independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy

[JBond]

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?

I'm positive all the liberals are flooding Venezuela. They plan has been executed to perfection. This is what they want.

 

[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?

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.

And the ones who want to make that dollar anyway will be contributing 90 cents of it

Contributing? Tell me more!

 

[HappyJoy]

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?

Nope, you're just being a nut.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

And the ones who want to make that dollar anyway will be contributing 90 cents of it

Contributing? Tell me more!

Through force of law, of course. That's what taxes are.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

And the ones who want to make that dollar anyway will be contributing 90 cents of it

Contributing? Tell me more!

Through force of law, of course. That's what taxes are.

That's not contributing.

You should push for a 90% tax rate for the Dem platform in 2020.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

And the ones who want to make that dollar anyway will be contributing 90 cents of it

Contributing? Tell me more!

Through force of law, of course. That's what taxes are.

That's not contributing.

You should push for a 90% tax rate for the Dem platform in 2020.

Nah, I am grown man. I don't insist on getting everything I want. That's for babies.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Come on, Billy...the list of Democratic "champions" of the poor and the Middle Class who have cashed in by passing legislation that helped big banks, trial lawyers, health insurance companies and public sector unions belies your claim! The Clinton's might be one of the worst offenders but they aren't alone!

 

[Oldstyle]

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 deficit only went down when the Democrats lost control of the House, Issac! Barry wanted to spend more...the GOP wouldn't let him! That hardly counts as a win for Democrats!

 

[danielpalos]

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?

I'm positive all the liberals are flooding Venezuela. They plan has been executed to perfection. This is what they want.

I claim it is merely, lousy management. I would like to make a motion to send an expeditionary "corp of agricultural engineers" to engage pathfinders to find trails and blaze them into best practice and Pareto Optimum superhighways.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

I'm positive all the liberals are flooding Venezuela. They plan has been executed to perfection. This is what they want.

It takes organization, not just people.

 

[danielpalos]

Let's end the drug war to pay for health care.

$1 Billion In Marijuana Taxes Is Addictive To State Governors

 

[The Derp]

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

The poverty rate was declining through the 60's and 70's before shooting upward again in the 80's as Reagan and Conservatives started slashing social programs.

So you slash social programs, which increases the poverty rate, then you complain about the poverty rate.

So how are you not the cause of the thing you complain about?

And I thought you all reformed welfare in the 90's, did that reform not accomplish bringing down poverty rates? Because Conservatives promised 20 years ago that their reform would.

 

[The Derp]

You should push for a 90% tax rate for the Dem platform in 2020.

Why not a 90% rate on the 1%? It's what we had back when "America was great".

 

[The Derp]

The deficit only went down when the Democrats lost control of the House, Issac!

So let's unpack this for a second;

1. The deficit Clinton inherited was inflated by the Reagan/Bush the Elder deficit spending in the decade that preceded it. The deficit doubled during Reagan, and the debt tripled.

2. Clinton passed tax increases in 1993 that sharply reduced the deficit almost immediately, going from a deficit of $290B in 1992 down to $203B by 1994. So right there, Clinton's tax increases alone reduced the deficit by 30% from 1992-4, before Conservatives were sworn in January 1995.

3. Conservatives passed a tax cut in 1999 that would have erased the nascent surpluses, that Clinton vetoed. That tax cut would eventually pass in 2001 and are referred to as The Bush Tax Cuts.

4. We had surpluses in this country from 1998-2001. But the Bush Tax Cuts erased those surpluses by 2002 and produced 4 record deficits in 8 years (2003, 2004, 2008, 2009). Additionally, revenue collected was below 2000 levels for 2001-2004. It wasn't until 2005 that revenue reached the same level it was in 2000. So we took 4 steps backward to take one step forward. How many steps does that leave us behind?

Barry wanted to spend more...the GOP wouldn't let him! That hardly counts as a win for Democrats!

Conservatives didn't want to "spend more" because doing so would have recovered the economy to a greater degree which would have undermined 37 years of Conservative bullshit about spending, deficits, and debt. BTW - not one peep from the right wing as Bush erased a surplus, produced 4 record high deficits in 8 years, lost 460,000 net jobs, and doubled the debt.

 

[Oldstyle]

The deficit only went down when the Democrats lost control of the House, Issac!

So let's unpack this for a second;

1. The deficit Clinton inherited was inflated by the Reagan/Bush the Elder deficit spending in the decade that preceded it. The deficit doubled during Reagan, and the debt tripled.

2. Clinton passed tax increases in 1993 that sharply reduced the deficit almost immediately, going from a deficit of $290B in 1992 down to $203B by 1994. So right there, Clinton's tax increases alone reduced the deficit by 30% from 1992-4.

3. Conservatives passed a tax cut in 1999 that would have erased the nascent surpluses, that Clinton vetoed. That tax cut would eventually pass in 2001 and are referred to as The Bush Tax Cuts.

4. We had surpluses in this country from 1998-2001. But the Bush Tax Cuts erased those surpluses by 2002 and produced 4 record deficits in 8 years (2003, 2004, 2008, 2009). Additionally, revenue collected was below 2000 levels for 2001-2004. It wasn't until 2005 that revenue reached the same level it was in 2000. So we took 4 steps backward to take one step forward. How many steps does that leave us behind?

Barry wanted to spend more...the GOP wouldn't let him! That hardly counts as a win for Democrats!

Conservatives didn't want to "spend more" because doing so would have recovered the economy to a greater degree which would have undermined 37 years of Conservative bullshit about spending, deficits, and debt. BTW - not one peep from the right wing as Bush erased a surplus, produced 4 record high deficits in 8 years, lost 460,000 net jobs, and doubled the debt.

The fact that you believe there WAS a surplus, Derp...tells me just how ignorant you are about economics!

 

[Oldstyle]

Before you make a complete ass of yourself I would suggest a little study on public debt and intragovernmental holdings!

 

[The Derp]

The fact that you believe there WAS a surplus, Derp...tells me just how ignorant you are about economics!

Look at this chart from the Tax Policy Center, specifically the Surplus/Deficit numbers from 1998-2001 and tell me what you see.

Also, it's undeniable that Clinton reduced the deficit before Conservatives took control of Congress in January 1995.

You can argue all you want, but you cannot argue math.

Deficit by year
1992 (Bush the Elder's): $290B
1993 (Bush the Elder's final budget, Clinton tax hike passed): $255B
1994 (Clinton's first year, tax increases in effect): $203B
1995 (Clinton's second year budget, prior to GOP taking control): $164B

So the deficit went from $290B down to $164B before Conservatives had a hand in anything.

You throw around a lot of accusations about people not knowing economics, yet in 37 years of your bullshit economics in practice, it hasn't delivered on any of the promises you've made of it; that tax cuts would pay for themselves, that jobs would be created, that deficits would be reduced, etc. Not one of the wild claims you've made about your economic policy have come to fruition.

 

[The Derp]

Before you make a complete ass of yourself I would suggest a little study on public debt and intragovernmental holdings!

Before you move the goalposts, you should do a little studying on why it matters how you count the debt.

 

[The Derp]

Before you make a complete ass of yourself I would suggest a little study on public debt and intragovernmental holdings!

I thought "debt was debt"? Wasn't that your talking point? How much of the current $20T debt is intragovernmental and/or public debt?

 

[The Derp]

The fact that you believe there WAS a surplus, Derp...tells me just how ignorant you are about economics!

Explain to me what you guys erasing surpluses has to do with "economics" (a broad catch-all term you loosely throw around to make yourself seem smarter than you actually are).