40 Economists Agree: The GOP Is In Fiscal La-La Land

[JWBooth]

It would seem that these would be 40 economists that believe one can spend his way out of a fiscal hole. Not that the GOPers are any smarter, they all believe the same thing, only disagreeing at the margins.

 

[Listening]

And I've seen all kinds of models from economists lately.

Mainly Krugbutt and Reichdick. Oh wait, there are no models. Nothing you can look at to see sensitivities or cause and effect or assumptions or anything.

Just a lot of overpaid short guys with ugly beards yacking off on MSNBC (where, if their wife and kids watch, the ratings double) about how Bush did this and Obama is so cool.

Not one model.

Do any of these 40 have one. A real model we can look at ?

 

[rightwinger]

You mean we really can't pay off debt by cutting taxes?

Can't pay it off by spending more either (Stimulus)

Cut Taxes: Republicans
Increase Taxes: Democrats

Cut Spending: Neither Party

You see the little game they play with us?

Isn't it better to increase taxes when you increase spending?

 

[ConservaDerrps]

You mean we really can't pay off debt by cutting taxes?

Just for shits, show us all how much raising taxes on the rich will pay down that deficit... You don't even have to show cause and effect with loss of investment and jobs due to raising taxes, you can pretend if you have 80% unavoidable taxes that people would just love to pay it if you like.

All I want is a number on how much taxes have to be raised, on who and how much revenue that pulls in to pay down the deficit. This should be easy for a smart guy like yourself who never just blurts out stupid talking points with no information to back their shit up.

Good illustration of how the republicans care deeply about the deficit until it comes time to actually pay it down.

Yes. Let's ask Reagan and Bush II how much they loved paying down the debt, right?

 

[Listening]

You mean we really can't pay off debt by cutting taxes?

Can't pay it off by spending more either (Stimulus)

Cut Taxes: Republicans
Increase Taxes: Democrats

Cut Spending: Neither Party

You see the little game they play with us?

Isn't it better to increase taxes when you increase spending?

Sure...take that money away from other who would also spend it.

That is increasing spending.

Another Righwinger Joke-Of-The-Day.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

LOL, A SURVEY of 40 economist...

I know, that's what I thought... It's like they went out of their way to make the poll/survey meaningless by asking as few people as they possibly could.

Seriously, they asked like a classroom size of people what their opinion is on something... How broad can this "spectrum" be with so few people?

Someone explain to the morons what a survey is.

 

[Oddball]

LOL, A SURVEY of 40 economist...

They snagged ferret face Krugman's Rolodex and surveyed them.

 

[Avorysuds]

I know 80 economist that thinks the GOP is on the right track. that report is a lot like polls, who paid for it and what did they want it to say. Lets move on to something with some substance to it.

What is funny is all the economists that thought Bush or Obama was on the right track... then the economy tanks and gets worse. This proves that an economist is really nothing more than a guy with an opinion. I mean, what creates the credibility when 90% of the time these guys are wrong? Now that is true across the “spectrum” of economists.

If I were to listen to an economist it would at least be people that could predict the bubbles and WHY we got them… Not people that thought everything will be great because things were great, then think things are chit because things are chit… How about asking the people who actually predict the future of the economic situation and get it right rather than ask people that only see the economic future of that given day.


Here is what it looks like when someone can predict an economic future and shows their work.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM]Ron Paul - Predictions in Due Time (Original) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ConservaDerrps]

I know 80 economist that thinks the GOP is on the right track. that report is a lot like polls, who paid for it and what did they want it to say. Lets move on to something with some substance to it.

What is funny is all the economists that thought Bush or Obama was on the right track... then the economy tanks and gets worse. This proves that an economist is really nothing more than a guy with an opinion. I mean, what creates the credibility when 90% of the time these guys are wrong? Now that is true across the “spectrum” of economists.

If I were to listen to an economist it would at least be people that could predict the bubbles and WHY we got them… Not people that thought everything will be great because things were great, then think things are chit because things are chit… How about asking the people who actually predict the future of the economic situation and get it right rather than ask people that only see the economic future of that given day.


Here is what it looks like when someone can predict an economic future and shows their work.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM]Ron Paul - Predictions in Due Time (Original) - YouTube[/ame]

What economists? The ones working for the Right Wing? Laffer? Seriously, who the fuck was saying Bush was on the right track in 2007 and 2008?

 

[ConservaDerrps]

LOL, A SURVEY of 40 economist...

They snagged ferret face Krugman's Rolodex and surveyed them.

Dear OldBalls,

You should read the post more clearly. They survived both Conservatives and Liberals. You're starting to show what a dumbass you are. Though, this might be your strategy all along.

Regards,

Derp Derpysteen, Esq.

 

[rightwinger]

You mean we really can't pay off debt by cutting taxes?

Just for shits, show us all how much raising taxes on the rich will pay down that deficit... You don't even have to show cause and effect with loss of investment and jobs due to raising taxes, you can pretend if you have 80% unavoidable taxes that people would just love to pay it if you like.

All I want is a number on how much taxes have to be raised, on who and how much revenue that pulls in to pay down the deficit. This should be easy for a smart guy like yourself who never just blurts out stupid talking points with no information to back their shit up.

OK, I'll give you an honest answer

The rich are taxed at the lowest rate in 50 years. While increasing their taxes to previous rates will not erase the debt immediately, it will do so over the next 50 years.

They will not take out their modest tax increase on their employees, they did not do so under Clinton and the economy boomed.

During the Republican debates, the candidates were asked if they would raise taxes by one dollar if it were accompanied by ten dollars in spending cuts

Not one of them raised their hand

 

[Avorysuds]

You mean we really can't pay off debt by cutting taxes?

Just for shits, show us all how much raising taxes on the rich will pay down that deficit... You don't even have to show cause and effect with loss of investment and jobs due to raising taxes, you can pretend if you have 80% unavoidable taxes that people would just love to pay it if you like.

All I want is a number on how much taxes have to be raised, on who and how much revenue that pulls in to pay down the deficit. This should be easy for a smart guy like yourself who never just blurts out stupid talking points with no information to back their shit up.

Good illustration of how the republicans care deeply about the deficit until it comes time to actually pay it down.

Fool, I voted for the only guy running that has a plan to actually cut the deficit, you vote for one of the many people that expanded it and their future plans expand the deficit even more.

How about you answer the question… Either you know an answer will it make your position look at ridiculous as it really is seeing as it does not even put a dent in the deficit or you simply have never done any work looking into what raising taxes on the rich will actually provide in revenues.


You need to come up with about 1.6 Trillion dollars..... GO!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You can't even get them to admit that tax cuts are no different than spending.

What?

Did someone hack your account to make you look like an idiot?

 

[Avorysuds]

You mean we really can't pay off debt by cutting taxes?

Just for shits, show us all how much raising taxes on the rich will pay down that deficit... You don't even have to show cause and effect with loss of investment and jobs due to raising taxes, you can pretend if you have 80% unavoidable taxes that people would just love to pay it if you like.

All I want is a number on how much taxes have to be raised, on who and how much revenue that pulls in to pay down the deficit. This should be easy for a smart guy like yourself who never just blurts out stupid talking points with no information to back their shit up.

OK, I'll give you an honest answer

The rich are taxed at the lowest rate in 50 years. While increasing their taxes to previous rates will not erase the debt immediately, it will do so over the next 50 years.

They will not take out their modest tax increase on their employees, they did not do so under Clinton and the economy boomed.

During the Republican debates, the candidates were asked if they would raise taxes by one dollar if it were accompanied by ten dollars in spending cuts

Not one of them raised their hand

Ok, good start RW and I'll be polite back.

Do you have a number, a % that taxes need to be raised on the rich? Do you have a number for what the "rich" are, a base income.

 

[Stephanie]

trolls are crawling out of the woodwork..

sheesh

 

[Oddball]

LOL, A SURVEY of 40 economist...

They snagged ferret face Krugman's Rolodex and surveyed them.

Dear OldBalls,

You should read the post more clearly. They survived both Conservatives and Liberals. You're starting to show what a dumbass you are. Though, this might be your strategy all along.

Regards,

Derp Derpysteen, Esq.

"Conservatives" as defined by whom?

According to the leftist fish wrap known as the New York Times, the squishy little rodent David Brooks qualifies as a "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore).

 

[rightwinger]

Just for shits, show us all how much raising taxes on the rich will pay down that deficit... You don't even have to show cause and effect with loss of investment and jobs due to raising taxes, you can pretend if you have 80% unavoidable taxes that people would just love to pay it if you like.

All I want is a number on how much taxes have to be raised, on who and how much revenue that pulls in to pay down the deficit. This should be easy for a smart guy like yourself who never just blurts out stupid talking points with no information to back their shit up.

OK, I'll give you an honest answer

The rich are taxed at the lowest rate in 50 years. While increasing their taxes to previous rates will not erase the debt immediately, it will do so over the next 50 years.

They will not take out their modest tax increase on their employees, they did not do so under Clinton and the economy boomed.

During the Republican debates, the candidates were asked if they would raise taxes by one dollar if it were accompanied by ten dollars in spending cuts

Not one of them raised their hand

Ok, good start RW and I'll be polite back.

Do you have a number, a % that taxes need to be raised on the rich? Do you have a number for what the "rich" are, a base income.

Lets start by repealing the Bush tax cuts. Lets start with people with over $200,000 in taxable income over the next 50 years

 

[occupied]

You can't even get them to admit that tax cuts are no different than spending.

What?

Did someone hack your account to make you look like an idiot?

Are you agreeing that tax cuts are indeed spending or are you saying that they are not?

 

[Oddball]

You can't even get them to admit that tax cuts are no different than spending.

What?

Did someone hack your account to make you look like an idiot?

Are you agreeing that tax cuts are indeed spending or are you saying that they are not?

It's only "spending" if you presume that 100% of what I earn belongs to gubmint.

Letting me keep what's mine doesn't cost you anything, no matter how you try to trash the language.

 

[Avorysuds]

OK, I'll give you an honest answer

The rich are taxed at the lowest rate in 50 years. While increasing their taxes to previous rates will not erase the debt immediately, it will do so over the next 50 years.

They will not take out their modest tax increase on their employees, they did not do so under Clinton and the economy boomed.

During the Republican debates, the candidates were asked if they would raise taxes by one dollar if it were accompanied by ten dollars in spending cuts

Not one of them raised their hand

Ok, good start RW and I'll be polite back.

Do you have a number, a % that taxes need to be raised on the rich? Do you have a number for what the "rich" are, a base income.

Lets start by repealing the Bush tax cuts. Lets start with people with over $200,000 in taxable income over the next 50 years

Ok, do we have a tax % increase? This is important because this will show us how much it's even possible to pay down the deficit assuming the deficit does not continue to grow as it has been and is projected to do.

I'm trying to find how much every year in revenue this will bring in... The Bush era tax cuts we're not just for the rich, so keeping well over half of the tax cuts for most people makes a chart/graph meaningless seeing as you will not collect even half of the revenues once lost.