independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy

[SYTFE]

And yet people keep voting in Republicans.

Not because the voters are stupid, but because the people on the other side are so proudly and consistently annoying.

That's....not even remotely "why."

What Mac really means is that Republicans can't govern at all and he doesn't like Democrats because they sometimes point out racism, to Mac those things are equal.

I gotta be honest with you, I couldn't give one shit about what Mac means about anything he says. He strikes me as bordeline retarded.

 

[Mac1958]

Amazing, how far up in their heads I've gotten.

 

[HappyJoy]

Two more Regressives triggered.

Check.

See what I mean? This thread demonstrates that Republicans don't have a clue how to govern and here comes Mac to tell you why he blames Democrats.

 

[Mac1958]

 

[HappyJoy]

Amazing, how far up in their heads I've gotten.

It's more about where yours is located.

 

[SYTFE]

Amazing, how far up in their heads I've gotten.

You've done no such thing, tard. Go wipe your chin, you're droolong again.

 

[Mac1958]

 

[Mr.Blonde]

Democrats make actual policy that benefits the poor and middle class even if some of them are self-serving assholes.

Government policy shouldn't help the rich or the poor. The policy should help everyone equally.

 

[HappyJoy]

Democrats make actual policy that benefits the poor and middle class even if some of them are self-serving assholes.

Government policy shouldn't help the rich or the poor. The policy should help everyone equally.

I think the rich are already doing pretty well.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The truth of the matter is that republicans in office only care about their own financial interests, so they will only formulate policy for that reason. Actual educated economists, however, do not.

This quote from an article below sums up the statistics:

Opinions of economists
There are many different ways to assess the consensus of economists on policy issues. Much of the public believes that economists tend to be libertarian and to favor laissez faire economic policy. That idea- that economic wisdom favors leaving all things to the free market- is actually dead wrong. Economists generally tend to support policies at least as liberal as the policies the Democratic Party supports. Some examples:

• 71% of economists favor using government to redistribute wealth and only 8% strongly oppose it. In fact, the concept of the diminishing marginal utility of wealth is a very well established and non-controversial economic principle. Even Adam Smith expressed the view that the government should redistribute wealth.

• Only 12% of economists take the view that the costs of the stimulus outweighed the benefits- a view passionately held by nearly all Republicans.

• 75% of economists favor government tuning the economy with monetary policy- an idea often vehemently rejected by the Republican Party- while only 4% of economists strongly oppose it.

• Zero percent- not a single economist in the entire sample- of economists agree with the central tenant of Republican fiscal policy that cutting tax rates would boost the economy enough to cause revenues to increase.

• 94% of economists support taking action to address climate change.

In terms of specific policies, economists appear to consistently and overwhelmingly either support the Democrats' policies or to be to the left of the Democrats. This stance on policy issues unsurprisingly translates into which party economists support: Democratic economists outnumber Republican economists by 2.5 to 1. In 2012, economists felt that President Obama had a better grasp of economics than Mitt Romney by a margin of almost 2-to-1 and that President Obama would grow the economy faster than Mitt Romney by a a margin of 20 points

Which Party Is Better for the Economy?

71% of economists favor using government to redistribute wealth and only 8% strongly oppose it.

Your "independent" economists sound like Marxists.

Only 12% of economists take the view that the costs of the stimulus outweighed the benefits

Marxists who don't understand economics.

94% of economists support taking action to address climate change.

Or science.

Zero percent- not a single economist in the entire sample- of economists agree with the central tenant of Republican fiscal policy that cutting tax rates would boost the economy enough to cause revenues to increase.

First, it's tenet, DERP!
Second, I want to cut taxes to cause the revenues of citizens to increase.
Government revenues are already too high.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The truth of the matter is that republicans in office only care about their own financial interests, so they will only formulate policy for that reason.

Yeah, Democrats never do that.

Salisbury News: Dianne Feinstein’s Husband Wins Near-Billion Dollar California ‘High Speed Rail’ Contract

Democrats make actual policy that benefits the poor and middle class even if some of them are self-serving assholes.

Sure they do. That's why the poverty rate in this country is exactly the same as it was 50 years ago when they started "helping" everyone

See, I love this crap. On the hand you say the government should never interfere in the economy, but here you are complaining about dems doing nothing for the poor or middle class.

The truth is that many democrat policies either do, or would benefit the poor had republicans allowed them to pass. ACA gave health insurance to 20 million more people. Raising the minimum wage wouid help the poor. I can name more examples if you'd like.

ACA gave health insurance to 20 million more people.

Gave? GAVE? GAVE?

Moron!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy”

Anyone with a functioning brain would oppose the Republican tax ‘plan’ – which is nothing more than the same failed conservative economic dogma: the ‘trickle-down’ myth.

It is a settled and accepted fact that cutting taxes for the wealthy neither facilitates economic growth nor helps create jobs.

 

[Winston]

The truth of the matter is that republicans in office only care about their own financial interests, so they will only formulate policy for that reason. Actual educated economists, however, do not.

This quote from an article below sums up the statistics:

Opinions of economists
There are many different ways to assess the consensus of economists on policy issues. Much of the public believes that economists tend to be libertarian and to favor laissez faire economic policy. That idea- that economic wisdom favors leaving all things to the free market- is actually dead wrong. Economists generally tend to support policies at least as liberal as the policies the Democratic Party supports. Some examples:

• 71% of economists favor using government to redistribute wealth and only 8% strongly oppose it. In fact, the concept of the diminishing marginal utility of wealth is a very well established and non-controversial economic principle. Even Adam Smith expressed the view that the government should redistribute wealth.

• Only 12% of economists take the view that the costs of the stimulus outweighed the benefits- a view passionately held by nearly all Republicans.

• 75% of economists favor government tuning the economy with monetary policy- an idea often vehemently rejected by the Republican Party- while only 4% of economists strongly oppose it.

• Zero percent- not a single economist in the entire sample- of economists agree with the central tenant of Republican fiscal policy that cutting tax rates would boost the economy enough to cause revenues to increase.

• 94% of economists support taking action to address climate change.

In terms of specific policies, economists appear to consistently and overwhelmingly either support the Democrats' policies or to be to the left of the Democrats. This stance on policy issues unsurprisingly translates into which party economists support: Democratic economists outnumber Republican economists by 2.5 to 1. In 2012, economists felt that President Obama had a better grasp of economics than Mitt Romney by a margin of almost 2-to-1 and that President Obama would grow the economy faster than Mitt Romney by a a margin of 20 points

Which Party Is Better for the Economy?

The truth of the matter is that republicans in office only care about their own financial interests, so they will only formulate policy for that reason.

Yeah, Democrats never do that.

Salisbury News: Dianne Feinstein’s Husband Wins Near-Billion Dollar California ‘High Speed Rail’ Contract

The truth of the matter is that republicans in office only care about their own financial interests, so they will only formulate policy for that reason.

Yeah, Democrats never do that.

Salisbury News: Dianne Feinstein’s Husband Wins Near-Billion Dollar California ‘High Speed Rail’ Contract

Democrats make actual policy that benefits the poor and middle class even if some of them are self-serving assholes.

You're so full of shit.

And yet people keep voting in Republicans.

Not because the voters are stupid, but because the people on the other side are so proudly and consistently annoying.

The truth of the matter is that republicans in office only care about their own financial interests, so they will only formulate policy for that reason. Actual educated economists, however, do not.

This quote from an article below sums up the statistics:

Opinions of economists
There are many different ways to assess the consensus of economists on policy issues. Much of the public believes that economists tend to be libertarian and to favor laissez faire economic policy. That idea- that economic wisdom favors leaving all things to the free market- is actually dead wrong. Economists generally tend to support policies at least as liberal as the policies the Democratic Party supports. Some examples:

• 71% of economists favor using government to redistribute wealth and only 8% strongly oppose it. In fact, the concept of the diminishing marginal utility of wealth is a very well established and non-controversial economic principle. Even Adam Smith expressed the view that the government should redistribute wealth.

• Only 12% of economists take the view that the costs of the stimulus outweighed the benefits- a view passionately held by nearly all Republicans.

• 75% of economists favor government tuning the economy with monetary policy- an idea often vehemently rejected by the Republican Party- while only 4% of economists strongly oppose it.

• Zero percent- not a single economist in the entire sample- of economists agree with the central tenant of Republican fiscal policy that cutting tax rates would boost the economy enough to cause revenues to increase.

• 94% of economists support taking action to address climate change.

In terms of specific policies, economists appear to consistently and overwhelmingly either support the Democrats' policies or to be to the left of the Democrats. This stance on policy issues unsurprisingly translates into which party economists support: Democratic economists outnumber Republican economists by 2.5 to 1. In 2012, economists felt that President Obama had a better grasp of economics than Mitt Romney by a margin of almost 2-to-1 and that President Obama would grow the economy faster than Mitt Romney by a a margin of 20 points

Which Party Is Better for the Economy?

Republicans believe in redistributing wealth to the wealthy.

If you look back on national debt and a healthy economy the Democrats are in power when the economy is healthy and the deficit is dropping. Republicans control things when the debt skyrockets and the economy tanks. The debt went up with Obama in office as he was handed a government from Bush that was generating a deficit each year of $1.4 trillion dollars. Under Obama that deficit went down yearly to around 400 billion or one third of the deficit the Republicans and Bush generated.

Watch though, cons will reach deep in to their lie and spin bag to try to save face. But they can't, facts are facts.

The truth of the matter is that republicans in office only care about their own financial interests, so they will only formulate policy for that reason. Actual educated economists, however, do not.

This quote from an article below sums up the statistics:

Opinions of economists
There are many different ways to assess the consensus of economists on policy issues. Much of the public believes that economists tend to be libertarian and to favor laissez faire economic policy. That idea- that economic wisdom favors leaving all things to the free market- is actually dead wrong. Economists generally tend to support policies at least as liberal as the policies the Democratic Party supports. Some examples:

• 71% of economists favor using government to redistribute wealth and only 8% strongly oppose it. In fact, the concept of the diminishing marginal utility of wealth is a very well established and non-controversial economic principle. Even Adam Smith expressed the view that the government should redistribute wealth.

• Only 12% of economists take the view that the costs of the stimulus outweighed the benefits- a view passionately held by nearly all Republicans.

• 75% of economists favor government tuning the economy with monetary policy- an idea often vehemently rejected by the Republican Party- while only 4% of economists strongly oppose it.

• Zero percent- not a single economist in the entire sample- of economists agree with the central tenant of Republican fiscal policy that cutting tax rates would boost the economy enough to cause revenues to increase.

• 94% of economists support taking action to address climate change.

In terms of specific policies, economists appear to consistently and overwhelmingly either support the Democrats' policies or to be to the left of the Democrats. This stance on policy issues unsurprisingly translates into which party economists support: Democratic economists outnumber Republican economists by 2.5 to 1. In 2012, economists felt that President Obama had a better grasp of economics than Mitt Romney by a margin of almost 2-to-1 and that President Obama would grow the economy faster than Mitt Romney by a a margin of 20 points

Which Party Is Better for the Economy?

Anyone who believes big unlimited government is how society should be ruled, as most Ds and Keynesian economists do, can't be too smart. The most deadly and unjust force in all of human history, is unlimited government. Only fools don't know this fundamental truth. Of course, the ruling class really loves big unlimited government, because the benefit so handsomely.

Let us see if Billy Baloney and his friends, can follow through with something -)

OK Billy Baloney, I...........IMAWHOSURE, challenge YOU, the incompetent, irrelevant, and Immaterial person, to convince us you are correct! And it should be EASY for you, just 1 criteria-------------> show us that when Calvin Coolidge, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, AND GW Bush cut taxes, that revenue to the treasury FELL while those cuts were in force.

We don't want to see deficits, because that has no correlation to REVENUE. In inflation adjusted dollars, show us that revenue to the feds fell each time the cuts were given. WAIT, WAIT, we will make it easier for you! Show us it fell 3 out of the 4. WAIT, WAIT, in case you can't find the records on the internet (lol) just show us it fell 2 out of the 4! OK, OK, your last name is BALONEY, so just show us the revenue fell 1 out of the 4-)

You do realize that if you can't, while your last name will remain forever more BALONEY, your 1st name will be changed from BILLY to PHONY, thus Phony Baloney-)

Well Ronald Reagan is easy.

A Treasury Department study on the impact of tax bills since 1940, first released in 2006 and later updated, found that the 1981 tax cut reduced revenues by $208 billion in its first four years. (These figures are rendered in constant 2012 dollars.) The tax reform act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue neutral, reduced revenues by less than $1 billion four years after enactment.

Rand Paul’s claim that Reagan’s tax cuts produced ‘more revenue’ and ‘tens of millions of jobs’

Note the hyperlink to the Treasury department study doesn't work. Just one of the many bits of government research that the Trump administration has scuttled down the rabbit hole. But the key is that those that claim the Reagan tax cuts resulted in additional income are counting the income generated by Reagan's TAX INCREASES in 1982 and 1983 and 1984 and 1987. And what is really comical, Ronald Reagan is responsible for the BIGGEST TAX INCREASE in modern American history.

Fact Checking the GOP: Largest Tax Increase in Modern History Was Under President Reagan, Not President Obama | The Office of Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer

 

[S.J.]

The truth of the matter is that republicans in office only care about their own financial interests, so they will only formulate policy for that reason.

Yeah, Democrats never do that.

Salisbury News: Dianne Feinstein’s Husband Wins Near-Billion Dollar California ‘High Speed Rail’ Contract

Democrats make actual policy that benefits the poor and middle class even if some of them are self-serving assholes.

You're so full of shit.

There are plenty of examples to give.

I agree. There are plenty of examples of you being full of shit. This thread is a good one.

 

[Mr.Blonde]

Democrats make actual policy that benefits the poor and middle class even if some of them are self-serving assholes.

Government policy shouldn't help the rich or the poor. The policy should help everyone equally.

I think the rich are already doing pretty well.

What is your point? Should we prevent people from making money or force them to give every cent after a certain point?

Do you really want people like McCain and Waters making that decision? They are borderline retarded.

 

[HappyJoy]

Democrats make actual policy that benefits the poor and middle class even if some of them are self-serving assholes.

Government policy shouldn't help the rich or the poor. The policy should help everyone equally.

I think the rich are already doing pretty well.

What is your point? Should we prevent people from making money or force them to give every cent after a certain point?

Do you really want people like McCain and Waters making that decision? They are borderline retarded.

Why would I want to prevent people from making money? What a dumb question.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Democrats make actual policy that benefits the poor and middle class even if some of them are self-serving assholes.

Government policy shouldn't help the rich or the poor. The policy should help everyone equally.

I think the rich are already doing pretty well.

What is your point? Should we prevent people from making money or force them to give every cent after a certain point?

Do you really want people like McCain and Waters making that decision? They are borderline retarded.

Why would I want to prevent people from making money? What a dumb question.

Why would I want to prevent people from making money?

Obama said, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money”

Do you agree with that, or was it a dumb statement?

 

[HappyJoy]

Democrats make actual policy that benefits the poor and middle class even if some of them are self-serving assholes.

Government policy shouldn't help the rich or the poor. The policy should help everyone equally.

I think the rich are already doing pretty well.

What is your point? Should we prevent people from making money or force them to give every cent after a certain point?

Do you really want people like McCain and Waters making that decision? They are borderline retarded.

Why would I want to prevent people from making money? What a dumb question.

Why would I want to prevent people from making money?

Obama said, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money”

Do you agree with that, or was it a dumb statement?

Full quote:
We're not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I do think at a certain point you've made enough money, but you know, part of the American way is, you can just keep on making it if you're providing a good product

Yeah, at a certain point some make more money than they will ever need, it's just the way it is. However Obama never enacted or tried to enact any policy to cap income. You're just playing a stupid game of semantics by not quoting the comment in full. It's dishonest, sure you probably believe it, only because you're incurious and ignorant.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Democrats make actual policy that benefits the poor and middle class even if some of them are self-serving assholes.

Government policy shouldn't help the rich or the poor. The policy should help everyone equally.

I think the rich are already doing pretty well.

What is your point? Should we prevent people from making money or force them to give every cent after a certain point?

Do you really want people like McCain and Waters making that decision? They are borderline retarded.

Why would I want to prevent people from making money? What a dumb question.

Why would I want to prevent people from making money?

Obama said, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money”

Do you agree with that, or was it a dumb statement?

I agree with it. I think it would not be hard to imagine a number past which people are incentivized less to generate each extra dollar of income And the ones who want to make that dollar anyway will be contributing 90 cents of it to valuable programs which create the very environment which has allowed them to thrive. I think that's a great idea. Win/win.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Government policy shouldn't help the rich or the poor. The policy should help everyone equally.

I think the rich are already doing pretty well.

What is your point? Should we prevent people from making money or force them to give every cent after a certain point?

Do you really want people like McCain and Waters making that decision? They are borderline retarded.

Why would I want to prevent people from making money? What a dumb question.

Why would I want to prevent people from making money?

Obama said, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money”

Do you agree with that, or was it a dumb statement?

Full quote:
We're not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I do think at a certain point you've made enough money, but you know, part of the American way is, you can just keep on making it if you're providing a good product

Yeah, at a certain point some make more money than they will ever need, it's just the way it is. However Obama never enacted or tried to enact any policy to cap income. You're just playing a stupid game of semantics by not quoting the comment in full. It's dishonest, sure you probably believe it, only because you're incurious and ignorant.

I do think at a certain point you've made enough money, but you know, part of the American way is, you can just keep on making it if you're providing a good product

Well, gosh, Mr. President, thanks for letting us continue to make money.
As long as you don't decide our product isn't good enough.

However Obama never enacted or tried to enact any policy to cap income.

I'm sure it was a struggle for him to resist the urge, eh comrade?