Can you impeach and entire political party?

[Oldstyle]

Why is it that the posters here who constantly refer to conservatives as ignorant are almost without exception... the most clueless people on the board?

Run that sentence through a better Russian-to-English translator and try again, Mr. Trickle Down.

Let me guess...you think "Trickle Down" actually exists somewhere as an economic theory? You've never taken an economics class in your entire life...have you, Derp?

 

[Oldstyle]

As for Bernie Sander's voters showing up for Hillary? Your own post states that 2,000,000 less voters turned out for Hillary than for Obama! Duh?

Doesn't mean they weren't Bernie voters.

They obviously weren't Hillary voters! Did the number of Democratic Party and liberal Independent voters shrink from the last Presidential election? Hillary lost Bernie voters who were disgusted by how THEIR guy was treated by Hillary's minions in the DNC.

 

[The Derp]

Let me guess...you think "Trickle Down" actually exists somewhere as an economic theory? You've never taken an economics class in your entire life...have you, Derp?

Trickle down = supply side = whatever you're calling it today. The principle remains the same; that "letting people keep more of what they earn" (and by people, we are talking about corporations and the 1%) and they will trickle it down on the rest. That is the fundamental flaw to your belief system. When taxes have been cut historically, household debt increases. So "letting people keep more of what they earn" results in those people going into debt.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let me guess...you think "Trickle Down" actually exists somewhere as an economic theory? You've never taken an economics class in your entire life...have you, Derp?

Trickle down = supply side = whatever you're calling it today. The principle remains the same; that "letting people keep more of what they earn" (and by people, we are talking about corporations and the 1%) and they will trickle it down on the rest. That is the fundamental flaw to your belief system. When taxes have been cut historically, household debt increases. So "letting people keep more of what they earn" results in those people going into debt.

Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory[1][2] that argues economic growth can be most effectively created by investing in capital and by lowering barriers on the production of goods and services. It was started by economist Robert Mundell during the Ronald Reagan administration. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees and therefore create jobs. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less government regulation.[3]

Supply-side economics - Wikipedia

 

[The Derp]

What exactly did Barack Obama do to reduce the deficit?

He let the Bush Tax Cuts on the wealthy expire, for starters.

 

[The Derp]

Interesting...you now claim that Ronald Reagan left office with a massive recession?

Unlike you, I am old enough to remember the economy Reagan left behind in 1989. One that was destroyed by the S&L Scandal. Remember that thing? It's one of the reasons why there was a recession that officially started in 1990.

 

[The Derp]

They obviously weren't Hillary voters! Did the number of Democratic Party and liberal Independent voters shrink from the last Presidential election? Hillary lost Bernie voters who were disgusted by how THEIR guy was treated by Hillary's minions in the DNC.

No, she didn't lose those voters.

In 2012, Obama got 65,915,795 votes
In 2016, Clinton got 65,853,516 votes

That's a difference of about 60,000 votes.

You don't know the facts.

 

[whitehall]

The logical way to impeach a political party is by voting them out of office and Americans already proved it by reducing the democrat party to a whiny little obstructionist club. In less than a decade democrats lost the presidency, the Senate, the House of Representatives, most of the governorships and more than 3,000 state and local elections.

 

[The Derp]

]Supply-side economics - Wikipedia

The idea of supply-side is the exact same idea of trickle down. It's just upward wealth redistribution by another name. Supply-side theory postulates that if you give a supplier funding, the demand will rise to match it. Of course, that's backwards thinking. Demand doesn't rise to match supply, supply rises to match demand.

Every iteration of your economic scam has that fundamental flaw at its core. A completely deliberate misunderstanding of economics.

"If you build it, they will come" may work for ghostly baseball fields, but it doesn't work in today's consumer economy.

 

[The Derp]

The logical way to impeach a political party is by voting them out of office and Americans already proved it by reducing the democrat party to a whiny little obstructionist club. In less than a decade democrats lost the presidency, the Senate, the House of Representatives, most of the governorships and more than 3,000 state and local elections.

And yet, Conservatives complain about the poor economy even though, by your own admission here, they're the ones in control.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Interesting...you now claim that Ronald Reagan left office with a massive recession?

Unlike you, I am old enough to remember the economy Reagan left behind in 1989. One that was destroyed by the S&L Scandal. Remember that thing? It's one of the reasons why there was a recession that officially started in 1990.

I am old enough to remember the economy Reagan left behind in 1989. One that was destroyed by the S&L Scandal.

Destroyed? LOL!
That's hilarious! A shallow, 8 month recession.

You're a moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

]Supply-side economics - Wikipedia

The idea of supply-side is the exact same idea of trickle down. It's just upward wealth redistribution by another name. Supply-side theory postulates that if you give a supplier funding, the demand will rise to match it. Of course, that's backwards thinking. Demand doesn't rise to match supply, supply rises to match demand.

Every iteration of your economic scam has that fundamental flaw at its core. A completely deliberate misunderstanding of economics.

"If you build it, they will come" may work for ghostly baseball fields, but it doesn't work in today's consumer economy.

The idea of supply-side is the exact same idea of trickle down

Only to morons like you.

It's just upward wealth redistribution by another name.

Cutting taxes doesn't redistribute a thing.

Supply-side theory postulates that if you give a supplier funding, the demand will rise to match it.

The Reagan taxes cuts were fully in place in 1983. The Bush tax cuts were fully in place in 2003.
Their economic performance at those points really shows how weak the Obama economy was.

 

[The Derp]

That's hilarious! A shallow, 8 month recession.

Which was still bigger than the one Bush stumbled through in 2001 that he never got out of, choosing instead to blow up the surplus and lead to poor growth.

BTW - Q1 growth rate for 2017? JUST 0.7%. The lowest in three years.

Proving once again that Conservative economics suck ass.

 

[The Derp]

Only to morons like you.

No, it's the same thing, just called something different. There is no difference between trickle-down and supply-side. They're the same thing. You try to rebrand a bad idea, but it doesn't change why the idea is bad. So you just double-down on it because you're either too lazy or too ignorant to know better.

Cutting taxes doesn't redistribute a thing.

Yes, it does. Trump's tax proposal redistributes wealth to the top, and forces the middle class to pay more in order to make up for the gap in revenues that come from cutting taxes. Conservatives always lie and say that there will be growth which will make up those revenues, but that never happens. Instead, we get tons and tons of debt. We could have paid the debt off by 2010 if Conservatives had done literally nothing to the tax code in 2001. They couldn't even do nothing right. That's how fucking terrible they are. Failing at doing nothing. Anyone still clinging to that belief system is not to be trusted or taken seriously.

The Reagan taxes cuts were fully in place in 1983. The Bush tax cuts were fully in place in 2003.

LOL! Aren't you the one who screeched about correlation does not equal causation? Reagan raised taxes in 1982, and Congress increased spending in 1983. The Federal Reserve lowered interest rates throughout 1982, which increased borrowing. Reagan's tax cuts did nothing other than grow the debt and deficit.

Their economic performance at those points really shows how weak the Obama economy was.

Reagan's "economic performance" was thanks to the Federal Reserve reducing interest rates which increased borrowing (again, that's why consumer debt spiked starting in 1983), and Congress increasing spending by $32B (so much for your argument that deficit spending doesn't grow an economy).

Bush's 2003 growth was due entirely, 100% to the subprime mortgage market. Bush even said so while campaigning in 2004, crediting the growth in the housing market -the same housing market that would collapse by 2007- to his tax cuts. So if his tax cuts were responsible for the growth of the housing market, they are also responsible for that market's collapse. You don't get to have it both ways.

 

[Oldstyle]

Let me guess...you think "Trickle Down" actually exists somewhere as an economic theory? You've never taken an economics class in your entire life...have you, Derp?

Trickle down = supply side = whatever you're calling it today. The principle remains the same; that "letting people keep more of what they earn" (and by people, we are talking about corporations and the 1%) and they will trickle it down on the rest. That is the fundamental flaw to your belief system. When taxes have been cut historically, household debt increases. So "letting people keep more of what they earn" results in those people going into debt.

Show me a single business plan where profits "trickle down" to the workers, Derp! I've run businesses for decades. Workers and purveyors always get paid first...then various governments take their cut...and whatever is left...if there IS anything left...is profit for business owners!

The only people who use that term are liberals with no economics background or liberals who are lying to you about how businesses operate for partisan political reasons!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only to morons like you.

No, it's the same thing, just called something different. There is no difference between trickle-down and supply-side. They're the same thing. You try to rebrand a bad idea, but it doesn't change why the idea is bad. So you just double-down on it because you're either too lazy or too ignorant to know better.

Cutting taxes doesn't redistribute a thing.

Yes, it does. Trump's tax proposal redistributes wealth to the top, and forces the middle class to pay more in order to make up for the gap in revenues that come from cutting taxes. Conservatives always lie and say that there will be growth which will make up those revenues, but that never happens. Instead, we get tons and tons of debt. We could have paid the debt off by 2010 if Conservatives had done literally nothing to the tax code in 2001. They couldn't even do nothing right. That's how fucking terrible they are. Failing at doing nothing. Anyone still clinging to that belief system is not to be trusted or taken seriously.

The Reagan taxes cuts were fully in place in 1983. The Bush tax cuts were fully in place in 2003.

LOL! Aren't you the one who screeched about correlation does not equal causation? Reagan raised taxes in 1982, and Congress increased spending in 1983. The Federal Reserve lowered interest rates throughout 1982, which increased borrowing. Reagan's tax cuts did nothing other than grow the debt and deficit.

Their economic performance at those points really shows how weak the Obama economy was.

Reagan's "economic performance" was thanks to the Federal Reserve reducing interest rates which increased borrowing (again, that's why consumer debt spiked starting in 1983), and Congress increasing spending by $32B (so much for your argument that deficit spending doesn't grow an economy).

Bush's 2003 growth was due entirely, 100% to the subprime mortgage market. Bush even said so while campaigning in 2004, crediting the growth in the housing market -the same housing market that would collapse by 2007- to his tax cuts. So if his tax cuts were responsible for the growth of the housing market, they are also responsible for that market's collapse. You don't get to have it both ways.

Yes, it does. Trump's tax proposal redistributes wealth to the top, and forces the middle class to pay more in order to make up for the gap in revenues that come from cutting taxes.

The middle class is also paying less taxes. Not more.

Conservatives always lie and say that there will be growth

There will be growth.

We could have paid the debt off by 2010 if Conservatives had done literally nothing to the tax code

If Bush left tax rates alone, the Internet Bubble would have gone on until 2010?
Why do you feel that?

Aren't you the one who screeched about correlation does not equal causation?

You're the one who said tax cuts never increase consumer demand.

Reagan raised taxes in 1982

Which ones? What rates in 1981 were higher in 1982 or 1983?

and Congress increased spending in 1983

As opposed to previous years when they cut spending? LOL!

The Federal Reserve lowered interest rates throughout 1982, which increased borrowing. Reagan's tax cuts did nothing other than grow the debt and deficit

Which other Fed rate cuts gave us real GDP growth of over 4% the next 3 years?
Just look at the cuts in 2007 and 2008. Where was the massive growth after that?

 

[The Derp]

Show me a single business plan where profits "trickle down" to the workers, Derp!

So if there is no trickle-down by way of corporate profits, how do they increase growth?

 

[The Derp]

Show me a single business plan where profits "trickle down" to the workers, Derp! I've run businesses for decades. Workers and purveyors always get paid first...then various governments take their cut...and whatever is left...if there IS anything left...is profit for business owners!

I don't believe for a second that you've ever run a business in your life, and I think you're just saying that to lend your shitty argument credibility it doesn't otherwise have.

Profit = Tax Rate x (Revenues - Expenses)

In no way would Profit be < $0 unless the Tax Rate was 100% or Expenses > Revenues.

The only people who use that term are liberals with no economics background or liberals who are lying to you about how businesses operate for partisan political reasons!

So again, you're arguing over what to call your shitty policy. I'm telling you it doesn't matter what you call it...it just sucks. Period.

 

[The Derp]

The middle class is also paying less taxes. Not more.

LOL! So they're paying less federal income taxes, however they're paying more in state, local, and excise taxes. Kansas just did this very thing because they eliminated taxes for pass-thrus and the resulting deficit nightmare was closed by the state raising sales and excise taxes, which affect the middle class more.

Also, if the middle class tax cut as part of the Bush and Reagan tax cuts were so great, how come household debt spiked each time? That doesn't seem to indicate that the middle and lower classes are paying less...it means they're falling further behind because they have to pay more out-of-pocket for services like health care and education. Again, that is why household debt spiked each time taxes were cut.

There will be growth.

How adorable! Maybe you need to click your ruby red shoes three times, or clap loud enough like you're saving Tinkerbelle.

No there won't be growth, because cutting corporate taxes does nothing for consumers. All it does is make corporations wealthier, though not more successful. Revenues are how you can measure a company's growth, not profits. Why? Because revenues indicate demand. So if your revenues grow, that means there's demand for your product. If your revenues stagnate or decline, that means there's less demand. Cutting the corporate tax rate has no effect on consumer demand. Why? Because consumers see nothing from a corporate tax cut.

BTW - Trump's Q1 2017 GDP growth was a whopping 0.7%, the worst in 3 years. last month, he only created 93,000 jobs, the worst in 2 years. So are you pulling a Brownback where you initially say these policies will work, then you backtrack and say they will work after time? How many times are you going to move the goalposts until you're not even in the stadium anymore?

If Bush left tax rates alone, the Internet Bubble would have gone on until 2010?

The dotcom bubble had nothing to do with income taxes. The dotcom bubble was actually caused by...wait for it...The Capital Gains Tax Cut of 1997. Bush's dumb tax cuts did nothing other than erase a surplus and lose jobs. Oh, and if you are to believe him, were also responsible for Bush's Mortgage Bubble.

You're the one who said tax cuts never increase consumer demand.

They don't, and you have no proof they do. In fact, most evidence shows that tax cuts decrease consumer demand, plunge consumers into debt, and kill jobs. Just like what happened after Bush cut taxes in 2001.

Which ones? What rates in 1981 were higher in 1982 or 1983?

Payroll taxes. And it was done in 1982 because the tax cuts of 1981 blew a hole in the deficit.

As opposed to previous years when they cut spending? LOL!

Unlike tax cuts, government spending is injected into the economy.

Which other Fed rate cuts gave us real GDP growth of over 4% the next 3 years?

None. What did that was increased deficit spending, as the debt tripled and the deficit doubled.

Just look at the cuts in 2007 and 2008. Where was the massive growth after that?

What cuts? There were no tax cuts in 2007 and 2008. That was when the economy was in free fall thanks to the housing bubble caused by Bush's Tax Cuts (If you are to believe Bush).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The middle class is also paying less taxes. Not more.

LOL! So they're paying less federal income taxes, however they're paying more in state, local, and excise taxes. Kansas just did this very thing because they eliminated taxes for pass-thrus and the resulting deficit nightmare was closed by the state raising sales and excise taxes, which affect the middle class more.

Also, if the middle class tax cut as part of the Bush and Reagan tax cuts were so great, how come household debt spiked each time? That doesn't seem to indicate that the middle and lower classes are paying less...it means they're falling further behind because they have to pay more out-of-pocket for services like health care and education. Again, that is why household debt spiked each time taxes were cut.

There will be growth.

How adorable! Maybe you need to click your ruby red shoes three times, or clap loud enough like you're saving Tinkerbelle.

No there won't be growth, because cutting corporate taxes does nothing for consumers. All it does is make corporations wealthier, though not more successful. Revenues are how you can measure a company's growth, not profits. Why? Because revenues indicate demand. So if your revenues grow, that means there's demand for your product. If your revenues stagnate or decline, that means there's less demand. Cutting the corporate tax rate has no effect on consumer demand. Why? Because consumers see nothing from a corporate tax cut.

BTW - Trump's Q1 2017 GDP growth was a whopping 0.7%, the worst in 3 years. last month, he only created 93,000 jobs, the worst in 2 years. So are you pulling a Brownback where you initially say these policies will work, then you backtrack and say they will work after time? How many times are you going to move the goalposts until you're not even in the stadium anymore?

If Bush left tax rates alone, the Internet Bubble would have gone on until 2010?

The dotcom bubble had nothing to do with income taxes. The dotcom bubble was actually caused by...wait for it...The Capital Gains Tax Cut of 1997. Bush's dumb tax cuts did nothing other than erase a surplus and lose jobs. Oh, and if you are to believe him, were also responsible for Bush's Mortgage Bubble.

You're the one who said tax cuts never increase consumer demand.

They don't, and you have no proof they do. In fact, most evidence shows that tax cuts decrease consumer demand, plunge consumers into debt, and kill jobs. Just like what happened after Bush cut taxes in 2001.

Which ones? What rates in 1981 were higher in 1982 or 1983?

Payroll taxes. And it was done in 1982 because the tax cuts of 1981 blew a hole in the deficit.

As opposed to previous years when they cut spending? LOL!

Unlike tax cuts, government spending is injected into the economy.

Which other Fed rate cuts gave us real GDP growth of over 4% the next 3 years?

None. What did that was increased deficit spending, as the debt tripled and the deficit doubled.

Just look at the cuts in 2007 and 2008. Where was the massive growth after that?

What cuts? There were no tax cuts in 2007 and 2008. That was when the economy was in free fall thanks to the housing bubble caused by Bush's Tax Cuts (If you are to believe Bush).

So they're paying less federal income taxes, however they're paying more in state, local, and excise taxes.

If your state raises your taxes, maybe you should move?
You know, instead of blaming the guys who cut your taxes.

Just look at the cuts in 2007 and 2008. Where was the massive growth after that?

What cuts? There were no tax cuts in 2007 and 2008.

Interest rate cuts. Damn. Are you off your meds?