is stronger than yours

 

[Bonestorm]

its clear nigel didn't read his own link....

that graph proves nothing regarding taxes...i guess you're now going to support reagan's economy due to that graph

Jesus Christ in a coffee cup. The graph up there shows major economic indicators during the period of economic expansion while the Bush tax cuts were in effect. According to you, low taxes on rich make the economy stronger. It doesn't look like the economy was "stronger" during the low tax period as compared to the high tax periods to me.

good lord, i really thought you were competent to talk about the economy, i am far from an expert, but its clear my grasp is stronger than yours

You're an idiot. You just don't realize it. It's called the Dunning-Krueger Effect. Look it up.

 

[Damocles]

Jesus Christ in a coffee cup.

Sipping "life" eh?

Isn't this using their Lord's name in vain?

Buddha doesn't care if you sip him from a beverage holder...

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Jesus Christ in a coffee cup. The graph up there shows major economic indicators during the period of economic expansion while the Bush tax cuts were in effect. According to you, low taxes on rich make the economy stronger. It doesn't look like the economy was "stronger" during the low tax period as compared to the high tax periods to me.




You're an idiot. You just don't realize it. It's called the Dunning-Krueger Effect. Look it up.

it does and your link supports that...i already quoted from your link that said the tax cuts did cause the economy to grow....

good lord, are you being stupid on purpose? it further said that individual tax revenue increased 5% from 2001 to 2006....

 

[Zurt]

Give up, Nige.


Yurtsie is wise. Why, just the other day, Yurtsie predicted that Judge Bolton would uphold the AZ immigration law, and....oh, shit, never mind.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The obvious ones are staring us in the face, and we're certainly at a point where truly drastic changes are needed, but the nature of our political system absolutely prevents action.

Wreck the defense budget - slash it in half, or more. The cold war is over, and we're still funding it that way. Privatize social security.

Done.

Here's another problem. See how long you stay in office if you suggest doing either.

 

[Onceler]

Here's another problem. See how long you stay in office if you suggest doing either.

Ergo, the gov't is basically built to fail. Politicians will always choose votes over good policy.

Nice job, founders.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It's ironic, because bankrupting the U.S. was (imo) kind of the reason behind 9/11. By committing to the lengthy wars we're in, we're basically playing into their hands, since they don't have the resources to challenge us in any conventional way.

We really need to reinvent the kind of country we are. Just about everything we do screams "unsustainable". As for SS, I wouldn't suggest abolishing it - just privatizing. The returns would be incredible, both for seniors & the U.S. economy.

You might as well suggest getting rid of SS all together as to privatizing. How can any rational person suggest that after what just happened on Wall Street and what happened their in 1929?

I suggest maybe you look at the worse then death alternative for Republicans. Raising taxes.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

maybe you shoudl stop spouting bullshit and people would take you seriously...i never changed the subject, i directly talked about the bullshit you talked about....so continue you fantasy world mott....

as i already said (so another false notion that i didn't address it)...it appears keeping taxes lower for the wealthy causes them to spend more which causes the economy to become stronger...people make more and the government takes in more revenue....so taxes are in essence raised vis a vis people making more money, no need to simply raise taxes to raise them...

get it

Look dude, I don't know what you've been smoking but that Milo Minderbinder economics has been so completely refuted that it belongs in a comedy (Like Milo). You can pray and imagine that cutting the top marginal tax rates will increase revenues but there's about as much chance of that happening as Santa, The Easter Bunny and The Great Pumpkin dancing at my next party.

So let's discuss things that can actually happen in the real world instead of right wing fantasy land.

Cutting taxes further on the top marginal tax rates would make the problem worse. There's no denying that.

You have tough choices to make. Increase taxes, cut spending on millitary and entitlement programs or a combination of both. Anything else is pure fantasy.

 

[Damocles]

Ergo, the gov't is basically built to fail. Politicians will always choose votes over good policy.

Nice job, founders.

If the government stayed within the specific powers given them, this wouldn't be quite the issue that you make it. I think the founders had it right, it is our "interpretive" version we use today that makes this all possible.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

captain obvious with the spending by rich helps

but keep in mind, due to the economy of scale involved, spending by the middle and working classes is even more important.

It doesn't matter. Yurt's in lala land. We have tough choices to make in regards to our government spending and if we don't make them, and it appears we don't, they will eventually be made for us.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I think it was Onceler, Nigel, or Mott. I can't remember which. Probably Onceler.

Anyway it doesn't matter who it was, I laughed a ton. People who once decried trickle-down suddenly understand it. But apparently it only works with "grants" and tax cuts just can't be done because too many people might benefit. Those 300 will buy stuff, etc...

It was rich with humorous irony.

It sure as hell wasn't me. I've been stating that the only real solution is to cut military and entitlement spending or raise taxes or a combination of both. Anything else is pure fantasy land. Those who don't want to accept this hard cold reality are in denial.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Look dude, I don't know what you've been smoking but that Milo Minderbinder economics has been so completely refuted that it belongs in a comedy (Like Milo). You can pray and imagine that cutting the top marginal tax rates will increase revenues but there's about as much chance of that happening as Sanata, The Easter Bunny and The Great Pumpkin dancing at my next party.

So let's discuss things that can actually happen in the real world instead of right wing fantasy land.

Cutting taxes further on the top marginal tax rates would make the problem worse. There's no denying that.

You have tough choices to make. Increase taxes, cut spending on millitary and entitlement programs or a combination of both. Anything else is pure fantasy.

lol....its been so debunked that nigel cited the left leaning fact check as saying tax cuts do spur economic growth

once again, mott with "its true because i said so"

how about, leaving the tax cuts in place. i am not advocating further tax cuts right now. you wrongly believe its an all or nothing, its not, we can leave in place bush's tax cuts....and when we wind down the two wars, then we can decrease military spending...

do i think its doom and gloom if bush tax cuts expire....no, but i don't think it will help the ecnonomy

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Ergo, the gov't is basically built to fail. Politicians will always choose votes over good policy.

Nice job, founders.

Yup. You hit a weak point in our system. Not even our founding fathers were perfect. The first law of politics. Get Elected. The second law of politics. Get Re-elected. Politicians will certainly chose unsound policies if choosing a sound one means they will lose election/re-election.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

lol....its been so debunked that nigel cited the left leaning fact check as saying tax cuts do spur economic growth

once again, mott with "its true because i said so"

how about, leaving the tax cuts in place. i am not advocating further tax cuts right now. you wrongly believe its an all or nothing, its not, we can leave in place bush's tax cuts....and when we wind down the two wars, then we can decrease military spending...

do i think its doom and gloom if bush tax cuts expire....no, but i don't think it will help the ecnonomy

Fine. We'll still have unsustainable spending. If your unwilling to raise taxes how much are you willing to cut military and entitlement spending in order to bring spending to sustainable levels?

 

[Damocles]

It sure as hell wasn't me. I've been stating that the only real solution is to cut military and entitlement spending or raise taxes or a combination of both. Anything else is pure fantasy land. Those who don't want to accept this hard cold reality are in denial.

We agree.

 

[Bonestorm]

lol....its been so debunked that nigel cited the left leaning fact check as saying tax cuts do spur economic growth

once again, mott with "its true because i said so"

how about, leaving the tax cuts in place. i am not advocating further tax cuts right now. you wrongly believe its an all or nothing, its not, we can leave in place bush's tax cuts....and when we wind down the two wars, then we can decrease military spending...

do i think its doom and gloom if bush tax cuts expire....no, but i don't think it will help the ecnonomy

The factcheck.org piece wasn't addressing your claim about tax cuts and economic growth. It was about debunking your the idiocy (that is pervasive on the right that tax cuts increase revenues). This is the last paragraph of the factcheck.org piece:

The impact of the tax cuts on economic growth is a matter of debate among economists. We're not voicing a view on whether the tax cuts should have been enacted; that, too, is a separate discussion. But it is clear they did not "increase revenues."

And the Treasury Department study cited by factcheck.org was done by the Bush Treasury Department while BUsh was pushing for those tax cuts to be made permanent. It's no wonder it proclaimed the economic "benefits" of Bush's tax cuts, but the chart I posted shows that many economic indicators, including GDP, were much much better under higher tax regimes than from 2001-2007, undercutting the claim that tax cuts make the economy stronger.

 

[Onceler]

You might as well suggest getting rid of SS all together as to privatizing. How can any rational person suggest that after what just happened on Wall Street and what happened their in 1929?

I suggest maybe you look at the worse then death alternative for Republicans. Raising taxes.

Why do people say this?

Anyone who was investing in the market over the past 30 years still made huge profits - much more than the paltry SS return they see now.

Do you think that some senior would get screwed by investing all of their money in a privatized program just before a crash, and then needing it immediately after?

I don't get the objection. The return historically through the market has never even approached how miniscule the SS return is now as a public program. There is no generaion - in '29, or w/ the recent crash - who would have seen a worse return, or anything close to it, if it was privatized.

 

[Bonestorm]

Why do people say this?

Anyone who was investing in the market over the past 30 years still made huge profits - much more than the paltry SS return they see now.

Do you think that some senior would get screwed by investing all of their money in a privatized program just before a crash, and then needing it immediately after?

I don't get the objection. The return historically through the market has never even approached how miniscule the SS return is now as a public program. There is no generaion - in '29, or w/ the recent crash - who would have seen a worse return, or anything close to it, if it was privatized.

It isn't an investment program. It is an insurance program.

And you should talk to some folks that were planning to retire about 1.5 - .5 years ago if you want some perspective on how market crashes screw them up something awful. Basically, those people were back where they were in 2000, ten years of dutifully socking away money in their 401k lost. That doesn't happen with SS.

 

[Onceler]

It isn't an investment program. It is an insurance program.

And you should talk to some folks that were planning to retire about 1.5 - .5 years ago if you want some perspective on how market crashes screw them up something awful. Basically, those people were back where they were in 2000, ten years of dutifully socking away money in their 401k lost. That doesn't happen with SS.

Nothing happens with SS. The return is ridiculously low, and diminishing as time goes on. Most in this generation don't even think it will be available for them when they retire.

There are protections that can be built into a SS system to alleviate the scenario you describe above, and I'm sorry, but if someone was investing in a private program over the course of 30-40 years, the hit they would have taken for 10 years would hardly matter. They'd still end up with a BUNDLE more than they are now going to get with SS.

Even beyond that, there is almost no way to calculate what privatizing those dollars would do for the market, and for the economy in general. I have read that it might even protect against the kind of crash that we saw in '08.

A lot of solutions are in the details, but I don't understand how anyone can support the continued public funding of SS, when pretty much everyone will be better off w/ privatization.